I like Sangraula -- personally and professionally. I know him and have often talked with him about this and that. BUT my attitude toward Sangraula is somewhat similar to what -- to use a scientific analogy -- evolutionary biologists have toward late Stephen Jay Gould . . . that is to say, though Gould got evolution wrong through his punctuated equilibrium theory, at least he was loudly against the enemies: the creationists! And for genetics-influenced evolutionary biologists (the folks I like), as long as Gould was against the creationists, it was easy to see him as a partner and brush aside his lucidly written but wrong evolutionary theories. Likewise, it's possible to appreciate Sangraula's writings without casting an eye toward his PUBLIC anti-democratic stances. Especially when he SEEMS to be fighting for everyone's rights at the moment!! BUT is he? Consider these: EXHIBIT A: In late 2000, during the Rhitik Roshan Kanda, Sangraula fanned the flame of murderous riots by publicly praising the vandals who had tried to burn down Gopi Krishna Cinema Hall (two Nepalis died in the scuffle). He called the vandals "patriots", and denounced the hall-owner Uddhav Poudyal as an Indian stooge. QUESTION: For a democrat, when was it acceptable to publicly cheer on the destruction of other people's private property? EXHIBIT B: In the summer of 2001, exercising his imaginative gifts and with no basis of any verifiable fact, Sangraula publicly absolved Deependra (who he called "bhatiz" or nephew) of murdering his parents and siblings. It was one thing to say, as Manjushree Thapa does in her latest book, that we do not know what really happened on that June night at the palace. It's irresponsible, as Sangraula did, to prey on people's sense of uncertainty by reinforcing the canard that Deependra was innocent. QUESTION: Since whan is it acceptable for a democrat to use utter falsehoods to propagate his brand of "the truth"? [If you don't believe me, read the book that Sangraula published based on his writings about the royal massacre. It's quite imaginative, allegorical and wrong.] EXHIBIT C: Last year, Sangraula decided that he had to oppose the Dabur Batika Miss Nepal Beauty Contest. Nothing wrong with that per se. But he went on to write nasty things in Kantipur about the contest, calling the young Nepali women contestants future-mistresses of businessmen. These young women were, mind you, over the age of 18, and no one had forced them to take part in the contest. In other words, they were freely exercising their right to take part in a legal private activity. But Sangraula was not satisfied that they exercised their right to take part in such a contest. He started a julus, and when the julus turned violent on the day of the contest, he blamed his followers in an article in Kantipur. And let me not even talk about the suicide of a young actress Shreesa Karki about two years ago . . . a suicide that was caused by repeated blackmails of a Leftist journalist who, for years had been demanding money and sexual favors from the acress and threatened to publish her nude pictures. The response from Sangraula and other Leftist democrats? Utter silence, because one of their Leftist friends (the journalist) was involved. The POINT here is that while PRAISING Sangraula of his supposed bravery in a rather one-sided way, let us also -- in the interest of fairness -- keep track of some of his remarkable PUBLIC failures that sit oddly with his democratic credentials. oohi ashu