THE GREAT GAME
You say Nepal's foreign policy should begin with an appeal to India and China to lay off and let us be. (Editorial, 'The Great Game', # 461), but such a move would be uselesd and, worse, costly when there's a lot to be gained by inviting either country to help us. India and China are both 'paranoid', as your editorial says, about the other's influence in Nepal. It would seem that unless Nepal credibly pledged to be neutral, neither country would stop interfering. But neither country would believe the pledge. Nepal's played the two countries off one another for too long already. It would take only a shadow of a suspicion that Nepal's leaning the other way for either country to continue meddling again. So, we're in a pickle and there's no way out, certainly not by making vain appeals for non-interference. What we should do, instead, is to remind both countries that political instability in Nepal is bad for them, so that they wield their influence in Nepal more responsibly.

Name withheld,
email

* Thank you for a bold editorial outlining why it is counterproductive for China and India to wage a proxy war in Nepal. And as you say, the fault lies not in Beijing or in Delhi but in our own political leadership which has historically preferred to use outside powers to put down domestic opposition. We thought the Maoists would be different, but they proved themselves to be of the same formula. China and India should work together to foster stability in Nepal, because that is where the interest of both parties converge.

Jit Rana,
Kathmandu

* How naive of you to wish away the Great Game. The geo-strategic interests of the West vs China are going to be played out in Tibet and we are a frontline state. But you are absolutely right to hit the tendency of the US and the Europeans to use Nepal as a staging ground for their pro-Tibetan independence activities. They are doubly hypocritical because they have shown no concern for us Bhutani refugees and our desire to return to Bhutan.

Kumar Adhikari,
Jhapa

NO DIGNITY
It broke my heart to read CK Lal's piece on Nepali Workers Abroad ('No dignity in death', #461). Other countries export raw materials, finished goods, expertise, while we export young boys and girls to the Gulf and Malaysia. NWAs have kept the country afloat during the trying times of war and transition. They are treated like animals in these foreign countries and have nowhere to go for help or if they are in trouble. We may not be able to control what happens in foreign soil, but they are not treated right even in their home country. From the time they leave their native homes they are cheated and made to feel like they are not human-by the manpower agencies, immigration officers and Nepali stewards and stewardesses in the airplanes they board. If we are exporting our manpower in such large numbers, isn't it the responsibility of the state to ensure that they are safe? It is clear that no one in leadership has even thought about NWAs. This is not going to change anytime soon. Isn't there something citizen groups can do to ensure that they are respected at least when they are dead?

Prerana Sthapit,
email

* CK Lal's piece on migrant labourers is very timely. My suggestion: translate this column and send it to the PM and CA members to read. Maybe then they'll realise how messed up their priorities are.

Jeevan Giri,
email

ROLLBACK VIOLENCE
Kul Chandra Gautam writes 'Not allowing ordinary people to live in peace.is a violation of civilian upremacy' ('Rollback Violence', ,#460). He seems to argue here that any curtailment of civil rights is a violation of civil supremacy. If a group unaffiliated with a political party called a banda then, Gautam seems to say, it violates civil supremacy. Or if I (and I don't have political ties) stole candy from a baby then I too would have violated civil supremacy. He's confused civil supremacy with the more general constitutional principle that civil rights are sovereign, which commands respect for human rights. Civil supremacy forbids only military rule, which violates the right to representation, but is indifferent to every other right violation. An unaffiliated group that calls a banda may well have done something illegal, but certainly not because it violated civil supremacy.

Mohan Pyakurel,
email

ASS
Having received my NepaliTimes in Damauli this time a little later than usual I may be late for my suggestion for multiple choice questions, not for driving tests, but for the constitution. Wouldn't it be great? All Nepalis can choose under which constitution they want do their daily business and even kingji has a chance to have his own little constitution together with his friends. Everyone is happy and can shift to the constituency of their choice to live.

Nadine Henri,
Damauli