Anil writes: "HUMANS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CULTURE THEY BELONG TO, ARE INNATELY FREEDOM-YEARNING, AND THEY ARE AT THEIR BEST WHEN THEY ARE FREE." Then he writes: "I too was -- and I still am --strongly opposed to US invasion of Iraq int he name of spreading democracy." My question: Would Iraq have been FREE under S Hussain? No. If so, would that then have been a bad thing? Yes. Why? Because [IRAQIS] ARE AT THEIR BEST [ONLY] WHEN THEY ARE FREE, and under S Hussain, they would not have been free. If FREEDOM is that important, then, then is not what GWB did a step in the right direction anyway? At least, whether you like it or not, he made the Irqis FREER than what they were before. How does Anil, who sings the bhajan of freedom on one hand go on to reconcile this odd position where the very war he denounces is more likely to make the Iraqis FREER than ever before. Does Anil think that there are NO trade-offs for freedom and democracy? Where would he draw a line between how far he would go to achieve freedom? Or, does freedom pop into people's lives just like that? ***** Here's an argument FOR Nepal. Democracy, like capitalism, IS an alien concept in Nepal. No matter how we romanticize our cultural values, let's face it that NOTHING about our social/religious structures is compatible with modern-day liberal democracy. However, that is NO reason to reject democracy. The argument should be this: Having tried feudalism and other non-democratic practices for most of our written history, this is our situation: Ours is one of the world's poorest countries, with un-freeest citizens and we are destined to live far short of our individual potential. What's more, given half a chance, most of our people try to run away to democratic (and capitalistic) countries. That is why, it's time to give Western-style only-the-agreed-upon-rules-as-interpreted-by-the-Supreme Court-matter type of democracy a really forceful try. For this, the terms of the debate must now be recast in terms of STRENGTHENING the check-and-balance side of the equation, and with less emphasis on the inherent goodness of democracy, which has been ABUSED for propaganda purposes by all sides in Nepal, thus rendering it practically meaningless. That means, we have to be necessarily western in our thinking to stand up against casteism, feudal structures, concentration of power and the like. It's difficult to be a Nepali and fight against all that. It's possible to fight against all that ONLY if you become a cosmopolitan Nepali -- a citizen of Nepal with a global outlook. The challenge THEN is to be a pukka Nepali who is able to appreciate and learn from the best around the world and then push for democracy as defined by the rule of the laws that are generally compatible with tjose of other democratic countries. I, for one, see that it's POSSIBLE to reconcile westernisation, democracy and capitalism with Nepaliness to help create a BETTER Nepal that provides EQUALITY of opportunity to succeed to all Nepalis, though such tasks are not easy. oohi ashu