But Nepalis are resilient and, despite the insurgency, are a peace-loving people. They want to progress and overcome such man-made obstacles. Most importantly, they want to make democracy work in the shadow of the Himalayas. This has now been proven with a recent agreement between the warring sides to call an end to hostilities.

Nepal is no longer on a tragic roller-coaster ride. We warmly welcome the agreement between the government and the Maoist rebels to disarm and set up an interim coalition government. The peace accord will pave the way for the drafting of a constitution and a general election next June.

After more than a decade of armed conflict, who could have imagined that this positive turnaround would come about at this crucial moment. After all, both sides were still killing each other just a brief time ago. The violence had turned the once peaceful kingdom into a land of bloodshed.

When the Maoists went on a killing spree in 1996, they did so because of the inefficiency of politicians and an entrenched political system. This was the justification they used to take up armed struggle. But this kind of strategy does not work because violence begets violence and it is the innocent who suffer the most. Thousands were killed on both sides.

Credit must be given to all concerned parties, including the general public, and their patience in forging this peace agreement. In the beginning, many analysts wrongly believed that the Maoists would not be able to disarm because they still wanted to use violence as a means to secure power. However, painstaking negotiations finally appear to have broken the impasse and the government has shown it is willing to match the rebels' promise by depositing an equal number of arms into special camps supervised by the United Nations.

Let's hope that this formula for peace will prove to be as successful as the one that took place in Cambodia during the 1990s. Lessons have been learned and drawn from the United Nations' work during that cease-fire and disarmament period, which did eventually bring about a return to peace and the electoral process.

It is interesting to note that the fate of Nepalese King Gyanendra will be decided by the first meeting of an assembly to be elected next year. So far, all concerned parties favour making the country a republic. Of course, public sentiment could change if the political process from now on does not proceed as smoothly as planned, or if it is seen as not being representative of the will of the people. The Nepalese people used to love their monarch - particularly the previous king - because he gave them democracy. The royal tradition should have continued without difficulty if the new king had united the country. Instead, he acted as if he was a politician who constantly needed to demonstrate his love for his people. He played one group of politicians against the other. He also enriched himself.

The Nepalese people are not foolish, and they know the value of a genuine monarch. So, they rejected the present king. Before all the political forces decided to compromise, the people had demonstrated and led the way. The rest is history. This history will find resonance in neighbouring countries in the weeks and months to come. Nepal can also learn from Thailand and its constitutional monarchy. But the outcome in Nepal next year will depend on the mandate of the people.

Meanwhile, the international community must rally behind Nepal and provide much-needed assistance to ensure that the political process continues unabated. It is important that Nepal succeeds as a democracy. Democratic development in Asia has suffered somewhat in recent times. More and more draconian rules are being used by Asian strongmen to supplant calls for better leaders and the rule of law. In this case, we hope Nepal can show the way.