I am just shocked at the level of support I have seen on the Sajha. I wonder it is loss of collective memory, lack of intellect or sheer ignorance that such a vocal majority seems that all will be fine, now that King has taken charge. And, that all the problems Nepal faces today was creation of Girija, Sher Bahadur, Madhav Kumar Nepal. I feel pity at the total ignorance of the facts, I am sad at the fact the people living in some of the most democractic countries, enjoying the freedom (political and economic), safety and security of the democracies (here I am assuming that most of the people posting on Sajha are in US, UK, Australia so on and so forth and not in North Korea, Cub, Iran or Myanmar) clinging to the royalists argument that Nepal had no option but the King. And that king is the savior of all the ills. Is it really so? Some questions to think: 1) Are all the problems of Nepal (social, economical and political) results of last 14 (12 years) of democracy? 2) Did the political leaders inherit a heaven without all the problems that we now so easily associate to Girija, to Gagan Thapa ? 3) What was the status of Nepal?s socio-economic condition before 1990? To them, who argue that nothing was achieved look at the figures. You don?t need to go far read the Kantipur/Kathmandu Post of January 28th. The per capita income has doubled in the last ten years, the percentage of poor has gone below 30 percent, the electricity has touched to 37% of Nepalese households from 14% a decade ago. Similarly, 91% of population has easy access to education, roads have increases. These are the only basic indicators of what has happened. I do not say, everything was well under democracy or that our leaders behaved the best they could have. But, I find it difficult to believe that Gyanendra can be the savior. Everyone talks as if corruption was invented by Girija Prasad in Nepal. Is that so? Did Nepalese people enjoyed the corruption free society during the Panchyat era, during the direct rule of King? Now, every one will say, well! we were a peaceful country during the panchayat era and that democracy brought all the violence. Two points on this, was Nepal really peaceful? or was Nepal a quiet country ? Nepalese people forced to be quiet under the threat of armed forces. In every decade since the 1950s there has been some king of violent/non-violent political movement in Nepal. Can we still call it a peaceful country? And, how would Gyanendra bring peace in Nepal that Deuba, Koirala and Nepal couldn?t? Does he have anything more the morally weak Nepal Police and Royal Nepal Army? If the same army couldn?t do much during the past four years, how would they function differently now that Gyanendra hijacked the people?s voice. I see only one way, kill as much people as you can in Rolpa, Rukum, Jajarkot, kill the journalists, political leaders and human rights activists who even dare to criticize the army or the King. First, emergency claimed about 3,000 nepali lives, that is when there was parliament and elected government was in place. Now, that all those constraint won?t be there?..you can expect the to the number of Maobadi killed to skyrocket?Is that the solution? If that was it, wouldn?t we already have peace in the country? After all more than 10,000 have already died..Why do we still have more Maobadi than ever ? Why does not army control any more than Kathmandu, district headquarters and the parts of highways? I just want to point want that Gyanendra is not a Massiah and I do not see him having magic rod. Further more, I find it ludicrous to believe that we can expect the best government from former panches?if they governed well?would we still have panchyat?