Relevant excerpts from the link I pasted above - http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622 A just and permanent solution to the Maoist problem There is no doubt that we, the Nepali people, should do everything to stop Maoist from making Nepal a guinea pig of the second communist experiment of our history. There are only two ways we can do that, either by a forced foreign military intervention or by an honest political sensibility. I do not think we are ready for the first option yet. In any case, that sounds like inviting more trouble than solving the problem. But it is interesting to note that some folks are already talking about it- it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. I very much hope that it's not gonna happen. Some people may still be hopeful of Fujimori brand of solution, but the fact that Nepali Shining Path Comrade are not fighting against a bourgeois democracy but against a Monarchy and that Peru's wound is still open makes it very unconvincing option. And let us not forget our security forces already have failed us, well, of course for reasons explainable. Then, the only option left is an honest political solution. Now, some people might be feeling very uncomfortable with the adjective 'honest', which is natural, because honesty is an alien culture to us. Our culture is 'might is right'. Our culture is a tolerance to hanky panky of the mighty one. But friends, sometimes we should give up our culture. For our survival's sake. Ke garne ? Banchnai paryo ! So let's do it. Let's go to this.. our first experiment with honesty, this maiden voyage of truth, our pratham sahavaas with our future on an uncorrupted bed of bravery and sincerity. One of the most popular phrases in the circle of civil society, particularly among those 'conflict management experts', since the first talk between the government and the Maoists took place, has been 'COMPROMISE'. I understand the diplomatic value of this phrase and that that's what happens eventually to the parties of a conflict. However, I feel this phrase is not serving it's purpose in the context of our conflict. As a matter of fact, I think, this phrase is doing the opposite- frightening the parties of the conflict and misleading the people. A king is a king. He does not compromise. Got that ? He can sacrifice for the good of his subjects. But compromise ? What's that ? Maoists are great revolutionaries, for God's sake. Sacrifice is their dharma. They don't do 'compromise'. That's a revisionism, that's a bourgeoisie ploy. Now the ordinary people. When you say compromise.. compromise.. possibly what message goes to them ? That both parties we are talking about have legitimate positions. That they have a minor and solvable, but not a major and unsolvable disagreement. That the parties' slight flexibilities are all what is needed to solve the problem. That the people are supposed to accept them when they make an agreement between themselves. That that is even not a question. That people's huge participation has neither room nor is necessary in the process. And so on. So I think 'SACRIFICE' is the phrase of the day. It is sexier, more powerful and telling than that dull phrase 'COMPROMISE'. Now the honest, truthful, fare, fearless, bloodless, peaceful, democratic, economic and permanent solution to the Maoist problem and the answer to the other side of the coin, the question of the Monarchy. We may chose not to thank the Maoists, but they have already tossed that solution in King's court. The Constituent Assembly without any pre-condition about the Monarchy (the king is refusing it) and the Maoists (they don't have any) but with a guarantee of fundamental principles of democracy and freedom is the best and realistic solution at the moment. While more and more people are mentally embracing it as the only exit from the present turmoil, some still have skepticism. And that is a good sign. Because our skepticism, concern and vigilance is what will make sure that there is no procedural flaws so that two extremists, the Maoists and the King, do not take undue advantage and that democracy remains intact or to be accurate becomes complete. The king has yet to accept it, but he does not have too many choices. Either he has to resort to inviting foreign troops or give up. He may try to shield himself by putting political parties back to the 'chair' again. But that's just going back to the square one. That's not gonna change anything. I doubt he may choose abdication because he is enjoying the support of a major foreign power and, oops I almost forgot, deep ambivalence of some of our intellectuals. A simple referendum on Monarchy instead of CA is possible. However, it sounds harsher than CA to his prestige. So I am hopeful that sooner or later the king is going to accept CA. Some believe that the king had given a signal of yes to CA or similar option to Maoists leaders, that's why they came to the capital. His current hesitation to accept it is due to friendly advice of foreign powers. This sounds plausible. Because why else would the King let Baburams come into his territory and, as I discussed above, spread their influence there for seven months ? I don't think he is that dumb to expect Baburam and Ram Bahadur come to his palace and say, 'Your majesty, here is our guns. Now would your majesty care to agree to make minor amends in the constitution so that we can satisfy our army and cadre?' Whatever is the truth, the King's eventually gonna agree to CA or similar option. That's the only logical conclusion of the current balance of power of the King and the Maoists.