Also, I think that I can further support my argument that Ashu's assertion that Girija et al are fixed in their stands is flawed: If you care to study the recent history (just take the last couple years) you will notice that all major parties have changed their positions over time and have become more flexible. Even the Maoists have, as recently a month or so ago. The ONLY quarter that has NOT changed its stand is the palace. So what is it that Ashu finds fixed on the part of the parties? That they are not willing to completely give in? Again, a political force that depends on the people can never be fixed. It must ultimately heed to its source of power, i.e. the people. Contrast this with a force that derives its power from an armed, paid and 'trained to serve' army. Nepal was about to see a major breakthrough toward strengthening democracy. The king's move, if anything, has blocked that prospect, and has helped Girija Prasads retain their grip. Does Ashu not agree with this? Even the dissenting voices within the political parties don't see [and rightly so] Girija Prasads as as big a problem as the lack of democracy in the country. This is a very sad thing for democracy but perfectly understandable. When something like this happens, who is supposed to tame Girija Prasads? We need democracy in place to be able to replace Girija Prasads.