Kanak is one of a kind. The reason he gets attacked anonymously is that: a) he takes risks, b) speaks up his mind, c) is not afraid to challenge the status quo, d) has spent the last 20 years furthering the cause of Nepali democracy, development and freedom of speech in and out of Nepal. e) and he is surely the most globally influential Nepali journalist working in Nepal today [When CNN and BBC and the New York Times need Nepal-related analyses, the first person they call is usually Kanak. Often he tells them who to contact for specific input.] Kanak is, to borrow the words of Malcolm Gladwell of "Tipping Point" fame, a uber-connector of ideas and people. And I might add: Though I have had my own idea-level disagreements with him on certain issues here and there over the years, I have always found him to be someone who plays straight, with a great sense of humor. Kanak could have been just another professional playing golf at Gokarna, sipping sherry with foreign envoys, and back-slapping with businessmen at the Rox bar. But he takes the difficult path of raising pertinent issues, making Nepal see itself as a part of South Asia and championing lonely and unpopular positions. No wonder there are people who hate his guts. Way to go!! oohi "if you have no enemy in Nepal and among Nepali community, then, you, my friend, have not done anything worthwhile." ashu