Three quick arguments for a Republic against Ceremonial Monarchy. Agree or disagree... 1. For such a poor country like Nepal, to me, it is impractical to have to maintain the institution of monarchy. We'd have to pay for their "bhattaa"; we'd have to pay for their trips; we'd have to pay for their food; basically, we'd have to pay for their living and the maintenance of their institution. When majority of the poulation suffers from abject poverty, hunger and disease, WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD even a Ceremonial Monarchy. 2. It is morally incomprehensible to me that just by the virtue of someone's birth into a certain family, clan, caste, "kul" or "bansha", that s/he be awarded with a special privilege or respect. For every Nepali man, woman and child to be accorded such privilege and respect based solely on their merits, we'd have to reject even the slightest hints of monarchy altogether. Finally, to those who argue about continuing our tradition, i.e., of monarchy: 3. Traditions are not God-given. They are creations of those in power. The "mahaan-ness of Nepali Rajtantra" is no exception -- afterall, we were not subject to the tradition of monarchy before 237 years ago. Such traditions, as time requires, and as current conditions demand, must be subjected to abolition. We got rid of "sati prathaa", or the "daas prathaa" -- despite those were the traditions of the past -- and it is now time we got rid of "raajtantra" too, for it has proven to be the greatest impediment to the notion of free and prosperous Nepali nation, where each and every Nepali is sovereign. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have managed to paraphrase the sentiments of many Nepalese people in simple terms. APPLAUSE!!!