Recently, I was accused of stirring trouble for the UML through my articles. The issues that I chose, which raised hackles, are absolutely legitimate. However, having heard the reservations of my party leaders, I must stop writing if my work caused problems.

No country in the world grants total freedom to creative writers. Paul Robinson was imprisoned after he sang a socialist song, musician Bob Dylan was slandered because he opposed the Vietnam War: the state will not honour those who challenge its power. This could be why freedom-seekers don't fit into politics. I am not talking about my conscience here-perhaps state power is for those unable to commit to their convictions. Leaders don't have the luxury of disagreeing with the party line. A leader can't expect concessions just because he is a writer. Everyone must abide by the rules. If it stirs up trouble, they must stop writing. That is their duty.

I cannot leave the party at the moment, hence I have to give up writing. The present complexities mean enemies could use my comments as a weapon. People have insulted my literary work, some tried to assassinate my character by misinterpreting my comments, yet the party leadership never censored my content. Those who wish to see the end of the communist party demanded the party take action against me but the UML itself did not accuse me of writing against its policies.

Party leaders questioned me: "Have you written anything about the Congress, anything on a republic or about the king? We don't want to debate your freedom as a writer, but couldn't you stop writing for a while, taking the present political situation into consideration?"

This has forced me to rethink my role as a writer. I thank the party for allowing me to write for so long. But now, I rest my pen.