http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0502/S00090.htm After reading General Dipti Shah's article, one may be persuaded to accept the position the King has taken. Gen. Shah, as I understand, is also a former member of Parliament nominted by the Royal Palace. As Gen. Shah said, there is always a two-side of the story, his article argues strongly and rather persuasively in favour of one side only. I wish Gen. Shah had not ignored the following realities in his otherwise well written article: -With the ongoing situations of social injustice, ethnic imbalance and negligence, rampant corruptions by a few privileged groups in power, since last several decades, even if the Maoists had not come, an ethnic strife of the Sri Lanka type was brewing up at a fast pace. The Maoists are selling dreams to all those ethnic groups who have experienced the sufferings and see no relief in sight. So, please do understand that it is not the Maoist challenge that should be recognized, but the bigger question for the long-term peace lies with the integration of all Nepalis into the mainstream. -It is evident that the people had most grouse against the Royal Nepal Army and Police for arrest, torture, and killing of people without any regard to human rights. The revocation of seats at Sandhurst for RNA by UK is no big deal. This should have happened a long time back. After all, it is 100% clear that the coveted posts of the army officers are only the privilege of a few of those 2% that Gen. Shah has mentioned purely based on castes and contacts. The rampant corruption within the army shows that it is not limited to the corridors of the politicians only. Of all the government units, RNA needs most the changing of its image to make it more responsible to people, accountability and transparency. -What about the goings on in the royal palace or the activities of the royalties that public is tired of hearing on a daily basis? This important factor is not even touched upon the article. -By all accounts, the King was incharge since October 2002 after he sacked Deuba terming his as incompetent. Shouldn?t the King take responsibility for this period too? I can go on and on and bullet-by-bullet agreement and rebuttal of the article but I see no need for it now. What is the need for it? As Gen. Shah says, only time will tell. Basically, I am for giving a 3-year time period to the King as asked by him to restore peace and bring democracy. When we have given so much time to improve to these aire khaire, why not a three-year period to the King? Hopefully, we will get to do a report card for the first six-month period and then move on from there onwards. I am not sure if the Jarsab is used to entertaining the opposing views but I get the feeling reading his analysis that he does take into account the various schools of thoughts. I do hope that we get to read more of Gen. Shah?s well-argued analysis in the near future. How delighted we will be if he chose to respond through Sajha. Is that too much to expect from him given his background and position? Only time will tell. Jai Nepal!