Pire, Even if Bhagat is a total failure in life (according to your definition), what's wrong with his using his time, his money and his resources to shout the loudest about causes he holds dear so long as he doesn't harm others? Even those who have "failed in life" have a right to free speech. Success means different things to different people, and people live out their lives diferently according to what's important to them. Not everyone's dream is to win a Fields Medal. By your definition, Prakash Chandra Lohani (educated, PhD) or, for that matter, Jay Raj Acharya (educated, PhD) would have been the most influential social leaders in Nepal. They aren't. Educational achievements have very little, if any positive correlation with social/public leadership. Let's get that clear. And so, let ethnic activists like Bhagat do what he wants to do -- using his own resources for causes that dear to his heart. The rest of us can either engage with what he says or ignore him. The choice is ours to make. There is no point to go around calling for a boycott of him or his blog. He and his blog have a right to exist. And to judge his life as a failure or to deride his "achievements" or to make fun of him because he holds views that most people do not find pleasant is NO reason to boycott him. That, to me, smacks of a certain kind of insecurity on the part of those who deride him. If a democracy cannot take care of its most unpleasant characters (who have done no harm, except harm someone's idea of what's 'propah'), then, such a democracy is no different from what our Maoist comrade have in their midst. All of this is trivial, no? oohi ashu