Being a "hindu" state or having a state religion has nothing to with other religions. It DOES not affect any other religion, in any way. People were free to practice other religion as well as to preach (mind it but not to convert). Was Jana-jatis asking for "secular-state"? Of course not. I have spoken about this issue with Swami Prapannacharya, a scholar, calls himself a kirati but he does not advocate secularism. Like it or not, agree it or not -secularism does not benefit anyone other than "lets kill cows openly" group and missionaries. There are some people who advocate for secularism but admit that Nepal will always be a Hindu state regardless of its official position, if this is the case than why change it? Isnt this hypocracy? I do not agree that being "secular" is a pre-cursor to be a "loktantra" either. What is the harm in acknowledging the majority of the population and their belief? The only people who objected being a Hindu state were the missionaries other than Maobadis. Not the rais, limbus and kirats. Speaking against the religion and tradition is a fashion, hollow modern day pseudo-intellectualism, nothing more. I agree that now in Nepal, people will start organizing in the name of religion. People are extremely unhappy about secularism. First it was an attack on personal property and safety by the Maobaids now it is attack on the faith of the majority of the population of the nation. These decisions were uncalled for and unwanted by the people. Why didn't the SPAs and its leaders did not bother to ask people? Are you kidding me? When have they asked people? The SPA leaders and the Maobadis are supreme now, above the law, above constitution, above corruption, above religion in other words they are gods them selves!! You have heard their "threat" if you do anything against their decisions you will face sever consequences. Is this is the democracy and freedom people wanted?? Don't think so!!