I started this discussion to really understand the otherside. I don't like jumping into conclusion, I think there always is the other side that sometimes is not visible. 

Since I started this topic I have talked with many individuals involved in politics actively or merely by interest. I found a very biased view. Each side claiming the other side to be non nationalist. One group of people I haven't approached yet is the Madhesi friends and it'd be great to hear their side of story.

I also did some research on interviews published in the newspaper, specially of the leaders from the other side. Two guys that stood up were C.K. Raut and Ang Kaji Sherpa. C.K. Raut sounds like extremist while Ang Kaji came as a politician with hot blood. I think Raut's motivations are clear, I wanted to dissect Ang Kaji's agenda from his perspective. The following is my deduction:

1. Ang Kaji doesn't hate Nepal but he hates our history, specially suppression of the ethnic groups by two major castes. This was clear from the get-go.

2. Ang doesn't see federalism based on ethnicity as division. He cites example of Indian states like Tamil Nadu, Gujrat names based on ethnic groups which has worked well. 

3. He thinks not giving the states their "proper" names would be denying the rights and could cause problems in the future. Again, his example is our neighbors. India gave some of the states ethnic names and that kept the states intact. When India didn't want to designate a group of people by religion, it caused faction and hence came Pakistan. He argues Bangladesh also separated because of the same reason.

4. He argues that even a state will have ethnic name, its representation will be done proportionately by all ethnicity. 

These are not credible points, but at least it presents their argument in a better terms, IMO. The problem with the interviews in the journal and videos are that the journalist never ask a good follow up question. There are many holes in Ang's arguments but we will never know his real motive.

Hope to hear more on this from both sides.

Nepal is going through a very sensitive time, one more time. Had it not been the employment overseas we would have even more combustible situation with all the youth roaming around without any job prospects, heck we would be in a midst of another full blown civil war. While that situation is averted, situation in the southern side is getting a little too dicey. 

(A scene from Madhes):

Bottom line is rather than pushing your side of debate, let's try to understand both side and come up with the argument that no side can deny. I know, easier said than done, specially when the other side doesn't follow any logic or reason. But we can try.