imi, your argument goes like this: there was not much religious violence under Saddam Hussein. at least we didn't hear about the Sunnis and Shiites fighting it out. Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, people are exploiting religious sentiments. sectarian violence is on the rise in Iraq. Why not reinstate Saddam Hussein to bring peace? What kind of fuzzy logic is this? And I am afraid this is the voodoo logic being espoused by the many supporters of "Hindu State" on this sajha thread! Replace "Saddam Hussein" by "Hindu state" in the context of now Secular Nepal, and we know, Imi, your argument holds no water. Secularism per se doesn't create violence; Hindu fundamentalism does, but Hindu fundamentalists want to blame it all on secularism. Secularism's being made a punching bag here. Their argument that "Hindu state" will avert religious violence is fallacious. Hell, it sure as hell was not able to avert Mr. Narayan Pokharel's murder allegedly at the hands of Hindu fundamentalists. Secularism doesn't pose any threats to Hinduism. It is not going to uproot Hinduism. Well, it will certainly put Hinduism on an equal footing with other religions. This is good. But Hindu fundamentalists don't want a level playing field, which goes onto show that they are really religious bigots and supremacists! The problem with the many Hindu fundamentalists is that even while they argue that under Hindu Nepal, there had been religiuos harmony(which is, of course, all hogwash) they are keen to undermine the good work of Christian missionaries. Just read about their Christian bashing in other threads of Sajha. They are being two-tongued here - while championing "Hindu state" as fostering religiuos harmony, they are being intolerant of Christian missionaries. I'm afraid the Nepali Hindus are playing right into the hands of the India-based Hindu fundamentalist orgs and parties (who think Nepal is their "pewa") and their stooges (eg Bharat Keshari Simha, Sachhit Shumsher Rana, and the palace wallahs).