I guess I may sound cunningly aggressive by following up on this thread since Ashu has neither responded to nor acknowledged my last responses, but I cannot help but notice a few things on his latest postings that, as a citizen, bother me. "If Girija and Company take time to evolve, as you say, why not, as a matter of NEUTRAL kurakani, let the palace take its time to evolve too?" Even if we are to think that you suggested this in good faith for the sake of this debate [I'm becoming increasingly doubtful, btw], your argument is simply flimsy. First of all, for the palace, democracy is not a goal nor has it ever been. So even if Nepalis do allow it to "evolve", it is clear what it will evolve into. The recent Nepali history is evident of this reality. Secondly, your argument subtly assumes absolute monarchy as an acceptable [by the people] form of governance. This IS NOT TRUE ANYMORE. You need to wake up. Whatever time the Nepali monarch is going to buy with your argument is a completely a function of military oppression, and people are NOT going to like this for an extended period of time. [You claim to be living in Nepal...have you not noticed it yet? Or do you ever leave Kathmandu?]. Therefore, most Nepali people [sorry, I must exclude the types of you, and those who see it in their personal interest to keep an active monarch] are not going to buy this argument you presented. If they were to, things would have been completely [and positively] different since the palace took over. "If some people think that the palace is fixed in its ways, what's the harm in assuming that Girija et al too are fixed in their." Haha. I must withdraw my statements in the past that I thought you were intelligent. Now I think you're just a clever writer, that's it. Your assertion has one very fundamental problem, gentleman: You forget that the real power of the palace indisputably lies in the army, which is paid and trained to serve the king. But "Girija et all", as bad as they are now, must eventually rely on the people. A force that relies on a diverse and voluntary group of people is always dynamic can never be fixed. What are you even thinking? "In that vein, let us first articulate the IDEALS we want in the building blocks of democracy --i.e. the parties. Let's then push for those ideals, knowing that doing so is not an easy task." Care to say how that's possible when there's no democracy? Rhetoric aside, you cannot use political parties as building blocks in the sense that they must first be perfect before any democracy can be tried on them... You have to think of democracy as a playing ground for political parties, which will constantly evolve, along with their playing ground. But what you're saying, in essence, is: "I'll take the playing ground away, but you must still continue to play and become perfect if you want to get the playing ground back." What kind of logic is that? Your thoughts have appeared consistently feeble. You just use heavy words to carry almost nothing.