I sortof agree with Andrew Wa, key word here being sortof. Hindus are forbidden to eat beef in the scriptures (but is this really true?), so the Hindus can choose not to eat beef. But Nepal has people of other faiths too. Why should they be subjected to the same enforcement? Well, you might say, Nepal is the one and only Hindu Kingdom. So, constitutionally, Nepal is not a secular country. So, I guess I have my answer. But be that as may, is it not best to have the separation of church (in this case, temple) and state? Does being a Hindu Kingdom make us the subjects of theocracy? Is it right for the dominant religion to force its ideas on to other minority religions? And from a more pragmatic point of view, if one has to take a life to sustain oneself, would it not make sense to take as few lives as possible? (Let's assume) 500 people can be fed by the meat of one dead cow. At the same token, you will have to kill at least 100 chickens to feed 500 people. So would it not make sense to take one life rather than one hundred lives? Wouldn't our Hindu gods agree with that?