The Maoists' unilateral ceasefire has naturally been met with some scepticism as noted by Naresh Newar in 'What next?' (#264).

Those who hail it as a sign that the Maoists are ready to compromise have conveniently forgotten that Baburam Bhattarai himself had on more than one occasion stated that acceptance of multiparty democracy and market
economy would be just but a stepping stone to the final goal: the establishment of a totalitarian communist state. It is surprising then how the political parties are ready to strike a deal with the Maoists not withstanding the fact that hundreds of their party workers have been murdered by the rebels. Moreover they seem to have failed to notice that Indian Maoists, who share not only the ideology but also resources and a masterplan for a regionwide 'compact revolutionary zone' with Nepali Maoists are not fighting against a 'feudal monarchy' but against a 'democratic republic'.

The only logical longterm way to deal with this has always been reconciliation between the palace and the parties. The country is more than 'at a historic crossroad' it is on the brink of an abyss.

S K Aryal,
Bishalnagar

. When the Maoists declared a three-month unilateral ceasefire, they presented the government with an opportunity to respond so there would a chance for peace. Our country's future is at stake, our posterity and the wellbeing of the people. The government should take this opportunity seriously before it is too late and we reach a point of no return.

Razesh Ajib,
email

. With their track record, the Maoists have to do more than just sending around faxes to the media announcing the ceasefire. In the past, they have always declared a ceasefire when their guerrillas needed to rest, rearm and recruit. This is what they are doing now. That is why I don't agree with the tone of the editorial in your last issue ('One-sided truce', #264) calling on the government to respond. Why should it? It is a public relations stunt done at the behest of Indian political parties.

J B Singh,
email