Thanks for the interview of the Indian ambassador ('There was another road map', #236). His opinions are clear and he must be appreciated for being so straightforward. But how can we believe that India stands for democracy and freedom in Nepal when it has a history of intervention: in Sikkim, East Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Bhutan is the most vivid example of Indian intervention in turning the crisis to New Delhi's advantage. All this talk of supporting democracy in Nepal rings a bit hollow. While recent events in Nepal have indeed been tragic, they are certainly not spontaneous.

Sita Dahal,
Melbourne, Australia

. Amused to read about India's puritan love for democracy, multiparty system and political freedoms. Be that as it may, can you conceive of a Nepali, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi or a Bhutani ambassador in New Delhi talking about the relevance of these values to the state of Kashmir, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland, Khalistan and so on in an interview with the Times of India? Will India like it if these ambassadors started talking about approximately 90,000 men and women killed in Kashmir over the last 17 years and the widespread human rights violations being committed by the Indian army on these communities? Why the double standard? India should come clean and tell us exactly what it wants. Hypocrisy isn't helpful.

Saroj Lamichhane Magar,
Hong Kong