And as an observer I think there can be no any agreement unless and until chairman take seriuosly following prejudicial effects

1st

You canot kill a fly with a barrel. It is so simple that it does not need further explanation.

2nd
Going through his interview and photo session in situ. I must say that Prachanda finally does not control the situation. His lack of skills for verbal and no verbal communication is so palapable that it further deteriotes the image the Maoists supremo had before. His facial and oral expressions are full of confrontation, indifference, no watch and listen attitude ie no collaboration.

3rd needs a bit more explanation

It has been seen these days, publicly pinched Bhattarai in the Maoists, and Prachanda behaving as an aggressive player who takes the fall of his rival to give a kick in the liver. These types of deduction, common among Maoists men, respond to the saying "think wrong and you�ll be right."  But distrust is sometimes so bad analyst as overconfidence: only a fool would pretend, seeing the position of UCPN Maoists,, humiliate its own public image. It is not very lucid to imagine Prachanda  wasting in the first moments  something he will need for at least five years more, If he wants to be in open politics: a good relationship with Bhattarai. But on the other hand, Bhattarai these days seem to be opting for temporal exercise of restraint and prudence inside and outside party red walls. His men have, BY THE TIME, started denouncing North Korean style revolution, it's better differences are seen when there is a competition than repressed, no Democrats? And at the moment he has proved to be clear that the CA victory is not enough to impose their so desired revolt on the strength of WHOLE TIMERS. He knows that the special circumstances of time (failure to write the Statute; discredited BIG 3; increasing social unrests; and more importantly the internal crisis that has left the Maoists in flagrant contradiction) have discouraged the host port of voters with different sensibilities to get into the maoists band.  Thus: Does it not require Prachanda & Co.  to drive a party that expresses the unique plurality of its own party structure in the first hand and the votes they received and can receive in possible future? But seeing their definition on pluralism we can only expect long-rang mutations of the Maoists party, perhaps the most brutal one in the history of multi-party system in Nepal. It is useless to tell the maoists what really pluralism is. They�ve confused it with the political offers that the NC and the UML threw all these last years.

Prachanda�s leadership (an act of pendulum between Baidhya and Bhattarai) translates to perfection all corners of repressed and primitive sentiments of nepali nationalism (except Republican).  If Mohan Baidhya Kiran represents the compatibility of the communist feelings national and international, PLA is the mineral, raw materials. The different accents of conservatism ( Gajurels, Chand etc ) coexist with Karki, Poudel etc with the  theorization of revolution and counter-revolution. Embodied in the Prachanda path, Bhattarai is there to get disenchanted by the party response to the statute.  The logical end of peace process and the completion of the consitution have collided with the obvious: the rest of the Maoists party (except Bhattarai) gives a damn to the Peace process and constitution.

 Bhattarai naturally embodies other features.  Almost everyone praises his competence. It would be nice, however for Prachanda, to analyze his crucial role, the construction of a cosmopolitan course no antagonistic for the absorption of PrachandaPath. Over the years, behaving with the majority of experts and scholars, Bhattarai will lead the economic vision of political culture whereas archaists in the Maoists party will remain where they were during Lenin or Stalin era. There are no substantive differences between the vision of Prachanda, Baidhya and Bhattarai In line with their so called revolution; all emphasize the political factor, not economical creation. However, I�m pretty sure Bhattarai has realized culture as an engine of politics to start with.

Incorporating Baburam Bhattarai under the shelter of democracy is like an echo of what, in times of Puspa Lal meant, the approach of an important group of intellectuals trained in the old school did everything to call him traitor of communism and made his life impossible in spite of his defence to idea of people�s democracy and naya janbaad. The most colourful political outcome of this operation is the current fame of Puspa lal himself, but this time it is Baburam Bhattarai, a student of Jawaharlaal Nehru University and the one who has been complaining that he is being treated as another Puspa Lal.

Time is running Chairman out of your collective misery and this time there is no instant formula.

Dear Reader,

It is important that everyone understands what Mr.Dahal is talking about as reading Mr.Dahal's exclusive interview is clear that there is still a lot to learn .

I quote 'Two schools of thought are on a collision course: one that wants to weaken the Maoists and another that says the Maoists should not be isolated.

Are you living on the same planet Mr.Dahal or would you like to live on different one?

Mr .Dahal,do you really believe that the quantity is  a measure to measure the strength of your party and the devotion of people to your party ideals.Few examples from the well known history,former USSR and the rest of East European countries and their only ,communist parties were destroyed within few days time,one just needed to go to the election pole and put the tick marks in different boxes and people mostly didn't even know who they were voting for,just were asked to do so because they knew someone in the village by the name and so was your parties numbers blown up by surpressing and threatening people.If you do remember the history of China and what was the difference in structure,economy.The example of cultural revolution in China  is similar to your parties idea, but you must also know that economical structure was different in China comparatively to other communist countries of that time.Do you really think that China's success is because of Communist party,you are not even close to understanding.

There is nothing ideal in life,so please when you say' they ask  us to abandon our ideas, our philosophy, our ideals. ' keep in mind it is better to have strength to abandon the idea that doesn't work ,because if it is proven not the best idea for all people .it must be not a good idea as ideas are usually short lived,,specially if you can not implement it ,so were promises to people you recruited in for your so called PLA,however it is proved that you started by looting people,threatening ,pressing them to make donations.Where are your human rights understanding and ideals and philosophy here????????????????

A question about the philosophy,it is good, if each of  us has his own point of you and it is good if you have followers ,but your philosophy must not disturb other people's lifes,don't you think so?So where would be your famous phrase ' right to self-determination ' implemented ,if you accept only your way as a way.

'We are for a dictatorship of the proletariat, however long it takes. '

The whole world is against any kind of dictatorship, but your party under your leadership still builts plans about dictatorship.Don't you think that your ideas are a century too late ,however I do understand what you mean by writing a new constitution as we all need a constitution where rights and laws and duties are equally acceptable to all human beings and this is where you could really contribute as you seem to be a person of ideals ,however there is no only one right,we are talking about human rights and that is what is important to keep in mind.

Our philosophy is not pluralism, it is socialism and communism. Some are trying to force us to accept pluralism, how can we do that?

I would advise you to properly read about the different types of pluralism and what they mean and most importantly.I think people in your party and your followrs need to be explained what pluralism means because even Mr.Dahal himself is not clear about many topics we had a priviledge to read .Thank you for sharing with us your views and  I hope that common sense and responsibilty will prevail.Yes,your ideal may not be pluralism,however it is the choice of millions of Nepalese,so you can have your philosophy and live by it ,however,do not go to your neighbour and do not tell him how to lead his  life,let's first clean the rubbish next to our own doors,however we will have to write constitution so that people with different opinions and views do not go looting neither you nor me.Equal Human Rights for everyone.That is where you must focus your attention if you really care.

And ,yes ,we all have taken up a problem ,integration of PLA.I like to remind you again,it is you and your party members who gave promises to people when you recruited them,looting and killing people ,confiscating their properties ,but you knew very well,one day you will have to keep your promises,as it can not go forever and therefore the idea about UNMIN came up,as it is an international organization helping misplaced people during the war and the bargain you got by pushing again these innocent PLA people in front of you,Safe way out for your image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!However ,it is a huge compromise made by the opposition parties because everyone understands that those were an innocent and ignorant people in the middle of the conflict because of your inability to keep open mind,inability to compromise for the higher ideals of every human being,and keep the communication going .

What we need now is for the Maoists to accept the other political forces as opposition parties have long time back accepted you as a party with differnt philosophy,however if your party wants development and progress in the country and for the people,you must cross half way of the bridge,but again,every discussion with you starts with conditions.That is called barganing not compromising.

Nam matra ko agreement le dikka vaye! (I'm fedup with namesake agreement.)