'Mainstreaming the Maoists' seems to be the buzzword these days and your editorials are not immune. But what does it mean? Changes to Nepal's political landscape require ownership by the Maoists, the political parties, civil society and the Nepali people-at-large, as victory in their own terms. It even requires recognition from Nepal's right-of-centre that the attainment of lasting peace, is a win as well. As you note in 'Why should we trust you?' (Editorial, #303) concessions to the Maoists have to be tailored to meet their leadership's challenge of assuaging the Maoist cadre-base. Similarly, what the Maoists offer in return must also qualify as substantive reciprocity to allay the concerns of political and apolitical actors in Nepal and abroad. This is why rhetoric requires responsible moderation. Writing off inflammatory language as necessary to alleviate the concerns of radicals, as you seem to imply in your leader, is akin to condoning the escalation of counter-rhetoric for the sake of equilibrium. It would be most unfortunate to equate the process of mainstreaming the Maoists with the act of defining the mainstream itself.

I agree that during the run up to the constituent assembly, it is very important for the Maoists to publicly renounce violence and educate their cadre on the generally accepted version of liberal democracy. This is just as paramount as it is for advocates of a liberal democratic set-up in Nepal to extend flexibility to the Maoist leadership's plight.

The onus of rectifying the over-inflated expectations they set for their own cadre-base, is primarily the Maoists'. The idea here is to mainstream not just the Maoist leaders and a segment of sympathetic elements but the entire Maoist mass.

Dipak Singh, email

. I was surprised by how the government and our political leaders took the army's reaction to the statement from Pushpa Kamal Dahal. In the SPA-M democracy everyone except the army seems to get the right to express an opinion. It seems that the army can't defend its image even when it is being singled out for attack. Prachanda had the right to give his opinion and the army had the right of reply. So why all the fuss? Our politicians are just hardwired to make a mountain out of a molehill every time.

Evan Shrestha, email

. As usual, your editorial ('Why should we trust you') is balanced and persuasive. Just as the state needs to accept the notion of including the Maoists in the power apparatus, the Maoists also have to accept that their integration requires a behaviour shift. Negotiating with the government on one hand while trying to 'talk tough' to their cadre with unrealistic aspirations is not helpful to anyone. Issuing provocative statements against the state's security forces that detract debate from substantive issues and drive a wedge amongst the seven party alliance is counterproductive. Soon, the Maoists will learn the consequences of making empty promises. It is as critical for the Maoist organisation to remain intact as it is for the seven party alliance to hold. This is in the best interests of all Nepalis. Civil society leaders who advocate the Maoist position and tolerate inflammatory rhetoric as a necessary evil must also realise the consequences.

Dev Sharma, email

l Keeping in view the present elasticity and fluidity of politics, as an ordinary citizen allow me to pose the following challenge: The prime minister, ministers and deputy prime ministers should replace their soldier bodyguards with Pushpa Kamal Dahal's weaponless henchmen. Will the concerned authorities take up the challenge?

J Basnyat, email

. I don't agree with your editorial (#303) that we should ignore Maoist rhetoric because they are talking tough to placate their cadre. Concessions from all political actors can only happen in an atmosphere of moderate rhetoric, which by way of public record will define the mainstream going into constituent assembly elections.

A peace process means compromise. An equitable and sustainable political solution depends as much on including Maoist demands as it does on ensuring that every voice in Nepal has adequate political representation. This includes the right-of-centre (without royal liability), the centre, the left-of-centre, the Maoist army (or militia) and members of the state's security forces. A peace agenda that is premised on meeting unconditional demands from one party runs the risk of undermining the entire process. While the exhibition of willingness on the part of the Maoists to enter the mainstream is a realistic pre-condition to peace, it is also a concession that serves their legitimisation just as much as it serves the national interest.

Name withheld, email

. Re: Guest Column by Dipta Shah (Why, when and how? #303) How exactly did ranting such as this one even get the exclusive op-ed space on Nepali Times? I have never read such an appalling article in your paper. Am I out of the loop or was it just plain bad writing?

Sabeena Shree Rana, email