DEFICIT
CK Lal's piece ('Leadership deficit,' #446) is an interesting critique of Nepali premiers who have passed through Singha Dabar. It is a good analysis but has a misleading message. Lal himself has noted contradictory statements: 'palace had accepted Rangnath's nomination 170 years ago....Pushpa Kamal Dahal became prime minister with the support of 25 political parties in the constituent assembly.' Any evidence-based analyst would not accept an argument whose context is exclusively different.

PM Dahal has trained hitherto quiet Nepalis to talk about oppression. His contribution to consolidation of political awareness among Nepalis cannot be disregarded. It is in his premiership, and first time ever in the history of Nepali parliament, that CA members revisited the voters to ask their suggestions on how to write an inclusive constitution.
Nepal is in a fragile state right now and Dahal has the hopes of millions of Nepali people riding on him. The country is going through a new phase and many issues regarding ethnicity and federalism are coming out because there is more freedom across society. Dahal has been a PM for only eight months, whereas people in Nepal have been suffering suppression for centuries. These issues are not new and it is unreasonable for the people to expect Dahal to solve all the problems in such a short time.

Puspa Raj Pant,
Aberdeen, UK

PASSPORTS
Prashant Jha is right that introducing passports at the India-Nepal border will hurt us Nepalis and that that is the true representation of the present scenario ('Closed minds, #446). The so-called nationalists, who are making a hue and cry about this must first understand the reality on the ground. Advocating passport control from the comfort of Kathmandu will weaken our nationalism and make the lives of poor Nepalis difficult. The people of the Tarai, for instance, have a very close relationship with India. And, we will never let myopic leaders meddle with this relationship. It is time to prioritise what is important.

Akesh Jaiswal,
Gujarat

HALF-FULL
In your otherwise excellent and balanced editorial ('Half-full', #447) you have let slip your bias in the sentence: 'The Maoists have severely weakened the state, maybe deliberately...' Why would they do that? Why do you ascribe the most conspiratorial motives to every Maoist move? Wouldn't they be weakening themselves by weakening the state?

KL,
email

* Thanks to Prashant Jha for an insightful analysis of army integration ('Biting the bullet', #447). Theoretically, integration shouldn't be such a contentious issue. But, as Jha points out, non-Maoist parties just don't trust the Maoists as long as they have a separate army. They don't trust the Maoists also because of the contradictory statements of their leaders and the move this week to ask the COAS for an explanation. But it's a chicken and egg situation. You can't have trust until the PLA is integrated and rehabilitated, but to do that you first need trust. So what comes first? How does Jha propose to resolve that?

Kumar J Thapa,
email