Orion and freethinker, I don't really think that removing the Hindu tag is the right thing to do, because, while religion-state separation was a necessity for Christian Europe, since only a few centuries ago the pope and his church wielded enormous power, we're only fanning the flames of religious hatred by bringing up the religious issue in a country like Nepal, which has never had religious problems historically. I don't think that Hinduism has really been imposed on the masses, because in the first place it is not an organized religon. Let me ask you all point blank this question: does Hinduism convert non-Hindus and exhorts them to become Hindus? Of course not. So people, we cannot really copy Westerners whose religion is completely different from ours, and whose religion has historically been imposed on the masses. Historically, even in Hindu India, people were given free rein to decide what religious path they would want to take. Parsees, Jews and Christians have all settled in India centuries ago, and they were welcomed with open arms. However, these religius gruops did not try proselytizing people. They settled in India and basically faded to oblivion. The whole Lutheran movement arose because some people saw that the religous leaders(bishop, priests) were essentially corrupt. It did not make sense that one required to pay the church in order to reach heaven. Furthermore, the Sharia law that Islamic states rely on is essentially an Islamic law. Did Hindu Nepal have impositions of this sort?So it seems to me that a distinction needs to be made between Abrahamic religions and a religion like Hinduism, which of all things, doesn't even have just one holy book, and just one deity and just one religious philosophy. Hinduism is by its nature a pluralistic religion. Also, even in "secular" America, Christmas is a federal government holiday, while Eid is not. Having said all that, OF COURSE we cannot reinsert the Hindu tag again, because doing so would basically be taunting the Maoists, and they would truly make a big issue out of this. As I said, there is no turning back now. Nepal is not a Hindu country anymore, and it is going to remain so for ever from this point on. Now this is another important point as well. All major religions have countries in which these major religions have been declared official. For example, Thailand has buddhism, while Saudi Arabia has Islam. Do you all realize that there are no Hindu nations in the world today? I am not trying to sound an alarm bell, but this truly does seem to be a cause for concern, at least to me. Also about one's identity, look, a human being has many identities. He can be a bahun, a Hindu, a Nepali, all at the same time. As I tried to show in my previous post, religious fundamentalism is on the rise all across the globe. While I do believe that a human being has many other identities that are equally as important, the trend has been that people give more emphasis to their religious identity. This is being seen in the Arab world, for example, and to an extent in America as well with the rise of evangelical Christians. In fact, Hindu nationalism is on the rise in India as well. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that, while there is no turning back, removing the Hindu tag will only drive Hindus towards fundamentalism. I expect to see Hindu fundamentalism on the rise in Nepal. I do agree though that keeping missionaries in check will indeed palliate some of the concerns. However, I don't think it is enough. Anyway, only time will tell. Another problem here is that Girija and his boys are only trying to appease the Maoists. Why appease terrorists?