The news of the Royal Nepali Army (RNA) demanding payment from NEA for providing security to hydroelectric installations is very disturbing and provides a dangerous precedence. This seemingly na?ve proposal will have undesirable effects on the economy and the question the role and protocol of the army. The government has allocated a line item budget to maintain the army, which has a fundamental obligation to provide security to the people and assets of Nepal. The budget has increased significantly in recent times to quell Maoist activities. The budget may be underfunded, but this should not be motivation to generate funds by holding public institutions hostage.

Why should individual institutions pay the army for security? If the army is unable to provide the services for which it was formed, then what is its role? Is the RNA a mercenary force to which public institutions and (maybe in future) private and individuals pay a service charge for its protection? Is the RNA's service for sale?
Nepal's public institutions have been a pot of easy money for all. Now the utilities are also being targeted. This sort of extortion tactic was very successfully applied by the Maoists for which the people have despised them. The silence of the present government and Ministry of Defense in particular is perplexing. This proposal has to be retracted immediately.

J Man,
email
It was getting disturbing to see how things are turning out in Nepal when I read 'At the gates' (#178) on your internet edition. The students' protests seem unlikely to die down, even if the king retracts his earlier moves. For god's sake lets give him a way out. Meanwhile, the detention of Ishwor Pokharel is a slap in the wrist by Big Brother. We blame India for not helping to end terrorism but our representatives keep meeting terrorists on Indian soil. What do you expect the Indians to do, say 'syabas'?
Basanta K Pokharel
Massachussets, USA