since this is a very sensitive issue i'm not going to hurt any feelings. i guess my language skills are not that great. a lot of the comments posted were not relevant to what i was trying to say. anyhow since a lot of people misunderstood me there is no point going forward with this thread. however, i would like to adress some of the comments: ne23pe, sanskrit is the language of the indian subcontinent. bangladeshi do not like indians because they are muslims and they do not like secular india. during india pakistan partition there were around 60 -70% hindus in east pakistan that is bengladesh now. now the population of hindus in bengla is around 7% eventhough they are all bengali (same race same language) they (hindus) were persecuted on base of religion. so most people were either converted or fled the country. so your your argument was not very effective. ss74k wrote: "The whole things you said above is nonsense and its meaningless..common who told you about sanskrit..go and find out the origin ..there are many language derived from sanskrit and you cannot say all of them indian." what is the origin of sanskrit then my friend? yes there are many language derived from it including nepali. i didn't say all of them are indian. even the other indian languages like tamil is quite different from sanskrit. the origin of sanskrit has to be indian subcontinent of which large portion is now india . nepal was almost inhabited back in those days. for your info i didn't say all nepali have indian origin my opinion was only relevant to the royal dynasty. even i know some indians who blatantly said mt. everest was in india turns out they were taught in school that it was in northern part of india ( which is highly conniving) it was especially true with the south indian education, that is weird. and hell yeah i argued with them fiercely and F*** proved them it was in nepal but not for the sake of that heap of rock that we call mt. everest but for the sake of truth. and Buddha he was enlightened in bodh gaya, he spent most of his life outside of nepal. yes you are right siddhartha gautam was born in nepal but nepal is NOT the birth place of buddhism. this becomes really complicated issue. during the spread of buddhism by king ashoka much of the present day india was buddhist but interestingly nepal was not fully buddhist. there were hindus and animistand buddhist another reason was very little population in nepal at that time. inteestingly when kennedy was elected he was labeled as first irish catholic president of USA. i hope that counters your argument. you can watch the "american president vol I" if you would like to verify that it's a documentary. and yes some royalist told me you have to be a dhoti hater to be nationalist and this thread was about that in the first place. okay i think i made my self clear. if not either i'm a moron or everyone else is (even after reading this) and for the sake of my own gratification i will think other wise. hehehe peace on nepal shall prevail! Jai Nepal