Just a possible scenario:

When King Tribhuvan exiled to India out of fear of Rana in 1950 along with his son Mahendra, he left behind his grandson Gyanendra. Rana, in order to maintain tradition put King Gyanendra on the throne and accepted as a King.

Is it possible that, King Gyanendra is forced to go into exile by Maoist with his son Paras, as they are the most unpopular figure in th country and grand son Hriendra is crowned as a King.  

This situation will solve many problems: It will make happy to a majority of people who want to keep monarchy in some form, it will provide a reason to Army and foreign powers to support the Maoist led governenment, it will also satisfy a section of Maoist who are only against Gyanendra and Paras as they have repeatedly said that their was some kind of coordination with Palace in the past. King Gyanendra and Paras will be OK upto an extent as they will have saved Monarchy from completely dead situation and hope for a better future and expect change of people's feeling about them. Prachanda will be happy as he will be another Jang Bahadur with head of state and government as he had said once that Nepal will have either Jung Bahadur or Buddha. One more thing, this scenario will forced the Maoist to accept multiparty democracy as authoritarian communism and monarchy cannot co-exist .

I think, history is repeating itself for a reason and this could provide a win win situation for all the parties involve and possibly lead to a peaceful solution.

I think this is what might happen. Nonetheless, Maoists have said time and again they will uproot the feudal system, which means they will not even keep Hridayendra. But, you never know what will happen in politics.

You never know, there is no friends or enemies in politics. Look what happend in Kenya recently, after 1500 died now both leaders agreed to share power. I personally believe that Monarchy must go this time. Because there had been always some kinda game played by the Palace and it will again. Lets hope for the best. Good luck to us.

Deshbhakatanepali

Re: the Hrideyendra option, there is an idiom in Nepali "achi gare pachi dhoka dekhnu". What you write is what GPK proposed months ago. Most royalists and monarchists, including those on Sajha, viewed the proposal as a conspiracy by a scheming politician to amass even more power. Such was their delusion about the staying power of the monarchy.

Since this election shattered many delusions, including those of the Congress and the UML, I guess GPK , who I suspect might be drowning himself in scotch right now, can take heart in this: he may have been wrong about the Maoists, but he came pretty darn close to being right on the Monarchy.

. The problem with that option is what we already know. Don't you know what happened later? Tribhuvan came back with his whole family. And, then Mahendra disabled the democratic government in 2027 B.S. The whole reason why Nepal is in today's state is due to that Panchayat Rule.

If we let the monarchy stay alive by making Hridayendra the King, then after a few years, Gyanendra and Paras will come back. And, then Paras will bring another Panchayat Rule.

That is why, we have to make sure it will never happen. And, the only way to make sure of that is to abolish the monarchy. When there is no monarchy, there is no chance for a monarch to come back and establish another Panchayat system.

Monarchy still desired: A myth created by fraudulent “scientific” polls

 

 

I am sharing my reflection on this enigmatic myth served and consumed by Nepali elites and media during whole time.

 

From one of my retrospecting postings to ‘Nepal Democracy Group’

 

Nepe

________________________________________

 

From: DK

To: nepaldemocracy@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Constituent Assembly Award ??

 

 

>DK jee, you were right on many of your observations

>about the strength of the Maoists.

 

… -jee,

 

Yes, I was fortunate to be less wrong about certain things. However, I

do wonder if there were chances of what I thought being wrong all

along.

 

Anyway, as we are witnessing many things we believed in or disbelieved

are being proved wrong, we must have been going through retrospection

and adjustment at this point. Whatever stage we are in, one thing we

probably can rightfully claim that we have been as rationale as we

could be at every step, with the information available to us.

 

So if we were wrong, it was the information, not our judgment.

 

And I think we indeed were fed with wrong information. For example,

all 'scientific" polls coming from Nepal consistently and constantly

showed that there was an overwhelming popular support (83-97% even in

2003 and still 45 % in 2007 !!!!) for monarchy.

 

Deliberate or innocent, they were wrong information.

 

They could be deliberate, because in every poll, the question on

monarchy was always "mis/leading" and "overwhelming" (I have talked

about some of them in this forum). I know the respectable names

involved in these polls. But I can not make any sense of these

recurring fraudulence in designing the question particularly on

monarchy.

 

Then the second and apparently innocent misinformation is about the

interpretation of the complex term "monarchy".

 

I think the 'yes' answer to the question on "monarchy" was not a

support for monarchy. If that was indeed the case, how can you explain

the same poll showing 1% support for the king and 45% support for

monarchy ?

 

I know the analysts interrelated that as Nepali people's support for

the institution of monarchy despite their dislike for the king.

 

I think that was an artificial interpretation and an incorrect

conclusion, which now is also proved by the mother of all polls, the

election of CA.

 

Then what was that answer about ?

 

Researchers never devised a second question to find that out. So it is

hard to say with certainty. However, I think the answer was about the

"life and personal safety of the king and the royal family". People

were just saying they don't want the king and the royal family leave

the country or get killed. It was just a simple Nepali compassion to

an important family they were familiar with. It had nothing to do with

"monarchy" as the analysts interpreted for us.

 

So, in this way, through biased questions and wrong interpretation,

our analysts made us and perhaps themselves believe that monarchy in

Nepal was popular throughout (74% just before Jana-andolan II, to give

you an absurd view).

 

Apart from information, we also have been a victim of what I will call

a "reverse dogmatism". (similar to "reverse-racism") against Maoists.

 

This is more clear at this point when Nepali voters have broken what

we must be seeing as a barrier of "dogma" (Maoist's) we could have

never done.

 

Okay, I will stop it here. I do hope friends in the forum will take

this as my attempt to understand a difficult and complex thing rather

than trying to point finger or shame anybody. As I said, and it was

really sincerely said, I know, I have seen, everybody being rational

and good at every step of our discussion and deliberations.

 

best,

 

DK

___________________________________________

 

 

i like this graphical interpretation,
but i really think your green Linear line is not so correct,

and Red and blue is just perfect.