oops... that list of concessions was not part of that Nation article but of a different article. But, the rest of my points hold, and I was still misquoted. Here is the text of the article that I submitted to The Nation magazine in early November 2004, shortly after the Dashain ceasefire ended: Peace by Concensus By Arnico K. Panday Once again Nepal?s common citizens are yearning for peace, while the warring parties have just ended another, albeit brief, period when they were not shooting at eachother. The hope that the Dashain ceasefire would bring peace talk is shattered. Since the failed peace talks of Summer 2003 thousands of people have died, tens of thousands more have been orphaned, widowed or displaced, billions of rupees of property has been damaged, and even more rupees have been diverted away from essential development activities into militarization. We don?t know when the next peace talks will be, it is time to start thinking about how to structure them so that they succeed. To date Nepal?s peace talks have been preceded by and dominated by presenting lists of demands and at best arguing about them. They have been dominated by points of disagreement that have polarized the participants? disagreements about the best form of government for Nepal, and how to choose it. That has distracted attention away from something much larger ? something that may hold the seed for a resolution of the conflict: We are all fighting to create and to protect a better future for Nepal and its citizens. We should focus on clarifying and then achieving that shared goal rather than fighting about the means to achieve it. Compared to many other countries experiencing civil war, Nepal is lucky that it is not torn apart along religious or ethnic lines. Our war is among groups fighting about how to structure the government that builds a better Nepal, and that too in a country of citizens who mostly don?t take sides and just want peace and a better Nepal. During the next round of peace talks, let us not get bogged down by starting with lists of demands that we immediately and irreconcilably disagree about, but instead step back and start to talk about what we do agree about. Let us start by building a widening concensus about the features of the better Nepal that we have been fighting for. Once we have a fairly comprehensive shared picture of the better Nepal, it will be easier to agree about the most suitable form of government. I suggest that when we sit down for the next round of peace talks, let us all ? royalists, maoists, democrats -- face a big blackboard upon which we together brainstorm one statement at a time that we AGREE about, working together to find ways to phrase them such that they are agreeable to all of us. Let us start with the most obvious and undisputable ones. What might these be? Let me suggest a few examples: ? Nepal should continue to exist as a sovereign nation. ? Nepal should have a government that is transparent, not marred by corruption, as well as chosen by and accountable to the people. ? Every citizen should be able to live safely, without fear for life or property. ? No citizen should face discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, or religion. ? The government should work hard to provide every citizen with opportunities to pursue a better life. Thus equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth, as well as massive improvement in healthcare, education and infrastructure are essential. As the pool of such concensus statements grows, we can start moving towards slightly more challenging, slightly more controversial issues whose phrasing might require more discussion. For example: ? Past injustices, neglects and inequalities must be righted. Areas that were neglected or under-represented in the past should receive increased development investment. ? Nepal needs to move towards more decentralized governance and decisionmaking. ? Integration into the world economy is important, but it has to happen in ways that we don?t get trampled upon. ? We need to promote mirrors that are not shy to point out problems: citizens and the media should be free to speak out about any issue. ? All sides of the current conflict must demilitarize, and defense budgets should be cut and returned to healthcare, education and infrastructure development. ? We need to recognize the trauma that has been endured by many people during the past decade, and to allow sufficient healing such that pain, suffering and revenge don?t undermine the task of rebuilding. And so forth? As a common vision for the shape of the country?s future emerges, let THAT guide policies, institutions and governance frameworks. Instead of beginning peace talks by arguing who should be head of state, or whether we need a new constitution or not, let us start by creating the shared image of future Nepal, and then together search for the best ways to make that happen. The last decade has seen huge sacrifices, all in the hopes of defending and building a better Nepal. We have to stop the violence generated by disagreeing about how to build it by first focusing our attention on the features and attributes that we all agree such a Nepal should have. Let the suffering of the past decade not have been in vain. Let every family that lost a loved one, let every person who got mained, physically or psychologically, be able to look back and proudly say that the losses were not in vain. Let them have given what they did in order to build a better Nepal.