Kunda Dixit's page one article ('Taking flight', #272) inaccurately characterised the US Embassy's 4 November statement as warning the political parties 'to stay away from the Maoists'. In fact, as I have publicly noted and personally assured party leaders, we fully support any dialogue between the political parties and the insurgents to convince them to rejoin the political mainstream. This is a goal all friends of Nepal can support, including the United States.

But dialogue is one thing, formal alliance with an armed and authoritarian insurgency is something else-and far more dangerous. Our statement reminded the parties (and the Nepali public) that the parties themselves have publicly ruled out any formal relationship with the insurgents, unless and until the Maoists firmly renounce violence, put down their weapons and commit to supporting the democratic process.

US policy toward Nepal remains constant. The United States supports the restoration of democracy and prevention of a Maoist takeover. Toward these ends, we have called and will continue to call, for the King to reach out to the political parties to find a way to work toward a democratic and peaceful future for Nepal and its people.

James F Moriarty
US Ambassador, Kathmandu

. Ambassador James Morairty's statement in support of Nepali democracy and human rights is confusing ('Taking flight', #272). In Palpa recently he called for Maoists to come to the mainstream but now when the seven party coalition are trying to get the Maoists to do just that it appears he doesn't find it acceptable.

Recently, the Carter Centre supported some Nepali political leaders to go on a junket for peace-building. But we haven't heard what they learnt on that trip. President Ronald Reagan called Nepal "a neighbour on the other side of the globe" PresIdent George W Bush also seems to realise Nepal's geostrategic and military significance. Can the US shun its responsibilities to help restore peace in Nepal? The US must use its resources prudently to get the right information on Nepal and support the right pro-democracy groups including moderate Maoist factions. No military solution is possible.

Archana Thapa,
Naxal

. It is when rulers start making decisions based on the movement of the planets that we know we are doomed. After reading CK Lal ('Omens from Mars', #272) about the 'palace taking comfort from the closeness of Mars to planet Earth' and then Kunda Dixit's Under My Hat ('From the Kingdom of Amnesia to the Republic of Insomnia', #272) I realised that things are far worse in Nepal than I'd imagined. Heaven help us.

Dinesh Aryal,
Babar Mahal

. Kanak Dixit's account of the king's activities ('The king at the summit', #271) leaves us with a gaping question: who is better placed to represent the country at the moment? Parliament was constitutionally dissolved, and even if it wasn't its mandate has expired by now. After dissolution in 2002 the parties did little to defend the people's rights to elect a new government but instead succumbed easily to the Maoists' threats (or their own self-serving interests). Instead of getting together to jumpstart the democratic process, they engaged in endless "agitations" against any government (party-led, king-led), which brought little respite to the people, and only hurt our economy and image. To top it all off, now that the king's regime has taken up the challenge they have never taken it seriously and when it announced elections they trash that as well. One can't help but ask why such people are better-placed to represent our country internationally right now when they too don't have the legitimacy of being "elected". Or should Nepal just recede from any international interaction whatsoever and declare itself a pariah state?

Abhishek Basnyat,
email

. Congratulations to His Majesty the King and his address at the SAARC Summit. At last we have a head of state who didn't fumble, grovel or make an ass of himself like our so-called elected leaders in the post-1990 period. His Majesty sounded sincere and straightforward and this was appreciated by his audience.

Sagar Shah,
email

. King Gyanendra's representation in the SAARC summit is illegitimate. This is not an elected official representing Nepal in the SAARC summit. Kanak Mani Dixit is correct: this king only represents Nepal's ruling clique which has a selfish agenda of power and authority over democracy for the people. The international community is aware of this authoritarian regime and hopefully, like always, they will continue to exert pressure on moving from a dictatorial rule to a democratic rule. Hats off to Dixit for continuing to be one of the few level-headed journalists who dares to write boldly in support of democracy.

D Mahat,
email

l As a Nepali living abroad, it is very interesting to read the news on Nepali Times eSpecial. I have read lots of stuff about the government and the king but I don't see much about the attitudes and practices of Nepali politicians and the their corruption and misuse of power. We must not forget that democracy is not a slogan on a piece of paper, it is the spectrum of practices, attitudes and behaviour of people, which must be exhibited in our daily practices. Why doesn't the Nepali media, including yours focus on that? It would help Nepali society to be more democratic and transparent in the future. We are not slaves of any political party or the king. We want to build an egalitarian society where everyone can prosper and live happily.

Gita Rijal,
Minneapolis, USA