Chyame,

I don't see things the way you see. Nepal doesn't have only the Maoists and non-Maoists. This taxonomy is yours, not mine. To me, there are Maoists, there are democrats and there are royalists, the hardcore one who hasn't defected to the Maoists yet. The Maoists and the royalists are same:they both hate democracy, they both wanted a opposition-less polity, they both want a person to lead them to "prosperity" while all dissenters are damned, they both have no respect for those who oppose them, they both would prefer no election, they have no mechanism for leadership change within their rank and their idea of regime change is possible only through violence. I favored giving king a palace to live in Nagarjun, giving his mother a place to live in narayanhiti, and as long as he is content with that, I think he will have a happy life. But if he shows more ambition regarding reestablishment of monarchy, then he will write his own end. Royalists have once already screwed Gyanendra by making him too ambitious, which led to him losing his throne. The way you guys are harboring dream of monarchy,  you guys will only rest in peace , it seems, when he is hanged in a tree by the people.

(For the record, I think, Kunda Dixit/Ashutosh Tiwari were rarely hardcore democrats, unlike Kanak Dixit. At least, I never saw them in patrakar andolan in Kathmandu during king's rule. May be because they joined patrakarita later. I also think Kunda supported king's first speech --before he delivered his last speech in fear in baisakh 11-- in bbc or something like that. I remembering being pissed off at Kunda for that, especially since Kanak was in jail at the time. In my opinion, they always thought they were wealthy kids who could take any concept--democracy included-- as long as it benefitted them. They surely thought they were better than other ordinary poor patrakar and avoided hanging out with them....)