While it is sad that more than 50 innocent people died in London blasts, as a Nepali I am tempted to ask the British Ambassador Keith Bloomfield what is the difference between a bomb blast in a passenger bus in Chitwan and the blast in a double-decker bus in London? If the tragedies were equivalent, there is no rationale for the British government to keep arm-twisting Nepal to negotiate with the Maoist rebels while it has vowed to "eliminate terrorism through determination and resoluteness"? Shouldn't we issue a travel warning to Nepali tourists not to make unimportant trips to London? Shouldn't we also issue a formal statement calling on the British government to negotiate and accept the genuine demands of Osama bin Laden in the context of the British army and the British intelligence totally failing to curb terrorism?

Preeti Koirala,
Baneswor

. The terrorist attack in Madi ('Sorry.', #251) and the terrorist attack in London are both very similar. The terrorists have only one objective and that is to terrorise innocent people to attract attention of the public. We join millions of others to express our sympathies to the families of the grieved people. After the London bombs, King Gyanendra was reported to have sent a message of condolence to Queen Elizabeth. Yet, we did not hear a single word from him after the Madi carnage even though both had about the same number of casualties. Why the double standard? Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip both visited victims in hospitals and made a public statement. In Nepal, not even the Royal Palace issued a public statement after Madi.

G Pokharel,
West Virginia, USA

. The interviewer of Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey failed to ask several important questions ('Esle janata lai dukkha huna hundaina', #255). Granted that His Majesty is qualified, intelligent, hardworking and has all the qualities of a visionary leader but these things only speak about the king, not his cabinet of ridiculous clowns like Tulsi Giri, Tanka Dhakal, Buddhi Raj Bajracharya or Dan Bahadur Shahi. With their antics, they make a joke out of democracy and development. Our problems of mass poverty and political hypocrisy are so serious and solutions are required so urgently that these inefficient people are incapable of rescuing us from the crisis. To do so, we need people at the top, decision-makers who have foresight and good minds, who are open to ideas, who can seize opportunities like Deng Xiaoping, Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad. What say, Ramesh Nathji?

Salini Johnson,
Melbourne

. Our country has grown without a dynamic architect. The king has come forward to fill the vacuum but he has done it by dismantling democracy. This will make the road to modernisation and the nation even more difficult. Only through representative government can this country move forward. The king has to help its formation and work closely with it. This is a participatory process in which the country will need not only political parties but also other social institutions. People want to see democracy in action, not in words. They want to feel that the country is in safe hands. That is not happening either. Ramesh Nath Pandey and his colleagues in the cabinet belong to a school of thought which believes that democracy has to be in abeyance while concentrating on economic development. The country cannot go ahead with this naya sandesh type of historical baggage.

Raj Bahadur Chand,
Seoul