Do you want to be leader of this country? Head of state? It depends on this political movement and how the events proceed. Our movement is not for me to be the head of state. This movement is to grant democratic rights to Nepali people and secure a better future for them. It's not for me to be a head of state. If this movement goes on and if the situation arises, then if need be, and if necessary for the Nepali people, I am of course ready for it. But I also want to clarify that - from the lessons of the 20th Century communist states - we want to move to a new plane in terms of leadership - where one person doesn't remain the party leader or the head of state. This discussion is going on within our party, on the subject of leadership, how the leadership should develop; even after the state is captured, how to institutionalize the subject of leadership and how to prepare new leaders, how to prepare lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of successors to them. What were the negative experiences of the 20th Century in which people who should have been more powerful and should have had more rights, could not get them? We are studying this. Why it could not happen during Stalin's time, how much of this happened in Mao's time - we are studying this and we are in the process of developing a new system of thought. The question of being head of state is not a major question. The major question is the development of ideology which would globally uplift and give rights to the working class - our focus is on developing that ideology. That's why people might have a difficult time understanding us. Those who see us with 20th Century eyes would not understand us because we are talking about democracy. In the 20th Century, totalitarianism was widely propagated. People might find it surprising. The main difference in us is when we talk about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and their ideology, we believe that it has to be developed. Just practising it is not enough. To protect it, practice it and develop it is necessary. The responsibility of developing it falls on every scientific thinking person. After the 10 years of our struggle for people, we believe this responsibility falls on us, and we are thinking about it. You've been living an underground existence for 25 years. What's it been like for you and for your family? Underground - one needs to understand it clearly. I have not been underground from the people. I am only underground from the feudalistic elements and its royal army. In villages where people are free, I stay freely too. I meet my family, my children and my wife. Where do you think Nepal will be in five years' time? I think it will be a republican state. I believe that it will be a republic state in less than five years. I believe that in a short while, Nepal will be a democratic republic. People's resistance exists. With the unity that has developed between the seven political parties, us and the civic society, and the way that the autocratic monarchy and the royal army have been cornered, with this very shortly Nepal will become a republic. And even in the international community, the way that the feudal elements have been cornered and their dramas have been exposed - in such a situation we believe that the Nepali people will go for a republic and in a peaceful way the process of rebuilding Nepal will go forward. In five years' time Nepal will move towards being a beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation. In five years' time the millions of Nepalis will already be moving ahead with a mission to make a beautiful future, and Nepal will truly start becoming a heaven on earth. Where will the king be? He will be crushed. The king I think will either be executed by the people's court or he might be exiled. For the king, today's Nepal has no future. We don't see a future for him and the Nepali people don't either. The king might be finished or he might flee. To build a new future for this country you will have to compromise on some areas. What might those areas be? If you are talking about compromise, compromise with whom? If you are talking about compromise with the king, we don't see that happening. The only point of compromise, as we have clearly said, is that all political powers in Nepal should be ready to follow the people's wishes, that there should be free and fair elections for the new constitution, and the compromise would happen when everyone is ready to follow the verdict of this election. But time has moved forward. The king doesn't have that space now. The steps the king has taken, like the drama of the so-called municipal elections - the whole world saw it as the eighth wonder of the world. And now the path the king has taken, there is no space for compromise with him. There was a possibility for compromise before 1 February last year. But after the steps he has taken between 1 February and now, we don't see any space for compromise, and the Nepali people do not see space for compromise either. We can have an understanding with the political parties and the international community for the development of Nepali people, for peace, for progress - that we are ready for. A few minutes ago you said theoretically it would be possible to keep the monarchy. Now you are saying a likely future for the king is exile or he might even be killed and there is no compromise. If you talk in those absolute terms how are you going to reach any agreement with the powers that be in this country? What I'm trying to say is that the king has taken steps that do not give any room for compromise. It would be correct to say that the path that he has taken is the road to hell. If he has chosen the path of no compromise, there is no way that we are going to see a compromise. Theoretically as I said there was a possibility. But that has now turned into hypothesis. What I mean is: the agenda that the king is moving with, he is negating the possibility of compromise. In the second stage, I was saying that the king himself has finished this possibility and has taken the path to hell. He is not trying to give the rights to people or even the parliamentary parties. And in such a situation there is no question of seeing a point of compromise with him. This is what I was trying to say.