"I stand firm on my understanding that, until and unless political parties reform themselves (...), I can not see these parties representing general Nepalese population which nullifies their power to bring any change to the current stronghold of the monarch." --IndisGuise I realize that the rest of your posting is really about supporting this point. So I'll take a crack at this with the hope that it will address your other arguments, as well. The so called "stronghold of the monarch" is a myth if you travel anywhere outside Kathmandu. If the king had any meaningful influence over the population, the stalemate that exists in Nepal would have ended (or at least subsided) since he declared himself in charge. He has repeatedly put his influence to test (through regional visits, populist actions like changing administrative headquarters, firing "bad guys", and such) but none has worked thus far and there is no reason to believe that similar will work in the future. Now the question then is, what is it that still keeps the monarch in power? The only reasonable answer I have is that it's his command over the Army. This is where it gets tough. The king would've been toppled long ago had it not been for this force at his disposal. Any pragmatic view of the situation will compel you to realize that the monarch is willing to kill as many people as needed to secure his status [again, it's not the people's interest that he has in mind] and that's what he has done and is going to do. So now, as a citizen, you pretty much have two choices. Do you want to let this continue to happen because Girija Prasads are really bad or has the time come for you to realize that there is a greater threat to democracy...potentially winding the country back to the 50s. It's a matter of priority now. And my assessment is that the Nepali people have started realizing this, and as bad as their party leaders are, they are willing to fight for the restoration of democracy. This can be verified by the increasingly greater (I admit, the progress has been slow) participation of the people in the protests, rallies and mass meetings, despite a systematic crackdown, and even curfews, in some cases. So I do not see that a few bad party leaders will necessarily cause the people to look the other way, or stop them from revolting, when things have gone terribly wrong.