I have been reading Nepali Times and have a pretty good impression of your team's in-depth independent analysis of news and events. But one thing that baffles me is your continuous pursuit of the idealistic viewpoint that somehow the palace and the parties will come together and find a peaceful solution to the Maoist problem. This may be the first item on the wishlist of every Nepali this new year but the ground reality is so completely different. This is the same regime that wants to piggy-back on the war on terror to legitimise its rule. The moment a credible peaceful solution to the Maoist problem appears focus would shift to the restoration of democracy, meaning the current regime would have to relinquish power and act as second fiddle to the elected government. So let's face it, a negotiated solution is not in the interest of the active king and his cronies. It would be political suicide for them. L Ron Hubbard's merchant of chaos theory holds that society is in the hand of merchants who thrive on chaos. We don't have to go far to find its application in Nepal. Maybe after they crush NTC, destroy NEA and establish themselves as unshakeable arms merchants for both sides, they might forgo their grip on power. By now it must be clear to all why every royal speech ends with "Pashupatinath le hami sabai ko raksha garun". There is really no one else. Let it be said as a post script that this letter is not in support of the corrupt, immoral, useless and utterly disgusting so-called 'political leaders' of Nepal either.

Binod KC,
email

. Shiva Gaunle ('To Kathmandu', #278) quotes Comrade Biplab as saying "Feudalism cannot be abolished by attacking small security posts in the villages." So, can it be uprooted by killing more people than they have already and implementing a totalitarian regime? Sounds like they are desperate. Whatever force they have managed to gather so far will get destroyed by the RNA machine once it gets going. If the Maoist plan is to put political pressure through the parties and armed pressure through the 'people's army' then they are pretty na?ve. First, the Maoists have a limited supply of arms coming in, especially in the aftermath of Indian crackdowns along the border. If there is a prolonged engagement, which is very likely, how will they sustain their force? Second, dwindling support and credibility from sympathisers will undermine their 'peaceful' campaign for a 'democratic republic'. An armed struggle against the RNA is a bad idea, both as a strategy and general policy. Rather, the Maoists should make an attempt to deal with the king directly or through a third-party if it comes to that. Or they can go for peaceful civil disobedience with the parties because only they can legitimise the Maoists.

'Pradip',
email

. Bihari Krishna Shrestha has been writing in Nepali Times without any novelty or substance. The rhetoric in his latest guest column ('Rebuilding democracy', #277) is no different: political parties are bad, it is good for them to be kept out of the political mainstream and King Gyanendra's February First move was a brave attempt in the interest of the nation. He touches on fragmented bits and pieces and never forgets to make a illogical link with community forestry. His arguments mix up right issues with wrong ones to justify a biased conclusion. Perhaps there would have been some people at some point of time who agree with Bihariji's attempts to portray the essence of the February First coup as good. However, it did not take long for their 'euphoria' to turn out to be an illusion after they saw the February First move was not invented for peace making, good governance and consolidation of democracy. It was all about reinventing the panchayat autocracy, if not a mandale Raj. I do not believe that Bihariji lacks the knowledge that permitting people to govern their destiny through their representatives can help rebuild democracy. What all this sycophancy is about is difficult to tell.

Krishna Adhikari,
Reading, UK

. Every political force in this country should read '100 nonviolent ways' (#278) if they haven't already. It should be amply clear to the Maoists that armed struggle has taken them into a dead-end street. The king should realise that his army is not going to protect him forever. He must have the foresight and statesmanship to devolve power so it doesn't have to be wrested from him. And the political parties can't say bandas are non-violent because they are enforced with the threat of violence.

Jaya Gauchan,
email

. The Maoists may have charted out a new strategy as Shiva Gaunle mentions in his report from Rukumkot but have they thought about what this will do to their pact with the parties? The ceasefire and the agreement with the parties gave the Maoists unprecedented public relations mileage within the country and with the international community. True, the king has not responded to their ceasefire. But the answer to that should to be reinforce the commitment to join mainstream politics, not revert to violence. Otherwise they will find that violence is a genie they can't control.

Name witheld,
email