Oops.. sabai italics bhayechha. Here is the correct one. Repalce the last posting with this one _______________ The following para looks like Anup jee's central thesis on what went wrong in our system and how we can right them. And his theory is one that tries to explain things without touching the monarchy. In my analysis, rather than constitutional issues per se, it is the latter set of issues relating to ineffective governance, failure to enact reforms, persistent corruption and cronyism, infighting within and between political parties that has led Nepal down the path of gross political instability. Anup ji is right as far as the IMMEDIATE cause of the gross political instability or whatever we call it for today. But he is silent about the cause of the cause. To make it more interesting from logical point of view, let's test this theory by applying it to the Panchayat regime. Panchayat regime is exactly how is described above. It was an ineffective governance, it failed to enact reforms, there was persistent corruption and cronyism, there was it's own version of infighting between various goots. If we agree, then whom are we supposed to blame for that ? Surya Bahadur, Marich Man, Lokendra ? I think this is where Monarchy-is-not-to-be-blamed theory le phel khaanchha. Granted today's His Majesty's Government is more powerful than yesterday's His Majesty's Government was. But by how much is the question. Sufficient ? I have argued in my signature article 'Why Republicanism' ( - http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622 ) that this power is insufficient and this insufficiency eventually lead to the directionlessness and corruption of our political parties. I believe Anup jee might have chance to read that piece. I will be grateful if Anup ji notes particularly my quasi-sociological arguments that we are talking about the COLLECTIVE FAILURE of all political parties over a long period of time and if that might indicate a serious flaw in the system rather than some unlucky and weired co-incidence that all of the people in the system happened to be corrupt-minded. If political parties and the post-1990 leadership had managed to enact basic reforms and to provide the public with a clean and effective government, then although the maoist leadership may have tried, it is unlikely that they would have succeeded in waging a national armed campaign. In other words, a new and revised constitution alone will be insufficient for bringing long term stability to Nepal. Sweeping reforms in targeted sectors and sustained good governance I think are the building blocks for peace and stability in Nepal. In the underlined sentence above, Anup has answered a question nobody has asked. Or put it this way, he has not answered the question everybody is asking. The question nobody has asked is this: Is a new and revised constitution sufficient for bringing long term stability to Nepal ? The question everybody is asking is this : Is a new and revised constitution necessary for bringing long term stability to Nepal ? I will wait for Anup jee's answer for further discussion. And lastly, because Anup jee is not eager to appreciate the importance of the question of monarchy in our political crisis, his prescription for the solution of the Maoists problem has become too idealistic and vauge, at least to me. It sounded like 'Sabai milera ramro kaam garema, Maobadi samasyaa aafai hal hunchha'. The maoists can be convinced to negotiate in earnest if the legitimacy and strength of the state are not in question. Unity among the constitutional forces and a strong national reaffirmation of democracy is, I believe, the only mechanism by which state power in Nepal can be reasserted. The middle ground of politics in Nepal is weakened. Only a sustained resurgence of this middle ground can compel the maoists towards a peaceful resolution. Some in Nepal believe, mistakenly, that putting up a robust state response against the maoists means suspending democracy and resorting to stong-arm autocracy. But doing so achieves exactly the opposite effect ? i.e., the maoists gain support and supporters every time state heavy-handedness and scepter of autocracy rear their heads in Nepal. And by extension, maoist advocacy of "total change" loses appeal when democratic institutions accountable to the people are seen as both legitimate and effective. Actions based on this line of thinking, I believe, will deter maoists from pursuing the unattainable "total victory," and encourage them to approach negotiations as strategic rather than merely a tactical end. When we talk about the national reaffirmation (I would rather call the final and full affirmation) of democracy, the question of the monarchy invariably comes into it. Khoi ta tyo kura ? Unity among the constitutional forces ? Raja ra party haru ko ekata ? I am not sure if that is possible. Even if that is possible, let us not forget that it did not solve the Maoist problem. As far as the Maoists are concerned, there was unity among political parties and the king until the asoj kanda and all of them were 200% legitimate forces then. So we already saw this unity is not sufficient to 'solve' the Maoist problem.