Very interesting discussion. Although, the discussion may have deviated a bit from the original post, some really great points have been raised. I am a late comer to this game and this is my first political post in a long time so bear with me as I put forward some of my observations about current affairs in Nepal. (1)There have been no winners in the triangular conflict between the parties, the King and the Maoists. All three forces have been badly damaged by this conflict. This leads me to believe some sort of compromise is in the offing. The strategists and supporters of all the sides can do as much as much saber-rattling as they want in public but no one is gaining ground in this conflict and perpetual conflict really doesn't benefit anyone. Both the King and the Maoists stand to lose support if the conflict drags on which might give the advantage to the parties but the irony is the parties are so unempowered politically and have a such bad reputation that I am not sure how they can use dissatisfaction against the King and Maoists to bring about change. (2) The King still has a slight edge over the Maoists and parties currently although I must say that is fast changing. There appears to be quite a bit of support for him in Kathmandu and other urban population centers in Nepal. If he can bring about a sense of peace and security in Kathmandu and slowly extend that to other cities, he may be able to legitimize the February 1 move. However, the protests by the 5 parties, the clampdown on the media and international, especially Indian, reluctance to support him all point to trouble for the King. While he still has the political advantage, it is slipping away fast. (3) The King has mismanaged his relationship with the media. In the beginning King Gyanendra appeared to be a media savvy politician and many of his opponents were actually scared that he could win over the media and use the power and passion of the converted to justify the February 1 move. In my opinion, the move to censor the media and close media offices has been the most short-sighted political move by King Gyanendra, Dr Giri and all the people advising them. The media was never really pro-party (or anti-King) in my opinion. Look at the way they used to rip Congress and Communists apart. Collectively, the Nepali media spared no one - Congress party, UML, Maoists, Girija Koirala, Madhab Nepal everyone was fair game. The King has lost a big opportunity here. (4) I know some of my friends will disagree with me on this point, but I think the King acted with good intentions on February 1 but with a total lack of foresight. Gyanendra is an ardent old school Panchayati nationalist - you may disagree with him and hate his guts - but you have to admit that people like him *genuinely* believe that Nepali nationalism, in spite of all it's shortcomings, is worth fighting for and if he says he wanted to save the country on February one, I can respect that. I only wish the alternative he brought about wasn't so pathetic and directionless. He and other nationalists need to understand that in this day and age, in our country (I cringe every time I hear Musharaf mentioned as a shining example), you cannot suppress political dissent. There is no need to read big books or do in depth historical analysis, it is common sense that in today's world order, if the US, UK and India don't support the political system in Nepal, it wont last. Tough shit. Life is not fair. (5) Talking about intent, I think the parties have good intentions too. But like the King, they seem to have lost direction. That seems to be changing a bit with recent events and support from India, US and others but unless they are able to shed their corrupt image I am not sure enough people will be willing to follow them. It is not sufficient to say you believe in democracy and will die for it. Most people believe that and don't question the commitment of the parties to democracy. What people are looking for is good governance and the parties haven't convinced a whole lot of people that they are capable of it. As long as the likes of Sujata Koirala, Chiranjibi Wagle, Bijaya Gachedar hang around the parties it is going to be hard to digest their argument that they can provide a better governance. (6) The solution to our problems may not be to eliminate either the parties, the King or the Maoists. While the elimination of one or the other could produce a more simplified balance of power in the country, it simply doesn't appear probable and practical at this point (or even in the foreseeable future.) (7) These three forces can only be brought together by an external mediator. India is beginning to play that role. But it needs to be more inclusive of the King. All options need to be on the table. As absurd as the idea may sound to some , the King should be willing to consider reinstating parliament. Elections to a constituent assembly are inevitable in my opinion - whether now or later, whether by force or through consensus. (8) Absolute panchayat is not practical. Neither is absolute Maoism. Or for that matter absolute democracy (if there is such a thing). Our next political system must be one that can handle the dynamics and diversity of a country like ours. I am not an expert to state everything that needs to be in that constitution but I think our chances of getting a good constitution are better if the people who make the constitution represent the greater interests of the country and a constituent assembly seems to be the best forum to do such a thing. (9) I do not see India occupying Nepal. It will be a political, diplomatic and logistical nightmare for them. Worst case they may send in some troops if all hell breaks loose and the ISI moves its forward operations base there and creates havoc for them but a sustained occupation of Nepal and integration into the Indian union is nothing more than fanciful thinking on the parts of some people in India and Nepal. My 2 cents