He has been one of the leading 'intellectuals' of old 'CHAU.MA.' party (now the Prakash faction within MASHAL, as Houston pointed out), since his old days as a teacher in Chitwan. So, it is not surprising to find his seemingly 'ambivalent' political remarks that fit him neither in the Maoists nor UML camp. So, I don't see any point in assembling 'evidence' or 'patterns of behavior' to prove that he is in fact a left 'intellectual' with some political (and sometimes personal) biases-he writings speak for themselves. No one is perfect. To me, his writings always reflect the true political ideology he has believed in all these years. As one of my colleagues loves to say 'if you know the writer's (political) ideology, you know the true meaning/message(s) embedded inside the writing.' I think this 'fact' is true of everyone who writes on the issues that have certain political and ideological significance-no matter how 'apolitical' or 'objective' you claim to be, you are certainly closer to one side or the others. This should explains why he speaks the same language of Shyam Shrestha (Mulankan editor), Sharad Battarai, Ninu Chapagain, Malla K. Sundar or Ghanashyam Paudel. As a writer, he can be passionate and yet, very shrewd about certain issues, depending on how his political beliefs allow him to see the particular issue in question. The down side of it, however, is that he does make some sweeping statements that he thinks are the right thing to do, which I think is very common among Nepali writers. As a columnist, I would like to see his columns; I may or may not agree what he has to say, though.