It is unethical for a contributor to review a compendium containing his work, but that doesn't deter CK Lal from reviewing Understanding the Maoist Movement ('Red-faced Maobadis', #154) to settle scores with other contributors. Who made the mistake of commissioning the review? Or was the reviewer just making sure someone else did not describe his contribution in the terms he reserves for others (the doctrine of a 'pre-emptive scribe')? If indeed the editor has "opted for variety over authority" the contributor Lal (and the reviewer Lal) should thank him, since he is no authority. Having violated the first principle, the reviewer appears to be troubled by the fact that the 'official line' is missing. Then he gets into nitpicking mode calling SNM Abdi's piece "out and out trashy" for containing detail on Prachanda's dietary habits "two big glasses of buffalo milk." General curiosity into the enigma that is Prachanda is high, and such details are usually of interest to average readers. Lal compares Abdi's "trashy" piece with a "scholarly" piece by Anne de Sales. I wonder if de Sales can write such scholarly stuff about the State's brutal exploitation of "martial" ethnic groups as cannon fodder since colonial times. Interesting to us readers is how concerned the reviewer is that the "compulsions of the government to be ruthless on the other" be included. Lal would also do better to inform us what greater store of information exists on the Maoist movement that he would call authoritative and analytical. Lal also suggests, half jokingly, somewhere in his trashy review that "if handled well, we might even see Maoist militia recruits heading for stabilisation duty in Iraq". The problem with getting personal in reviews ("social misfits") is that the same principle can just as easily be applied in reverse.

Dorjee Lhakpa,
Boudha