Well, guys, you can't have it both ways. On one hand, you imply that Chintan was responsible for the demise of the mega-project Arun III. If that's true, then, let's face it, that makes Chintan very powerful -- someone who could "destroy" a mega project, right? On the other hand, you have nothing good to say about him. In fact, you think he's all show and no substance. That's fine. But if your second statement is true, then, think for a moment: How could someone who who's all show and no substance have "destroyed" a mega project? And what does that say about the nature of the project -- that it was so flimsy to begin with that even someone with "no substance" could destroy it? Doesn't add up, does it? Well, first, make up your mind -- what is Chintan? A superpowerful activist? Or: Someone with no substance? I think the truth is somewhere in between. ********** Look, you can make all the fun you want of Chintan, and that's fine. I am aware that defending Chintan publicly is NOT an easy task. As a 'mainstream careerist', I am also aware that it's very, very difficult to be a maverick, to be a public questioner, to be a positive 'misfit' in Nepal for someone like Chintan . . . . for there's very little tolerance for the range of ideas he brings forth, even when one disagrees with his ideas. It's much easier for most people to gang up against Chintan to dismiss him than to engage with him on an idea-to-idea level persistently and patiently, for he's a smart debater, and he can make you look stupid if you are not prepared -- and this is something that most people don't like about him. Well, I do. As a Nepali citizen, I, for one, am APPRECIATIVE of the fact that there exists someone like Chintan who asks questions and does things that may be unpopular but are necessary to keep a sense of healthy debate going on about many donor-funded projects in our society. Now saying that does NOT mean that Chintan is a god, and everything he says is true -- just that voices that belong to him need to be put forth in the public space so that people can examine them, argue with them or ignore them. Tetti ho. As for that Marsyangdi incident that reportedly happened more than TEN years ago, I would NOT try to squeeze much juice out of it. The world, and Chintan have moved on to many other things since. Besides, that incident does NOT prove or disprove the validity of Chintan's stance then. All it says is that Chintan was pursuing something that was unpopular. And being unpopular is neither a crime nor a sin. And finally, on another note, I think it would be fun to write a lengthy The New Yorker-esque profile of Chintan someday . . . for I find him very fascinating, even when I do NOT agree with him most of the time, and he knows it. oohi ashu