BathroomCoffee ji - You are right, the parliament has decided/settled the Hindu-state question. I am not complaining about it or asking for it to be reversed. I have already said that I agreed with the secular-state principle. What I am saying is that the decision could have waited until the CA. Since, what's done cannot be undone, I am worried that the backlash that is at its infancy could grow if the State does not handle it properly going forward. Remember, religious and communal sentiments are easy to exploit and cunning politicians can channel other grievances, mainly economic and social discriminations into religious and communal ill-feelings. What I am saying in simple words is that the government still has ample time to ensure that Nepal does not become another Gujarat. Those protesting recently against the secular state are probably Mandales trying to stir instability in the country in the name of religion but there are many non-Mandales that are pro-Hindu-state. If the government is not careful in how addresses the grievances of those non-reactionary, pro-Hindu-state Nepalese, the problem could get bigger NOT smaller "in the longer term." lalpari ji - Just because politicians support secular state does not make them atheists - your reasoning will make G W Bush an atheist. Moreover, believing in atheism is a choice, you can't argue with that, much like you can't argue with someone who believes in Jesus or Muhammad. You can have qualms about the CA and many people have it too. An average Ram-Hari-Gopal in Nepal probably does not understand how the CA is supposed to work, let alone work successfully. But given the choices Nepal has at its disposal to solve its existential crisis, it is the best tool available. Instead of complaining about why CA won't work, we should try our level best to make it work. Chatmandude ji - I think you got confused between WWI and WWII. Georges Clemenceau led France in WWI and they defeated Germany and the Axis powers. France lost to Nazi Germany in WWII. There are many political and military reasons as to why. One of the reasons was that they were too dependent on their supposedly-invincible Maginot Line. The Germans avoided that defensive perimeter when they deployed their deadly Panzer divisions around it through a giant pincer movement. One arm of the pincer movement went through the Ardennes Forest - French thought that the geography was too unfavorable for modern warfare - and another arm went through the Low Countries i.e. neutral Holland and Belgium.