Echoes, The King has a history of getting away with things he wants: from buying fancy cars in times of crises to naming Paras as the CP to appointing three PMs in two years and much, much else besides. The Nepali civil society was and is too partisan, too impotent, too addle-minded and too divisive to do much besides filing petitions from afar and writing protest letters that go nowhere. This was the pattern before, and this is the pattern now. And so, it really doesn't matter -- except for strategic credentialism -- whether one endorses or opposes the King's move. The move has already been made. The point is: When you take a series of increasingly bigger gambles, like the King has done since 2001, and WIN every time (i.e. got what you wanted), then, naturally there comes a point when you feel that you are so invincible that you can, by golly, RISK everything and still go on to win the jackpot. Your hubris takes over, you surround yourself with "yes men" and good judgement goes out of the window. Yes, King G was a businessman. But alas, he was NEVER a businessman in a competitive market where he had to create new ideas, assess competitors' moves, use intuitive game theory to take advantage of the likely outcomes of others' moves on his and vice versa, and survive in the cut-and-thrust of dynamic, if chaotic-looking, ruthless market mechanisms (which in some way mirroe democracy). He made his money in protected industries where who you know was/is more important than what you know and what you can learn fast to adapt. And so, as a risk-theory hobbyist, my concern is that King G has probably not undersood that all his "achievments" so far could very well be attributed to nothing more than a series of DUMB GOOD LUCK and NOT to his taking control of and managing so many uncertainties and unknowns along the way. Yet he has audaciously and stunningly plunged into the biggest unknown of his life -- suspending incoveniences such as civil liberties and thereby throwing Nepal's and many Nepalis' lives at risk too. What if he doesn't win the jackpot? It's comforting to believe that maybe he has some trump card against the Maoists. But his wanting to DIFFUSE his attention to cover so much ground -- from providing land to bonded labourers to taking actions against the corrupt (all worthy goals but totally distracting from the NUMBER ONE and the EXCLUSIVE PRIORITY of dealing with the Maoists) -- lead me to believe that maybe he doesn't have a clue as to what he wants to do next, and maybe he thinks that getting busy with all sorts of activities is a substitute for getting results. Maybe he's just waving his hands in the air, and -- angry at our netas -- we are hoping against hope to see rabbits coming out of the hat! But let's NOT delude ourselves. If the King wins (that is to say, the Maoists are gone and all that and I give this a probability of 20 per cent), then, I would expect that victory to lead him and his people to tighten controls all the more in Nepal to suit their terms. To the victors, after all, go the spoils. If the King loses (and I give this a probability of 50 per cent), he could always win sympathy points by people in years from now who will say, "Well, you know, he did risk everything." [After all, we all tend to be more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but are risk averse when it comes to gains.] If things continue to get muddled in Nepal for another 1 to 10 years (and I give this a probablity of 30 per cent) with various fights among the political parties, the Maoists and the King, then, Nepal will just slowly bleed and bleed, to a weaker state -- leaving many of us as just that: exiles everywhere. oohi ashu