Model 1: Girija Is To Be Blamed

The NC was in power more than most during the 90s, and Girija was Prime Minister more than most. But instead of consolidating the democracy, the Girijas of the world became the new establishment. Massive corruption was institutionalized. The aspiratinos of the Madhesis, the Janajatis, the Dalits, the women, the poor were not given proper channels. Things fall apart when the center can not hold.

Girija's inflexibility that served so well in his quest for democracy became his bane post-democracy. A party with a clear majority going for mid-term elections is ridiculous. Girija does not know how to save face: he only knows how to corner his opponents into desperation. He does not understand compromise and coalition building is the name of the game in a democratic framework.

Because the moderate center did not perform, the left and the right came in to fill the vacuum.

Model 2: King G Is To Be Blamed

The king gets neither democracy nor constitutional monarchy, or he would not talk of being a "constructive monarch." He has acted a mirror image of the Maoists in trying to fill the vacuum left by the political parties. That might be cunning, and possible in the murky waters of today, but it is not magananimous. The king patronizingly refers to the country as his family. That shows a lack of gut-feel for basic premises in democracy.

King G got Chand to almost double the royal budget. That is NC style brahmaloot many times over.

Model 3: Deuba Is To Be Blamed

Why get rid of the parliament, bro! In the first place....

Model 4: The Maoists Are To Be Blamed

Not even the Chinese are Maoists anymore. The haat bazar in a remote village in Nepal is the market economy in action. The ancient Buddhist republics were democracies in action. Those twins are the necessary engines for growth. Gorbachev knows more about communist theory than Prachanda or Baburam, and he has said the market is it.

The LTTE have been far more lethal than the Maoists can ever hope to be, militarily. And the LTTE were not able to take over Colombo even after 20 vicious years. So the military option is out.

It is laughable of the Maoists to think the king will willingly give over power. Not this king. If anything King G will want to expand his role.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not about to happen. Instead it is a game of who will blink first, and the two extreme sides do not care if the commoners suffer in the interim.

Supermodel 1: Panchayat II

There is a very real possibility the king decides he has had enough of it, and he plain takes over. Which will be the final blow of the right to the rest of the political spectrum. But such a move will, by definition, engineer a massive backlash. And more than Maoists will rally behind an all-out call for a republic.

Supermodel 2: "Jana Sarkar"

That does not exist in the rural areas either. It is more statelessness, lawlessness. And the urban centers hold strong. It can not be imagined Kathmandu can be taken over by the Maoists.

Not going to happen.

Supermodel 3: Constituent Assembly

This is the only option for quickie peace. But one suspects those now in power will not go for it. Instead they will wait and wait and wait. For the Maoists to possibly tire out. In the mean time, the people be damned.

Iraq will soon have elections for such a thing. And they will do fine for it.

Let the people decide.

But such a move will have to be simultaneous a total disarming of the Maoists.

Supermodel 4: Inflexibility

That Giriaj disease pervades the entire political spectrum. Mero goru ko barhai takka. This more than anything else is holding progress back.

freak .... only a few postings above yours, I have posted my opinions on the monarchy, which is pretty nuanced. So stop painting me one way or the other.

(1) P is a Maoist.
(2) P is a Republican.
(3) P does not tolerate differences in opinion.

What other brush stokes do you have? All three get proven null and void for anyone who cares to peruse just through this one thread, let alone my writings elsewhere online.

" Just copying the constitution of Switzerland is not going to make Nepal as good as Switzerland."

So I guess you come from some weird, ignorant school of thought that says constitutions do not matter. The truth is they matter fundamentally. Again, read Lawoti's work on this. Link posted above.

Do your homework, freak.

"Diversity is good but diversity of opinion at this point is NOT good."

This coming from a guy who just accused me of not tolerating differences in opinion!

"Right now, nationalism and one goal, whether it be supporting the Maoists or the Monarchy, should unite the whole of Nepal."

The heck with your Panchayate nationalism.

" First unite on the problem, then unite on the solution and when the problem is solved, then talk about diversity and other things."

That ONE idea in my mind would be the Constituent Assembly. Because I believe disarming the Maoists and sending the army back into the barracks has to be the primary goal.

You are basically a status quo person. That is what unity and nationalism means to you. I wonder where that comes from? Your schooling? Upbringing? Ethnic background? Are you a Nepali Speaking High Caste Male from a family that perhaps made it big milking the bureaucracy?

Freak's Supermodel 6: Indian Military Intervention: This is so far fetched. I call this Mahendra's ghost. Scare the people so they keep under you.

" If you believe that revolutions are internal process then you are wrong."

I can't be so naive as to say that. I do think in terms of geopolitics. But I do thin the primary credit for the 1990 achievement goes to the Nepali people who came into the streets. They are the primary reason why the change happened. Otherwise India was still there 2 and 20 years before that.

How can a self-proclaimed nationalist like you be so disrespectful of the Nepali people! Proves your version of nationalism is hollow.

So India's independence was more due to Roosevelt than to Gandhi and the other Indian leaders!? I mean, I don't dislike Roosevelt or anything like that, but I thin the Indian freedom fighters deserve to be mentioned more than in name.

So there is a new freak avatar. He not only worships Mahendra, he also worships the White Colonialists of yore.

"And sorry to break this down to you, Nepal's neighbors and freinds want the monarchy to stay, for their own reasons."

I know the truth, you don't know the truth, let me tell you the truth. Freak, you are not going anywhere talking like this. I think none of Nepal's neighbors would mind Nepal becoming a republic, just like they do not mind the king hanging on. They are fine either way. They are too preoccupied with their own stuff. Countries are like individuals, that way.

I am trying to figure you out.

(1) Freak worships Mahendra and is a Monarchist.
(2) Freak is an apologist for the White Colonialists of yore.
(3) Freak thinks what happens inside of Nepal is primarily a result of the desires of those few Indian bureaucrats in the South Block, which is basically a desk in the Indian Foreign Ministry. Some desk, that must be!

I tried, I could not. What exactly do you stand for?

"If you want the American policy on Nepal and India to change, start writing to the senators and powerful lobbies in America, India, UK and everywhere."

I think the reverse. I think it is more about empowering the Nepalis with voting rights. Which would be by bringing democracy back. And also in my small ways getting involved with literacy, primary health care, and micro credit projects.

Gokul's thoughs are thought-provoking. What can I say?

Freak

"There's always going to be one majority group, one principal ideology and one national culture. Others are reduced to the Sub-status."

Freak is a racist too!

Freak's scare tactics are so transparent.

In the software industry they say there is software and there is vaporware. Vaporware is software you get promised but never delivered.

Freak's delivering scareware! Gladly there are no buyers. He is saying, all those who seek equality, silent, or we all get apocalypse! The earth will shatter if we march towards equality!

Model 1: Girija Is To Be Blamed
Model 2: King G Is To Be Blamed
Model 3: Deuba Is To Be Blamed
Model 4: The Maoists Are To Be Blamed
Supermodel 1: Panchayat II
Supermodel 2: "Jana Sarkar"
Supermodel 3: Constituent Assembly
Supermodel 4: Inflexibility

Ashu's/Deuba's SuperModel 5: Elections For A New Parliament
Freak's Supermodel 6: Indian Military Intervention

Recent news shows SuperModel 5 is now in play.

"The RNA had said that it could provide security for phase-wise election."

Supermodel 7: Revival of the Parliament.

"UML initiates dialogue with major parties for revival of parliament."
"The newly appointed Chief Justice Hari Prasad Sharma said, ?The house revival call is purely political and the court can?t intervene in the issue.?"

If the 5-people can mange it, that will be positive. That will be some action towards restoration of normalcy.

HOW FREE IS BABURAM?
http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=18740

Anyone who thinks of Stalin as a legitimate role model is out of the whack. I guess Ashu's posting shows Baburam is in that category. In their purity, I guess the Maoists are that. But I don't believe that is their reality. Just like monarchy evolves, democracies evolve, the UML evolved, I believe we should give the Maoists the benefit of doubt. The idea should not be to rub their noses into the ground. The idea should be to let them save face. And bring them into the mainstream. If they want to go into the Constituent Assembly without first disarming, then that would be cause for suspicion.

So, yes, seek third party mediation. Yes, go for a Constituent Assembly. But only if the Maoists disarm before that.

Riten has offered a wonderful comparison between various monarchies. King G does not exactly look good.
http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/openthread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=18676

I think the monarchists will fight the idea of a Constituent Assembly tooth and nail. (1) They can not risk being voted out: they end up being commoners. (2) For now, they have the power to say no to the idea. (3) They are anathema to the idea the monarchy needs public approval. To them it is the other way round. It is democracy that the people get as a gift from the royals.

But a newly elected parliament - if possible - can be better than the current state of affairs. The question is, is it possible? Reality check for both Deuba and the Maoists.

राम्रो परिसम्वाद चलिरहेको छ ।

गणतान्त्रिक आन्दोलनलाई असम्भव भन्नेहरु यथार्थ र ईमान्दारीताको कति नजिक छन् भनेर हेर्न तलको तस्बीरले मद्दत गर्ला भन्ने ठानेको छु ।

यो तस्बिर केही महिना अघि एउटा थ्रेडमा आशुलाई देखाउदा उसको जवाफ oohi चिरपरिचित थियो- " तँ खत्तम सायन्टिस्ट होस्" ।

paramendra wrote: "I believe we should give the Maoists the benefit of doubt."

Kahile samma bro? Ra ke ko adhaar ma? PFN ko member ko wife lai body ma drill garne dekhi liyera, school children lai forcefully recruit garera army ko haat bata marna lagaune dekhi liyera, teacher haru lai ghati retera marne dekhi liyera ke samma garna bhyayeko chaina tiniharule? Aaba pani tiniharulai benefit of doubt dinu bhaneko euta naive optimism matra ho. Manche khane baagh le aaba arulai tanna khaisakyo tyesaile malai tokdaina bhaneko jastai.

Dadagiri को निस्क्रिय राजतन्त्र बारे मिथक र Iso Freak को माओवादीले प्रजातान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रलाई स्वीकार्लान् नस्वीकार्लान भन्ने प्रश्नसंग सम्बन्धित मेरो पुरानो बहस अझै सान्दर्भिक होला ।

- http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622

In order to decide what could be the possible way out of the present situation, we can streamline our actions by thinking strategically.

(1) Elimination by aspects - First, determine the worst outcomes desired and sort them in a descending order. For example,

(a) Nepal becoming a maoist state. There is no doubt that very few people would want this choice. It is cruel, outdated and inhumane. Simply unacceptable.

(b) Nepal regressing to authoritarian regime - The idea of somebody directing others what to do and what not to do (based on whims and not logic or acceptable rules) is also not acceptable in the 21st century.

(c) Democracy as a system (although noisy and turbulent in the beginning) has properties which guarantee that it becomes stable after sometime. The performance of the system's stakeholders functions as a negative feedback to stabilize the system given that the system is autonomous to begin with. Furthermore, the variance (fluctuation) of a system run by "n" people is inversely proportional to the square root of n. The absolute dictatorship is the most risky (n=1). Hence, the more the participants, the less risky the system becomes. This concept is similar to investment in stock markets as investing in a single stock is the riskiest. The safe investment is to create a diversified portfolio. Democracy is such portfolio.


Some potential solutions:
(1) Simultaneous defanging of maoists and monarchy - a tripartite agreement. The monarchy will be defanged but not dethroned. This alleviates the fear of those who worry about the possible chaos and misrule created by republicanism. The monarchy will remain what it claims to be - just a symbol of national unity. Symbol has some psychological value and monarchy can play that role if it wishes. It will be duly compensated for that job. Some intial valid agenda of maoists (equality of caste, gender, religions, control of liquor and gamblings etc.) should be incorporated. In order to implement this plan, some external force such as UN is necessary. This is the least risky solution and should be acceptable by all.

(2) Defanging of maoists first - It is not achievable as there is no trust between the monarchy and democratic party. This lack of trust is justifiable because the monarchy is trying its best to regain its lost power by undermining all democratic values and norms.

(3) Defanging of the monarchy first - Since the objective of maoists is not a democracy, there can be /should be no alliance between them and democratic forces. This reality makes this option impossible.

(4) Dethroning of the monarchy first - Ironic it may sound, the maoists who purportedly demand republic are the very impediment to its realization. People have reasonable doubts and fear that once the monarchy is dethroned, then Nepal is more likely to become a maoist republic than a democratic republic leading to the worst outcome stated in 1a above. This fear has some basis seeing the growing ruthlessness of maoists and the utter helpness of ordinary people even in the presence of armed forces purported to counteract maoists. THIS IS WHERE THE IDEAL REPUBLICANS FAIL. They have not yet succeeded in showing why this fear is unfounded.

While the democratic republic is the ideal and long-run equilibrium state for Nepal, it appears that it needs two-stage approach. This makes sense because when a system is highly dynamic and complex, there are many simultaneities which cannot be handled in a linear and one-shot approach.

I have noticed Gokul ji enjoys rather philosophical meditations and generally avoids to write political prescriptions. This time around, he has gone out of his way. It is always a pleasure to read Gokul ji's stirring thoughts and reflections.

I agree 100% with Gokul ji's observations and 99.9% with his recommendations.

The remaining 0.01% was for my extra caution with how do we do defanging of the monarchy.

Just let's us not forget that there are no visible poison glands in the monarch the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 enshrines. The loyalty of the Royal Nepal Army to the monarch does not come from the constitution. It comes from elsewhere.

Where doe the royal loyality come from, if it does not from the constitution ?

धेरै मध्यमार्गी बुद्धिजिवीहरुलाई यो ब्रम्हरहस्य थाहा छैन । त्यसैले उनिहरु संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र बेकाम भैसकेको देख्दा देख्दै पनि यसको विकल्प देख्दैनन् र त्यही संवैधानिक राजतन्त्रको रट लगाउन बाध्य छन् ।

मलाई सोध्नुहुन्छ भने मलाई त्यो ब्रम्हरहस्य थाहा छ । lab को काम छाडी छाडी (यही भएर न आशुको खत्तम सायन्टिस्ट भइयो नि) राजनीतिक ध्यानमा बसेर नै त्यो ब्रम्हरहस्य प्राप्त गरेको हुँ ।

र यो ब्रम्हरहस्यलाई एकछिन नखोलि राख्छु । पहिले हेरम् ककल्ले सोध्दा रैछन् ।

skipped

Nepeji,
This is just my attempt to understand the current situation in Nepal and my analysis may sound sometimes naive/far-fetched as well. One may contend that there is even a contradiction between my first and second writing. Perhaps this is an indication of the fluidity of the current situation, which defies any well-defined roadmap and structure.

You are right asking the validity of the assumption that the poison gland is only in the fangs and not throughout the body because every detoxication strategy relies on this very assumption. Since I am not knowledgeable in Nepali constitution, I look forward to reading others' expert opnions.

Look Parmendra,

You are not making any sense. For you, I am not making any sense, for me, you are being very childish. Label me racist, monarchist and everything that you can, but if you have ever taken a class on political science or world history or revolutions or something related to the workings of the state, then remember what you learned on that class. It is very easy to be an arm-chair democrat and revolutionary, its a whole different thing to actually go out on the streets to protest against the system that you oppose from 5000 miles from Nepal.

Also, India was independent beacause the internal consensus and bargaining was supported by the American President, and its an acknowledged fact. I am not making this up. This is a fact. When Churchill went to seek Ameriacn help, FDR told Churchill to grant India independence. Of course, Gandhi's movement was gaining momentum and sooner or later the Brits would have had to leave India to sustain their own economy, the American President's "request" shorthened the Indian independence movement.

Look at every major revolutions, it consists of 2 factors- internal and international. In Nepal's case, democracy in 1990 wouldn't have been possible if the King then had accepted the infamous Surjit Singh PROPOSAL, which I am sure you are aware of. Its also a published fact. The whole proposal has been published by Dhruba Kumar of CNAS and very recently by Keshab Bhattarai (I think this is the name, but not that sure) in a book called Nepal-Bharat Sambandha.

Those are the facts. Also, I did not say Nepal's ethic minorities should be given the sub-sub status, all I am saying is, first promote nationalism, what is it to be a Nepali FIRST and then to be YOU. Then hell, if people agree to have maithali as our national language, i will go learn it because its the official language of the State of Nepal.

Yes, I respect Mahendra for what he did. He tried to balance Nepal's relations with India. Kenneth Waltz once wroite in an essay: Some might think Machiavelli and Bismarck to be unworthy, but we should revive their ideas even if the persons were unworthy(Essay on Biploar World, Balance of Power).

And I respect Birendra too. And I respect Gyannedra too because he is the LEGITIMATE HEAD of the State acording to the Constitution of Nepal, 2047. Since that constitution is my contract with teh state, I have to fulfill my part of the deal. Tomorrow, if there's another system, another constitution, another system of governance, whether an ultra-right headed by the King or any other leader, or the ultra left of the Maoists or any other -ists, I will be loyal to it, because then there will be a new contract or I can choose to be somewhere else. But If I am to be in Nepal, I have to not only support the constitution but be loyal to it, unless the STATE violates my constitutionally guaranted RIGHTS. For me as long as any system can guaranty Nepal's independence and manages to remain independent just as it has been now, or do even better, then I will have no problem with whatever the system. In today's Nepal, however, its the institution of monarchy that has shown that it has the ability to counter any threats to Nepal's idnependence and soverignty. Be it Birendra rejecting the Surjit Singh propsoal to become another Bhutan or be it Gyannedra not inviting the Indian military to deal with the domestic problem. The Indians are already making strategies to deal with the Nepal problem.

Yes, I fear the Indians coming to Nepal. Its not a Mahendran thing, its very close to reality. Nepal's Maoist rebellion is a threat to India's security. No body wants a failed state in its backyard. A failed state in today's world is a major MAJOR security threat for not only for the neighboring states but for the regional stability as well. There'sa report on this Failed States and teh States at Risk, jointly prepared by the Carnegie and the German Institute for Security Studies. Http://www.swp-
berlin.org/common/get_document.php?id=1059

Read this report.

If India does send its troops to Nepal to protect its own Northern States of Bihar and UP, we would have to stay quiet. We ourselves led to that situation. I am not being anti-India, I am one of those few in Nepal who has been saying, hey let's keep our house in order, instead of blaming India for this and that. So don't treat my saying that India will come to seacrh your house as an empty threat. A few more years like this, it will be a reality. You don't have to be an indo-phobic to say this. You can be free of Indo-phobia, be a Nepali and still say it because, coming to Nepal will be the only option left for India to protect its own security interests., just as India intervened in Sri Lanka. I just read excerpts of JN Dixit's Mission Colombo, in which he says, India had to GET involved to protect its security interests.

There are not many choices for Nepal right now. Even if there's an alliance between the Republican forces (independent of the Maoists) and the Maoists themselves, sooner or later they will have to deal with the Maoists demands to establish a Maoist state. The Maoists at this point are not saying they are for a burgeoise(Sp?) Republic of Nepal, they want the People's Republic of Nepal, which is very different than the one man, one vote, many times system. So what stands between these two systems is the Institute of mOnarchy, once that falls in the present scenario, you will only get the People's Republic of Nepal. If you work with it, just as the forces did in Alberto Pinochet's Chile, and start with the economic reforms, FREE MARKET and INSTITUTION building, then eventually you might get your one man, one vote, many times. Any short-cut way will lead to a not so favorable outcome for those who believe in demoratic republicanism.

oppose from 5000 miles from Nepal. = oppose 5000 miles away from Nepal.

So I guess you come from some weird, ignorant school of thought that says constitutions do not matter. The truth is they matter fundamentally. Again, read Lawoti's work on this. Link posted above.

Constitutions do matter only WHEN there are institutions to make sure that its not being vilolated.

Now Nepe Sir,

Tyo link to article atti lamo bhayo. What are your main points, would mind summarizing the piece? I would love to know how you think of achieving an alliance between a burgeoise democracy which you stand for (if I am not mistaken) and a dictatorship of the proletriat, a Maoist state based on Leninist model? What possible alliacnes are there?
1. Power Sharing- Ok, this might work in the short run because everyone needs to come together to reap the benifits of the new system. But sonner or later, the Maoists will demand their own state. They a re a political party with a military. So when there's a Republic of Nepal, they might forge a short term alliance with the burgeoise democracy but sooner or later, maybe sooner than later, they will demand their own state.

2. Divide Nepal: Divide Nepal- Eastern Nepal for us, Western for you? Or Northern Nepal for you, Southern for us? Or resume the civil war?

3. Given the Maoist's military might, just say, you take the state, we will agree to wahtever you say, or whatever state system you prefer.

Although the movement started for equal rights and other socio-economic issues, the movement has now become a political movement whose end goal is to establish their own state. I don't think they will settle for anything less and that makes sense. They have lost more than 8000 of their soldiers for this cause. Their version of the state, if my knowledge of Maoism and Chinese history serves me well, will be:

1. A state based on the Leninist model, in which the state is highly organzied. Everyone comes under the direct control of the state because to execute the command economy, there's no other alternative.

2. No Private Enterprises: No private enterprises will be allowed because private enterprises mean the existence of class system. And the State's goal is to create a class less society.

3. Dictatorship of the Proleteriat or the People's Democratic Dictatorship: This is a very confusing term. What exactly does it mean? It means: Those who support the Proleteriat democracy (one party democracy), then the system will be democratic to those people, if you oppose that, it will be a dicatorship to those. So no opposition.

4. Continuin Revolution: To preserve the fruits of the Revolution, you have to have continous revolutions so that the people's revolutionary ideals do not die out and they don't become reactionary or drift back to petite buregeiose (sp.?).

5. No Elections: The general party committee will choose the Politbureau members, the Politbureau members will choose the State Council members.

These are the main features of a Maoist State. Again, I am not saying its bad or good, I am just saying its different than that of the Burgeoise Republican Democracy. And the differences are not only big, but huge. They have their own idea of the state and you have your own, so how can you achieve a balance and an alliance? This is my question. You stand for your version of the state, the Maoists stand for their version. You represent the Liberals and they represent the Left. Who knows, maybe the people who believe like me will be extinct tomorrow (not even in minority). But s till there will be two groups with two opposing ideas and concepts of the state, just like we have now. So how will the Republican Nepal be different than today's Nepal?

I read Gokul's defanging theory and is interesting. To put it another way, the theory suggests to get rid of military power attached with the maoists and the monarchy simultaneously.

This is just a showcase theory and is almost impossible unless there is a third-party military invasion. Or unless the monarchy is overthrown and the maoists are rehabilitated by the people and other parties. The time has now gone that maoists will disarm before the king unless they are forced to surrender with cannons pointing at the heads of Babu and Prachanda. Let me forecast that the maoists will not disarm even if the UN is invited for mediation.

I said almost because this covers the possibility of such unwarranted situations where from out of the blue both the comrades and the royal family disappear for some reasons.
Only way is a negotiation with full-repsectble rehabilitation of Comrade Thapa and his force while allowing Babu and Prachanda to be a political power.

A negotiated settlement where the military force of the maoists is allowed to be proudly rehabilitated into the RNA and the political towers are allowed to reincarnate as independant leaders or dissolve, as proudly, into some other parties is the only solution. Of course the monarchy should be nullified as far as the RNA's loyality is concerned (it means Pyar Jung will have to go). This is the most peaceful solution I can think of. All other solution will be way too costly.

forces purported to counteract maoists. THIS IS WHERE THE IDEAL REPUBLICANS FAIL. They have not yet succeeded in showing why this fear is unfounded.

Gokul ji le ni merai jasto question sodhnu bhako raicha.

Ok Read the relevant part of your piece:

1. My interpretation of all this is that the Maoists and all other communists of Nepal are actually never prepared for 'Naulo janabad'. Their vision ends at the bourgeoisie democracy, the democratic republic of Nepal.

I disagree. Maybe 3 years ago they w ould have settled for a Republican State, but now their aim is to establish The People's Democratic Republic of Nepal. They won't settle for anything else.

2. If, God forbid, the Maoists tried to go beyond that to establish a communist state, then we will have no option but to wipe out the Maoists from the face of Nepal with whatever it takes, from the dirtiest war to military help from our international friends . And we will have a national resolve, unity and legitimacy to do that too.

See you too see the need for national resolve, unity and legitimacy to deal with the Maoist problem. I don't think inviting the foreign troops is a good idea. Plus, Nepal is not 70's vietnam and 50's Korea, no foreign troops will come except for the Indian troops, and they will come uninvited. They won't be in Nepal to get involved in the civil war though, they will just make sure that the Nepali civil war does not cross the borders. That's it. And that's the best case scenario. If they get involved, then they too won't be able to stay for long. They will just go back, leaving the Nepali problem to Nepalis to resolve, but they will have a strong presence alongside the border. Israel, even with a military strategist like Sharon and latest in military hardware, had to leave Lebanon after Gemeyal's murder. Having studied at the Ben Gurion University, named after one of the founding fathers of the state of Israel, I am sure you know more than me about the region's history. In other cases, India had to leave Sri Lanka. America had to resort to getting China's help for a graceful exit from Vietnam. No nation in today's world would like to commit its troops to civil wars in other countries. Only the UN does, but the UN troops do not fight. They just stay there to facilitate peace, whatever it means.

A quick note on American military involvement in Nepal, if there's any in the future: The American troops, if they come, which is highly unlikely, will be there to support the institution building to sustain a democratic republic, not to fight the Maoists or other groups. They will not shoot, kill or bomb the Maoist installations unless and until, the Maoists attack them. So we'll be fighting our own war, i.e., civil war.

Scenario 1: The bloody stalemate continues

The Maoists keep make sporadic attacks. The king keeps changing Prime Ministers. The parties keep marching against "regression." The common people suffer. Article 127 rules the day. No talks. No parliament. No flexibility on the part of the three players.

Scenario 2: Elections for a new parliament

It is held in phases like in Kashmir. Or Iraq. Afghanistan. The Maoists are not Al Qaeda, the RNA is not the US army. But the Deuba group might manage it. Say holding it in six stages over a period of three months. Something like that. Deuba Congress 40 seats, Koirala Congress 40 seats, UML 70 seats, others 53 seats. UML forms government with Deuba as Deputy Premier. The Maoists manage to create some havoc, even kill a few candidates. And continue to make their sporadic attacks in the aftermath. They stay on like background radiation. But the king has become constitutional. Elected Prime Minister is center-stage.

Scenario 3: MaKuNe as elected prime minister

He engineers a major overhauling of the constitution. 2/3rd of the members vote to bring the army under the parliament. The doubled/tripled royal budget under 127 are reigned in. And he manages to bring the Maoists into the mainstream by successfully organizing elections for a Constituent Assembly, by disarming the Maoists first, and making sure the king stays uninvolved at all stages in the process.

Scenario 4: Deuba tries but fails

The elections are a major flop. Back to scenario 1.

Scenario 5: Constituent Assembly

Probably will not happen under Article 127. The king is dead-set against the idea. He will likely fire an appointed Prime Minister than allow such a thing.