ISO, You can -- and you have -- blame(d) me for trying to impose my opinion on you. By the same token, I can also blame you for trying to impose your opinion on me if I want to. That is besides the point, so let's not even go there. If free discussions of issues is seen as attempts to impose one's views onto the opposing sides, then that would kill the healthiness of the discussions. Attempts to persuade, perhaps. Impose? Absolutely not! Having said that, I am afraid I cannot continue with this discussion without repeating myself now. I have said all I had to say, and I'd hate to engage in a never-ending cycle of debates with you. Particularly with someone who is willing to offer a DHOG to a filthy personality like Paras, there is nothing I can say or do to convince you otherwise. I am sure you feel the same way about me too. No hard feelings -- that's just the way it is. I shall respectfully agree to disagree with you FUNDAMENTALLY and end it here before this political/ideological debate begins to take a toll on our personal relationship. rang women gaoxing women di qubie...kanbeiii!!!!!! [I hope I got it right...eheheh ] For the purposes of clarity, these were/are my arguments point by point: 1. Issue here (for me) was not Shiva Shrestha's personal choice of actions. The real issue here is what kind of deeper IMPLICATIONS his seemingly simple and trivial action has had in questions such as what it means to be a Nepali and what we aspire to become as a nation. 2. Offering an utmost respect by DHOG-ing someone who has earned that respect through his/her deeds is FINE by me. So, bringing in an argument of respecting cultures is pointless. I am just questioning why we should do that to someone merely because s/he is born into a royal family; and, in Paras' case, not only born into a royal family, but who has time and again proven himself to be not worthy of such respect. 3. Every action out of "freewill" has consequences too; and one of those consequences is that people will have varying opinions about it. Actions and consequences (e.g. opinions about those actions) are all firmly embeded in a democratic frame. Nothing undemocratic about them until someone tries to -- physically (by force), or manipulatively (by mental indoctrination) -- transform one's opinion into a way of life for others. 4. There is nothing belittling about saying someone is manipulated. It is not the victim's fault. The fault lies with the manipulator. The fact is that you and I and every other Nepalis were manipulatedby the Royal establishment to varying degrees, depending on how receptive each of us were to the process. The Panchayati indoctrination, through the ways in which they made us live our lives, has manipulated our set of minds to think in certain ways, and to believe certain things. Some of us are merely trying to free ourselves from such manipulative indoctrination. May I boldly add: Thanks to democracy of the 10 years or so, It is only a GOOD thing that many more are begnning to question BLIND FAITH and BLIND RESPECT. Slavery was thought of as normal in the 1800's too, even by the slaves themselves. The fact is that is was NOT right, and the changes didn't begin to happen until few brave souls started to question it. 5. Finally, since you brought it up, shaking hands and wearing suits to visit the White House do not even come close to DHOGNE. Mind you, there is a Western cultural equivalence to our DHOGNE too: Kneeling and kissing the person's hand. This goes without saying that despite (what I consider) George Bush's sheer dumbness and arrogance, he is mcuh more deserving of people's respect than KingG or any other members of the royal family, anywhere in the world. People can hate him for their differences with him, but the fact remains that Bush was not born into presidency of the US. He had to work tremendously hard for it, and had to fight an election. Someone who comes to power by winning an election, and tries hard to EARN respect, is far more respectable anf honorable than someone who is born into power and DEMANDS respect.