.A month ago [an Indian] newspaper wrote a pro-Maoist editorial. It said that the Maoists are not against religion, they are not against modernisation, or democracy, or progress and, so, they were not terrorists. Instead, they had taken to rebellion in the name of social change and in opposition to the policy the government has set out against them. The editorial, written from Delhi, does not reflect Nepali society and the problems that Nepalis and the Nepali nation are facing because of the Maoists. How can we assume that the editorial in the well-known newspaper was written without information in a country that understands media very well? Why did it write a 100 percent false editorial? This is a matter for serious concern.

The same newspaper wrote another editorial last week. The editorial decries the policy of the government against the Maoists, and raises concern about the efforts by the US Secretary of State [Colin Powell] to support Nepal. It tries to convey the message that India should take matters in hand and teach Nepal a lesson. How can one assume that the editorial, published days before parliament was to approve the extension of the emergency, did not have a hidden message?
Another Indian newspaper had still another serious news item. It said that some modern weapons had been looted from two military barracks. The weapons entered Nepal from two routes: From Sarlahi-Sindhuli in the east and Banke to Dailekh in the west. Why did the weapons enter Nepal? How could India's border police allow them to enter Nepal, when at the same time they create so much trouble for those headed to India through the so-called "secured" border? Are we to believe that it is mere coincidence that hundreds of people carrying these weapons passed through border security and that a newspaper actually had information of the route these people took?

.This is not all. On 16 February when Accham was attacked, villagers there saw more than a hundred Indians involved in the battle. The Indians bought tea at local tea shops and used to chat in English. They had curly hair and were from South India. People who think this information is concocted and unbelievable can go to Accham and investigate for themselves. Many people from Accham go to work in large Indian cities like Bombay and Madras, and are familiar with local Indian languages and the features of people from different parts of the country. So, it isn't hard to believe those who sold these people tea who say they are Indians. And if that is the case, who were those Indians? We can say they were Indian Maoists. But how could 100 South Indian Maoists enter Nepal with arms? Or could they be non-Maoist fighters? It is justified for Nepali citizens to raise such questions.

.(Many things happening in Nepal have a resemblance to past episodes in history). At one point in history, to further its interests, India instigated a protest in Gangtok, Sikkim, and similar incidents also took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh before 1971.

.The situation is very serious and we don't see too many political solutions anywhere. You are forced to not believe what is under your nose, what you see with your own eyes. Is what the Maoists are doing in the national interest? Then why are they continuing the bloodshed? Why are they replacing Nepal's mountains with mounds of corpses? Why are those who say the multiparty system in Nepal must be uprooted "to save the nation" hesitant to speak out about Indian activities? Why are they taking out rallies to weaken the nation's politics and the government? Why are the intelligentsia, the so-called nationalists, who read the English editorials, silent? Why have they been unable to respond?

There may be many questions, and we may not get answers now. But we must look for answers, every Nepali must look for answers.