Yeah isn't that how an argument of a deeply divided kind usually ends. "I hold on to my views. You hold onto yours. I don't have to listen to you. You don't have to listen to me." Coming from you, this sounds like the last resort of a person who is at his wits' end. What I find most stupid is when people on Sajha argue that secularism is going to invite religious violence and that the government should reinstate "Hindu Nepal" to foster religious harmony. This is a myth, just like saying King is an incarnation of a Hindu god and the like. It is a throwback to a period when many of us were brainwashed into believing this crap during the Panchayat era. And people are still parroting this. But more than rationale or logic or what not, what religion one was born into is gonna have more bearing on what position people will take on the Hindu state vs secular state issue. So I don't blame the Hindus in Sajha for arguing for "Hindu state". Imi, don't take too seriously my comparison between saddam and hinduism. you know as well as i do the world doesn't run on logic - although it does once in a while show holes in peoples' received wisdom. but surely pay attention to my contention that many of the people who are arguing for "Hindu Nepal" are playing right into the hands of the India-based Hindu fundamentalists organisations and their stooges in Nepal knowingly or unknowingly. Hinduisation of Nepal will only lead to Indianisation of Nepal, and strengthen the royalists. Besides, this trend may infect the country's distinctively Nepali kind of Hinduism with a more virulent /fundamentalistic strain imported from India. Hindu fundamentalism of an Indian/royalist kind poses a bigger threat to the Hinduism of a Nepali kind than secularism.