I have strong reservation regarding the Guest Column by Shyam Chalise in which he describes different personality types of our current political players. I don't get the point: why do you media people choose psychiatry/mental illness or related fields to describe various political scenarios of this country? Why again and again stigmatise mental illness? You did same in 'Schizophrenic Nepal policy' (#285). Personality is a whole system of relatively permanent tendencies of an individual which is distinctive and adjusts according to psychological and social environment, usually begins to take shape during adolescence and becomes crystallised in adulthood. When there is behaviour deviants that does not adjust with existing social circumstances, it becomes a 'personality disorder'. Of course, normal people will have various personality traits that describe them but this does not mean you have to compare various types of personality disorders with characteristics/traits of political heavyweights. It is really ridiculous to compare 'borderline personality disorder' with correction of regression and joining royal government.

Shailendra Raj Adhikary,
Lecturer in Psychiatry, KMCTH, Sinamangal

. I just read the trenchant, bold and absolutely correct analysis by Dr Shyam Chalise in your Guest Column ('Psycopaths and sycophants', #290). His diagnosis of NPD fits exactly, I'd only add that there are some antisocial and paranoid features as well. Of course it's all the same DSM cluster. This narcissism could allow a face-saving way out, to allow them to grandiosely claim that they are heroes. I personally think they are APDs who should be on trial but that approach isn't going to cut any ice and will only strengthen their resolve. As you know, confronting people like that doesn't help. Thanks to Dr Chalise for his courage and insight.

Dr Bob Curran,
email