I am glad the American ambassador James Moriarty asks Nepalis to "hang in there, to unite, to face the insurgency and also to rebuild democratic institutions". ('Hang in there', #235) He is balanced, realistic and his expectations from the king are not in any sense very different from that of the Nepali people. But it is funny when serious diplomats like Moriarty and his British colleague, Keith Bloomfield, speak of working closely with India in the interest of Nepal's democracy and peace. Does this mean the US and UK are submitting to the regional security perception of India? If that is the case, we can't accept it. India has never been for democracy in Nepal, whatever it may say. Even in 1990, Nepal resumed the democratic process, because faced with an Indian blockade King Birendra opted to surrender power to his subjects rather than submit to India, which wanted Nepal to accept the status of a protectorate as the price of supporting monarchy against the mass movement for the restoration of democracy. Even now, India is taking the issue of King Gyanendra's seizure of power not because it is in love with democracy but because its cronies in the political parties are in the wilderness and the intelligence budget it spent in Nepal over the last nine years and giving the Maoists sanctuary have been wasted. American policy towards Nepal has always been generous, Britain has a soft spot for Nepal. But India is a different kettle of fish. Western concern about Nepal's democracy is understandable, but if the west is not helpful to the desire of a people to live an independent and dignified life, and is going to demean itself by supporting Indian pettiness and chicanery, is there any alternative left for Nepal? If the king does not live up to his promises on February First the Nepali people will take it up with him, but who will help us from the jealousy of an arrogant neighbour?

Dibya B Gurung,
New York
I couldn't agree more with the thrust of your editorial 'Been there, done that' (#235) in which you point out the failure of the western sanctions on Burma and the Indian blockade of Nepal in 1988-90. Where you miss the point is that India has presently enforced another blockade of Nepal, only this time they've got the Maoists to do it for them.
Ganesh Gauchan,
Pokhara
You make a forceful argument in your editorial in the last issue to protect international development assistance to Nepal. I don't agree. It is time for the new royal government to seriously think about an aid moratorium. Have we ever sat down to seriously calculate how much of the assistance Nepal receives actually goes back as salaries and fees for its own nationals? And the less said about the millions poured into the NGO industry that has leaked out to the Maoists the better. Foreign aid has never benefited the poor in Nepal, and terminating it won't spread any misery. Instead, it will put a stop to preachy, grandstanding foreigners with double standards who want to tell us how to run our lives. And it may actually force us as a nation to stand on our own two feet.
Gyan Subba,
email
Just one question to you on your editorial: How much of the foreign aid through out the last 15 years have ended up in the pockets of the former governments? Why not bring this problem into the news?
Katrin Petersen,
email
Nepal is in a make-or-break situation. Since the king is now the presiding CEO, there are a few more measures he should take: a) The commission he has formed to look into corruption should give individuals chance to voluntarily return their ill-gotten wealth, and the commission should act fast and not get bogged down in lengthy court battles which could totally undermine its credibility. b) All elected officials from the past 20 years should be banned from running for public office, the people should realize that we are where we are because of them, and if they are smart they should change their profession, they had their chance and they blew it, and c) Representation in future governments should be from all regions of the country, and no one should feel left out.
N Lane,
email
Saubhagya Shah's guest column ('At the helm', #235) is a powerful antidote to textbook democrats in India, America and elsewhere who keep on harping the democracy tune without taking contemporary Nepali reality into account. The critics of the king's move ought to realise that February First was not only desired but required to clean up the mess that Nepal is in. The sheer hypocrisy and double standard of the west in promoting democracy and showing their concerns over regimes based on their own strategic and other interests is a well known and established among observers of international politics. They need to realise that sometimes their version of democracy is not a good fix for local problems, and third world countries should be left alone to act in their countries' best interests. I couldn't agree more with Saubhagya Shah: thank you west and the, but let us solve our problems ourselves now.
Name withheld,
email
Your editorial ('Been there, done that', #235) cautioned the international community and donors not to punish the Nepali people by withholding aid, putting sanctions and embargoes. Your well heeded call has not been heard by India, UK, Denmark and Switzerland even as we speak. Unfortunately, these acts now only push Nepal's current government towards China. India and the west want Nepal to have a constitutional monarchy and a multiparty democracy which is a noble goal. However, democracy cannot be forced upon the people of Nepal. It has to be home grown from the grassroots. It seems like the envoys of these countries seem to have missed the pulse of Nepalis. What do the Nepali people want at this juncture? They want peace, security and stability. Without stability there will be neither a political process nor economic growth required to provide employment to the people. People are willing to sacrifice certain fundamental rights for security. Only a handful of tainted politicians, yellow journalists and SUV-riding NGOs bemoan the loss of democracy. They are the ones for whom 'For the People, By the People, Of the People' actually meant 'For the Politician, By the Party, Of the Cadres' for the last 14 years. They have lost the faith and the mandate of the people. If the political parties could not even forge unity at a critical juncture to tackle the Maoist insurgency, then, they lost their right to represent the people. Mr Ambassadors, the political parties and their leaders do not represent the people of Nepal. They only represent their own egotistical political leanings and their greed. Just go down to the streets and villages and speak to the people. Nepalis are as fed up of them as they are of the rebels. The Americans had their Patriot Act, they supported Gen Musharaff. Britain did what it had to quell terrorism in Northern Ireland. India had to act on Kashmir. These nations who dare lecture us on the merits of democracy only need to look at themselves in the mirror. There seems to be a double standard when judging poor helpless nations like Nepal. Those who are true friends of the Nepali people will give us some time and support.
SN Singh,
email
It is surprising that even CK Lal ('First, the good news', #235) is now writing about the need to get back to the grassroots development journalism. Couldn't agree more. You should take his advice and highlight stories like the uprising of the Dailekh mothers on the front page instead of relegating it to a small brief on page 5 ('Dailekh defiance', #235). The need of the day is to bring back peace and prosperity, hence democracy at the earliest possible time. If the people do not pull up their socks and help the authorities to achieve this like the Dailekhis did even 500,000 troops will not be able to succeed.
Amar Simha,
e-mail
I served in the RNA and quit in 1998 to pursue a career as a Global Security Consultant. My stay in Nepal is very infrequent and I try to be there on my holidays. The million dollar question is: are your a RAW agent? Why are you so anti-Nepali?
Hemendra Khadka,
Jordan
It is obvious that CK Lal and others like him can't write as they think but your Shah columnists clearly can. Last week we had 'Reason over reaction' by Dipta Shah (#234) and his juxtaposition of a choice between 'near' authoritarian rule, but only for 'the interim', and Maoist totalitarianism. This is a false choice but there is the clearest possible evidence over the last few years of clever manipulation behind the scenes to ensure that just such a perception would be created as a prelude to February First. How 'near' is 'near'? You might not have seen anything yet! There is a real danger that as the foolishness and ineffectiveness becomes more apparent, the screws will be tightened. Besides, what is the basis for believing as Dipta Shah does that this is 'for the interim'? All signs, including the composition of the office-bearers point to the other direction. Then this week we have Saubhagya Shah ('At the helm', #235) giving us the line that there was no choice: the king had to act as he did because 'the peril of not doing anything was greater'. These two guys are, of course, entitled to their views but they are being given a free run to peddle what is, however cleverly dressed up, the official line.
Shyam Karna,
email