To toilet baaba- thank you for your nice words. I am trying to sharpen my blunt mind in Sajha these days and it is reaping rewards. To Kalekrishna and Susant- Yeh, we cannot blame Indians. We are ourself to be blamed for our collective failure to deal with India to hammer out positive results in favour of Nepal. We will be discussing on those issues later. TO anjanp, there is hardly something that I can't agree with you. But have a look at this- 'In all speech, he has included words multi party democracy, constitutional monarchy. Give your deep thinking in this. Why would he repeat these words again and again while doing exactly contrary to the spirit of what has been said. He is very cunning( and not intelligent) to not ignore these words. Just compare this with what Parvez Mushaaraf of Pakistan said when he took over Pakistan.' parroting the commitment for const. monarchy and mltyprty democracy by the aspirant of a despotic rule is just ridiculous. well said you-He is indeed very cunning. But the US or India would damn care about his contradictory actions untill their interests are preserved by Gyanendra. Gyanendra would do what Bush or Manmohan Singh ask, at whatever price Nepal have to pay to continue his rule. Musharraf said he would restore democracy after fixing political and sectorian problems in Pakistan but he has only strengthened his power ever since.He would not give both of his positions up- the president and the chief of the army. Once in power, it drives you mad, you do not want to leave it. So did Musharraf and if allowed, Gyanendra will do the same. However we cannot compare Gyanendra with Musharraf. True that Musharaff came in power through coup but he is a shrewd and capable leader. He is an instinctive leader with democratic values. He is a great follower of Turkish secular leader Kamal Ataturk and idolises him. Ataturk is the founding father of modern secular muslim Turkey. So Musharaff is following the path of him to restructure Pakistan. However, his actions to thwart Benajir Bhutto and Nawaj Sharif from doing politics is condemnable. But what I mean to say is you cannot compare our Gyanendra with Pakistan's Musharraf. Musharraf is a true scholar, diplomat and a statesman. Gyanendra is too dwarf to be compared with him. 'So, definitely, there is some positive correlation between king?s move and the favorable assurance from these influencing external parties (India & US). If this is the case, which I pray to god to not be true, then believe me king will comfortably pacify and oppose any move against him. He has nothing to worry ? he will not have his exchequer go empty until there is this hand of US in his head and the military might of US and India to back him up. He will, damn, not bother about nepali janata. ' Definitely yes. This is true, your pray is worthless. But although it is true, you cannot say that Gyanendra has nothing to worry about. US and India both cannot be trusted too much. Specially when they deal with relatively less important nations like Nepal, situations can change very fast and they may have to make 90 degree turn. If our prodemocractic movement hits the right target, I mean if some influential US senators and congressmen can be lobbied to restore democratic rights in Nepal, things may go different. For this, cases of serious human rights abuse by the army must be higlighted in the US media. As many abusive cases are highlighted, more will be the chance to pursuade US congress to block assistance to Nepal. Pressure politics is the most important phase for restoring civil rights in Nepal for the time being. But Gyanendra cannot be assured that his exchequer will remain in abundance even if the US didn't bother to ask him for democratic reforms. Direct aid from US will start decreasing from now, lets wait and see. 'Ground reality is that even if we imagine defeat of army around the suburbs of valley and imagine a very unlikely scenario when they(Maoist) enter the valley, the 5000 army (protecting palace) with all the sophisticated arms and ammunition will be impossible to overcome. All these situation are fictitious. But the only point I am trying to make here is the realization of the fact that how can a force built in 9 years defeat the organized army which has existed since last 234+years.' Very very well judged. Maoists cannot defeat the army at least in the capital. I agree. So maoists must allign with other parties to fulfill their ambition of securing a republic state in Nepal. Baburam Bhattarai has agreed to this notion as well. In an article in Kantipur daily some days ago he has written 'In context of the unique historical and geo-political situation of Nepal,dreaming to achieve any sorts of democracy, communism or socialism without crossing over a sub-phase of democratic republicanism will be equally tragical as the story of 'the father of Som Sharma'(translated quote) Military power cannot simply make the Maoists victorious. They understand the reality that They can never win. NOt only that, they can never be a single most powerful proposition in Nepali politics. So there best option is to marry with other political parties assuming that a combined political effort to oust monarchy in Nepal is the only way to achieve democratic republicanism. If they don't, Nepal will ruin in civil war for years and years. If they do, either the King will hand over his authority to the democratic alliance and stay as a truely constitutional monarch or fight against democracy till his last breath and end up taking refuge in the United Kingdom and leave Nepal as a republic state in chaos. And a beginning of new era. But that republic state won't be a communist maoist republic but a moderate democratic republic.