Sense, I don't know why you keep yapping about "Hynah" because there is no such thing as a "hynah" I think you are talking about hyaena. And it's pathetic how you try to bring the whole "mother and father" crap into politics. And ofcourse how is being optomistic being self centered? The optomisim I'm talking about is more so of the belief that the universe is OR WILL improve and that good will ultimately triumph over evil. That is if we take action. koolketa I totally agree with you. same with jayanepal. Saajha i would disagree with you. Afghanistan was not an untouched country. The soviets took over afghanistan, if not the british. And the theory of the whole "mom-dad" (DISTURBING I MUST SAY) If you wan't to think of it as MOM AND DAD well MOM=NEPAL didn't really chose DAD-Rana's, the DAD chose the mom, ranas just took over, the country didn't favor. And I know this sounds bizzarre in a way but it really isnt. In human nature, we tend to always take over things and making things better. For instance, the native americans were the original poeple of the west. Yes they had a culture, but their technologies were backward than europe. Then europeans came to the North america, established their colonies, and prospered. YES they did bring diseases and other harms to the Natives. But Economically speaking, America people the country that it is today because of the Europeans. Now speaking of India and Nepal. The indegenous people living in the Indian subcontinent have been there for almost ever. Native americans migrated to the americas from the baring straight. So the culture of the Indian Subcontinent (including nepal obviously) was much richer and stronger. Our science was stronger than the europeans (knowing europeans stole science etc from the east) The only way the british got india was because india wasn't a whole country, it was broken into different kingdom. Where as Nepal, was already a country of its own. So it was easy for the british to invade india because they could alley with different kings and then take over them. But still theoutcome of the british in india was still good, if not bad. The british made indians realise to hate the british and unite as one. That way the country was united and thats how they fought the british. NEPAL WOULD HAVE EASILY THOUGHT OF THAT WAY BEFORE THAN THE INDIANS. The british would have made nepal like hong kong because it is a) Situated in the north near the mountains= WELL PROTECTED b) A very good trading post= ECONOMY c) Great water source etc And obvioulsy in the 20th century we would have been independent like any other colonies. An empire is bound to crash one day. Look at the Macedonian empire led by Alaxander, the roman empire by caesar, the babylonian empire, and then THE BRITISH EMPIRE. They used to say the sun will never set on the british empire. WELL IT DID. and look at britian now, its a vegetable. But look at india now, atleast they got a head start on developing their countries. and look at us. we cant even build our own roads espically in our capitol, that we have to call other countries to build it for us. THATS JUST PATHETIC, and ur talking about BEING PROUD.