Pertinent Points
Your cover story Debate on 1950 Nepal India Treaty: Right Issue, Wrong Time (Spotlight cover May 2-8) is well written. You have raised a very valid question that it is very wrong time to raise such issues. At a time when CPN-Maoists do not have even a simple majority in the parliament, they are talking about the need to amend the 1950 treaty. According to our constitution, such treaty requires two-third of majority. Of course, Maoist leader Prachanda might have raised the issue with good intention but his position is so weak that he cannot bargain with a big power like India. This may be the reason why Prachanda has not found any backer in Nepal. Interestingly, his backers are Indian officials and Indian political leaders who want to take as much concessions as possible. This is very wrong time.
Shanta Gurung
Pokhara, via-email
Serving Indian Interest
By harping anti-India statements demanding scrapping the 1950 treaty, Prachanda, who used India as a safe sanctuary during Maoist insurgency, is serving Indian interest. Otherwise, Prachanda would not have raised such sensitive issue although the treaty has signed about 58 years ago. The treaty has not made any harm to Nepal.
Sushma Mathema
Via email
Disproportionate Projection
Although the Maoists have secured just over 30 percent of votes in 601-member CA establishing itself as a single largest party, Maoists leaders are projecting themselves as if they have won two third majority to form the government. After reading your cover story (Fractured Mandate April 25-May 1), it is clear that Maoists cannot form the government. The constitution clearly stipulates that political consensus or two third majority is required to form the government. I don't understand the reason behind Maoists' self proclamation to form the government. The present interim constitution was drafted by them and all those clauses were placed by them. Since they were part of constitution making, they cannot blame others for this.
Kamal Bista
Via email
Respect Mandate
Since the Maoists have already emerged as the single largest party, they should be allowed to form the next government. People voted Maoists and they want to see the new government under the leadership of Maoist leader Prachanda. Of course, constitution has different provisions but one must have political consensus when there is political crisis. Had seven political parties waited for constitutional provisions, they would not have scrapped the authority of king through parliamentary proclamation. Our leaders have already shown political consensus is more important than constitutional provisions. As the largest party, Maoists have mandate to form the government. It is against the mandate of the people to form the government under the leadership of any other party.
Lila Subba
London Via email
Fresh Choice
After looking at various forms of governments turn by turn, Nepalese seem to have realized that they need alternative government now under the new political party. Maoists deserve to lead the government. Any effort to stop Maoists from leading the government will send a wrong message and it will create dangerous situation. As Maoists have won the election, the leaders of various political parties must respect the verdict of people by allowing the Maoists to go to power. Nobody wants to listen to any ifs and buts. The demand of present time is the government under the leadership of Prachanda.
Rana Bahadur Thapa
Melbourne Australia via email
Commendable Viewpoint
I want to salute CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai for his remarks that he will support right to self determination of Kashmiri people. For the last five decades, people in Kashmir have been waging war with a demand of right to self determination.
After securing such a large number of seats, CPN-Maoist leaders have already shown that people are supreme. Dr. Bhattarai has shown courage to speak in favor of people of Kashmir. We hope you will continue to support us.
Javed Akhtar
Via-email
