Apropos your editorial ('Something to hide?', #238) in which you advocate a return to parliamentary democracy. The political parties have always failed, and are still failing, to demonstrate to the Nepali people that they have a roadmap for the way ahead. They have missed goals and objectives the whole time. As much I hate to say this, dear politicians, you have failed yourselves and failed the Nepali people. Before you ask the people to join you once more to protest the king's move, perhaps some introspection is in order? Do you have answers? I am a Nepali currently residing outside the country and here to attend an academic program. I follow political developments in Nepal daily, hoping that someday a leader will emerge to steer the country to a peaceful solution. Hope is a big word, and for now that's all we can do. If you lead a street protest, meeting your demand is an end unto itself.a goal. On the other hand to the people your protest is just one of many on the way to attain the final goal. Do the politicians know what the goal is?

Sirish Bhatta,
email

. Thanks for your polite yet clear editorial opinion. While freedom of speech is the rule, it is not absolute and at certain periods (especially in wartime) speech may be restricted for the public good. I think it is true of all societies. It is apparent that the censorship being imposed in our country comes from anxiety, cautiousness and fear on the part of the new dispensation, which wants to end the chapter of terrorism with a sort of seriousness never seen before. I understand the urgency because the Maoists killed three of my innocent cousins in the past three years on different pretexts. The terrorists widely used the media to sow fear and anarchy in the society and press freedom served the enemies of the state more than ordinary people. A legitimate force like the Royal Nepali Army was even compared with Maoist terrorists and the media treated them at par. The authority of the state was seriously undermined as even established papers became the mouthpieces of terror. I think there are enough reasons for censorship for a specific period of time. We have to accept that the media still needs to learn from the anti-national elements. You can criticise the present establishment for many obvious reasons (and they should be criticised) but we will fail our commitment to the nation if we insist on freedoms which have more meaning to the terrorists than to the common citizens.

Sriram Chaudhary,
email

. Amidst all the discussion and debate over solutions to the Nepal quagmire, I wonder why no one ever took up parliamentary elections as a serious option. Even the Nepali media, which pre-February First was among the most politically vocal in the world, did not cover this specific issue in any detail. Why has the demand for elections and it's preparation been so unenthusiastic? If the Maoists the main reason, why since 2002 has there been no effort to change their stance on this? After two years of aimless protesting against the king, the parties still continue with their vague demands of a 'restoration of democracy' but still make no mention of elections. The vociferous international community spares no effort in preaching to the king, but is deafeningly quiet when it comes to asking the Maoists to allow elections to take place. Only elections can install a legitimately democratic government in Nepal. So-called democrats-both inside and outside Nepal-have never brought the only group that stands against a truly democratic process to task on this. The way everyone is turning solely on the king to correct his 'mistakes' you wonder why the other extreme force in the country isn't getting any pressure. While we are all engaged in demonising or deifying the king, it seems we have absolved the Maoists of all responsibility. Their activities are taken as a given and the other forces in the country are expected to change their behaviour in response.

Abhishek Basnyat,
email

. Your editorial on censorship is super. You have mastered the art of expressing yourself without offending anybody. The ability to speak one's mind, to challenge the political orthodoxies of the times, to criticise the policies of the government without fear of recrimination by the state is the essential distinction between life in a free country and in a dictatorship. But the right against censorship is not the privilege of just people like you, it is also the entitlement of common citizens like me and thousands of others who are worried about their motherland. I also had the right to express myself without being censored by you when you dropped the following lines from my letter to the editor ('Raw deal', #238) in your last issue: 'Does India want democracy in Nepal? The multiparty system and various political institutions in Nepal failed not because the king was bad or the parties were worse, or Nepalis were so uneducated to live with democracy but because India massively used democracy and its tool to break the fabrics of our society, economy and nationalism. Have you ever noted the issues that democracy in Nepal had to confront in its 14 years of democratic experiment from the case of Tanakpur to the latest extradition treaty forced on Nepal? This is what India is doing, this time unfortunately with the US and the United Kingdom'.
Can you explain your hypocrisy about the freedom of speech?

Dibya Gurung,
New York