Ashu, You obviously would know much, much more than I do about the specifics of conflict dynamics in Nepal, be it with regards to the Maoists, their affiliates, or the ethnic minorities' struggle for 'liberation'. Therefore, I am afraid I can only engage in a debate with you on a broader concept of the conflict(s), rather than on specifics. Having said that, what I understood from your original post in this thread, which obviously lacked the new specifics that you introduced in your subsequent post, was that you were not at all attacking Kochilas' raison d'etre, but their very right to protest the status quo simply because they "...appear to be the most successful -- in terms of educational attainment and higher incomes" than the other Tharus. Once again, it is one thing to express your disgust at who some groups are, or what they stand for, or what methods they use to attain their goals, where I willingly have given you the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis Kochilas, but it's quite another to attack ANY groups' very right to protest just because they enjoy relatively better standings than other minorities, specially when it's all too clear that blatant discriminations are still prevalent in Nepal, be it against the Kochilas or other Tharus, who, as you probably know very well, don't happen to be a "minority" in Nepal in terms of population to begin with. On BANDHS, I don't think sympathizing with anyone's right to protest -- specially when one sees a legitimate cause -- while vehemently disagreeing with the way they protest is what you've called "peeing down both legs". RIGHT to protest and the WAY to protest are different issues, albeit subtly. Finally, on democracy and the need to make compromises, I absolutely agree with you that it (democracy) is about "seeing our opponents win and get what we hoped to have, and of accepting that outcome, knowing fully well that we will have another chance to get what we want." HOWEVER, this notion of democracy applies only to politcal issues; and the issues of basic, fundamental rights of the people -- the rights to RECOGNITON and EQUALITY being two of the aspects pertinent to our discussion -- are far above and beyond politics, and are absolutely uncompromisable whatsoever. On a similar vein, I have noticed in your other postings that you'd prefer to remain grey with regards to King G's proclamation of the February 1st. Again, Ashu, when it is about uncompromisable, basic, fundamental rights of the people, the issues are raised far above and beyond politics -- they become issues of HUMANITY, not just of politics. Therefore, when it is about uncompromisable rights of the people, there is no grey area -- either you believe in power to the people, or you don't; either you believe in absolutism, or you don't; either you stand for the rights of the people, or you don't. Poltics can be black or white or grey, but fundamentals of humanity are only either black or white. Once the fundamentals are in their appropriate place, steadily fastened, then, of course, we can begin to talk about the process of negotiations, compromises, and so on.