[Let me add to the debate]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.

The consequence of that Supreme Court decision was that religious conservatives in the US found a rallying cry to unite and fight for. In every election (local, state or national) since, the abortion issue has become the hot-button issue and has driven legions of religious conservatives to the voting booth. And they are credited for bringing Reagan in '80 & '84 and W Bush in '00 & '04 and forcing out H Bush in '92. The abortion issue is not going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, the rhetoric is getting louder as the religious conservatives sense a victory within their sight. That's the reason for conservative backlash when Harriet Meyer was chosen to succeed John Roberts in the US Supreme Court. The long-term consequence of that "simple decision" in 1973 is that the political center in the US has shifted radically to the right. If Cameron-led Tory in the UK or Chirac-led Gaullist in France had been in the US, they would have been considered "Commies"

The elimination of "Hindu State" in Nepal might be the "Roe vs Wade" decision of Nepal. It could be the rallying cry for the disgruntled Mandales, right-wing elements within the security services (RNA) and Hindu revivalists. It could provide them a "simple yet appealing slogan" to energize their erstwhile discouraged base. I won't be surprised if a Nepali version of LK Advani emerges in not too distant future and makes Hindustva the "wedge issue", the much used word in the contemporary American political parlance. It might be useful to remember that BJP in India used the same issue during its meteoric rise from 1984-96. In 1984 it had only 2 seats in the parliament but in the aftermath of "Ayodhya Rath Yatra" the BJP was able to use Hindustva as a wedge-issue to divide the secularist Congress already mired in the Bofor scandal. By the time the VP Singh government imploded, the BJP was the main opposition party.

I consider myself a non-practicing Hindu (and Buddhist) and I would personally like to remove the tag, "Hindu State" because the Shah bansa had exploited it to its benefits. But I fear the downside of removing the tag. Although Hindu traditions were celebrate nationally, Nepalese people on the whole were very secular. I am fearful that Hindu revival may take root in Nepal and divide the country along religious and communal lines. If the "clash of civilizations" occurs in Nepal (god forbid), the 10-year Maoists insurgency would be a footnote in Nepal's history.

I abhor the royalists as much as anybody else, but it seems to me that removing the Hindu tag only strengthens the royalists. People like me who want democracy are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

enough already !! heard enough already !!

BathroomCoffee ... let people talk ... if you don't want to listen then ... go to the bathroom and have coffee! :)

Lalpari,
Why don't you mind your own BIDNESS. Let the people talk ?ha ha ha Yeah thats all Nepali people do anyways...he he TALK. The country will be steaming forward no use wasting time talking BULLSHIZZ. AND YEAH I DON"T WANT TO HEAR THIS SHIZZ ANYMORE SO EVERYTIME SOMEONE BRING IT UP WILL HAVE TO BE READY TO FACE THE BARRAGE OF ROTTEN VEGITABLES. ha ha ha

BathroomCoffee ji -
I think you missed the disclaimer at the beginning of the post that said, "Let me add to the debate". I hope I did just that, but if didn't, then obviously I wasted my time - there is opportunity cost for everything.

Let me correct myself about my religious affiliation. I don't consider myself Hindu or Buddhist, practicing or non-practicing but rather I consider myself agnostic - yes there is god but we don't know what it is.

ok you're an agnostic. So what ? my point is wha's been done is done. THere is no fcuking use crying over spilled milk. End of story.

AND ENOUGH OF THIS RELIGION IS BETTER THAN THAT. DON"T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE THAT DUCK TAPE HANDY.

Then don't read the post Bathroom Coffee!! You do have that much will power don't you??!!

BathroomCoffee ji -
Georges Clemenceau, the French leader during WWI said, "War is too important to be left to generals." The same goes with the "Hindu State" decision, "It is too important not to be discussed thoroughly and get it absolutely right." The long-term consequences are immense.

When I used the comparison to Roe v Wade, I was not saying that the Roe v Wade decision was wrong or that abortion should be made illegal. It is rather to the contrary. I support decision to make abortion legal much like I support the decision to remove Hindu-tag from Nepali state. What I was arguing for was that such political contentious issues must be handled with care. In the case of Roe v Wade, I would have preferred the US Congress, the true representative of the American people, make the decision rather the Supreme Court, whose members were the legacies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations.

In the same vein, I would have preferred the Constituent assembly make the decision about the “Hindu State” and not the current temporary-transient parliament.

WHAT LONG TERM CONSEQUENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED FOR A CHANGE, ITS A DONE DEAL. THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE NOT AFTER THE MATTER. IF THEY ARE SOO FCUKING HARMONIOUS THEY THIS FCUKING LABEL HINDU OR NOT SHOULD NNOT BE A BIG DEAL. LETS JUST MOVE ON SHALL WE.

BathroomCoffee jyu, people have decided, you say ... the athiest god fearing people in the Maoists and the SPA leaderships have decided ...

If we really believe in people... let's drop all the arms and have a truly open referendum on Nepal's future ... forget about this so called CA and crap ...I am afraid the CA will be nothing short of be Nepal's version of the Kangaroo Court!!!

Let me butt in here just for a bit and make a historical sideways comment.

Our Gaule Hero wrote:

Georges Clemenceau, the French leader during WWI said, "War is too important to be left to generals."

Had the war been left to the generals, France would not have had to capitulate and surrender to Nazis within one month of invasion. Poor bastards. They were so busy arguing and discussing politique over their Beaujolais and Pâté de Lapin that they forgot that the Jerrys were already crawling up their crosse (butt).

Gaule hero is right!! Keep on going..

bathroom coffe i told u before and i am telling u again u are one angry man.U said stop this and u keep posting in this thread...hahahahah

Well there were lot of people in SAjha that gave me big lectures on secularism without understanding the problem it is going to bring in nepal in future..

future will show what kind of discrimination will occur and what kind of violence nepal is going to see.21 people is nothing compared to whats coming... all of u great speaker of secularism will see...

Still consider big mistake .Revenge politics .undemocratic .no one can convince me or in support of that .

BathroomCoffee ji -
You are right, the parliament has decided/settled the Hindu-state question. I am not complaining about it or asking for it to be reversed. I have already said that I agreed with the secular-state principle. What I am saying is that the decision could have waited until the CA. Since, what's done cannot be undone, I am worried that the backlash that is at its infancy could grow if the State does not handle it properly going forward. Remember, religious and communal sentiments are easy to exploit and cunning politicians can channel other grievances, mainly economic and social discriminations into religious and communal ill-feelings. What I am saying in simple words is that the government still has ample time to ensure that Nepal does not become another Gujarat. Those protesting recently against the secular state are probably Mandales trying to stir instability in the country in the name of religion but there are many non-Mandales that are pro-Hindu-state. If the government is not careful in how addresses the grievances of those non-reactionary, pro-Hindu-state Nepalese, the problem could get bigger NOT smaller "in the longer term."

lalpari ji -
Just because politicians support secular state does not make them atheists - your reasoning will make G W Bush an atheist. Moreover, believing in atheism is a choice, you can't argue with that, much like you can't argue with someone who believes in Jesus or Muhammad. You can have qualms about the CA and many people have it too. An average Ram-Hari-Gopal in Nepal probably does not understand how the CA is supposed to work, let alone work successfully. But given the choices Nepal has at its disposal to solve its existential crisis, it is the best tool available. Instead of complaining about why CA won't work, we should try our level best to make it work.

Chatmandude ji -
I think you got confused between WWI and WWII. Georges Clemenceau led France in WWI and they defeated Germany and the Axis powers. France lost to Nazi Germany in WWII. There are many political and military reasons as to why. One of the reasons was that they were too dependent on their supposedly-invincible Maginot Line. The Germans avoided that defensive perimeter when they deployed their deadly Panzer divisions around it through a giant pincer movement. One arm of the pincer movement went through the Ardennes Forest - French thought that the geography was too unfavorable for modern warfare - and another arm went through the Low Countries i.e. neutral Holland and Belgium.

.gaule hero ji

i applaud your thoughtful comments. roe (v wade) and secular (nepal) is indeed an interesting juxtaposition.

1. i was under the impression that this proclamation is in effect only until the CA. so, theoretically, even the restraints on the king put by the proclamation may be overturned by the CA (please correct me if I am wrong). the same goes with the secular issue. if there is indeed an overwhelming public disapproval of this step, the election to the CA should reflect this, right? and as such, i don't think this issue has to be lumped together with the rest of the proclamation for any candidates in the election to the CA. an NC candidate can contest the election to the CA with a platform that supports a ceremonial monarchy and secular nepal. or hindu nepal. a UML candidate can choose a democratic republic with/out the hindu clause. i guess, what i am trying to say is that politicians who are contesting the CA elections can and will fine tune their message (and their cause) by reading public sentiment. so, i don't think we need to fear mandales organizing under a 'hindutva' banner. so far, the public sentiment displayed after the proclamation does not raise a red alert. i shall stand corrected if things take a different course in the future.

2. a friend once commented that had the supreme court not acted as it did with roe, congress would have probably passed a pro-choice and pro-privacy bill vis-a-vis some ten years down the road. i agree with that assessment as well as your observation that roe was a defining moment in american history that propelled the religious right into mainstream relevance. they are a small but vocal and a very well organized group who have been able to stamp their influence on american national politics. in that regard, mandales under a hindutva banner can be our "religious right", no doubt. they have the financial clout as well as the political acumen to carry that forward.

however, the key question here is whether nepali people feel as strongly about secularism as the americans did/do about abortion. the religious right has been able to turn the public into single-issue voters, i.e. no matter what a candidate's other political or social beliefs are, people vote based only on the single issue of abortion. can mandales under a hindutva banner drum up that kind of response from the nepali people? i doubt it.

3. the rise of LK Adwani brand BJP in india is an interesting example. but this has to be put in a historical context. post-independence, there was a lot of religious violence in india. pakistan declared itself an islamic nation. and so the hindus felt left out and the indian psyche is still dealing with that complex. in nepal, the struggle was/is for a participatory democracy (समावेशी लोकतन्त्र), which requires a secular state. so i would think any BJP-brand political party in nepal will be confined to the fringe. at least so if my hope.

4. this does set the stage for an ultra-right platform - one that supports an active monarchy and a hindu nation. i think the need of the hour is to push these people to the fringe rather than fear them and change the message of participatory democracy.

5. perhaps, along with the CA, there should be a line-item referendum on some of the key issues that even the CA has to work with? this would/could be a reasonable way to restrict the power fo the CA as well as to show the separability of the secular and other issues in the proclamation.

.pro-choice and pro-privacy bill vis-a-vis == pro-choice and pro-privacy bill vis-a-vis abortion

.referendum on some of the key issues that even the CA has to work with? == referendum on some of the key issues that even the CA has to accept without question?

tired ji -
1) I agree with you that the CA can change anything, even the restrictive powers imposed on the king. But I see a big difference between the parliamentary proclamation making the parliament supreme and declaring Nepal a secular state. When the parliament stripped the powers of the king, it was a necessary step to make sure that the king did not play mischievous role in the CA or in the political process leading to the CA. In my view, the question of the Hindu state was not as urgent. It could have been debated in the context of all other issues during the CA election. With the declaration that Nepal is a secular state, the religious issues has received a special status, and thus has garnered disproportionate amount of attention (again, in my view) - that is not a good omen for the future of Nepal.

2) Again I agree with you that the US Congress probably would have passed the pro-choice, pro-privacy bill if the US Supreme Court had not decided on the case. But the landscape of the American politics would probably have been very different. The religious right would probably remained where they were supposed to, on the fringes, and the center of gravity of the American politics would probably stayed at "the center" and not veered to the right. G W Bush would probably never seen the light of the day. In Nepal, as I said at the very beginning, people are very secular despite the country having a Hindu tag, the reason I think is that it is not an issue. The Hindu tag could have been removed by the CA and it would have been drowned by all other more pressing issues, and Nepali people would probably not given a second thought to it. But with the removal of the Hindu tag before the CA, it has achieved a special place in the Nepali political discourse. Those Nepali who never thought about their religious identity may think again. And the worse part of the religious and communal identities is that they can be easily exploited and become very potent by packaging it with other grievances vis-à-vis economic and social discrimination.

Commenting on his recent documentary on global warming, Al Gore said, “I wish that what I wrote in Earth in the Balance had been proven completely wrong. I don’t find satisfaction in being right about such a dangerous threat.” I feel the same way. I hope I am wrong about the religious revival in Nepal BUT MORE ON THAT LATER 'CAUSE I GOT TO GO...