Shirish, Thanks a lot for your kind word and for bringing interesting discussion and materials. As I said way up there, in my first posting, I feel BBC Nepali service as a whole has composed a distinct pro-democracy pose since Feb 1. So I am pretty happy with BBC, should I say, with it's favoring (instead of remaining neutral to !) with democratic kitta in Nepal. As for Rabindrajee, I see him getting better and better everyday. I like his grilling. Although in one case (interview with Baburam Bhattarai), I share Paramendra Bhagat's sentiment (that it wasn't that professional). And as for the line from the article mentioned, I am aware of the time it was written and I am also aware that the King was not without support. There were traditional supporters. And there were some who offered reverse support to him (being pissed off with the political parties for reasons all too familiar) and some probably gave a genuine benefit of doubt to him, although I tend to believe that it was more of an abandon ("what the heck !" type) than giving a benefit of doubt ("you never know !" type). In any case, I don't think the support other than the traditional one was too much. Even if it was too much, that's not what Rabindra's concluding line means. The straightforward meaning of Rabindra's line is this- There are many people who are seeing that the choice is indeed between the King and the Maoists (as explained by the King) and they are taking the king's side. My point was, nope, nobody is buying the King's argument. Those who were/are supporting the King are supporting him for other reasons. How big was the support is a different question. I can argue about the implied assertion made in the article, but that's not my point. My point is that nobody, even those who supported the King, were buying King's silly argument. The choice for the supporters was 'political parties or the King' and not 'the Maoists or the King'. That's all.