It is good news for Nepal that its civil society has woken up and started realising the responsibility of keeping government-of-the-day in check. However, I agree with your editorial ('Super parliament', #308) that our civil society is becoming more reactive than proactive. They have become naysaying nabobs of negativisim. For monarchy: no. For continuance of parliament: no. For continuity of the present Koirala government: no. And it goes on. When the government tries to get civil society involved in helping with the peace process by asking it to join the peace-monitoring mission they refuse. And what about trying to impose a particular doctrine by holding sit-ins for a republic and pretending to represent us, who have reservations about such sensitive issues? Civil society pioneers should shed their prejudiced political line.

Pradeepta Sharma,
Mumbai

. Really enjoyed your editorial ('Super parliament', #308), which was well thought-out and balanced, and allows a proportional 'give' to all sides. The distinction between civil society and political activists is key. What makes civil society so potent is its ability to influence policy-making without participating in the legal process itself. Civil society is crucial in upholding the system of checks and balances, especially in a country like ours. But, as your editorial correctly pointed out, if civil society endorses the Maoist line exclusively at the detriment of all other views and actively promotes a role for itself as a practicing member of the governing polity, then it loses its utility as an impartial observer. Worse, if the usual suspects from our self-declared civil society are to participate in any interim government, the result will amount to a biased advantage for the Maoist position.

Your assertion that the Maoists are afraid of laying down arms because they are unsure of their standing in the population (minus the threat of force) is plausible. So is your view of the heightened probability of a split in the Maoist ranks should the issue of disarmament not suit the inclinations of certain factions within the Maoists. However, the question from the very beginning of this process has been whether the state is working to bring the Maoists into the fold or if the idea is to bring whoever is willing from the Maoists, into the mainstream?

If it's the latter, I'm sorry, but it does not make sense to appease Pushpa, Baburam and their cohorts now, just to have 40 deaths a week and a partially failed peace process, later. The thought of exonerating the political leadership and condemning the Maoist fighting force has repercussions along ethnic, caste and class lines that reach far beyond the obvious issue of settlement.

Yes, there is paranoia of the Maoists going back to the jungles after this monsoon but I agree that they have come too far too fast to do that. But the paranoia itself isn't misplaced, in fact it drives much of the policy making in Nepal today. The point here is that the Maoists have manoeuvred into a position where ironically, the agenda of peace has become a Maoist agenda. So, the paranoia is justified in the sense that it prevents the seizure of concession from the Maoists that under conditions of parity would be rational. But given the present circumstances, the suggestion of such concessions jeopardise the peace process and bring forth allegations of allegiance to the crown. Yes, the unfortunate alternative is 40 Nepali deaths a week. Equally unfortunate is the idea of 27 million Nepalis being held hostage, psychologically, by the Maoists refusing to disarm. What is really misplaced is the hope the political leadership can navigate the Maoist gauntlet by exposing contradictions in the Maoist position while simultaneously driving the peace process towards what is acceptable to all Nepalis and the international community.

Name withheld,
email