I agree with Capt. Haddock. Following his thought process: should Gyanendra abdicate and remove Paras from line to the throne, thereby crowning Hridayendra as infant king, will that placate the citizens who are demanding republican setup in growing numbers? I would say no. While an infant is an infant with no follies whatsoever, that infant will surely grow up to be an adult. Now who is to say that Hridayendra will not be a murderer like his father, unlikeable like his grandfather and oppressor like his great grandfather? For the argument's sake, let's say Hridayendra turns out to be a fine gentleman with all the gentlemanly qualities, but would that guarantee that he will also be a fine officer? After all, king would be a head of state, hence, requiring all the fine officer-ly qualities. And suppose Hridayendra does turn out to be another spoiled, despotic, cruel, and moronic SOB - just like his father and forefathers - should Nepal go through another jana-andolan or even worse another people's war? So the logic dictates that Nepal's monarchy should be abolished. Why keep the parasitic, good-for-nothing, tyranical at its worst, ignoramus at its best, treasury wasting institution alive when we now have the ability and will to form our goverment of the people, by the people, for the people? To borrow a phrase from the US constitution, it is time for the following: We the People of Nepal, in Order to form a more perfect Nation, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for Nepal.