Girija has to take a whole lot of blame, that's true enough: he held power for most of the 1990-2002 period of bramaloot. However, even he is not to be exclusively blamed. He, or the NC, did not make the Constitution alone. It was made in a hurry, mainly by NC and the Left, with the single-minded purpose of making the institution of the Monarchy a cypher. The "jana andolan" of 1990 came riding piggy back on India's shoulders (this Paramendrar doesnot mention, advisedly). One direct result: during "payback" time ie when drafting the multi-party Constitution of 1990, out goes the Zone of Peace reference in the preamble of the previous Constitution. India, to recall, took offense at the very notion of a Nepal as a Zone of Peace (it would wish that Nepal were nothing more than her private backyard) a concept that by 1990 had received the support of 116 nations, incluidng the US. Most of the flaws are thus systemic: in that respect, both the Monarchy and the Maoist are "dissatisfied" parties. The Maoists want to rip the 1990 Constitution making Nepal a one-party state sans the Monarchy; the Palace would like to amend the Constitution providing it with some more powers, to better reflect the reality on the ground as well as to act a check against dictatorial powers by political parties/leaders. One material difference is that India, at least for now, has decided not to ride the Maoist tiger any more, now joining hands with the Establishment here. Besides, there is strong backing from the US, and China, against the Maoists, the implications of which most don't realize, as yet. Deuba, etc. don't really matter in the long run. Complicating factors are that the NC has virtually become a sleeping partner of the Maoists (stupidly, I might add: if the Maoists ever come to power they will be slaughtered). The UML does not know what to do: to oppose the Establish of which it is now formally a part or to play revolutionary espousing a line that is difficult to distinguish from the Maiosts. Hence, we are likely to see the King take the reigns more firmly in his own hands, with perhaps Deuba playing ball, if he wants to continue as PM. Don't forget that the very first priority for any individual, as for a state, is security. If the Indians, the Americans and the Chinese, among others, conclude that the Maoist are a common threat, then in today's 9/11 world arraigned against terrorism, there is no way that these powers would object in any determined move by the King/Establishment to knock out the Maoists. Both India and America have in the past supported non-democracies (panchayat Nepal, Musharraf's Pakistan and King Jigme's Bhutan, for example)as long as they felt it was in their national security interest. These are things that Bhagat does not mention perhaps because he has no clue. He apparently views Nepalese affairs largely if not solely through Madeshi glasses and thus cannot present an overall or balanced view.