There in-lies the problem. I just haven't seen legitimate argument against having a hindu=rashtra, other than the opinion (which I align with) that religion and governance should be kept separate.

@divorceguy. Not sure you are just trolling but if that's your argument then it is not much different than a small group of people claiming the state for themselves. Well, who decides who gets what? Should it be left for the referendum? If we go with "democracy" then the majority should get their say, in which case it no-doubtedly becomes hindurashtra, and your "Christian rastra" point will be voided.

@Vhotee. While I agree with your secular sentiments, I don't share the apprehension of India taking over if we become Hindu rashtra. First of all, India itself is not Hindu; it has a major muslim population (largest one next to Indonesia) and a fair share of Christians. Sure, Bhajapa and Shiv Sena might apply the pressure but I just don't see them taking over Nepal, just because Nepal becomes a Hindu rashtra. The fear you have about being Hindu-rashtra is the fear I share of not being one. I will be elated if no religion meddles the politics, but I am afraid that will not be the case. Percentage of Christians in Nepal has taken a geometric progression and has simply exploded. The interest groups working in behalf of Christianity and Islam will be able to openly increase their pressure and frankly speaking, I would pick the liberal Hinduism (or Buddhism) over those religions.

Heck, I am up for making us a Budhist country, that might promote our tourism as well.

Mangale, I didn't click the link but I did listen to one of the lawyer advocating for Hindu rashtra. One point I didn't agree about was his point on religious tourism. If we become a Hindu country, we will attract few more hindus, but will alienate many other religions - including Buddhism.