I have promised to Anup jee at my private conversation that I will share my views on his views expressed in the interview. I thought it might be more interesting to post it in a public forum. I will be honoring Anup jee, if more people join me to share their views. So here it is. I think Anup jee has made a strong case for democracy in Nepal by answering the types of questions that a skeptic of democracy would ask. However, he has not addressed or fails to answer the types of questions the faithful of the 'complete' democracy, the aspirants of 'the democratic republic of Nepal' would ask. In order to open a discussion on that front, I would pick some of the points from the interview that might be related to it. But before that, I want to pick a very interesting and logical analysis by Anup jee of the theory of the "root cause" of the Maoist rebellion that most 'experts' have produced. Because, like Anup jee, I am also from that rare breed of people who do not believe in this theory. "Conflict analysts," now part of a virtual cottage industry in Nepal, like to talk about "root causes" of the violent maoist insurgency. Their argument is that the "root causes" are so endemic and extensive in Nepal (economic, social, political, ethnic/caste, regional et., etc..) that some sort of violent movement was inevitable. I find this to be a fundamentally flawed argument, in theory, methodology and also historically. Nothing is inevitable or automatic in history, especially organized violent movements?. ?.The "root causes" hypothesis, however, can tell us nothing about why one set of choices was made over another set. ?In other words, the "root causes" thesis has no predictive value. At its best, it is an attempt to impute causes to events after the events have taken place. In that sense "root causes" is a catch-all category that explains everything and nothing. Plausible analysis, on the other hand, actually explains the process and mechanisms by which causes translate into actions and outcomes rather than simply assert that "root causes" led to this or that outcome. The latter trend is dominant in analyses of the maoist insurgency in Nepal. That's right. Basically and logically, these "root causes" are necessary but not sufficient condition for the rebellion. Here are what I wrote about this theory more than a year ago. Pick any article/book by the 'experts' on Maosist, you will see they invariably relate the rise of the Maoists to people's increased awareness of their social, cultural and political rights and they prescribe to give the neglected and suppressed class, community and gender their fair share as a long term solution to the Maoist 'Problem'. While there is no doubt about what we should be doing, I disagree with the link of the issues of social and cultural justices to the Maoist uprising. It may surprise those who did not have a chance to follow all of my arguments in this forum, but my views in this particular case is very similar to what the most ardent Royalists or anti-Maoists have, that is- No, the Maoist uprising is not about equal rights to women (An US intellectual was asking in a discussion, "look, 40 % [?] of the Maoists cadre are women, isn't that a telling story ?". I think, yes, that is a telling story, but still the Maoist uprising is not about the equality to women.), it's not about economic and political rights of backward classes, janajatis, oppressed castes (although the Maoists have brought a new hope and sense of self-respect and pride to them !), it's not about eliminating exploitation or poverty (although that's the dream the Maoists are selling to the poor !) Now, many who are sympathetic to the Maoists or those who see with their own eyes the obvious link of these issues to the Maoists ( the latter may include even the Royalists) might have been surprised and would like to know why. My arguments are simple. A new force arises in history, not necessarily perfect or even just positively expressed, only when the existing forces are inadequate to address the contemporary challenge/s. And that goes with Maoists too. A lot of issues that our 'experts' link to the Maoist uprising actually can be addressed by the constitutional Monarchy alone. It would just need a little push, that's all. Had it not been for the issue that is beyond the capability of the constitutional Monarchy to tackle, Maoists would have emerged as a pressure group or something like that, instead of as a revolutionary force. There is something the constitutional Monarchy of Nepal is not equipped to deal with, hence the emergence of the Maoists. What is that thing ? Go figure out. This is where you should go to understand the nuclear source of the strength of the Maoists. This is where lies the 'solution' of the 'Maoist problem'. The inadequacy of Nepali constitutional Monarchy vis a vis other surviving constitutional Monarchy is it's inability to deal with its own inadequacies- with it's contradictory and elusive power sharing on one hand and it's refractoriness to democratic cure on the other. The general directionlessness of the whole decade of our 'democracy' was a direct and indirect result of that. And unfortunately, everybody from the establishment, the King and the political parties alike, were hiding this like a guilt-filled AIDS-patient hides his disease. Somebody had to come to fix that. Somebody from outside the system. Somebody illegal ! Maoists got that job !