I was surprised to read this fact about Baburam Bhattrai.
.
.
.
"Before committing himself fully to politics, Bhattarai was also a brilliant chess player. He used to say that chess was to Communists what water was to ducks, and tirelessly pointed out that Lenin was also a chess enthusiast.

When the then FIDE president Max Euwe gave a simultaneous exhibition in Kathmandu, Bhattarai played against him and beat the former world champion in 23 moves with a brilliant queen sacrifice. Afterwards, Dr. Euwe was reported in local media as saying, "Alekhine lives in Nepal!".

Many Nepalese chess fans rue the fact that Nepal lost its first potential FIDE Grand Master when Dr. Bhattarai gave up competitive chess to devote himself exclusively to the revolutionary struggle."

Source: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baburam_Bhattarai

1. Ashu said: "Obviously, those Nepalis who have not had their family members and/or friends killed or hurt by Maoists harbour such pie-in-the-sky sympathies as though Maoists' having a wonderful-sounding philosophy is good enough of a credential for them to be for democracy and against feudalism REGARDLESS of how their philosophy actually plays out in practice."

If you wrote these sentences as a generalization, you proved your mentality once again. It is you, NOT me, who said that unless you were not hurt by anyone personally, you did not give a shit to any problems (For proof, see your history of posts in Sajha). And, it proved once again that my observations over you with some suitable ADJECTIVES were true (mind the previous interactions with me). I do not surprise from likes you to have such generalization. That is fine!

If you wrote specifically to me, you are a BIG wrong. I am the one who is exploited from both your royal security forces as well as from the gun-wielded Maoists. I do not need Harvard degree to judge the extent of atrocities committed by both. Your royal security forces were far more worse than the Maoists.

2. Ashu Said "On a larger note, why can't people understand that there is NO such thing as non-violent Maoism just as there is no such thing as a vegetarian carnivore?

Violence is THE essence of Maoism.
Violence is what gives color to Maoist philosophy.
No violence = No Maoism."

It is your perception NOT mine and it is not a UNIVERSAL one. You have your own version and that is fine to me. My analysis is slightly different than yours: your royal security forces are far more violence-prone than the Maoists. BUT I hate any kind of violence, I am just comparing among the worsts.

3. Ashu Said: "Because Maoists cannot win the hearts and minds of people through logic, evidence, trials and errors, arguments and public debates, they have to resort to violence, to killings and fear-mongering to get what they want."

A wrong analysis. They had won and they are still wining, but the RATE is decreasing! Without wining the hearts and minds of people to some extent, none of the wars would reach at this stage. While writing these sentences, are you claiming that Dacoits at Patlyaiya, Birgunj who loot night buses will stage a Maoists-like war in the future?

4. Ashu Said "So, I would think that the right thing to say the Maoists is this: "So long as you do not denounce violence and give it up altogether and even stop calling yourselves Maoists , you are NOT a political force of any sort. A political ideology with an obviously wrong practice cannot be a right ideology at all. You are just a destructive force. Don't fool yourself and don't fool us.""

Very good writing. It better suits to you, THAN me. To make it fit for you, just replace "Maoists" with "Royalists".

5. Ashu Said: "oohi
"democrat with a small 'd'
ashu"

It is the main difference between you and me. I do not have to put signatures like this to be a democrat. Rather, my writings are enough!

AND,

If you want to know my observations over different political players in our country at present, see my list in descending order (the worst is at the top).
a. Gyanendra: is the biggest terrorist of all kinds.
b. Gyanendra's clans and slaves: they are the threats for both people and democracy and freedom.
c. Maoists: They are NOT threat to the people BUT to the democracy and freedom.
d. Group of opportunists and selfish (I think you are quiet aware of this group): they are threat for a success of a particular system.
e. Upper 2% leaders and some low-level leaders in SPA: They are treat to the intra-party democracy and success of a particular system.
f. Remaining 90% SPA: They are the one who can make the difference, if they remain in the same path.

Ashu, I condemn the most 'a' and the least 'f'. Do you have such clear-cut observations?

----
OK

Violence is THE essence of Maoism.
Violence is what gives color to Maoist philosophy.
No violence = No Maoism."

It is your perception NOT mine and it is not a UNIVERSAL one. You have your own version and that is fine to me. My analysis is slightly different than yours: your royal security forces are far more violence-prone than the Maoists. BUT I hate any kind of violence, I am just comparing among the worsts.

well, OK ji

Ashu is right. Violence is Maoism. There is no non-violent Maoism. Any basic reading of Maoism will tell you that. "Smash the old order" "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" and "revolution is not a dinner party".. these are some of the famous Mao quotes equal in importance to the maoits what the 10 commandments are to the devout christians all over.

Revolution is violent. Has anyone heard of a non-violent communist revolution? I have not. The problem is not the violent revolution, the problem and THE real issue is the extension of violence in the new order. Stalinist purges, Lenin's firing squads, Mao's "smashing", Polpot's cleansing.. all don't point towards a hopeful future in the post revolution Nepali society (if there is one).

so instead of basing our arguments on a big untruth supported by multiple untruths and relying on wishful thinking, lets discuss by taking the historical/ideological factors into account. That way we all can learn and not be misled, hoina ta?

anyways, just my views..

OK wrote:

"If you wrote specifically to me, you are a BIG wrong."



Postings on Sajha are NOT privately sent emails. meant only for your eyes.

Moreover, why do you think that you are so important that even with so many participants here in this thread and with so many diverse views expressed, you
had to believe that my postings were ONLY and ONLY for you and you had to
respond to me publicly in such personal terms even when my remarks were
general and addressed to all in broad terms?

What sort of insecurity for self-importance drives you -- again and again, in your Sajha interactions with me, yaar? This is NEITHER the first time NOR the last time you have behaved like this, especially toward me.

For your information, postings on Sajha are for everyone:

to see or
to read or
to comment on, or
to ignore or
to disagree with
to value or to dismiss with their own reasons.

I, for one, NEVER take things here personally; I suggest that you become mature to
do the same too.

Other than that, hey, thanks for the entertainment, which, I am sure, will be appreciated by all.

Meantime, be anti-king to your heart's content; be anti-royalist until the cows come home. That's fine. Just remember that your priorities need NOT be my priorities too. Tetti ho.

oohi
"democrat with a small 'd'
ashu

IF jee,

Welcome Back!

Nice to get your comments. I appreciate it.

We have different perceptions over revolution and it is natural. For examples:

1. You said: Revolution is violent.
I say: Not all revolutions are violent but few, especially the past ones.
2. You think: We do not need revolution (it is obvious because of #1)
I say: We need revolution and without revolution, we can not change our feudal societies, especially those societies which were run by royal system over centuries.

However, we do not need violent revolutions. Peaceful revolutions are quite enough!

We need to find out the ways to settle the armed and violent revolutions like Maoists peacefully--- No! not from the use of guns but from addressing the real roots of the problem.

Yetti ho!

Ashu,

It is your style to twist the things away from the discussions. Addressing as "you" or "your analysis" is not personal--- at least in my view. Sometimes, it is more clear to write in active sentences than in passive. That's it!

Hey, did I ask you about your sex, about your marital status or about your kids or about your religion? To make informal discussions more alive, talking about someone's political belief is not personal! Without knowing someone's observations over alternative political players, how can we reach to a conclusion?

Yes me too. I never take your writing personal but I feel good to express my views when someone starts writing with my posts as a heading.

Have a nice day!

---
OK

फटाहाको कुतर्क:

एक सज्जन: ए भाइ, तिमी किन सँधै फटाहा काम गरी हिड्छौ हँ?

फटाहा: धत्तेरीका ! कस्तो कुरा नबुझेको भन्या ! फटाहा काम गरी हिड्ने मेरो इच्छा कहाँ हो र ? के गर्ने, यो समाजमा सबै सज्जन मात्र हुन चाहाने । सज्जनहरुले मात्र भरिएको समाज कति निरस होला, काहिल्यै सोचेका छौ? कसै न कसैले त यो सामाजमा फटाहाको भुमिका पनि निभाउनु त पर्‍यो नि, हैन? त्यसैले मैले यो लोककल्याणकारी बाटो रोजेको क्या !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
करिब करिब यस्तै आशयको (कु)तर्क साझाका एक हस्तीबाट प्रक्षेपण भएको देख्दा एक हिसाबले मलाइ उदेक लागेर आयो, साथै गाँठि कुरा के रहेछ भन्ने पनि मालुम भयो ।

Truely Neutral

Neutral,

Your analogy is misleading.

Here's why.

A fataha is, by definition, a fataha, someone whose currency -- as the adjective implies -- is falsehood. And falsehood is a no-no under any circumstances. No matter how "rare" a fataha is, no democratic society will ever find him/her important.

And this effectively ENDS the validity of your analogy in that comparing kafal and orange to decide which gives more juice will never make sense.

*****
But having a DIFFERENT number-one political priority for Nepal

-based on the information one has, and
- based on how one privately ranks the importance of freedom and democracy for Nepal

is simply being different.

It's just, well, having a different set of political priorities.

Thankfully, in my worldview, one person's subscribing to one set of political beliefs (say, being against Maoist violence as the most important goal) does NOT negate another person's subscribing to another set of political beliefs (say, being anti-king or whatever else as that person's most important goal).

In democratic struggles, both beliefs and MORE have their places under the sun so long as they do not involve violence.

And so, this simple equation:
(A) anti-Maoist violence = (B) pro-king is simply FALSE.

The world and our minds are NOT so singular to believe that if one is A, then one must also be B. It is NOT, and that's fine.

Let's grow up about this, shall we?

On a personal aside: True, I understand that my ranking of priorities drives some people out there crazy, prompting them to call me everything and anything -- things for which they are ALWAYS, I might add, unable to provide proofs of any sort.

That's fine.

[Then again, I think to myself: If one wants to live and work in Nepal and do something really important whatever that is, then learning how to deal with such a flood of false accusations with equanimity is a priceless skill, and I thank Sajha for giving me opportunities to sharpen such skills].

oohi
democracy = views that are right, wrong and even disagreeable minus the violence
ashu

Baburam says to Kishore Nepal:

"अमेरकिाले इराकमा गएर हमला गर्छ । उसले विस्तारै त्यहाँका निर्माणहरू ध्वंस पारििदएपछि अनि आफ्नो हिसाबले बनाउँछ ।"


What are we to make of this?

That the Maoists attacks in the Nepali hinterland are like, well, American attacks in Iraq?

That the Maoists will start constructing things आफ्नो हिसाबले just like the Americans might do in Iraq?

If so, then, is Babu Ram implying that just as America appears to invoke its right to attack countries it finds to be a member of the axis of evil, Babu Ram & company too find it to be their right to attack Nepalis they define to be a part of some axis of evil?

If so, then, is BRB saying that his party has much in common with the country he despises?

American attacks in Iraq, whatever one thinks of them, were sanctioned by the
majority of Americans' political representatives in the Congress. But from whom
did the Maoist war ever derive its legitimacy?

Didn't know that the American attacks in Iraq had these two similarities with the
Maoists' violence in Nepal.

The truth, I suspect, might be pretty boring:
Babu Ram is clever enough to use America-in-Iraq as an example to DIVERT attention away from discussing the sheer illegitimacy violence-drenched Nepali Maoist movement. He uses America when it suits his purposes; he abuses America when he suits his purposes, just like most leftist Nepali intellectuals who don't blink twice to denoounce America while doing everything to send their kids to study and wor work in that country.

oohi
ashu

मित्र प्रचण्ड जी
धन्यवाद राजधानीवासीलाई केही दिनको राहात दिनु भएकोमा । तर सातदलले त तपाईलाई राजधानीमा मात्र युद्ध विराम गर भनेर भनेको त हामीले सुनेका थिएनौ । यो किस्तावन्दी युद्ध विरामलाई कसरी वुझ्ने नागरिक समाजले खै ?
अव यो व्यक्तव्य पछि निकै सवाल जवाफ उठेका छन कसो साथीहरु ?
१ काठमामाडौमा कतै वर्तमान सरकारको रवैयाका कारण त्रसित मानसिकताको उपज मात्र त होइन यो ?
२. माओवादीका हिंसा हत्या रआंतकका कारण राजधानी वाहेकका माओवादी कै शव्दमा ८० प्रतिशत क्षेत्रमा आंतक फैलिएको छ । युद्ध विराम त्यहा हुनु पर्ने हो की होइन ?
३. तपाई व्यक्तव्यमा निरकुश सामान्तीतन्त्रका विरुद्धको अन्तिम र निर्ण्ाायक र्सधष भन्नु भएको छ त्यसको कुनै आधार प्रप्ट छैन । तपाईहरुको खाली गिलासलाई आधा देख्ने कथित आशावादी आत्मरक्षावादी र संझौतावादी चिन्तनको उपजमा रहेका सिद्धान्तले यदी यो तपाईको अन्तिम भनिरहनु भएको आन्दोलन दमनमा या संझौतामा तुहीने पक्का पक्की छ । त्यस पछि तपाईको आफ्ना कार्यकर्ता र तपाईले भन्ने गरेका ताकपरे तिवारी नत्र गोतामेका नागरिक समाजलाई के भन्नुहुन्छ ।
४. तपाई पत्रमा भन्नु भएको मण्डले ति तिनै कमल थापालाई भएको हामीले महशुष गरेका छौ । तिनै कमल थापा र कमल थापा मार्कासग तपाई र तपाईका नेताले हापुरेमा खाइपिइ उठवस गरेको प्रमाण तपाईले भन्ने गरेका नागरिक समाजसग प्रमाण यद्यपी हुनु पर्दछ । कमल थापा सग डा. वावुरामले कानेखुशी गरेका तस्विर पनि हामीसग प्रमाण हुदा हुदै मण्डलेको उपमामा दिनु भएको छ । हामी स्वतन्त्र नागरिकले कसरी वुझ्ने ? मण्डलेले तपाईलाई आंतकारी भन्छ आंतककारीले मण्डले भन्दछ । वास्तवमा दुवै खराव हुन भन्ने कुराको यथेष्ट प्रमाण जनतालाई पुग्दैन र ?
५. अर्कोकुरा शान्ति जोडिएको लोकतान्त्रिक आन्दोलनमा तपाईहरुको हिंसा हत्या रआंतकको कुनै जरुरत पर्दैन । सातदलहरुले भनि सकेका छन र यति सम्मकी माओवादीहरुको हिंसा हत्या रआंतकको सहकार्य उनीहरुलाई स्विकार्य हुदैन । त्यति मात्र होइन तपाई र तपाईका कथित कार्यकर्ताहरुले सातदलसग १२ वुदे संझौताको पुनमूलयांकन गरेको हप्ता दिन वित्न नपाउदै परिक्षा दिइरहेको परिक्षाकेन्द्रमा अत्यन्तै अमानवीय तवरवाट वम विष्फोटन गर्राई थप आंतककारीताको परिचयन दिनु भएको छ ।
५. अर्कोकुरा तपाईको व्यक्तव्य तपाईहरुमा यो स्प्रष्ट छ की शान्तिपुण आन्दोलनको विकल्प छैन भन्ने कुरा महशुष गरिसक्नु भएको छ जुन तपाईको व्यक्तव्यको अन्तिम वांकशले प्रष्टाउदछ । कि होइन ? नत्र तपाईको युद्ध विरामको औचित्य के ? तपाईले काठमाडौमा युद्ध विराम नगरेको भए सायद यो आन्दोलन चर्कने पक्का पक्की थियो । तपाईका जति सुकै गुलियो भाषामा व्यक्तव्य निकाले पनि आखिर यो राजा ज्ञानेन्द्राकै वचावटको लागि गरिएको प्रपञ्च होइन भनेर कसरी विश्वास गर्ने ल भन्नुस त !!
आदरणीय पाठकहरु यो कुरालाई मनन गर्नुहोस त । जनता माओवादी र सातदलको सयुक्त हुरिले राजतन्त्र फाल्ने अन्तिम तयारीमा लागेको वेलामा माओवादीले एकाएक अनायसमा युद्ध विराम त्यो पनि किस्तावन्दी गरेर अन्ततोगोत्ता राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रको पृष्ठ पोषक भएको कुरालाई हामी सवैले वुझ्न जरुरी छ ।
तर्सथ प्रचण्डजी , आज तपाईको किस्तावन्दी युद्ध विराम मात्र र्सार्वजनिक हुदा पनि हामी निकै हौसिएका छौ । जनता तपाईको यो किस्तावन्दी प्रति कृत्यज्ञ छन तपाई सातदलले भने वमोजिम पुरै देशमा सदाका लागि युद्ध विराम गरेर राजनैतिक मुलधारमा र्फकनु भयो भने जनता प्रफुल्ल हुने छन ।

तपाईका मित्र रविन्द्र

Asu मलाई भाउते को यो कथा साह्रै मन पर्‍यो...
--------------------------------------------------------

सानो कथा नै सुनाउव के रे।(हुन त यो सबैले सुनेकै हुनुपर्छ) :-) एक जना
महाशयले ठूलो भोज आयोजना गरेर आफन्तहरुलाई निम्त्याएछन। कारणवश निम्त्याइएका
मध्य आधा सँख्यामा मात्र आफन्त उपस्थित भएछन। बाँकी आधा नआएको देखेर
महाशयको मन खिन्न भएछ। अनि प्वाक्क बोलेछन : " आउनु पर्ने मान्छे आएनन।"

उपस्थितलाई निम्तालुलाई यो सुनेर खल्लो लागेछ। "ए हामी त नआउनु पर्ने मान्छे पो परेछौँ"
भन्दै उपस्थित मध्य आधा तुरुन्तै फर्केछन। फेरि यो देखेर महाशयलाई सारै नरमाइलो लागेछ।
अनि फेरि प्वाक्क : "नजानु पर्ने मान्छे गए।" भनेछन्। बाँकी निम्तालुलाई यसले चसक्क
बिझेछ। अनि "ए जानु पर्ने त हामी पो रहेछौँ" भन्दै बाँकी पनि गए पछि त भोज शून्य नै
भएछ।

कुरो के भने हरेक वाक्यको पुरक खोज्दा कहिले काहीँ गलत अर्थ पो निस्किने हो कि

I know there are lots of good engineers in Sajha. I don’t mean to hurt them or anyone personally. But just a thought

Why are the talented engineers being Karntikari???
This question comes to my mind again and again looking at Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and Bin Laden?

Ki B bata nam suru hune engineer haru krantikari hunchan ra ho???

Auta kura kyaaaaaaaaaa.!!!!!!!!

Ashuji, thanks for your reply-the reply that was specified at me.

Allright, it was no different from what I had expected from you. I just wanted to be sure if you had genuinely changed your past political understanding. Few months back, you gave me the impression that you had begun to change. Now you have confirmed that my impression was wrong. :)

Thanks for making your things clear. The momentum for democracy has slowed down recently, hasn't it? Hence the time to go back to where you had begun. Kudos!

Isolatedji, sorry for addressing you once again. Infact I am a big fan of yours (no pun intended) and want to see you in the discussion board more frequently.

You had raised some hope in me last year that our country was Singapore in the making in the leadership of our very own Lee Kwan Yew. Now just a simple question here - How far has king Gyanendra moved in that direction? I still have some hope against hope. Are you disappointed by now? अलि कम पढ्न पाइन्छ आजभोली , किन होला? जिज्ञासा लागेर मात्र :)

Assuming that he was that good a chess player. . .
He should have just played chess. I would have loved to cheer and admire him for bringing honors to our motherland.

Alas!

But he is playing chess though! Only people are his "goti" and he kills and sacrifices as it pleases him. And the irony is that we have three players playing the game!

IndisGuise.

BRB is a grand Potential Chess Grandmaster re? -so what?? He might have other qualities than playing chess - so what? BRB will not be remembered as a chess player, or as a good orator or as anything other than he plagued the country for a long time and crippled the country. As long as he lives he will be fered as a ruthless killer and thats how he will be remembered.

माओवादी, so called democratic, र शाही सत्ता सँग disappointed भएका हरुले एउटा नयाँ पार्टी बनाएर म नै head गर्नु पर्ला जस्तो छ यो देशलाई, Isreal को Kadima Party जस्तो । यी मोरा हरु कीन माओवादी को support र oppose गर्छन हँ तेसै कुरो नबुझी? तीमी हरु सबै आओ मेरो Nadima Party मा ।

Lina,
म पनि इन्जिनियर, मेरो नाम पनि "B" बाट आउँछ, "Bhaute"। :-) Talanted Engineer ! हम ! :@ नभएको भए यहाँ सम्म आउने नै थिइन कि ! त्यसैले स्व-घोषित "Talanted Engineer " :P

तर म चैँ क्रन्तिकारी परिन। "प्रजातान्त्रिक" परेँ। :p तपाईँको निचोड यहीँ फइल भयो। :-) .........गफै त हो।

Lali-Guras जी, यो बहस मा कता बाट मेरो "भाउते-कथा"ले स्थान पाएछ ! नाम लिनु भएछ, खुसुक्क धन्यवाद भन्न पसेको।

:-)
-भउते

ह्यात्तेरी ! "Talented Engineer" ले " Talented Engineer" को Spelling नै बिगारेछ। :-)। म भागेँ यहाँ बाट। :-(

Newuser wrote:

"I just wanted to be sure if you had genuinely changed your past political understanding. Few months back, you gave me the impression that you had begun to change. Now you have confirmed that my impression was wrong. :)

Thanks for making your things clear. The momentum for democracy has slowed down recently, hasn't it? Hence the time to go back to where you had begun. Kudos!"

*********

Newuser-ji,

I just love the (palpably feel-able) tone of your voice when you see things not going your way, and when you see other people such as myself not valuing your political priorities for Nepal as highly as you, in your infinite wisdom, do in London or Washington.

My challenge (in a positive sense) to you is simple: If you feel so committed to your political goal, so much so that you feel obviously so superior to others who do not share your political priority of throwing out the monarchy now, then you should put your money where your mouth is: Return home to spearhead the movement to success rather than forever coming across as a politically impotent activist who can neither rise to the top in the Western world in his/her chosen profession nor is influential in any sense in Nepal and who simply sits there in the West and criticizes Nepal and Nepalis for anything and everything different that they do in Nepal and among Nepali communities.

That said, I would like to remind you that my participation on Sajha (since the very beginning, since the year 2000) is NOT aimed at being the poster-boy for your or anyone else's whatever political priorities so as to win your easy applause and wah-wahs.

How difficult is this for you to understand?

I have absolutely no problem with your being anti-monarchy or anti-whatever-you-fancy to your heart's content. But what is your problem when I rank -- based on my information, knowledge and judgment as of this moment -- "Maoist violence" as the number one urgent but relatively undervalued political problem in Nepal for us all to address or solve soon?

Newuser-ji, algebra comes before calculus.
And when you can't even climb Shivapuri, saying that you plan to summit the Everest soon makes people laugh at you.

And so, all things being equal, it is probably easier to start positively addressing the 10-year-old Maoist violence in an urgently incremental manner than forever getting lost in the pipe-dream of abruptly uprooting the 200-plus year institution of monarchy at this time with the kind of khattam resources and simply jhoor leadership at hand, no matter how much you, I and others despise the royal regime.

This is NOT being virulently ideological, Newuser-ji.
This is being practical.

(Sure, there is a chance that I might be wrong altogether, and that's fine. But that's a risk I willingly take. As of now, neither you nor I know for sure what will unfold in Nepal; hence, the use of our info and judgment.)

After all, just gathering a bunch of like-minded folks and shouting the loudest --again and again -- from the parks of London and Boston against the royal regime in Nepal does NOT make you any more democrat than anyone else in Nepal or elsewhere with a different set of political priorities for Nepali people's freedom and Nepali democracy.

oohi
ashu

''My challenge (in a positive sense) to you is simple: If you feel so committed to your political goal, so much so that you feel obviously so superior to others who do not share your political priority of throwing out the monarchy now, then you should put your money where your mouth is: Return home to spearhead the movement to success rather than forever coming across as a politically impotent activist who can neither rise to the top in the Western world in his/her chosen profession nor is influential in any sense in Nepal and who simply sits there in the West and criticizes Nepal and Nepalis for anything and everything different that they do in Nepal and among Nepali communities. ''

Ashuji, How long did you spend in the US before returning to Nepal? What is the basis of your assumption that I am a ''politically impotent activist who can neither rise to the top in the Western world in his/her chosen profession nor is influential in any sense in Nepal and who simply sits there in the West and criticizes Nepal and Nepalis for anything and everything different that they do in Nepal and among Nepali communities.''?

You have made some generalised personal comments here and let me write few things too.

See, you may know or not know something about how long I am in here and whether I am rising in my chosen profession or not; and even I may have or haven't some inluential role to play, or at least through what I am doing from here. If you know nothing, then just shut up. If you know something, then base your argument on what you know; not on what you assume.

First, don't boast that you are the only one to leave the west and base your profession in Nepal. FYKI, I worked in my chosen profession for three years in Nepal. Learnt something there, rose up and made the basis to continue the same profession in the west.

Second, don't think that because you achieved what you could in the US and returned back after failing to rise, I have to follow suit. I can guarantee you that I have still many more years ahead to stay in the west, to rise on top of my profession and be considerably influential; you have already risen how much you could, I have an extra decade compared to yours to make mark. Got it Sir?

Third, I don't believe that you are making a big contribution, simply staying in Kathmandu and flying to Dhaka every now and then with a briefcase and writing a column for a Nepalese magazine. If you think you have done remarkable things, please do list in here so that I will know what you have been doing from Kathmandu. I shall salute you after knowing what you did. Alright?

Now keeping personal issues apart, if you had focussed in the political arguments only, my question was : What sort of a democrat you are who closes his eyes at the wrongdoings of the King while taking every chances to bashing and humilliating political parties and the maoists? No matter how many paragraphs of blabberings you have spilled so far, you haven't given me the answer yet. Concentrate on the main issue sir, if you want to discuss politics. Tell me how you are going to manage the maoists problem without dialogue and mediation?