I don't think we disagree on the fact that the roots of many of Nepal's ills are injustice, poverty and inequality. And, dodhare, I don't think you'd claim inaccuracy if I say that the royal institution itself has been at the helm of inequality in the entire modern history of Nepal -- the problems of Nepal, mainly rooted in inequality (by caste or by class) has been exasperated due to royal institution's perpetual need to rely on the system of heirarchy in order to protect the crown. That fallacy of Nepal's royal leadership has been that they have relied on hierarchy to secure loyalty -- rather than trying to foster genuine equality and secure affection, they have perpetuated the crimes of inequality in order to secure coerced loyalty. Therefore, when the key to solving many of Nepal's problems is less interference from the crown, which would inevitably herald a greater sense of equality, how can we trust that the same instituion with even greater authority to act with impunity to solve our problems? I mean, I still do not advocate a total abolishment of monarchy in Nepal, like Nepe has repeatedly done so, but if we can't have a genuinely transformed monarchy in Nepal, with total freedom and equality vested upon the Nepali citizens, I think we surely can, and we must, do away with the monarchy. Only when 26 million Nepalis feel equal and free, either under a genuine constitutional monarchy, or under a Republci if the former cannot be achieved, I believe, true peace and prosperity will begin to envelope Nepal. Increased absolutism only exasperates the problem. You have also accurately accused the army of being as equally, if not more, guilty as other social institutions in Nepal in terms of of corruption, nepotism, classism, etc. Again, with the very army that promotes inequality as the backbone of power of the king, how can we trust that the current system in Nepal will work as a panacea to ANY of the country's problems? Mind you, dodhare, I have never, I will never, support the inept political leaders of the past 15 years in Nepal. They undoubtedly need to be shown the door. Nevertheless, having a weak democracy is better than having no democracy at all -- at least in a weak democracy, we can still work towards making it stronger, which I believe should have been the unquestionable path that Nepal and Nepalis would have been guided towards. Absolutism is a major step backwards, especially when absolutism from the same royal institution had stagnated prosperity of Nepal in the 30 years prior to the advent of weak democracy in Nepal. Now, you might argue we must give king a chance. When I know in my heart that the step he has taken is doomed to fail, how can I give him a chance? It's like letting a blind man cross a road full of trafiic by himself, hoping that he'd make it across without getting hurt. That is foolish.