Firstly we must try and understand what, to me as a Royalist, the appalling standards of media reporting, and the role of �intellectuals� like you, has played in creating these conditions.

In doing this I must clarify some important things a) I respect you, I have seen enough of your writing both here and in Himal South Asian and Himal Khabar to think otherwise, b) I am aware of the fact that you are being accused of being rabidly anti-maoist and c) that, in my view you are a slightly left-leaning centrist who does not enjoy politics.

Firstly, there seems to be a complete consensus on every bit of politics that is out there. Socialism is among the most common denominators of this agreement. It disguises itself in different ways such NGOism, developmentalism, interventionism, and perhaps the safest call themselves progressives.  

This is just a fa�ade. The objective that they all share and which may safely be inferred through the messages that they have repeatedly delivered is essentially this.

They are anti-Hinduism and that (naturally) they are anti-monarchy, the rest is negotiable.

The anti-Hinduism of most (nearly all) commentators is absolutely justifiable. I do not complain against that even as I oppose the idea. My complaint is that they do not show the courage of saying clearly, and unequivocally, that they are convinced that if there was no Hinduism in the country, we could well be on our path to great progress and prosperity.

Meanwhile, the anti-monarchy camp too (separate for discussion only, they are the same) is a bunch of liars because they depend not on an idea but a series of accusations that they wish to continuously float to the public to keep them from carefully and independently evaluating facts in light of events that followed its banishment.

Again, in both these cases, the intellectuals and, by extension the media, have sufficient and fairly strong arguments to challenge their justification. Nevertheless, the feeling that with knowledge of facts and in absence of lies people would arrive at their own conclusion scares them.

I am accusing you and your colleagues of being the statuesque(ist) of the new Republic of Hollow-ville called Nepal. 

In this republic, the justification to earn the title of an intellectual, a member of a civil society etc, merely requires mouthing of hollow platitudes.

Finally, an most importantly, I think that all of you are members of the same club. You have absolutely no idea, neither any interest in "the people". I say that in quotes simply because there is no such entity and you use that term merely to satisfy the first requirement of the club membership, that everything must happen in the name of the only entity that does not exist. 

This way, if someone complaints, they are - right wing reactionary, hindu-fanatic, anti-progress etc. It is perfect defense. 

The second part of my final accusation is quite simply that you are safe in the knowledge that your status, regardless of the misfortune that may or may not befall this country, is unassailable. You will have a position of status through your friends and contacts.

I would proceed further in another note.

Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of history, to exclaim with Goethe:

�Sollte these Qual uns qu�len
Da sie unsre Lust vermehrt,
Hat nicht myriaden Seelen
Timur�s Herrschaft aufgezehrt?�

[�Should this torture then torment us
Since it brings us greater pleasure?
Were not through the rule of Timur
Souls devoured without measure?�]
[From Goethe�s �An Suleika�, West�stlicher Diwan]

Karl Marx

The problem with Marxism is that its ideology was narrowly formulated against the ruthlessly exploitative capitalistic as well as fundamentalist Christian European societies of the 19th century.

There-in lies its limitations. For Marxists, their view of the world and human history has been shaped and limited by Marx's own views on class struggle, his limited knowledge of world history, and his anti-religious (defined as mainly anti-Christian as Marx had very poor knowledge of other religions) beliefs.

And like Marx, his current day followers continue to believe, societies other than European (first starting with the Greeks )have had really no meaningful role in shaping human thought, history and civilization.

As such they tend to look at other ancient civilizations like the Indian (and Nepali), Chinese, Persian etc  with contempt and disdain.

It matters not to them that the Indus valley civilization predated the Greek civilization by more than two thousand years, that Gautam Buddha's teachings on nonviolence and respect for all life predates Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato. 

Although Marx like other Europeans of his time had a very limited understanding of other civilizations and other religions (other than Christianity), it is interesting to point out that not all European philosophers tended to agree with his Eurocentric views.  

For example here are some quotes from Voltaire, probably the best known French philosopher of the 18th century who is known for the famous quote : I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. 

Here are some of his quotes on Indian civilization.

We have shown how much we surpass the Indians in courage and wickedness, and how inferior to them we are in wisdom. Our European nations have mutually destroyed themselves in this land where we only go in search of money, while the first Greeks travelled to the same land only to instruct themselves. - Voltaire, Fragments historiques sur l'Inde (first published Geneva, 1773), Oeuvres Completes (Paris : Hachette, 1893), Vol.29, p.386

I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc. - Voltaire, Lettres sur l'origine des sciences et sur celle des peuples de l'Asie (first published Paris, 1777), letter of 15 December 1775.

No sooner than India begin to be known to the Occident's barbarians than she was the object of their greed, and even more so when these barbarians became civilised and industrious, and created new needs for themselves.... The Albuquerques and their successors succeeded in supplying Europe with pepper and paintings only through carnage. - Voltaire, Fragments historiques sur l'Inde, op.cit., p.383

Unfortunately for Karl Marx, Lenin and Mao utilized his philosophy for their  more violent and self-serving ends, using pretexts like  "dictatorship of the proletariat" to impose their self-serving  dictatorships on the people.

So ultimately it has come down to this- it is almost impossible to be a true Marxist-Leninist-Maoist without these following mutated beliefs :

1.      Forget your own and your forefather's history, culture and religion. Instead your history will be interpreted for you based on Marx's medieval views on class struggle and his limited knowledge of world history.

2.      There will be just one true atheist-religion as ordained by Marx; and Marx/Lenin/Mao and other local leaders will take the place of the older Christian deities.

Cultures and religions of other regions other than Europe, like Hinduism and Buddhism are really primitive and barbaric, and need to be eradicated as they have nothing meaningful to contribute.

3.      Do not consider yourself and others as free individuals able to make free-will decisions. Instead recognize that individuals, for the most part, can only exist  as part of a broader group and class as defined by Marx; and each individual's thinking is shaped by the class (and ethnic group- this is specific to the Nepali Maoists) they belong to.

For this reason do not question the leaders, as your thinking could have been corrupted by the reactionary thoughts of your class or the primitive thoughts of your forefathers.

4.      Above all, remember the leaders are far more intelligent and gifted than the masses, and they are to be entrusted with the thinking and decision making for the people. The people/masses are there only to be used according to their directives to crush  perceived enemies.

So even if you do not like things they are doing now, remember they are doing this for the benefit of the people/the masses. And do not question if the leaders are living like the bourgeoisie and sometimes indulging in criminal behavior, in the end it will be all for your own good.

In the information age and the age of the internet, it is getting more and more difficult for the leaders to fool the people/the masses based on such an outdated ideology.  No wonder the Soviet Union collapsed, the Chinese have disavowed Maoism, and the ranks of the true believers in communism is rapidly shrinking.

Instead the belief in each person's individuality and uniqueness and respect for individual rights is serving as the guiding philosophy for more and more people in the modern world.

And that is why Maoism in its present form cannot have a great future, being an ideology in retreat destined for the dust-bin of history as evidenced in China, the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. The Maoist leaders would be well advised to re-examine their outdated doctrines and move along with the times, both for their sake and the sake of the people of Nepal.