I am a budget traveller who likes taking pictures, getting good deals, and avoiding too many other tourists. In my experience, visiting troubled lands means more vacancies in hotels and better deals. The downside is the inconvenience such as strikes that limit transportation in the city and often the impossibility of getting to distant locations by air.

The following is not a political comment. But it is what happened. I have been in Cambodia and Madagascar during factional fighting/general strikes. In both case it was armed representatives of the state who extorted me, not any terrorists. Also in Indian metropolises after "communal violence". There, even the most violent Muslim and Hindu factions could care less about me. I might as well have been part of the scenery. Cops and soldiers were sometimes a mild headache (curiously not in Srinagar though).

The news always shows the worst risk. In Phnom Penh and Tana I called or emailed home to tell family that I was OK. For example if there are tanks in the street, does that mean in YOUR part of town? So my guess is that:
1. Kathmandu is still basically safe.
2. The likelihood of getting hit by a car is greater than being blown up by a bomb.
3. The major problems will be transportation-related.
4. The most likely hassle will be the government not allowing foreigners to enter (or confiscating video camcorders) if the situation gets really dicey.

Politically I am libertarian and don't listen to anybody's admonitions that I visit or not visit (whether they are Maoists, Mooists, parliaments, kings or potentates). I go wherever I want to go and I don't even listen to my own Embassy.

Posted on soc.culture.nepal by "Marian"