PSC, I don't subscribe to your position on the King (i.e. the King has taken risk for the benefit of general Nepali people). I don't think he (king) has taken any risk. He is neither fighting with Maoists nor with political parties. He is fighting to make his ego victorious. He will back down but will never abdicate the crown, if things turn ugly. Mark my word. I don't glorify the risk he has taken to glorify his personal victory. Your statement "Constitution of Nepal 2047 never gave King so much of power, it is the ineptness of political parties to run the country that finally they surrendered all power to the King." is a good example of conflicting position. I doubt if you understood what does the Constitution mean. If the Constitution did not give so much power to the King then where the heck did he get so much power from then? "Unconstitutionally". Yes, unconstitutionally. Lousy political leadership certainly encouraged the king to go on unconsitutional road but the political leadership itself did not have any power to surrender to the King. They could not have surrendered something they did not have. Yes, so called political leaderships proved to us that they're quite corrupt and inept in running the nation but that ineptness of the corrupt leaderships should not be an excuse for the King to consolidate his position. The nation is in big mess. We all know this. King alone cannot clear up the mess. He should know this. The ground reality is "Maoists need to be heard" (I am not saying "surrender to Maoists"). Simply answer this question to me PSC, "what mandate does the King have to run the nation?" Who authorized him to govern the nation and the citizens of Nepal? Who did and how? I have nothing but respect for your disagreement with me. I take every disagreement constructively. I am scared only when I hear nothing but bhajans. Jiradai, Bhandarkahal ma bhatam na ta...tetai bata kailas tira jamla. Marichdai ram mandir tira ga chhan. aba ta aaunu parne ho.