I found it a few years ago while looking for a book on contemporary Nepalese history. The first few chapters were full of praises for the Maoists and their armed revolution, which I felt, was quite imbalanced. I came back, though, to see if there was any criticism. There is some criticism against Prachanda for the mishandling of the Army Chief case, the management of revolutionaries, and his opportunistic nature. However, Baburam Bhattarai gets all the praise. Nothing comes up against him even during the discussion of the dissolution of the First Constituent Assembly (CA I). Jha blames the Nepali Congress but spares Bhattarai, which is odd.
The content of the book is mostly familiar to those who are following Nepalese politics closely. The only thing that interested me was the in-depth story of Madhesi militia and the character sketch of the deceased journalist Uma Singh. The role of India and RAW in different phases of the Nepalese politics could also be interesting, but some discussions felt whitewashed in favour of Indian officials and RAW agents.
The writing is okay. There is not much heavy vocabulary. Some interesting topics are left out, for instance, the silence of the Kantipur Media Group on the dissolution of the CA I, the status of the children of Maoist leaders during and after the revolution, the extravagance of Maoist leaders, and so on. Opinion of the author seems to dominate the discussions. For example, Mr. Jha feels that Gyanendra and Paras were not involved in the Royal Massacre but does not explain why. The lack of objectivity mars the book's authenticity. Speaking of authenticity, there is not much secondary source involved. A few sources are mentioned but without proper citation. The journalistic style, which the author is familiar with, is not sufficient to establish facts. It also begs the question, "How can one person be everywhere and know everything?"
That question reminds me of the author's involvement in the meeting of the Madhesi parties just before the end of the CA I. One leader calls Mr. Jha up to a meeting where no journalist is allowed. He is not a leader. He says he sat as a silent observer. Was nobody bothered by his presence? Why was he there if he was not a leader and not allowed as a journalist? Was he really silent? I find it weird that so many journalists get access to "secret" meetings and conversations and no one seems bothered that the secret will be revealed.