The full text of the article in The Economist (UK) is available at the above link.
It appears that the "Maoist Mole" at The Economist is at it again. I disagree with the statements:
(a) that the "Spread of violence in Nepal is not just the Maoists' fault"; and
(b) "India faces a choice between a democratic Nepal where the Maoists have a big role and a militarised Nepal where, ultimately, the army calls the shots. For all its pride in its own democratic traditions, India might plump for the soldiers. If it wants stability and peace on its borders, that would be the wrong choice"
(a) The culture of violence is the Maoists' unique gift to Nepal. They still grind the country to a halt (bandhs) at the drop of a hat. They have displaced at least 60,000 families during their insurgency. Journalists have been killed and maimed with incredible impunity. Appropriated property has not been returned. They are in the process of unilaterally, i.e. without authority from the Constituent Assembly, 'proclaiming' 13 'autonomous states'. Again unilaterally, they are letting loose 4,000 disqualified combatants from the cantonments, over 50% of whom are minors, without planning for their reintegration into society. There are over 100 armed political groups now in Nepal, copying the Maoists. The Economist is unawares of ground reality here when it makes this irresponsible statement.
(b) The phrase "democratic Nepal where the Maoists have a big role" is a contradiction in itself. There will be NO democratic Nepal if the Maoists have their way. The Economist may fool itself in its ivory tower; we Nepalis do not have that luxury. Though the Maoist leadership displays a spectrum of Marxist-Leninist thinking ranging from the doctrinaire to the opportunistic, we cannot overlook the fact that they have come to power by the bullet, with only a thinly disguised veneer of the ballot. Multi-party democracy is not in their scheme of things. They have admitted as much.
While I do not believe that the army has the skills or is meant to govern, it can better provide stability and peace than the Maoists. The latter's dismal record on peace and stability is there for all to see since the time they emerged as the largest party in the CA.
It is also revealing how The Economist has given the choice to India. It seems it is not Nepal's choice whether we strive for democracy or concede Army rule. Anyone in Nepal who knows where their bread is buttered will agree that, given the current situation, the choice indeed is India's. What a pity!