Anil ji, ma pani kehi comment lekhu? 1. King's UN visit was never formally announced, so there no cancealation of the visit. It was rumored that King will be representing Nepal in the UN, but was never ever officially announced. 2. Regarding the letter campaing- Maybe it contributed to some extent, like you said. Since I don't know the details, or have seen the letter that was sent to the UN delegates, I better not say anything unless I read the letter myself and learn the details. 3. You and I share the same view regarding India's role in Nepal's politics. There are no saints in international relation and it would be foolish to expect India to be goody-good to us all the time. Every country wants to maximize its own interest by employing covert and overt means. And like you said, India is no exception. Our problem is not India and its "designs" on Nepal. Our problem is OURSLEVES. We haven't been able to devise strategies, policies to counter Indian designs on Nepal, and that really amazes me. Our bureaucray has failed time and again because we have no INDIA POLICY the way India has its NEPAL policy. Furthermore, our political parties have their own foreign policy agendas, i.e., each party has its own India policy. We lack the consistency in our policy towards India which makes it easier for India (and even Bhutan) to take advantage of us. Of course teh first thing to do to counter India is to put our house in order and come up with quid-pro-quo policy, but it seems impossible. Like you said, I too believe that we need to learn the basic fact that India will not always be good to Nepal. India cannot afford to be good towards Nepal all the time. Its as simple as that. However, over politicization and Sanskritization of the ministry of foreign affairs, we have already either forgotten this fact or are pretty close to foreggting it. That's the state of Nepali foreign policy. Another thing that I always stress is, India is not to be blamed for its adventures(?) in Nepal. If there is someone to blame then its our leaders who go to Delhi Durbar for advise and order everytime there's a political problem in Nepal. This provides India with easy intelligence, and for some money, loyal slaves in Singha Durbar. Nationalism and national dignity are the keys to ending India's influence in Nepali politics, but unfortunatley, our leaders and Nation seems to lack those these days. Of course nationalism is very subjective. Maybe you have your own defintion of nationalism, I have mine and others will have their own. So let me state my definition of nationalim beforehand so there's no confusion for you or others who might be reading this. Nationalism- Putting your national interest (s) first. And the national interest being national security interests ( these days scholars put everything- ecological, economic, terretorial integrity etc.- under the Security Interest heading). People should love their country, and think in terms of difference when dealing with the others (meaning we should be focusing on the differences between Nepal and India, not on similarities when it is desired and required in our political-diplomatic dealings with India). Don't get me wrong, I am not promoting or asking for Hyper nationalism that looks down on others. I am asking for nationalism that makes one proud of one's country. This is my definition of Nationalism. And I believe (i could be totally wrong) this kind of nationalism has to be forced on the people in countries like Nepal with various ethnic groups and extreme social/economic and recently political polarization. The state has to promote nationalism like in Attaturk's Turkey and deGaulle's France. For this you need a strong state which is only possible when you have a strong leader. People themselves don't think, don't act. You need someone to lead them. To put it crudely, you need someone to impose his/her idea on the masses. This is why I, despite being ridiculed as a simpleton repeatedly by your democratic comrades in arms, have always supported Mahendra's nationalism and his foreign policy of putting a safe distance from India, i.e., never appearing too friendly and never appearing too hostile. This seems the only way to conduct our dealings with India. You appear too friendly you get screwed, you appear too hostile, you get economic embargo!- what the hell are we supposed to do with India if not keep a safe political distance from it? I think only Gyanendra can do that and counter India like Mahendra did, provided he be given some time and some good advisors who think, read and talk sense unlike Bharat Keshari Singh and the herd he has gathered now.