(Excerpts from an interview with Dhurba Bahadur Pradhan, former Inspector General of Police)

The Maoists have been told laying down their weapons is a condition for a fresh round of talks.
Such a condition may not be completely appropriate. That is, after all, something to be decided during the talks. You decide when to stop fighting during talks. The first negotiations began after the cessation of hostilities on both sides, and no one attacked each other. You can even have
talks now, not necessarily by stopping the fighting.

You are said to have first designed the Integrated Security and Development Program (ISDP), but leaders did not listen.
What can I gain by blaming them now? We made a programme based on the problem then, and the needs that were relevant at that time. We could have succeeded in resolving the Maoist problem, but the government treated it casually, it didn't give it due importance.

Do you think the problem can be resolved militarily?
There could be a resolution, but it can take time. What will the situation of the country be by then is more important. We need a quick solution, talks are one way to get there faster. I am not saying that the deployment of troops should stop, that is something the government must decide. We could destroy ourselves if we do not find a quick resolution to the problem.

Are talks possible now?
This government failed in the earlier talks. If it starts talking again, that could happen again. Others have to initiate the talks, leaders of parties not in power today need to take a decision.

So any talks now must be of a different order from the earlier ones?
Yes. They should be such that there is no need to stop the fighting for them. This is where there could also be a role for the king. Who will give the mandate for the talks? Who is the authority to say okay, go and initiate talks? This is not the time to compete against each other and talk about other unrelated things.

Is the king also needed in the context of talks?
Possibly.

What are the dangers of not finding an immediate solution?
It could end our nationhood, destroy our nation.

Are talks really possible in times of war?
There is no relationship between negotiations and the security situation. The security forces should not need to worry about whether or not the talks are taking place, they shouldn't even think about it. The leadership engages in talks, there is no relationship between talks and the fighting.

What about the morale of the fighting forces?
They will continue moving ahead in order to accomplish their task. The army will not engage in talks, but keep doing its work until the talks conclude and it is ordered to retreat.