I do have a soft corner for Kamala-jee. People might call it what goes by the name "reverse sexism", however, I do cherish the fact that she belongs to a rare and, therefore, a precious breed of Nepali women doing social works. And the sheer volume of her writings on variety of subjects, including literature, shows she is a person with enormous energy and enthusiasm. It is a different story that her writings show they have enormous room for improvements. And, in fact, I and some other Sajhaites have shared this with Kamala-jee right here in Sajha sometime in the past very frankly. However, my note on decency regarding fellow posters' postings did not have much to do with the above. I simply wanted to discourage the use of strong language for the sake of atmosphere. That's all. Ashu called it "spinelessness". Obviously this gentleman has yet to learn to use the word properly. There is not much left for me to talk about Kamala-jee. The fataha report about NY rally is already removed from PJ and I am not going to cry if she really is in the "Rastrabadi Sangha" as reported. On the other hand, Ashu has brought some funny stuff. Let's have some entertainment. Ashu's assumption of new role as a mediator between the pro-king and anti-king streams. Ashu writes: >. . . get both [pro-king and anti-king] sides to start talkinbg with one another, make >compromises and get moving in this country that is Nepal. >Is that too much to ask? >Is our life doomed to refereeing this jhagada for ever? I do not want to ridicule Ashu for such an august thought, however, knowing Ashu's anti-republic rhetorics so intimately and personally over a period of several years, I doubt if Ashu best qualifies for the job. Even if he does, there is one problem. Very serious one. The problem is that there is no job at all. The unarmed but militant pro-democratic force (a growing mass for now and soon going to be a decisive power) is not for a compromise with the King; they are for republican revolution. They will talk with the King only when he becomes an ordinary citizen after a successful revolution (that in case of no violent confrontation, less likely) or flees the country (in case of violent confrontation, more likely). So there is no much chance for a compromise talk, definitely none for one through a mediator. *** *** *** *** I find Ashu's following advice particularly about changing beliefs as often as suits you, hilarious. Obviously our counselor does not value "consistency" and "integrity" that much. >To Sarup: Carry on with your whatever beliefs. Fell free to change >them often, if you wish. And here is, Ashu, talking to Sarup as if she is a middle-school teenager. Not bad though. >It's OK to believe in things you want to believe and stand up >for what you want to believe. The mistake is to fall for anything. *** *** *** *** *** Finally, I would like to show a serious democratic deficiency in Ashu's thinking in treating anti-king and pro-king groups as equals at this juncture of our history. At this juncture of our history, King is negating democracy and freedom. By supporting the King, the pro-king groups are doing the same. So the question is, do you have "democratic right" to reject "democracy" itself ? Can you have a freedom to deny freedom ? Democracy and freedom are non-self-annihilating notions. May be I should call it a Democracy 201 for Ashu. Pro-King and anti-King groups can have "equal democratic status" only when the King is a neutral notion, an object of plain choice, not when the King is taking over the power by a coup detat and is running a repressive regime. चेतना भया । Nepe