ne23pe - You love your country, I can tell. I do too so I can understand the feeling. But there is a difference between your love and mine. To me loving Nepal is not about hating India. Tell me I am wrong and why but your entire judgement of politics, based on what I have read so , appears to be clouded by this hatred and paranoia about India. "Captain Haddock the reason I said this is because no matter who comes to power in Nepal they have to get an approval from India before doing so, how else will Nepal survive and which Nepali has the guts to go against Indian Policy no one, and that includes even Prachanda. " You make is sound like "going against Indian policy" is something every Nepali politician must do. Why? In politics, you don't oppose just for the sake of opposing. If you do that, it lands you in the dog house and no one wants to be there. Successfull politics is ultimately about pragmatism. "The point I like to make to your statement is we have alway been fighting among ourselves and not among anything worthy. We see enimies within our boundry but not the ones who are playing us among our own people." I disagree. Most people in Nepal are not big fans of India and will stand up for their country. Of course a struggling society will talk about different things and often fight about it. Why should that be seen as a sign of weakenss? On the contrary it is a sign of strength - people are concerned about their lives, communities and country and are raising their voices about it. Some times s*h*it happens, sometimes you screw up, but as recent history has shown, in the end, we as a society have the political maturity to patch up for the larger interests of the nation. >"Remember all these leaders who fought king and any other enemies started their resistance from India and nowhere else. Tell me how come we never got that kind of resistance or rebellion when India took our Kalapani. The same Congress, UML, Communist, and others were in power tell me how they united to get our land back. We were played and we will always be a puppet of India and others whether we like it or not, and thats what I mean when I say that Nepal will always loose. " You are making it sound like all politicians are traitors who want to surrender the country to India and the King is the great saviour who can deliver us from it all. Besides being childish, the facts don't bear out to support such an argument. The Monarchy has historically compromised a lot with India too. 1950, 1965 and throughout the times. When the King compromises, it is seen as pragmatic diplomacy, but when the parties do the same thing, why is it a sell-out? That is sheer hypocrisy. "Girija, Madhav Nepal, Deuba or any other Nepali has nothing to loose by selling out the country as you can see from people who do not give a rats ass about the country but Gyanendra is a king as long as there is a Kingdom for him. Thats the diffference. " How about they too lose their country? Girija Koirala or Madhav Nepal did not join politics to sell their country. Nobody in their right minds would so and I hope you can agree that both these guys maybe a lot of things, but lunatic is not one of them. Your reasoning is utterly conspiratorial - by the same token, the King has the most property to loose if the country gets over taken - so he should be the one compromising with India to sell the country to save his property? Makes senses? Neither does your logic.