Newuser, Please treat my arguments carefully. Ask for clarification where either I have been unclear or where you don't understand me. My point is this: I am personally NOT as opposed to the King TO THE DEGREE Nepe and others are in this forum. The operative phrase here is : TO THE DEGREE That's all. Maybe if Mahendra had jailed my parents or Birendra had confiscated family's property, perhaps I would have been an anti-Narayanhiti person in the Nepe mold. But none of that ever has happened to me. And I can't generate bitterness on cue out of nothing. Sorry. That is why, failing to SHARE the anti-monarchist zeal TO THE DEGREE that Nepe and others insist others MUST SHARE does NOT, ipso facto, make me a King's supporter. All it does is make me NOT as virulent a critic of monarchy as Nepe is . . . or, for that matter, NOT as big a supporter of monarchy as Isolated Freak is. ANY open mind would ACCEPT that different people look DIFFERENTLY at monarchy, and that, right or wrong, these diverse views must be allowed to exist in a public forum. Why can't you accept this fact? Must you label everyone who is not as enthusiastic as you are about the anti-monarchy parades as "king ko chamcha"? This stance of yours is what I find anti-democratic. I bring up this example to ARGUE that all politics is personal in the sense that UNLESS Nepali political parties talk again and again about how democracy delivers TANGIBLE personal benefits to ALL citizens, their mere expressing abstractions about democracy will NOT get them any traction on the street. EVER. [In American politics, candidates personalise problems and benefits of certain policies by citing stories that involve real people. But in Nepali politics, when is Girija Koirala going to talk about the hardships faced by, say, Ram Prasad Pudasaini of Geta VDC in Kailali Zilla to say why democracy matters for even ordinary shop-keepers?] At any rate, my thoughts on monarchy are clear: The king is a self-interested player in the political game, JUST as political netas are also self-interested players in the game. They both want the gains for themselves. I do NOT for a moment believe that either party is doing what it is doing for the GREATER good of the nation, whatever that greater good is. So, stripped of rhetoric and ideals and cafe-salon philosophy (the type that Anil Jung Shahi is fond of spouting here on Sajha), all we see are starkly naked ambitions on all sides. I have NO problem with such naked ambitions. Politics would not be politics without naked ambitions for power. Since both sides can't just display naked ambitons just like that, they have to finess it with 'democracy'. As such, 'democracy' has become a MEANINGLESS word in Nepal. Hence, we have this SILLY situation: a) The King says that what he's doing is for democracy. b) Political parties say that they're doing is for democracy, and c) Even the Maoists have the audacity to talk about democracy. And something that is said to belong to everyone really belongs to no one. Hence, my idea: It's time to talk about democracy in personal terms in Nepal. Journalists do that because if you take away their right to write, it affects them personally. For lawyers, if you take away the authority of courts, that affects the lawyers. They respond to what is personal. But journalists and lawyers CANNOT and DO NOT bring out julus against the recent bus bombing in Madi, because -- let's be clear-eyed -- that incident, though sad, did NOT affected them personally. And so, for most citizens, what have they really lost in PERSONAL terms since February 1st to rally for democracy? Sadly, the leaders TALK loftily about democracy but give very few concrete reasons as to why democracy RESPONDs to the plights of the common people. Peopel don't vote for ideas. They vote for other people who respond to their personal stories. In today's Nepal, who's telling stories for the majority to listen to and respond? The Maoists are telling stories of inhumane acts. The parties are telling stories of ill-coordination and internal jhagada. Only the King, for better or worse, seems to be saying, "I am in charge. For three years. Leave it to me." Sure, the King's message might be wrong in the fundamental sense. But except for unemployable intellectuals, who cares about fundamentals? King's message seems to have been grasped by most people . . . so much so that few want to go behind political parties and rally against it. This is the REALITY. Now, so-called democrats can close their eyes and deny that such a reality exists. Or they can start crafting messages that DILUTE the effect of the King's message in the eyes of the janata. oohi ashu