I almost thought I had failed to provoke Ashu despite my repeated attempts ;-). Anyways. Ashu, you said: "It's a perfectly valid logic -- turning a weakness into a strength. Mandela did that in South Africa, when he did NOT have any access to the playing ground. Gandhi did that in India, when he too did not have any access to the playing ground" Your analogies are inappropriate, and I know you know it. First of all, neither Mandela nor Gandhi was fighting for a political system, as such. Their cause was purely of a human suffering (rather than a political one) inflicted on one race by another, which resonated soundly with the suffered class. It was not a fight for an abstract system that they were trying to put in place to replace the British or the whites. The result of their success was indeed democracy, and particularly, in India's case, then came the political parties, which are still not perfect even today despite 50+ years of work. Secondly, your analogy completely discredits the 10+ years of democracy we had. Neither South Africa nor India had their democracy taken away. You are saying, Nepalis ought to start from scratch, as though 1990 never happened. For your analogy to work, we have to wait until the King truly becomes comparable to the colonial British, or the elites in Kathmandu start building physical fences to keep the rest out of their Ratna Parks. The sense I get is that you're so frustrated with Girija et al that you are willing to wait until that happens. Show me where am I wrong?