I found it quited biased, i.e., it is unncessarily critical of the King. I am not saying the King is always right and should not be offered constructive criticism for his actions, but being unnecessarily harsh towards the institution for taking a stand against the insurgency is, in my humble opinion, reflection of the western biases towards the monarchy, and their sheer ignorance of the Maoist ways. For example, the report suggests that the governmnet reciproacte the ceasefire and work towards resolving the crisis. But, who knows for real waht is cooking inside the Maoist camp? What is this 'sudden" ceasefire for? is there anyway to find out that they (the Maoists) are not using this time to regroup/rearm or restructure their party and army? Unless the Maoists are open about their activities and a little more democratic in their dealing with the outsiders, I don't think the governmnet has to believe in whatever they (the Maoists) feed to the press and the outside world. Also the whole ceasefire decision by the Maoists is contradictory to their policy. They said they will fight the Royal governmnet till the end, and they have repeatedly rejected holding talks with this Post Feb 1 govt. And all of a sudden there's a unilateral ceasefire. There's something more to it that meets the eye. And I don't think the governmnet should be blamed for not reciprocating the ceasefire because the Maoists haven't laid down their arms and have agreed to enter into negotiations with the governmnet. In this scenario, the governmnet has to be cautious because, as I wrote above, its hard to tell waht is happening inside the Maoist camp. Maybe the Maoists are honest (it is difficult to comment on their honesty), but they do need to prove it to the HMG and the world. Regarding the civil society's opposition to the King. Look at who makes our civil society. Its all those frustrated Congressis and UML supporters and some disappointed Royalists who didn't get good offices after the Feb 1 takeover. Does Nepal have an impartial civil society? No. Its either NC civil society or UML civil society or swantantra buddhijibis affiliated with one of the two parties. So I won't take the civil socity's or whatever it is, opinion seriously because it does not reflect the view of the majority of the people. Democracy is not the optipon, remedy/solution at this time. What we need is the rule of law and a clear stand vis-a-vis the Maoists. Our nation, as Arnico wrote for the nation a year ago, needs a national consensus regarding the Maoists. Either we all support the Maoists or we all support the King. Will the Maoists turn democratic in the sense we understand the word today or they will try to impose their People's Democratic Dictatorship? The Maoists have to be clear on what their objective is, hoina? Unlike some janne sunne people here, I don't see the Maoists settle for anything less. They will want their state, and I don't see how they can afford to be different from their Cambodian, Chinese, Russian predecessors. Do they have an alternative way of imposing and implementing their economic, political strategy without becoming "totalitarian"? If they have that, they have to tell us just how they will go about managing the state once they take control in a clear, sensible, jargon free, simple language that we can understand. Unless they don't do it, I have my doubts and fears reagrding the Maoists and the future of Nepal. I don't see the situation taking any good turn any time soon, whether we implemt those ICG reccomendations or not. Things will keep on getting messy. The political parties, not the KING, should be blamed for the mess that Nepal is in right now. If the Parties make their stand clear, i.e., whose side they support and have either a clear stand against the King or the Maoists, it is impossible to make any progress. The nation is in for a long civil war, and that's that! As I see it, only Bhagwaan Pashupatinath can save Nepal from sliding into further chaos..