Bihari Krishna Shrestha, reasserted his blurry position through his response (Letters, #280) to my critique of his Guest Column ('Rebuilding democracy', #277). Condemning the corrupt in the political parties is a praiseworthy task, but to defend the shameless and tainted faces presently reigning is to condone them. Teaching political parties a lesson of good governance is all right, but concurring with the centralised mode of neo-panchayat governance built on top-down administrative mechanism smacks of double standards. Believing the king's defence of his Feburary First power grab could be an innocent expectation, but sticking with it after witnessing considerable deviations in words and deeds for the past 11 months is chauvinism. Letting people elect their rulers and dismiss corrupt ones is the only way to build democracy.

Krishna Adhikari,
email

. In his reply to Krishna Adhikari, Bihari Krishna Shrestha (Letters, #280) is unable to engage in meaningful debate and resorts to a diatribe against multiparty democracy. As a self-appointed mouthpiece of regression, Shrestha should ponder whether the unconstitutional regime that he defends has been able to achieve peace, good governance and economic development. Its attempt to resume the democratic process through municipal elections is a farce while it has repeatedly made a travesty of the rule of law. It is likely that the country will be dragged back into civil war after failing to seize a historic opportunity for peace. Shrestha's comments on community forestry are misleading: it is now known that that the slogan of 'Hariyo ban, Nepalko dhan' was an eyewash by the Panchayat regime amidst massive state-sponsored corruption in the forestry sector. Supporters of regression cry wolf about 'foreign interference' while, in fact, the coup d'etat has exposed the country to greater geopolitical vulnerability. Can Shrestha, who blames the political parties solely for corruption, justify the ongoing diversion of scarce resources away from development priorities (including his pet project: community forestry) to purchase weapons for domestic repression? Not to mention the courting of Indian and some domestic fundamentalists to incite communalist motives. Like the Panchayat, the current authoritarian regime is a disaster. However, each time pseudo-nationalists make an attempt to justify tyranny as the best form of government for Nepal, they are unwittingly moving this country a step closer toward full-fledged democracy.

Shyamal Shrestha,
email

. Bihari Krishna Shrestha's columns are becoming acutely one dimensional. It does less for mutual rapprochement amongst warring sides and does more to incite partisan delinquency. It lacks the subtle nuances which can bind and add cohesiveness to a bleeding nation. This is not the way forward for an intellectual. Statements like 'but sadly, the very corrupt continue to rule the roost' can sometimes speak for itself and point towards less likely targets or towards those that are being defended. Words can boomerang. 'February First was a temporary move'. What is the definition of 'temporary' in political discourse? In the Nepali scenario, who defines the notion of this so-called impermanent move? Whenever we address issues of such importance our discourse and our perception must be multi-dimensional. Blame games usually reek of self-centered hypocrisy. If we continue to reflect upon what 'they' did, the saga would stretch back to centuries of mismanagement and onerous infighting rather than a specific and concise timeframe that Mr Shrestha relentlessly repeats. He fails to see the bigger picture. There is a generation in this country that is stuck in the paradigm of a superficial
reality, envisioning that political paradise can be attained through despotic means rather than an all encompassing vision capable of incorporating different players in the political or social spectrum.

S Thapa,
email