MeriNepalAma ji I may sound confused because the topic I dealt with vis-?-vis international dimension to the current crisis in Nepal is not straightforward. But be that as it may, I will try to answer your questions regarding by stance on the Maoist/Monarchy issue. And btw I don?t smoke or drink, thank you very much. Ideally I would prefer a Democratic Republic of Nepal as per Paramendra's idea. I don't like the concept of monarchy (even a constitutional one) because I believe in a meritocractic society. Personally I think it is boring, if you are a prince, and unjust, if you are a pauper, to have a life pre-determined by the vagaries of birth. Of course there is no ideal meritocratic society but some are better than others. Despite what people say about America and despite the current Bush regime, it is probably the most meritocratic society on the planet. American foreign policy is a different matter, and in that subject, I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's views. A meritocractic society means a democratic form of government i.e. the highest post in the country should be open to anyone from that country. Of course democracy is not the perfect system but as Churchill said "it is better than all other system of government." Nepal's experiment with democracy in the 1990s was much to be desired for [was not there in the 50s see how it was back then] but one has to remember that mature democracies have passed the test of time - in the case of UK the civil war of the 1680s(?) and in America, civil war of 1861-65. You can't expect Nepal to achieve in 10 years what other countries achieved in generations. But politics is not about the ideal but it is about the art of possible. In the context of Nepal I am willing to accept constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. I want monarchy just to be a symbol of the country, period - no executive power in any circumstances - much like Thailand's King B. I have a great respect for him btw. It would be a nightmare if I have to choose between absolute monarchy and communist reactionaries. I would choose NEITHER. I can't accept absolute monarchy because (1) I can't imagine having King Paras as the absolute monarch. I can?t have a mob boss running the country. If you like Uday Hussein, you'd love Paras Shah. (2) An absolute monarch whose position is determined by the vagaries of birth reminds me of the Roman Empire during the reign of Caligula i.e. who can guarantee that you won?t have an insane dude ruling the country. Maoists are not much better either. Although one can argue that monarchy, or more appropriately, the Shan-Rana nexus ruled the country for 200+ years, the mainstream for 10+ years, and Maoists none, and so they should be given the benefit of doubt, I say no. Some (not all) of their rhetoric is laudable, but their actions on the ground are not. Moreover, listening and reading the views of Prachanda and his cohorts, I think the country under them will head towards the direction of North Korea and/or Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Maoist insurgency is not an academic topic for me. I have relatives and acquaintances who have been (1) killed, kidnapped and extorted by the Maoists, (1) killed on the spot without asking questions and imprisoned without charges by the army.