Look Parmendra, You are not making any sense. For you, I am not making any sense, for me, you are being very childish. Label me racist, monarchist and everything that you can, but if you have ever taken a class on political science or world history or revolutions or something related to the workings of the state, then remember what you learned on that class. It is very easy to be an arm-chair democrat and revolutionary, its a whole different thing to actually go out on the streets to protest against the system that you oppose from 5000 miles from Nepal. Also, India was independent beacause the internal consensus and bargaining was supported by the American President, and its an acknowledged fact. I am not making this up. This is a fact. When Churchill went to seek Ameriacn help, FDR told Churchill to grant India independence. Of course, Gandhi's movement was gaining momentum and sooner or later the Brits would have had to leave India to sustain their own economy, the American President's "request" shorthened the Indian independence movement. Look at every major revolutions, it consists of 2 factors- internal and international. In Nepal's case, democracy in 1990 wouldn't have been possible if the King then had accepted the infamous Surjit Singh PROPOSAL, which I am sure you are aware of. Its also a published fact. The whole proposal has been published by Dhruba Kumar of CNAS and very recently by Keshab Bhattarai (I think this is the name, but not that sure) in a book called Nepal-Bharat Sambandha. Those are the facts. Also, I did not say Nepal's ethic minorities should be given the sub-sub status, all I am saying is, first promote nationalism, what is it to be a Nepali FIRST and then to be YOU. Then hell, if people agree to have maithali as our national language, i will go learn it because its the official language of the State of Nepal. Yes, I respect Mahendra for what he did. He tried to balance Nepal's relations with India. Kenneth Waltz once wroite in an essay: Some might think Machiavelli and Bismarck to be unworthy, but we should revive their ideas even if the persons were unworthy(Essay on Biploar World, Balance of Power). And I respect Birendra too. And I respect Gyannedra too because he is the LEGITIMATE HEAD of the State acording to the Constitution of Nepal, 2047. Since that constitution is my contract with teh state, I have to fulfill my part of the deal. Tomorrow, if there's another system, another constitution, another system of governance, whether an ultra-right headed by the King or any other leader, or the ultra left of the Maoists or any other -ists, I will be loyal to it, because then there will be a new contract or I can choose to be somewhere else. But If I am to be in Nepal, I have to not only support the constitution but be loyal to it, unless the STATE violates my constitutionally guaranted RIGHTS. For me as long as any system can guaranty Nepal's independence and manages to remain independent just as it has been now, or do even better, then I will have no problem with whatever the system. In today's Nepal, however, its the institution of monarchy that has shown that it has the ability to counter any threats to Nepal's idnependence and soverignty. Be it Birendra rejecting the Surjit Singh propsoal to become another Bhutan or be it Gyannedra not inviting the Indian military to deal with the domestic problem. The Indians are already making strategies to deal with the Nepal problem. Yes, I fear the Indians coming to Nepal. Its not a Mahendran thing, its very close to reality. Nepal's Maoist rebellion is a threat to India's security. No body wants a failed state in its backyard. A failed state in today's world is a major MAJOR security threat for not only for the neighboring states but for the regional stability as well. There'sa report on this Failed States and teh States at Risk, jointly prepared by the Carnegie and the German Institute for Security Studies. Http://www.swp- berlin.org/common/get_document.php?id=1059 Read this report. If India does send its troops to Nepal to protect its own Northern States of Bihar and UP, we would have to stay quiet. We ourselves led to that situation. I am not being anti-India, I am one of those few in Nepal who has been saying, hey let's keep our house in order, instead of blaming India for this and that. So don't treat my saying that India will come to seacrh your house as an empty threat. A few more years like this, it will be a reality. You don't have to be an indo-phobic to say this. You can be free of Indo-phobia, be a Nepali and still say it because, coming to Nepal will be the only option left for India to protect its own security interests., just as India intervened in Sri Lanka. I just read excerpts of JN Dixit's Mission Colombo, in which he says, India had to GET involved to protect its security interests. There are not many choices for Nepal right now. Even if there's an alliance between the Republican forces (independent of the Maoists) and the Maoists themselves, sooner or later they will have to deal with the Maoists demands to establish a Maoist state. The Maoists at this point are not saying they are for a burgeoise(Sp?) Republic of Nepal, they want the People's Republic of Nepal, which is very different than the one man, one vote, many times system. So what stands between these two systems is the Institute of mOnarchy, once that falls in the present scenario, you will only get the People's Republic of Nepal. If you work with it, just as the forces did in Alberto Pinochet's Chile, and start with the economic reforms, FREE MARKET and INSTITUTION building, then eventually you might get your one man, one vote, many times. Any short-cut way will lead to a not so favorable outcome for those who believe in demoratic republicanism.