CK Lal has grossly misinterpreted the notion of civil society ('Proxy by peace', #211). For him, 'the hodge podge of retirees and out of job politicians, ex-bureaucrats, ex-Panchayati's cannot be considered as civil society member, merely because of their past activities'. If that is the case, could Lal enlighten us on who actually are to be included in civil society, or what actually civil society is. In fact, what constitutes civil society, and who belongs and who doesn't is the most contested point in the study of civil society. Nevertheless, the term 'civil society' has strong moral overtones, which effectively exclude negative and destructive associations by default. Perhaps, this could be the reason why civil society has been seen as the last resort within the context of conflict management, though this is an uncritical assumption, and it is unmilitary. Therefore, the notion of civil society does not stop anyone from claiming to be a member of civil society irrespective of their past as long as they are involved for good cause that is, civil in the present.

Chandra Bhatta,
London School of Economics

. CK Lal deserves appreciation for offering points to prove why a conspiracy is being hatched to keep the UN at bay when it could be approached to help resolve the insurgency problem ('Praying for a saviour', #215). I agree with this perception: '.the real reason is perhaps the fear that an UN-brokered peace may break the domination of the ruling elite'. Lal's efforts to expose India, world's largest democracy, for its overt and covert support to an absolute monarchy in Nepal, have succeeded in imparting a resounding message.

Ananta Neupane,
Jawalakhel