Shirish, Taking interview is indeed an art. Art of getting more and interesting information from the interviewee. In case of the interview with Baburam Bhattarai, Rabindra, at some point, was wasting precious time by getting his own emotion out rather than getting more information out of Bhattarai. Hence the allegation of unprofessionalism. On the latest article, some of Rabindrajee's remarks remind me of his graduate thesis (I had read the article form of that somewhere, however I can not locate it now). In that, as far as I remember, Rabindrajee was trying to make, through a long list of "evidences" of India's inconsistent policies towards the insurgency, a case of the role of India in proliferating Maoist insurgecy. The fundamental flaw in that thesis (I mean the case, not the whole thesis) was to take INCONSISTENCY for CONSISTENCY. Inconsistency is inconsistency. Inconsistency does not prove anything, it only points to something-- something beyond the reference of the current knowledge. For anything to be proved, it has to be consistent. Only consistency proves. Nothing else does. Now about India's INCONSISTENT policies towards the Maoists. What do they mean ? Well, that has remained a million dollar question to so many of us. To me, India's inconsistent policies towards Nepali Maoists for past several years reflected, in part, the undeclared difference between India's understanding of democracy and Nepal's official notion of democracy which Rabindrajee also appeared taking it for granted in the past. Failure to think about it at least as an alternative explanation to the inconsistent policies of India was a major flaw in Rabindra's thesis or so I think. However, as I said, I am saying all this from my fading memory of what I read years ago. ___