Sardar Ji, I think you haven't read my postings well. I am not asking political parties to back off; I am just asking the leaders of the political parties to back off and give chance to the new leaders. I will be posting my final poster soon, which will cast more light on this matter. Of course not! King should not rule. King has to back off two steps. One step will take him back to the so called democratic period (1990-2003). Another step will take him back to the fully fledged democracy. Fully fledged democracy I mean, a democracy where army is under the control of people's representative. He has to engage himself in social work and gain back the reputation of his dynasty which is endangered. I know people's representatives are not trustworthy people. However, until and unless army remains under the king, there will always be a tension in the system. Hasn't Feb 1 move proved that the king can take over any time he wants? Now tell me who is powerful, king or people? So can our constitution be called perfect democratic? If the leaders were accountable to the people and the country they would have raised this agenda before the crisis befall upon us. This is a big headache; they were ruling country without any effort. Why should they be inviting the headache while they are in comfort? His Majesty's Feb 1 move was the gift for leader's selfishness. In perfect democracy, all power remains under the people. King shines just like a gem of the country. Sooner or later this will happen. It's just his Majesty's worthless effort to keep power in the palace, it will never happen. Instead more rigidity will be harmful to the palace. I don't know how royalist think and what is in the king's mind. His logic sounds true but doesn't justify his rule. His direct rule is tangling the palace and the royalists day by day where as country is getting out of the vortex. I mean king doesn't have magic stick to rule the country better than political parties; this will put the question mark on king's undisclosed capability, which will be very harmful to him. On the other hand, party leaders were feeling safe under his Majesties shadow, and Feb 1 move frightened them. If you are not strong enough and you already have an enemy, wise people will not appreciate to make a new enemy. All I want to say about the king is, he should back off two steps, give army to the people under the condition that the Maoists to join the main stream politics. If Maoists don't get agreed, in my opinion then they are really terrorists. Until this happen, king will always remain in the negative part of the history. He should be accountable to those loyal armies who have been dying to save his throne. It's his duty to think of the safety of those who are dying for his safety. There are ways, peaceful ways, where armies, Maoists and innocent citizen can be saved. The way I see is backing off the king. His throne as well as Nepali brothers and sisters, all can be saved. In this 21st century power doesn't come through army. It comes from the heart. King has to try to win the hearts of the people. He can do that by sacrificing his power. If he is really compassionate king, he has to try to save people. Tomorrow everything will be history and he will be judged. Our offspring's will ask a question, wasn't there a peaceful solution of the problem? King has to be honest. This is what I think.......