VB: Nepal during the Rana rules might have been better for people who belong to the middle/higher hierarchy of social stratification, who have today come to form the 'elite' and enjoy elitist socio-political prerogatives (Madhav Kumar Nepal and others). for me and million others who belong to the lowest strata of social classification, and are deceived by socio-cultural norms of castes, class, religion, the Rana rule did much to strenghthen this difference, and did nothing to change it. economic prosperity? what is your basis of evaluation? Rana's Nepal looks much secure economically, but disparity in income distribution among the people is frightening. Nepal's national income was a prerogative of the Ranas and the Shahs- nothing went out of palace, and it was impossible to penetrate that circle of elitism. there would be no way for me, or someone from a low middle class family with no social standing, to prosper socially and economically and move from one status to another. yes, today, there are opportunities, and awareness is slowly seeping in (thanx to hundreds of yrs of absolute rule that people in Rukum and Rolpa didn't know what democracy meant, what their economic and human rights meant, prior to democracy. now they know, they can ACT for their own interests). you don't have to give me that leaders didn't do anything to smooth Nepal's transition. this has sort of become an acknowledgement now. and i agree. democracy is suffering miserably in Nepal today. i also agree. and i've explained the reasons for its suffrage in another thread in discussion with IF, so no repetations. but democracy suffered doesn't mean we have to revert back to the dark ages..i know we don't want democracy at the cost of lives, but maoist insurgency is not the outcome of democracy, and monarchy can do very little to solve it. how many years since the king sacked Deuba in 2002 and assumed powers? it is too early to judge his moves, but his aggressive Machiavellian moves So Far haven't shown anything on how this is related to securing 'national interest'. instead of detaining and torturing human rights activists, he would have at the least, by now, said something, just even a press meet, about how is he solving or planning to solve the maoist conflict. the rest of agitating parties would have shut their mouths by now.. my point is- during monarchy prior to democracy, the government was 'installed' and run by one or a handful of people. it told the citizens what it wanted them to do, that It will provide eocnomic security, It will tell them what religion to follow, It will tell them what caste status they are 'put into'. in democracy, the citizens become self-governing. they know what religion is and whether they want to disobey the caste/class stratification. they know they have to prosper economically, so they will work hard, the government doesn't tell them what to do. in fact, the government does what the people want it to do, for them to prosper economically. that is an ideal democracy, or a handful of successful ones like we have in the US. Nepal is way behind, but it has made much progress in these 14 years. Monarchy is turning the clock backwards, and is definitely not the answer. but yes, of course, everyone has his/her own perspectives and ideologies, and i will listen to them much as much enthusiasm! and IF and VB again, what Shiva Shrestha did is 100% out of his own sincerity and love for monarchy the institution, or the queen as an individual, whatever it is..i don't think he was manipulated to do so, Shiva Shrestha is an honest, very dignified person for that matter. and it is individual freedom, i don't have anything to say on that. but if i and thousands others thought the same way, and if there were no minds to challenge those actions and perspectives, there would be no revolutions (throughout the world), there would be no regime changes, Africa would still remain a major slave trading industry to this day..