Anil jyu, Give me one instance when I have taken "valid" opposition personally. Just as you are taking classes on Conflict Resolution, I too, took some classes on negotiations when I was a college student in the US a long time ago. Alright this is what I call real challenge. Now to defend my position (and I too hope that you won't take it personally:-) 1. You say, if I did not misunderstand you: Commoner dictator is better than Royal dicatator because the latter is cut off from the reality of the country. My defense: Not necessarily. Commoner dictators have nothing to loose, because they know they will be replaced, sonner or later by coup de tat or other revolts and they are prepared for it. For the Royals on the other hand, their whole throne is in the line and they cannot risk revolts and popular uprisings against it. So they try to be closer to the people more than the commoner dictators to presever the title (and all the benifits that comes with it). So, I'd argue otherwise: its the royals that are serious regarding their countries because its a zero sum game for them. You win, alright.. you loose, you are gone forever. 2. Panchayat, Nepali Nationalism and Mahendra. I don't think Mahendra's way of imposing nationalism was wrong and it(Mahendran Nationalism) can be compared to the ethnic nationalism of Serbia. I see him as our own Mustafa Kemal attaturk of Turkey. He had to create the differences between India and Nepal, because only the differences guaranted Nepal's independence. So in the process of creating the differences and creating a distinct Nepali identity, all those things you mentioned had to be imposed on the people, just like in Turkey after the First World War. Through the language (and to certain extent) religion, Mahendra tried to bridge the ethnic and other gaps that existed in the society. Only history can assess whether he succeeded or failed. My own view is: He succeeded. The problems we are seeing today are not entirely due to Nepal's internal conditions. I have been reading the Upanishads these days and I reccomend it to you too, and what I've come to understand is, you have to see things in totality, focus on the whole, not only on the isolated incidents, if you want to understand the Brahman and the Atman. This ancient knowledge somehow corresponds to what we study in grad schools- you cannot analyze a country by isolating it from the world or the international system. I see the Maoist problem in a broader framework of the international system. Let me explain this (and break it down to my readers, if I have any, who are not political science students): In my opinion (note MY OPINION, I am not claiming to speak for the masses, I speak for myself and write what my views are, which might be VERY differwent from the mainstream liberal views) Understanding the Maoist Problem: The problem is due to the failure of global capitalism in Nepal. When we became democracy in the 90s, the western powers that pushed for democracy in Nepal thought that democracy will solve all of Nepal's problems. They did not push the governmnet, the way they has pushed for democracy, for economic reforms and to create the institutions that are necessary to safeguard democracy. So what happened? Nothing changed. The same group plus a 100 or so late comers to politics benifited from the new system, not the masses. You can blame this on the parties, the constitution, the palace or whoever you want to, but at the heart of the problem lies people's shattered hopes of better lives, not political openness or liberalization or other issues. People became angry not because the state did not recognize their religion or the language. They became angry and dis-satified with the system because it (as they percieved it) benifited only the minority of the population in the cities. This feeling of cheated upon led to the developmnet of regionalism, ethnic nationalism, because to understand why they are poor or why they are neglected they needed something to distinguish themselves from the power-holders in kathmnadu. The dissent was brewing within and some external powers took advantage of it, which again linked it to the Westphelian system based on realism, just as the LTTE problem in Sri Lanka or the Palestanian problem in Israel. Suddenly the problem became "international".(Sorry if I sound too repetitive here, but to understand how regional/global hegemons use the internal conflicts or create internal conflicts in there sphere of influence or the places they want to bring under their sphere of influence, please refer to John Herz's excellent essay, Terretorial State Revisited, published in the 60s.) So based on my analysis (you can dismiss it and say it does not make sense, or just disagree with it or think on it), I say, the Maoist problem has nothing to do with nepali identity, nationalism, language and religion. It also has less to do with political liberalization and openness. It is a movement against the class hierarchy in Nepal, which in turn is the result of the failure of the international community to assist Nepal with economic reforms and it is the problem due to the external interventions in Nepal's internal politics to secure it's (external power's) dominance in Nepal. Look at all the insurgencies in the world: Which one is totally home-grown insurgency? In every insurgency there is a superpower/regional power back up.