I read your note with interest, I will have something more to say about it later.

I believe that your article implies something more than just the mistake that the government in Nepal made and takes it as an example of what the Indian government should do. My note is a bit longish, I am sorry for that.

Your regret that the media in Nepal and now the media in India are baying for blood and that perhaps that they should not (have?) - is dangerous.

As far as I can understand the Indian terrorists are looking at ensuring that mining rights are not granted in "their" territory. They complain that their government "would not listen" to them so they have to pick up arms. What do they do? Establish liberated zones where a whiff of danger leads to execution by dismemberment, and that is what they did in Nepal. They want a debate, as long as they are the only speakers.

Underlying all of this crafty political rhetoric, the ideological rants, is one simple truth. It is the commitment to their path to power. The aim is to establish the one form of truth, which must be accepted by everyone - it would cost your life and limbs if you don't accept what we say!! This message is the whole point of their murder campaign. 

Exactly why should a state not fight against this type of blatant aggression? Particularly when there are peaceful avenues to settle disputes? 

They are hard, I understand, but much less painful than dismemberment. 

About the compromise formula, they won once, what surprises you if they are trying again? And why did they win? 

You simply have to look through the archives of your own paper and notice how frequently the authority of the state was undermined to benefit certain leaders. How terrorist propaganda was quoted verbatim, with the clear intention of helping them. All of this was done by one particular type of journalists. Their purpose was to provide legitimacy to this madness.

Surely, the terrorists would deploy toxic propaganda and frustrate the adherents of the prevailing law by jeering as much as they possibly can. Your endorsement of that terrorist propaganda is akin to saying that before the Maoist terrorism took over, this was a society bereft of all values, a government given to merely the pursuit of corruption. You might believe that, but it would be a lie and you know it!

The Maoist objective, quoted:

This plan of initiation of the people's war would be based on the principle that everything is an illusion except state power. While remaining firm on the principal aim of the armed struggle as to capture political power for the people, the Party expresses its firm commitment to wage relentless struggle against all forms of deviationist thoughts and trends including economism, reformism and anarchism.

Were these politicians and lefties not smart enough to read this, and understand that they are allowing a determined enemy a chance to rest, to enter the cities without any risk, and help them establish a base and eventually start a renewed war? What exactly was the point of confining their recruits in camps? Just think about how they got their recruits in the first place and ask if that encampment stops them from recruiting more? No!!

Did they not wonder, only if locking the weapons was all that easy to stop them from getting new arms handed over to a new army, with the large treasure they were handed!! In the meantime, the state army could do nothing because they need to fill forms. Their morale was hurt every single day, they were hounded every day, knowing that they care about their image in front of their families, Maoist storm troopers don't? Only someone actually living in "real" Nepal can understand this.

" We shall never allow this struggle to become a mere instrument for introducing partial reforms in the condition of the people, or terminating in a simple compromise by exerting pressure on the reactionary classes. Thus, our armed struggle will be totally free of all sorts of petty bourgeois, narrow nationalist, religion-communal and casteist illusions.

 The war will develop according to its own laws not in a straight line but in a complex zigzag path. It is necessary to acknowledge the importance of Lenin's saying that the revolution always creates in its course of development an unusual and complex situation. The people's war will triumph after going through cycles of victory and defeat and gain and loss. We shall be able to lead the people's war only by correctly grasping the law of contradiction of transformation of wrong into right."

How exactly was a war against this wrong?

I am an ordinary person; people like me do not change anything. We follow and sit quietly, do our work and go home. The change won't come through me. Yet, this is not the change I want, that much I know.

I do believe very firmly that you need to re-evaluate your assumptions; you need to check the facts again, you have been right too often to have suddenly revised your position. Please look at the evidence, tell me again in the light of present events - were you wrong about calling for action? Were you right about celebrating the compromise with terror?

I know all of this is like saying ...oh, and just another thing………..20 minutes after I have lost an argument. But it must be said anyway!!