I have a lot of personal respect for Abhi dai. I have known him well since 1996, ever since he came to gave a presentation on literary theory at Martin Chautari. I use the phrase personal respect in the sense that he is a genial, friendly and kind-hearted man with a great sense of humor. In the Nepali arts world (drama, paintings, fine arts, literary works, etc), Abhi Dai is the CLOSEST thing to a patron saint in Kathmandu. He is someone who is a genuinely nice man, and encourages younger people to do interesting work in the arts. [Had he been an American, he would have been one happy professor at some leafy liberal arts college somewhere in Western Massachusetts , inviting undergrads home for dinner, discussing Shakespeare and politics until the wee hours of the night . . . you get the picture!] But I do NOT the have required qualifications to comment on his professional accomplishments. That, I would leave to others who know better. But as someone trained to understand words and numbers, I can read two articles side by side, and try to understand what the writers are saying in a spirit of INQUIRY. This is where I find Abhi Dai's -- in that article -- casting Ignatieff as a fellow-critic of the US Empire a rather odd proposition, considering that Ignatieff is a liberal who intriguingly SUPPORTS the US "hegemony" to such an extent that he has even come up with controversial arguments in SUPPORT of his thesis. Abhi Dai's points would have far more credible if he had cited, say, Noam Chomski or someone else critical of the US. By citing Ignatieff, it makes me wonder: 1) whether Abhi has read Ignatieff's stuff 2) whether Abhi dai has understood Ignatieff's stuff 3) whether Abhi dai's sentences on Ignatieff were deleted by editors (this too happens all the time in Nepal; writer write one thing, but editiors edit in such a way that the writings come out differently!) 4) whether Abhi dai confused Ignatieff with someone else. 5) whether Abhi dai simply made a judgment of error (happens all the the time when you have to submit an article to meet a deadline). Any ONE of those possibility exists, and that's fine -- and I am simply raising the issue for what I hope would be a stimulating kurakani that does NOT get personal. Tetti ho. oohi ashu ************** BTW, here are extracts from Ignatieff's bio on wikipedia: Ignatieff has written extensively on the subject of international development, peacekeeping, and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he has argued for a more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world. In this vein, Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, a position that was controversial among Liberals.[6] He argued that America had inadvertently established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire obliged America to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights. Containment through sanctions and threats would not prevent Hussein from selling weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, Ignatieff asserted, erroneously believing those weapons were still being developed in Iraq.[7] Moreover, according to Ignatieff, "what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia" in Iraq was sufficient justification for the invasion.[8] [9] In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war's aims, if not the method in which it was conducted. "I supported an administration whose intentions I didn't trust," he averred, "believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."[6]