It needs courage to transform polarity into plurality, as Dipta Shah argues in his Guest Column ('Polarity vs plurality' #222). But the author tries valiantly justify the existing elitist powerbase by trying to castigate both left and right-wingers in Nepali politics as useless which then gives undenied political freedom for people like Deuba to rule under the monarchial directive. The truth is it is high time the king himself took some valiant steps to redress equilibrium in Nepali society which can only happen if an active and dynamic premier is chosen to lead the country, and he himself partakes correct political advice like his late father King Mahendra did. This way, Surya Bahadur Thapa has lent some credence to the need for a new political force in Nepal that can capture the essence of polarity and plurality. Democracy in Nepal is actually being trampled upon by the Nepali elite, not the masses, lest one forget, so forget about blaming the foreign hand or trying to define the 'absolute middles' which are non-existent. The Maoist problem can solve itself automatically if the king takes the right steps now, thus giving him mass popularity like King Juan Carlos or King Norodom Sihanouk.

Niki Kunwar,
Sat Dobato

. Dipta Shah hit the nail on the head. What Nepalis can't stand is a fellow-Nepali without a label. You must be either a royalist or a Maoist, you are either pro-Indian or anti-Indian, Mohsin is a Panchayat throwback Girija is democrat. Actually Girija is the biggest dictator around, Mohammad Mohsin at least is trying to set things right from within government and has the guts to call a spade a spade. I am sick of the bleeding heart liberals you carry in your paper (Lak, Lal, et al) who only know how to pontificate from their pulpits, tarnish everyone who doesn't agree with them with labels, and don't offer anything constructive. It's intellectual onanism.

Gyan Subba,
email