Chakku wrote: "किनभने अहिले वहाँलाई 'बोल्यो कि पोल्यो' को स्थिति छ।" Very funny, Chakku-ji, very funny! I like you sense of humor. A boringly truthful explanation is: I have been busy with the demands of the REAL life to sit down and write something that would make people think and (preferably) disagree. ******* Sardarsing wrote: "(you, [Ashu] don't take sides)" Yes, that's true. I am persuaded more by ideas and individual's actions, and NOT by ideologies and what political parties do. So, let me take a step back and look at one broad idea. Contrary to popular thinking, I really don't think of the king as a monstrous villain as most have made him out to be. Now before you start hurling accusations, read my argument. I told you that I was and am NOT idelogical when it came to understanding Nepal's political situations. If the king really was a monstrous character, he could have killed more -- and be killed or fled the country like so many African dictators. The biggest question is: Why didn't he do that? Wouldn't it have been rational for him to collect money, pack up his bags, and spend the rest of his life skiing on the Swiss Alps? I still can't understand why he didn't do that when doing that would have been a lucrative option for him. He risked humiliation to exile; he's a poor gambler. :-) As someone who, as an observer, has quietly watched the king's earlier business career, I think that he was/is a comically clueless character who thought he could run the the country the same way he ran his profitable joint-venture monopolies. When you run monopolies for far too long too easily, you think of yourself as a golden money-maker. You underestimate the competition. Your reflexes become dull. You neglect small changes in the market. And you become arrogant about your own abilities, and you you think that your business success translates into success in every other realm. I think this is what happened to him. He got blinded by his own 'business success', which, in fact, was based on monopoly profits. So he started running the country as though it were his monopoly! Mind you, that "monopoly" model worked well in the King's earlier business career: Indians or foreigners would provide technology, contacts and the marketing muscle. The then Nirmal Niwas would provide local ownership of that business. They shut out the local competitions, and, when the monbey came pouring in, they would share the profits, and life went on fine for all parties concerned. The king brought that sort of mindset to politics. His message of "I am in charge" reassured people in KTM in Feb 2005, before they realized that he simply was NOT delivering what he said he would.: peace and order. Looking back, I think -- more than anything -- he was punished for non-delivery on his promise. And the political parties merely became vehicles for people to channel their demands for delivery. By April 2006, having made a series of mistakes, parties had learnt what worked and what did not in an andolan, and to their credit, they were able to use that learning to effective use. But of course, when you don't deliver, people will call you anything and everything -- from monster to autocrat and what not. I think he and his cronies simply did not realize how the world had changed -- in competitive terms -- around them. Now, the political parties have taken the task of "delivering" to people. In this, I am afraid, we are going back to the 1995 (pre-Maoist) situation. We can have as many constitutions we want. But constitutions mean NOTHING. What matters is the enforcing mechanisms or instititions. In Nepal, institutions are very weak, they have been made weak . . . talks I have heard so far are NOT about making institutions strong. The need of the hour is: How to dissolve this parliament as soon as possible so that the REAL BUSINESSES (of punishing people and making institutions strong) can start after the general elections with a FRESH and ELECTED parliament. Already, I see that the parliament, drunk on the success of Jan Andolan II, is behaving as though it were a parliament for life. This is a dangerous sign. For now, in terms of logistics, the MAIN agenda is: 1) Talk with Maoists to bring them into the fold of political mainstream. [I have always remained suspicious of the Maoist motives, and my suspicions are based on what they did to non-political people I know in Dang, Bardiya, Kailali and other places] Anything else is just a distraction. Please feel free to disagree. More later oohi ashu