Both of them accept that the only way to bring about peace and stability in the country is to follow the Constitution of 2047.  Not necessarily. The parties are saying they are ready to go for a constituent assembly, which implies that the constitution of 2047 is obsolete for them! Moreover, their demand is to bring the army under an elected government, which contradicts with your blind assertion that the parties accept the 2047 constitution. Although the seven political parties have said that they would accept for no less than election to constituent assembly they will not be able to carry for long that slogan of the Maoists that would only help the authoritarian rule.  Whose authoritarian rule? There is no doubt that the political parties will have a secure future in carrying the King's thinking than to carry the Maoists guns.  Good thinking! So the king has brain and the Maoist has guns! Unfortunately, honey, all the evidence lies on the other side of the barricade: seems like both have guns and no brains. It’s the king’s ministers who said the army could shoot peaceful protestors (use “those disrupting the polls” for a sexy escape, but everyone knows whose “disrupting the polls” refers to: peaceful protestors!). This scribe cannot believe the claims seven parties, which do not understand this simple logic, that they are running the agitation.  Well, that “scripe” clearly seems to have understood things! I have been reading that scribe’s writing here in Sajha and elsewhere and for someone with a phd attached to his name, that scribe’s arguments are usually, if not always, lame. Not because that scribe supports the king (there are many people here in this forum whose arguments I respect despite the fact that they support the king, but “[that] scribe” is certainly not one of them! It is proved beyond doubt that peace and prosperity in Nepal is possible by the joint endeavour of the King and the political parties.  When was it proved? The king and the parties worked “together” for 12 years, didn’t they? And when you say the 12-yrs of democracy failed and when you say the king and the parties should work together, aren’t you contradicting yourself? Or are you saying that they should work “together” only that the king should have more power? No one can deny that King Gyanendra has really tried to do something good for the country.  Like somebody above, I like your sense of humor! It is true that the political parties had failed to hold the election and the political situation of the country was thrown into confusion and disorder in the absence of general election.  Now that the elections are over and “successful” with 20 – wait, did I hear 20? – percent participation rate, what has changed? Everybody knows that the only alternate to election is another election.  Add “municipal” before the first “election” and “constituent assembly” before the second “election” and we will probably agree with each other. Otherwise, those are Panchayati ghost Tulsi Giri’s words; he owns the copyright, not some random pandey in California! Everybody has felt that the balance of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy was disrupted because of the outdated thinking, and personal ego and arrogance of the political leaders.  Oh, yeah, and your king has been so accommodating so far! Everybody knows that this haughtiness on the part of the political parties has now led to the danger of foreign interference and Maoist intervention.  Buying weapons from China is NOT interference. Generals visiting Pakistan begging for weapons and support is NOT interference. But the U.S., India, Japan and EU saying that the elections were a hollow attempt at legitimizing Gyanendra’s rule are all interference! The political parties are feeling shame to participate in the local and national election called by the king.  Call it whatever. But if the parties are willing to accept that the King has been traditionally being honoured as guardian of the country, the process of reconciliation will take speed.  Why should they? Why should person A consider another person B his guardian? What makes the king the guardian of the people? Guardian of the country? Why should the king have the special power? In a country where Hinduism is one of the MANY religions, the king shamelessly calls himself a Hindu King! How can he be the patron of people with different faiths? Again, why him and not somebody else? In his every speech, the King has been repeatedly expressed his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy.  Prachanda has said cool things too, honey. But what matters to people is not what these idiots say, but their actions! And, like I said earlier, there is A LOT of room to question the king’s intentions! Doesn't the King have the right to find way to return back to the preamble of the constitution?  1) Preamble? 2) Return BACK (where else would one RETURN? – sorry couldn’t help on this one!) 3) Of course he has the right, but he can’t force people to accept his new, modified interpretation of the constitution. Unless, of course, he agrees to go to constituent assembly and people vote for him! The parties and the people can only doubt the King's intentions if he do not return the executive power to the people within the time he has asked for.  Why not? Why can’t we doubt his intentions? It is nothing but the example of the meanest level of thinking on the part of the political parties to say that if they will become inferior and the King will be superior if they participate in the election conducted by the government headed by the King.  “Meanest level of thinking”….You crack me up. As always! Therefore, it would not surprising if the King do not agree to the parties' expression that they would want to rule without the King.  No need to give 200-words of Mahabharat only to say that the king is great. State it forthright! However, there is no evidence that the King has any ulterior motive.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the kind does not have any ulterior motive either. In his earlier and lately the address to the nation on February 1, the King has expressed full commitment to make it easier for multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy.  Easy for the “constitutional” monarchy. Certainly not for multi-party democracy. The King has also called on those who are taking up arms to join the mainstream politics.  If only words meant anything! All the political leaders should understand that they should rather promote the feeling of nationalism than to continue playing dirty politics upon the lives of people.  Nationalism, my $%#! Why is it hard to see any supporter of the king who does not retort to this nationalism? Nationalism is not something you can’t impose on people. Period. And it’s not your pet – get it! – for you to label everyone who does not agree with you as not understanding nationalism. People now do not want constituent assembly and another constitution.  That’s why SO MANY people voted in the election. Face it, Mr. Pandey, supporters of democracy are in the street NO MATTER WHAT, even to an extent when one of their people has been shot dead by the king’s army. If the people cared SO MUCH about this constitution and the KING, I am positive they would have shown up in the street somehow! Oh, yeah, I forgot, there was this huge rally of 100 motorcyclists in DurbarMarg supporting the king! What a huge number! Because no matter how good a constitution may be, it can be only as good as the people who handle it. I agree. Nepal's true friends and well-wishers have rightly concluded that democracy in Nepal can be promoted only if the King and the political parties join hands and work together.  This statement is amazing because if the "friends" did not say that, they would not be called “true friends” or “well-wishers” by you.