I would like to thank CK Lal for his short review of Understanding the Maoist Movement in Nepal edited by me ('Red-faced Maobadis' #154). While I take his criticisms in the spirit they were intended, and especially so since he is one of the contributors, I would like to draw attention to a major error that has crept into the book. I do this because Lal does recommend the volume to others and the error would do injustice to the writer concerned, R Andrew Nickson. The last paragraph on page xii of the Introduction contains four references to Mashal. All these should read Masal, otherwise the argument therein does not make sense.

Deepak Thapa,
Kathmandu
Isn't it against the semblance of scholarly ethics for a contributor to review the book in which his contribution appears? CK Lal has a chapter in the book Understanding the Maoist Movement in Nepal edited by Deepak Thapa, yet he has reviewed it in your paper. Lal also suggests the book should have included the military's side of the story. You cannot include everything in one volume and, more importantly, what is the official version for some may not be the same for others.
Anil Bhattarai, Sujata Thapa
Kathmandu
CK Lal states in 'The times of Nepal' (#154) that "Nepal has seen in three years what most countries see in three decades or more..." A more correct statement would be "Nepal has taken three decades or more to achieve what most countries achieve in three years or less." And we don't live in interesting times, in fact we are living in a very dull moment in Nepal's history. As Lal points out, the struggle for power has gone on in Nepal since Prithbi Narayan Shah's time, so we should be all used to it by now. What would be really interesting is if we all come together and work for the benefit of Nepal. Most current political leaders in Nepal are illiterate gundas. And the intelligent ones have turned to outdated political theories.
Bhaskar Tripathy,
email