नआउदैन यो क्षण चिनीहाल मलाई यो क्षण नग्न, निर्लज्ज, निर्वस्त्र छु म Inspired by my own words, I am here to reveal more of my "vicious personal attacks" to several other gentlemen and gentle-institutions I did during the said frenzy of Peace Media email circulation. From the email I posted above, you saw how I "attacked" the Peace Media and it's editors and contributors and most important of all, the King. Now here are other individuals and groups which some of my readers might least expect to be attacked by me. But I did, to their as well as my own embarassment. (Let me reveal this as well- I did write private email to some of these gentlemen apologizing for my poor manners and assuring of my good intention ) Attack to the Centrist pro-constitutional monarchy intellectuals: From one of the emails: . . . I suggested that formula of a republic with King's own political party not only as an interesting proposal, but also to show, (1) how every single justifications given by the supporter like Dipta Shah ji to the royal takeover is farcical (sorry if that is a rude word)[Note: I just saw Dipta ji's email. I will talk more about it in my reply soon] (2) how the criticism of the royal taker over by the majority centrists (I hope that's the right word) like Prof. Alok Bohora ji, Dr. Anup Pahadi ji, Dr. Shyam Karki ji, Naresh Koirala ji, falls short of solving the biggest problem of the country, the Maoist insurgency. From another email: Representation of diversity is not an intellectual luxury, it is vital for the survival of modern societies. Had we considered when we drafted our constitution that republican voice is also a voice and had left a room for that, Maoists would not have become so strong to threat the whole constitution today. Personally I am much more convinced than post-Feb 1 self-declared anti-terrorism or pro-any peace friends on this board in that the Maoist insurgency is THE biggest problem in the country and any proposition, no matter what it is about, that puts this aside or is silent about it is worthless at this particular moment of our history. If we can not suggest a solution to the Maoist problem, we have no moral right to question King Gyanendra's activities. Simple as that. And friends, whether you like or not, it is partly, actually primarily because you have not been able to suggest a concrete solution to the Maoist problem, a significant mass of Nepalis is wasting it's hope and celebrating the king's "bold" steps. Attack to the UN representative, Mr. Kul Chandra Gautam: My dear friend . . . had forwarded KCGji's recent speech from London . . .with . . .endorsement that it sounds the most balanced view on Nepal's conflict. Yes, indeed. However, that is all. It is the most balanced view in terms of what a sincere mediator for the conflict resolution can say. However, it falls short of suggesting a solution. I would rather say KCGji's proposal, if viewed as a Nepali's proposal instead of that of the UN, misleads everybody, the parties to the conflict, the Nepali people and the international community. I will need a larger space to elaborate it in length. Here I will just put the following quick points to make my point. (a) Nepal's conflict is not one isolated from the people and limited to the interests of the parties of the conflict. In other words, it's not about the King , the Maoists and the political parties to agree on some settlement (however it looks like the only way to an outsider and also to Nepalis desperate for peace no matter how temporary that might be) and the people of Nepal to agree without questioning it. (b) However desperate we are for peace, we can not afford to leave seeds for similar conflicts in future (c) Unless and until the people are brought into the negotiation concept and given the sole right to decide what they want for themselves, any settlement among three parties won't get legitimacy and approval as a final national resolve. Absence of that will bring more chronic conflict in future. And so on. So Kul Chandra Gautam's approach, however UN friendly and simpler one, falls short of bringing a lasting solution to Nepal's conflict which is positively or negatively associated with the larger question of democracy and liberty in Nepal after all. >Attack to the Human Right advocates: (. . . my position regarding the Maoist as well as Security forces' abuses to innocent people, I am for a War Tribunal after the war ends. I think no matter how much we, the unaffected people, would like to forget the past, the sense of justice served to everyone is one of the most important foundation to the free and democratic Nepal we dream to establish. No matter when, how and against whom, no impunity to the war criminals whether they are Maoists or the royal army. That's my position. This is also important for all responsible people, specially those who take themselves as defender of human rights in Nepal to send this message of the War Tribunal to Maoists and the security forces loud and clearly. Because this is unquestionably sincere and serious commitment against the human right abuses in Nepal. Shedding tears alone or making polite requests to the Maoists and the Security forces not to violet human rights is not enough. This is particularly more important when we are about to see increased violations of human rights from both sides in coming days )