Violence is THE essence of Maoism. Violence is what gives color to Maoist philosophy. No violence = No Maoism." It is your perception NOT mine and it is not a UNIVERSAL one. You have your own version and that is fine to me. My analysis is slightly different than yours: your royal security forces are far more violence-prone than the Maoists. BUT I hate any kind of violence, I am just comparing among the worsts. well, OK ji Ashu is right. Violence is Maoism. There is no non-violent Maoism. Any basic reading of Maoism will tell you that. "Smash the old order" "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" and "revolution is not a dinner party".. these are some of the famous Mao quotes equal in importance to the maoits what the 10 commandments are to the devout christians all over. Revolution is violent. Has anyone heard of a non-violent communist revolution? I have not. The problem is not the violent revolution, the problem and THE real issue is the extension of violence in the new order. Stalinist purges, Lenin's firing squads, Mao's "smashing", Polpot's cleansing.. all don't point towards a hopeful future in the post revolution Nepali society (if there is one). so instead of basing our arguments on a big untruth supported by multiple untruths and relying on wishful thinking, lets discuss by taking the historical/ideological factors into account. That way we all can learn and not be misled, hoina ta? anyways, just my views..