I thought it was a pretty good analysis for the most part. But Prashant does seem to exhibit a confidence in the Maoists that he doesn't really explain why he does. 

In any case, when you really boil down all the sophisticated language, you can see that all this wrangling is really juvenile. Nepali politics continues to be a game of the powerless pretending to be powerful. The powerless includes the Nepali politicians and the Nepali public that pretend that the politicians have power that they don't.

In the kingdom of the blind, one eye man is king.

It is hard to have real confidence on any of the politicians. We just find ourselves running to our television sets and our computers hoping that the latest political gimmic by some zealot politician isn't the straw that broke the camel (named Nepal's) back.

As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Everybody can conclude on the events that happened, yesterday.

Nobody, I mean 'NOBODY' has been able to predict what has happened in Nepal. The unfortunate demise of the monarchy, the unexpected result of the CA and now the turn of events on Saturday. Analysts 'everywhere' including Mr. Jha are quick to point out the results that happened; they are clueless to the events that will occur tomorrow like the rest of us. In fact, people who have left comments on this page are more in tune to the realities on ground and better able to predict the outcome than our experts that appear in this paper.

As the comments from the readers has rightly suggested, scapegoating people of Kathmandu for all ills that have happened in Nepal is old, mundane and ridiculous. Most of the leaders after the advent of democracy have come from outside of Kathmandu. Therefore, "PLEASE", do not blame the people of Kathmandu for the in-adeptness of the leaders that ails the country. Our Leader's inability to make changes are their doing and theirs alone. Let us not forget, the insurgency happened when same leader were at the helm. Were it not for the brave Nepalese Army (only institution without their interference) we would probably be fighting the war or better, insurgency would have ended (I am in the opinion that Maoist were on the verge of collapsing or they would have never come to talks).

So, please make commentaries wisely. Not all the folks in Nepal are like the ones that were brought to Kathmandu, blind, confused and unable to process useless archaic ideologies. Prachanda was made aware by the very Kathmanduites (elitist like Jha and CK Lal likes to call them) that you have all shunned. He was afraid not of the crowd but the total collapse of control that he would have to confront if the 'Bandh' was to go on. Violence is two way street and lets us all pray we do not have to resort to it, which we are all capable of just like the Maoist, to get our rights back.

I don't think concensus among the parties is the way forward because that would mean fresh elections with the same rotten eggs running for premiership and more general strikes to follow. This seems to be a never ending vicious cycle. We had achieved a perfect platform to skyrocket Nepal into a modern developed nation after Jana Andolan 1, however, we failed because of corruption. Cum Jana Andolan 2 and again there was consensus and that seems to have failed yet again. Now we are seeking another consensus, and its failure is inevitable.

Jana Andolan 1 failed because of Congress and UML. Congress for being the commander most of those 16 yrs and UML did nothing but to criticize the commander all those yrs. UML instead could have come up with a solid plan for development even while they were the biggest opposition party. For starters, they could have even run a campaign to clean Nepal. I still remember PM Nepal mentioning how dirty the streets were and that it needed to be cleaned up on his drive to singha durbar after being appointed the PM. He is almost the EX-PM and the streets of KTM are still dirty if not dirtier.

Jana Andolan 2 failed because of the Maoists. They thought the 10yrs armed revolution was just a game of chess and after being elected to run the government they chose to attack the army instead of showing the masses that they have become a democratic party. People would've forgotten the terror and the killings of the 10yr revolution in no time if they had a concrete plan to change the nation and lead Nepal to prosperity. Many people died in the American and French Revolutions too. One can argue but that was 2 centuries ago. The truth is there was oppression back then and there still is oppression now. So no logical thinking or argument can persuade these revolutionaries to find a different path. But the problem with the Maoists are that they too seem to dwell too much on the past and don't have a concrete game plan for the future. They seem to be asking for their "anksa" instead of creating new "anksas".

The only consensus should be to whip all the top leaders of all the parties and give chance to new faces in the form of fresh polls. The top 1000 leaders from all the parties should be exiled. How can 3000 people forbid 30000000 people from having a bright future.  

 

The cacophony of the Maoists

In all cases, the man who speaks too much has tried to silence those who talked too little of the Maoists presence since they are in peace process, and the result has been explosive. It is true that Prachanda has been more successful in controlling the ludicrous actions of his entire brethens during the protests than his crazy language  and there's the disaster of Baburam Bhattarai, the man of famous "controlled chaos" whose mind said something and the heart just different, there is also the ambiguity of Gajurel and Baidhya, but there is no doubt that the Maoists chief's authority is fierce and they move well in secrecy. Of course, there is also no doubt that for a political leader, authority is a theological virtue. However, what is happenning with this politically relevant Maoists is worthy to analyse, their true voices have been disharmonized at some point, and have gone beyond the imposition of a double ideological criteria, and therefore with the imposition of forced actions, products of intra-factionalism. But this time they suffered, in addition, a significant public humiliation, and this addition is very worrying.

 Not only the Maoists had to retract what has been declared to do publicly but they were involved in an exercise of schoolyard, and, all that, by these Nepali mao-men who have not yet finished their sixties and with years of "struggle" in the past and a career to come. Well, they are ensuring people that they didn't mean bad things but  with their typical communist repentance, showing the sake of red mother superior –conspiracy and the enemies of all time-. I think the Maoists barons are probably too crude to do real politik, they have presented themself as the proponents of New Nepal who want change and came with new momentum. And probably for these reasons, they are committing the sin of sincerity.

Lesson cat-man-du

It would be good to tell the Maoists not to approach the politics, even less kathmandu with such imprecision and arrogance, given the circumstances not only Prashant and me think so but almost all nepali, not only many in the Maoists party say so under their mustache but electoral majority also advises them. But the elder brother of politics is angry, Mr. Nepal who leads makune prabriti has written "a letter", the Maoists has taken out their habitual knife and the lost NC advocates for forgiveness. Lesson learned. I am not going to say anything less sensible that does not travel through the political commissars. Sorry, but all this seems very old. In the XXI century, "we are still in a plan to castigate others with bhautik karwahi, promote obscure views and humiliating language" ? Then, better they do not sell the rhetoric of change. Because "change" is not to change the face of politicos. Change is to reinvent the soul of politics, to make it more real, more sincere and less tricky. And so far, there is nothing new or change. Only make-ups and that very ugly.

General perception

At times the Maoists is alike sindicalist union, sometimes their behaviours resemble to those of Taliban, so often they pretend to be banana republicans and more disgracely they act as militarist fascists. I'd suggest political analysts like CK Lal and others to ask the Maoists an obvious fact clearly and loudly, as the society wants to know also: "what exactly the DNA of the Maoists is?" Without the knowledge of this very fact, the Maoists are here to lose and suffer political depression and definately they will knock down the current political construction as well. They will sink but with everybody and everything.

If proportional representation is to be considered democratic, isn't MKN elected representative? He may be inept, 'Bander ko Pucchar' or anything like that. Yes he lost seats in one go..however, as the democratic system doesn't disallow to come elected through the proportional system, why keep on calling him unelected?

If we have to define the directly elected representative to be elected, the people who are there in the Assembly shouldn't be there in the first place. Then you wouldn't have seen MKN as PM now.

I don't like the man personally, hey, he is more of a steady hand then the Prachand. King Log is better than King Storke for frogs (people who are not armed)

Says Jha, "The Indian strategy to deal with the Maoists is a classic approach they adopt in their own country with groups in Kashmir and the Northeast – engage, coerce, co-opt, frustrate the cadre, divide, weaken, give nothing and then repeat the cycle. NC, UML and Madhesi parties can continue to be domestic instruments to implement this Indian strategy."

But why on earth would we want to follow Indian strategy when it has failed so miserably in their own country?  PM Singh himself says that their Naxalites are their biggest threats, with a large swath of their country essentially under Maoist control.  At least we were able to bring our Maoists to the bargaining table!  Shouldn't India be following our example instead?  Jha's perpetual infatuation with all things India is misleading at best and downright self-destructive at worst.  Just because India did it doesn't mean it's good, or right, or true.  Actually, history has shown the opposite to, more often than not, be true.

Maoist agreed to offer an alternative candidate to Prachanda. Do you believe it? It is just a lie, unless they give an alternative's name. Everyone knows that Maoists are least trustable. Maoist cadres take Maoist leadership's lie as five steps ahead and two steps backward. They should not be trusted. Hardline Maoists are alieniating BRB, and therefore, at the end of the this drama, they will say, alternative to Prachanda is Puspa Kamal Dahal, and vice versa. That is what they told recently. Lets not get trapped by Maoist rhetorics. Lets wait till Jestha 14 (May 28th). Maoist will offer more, and the intersection point for consensus will be when they offer disbanding of YCL, and returning of property captured by Maoists in exchange of Maoist as head of the government.

.......Middle class is "vacillating and opportunistic".....?????????

Is this writer blind or brain washed by the Maoists?????

Writer's unnecessary move of dragging New Delhi in his write-ups gives ample space for his intents..........

Prashant should be ashamed when he attacks on middle class, "By relying on the middle class for support, the Maoists essentially forgot their own principle that this class is 'vacillating and opportunistic'".

Prashant, you are an opportunist lap-dog of Maoists. How dare you attack like that on Middle class citizens. You should know that a country is defined by Middle class because they are the backbone of economy. They work hard. As middle class bulge, the country's economy considered better. As middle class engage in politics, politics get better. As the middle class's health get better, the country's life expectancy gets better. As middle class grows, the lower class gets free food stamp at expense of tax paid by Middle class. How dare you forget these facts and come up with silly comments. You Maoist skin head hiding in the name of journalist. Shame on you.