Nepe admits: "In any case, this, to me, shows a sorry state of political leadership for the democratic movement in Nepal." ******* In life, what we WISH to be true, and what IS verifiably true are TWO very different things. Failure to understand this difference leads to being beholden to ideologies and false beliefs and NOT to the maintenance of a scientific temperament (which allows one to modify one's beliefs in the face of counter-evidence). I have a few simple rules. RULE NUMBER 1: In anything I'd like to join, I spend a lot of time looking at people behind it. If the people behind the venture -- regardless of what it is -- are top-notch, respected, admired, trustworthy and show that they are able to learn from their share of mistakes, then, I throw in my hat to be a passionate follower. If not, then, I do my namaskaar with a smile and tend to stay away. I looked at the democratic movement in 2002, in 2003, and in 2004. Each time, even after having done my homework, I came to the same conclusion: The people leading it were/are just khattam. Those guys wanted NOT democracy for all, but power only for themselves. I spoke to friends who were active in the democratic movement, and urged changes. I wrote a few pieces here and there, arguing for a change in political leadership. On Sajha, I repeatedly criticized the democrtaic movement - NOT because I am or was anti-democracy or pro-King (I am neither!), but because -- on the streets of Kathmandu -- I clearly saw the movement morphing into a convenient "khol' for the corrupt and the failed netas of yesteryears to wash themselves clean, with NO serious attention being paid to what they learnt from their mistakes and how they would do things differently. [If only Girija at al had moved aside in 2002, and let young and even untested Congressis and UML-wallahs to take charge, that ALONE would have been a breath of fresh air for the democratic movement!] So, I was critical of the democratic movement, the way one is critical of one's best friend: You want him or her to do even better, and you provide unvarnished and no-nonsense advice to serve the friendship well. [True, only the friends with the strongest self-confidence appreciate this sort of frank give-and-take; the rest take grievous offence, and that's the way life is. :-( ] But such blunt talk about Nepal's democratic movment was NOT music to some people's ears. Nepe, for one, created a little cottage-industry here on Sajha to label me as "pro-king" and what not, much to the amusement of friends in Kathmandu who know my political inclinations. Goaded by Nepe, others too piled on with juicy adjectives. And the result in 2006? [Drumroll, please!] The Ides of March have arrived to have this quiet concession from Nepe, using KS's article as an example: "In any case, this, to me, shows a sorry state of political leadership for the democratic movement in Nepal." And the funny thing is, that was something some of us -- the non-ideological democrats -- had concluded about Nepal's democratic movement long, long time ago. ************* As for Khagendra Sangraula, my sense is that he FOLLOWS public opinion; he does NOT shape it the way, say, Narhari Acharya does or even Kanak Dixit does. Whatever's in fashion this week among Kathmandu's chest-thumping intellectuals who brook no peer criticism, you can bet that KS will provide a readably entertaining endorsement of that view in his columns in Kantipur. I love his writing, and enjoy it for the fiction it contains than for the truth it unearths. oohi "always a democrat, that's "democrat" with a small d" ashu