Before this concept of countries with fixed boundries, the present South Asia had many different villages, separately considered as countries. but, with the introduction of states based on boundries rather than nations, the nation states of that time got lost. Many of those nation-states are collectively present day India, rest are nepal, bhutan, pakistan and others. What I think is, before this introduction of state as not having same boundary as that of nation, the identity of the entire South Asia was not that varied. Most part of it share similar language, faith and philosophy. It just happened because of fkin british that india has larger area, thus is larger in every sense- culture, language, places, bla bla. So, if we start counting the features to make us Nepali, we have less number of unique points. Has it been Nepal that had larger area, even non-nepalese would be confused by others as nepalese. what we can do? campaign for awareness. raise issues that are unique to nepal. I do not consider Sagarmatha and Lumbini as very strong points because, they just happened to be there. No nepalese made any contribution to make them Nepalese asset, they themselves chose Nepal as the place. These assets would help politically, financially but identity-wise, they are not that strong. I consider Gurkha fight with British as great identity. But shamelessly, we are serving those enemies these days. How stupid are we to fight for rights in UK even after we are taken as prisoners of war since the Sugauli Sandhi. Unique and improved philosophy and culture can be the best identity.