For the past decade, I have increasingly focused on issues of identity and social justice for the Dalits, or “untouchable” castes of Nepal. To that end, I have concentrated on the micro-political processes of resistance to entrenched power in Nepal through tactics of identity politics and the politics of anonymity. In their struggle for social equality, Dalits have grappled with how to posit a group identity that can gain enough favor in the national debate on society in Nepal to advance their social and economic goals. I have argued that social groups have increasingly been treated as belonging to one model of group formation, the ethnic model. This model, I believe does not fit the situation of Dalits well and need a new model of understanding their own status. Recently, I have turned to understanding how Dalits and others conceive of caste status – what is the essential definition of caste? How is membership to the group conceived? One argument that has gained credence recently is that people can construe group membership in one of two ways, in terms of a kind of essence, like blood or DNA or as a culturally constructed relationship based on historical and social processes. I have just begun work on a project that will attempt to relate a person’s definition of group (Dalit; high caste or ethnic) with mental health, such as depression and anxiety. The central idea of this question is that a person’s cognitive model of society can either exacerbate or ameliorate mental health problems for males and females. This project will also relate the role of formal education in this dynamic – does education promote social equality or uphold hierarchy? How? Does it affect how people see their group membership? The specific questions are exciting and nearly endless. Some long-held “truisms” about caste and caste society are up for re-examination in this project.