PSCji, Here is reply. >To weaken the king would be to strengthen the Maoists Quite the contrary, PSCji. No monarchy = No good reason for the Maoists to rebel. Political parties + King = Maoists are freedom fighters So, to strengthen the monarchy [by political parties] is to strengthen the Maoists' raison d'etre [of democracy] and, hence, to strengthen them morally. > Political parties have failed to control the Maoist problem. Totally absurd. First, at the military front, it is the RNA that has failed, not the Political parties. Second, at the political front, The government (Political parties) never had a free hand to negotiate with the Maoists. The government's hands were chained to [the obligation of saving ] the monarchy [at any cost]. So, what actually political parties failed in is - to make a point to save the monarchy. That's what they failed in. You want to them to try again what they have already tried THREE times (peace talks) and failed. That too when they've got a new and stronger reason to get rid of the monarchy instead of saving it at any cost. It can't be more absurd. >so called Nagarik Samaj (I mean only handful of them like Debendra raj, >Mathura, Krishna Pahadi, etc). All they did was either instigating the >Maoist or in many occasion directly or indirectly supporting them morally. I wouldn't call it instigating and supporting. But you are right that the civic society has been soft on the Maoists. The why is obvious. Because while the Maoists have a WRONG ideology and method, their PURPOSE of getting rid of the monarchy is RIGHT. So, getting rid of monarchy is, as I said above, making the Maoists PURPOSELESS or an outfit with COMPLETELY wrong purposes [of establishing a communist republic]. When it happens, the civic society naturally will be hard on the Maoists [in case they refused to be part of the democratic republic]. Until then, and particularly when one is talking about strengthening the monarchy, you can not expect the civic society to be hard on the Maoists. It's simple as that. >what led you to believe that Maoist will easily agree to term and >condition laid down by the political parties? As I have repeated many times, there is no guarantee about the Maoists. So we need to talk in terms of LIKELIHOOD. The likelihood of the Maoists to agree to disarm for the republic is way way way way way more than the likelihood of the Maoists to agree to disarm for the constitutional monarchy. Let's put it this way, (exact numbers not important) The chances that the Maoists will agree to disarm for republic = 99% The chances that the Maoists will agree to disarm for C. Monarchy = 1% In this whole thread, your arguments (repeated on and on) is trying to convince that the chance (1%) of disarming the Maoists for C. Monarchy is greater than the chance (1%) that the Maoists will not disarm for the republic democracy. You are almost right, because 1% is almost greater than 1%. However, you are almost absolutely wrong because you are ignoring 99% chance described above. > what could have been the best alternate in October 2002 for King? Not only in October, but just about any day since 1996 (or whenever the Maoists were felt a power that can not be ignored) to this very day, the best thing for the King (yes, Birendra included) to do was letting the PEOPLE to decide what they say about the monarchy. It could be a referendum. It could be a Constitutional Assembly. Look what is the King doing ? Is it surprising that he is getting support from none of political parties', civic society and the international community ? > Preserving monarchy is also the continuation of our golden history. If Narayahity has a lot of gold, may be then a golden history. Otherwise what golden history ? Before 2007 saal, several generation of kings were nobody. After 2007 saal, Tribhuvan betrayed his initial commitment for sovereignty to the people and gradually acquired more and more power. Mahendra needless to talk about. Birendra followed his father's footsteps until Nepali people revolted. Gyanendra, we are seeing. Paras, we can guess. Is it a golden history or iron history ? OK, let's not answer this question. Let the people of Nepal answer this question in a Referendum or a CA. Fair enough ? > Why should we try to copy or change something which was never tested, > never experienced . . . Do you want to keep on experimenting for another >decades? Democratic republic is the ultimate democracy. So, it's not experimenting, but reaching there finally. On the contrary to what you say, restoring Constitutional monarchy will be experimenting and experimenting and experimenting the same thing that has failed and failed and failed. No more experiments with compromised democracy. That's the growing voice of Nepali people today. No more experiments. Straight to democracy. Nepe