It's one thing to guess. Let the facts play out.

Samsara -

Good to see you too. I disagree on a couple of things. But before that what I do agree on is the Maoist are becoming as big a threat, if not bigger, to a functioning democracy in Nepal as Monarchy once was. Will they mend their ways? I dont know. The YCL has now submitted a memorandum to the PM instead of trying to shoot him - I can only hope that they will continue on that path as they transition from an armed militia to an activist wing of a party. That's better than extorting people and killing them - especially if the Maoists want to do well in the elections.

"BTW, Gyane (not the best but at least better than the current ghoosay chor netas anyday) ruled for a year and a half during the last 17 years of democracy and the chor netas still blame him for Nepal's current state? This is a fuggin riot. hahahahhaah Nepal is where it currently is because of the advent of democrazy where the netas hoodwinked everyone into believing it would be best for all. hahahha?"

Here I disagree somewhat. The leaders need to take their share of the blame for mis governance during the last 15 years - I dont dispute that. Nepal's current state, however is not the result of this mis governance alone. We have a history of oppression and power hunger on the part of Nepal's King, his relatives and cohorts which unleashed a process of disparity and alienation. The years of democracy did not completely correct that imbalance. What we are seeing today is power moving out from Kathmandu to the districts and villages. Unless this process reaches some sort of a equilibrium, as wobbly as that equilibrium might be, we will continue to see instability regardless of who rules the country - the Congress, King, UML, Maoists or even the Army.

Too bad we might have to sacrifice the institution of Monarchy to reach this equilibrium. At this rate, this realignment of power, which I see as inevitable, might even consume not just the UML and Congress (in that order) but even the Maoists.

What the parties represent is the aspirations of people in Nepal, especially outside of Kathmandu, to have more power in their hands. It is foremost the Monarchy's failure - not to mention it's contempt for the parties, which sounds pretty similar to yours, that it could not share and balance power correctly in the country. I say this because they are the oldest institution in the country. Instead of wisdom coming with age, the opposite seems to have happened to the institution. Had we had a far sighted, progressive and benelovent Monarchy the Congress, UML and Maoist would probably have been nowhere in sight.

Instead our predominantly Kathmandu based elites, which included the King, were so disconnected with the rest of the country that it became inevitable they would fall. I think the same has happened with the parties when they came to power and had it not been for Gyanendra taking over, the Congress and UML would have been in the wilderness. He gave them new life and legitimacy by arrogantly making some of the same assumptions about these parties like the ones you made.

Anyways, this is supposed to be about the nationalization of some of the Kings property and not a discussion on Monarchy. Like any other political topic on Sajha, it seems to be turning out to be a wide discussion of politics in Nepal which has been done elsewhere and perhaps exhausted as well.