Just because the Maoists rule would be bad enough is no reason why the people of Nepal should endure the reign of terror and genocide unleashed by a deranged King. Honestly I have no idea which is worst, a Maoist genocide or a genocide committed by a Pol pot like King. I don't see the logic behind carrying out a genocide (by the King) to prevent another genocide (by the Maoists). Nepal deserves neither.
"...no reason why the people of Nepal should endure the reign of terror and
genocide unleashed by a deranged King. ...
genocide committed by a Pol pot like King. I don't see the logic behind carrying out a
genocide (by the King) ..."
You throw around the word "genocide" around pretty liberally. Any basis for that?