1. Kantipur used to praise Maoists citing "Maoists are building roads" "building bridges" "conducting cooperative farming" "doing progressive" jobs etc. etc. until Maoists looted Hemraj Gyawali's house and property in Bardiya. Right after they looted his, Kantipur 's perception on Maoists turned upside down. In my mind, Kantipur must accept if someone throws blame that Kantipur was partly responsible for fueling the Maoist movement in Nepal, and should regret on the position that it took. However, I praise Kantipur for its contribution to the democratic movements in Nepal.

2. Now, I don't know whether it's deliberately or unknowingly or in vein of corporate benefit, Kantipur sounds fueling Madhesh movement (though the movement has many good demands and legitimate grievances). We all know that only election to the constituent assembly has rights to fulfill Madhesh demands, if they are genuine. What PM GP has said is nothing against what he should've told as a PM. He has told 100% right that CA will solve these issues. The present govt has no right to make decisions on the issues like "right to self determinism" and can not compromise on the issues of national integrity.

3. Why does Kantipur write an Editorial comment against PM's concerns which are legitimate and timely. His concerns have come in an opportune and perfect timing; at a time when the extremist forces are making heavy hands in demands such as "right to self determination", possibly taking the support of some European nations as well as UN, or India? (though it's not come in as vocal a way as I have put here).

4. Does Kantipur want PM to fulfill the demand such as "right to self determination" outright? If Kantipur has concerns with PM's language, I don't think it would need such a bold EDITORIAL that might give a negative portrayal of those who at this time opine that issues regarding "right to self determination" are what CA will decide. I think a large number of Nepali people want that CA should decide such issues.

5. I may sound like a staunt supporter of GP Koirala, but I am not. Never, personally. At this time, I support what he says and his rhetoric at this time is quite opportune: "National Integrity/Sovereignty or Right to Self Determination?" At least his rhetoric helps bolster the position of the government as a party to negotiation to psychologically prepare the counter party that they should subterfuge their demands  and come into a practical ground: let's get CA decide on it. Isn't such rhetoric a much visionary than what Kantipur is getting on? I know that Kantipur as a private institution should sell their advertisement and make money but must think twice prior  such "crucial" issues.