What NC/UML should do is a good topic for another thread.

NC/UML does not trust Maoist.
 
If it is about democracy, I don’t think so. If they really do not trust Maoist, they would never have made 12-points agreement with them in 2005, 25-points peace accord in 2006, interim parliament and government with them, election and so on.
 
Then, if NC/UML really think that Maoist is not committed to democracy and it is going to try to impose anti-democratic system and activities, it actually should be making NC/UML very very very  happy inside. Because a bad Maoist is what NC/UML are desperately needing to show to the people so that they can get back people’s support to come back to power again.
 
Realistically (not idealistically) saying, a bad Maoist is a good luck to NC/UML and a good Maoist is a bad luck to NC/UML at this point. It is obvious.
 
So, what NC/UML is saying about ‘trust’ regarding Maoist is just a political posturing and nothing more.
 
 
Democracy is not about just election. It is a process. Yeah, they are agreeing upon going to election. But being a major opposition house if you start controlling traffic in the city, patrolling the wards then there are enough apprehensions for others to not-trust them. The responsibility of the opposition is to goad the government to the right direction, not to open their own faction which would work like a parallel to a government. They are there to help the government, not to compete with them. You tell me if that is democratic???
How many Democratic Party, you know in the world which gives stipend to the cadres, armed them and put them in some barrack like structure? (other than hamas)
 
Those 12 and 21 points agreement you talking about are no-obligations agreements, which are good when every body agrees to do it. I don’t know how you see the power sharing, but I see it as a tug of war. Those who have the better support they have the more rope (power). So definitely, Maoist and their leaders got more rope because of the issues they raise. But at this point where we haven’t deciding how much rope (power) should be given to all those players (people, parties and other structures), it won’t be a wise decision to let one player get all the rope (even at one particular level); especially when they were the dissidents. 
Also, I don’t know why this 2 year interim term is so important. Frankly, it would be fishy if they do any corruption charges major players of the past, start major projects and continue their throngs of political appointees in governmental offices in this period. Once you are elected to full period, then they are welcome to do so depending upon their power given by the constitution. 
So as for now, there should be enough check to them at every level before a firm power sharing structure is formed and agreed.
 
(Form other post where I wasn’t participating)
I have seen you couple of times posting Insec data of who killed how many and all. You may have own interpretation for your postings. But let me tell you my interpretation about you posting those data.
My interpretation is you don’t give a damn about all those security forces who died saving ur head. You don’t care about those who got bullet on the head just to stop ur house getting blown up. You think them as a warmongers who died fighting with such forces who wanted to wipe out the middle class.
 
AGREED, there were irrational killings from the security forces and there were insane missions. If you can separate the stats and show who died because of what reason (either they were unruly, or they died coz they were doing duty which was told to them) then I would be happy to get some insight. Otherwise don’t try to villainies them by pitting everyone in same basket. Can you go n say the same stat to the mother of the one who died in a battle, or the son who didn’t see his dad? There were enough security personals who died not even knowing what were they dying for. So to come up browbeating with those stats just to win an argument is pretty ridiculous and clearly unthankful. I hope you won’t do that again. AND, I simply don’t care under what context you gave it. It is pretty disparaging by itself, irrespective of the context.