Chakrabahadur Ji, Thank you for the courtesy of your response to my earlier post. First of all, I must ask you to forgive me if the earlier post was harsh in tone - that was not my intention and I apologise for that. With respect to your response that "they (by what you meant the supporters of Monarchy and perhaps the Monarchy itself?), with the security apparatus in their grasp, handled the country much better before the so-called (illussioned?) People's Revolution of 1990, the response to your argument depends on what you mean by "much better"...let me make my arguments: with respect to corruption in politics: Yes, I grant you that corruption under the democratically elected governments post revolution has been incredibly distressing for those of us who had hoped that the leaders would follow a different path; however let us not forget that there was ample corruption during the time of the monarchy. The years of the Panchayat saw a comparable level of corruption engaged in by ministers, commissioners and indeed members of the close circle of the monarchy. Perhaps the number of corrupt people was not as many as that seen during the democratically elected government but I doubt a valid case can be made to claim that there was no or less corruption in terms of amounts taken and hence that the reign of the monarchy pre revolution was a period that was "much better" With respect to security: Granted that the level of security concerns were not as acute as they are at present but there are reasons for this. The Maoist revolution was barely starting to take shape shortly after the institution of the democratic era of Nepali Politics. The Maoist insurgency had not reached the level of sophistication in terms of organizational development nor had it reached the height of its lunacy in terms of indiscriminate maimings and killings as we have seen in the last two - three years. Taking the Maoists out of the picture (due to the above stated reason), the security was under control for two primary reasons: One, there was no right to disparage the monarchy or to openly take revolutionary action against them without facing torture--death--whatever punishment the army or the powers that were thought appropriate. ( I am not sure if you are aware of the infamous rape and murder of two sisters which take place inside army barracks in Pokhara--the people involved have never faced any form of justice largely becuase they were members of the Royal Nepal Army) Secondly, the army has always been in the hands of the monarchy and hence they had the firepower and the command structure to ensure some level of security --however, superficial that may have been. With respect to rights in general: I don't know how the argument can be made that we were much better off under the monarchy when we as a people and a nation were sorely lacking in basic fundamental rights. There was no press freedom, there was no freedom to openly engage in political discourse that differed from the views sanctioned by the monarchy. There was no right to question, debate and hold accountable the powers that governed the nation. All these rights are ones that the people have had because of the revolution which you seem to think was disillusioned rather than what I believe to have been an illusioned awakening of the populace. I will anticipate your retort that rights as those described above are of little value to the people who are starving and facing enormous harships in the villages. As true as that is, I still think that they have the right to information. I believe, if you undertake a study of some detail, you will find that there were more villages that had electricity, more roads that were built, more bridges that were erected during I believe the four to eight years of the post revolution government than in a comporable period of the Monarchy. Besides, Birendranagar (Surket), a place named after the last Monarch when he had all the powers to aid in the development of a place that bore his name, did very little to that end so that Surket was and remains one of the least developed parts of the country. With respect to education in rural Nepal: I wholeheartedly agree that the people in rural Nepal have as much right to an education as you and I. However, I fail to see the connection between that noble ideal and the need for the continued reign of the monarchy. If your argument is that the democratic governments did little for the cause of aiding in literacy in rural Nepal, I believe that there are independent international studies that have been conducted that have shown a marked increase in literacy in rural Nepal - thanks to the work of some hardworking, honest NGO's (another entity banned under the former Monarch and on the brink of a similar fate under this current regime) so I do fail to understand how the goal of increasing literacy in the villages is helped by having a monarchy in place. The monachy was in place for some 32 years --surely that was more than ample time to start and develop a nationwide literacy program--how come that never happened? With respect to votes being bought: Yes this much like the corruption that took a hold of the governments post revolution is a very unfortunate development but, what is your argument alluding to? If you are implying that people did not get choice positions and chairman posts under the MOnarchy by either helping the inner circle directly or by some other back door means then, I would beg to differ. There were enough utterly incompetent people in high positions during the reign of the Monarchy to show that people did not always get the posts they occupied becuase of their qualifications...none of this condones the actions of the democratically elected government but, if we are to have a meaningful analysis of the pros and cons let's be brutally honest. With respect to Bihar as a complete democracy - I would hope that you do not wish to have Nepal reduced to a joke for late night comedians like the state of present day Biahr. I harbour no hopes for Nepal where she is reduced to a joke and is in competition with the lowest of the low...surely, the nation deserves more hope and optimism from citizens as concerned as yourself. I would like to hear your response to see what some/all points raised above that you diasgree with. (Exscusme if for not having provided exact citations to these independent studies that I know for a fact exist and are available biut I have school exams to worry about at present) This time, please do me the honour of clarifying what you mean when you use terms like "much better off" under the monarchy --that phrase as you can see is a matter of interpretation. Lastly, you addressed me as Mr...I am female, Mr. Shrestha..not that that change in gender should change any of the arguments itself or the strength of those arguments :-)!! Namaste!