Hi all, Peter J Karthak's new article is out. The read is enjoyable, as always. And the write-up superb. Just a couple of comments though on the stroy that Mr. Karthak mentions, by Somerset Maugham. I read the story a long time ago, and may be mistaken, but I do remember some details. Please correct me if I got it wrong, please correct me. The protagonist of the story is an englishman who is not originally a "blue blood" arsitrocrat by birth, but acts like one. He does manage a plantation in Malaya or somewhere. He has friends in the high society in London. The setting is in WWII, we know this because newspapers are delivered late because of the war. The englishman however is a strict observer of customs, rituals (social) and acts like an English lord, even in the middle of the jungle. He dines in formal settings with two servants waiting on him and in full formal evening dress-jacket even when he is alone. Not a snide remark - but I bet he would speak with the same old queen's English as Sandhurst L. Tha antagonist is a recently arrived assistant manager, but not, as Mr. Karthak says, "fresh from an English public school, idealistic and full of modern ideas. He has all sorts of progressive strategies and plans for the rubber plantation and its workers", but an ex-army man rough and tumble who does not have time for social niceties and attachment to English customs, especially in the middle of the jungle. He is ill at ease in the first dinner setting invited by the protagonist, but nevertheless goes with a formal attire. The new guy sooon falls to the ways of the local people, takes in a local woman, dresses like them, gives up his formal attire and so on. He changes into a "native" mode from an Englishman. The protagonist, of course, does not like this all. The assistant manager is heavy handed with a local person. The manager tries to explain, but in return gets insulted by the assistant manager. The crux of the insult is that the manager is not a true "blue" blood even if he follows a lifestyle of one. And in fact, he is a running joke in the social circles back in London. And the next mroning, the assistant manager is murdered, by the local whom he had wronged. The manager deftly manages to hush up the matter, lets the local guy escape and buries the whole incident. He then goes back to his old ways of organaization and quiet dinner with two servants waiting on him. This is from memory, I read that particular more than 10 years ago or so. So I do apologize if I got it wrong. The second comment that I wanted to make is in a way not related to the article, and is related in a way. A dichotomy, but neverthelss an important comment in my view. This thought struck me last night, after a couple of pegs of Napoleon :) so might be a lame thought after all. But nevertheless here goes. Nepal was and is primarily known for 1. Mount Everest. 2. Gurkha Soldiers, 3. Sherpas 4. natural beauty etc. When getting into conversations with foreigners, any Nepali will definately bring up these subjects and that's what Nepali's are most proud of. Natural beauty and Everest (should have a formal name change on that, I think), Nepalis have nothing to do with, that's a gift from nature. Now Gurkha soldiers and Sherpas, mostly come from the most marginalized segments of our society, yet they are the ones who give an identity to Nepal in international arena. They are so famous, brave and appreciated outside of Nepal and marginalized inside. The world sure is a strange place, ain't it???