It's an interesting academic excercise to compare ourselves to others in history, and sometimes they are valuable lessons to be learnt, but in this case, I think she is way off base. At the core of her argument is the arrogrant and elitist notion that Nepal's masses "are not fit" for democracy (based on Lessons 1 to 5). The truth, in my opinion, is everyone is fit to have a say in the running of their country and live a life of dignity. Whether you are rich or poor, educated or not, should not determine whether you deserve democracy or not. That is the single most important lesson of all revolutions in history including ours. Many palace supporters seem to have learnt that lesson - obviously, she is not one of them. The supreme irony of her article, is the Shah of Iran, if you go back and read some of the litterature out there, used to think pretty much the way she seems to think. Look where that landed him!