Kathmandu's well-read keep quiet during intense political crises, or mutter politically correct nothings. Their simplistic explanation of the 'People's War'-that it was the result of poverty-did injustice to the complexities of the rebellion's bases. When King Gyanendra took over in his creeping coup after October 2002, the intelligentsia left leadership against the palace's dictatorial bent to others.

Today, the issue is Maoist arms and again, the intelligentsia is cowering behind populist slogans and uncritical verbiage. Maoist arms are a threat to people, at a time when the Nepal Army is in the barracks, yet there are attempts to bring a fake balance into the discourse.

The talks have been extended, yet they are publicised as having failed. The Maoist leaders want time to consult their commanders, and we hear that the seven parties backtracked. The SPA provides the rebels with a roadmap to consider, propaganda says the Maoists are the best prepared for the discussions.

Civil socialites frighten the public about the talks failing, but can't pinpoint the cause. At the very least both the SPA and the CPN (Maoists) are responsible for the delays. How is it that holding the Maoists accountable for anything is considered anti-peace?

The answer lies in the inability or unwillingness or lack of courage of scholars and civil society leaders to be public intellectuals, analysing events and speaking out about what they see, even if it goes against received politically correct wisdom. Here, now, there is no public intellectualism worth the name.

All the public has are reams of comments in the newspapers bereft of analysis, perspective, and candour. So they take on the analysis, which is why, over the last few days, despite the scare-mongering, the public has refused to believe that the talks have failed. The public understands the complexities of bringing an 11-year-old insurgency to open politics, and that is why it is not engaged in the blame game.

We continue to believe the country is on the mend. That the talks have not failed. That the Maoists need space, but not so much that they compromise pluralism and democracy in the set-up that evolves with their participation. This understanding will evolve, no thanks to the group we're not even sure exists: the public intellectuals.