The government has to strike a balance between respecting an individual's rights to privacy, and transgressing these rights that most of us take for granted, if it is for the good of the country. If indeed, these rights have to be violated, the onus lies on the government to justify and explain their actions, clearly and forthrightly, to the public, at an opportune time, or after the dangers faced by the country have subsided. Not doing so may not only raise some eyebrows, but may also mean that the government in power may lose public support. The NSA wiretapping controversy, which currently is at the heart of the privacy rights argument, is a hot-button issue only because of the decision of the Bush administration to keep certain power authorized to the NSA after 9/11, behind closed doors. Had the Bush administration explained to the public why surveillance without a F.I.S.A warrant is paramount to the security of the country, and why maintenance of a database of calls placed in the United States is also vital, this issue would have died by now. The Bush administration has dug its own graves by setting these policies surreptitiously, without giving the American people any clues as to what actions were being taken to protect us. With this in mind, it is not a surprise that the Bush administration has been called the most secretive government to have been at the helm since the Nixon administration. In this day and age, when terrorism is a daily threat, when disaffected Muslim youths are seduced by the messages put forth by the Al Qaeda, when nuclear proliferation is a true danger, learning to live without rights we take for granted becomes a necessity. If explained in this manner, that safety trumps privacy, most people, I would wager, are willing to sacrifice their freedoms. By no means does this mean that each and every right guaranteed to us should be whisked away from us. Rather, the government should be given the leeway to make policies that would benefit us all by keeping us safe and secure. Of course, the realities of Nepal are different . The Nepali constititution should ensure that the government does not trample on individual rights, that all humans are treated the same, that dalits and minorities are not discriminated against, that women are treated respectfully, and that religion and state are separated, much like in India and America. Therefore, while in America, we have all the rights we want, in Nepal, we don't have enough rights. This is something to ponder about.