Maoist rebels attacked Magalawa, the district headquarters of Sarlahi, kidnapping a few including Chief District Officer Bodh Raj Adhikari; army helicopter ‘crashed/gunned’ down
Reports, yet to be confirmed officially, said that at least five security personnel, three rebels and two civilians were killed while the rebels attacked Magalawa, the district headquarters of Sarlahi. The rebels simultaneously attacked District Police Office, District Administration Office, Armed Police Force Base, Royal Nepal Army’s Security Base and Security Bases at Nawalpur at 9:00pm yesterday, the release from Directorate of Public Relations of RNA confirmed.
An army helicopter MI-17 crashed at Kholachaur while it was on the flight to help the fighting security personnel, the release said.
The Maoists claimed they had gunned down the helicopter with a pilot and 10 army personnel on board. “This is the first time that the People’s Army has shot down a helicopter,” the rebel’s statement reads.
Meanwhile, the family of CDO Adhikari have appealed for his immediate release and organized a press conference today afternoon.
United We Blog 
Comments
51 responses to “Maoists Attack on Sarlahi”
one of the things with the so called democratic parties of nepal is that i see them shouting and agitating angainst almost anything..now or the yesteyears… if NC was in power,other parties would make sure that some sort of agitation was going on and vice versa.
and the reason i hate them and rather choose the king is because not for once have these parties ever uttered a strong word against the maoists or have protested against the brutality of the maoist. right now is a prime example.
down with this so called democracy till there is this kind of democratic duh forces….
down with maoist….
i wont say king should be the one to rule,but again, for now and till this kind of democratic forces are there…. Mr. 5 the king rule the country and please ake sure that u shoot these democratic leaders who have no balls to utter a word against the terrorist communists.
IS NEPALI POLPOT GAINING UPPER HAND? IF SO, NEPAL IS GOING TO BE A KILLING FIELD FOR COMING MANY YEARS. SADLY, OUR WHOLE GENERATION IS GOING TO BE THE LOSERS. …. I PRAY TO THE GOD FOR THE CHANGE IN EVIL/SATANIC MINDS OF THE WOULD-BE BUTCHERS OF 21ST CENTURY!
Situation under control…….ready for MP’s election.
Replytoall, you just spoke the words out of my mouth, god bless you, god bless HM the King, god bless Nepal.
I live around the Kumaripti area. Last month, when the bomb went off at the King Mahendra trust, it was loud and everyone around me included was shaken and physically reacted to it. However, my five year old son was unfazed, and just said with a grin on his face “Oh, bua a bomb went off did’nt it?”, repeating it a couple of times. This is a child who has heard these bombs go off in this area several times before, and maybe has sneaked peeks at the news of the ongoing conflict. I dread to think how this conflict will effect these children and especially the children who are affected daily in the village areas of our country. More than the bomb the thing that shook me more was the jaded reaction to the event by my son.
No Lalupate, Nepal’s PolPot, King Gyanendra is losing his grip and the butcher will soon have to leave the country to Democratic Forces.
National Interest
By: Madhu Sudan Gupta
(Independent Indian Media (IIM) – Your source for raw information in the Indian Interest)
Insider reports from Rashtrapati Bhavan detail that planning is in the last stages for Indian military operations in Nepal. Coalition partners in the ruling government claim the need to stabilize the political situation in Nepal to prevent uncontrolled refugees from flowing into India. The ISF operations are awaiting final approval from the Ministry of Defense. If approved, these operations will be conducted before the Monsoon season.
For over a decade, plans have been discussed to secure India’s northern border against ISI infiltration. King Gyanendra’s coup provides the setting to accomplish this goal. The 1998 hijacking of an Indian Airline flight from Katmandu hangs heavy on the mind of Indian authorities and other such events cannot be risked.
The rising number of ISI funded madrasas along India’s northern border is another reason why security sources are calling for military intervention in Nepal. About 50-60 of these Islamic schools are being closely watched by security forces. RAW assets working in the region have found detailed intelligence of large funding increases from ISI to Muslim schools along the Indo-Nepal border. Officials close to the South Block’s security arm explain the need to immediately eliminate all ISI elements from India’s northern frontier.
Nepali Maoists are of secondary concern to the Indian state. However, the de-stabilization Nepali and Indian Maoists together have accomplished in the Indian sub-continent is concerning to policy makers. The rise in arms transfers from Indian to Nepali Maoists is a source of embarrassment to the South Block and causes worries of future de-stabilization.
Indian special forces are deployed as part of the border security ranks and have steadily built up their strength across the entire Indo-Nepal border. Daily infiltration operations are conducted by these joint SSB teams to gather intelligence and prepare for a final assault. Gorkha brigades are also mixed with these joint military teams to help with upcoming military stabilization missions in Nepal.
India’s intelligence bureau has been very effective in collecting information through its many channels including some Nepali Maoist leaders, Nepali border police, business men and politicians. This information has made it possible for troops to plan the political changes and military changes needed to bring peace and democracy to Nepal and stabilize the country. International backing will be available from the European Union and the United States. Talks have already been held between Man Mohan Singh and Hu in Beijing, last year.
With a King that is hostile to India running a country longing for democracy, India must rise and perform its regional role as the world’s largest model democracy by liberating the Nepali people from the clutches of a despot. Limited military intervention is a must to safeguard India’s interests in the region.
The Maoists attack because our dear ‘King’ gives them no option. You stupid royalists are getting on my nerves now. Understand! Use your heads! If the ‘King’ keeps on insisting that the Maoists are terrorists and have to be defeated and has his troops attack them by helicopter, don’t they have the right to respond?
You can’t expect Maoists to turn the other cheek now, can you? If our good ‘King’ is smart enough to declare that enough is enough and declare a ceasefire, and THEN if the Maoists attack, then we can blame them. Until then, not. Until then, its this dinosaur, this thing from the past called Gyanendra Shah that should take the blame.
Manan,
The headline on this blog says “MAOISTS ATTACK ON SARLAHI” and not “THE RNA OR KING’S ATTACK ON MAOISTS”.
So when you say – “If the ‘King’ keeps on insisting that the Maoists are terrorists and have to be defeated and has his troops attack them by helicopter, don’t they have the right to respond? You can’t expect Maoists to turn the other cheek now…”
Please re-read the headline again “MAOISTS ATTACK ON SARLAHI”. This is not a question of the govt. attacking the Maoists, the Maoists have attacked, so what do you expect the army to do – sit by and twiddle their thumbs??????
Wow, a lot of Royalist’s on the board today. I am no supporter of the SPA but pray tell me what good has the Palace done since the King took over more than a year ago? Fine you support the King but what logic is your support based on? It could be interesting!
As is evident from the posts here, the royalists are not opposed to the use of violent methods at all as long as those methods support their political agenda. You do not see them complaining when the RNA attacks a Maoist-controlled village, only when the Maoists attack an RNA-controlled town. When they pretend to be pacifists, and to be opposed to the Maoists because they are violent, they prove that they are actually not opposed to violence because they support the RNA doing the same thing.
There are two separate issues here: violence versus non-violence, and democracy (constituent assembly) versus royalism. There are those who think democracy can/should be achieved only by non-violent means, and there are those who think that democracy can only be achieved by a combination of non-violent and violent means. There are, however, no royalists who think the royal dictatorship can be preserved by entirely non-violent means. As long as this is the case, it means that the royal regime cannot be attacked entirely non-violently, because it uses violence to keep itself in power.
There are exceptional cases in history where non-violence has toppled violent regimes, but usually this is because of the possibility that violence will follow otherwise (as the British believed in India), and there are far more examples of non-violent resistance simply being crushed by violent means. Of course in an ideal world, violence would not be needed to topple a violent regime, but unfortunately the world is not like that 90% of the time. The military dictatorship in Nepal is not going to hand over power to the people without a fight. Those who want democracy in Nepal have to accept this unfortunate situation.
Of course there are those who then say, the Maoists should simply go on the defensive and stop trying to take towns, beat back the RNA, and fight the war. I think these people misunderstand the dynamics of war. They misunderstand that while we only see one or two news items about the war per day, the war is actually going on 24 hours a day all over Nepal, territory is being taken and lost, military power is being struggled over by both sides. If one side goes on the defensive, as the Maoists did during their ceasefire, it puts itself in an extremely weak position and makes it more likely that it will be destroyed.
Moreover, the royal regime only understands one language. If you want to know what language it speaks, ask the disappeared people. Ask the many innocent villagers massacred by the RNA to meet their quotas of dead ‘Maoists’. The language they speak is the language of the gun, because they are a military dictatorship in royal disguise. Just as the non-violent agitations are crucial to put pressure on them, the war is crucial to put pressure on them. For as long as they believe they can maintain power through their military might, they will not give it up. They are enjoying their place in power and the benefits it brings. They will only be convinced to leave it when it becomes too inconvenient, or too dangerous for them to remain.
Violence is not anyone’s first choice of a solution; but those of you who think that a ruthless military dictatorship can be persuaded to hand over political and economic power without a fight are unfortunately being dangerously naive.
where is the picture of crashed copter?
Yeah, but if the Maoists were sincere at least their violence could be better directed. Like the RNA they’ve probably killed more civilians than soldiers.
EXPLAINING COUNTERINSURGENCY:
It’s all a matter of politics
By Dr. Thomas A. Marks
Counterinsurgency as a term has meaning only if one considers its target, insurgency. In the latter, an armed political movement attempts to seize control of the state or to separate from it. Therefore, the response – counterinsurgency – must also be an armed political movement.
Just as any political campaign makes use of many tools, so does insurgency. And so must counterinsurgency use all elements of state power in order to restore balance to that which has gone awry.
Post-Cold War Insurgency
Insurgency, to fall back upon a useful definition advanced by Larry Cable, is “the armed expression of organic disaffiliation.” Yet a series of shifts in the post-Cold War world has dramatically affected most, if not all, insurgencies:
● The end of generalized state support has left insurgent movements struggling financially and logistically to ensure that supply meets demand in the actual making of internal war. Movements which continue to enjoy external largess are a minority. Self-sustaining insurgencies have become potent only to the extent they have been able to tap sources (of support) external to the target population (e.g., FARC’s taxing of the drug trade, LTTE’s tapping of the Tamil diaspora communities).
Those movements which have not found such sources normally have remained weak (e.g., the CPP Maoists in the Philippines, or the various Maoist movements in India). There are always exceptions, where unique circumstances alter the playing field. This is what we see in Nepal. There, India’s actions against the present Nepali state have been an important factor in making both the political opposition and the Maoists (the so-called SPAM) more powerful than objective circumstances would predict.
● This reality accounts for the present very mixed character of so many movements. In the past, external assistance provided ideologically and operationally viable movements (e.g., the Viet Cong in South Vietnam) with the critical margin that allowed focus upon ideological ends. Now, insurgencies must devote extraordinary amounts of time to criminal activity. This has created the “gang-like” behavior so typical of many movements, such as the Nepalese Maoists. The challenge: how to squeeze blood from the turnip?
What the state terms extortion and kidnapping, the Maoists call “revolutionary taxation.” A small shopkeeper in the hills, for instance, will be taxed NR 50 per month, a salaried teacher NR 200. But kidnapping these same individuals and getting their families to come up with their life’s savings will produce a ransom of NR 30,000. Demands from urban businesses or infrastructure development projects (funded from abroad) are much higher.
● At issue remains the question of balance. Engaging in criminal behavior has never been atypical of insurgencies; the behavior merely has been kept subordinate to larger ends. A movement which effectively turns its back upon its target population, which becomes mainly or wholly a criminal enterprise, is no longer an insurgency. The Maoists have not reached this point, but in certain areas they have come dangerously close.
● Just as the relationship between various insurgent movements and their mass base has shifted, so has the “negotiated” quality of many movements changed. The implicit bargain reached — between the ideological designs of leadership and the “solve my grievances” demands of followers — has been altered. The result is an absence of the “checks and balances” provided by the imperative that “the fish to swim in the sea.” The scales have been tipped dramatically in favor of the leaders. Their insurgencies consequently are able to function far more as alternative, violent political organizations in being rather than as armed protest movements.
We see this prominently in the present character of the CPN(M). The combatants and the mass base do not know even the most minor detail about Maoism (one could argue that this includes district level cadres). Yet it is Maoism that animates the strategy and plans of the upper leadership. They simply deny that such an ideology has produced tragedy everywhere it has been tried throughout history. They claim all Nepal’s problems will be solved in the new order, and that is good enough for the “grievance guerrillas” who are their followers.
● Extreme voluntarism, therefore, has become not the exception but the norm in insurgencies worldwide. To the extent that particular socio-economic-political circumstances allow foco-like behavior to mobilize a following, there is the appearance of insurgent strength. Where such conditions are absent, terror has been used with increasing frequency to propel movements along. It is terror that has been essential to the Maoist mass mobilization effort in Nepal, with kidnapping of the young the key element at present. It is significant that this kidnapping – the ultimate obscenity, seizing the young – is all but ignored by international human rights organizations.
A point must be highlighted: The issue in insurgency is never the use of terror. Terror is integral to insurgency. Hence the issue is one of balancing its use within a larger political framework.
What is Counterinsurgency?
What should be obvious is that counterinsurgency strategy must also be armed politics. The security forces serve as a shield for reform. In doing so, the state implements a strategy that is correct and sustainable.
· A correct approach will balance elimination of grievances (i.e., the state will carry out reform) and security force action that eliminates the insurgents (i.e., repression). The security forces provide the protection necessary for the restoration (or implementation) of government presence and control.
· A sustainable approach is defined by the state itself. It must be willing to bear the human and fiscal cost of the approach it seeks to implement.
With a correct and sustainable approach in place, the counterinsurgent “plays for the breaks,” those shifts in the internal or external situation that work against the insurgent and favor the state. This normally involves an extended period of time, a “protracted war.”
This makes it difficult for democracies to sustain counterinsurgent campaigns, particularly in the present world-environment where there is little agreement upon strategic ends and means, much less operational and tactical concerns. The very steps they must take to protect themselves, as we have seen in Nepal, can produce unintended consequences.
Further, states, like individuals, are clumsy and make mistakes. A multitude of single-issue actors are now on the playing field (e.g., human rights groups) whose primary focus is condemning the errors of the state, not the insurgents. Indeed, since they effectively have no influence over the insurgents, the state becomes their sole target. Nepal has emerged as one of the premier post-Cold War illustrations.
States which have successfully engaged in counterinsurgency have addressed the two elements above by using the security forces (armed forces and police) to restore local security so that the socio-economic-political functions of government and society can thrive. Commitment of human and fiscal resources has been at sustainable levels.
In playing for the breaks, a state seeks a “tipping point,” to use present strategic phraseology. But this term does not capture the essence contained in “playing for the breaks,” because “tipping point” implies that the counterinsurgency itself produces a turn in the battle. In reality, it sets in place a set of conditions which, when the wind shifts, allow the troubled ship of state to exploit the new direction and achieve a settlement.
Politics Holds the Key
Salient illustrations of particular relevance to the Nepali case are briefly discussed below. They are selected since they all involve “people’s war,” though of different traditions:
● Thailand, 1965-83. A Maoist movement inspired by the Chinese, the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), grew steadily from its 1965 “declaration of people’s war until, in the aftermath of October 1976 popular upheaval crushed by the state, it decided the time was ripe to denounce all elements of the “old order,” to include the venerated monarchy. A pro-monarchy popular backlash resulted in mushrooming local defense that swamped CPT manpower. This occurred even as a correct and sustainable government counterinsurgency approach – emphasizing creating viable democracy behind the shield provided by the security forces – was implemented by new post-1976 leadership.
Simultaneously, geopolitical shifts put the CPT’s important Chinese and Vietnamese/Lao supporters at odds and jeopardized major supply sources/base areas. The combination resulted in a virtual implosion of the movement over the next six years, despite the massive manpower gains that had been realized post-1976. The CPT has effectively vanished from the Thai political scene. U.S. aid was important in the pre-1976 period but largely irrelevant to actual playing out of post-1976 events.
● Philippines, 1968-93. A Maoist movement also inspired by the Chinese but also the Vietnamese, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), grew steadily from its “reconstitution” and declaration of people’s war in 1968 (the previous communist insurgency having been decimated in the so-called Huk Rebellion in the early 1950s). Inefficient, corrupt, and repressive martial law, declared in 1972, served as the major recruiting tool for the insurgency; but this cause vanished when the dictator called a snap election, was caught trying to rig it, and was forced to flee the country amidst the so-called “Edsa Revolution” of February 1986.
Reform leadership instituted a correct and sustainable counterinsurgency approach, using the security forces as the shield behind which democracy was restored at all levels of the polity. Misjudging events completely, the CPP opted for increased terrorism at the very moment the population was re-entering the democratic system. The result was wholesale desertion of the mass base, the major source of insurgent funding, large enlistment in local defense organizations, and virtual implosion of the movement over the course of the next six years, despite all its efforts to halt the process. Subsequent government errors have allowed the CPP to again revive its fortunes. U.S. aid was important throughout the case.
● Peru, 1980-96. A Maoist movement inspired by the extreme radicalism of the Chinese “Gang of Four,” Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) spent some 17 years organizing and using terrorism before its 1980 declaration of people’s war. Financing itself principally through the coca trade, and using an ever greater proportion of terror in its approach, it had brought Peruvian democracy to its knees by 1990. That year, election of a political neophyte, Alberto Fujimori, followed by what effectively was a declaration of a controversial national state of emergency in 1992, resulted in a correct and sustainable counterinsurgency approach. Empowering local democracy and carrying out a highly effective program of micro-development cut support for Sendero even as its terrorism unleashed a popular backlash. The population demanded the right to protect itself from insurgent terrorism.
Generally advanced as the key action was the capture of the Shining Path leader, Guzman, in 1992. Equally critical, however, was the capture of master cadre lists that allowed the virtual decapitation of the entire movement (some 400 high-level arrests) at a time when civil society was again beginning to flourish. The result was wholesale desertion of the mass base, massive enlistment in local defense organizations in key insurgent base areas, and virtual implosion of the movement over the course of the next three years. Corruption in his entourage led to Fujimori being forced from the country even though he was actually the victor in the 2000 elections. Shining Path remains active as a remnant. U.S. aid played a major role in counter-narcotics and intelligence, essentially no role in the mechanics of counterinsurgency.
● El Salvador, 1979-91. A populist coalition, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), was formed in 1980 and followed people’s war doctrine in an effort to oust an authoritarian, corrupt, inefficient, repressive regime. Communist elements of the FMLN coalition controlled strategy but found themselves confronted by a societal/political transformation carried out within the larger framework of U.S. assistance. Acting consciously upon lessons learned in Vietnam, U.S. personnel facilitated democratic transition and socio-economic reform. A key factor was the presence of a small US advisory group that was effective in building professionalism within the El Salvadoran armed forces.
The counterinsurgency instituted was both correct and sustainable. Access to supplies and sanctuary in communist Nicaragua (which itself was supported by the Soviet bloc) nevertheless sustained a relatively intense level of FMLN activities that included two major insurgent offensives, 1979 and 1989. In response, US support of Nicaragua’s own insurgency (which exploded as the regime dogmatically pursued Marxist-Leninism) not only damaged the supply links to the FMLN but eventually forced the Sandinistas to hold elections (which they lost overwhelmingly). The collapse of the Soviet bloc, combined with mutual exhaustion of the main parties in El Salvador, resulted in negotiations that produced an enduring democratic peace, formally implemented beginning in 1992.
In these four illustrations, legitimacy – actualized as democracy and popular sovereignty – was the key ingredient. The center of gravity for the insurgents in each case was mass support, built by a combination of winning allegiance and terrorizing opposition.
Counter-mobilization by the state was only possible when reform strengthened democracy. Practice of popular sovereignty exposed the hollowness of insurgent “people’s democracy.” Political reform, then, carried out within a grid of security, was the key in each case.
Such must be the case in Nepal.
(Dr. Thomas A. Marks is a political risk consultant based in Honolulu, Hawaii and a frequent visitor to Nepal. He has authored a number of benchmark works on Maoist insurgency.)
Madhu Sudan Gupta …
How can you validate that India is planning military operations in Nepal ? Sure, the theories and reasons you’ve given make a lot of sense but how can you be sure abt the military ops … are you privy to that level of information or you are just theorizing ?
Congratulations Maoist comrades, well done, such attacks are needed to free Nepal and Nepalis from all suppressions,
Glad to hear the news that maoists have gunned down chopper.
Your,
Real deshbhakta
m,
I quote you:
“There are exceptional cases in history where non-violence has toppled violent regimes, but usually this is because of the possibility that violence will follow otherwise (as the British believed in India), and there are far more examples of non-violent resistance simply being crushed by violent means. Of course in an ideal world, violence would not be needed to topple a violent regime, but unfortunately the world is not like that 90% of the time. The military dictatorship in Nepal is not going to hand over power to the people without a fight. Those who want democracy in Nepal have to accept this unfortunate situation.”
You seem confused in implying that the current govt. is the violent perpetrator. Is’nt it the reverse where the Maoists instigated the violence first way back in 1997 under a multi party democratically elected government and thereby the RNA was compelled to react by this same government. So although you imply that violent regimes can only be put down with violence (90% of the time as you say) or force (which is only part of the solution), you should reverse the table and conclude that the ones who need to be squashed are the original violators and perpetrators of violence (i.e. THE MAOISTS) and not the people trying to keep the country sovereign and secure (THE RNA).
Nepal is facing the worst time in the form of terrorism. Terrorism has reached its peak in recent times. On an average two people are killed every day in the violence perpetrated by Maoists. Sadly, some political parties have become puppets and joined hands with Maoists leaders.
Last week, Indian news channel AAJ TAK had showed a news story on preparation and training of Maoist cadres. Many young people including young boys and girls were shown receiving armed training. They were equipped with sophisticated arms including self-loading and AK 47 and 56 rifles.
How have these arms reached and are reaching the Maoist outfit in Nepal? Our country is not producing arms. Naturally, these arms are being smuggled into Nepal through the porous borders of our neighboring country. Recently, a truck loaded with explosives worth hundreds of millions of rupees was seized. According to authorities, the explosives were meant for use by Maoists terrorists.
Recently, our Home Minister Mr. Kamal Thapa, also categorically said that Maoists are receiving their arms and explosives from a friendly neighboring country. The authorities also claimed it seemed the explosive seized from the truck had come out directly from a factory. The minister also claimed that the explosives used in the attack on the Army post in Ilam had also come from that same friendly nation.
Here the question arises? What is the cost of running such a huge movement of terrorism and from whom are the Maoists receiving money to run their terrorist activity or how are Maoists collecting money??
Our Maoists proudly claim they are a 40,000-strong outfit. They also claim they are equipped with sophisticated arms, including SLRs, AK-47 and AK-56 rifles, automatic machine guns and anti-aircraft guns.
Staggering millions are required to run an organization of such strength. They also need hundreds of millions of rupees to procure arms. Naturally, terrorist organizations are procuring arms and ammunition from the grey market costs much more than the actual price.
Suppose, Maoists rebels are spending fifty rupees on each cadre on their food and lodging alone every day. That means they need at least Rs. 2 million per day for that purpose. It comes to Rs 60 million a month and Rs 720 million a year.
Apart from that they procure a huge quantity of arms and ammunition to fight against the Royal Nepalese Army. According to a rough estimate, it would cost not less than Rs 600-750 million a year. We should not forget that Maoists are concentrated mainly in far-flung areas with rough terrain
It means the Maoists need a minimum of Rs 1250 to 1500 million every year to sustain and run their movement, which they claim they are fighting for the people of Nepal. They say they are fighting to bring democracy in the country. Is that true?
What are the Maoists are doing? They are looting banks, collecting taxes from hapless people and forcing poor farmers to donate food grains and money. If innocent people do not heed their dictates, Maoists gun them down. Hundreds of people have lost their lives at the hands of those who claim they are fighting for protecting their rights.
People are aware of the fact that Maoists are collecting taxes from businesspersons, factory-owners, and even small shopkeepers. They are collecting money even from small farmers, milk vendors and vegetable growers.
The Maoists are kidnapping very young boys and girls from villages and forcing them to join their cadres. People are so afraid of Maoists that parents are asking their young children to leave villages. In some of the areas with large Maoist presence and influence, one can find villages without young people. Parents have sent their children over the age of 14 to safer places. In some villages one can find only older people being looked after by very young kids.
Apart from using terror tactics to collect money, the Maoists have their other hidden agenda also. They are using people as human shields in most of their attacks on police or Army posts to minimize casualty. They are aware of the fact that RNA personnel will not fire at the innocent people. If some innocent persons are killed in the cross fire, the Maoists put the entire blame on army or police personnel. The Press and Human Rights activists are severely criticizing the government and especially the Army for the killing of innocent persons, while they ignore the design of the Maoists who use people as human shield. They should know the actual aim and design of the Maoists — it is to minimize their loss and create hatred in the minds of citizens against RNA and the government.
Earlier, Maoists were using terror tactics against the relations of army personnel. Maoists were also coercing them to make their wards leave the Armed forces or to leave their villages themselves. Some villagers, whose children or relations are serving with the RNA or police force, had abandoned their villages and houses. However, nowadays Maoists have adopted a new tactic. Instead of threatening people and trying to brainwash them in the hope that they will ask their wards to leave the RNA or the police force, they are asking them to return. However, the Maoists are finding little success in this as people are afraid to return to their villages.
Hundreds of innocent people have already lost their lives to the bullets of Maoists, which they procured from the money collected forcibly. The Maoists’ main aim is to grab power only through violence and by using terror tactics. But we should fight against such designs of terrorist elements. A terrorist will always remain a terrorist as he has faith in terror. He is without a religion. What will happen if such violent people grab power? They will kill more and more innocent people who will raise their voice against them as they are doing now. We should be vigilant against such elements in our society as terror has no place in the world or in a democracy.
M has hit the point on the head. You don’t see these royalist morons complaining when its their side doing all the killing. Then its for the sake of preserving peace. But if the Maoists attack, then its an atrocity. And I had forcasted that this would happen. Just three days ago I wrote here somewhere that the Maoists would attack because of the RNA attack on them.
Okay, I agree that both sides have to stop. But the fact of the matter is that one side, namely the Maoists, has announced its willing to consider a cease-fire. Has the other side responded in a like manner? No. Then how do you expect the Maoists to behave? Our royalist friends so easily forget that it was their side which chose not to reciprocate.
I don’t want to see a Maoist takeover but how exactly are the RNA’s methods helping us avoid that? The Maoists seem more emboldened than before and seem capable of almost immediate tit-for-tat responses. Meanwhile we’re pumping more and more money into the army’s already bloated coffers. A more reasonalbe head of state would have long concluded the war could not be won militarily. Someone less stupid than our ‘King’ would have been less likely to use the RNA to terrorize villagers already frightened by the Maoists.
To all the Royalist:
Everyone has a right to their opinion and people view events differently. However, by all objective standards you are all IDIOTS!!
Stop being so God damn pathetic and short sighted! The only argument you have is “oh the parties are crooks.” Well of course they are idiots no one is claiming that Girija Babu, Madav Nepal or that retard Deuba is any good. But a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IS A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM! And under a democratic system you can bring in change if the people will it!! You can freely critisize and debate without having the RNA or the police breathing down your back! I don’t want to insult you royalist by telling you more about the merits of a democratic system!
Besdies you think the King is any better in terms of curruption or goverance?? On Feb 1st many people gave him the benefit of the doubt – but he turned out to be worthless and incompetant – look at this first step he hired a phycho like Tulsi Giri to head the cabinate!! No matter how bad the political leaders are it doesn’t justify not supporting a democratic system!
That report of India militarily intervening in Nepal is the biggest load of carp I have read.
It is completly unsubstantiated, illogical and just plain stupid. Do you know what intervening militarily in Nepal to bring democracy would mean??? It would mean an all out war with the RNA, plus no one knows how the Maoists will react etc. It would mean an indefinite engagement in Nepal with a very unpredictable outcome. Plus there are many more reasons but I don’t want to exhaust myself.
In conclusion I wish to say that His Majesty King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev is a FOOL. He has dug himself into a deep hole and jepordized the future of his dynasty. This opression simply cannot go on forever and in a matter of time he will have to pay dearly for it. I sure hope he liked the African countries!!!
Good on you Mr. Pundit. That’s how it is. Doesn’t our King remind you of a certain Roman who fiddled while Rome burned? What the hell is he doing in Pokhara and Bhairawa? Tantric mumbo jumbo? It’s so sad.
tt:
The RNA is a incompetant institution as we have seen over the years. Firstly there are too many people at the top level who are there because of their surname rather then field experience or bravery. This I have seen affects the quality of decesions and palnning.
In all these years since the RNA has been unleased they haven’t managed to really accomplish any major successful operation – they haven’t captured Maoist leaders, foil attacks etc. This is pathetic considering that the Maoist “army” consists of poorly trained 20 year olds. And I don’t want to get into the manhandeling of villagers etc.
Plus there is no military solution to this crisis. The sooner Gyanendra realizes this the better.
Talking about sirnames, the so called democratic parties also dont seem too well eqipped. Brahminisation anyone? “Tu se Pundit”.
tt:
There is Brahminisation in the democrtic parties but it is democratic party! In words change is possible – non Brahmins can vote people into or out of office or non Brahmins can form their own political party etc. the possibilities are endless. Under a democratic system the decesion lies with the people!
Besides a political party is a little different then the institution that has the responsibility of defending the nation!
Not so simple Pundit. This Brahminisation has been institutionalised through the centuries, so yes although I agree that voting your way out of the web of deceit and power circles of Brahmins is a way out, it is very difficult to do so as they have made the institutions of the country – well very Brahminised, and this makes it difficult for the rest of us to “vote” our way out of the web of deceit and power, and even if we do it may be too late.
When the parties,power brokers (even in the palace – many of the cabinet Ministers and King’s secretaries are Brahmin), judiciary, jounalists and media and obviously the religious places and religion itself some would say, are in the hands of one ethnic group what are the chances for the rest of us – slim I would think. Democracy, my dear Pundit is only as good as the institutions of the nation in which the democracy is suppose to thrive, and you and I have and are seeing the state of our institutions as we rapid fire out here.
Just because there are too many Brahmins in the political parties has no bearing on the military’s incompetence. Politicians don’t go around whacking villagers in broad daylight.
In the words of Monroe:
“Good night and good luck”
Well said tt. I agree totally with you on that point. As soon as democracy is won back the war must be against Brahmanization of the country. Such concentration of power is not healthy for the country. One of the reasons for the rise of Maoist rebels in Nepal is because ethnic communities like mine are purposely left out of the mainstream and suffer from under-representation in most spheres of the government which leads to further marginalization in all other spheres of life. Hence they supported the Maoists who have promised them equal representation.
I am sure Mr. Pundit will agree a change in this area of Nepali life must be effected too if lasting peace and real democracy is to be achieved.
tt,
This is not a question of who is the original ‘violent perpetrator’. As far as I am concerned responsibility for the conflict, including its beginning, lies with everyone. The 1990s were characterised by a continuation of the same corruption and neglect of the vast majority of the people as was seen in the times preceding the current constitution. In other words, the basic power structure of the country, particularly the economic power structure, remained unchanged after 1990, although those at top positions were different individuals.
It is now a moot point whether this could have been changed gradually through the parliamentary system itself. The Maoists, for whatever reason, believed that it could not, and that the only way to topple this power structure and develop the country was through violent means. I am not here saying that this decision of theirs in 1996 was right or wrong. But you must remember that they were not coming out of a clear blue sky; they were reacting to the fact that they found their country in destitution, one of the poorest countries in the world, and that the parliamentary system was not delivering on its promises and was NOT functioning as a true democracy. That is democracy in the sense of ‘rule by the people’. This was a problem faced by all Nepali people, a problem killing many of them through poverty, disease, and underdevelopment. The Maoists believed the only response to this involved violent methods. But whether they were right or wrong about this is no longer the relevant question.
This is because the political situation in the country has fundamentally changed. If you recall the peace negotiations the Maoists held with the parliamentary government, back when there was one, the main demand of the Maoists was consistently to hold a constituent assembly and write a new constitution. They did not demand a communist republic, or nationalisation of industry, etc etc, only a constituent assembly. The party government refused; after all, up until the king’s seizure of power, it was the parties who benefited most from the existing constitution, so why rewrite it?
What has changed now is that the parties no longer see the Maoists as enemy number one; instead, they have agreed belatedly to the Maoist demand for a constituent assembly. The Maoists and the SPA want a constituent assembly for different reasons. The Maoists want it, I believe, because they are the only political force in the country that has mobilised and organised vast numbers of people in rural areas, and they therefore feel that in drafting a new constitution, they would be able to have a big influence on such a constitution through their organised support base in rural areas. The parties would also have a big influence because of their organised support base in urban areas; such a constitution would be a compromise. But the rural poor who were never organised by any national political force before the Maoists would have a much greater influence than they could have had on the 1990 constitution.
The SPA on the other hand have been driven to the constituent assembly demand because they have realised that the constitution as it exists allows real power to still lie with the king, and allows for situations like the current one. So even the limited kind of democracy that existed in the 1990s is relatively fragile. I think they have also been driven to it because they are finally realising that until the needs of the majority of the country are addressed, and the political system is reorientated toward them, even the most corrupt SPA bureaucrat will not stand a chance at maintaining power.
What has happened now has gone far beyond the original question of whether or not the Maoists should have initially resorted to violent means. For better or worse, the conflict has pushed the political parties onto the side which says that the country needs to be politically restructured for a more representative democracy; and it has pushed the king onto the side that wants to ignore the deep social problems of the country and maintain the status quo.
Yes, you can blame the Maoists for starting violence; but then you also have to blame the party governments of the 1990s for not carrying out true social reform; and then you also have to blame the panchayat system for the history that led up to this. But all of this blaming is not going to change the current situation, TODAY. And in today’s situation, the RNA are fighting to maintain a military dictatorship, and in the long run to maintain feudalism and impoverishment; while the SPA and the Maoists are fighting for a constituent assembly which is not the solution to all of the country’s problems, but the *beginning* of a solution. Why? Because for the first time in history, Nepali people, even the rural poor, would have a say in the political structures of the country, which could then be used to address deep economic and social problems that have given rise to this conflict.
Well put m. Words like ‘true democracy’ and ‘people’s government’ and in our context ‘Nepali people’ must mean exactly that. We the ‘Nepali people’ have had enough of bullshit rhetoric.
voting in and voting out?
well what options do we have here, lets see. baburam, prachanda, girija, makune, bamdev, deuba, thapa, chanda. you all know the common images they hold. so only option we have is keep recycling these corrupts and butchers in and out of power. this is insane.
Kirat:
I agree with you completely that when (and if) democracy is won back there should be an anti “Brahmin-Chettri” campaing so that the distribution of power can be made more equitable.
But all this is possible under a DEMOCRATIC system only.
pawan:
you are an immature individual who obviously can’t read or think. please kindly go back read the damn post and then say something worthwhile.
Mr. Pundit glad and proud to call you a brother! Yeah we need democracy first, but we need to get as much support from our fellow countrymen as possible to get it. I just think this can only be achieved if we spread the word that everyone will benefit once we have democracy.
Indeed Mr.Kirat:
People have to look beyond this argument of “girija , deuba etc.” being currupt. Sure they are but people need to see that change can come only through democracy.
besides why are people under the impression that the King is any less currupt??? Goodness me he is not less currupt.
pundit i have been reading your post for past few days and seems to me thet you are getting lettle personal. so it time to tell you, buzz off pal.
It sickens me, the violence, the incapable RNA, the maoists’ aggregrasion, the stupid politicians, the king … seems like I don’t have any other options left. You know it is very difficult for people to survive without being labelled as either Maoist or Royalist these days. And throw moron, idiot, in front of the labels you will make extra point. congratulations !
But that is not my point. My point is what about people like me ? I think King is a sucker and we have already wasted good enough years trying to kiss all the Royals asses. Maoists ? well I am developed enough to accept them as a main political force in Nepal, but I can’t accept ther violent ways. I am not Maophobic but after going through their ‘manifest’ , I really can’t accept them. I don’t want to chose another evil to get rid of one. Sad part is i hate the fact SPA, which I still believe is the sole democratic force of nepal, are making a huge mistake in collabrating with their new found ally. What a bunch of jokers
So what are my options ? I am just a helpless person, the victim of brutal power race in Nepal. And I am sick of it. I will just raise a black flag on my roof and wait for a day to come. Until then I will keep on fighting for democracy. Doesn’t matter who my opponent is…. maoists …. or … king !
pawan:
maybe i crossed the line. my apologizes.
but please don’t tell me to buzz off – since you really have no right to do that and I am not going to listen to you anyway.
Mr. Kirat
I read another post in which I think you accused me of being oblivious to the aspirations of themajority of the people.
I hope that was a misunderstanding on your part. Even though I myself am a Brahmin I am actively proposing that there needs to be an anti Bhun campaign and we need to be inclusive as a country.
That is why on one post I asked you what you thought a Nepali identity meant. And you replied that that was a sad question and give me the lyrics to a folk song. You see Mr. Kirat the problem has always been that the Kathmandu based Bhun-Chettri-Takuri trio has dominated the notion of what it means to be Nepali. Villages and the rest of Nepalis have been marginalized and never made to feel inclusive. Hence out of the Maoist movement and the recent happenings we will have to redefine ourslves.
Mr. Pundit,
Apologies are in order. It was my misunderstanding that led to that stupid outburst.
As to the Nepali identity why do we need to focus on one symbol? I gave you the lyrics to our folk songs because we can all identify to it.
When I think about what makes me a Nepali I can look at my Sherpa brother’s ‘mani rimdu’ ceremony and nod, I can look at my bahun brothers thread ceremony and nod or teej, I can look at my own phadembas or bijuwas -faith healers- and nod, my army lahure dai’s and nod, my ‘kancha’ dai and my ‘bahadur’ bhai or my red light area bahini and nod, albeit in sadness… I can go on. My Nepali identity is so ingrained in me because of all my Nepali daju-bhai’s didi bahini’s and how they lead their lives that I was somewhat offended you asked me what a Nepali identity meant. Ke garne?
Predictions for Nepali identity in 2016 AD:
To be Nepali is to fight against injustice.
To be Nepali is to respect and learn from tradition, while never accepting tradition as an excuse for tyranny.
To be Nepali is to carve out a new and inclusive path of development, rejecting all kinds of dogma including the kind that comes from the World Bank.
To be Nepali is to be the world’s greatest living example of multiculturalism.
To be Nepali is to be proud of one’s past, busy constructing one’s present, and hopeful about one’s future.
To be Nepali is to be a democrat.
m, you mean to say this sh*t is going to last till 2016AD?!!! Do we need to wait that long?
No, I meant after the dust clears. Even if the king is ousted now, it will take a year for a constituent assembly and then the really difficult part begins, which is social reform to finally start bringing true development and dignity. That takes many years although some things can have a dramatic difference very rapidly.
For instance mass literacy campaigns like the one that finished in Venezuela last year or the one planned to start in Bolivia this year–and can bring entire populations up to 99% literacy within a 2 year period. Given that Nepal’s 2003 literacy rate was 45.2%, the effects of such a literacy campaign would be miraculous even by 2009.
To elaborate about the literacy campaign–the reason why I use it as an example is that it is something that can be done by a country that has a very high labour-capital ratio, like Nepal, and has been done successfully in various countries in a similar situation. The only thing that is lacking and has been lacking including in the 90s is the political willpower. I also think it is something which is likely to happen if the Maoists and the CPN-UML have significant influence on the development strategy, mainly because mass literacy campaigns have been a standard component of development strategies in socialist countries (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc).
It’s also important because literacy is a prerequisite for a functioning democracy. How can people be expected to monitor those they elect if they cannot read? How can they be expected to educate themselves and improve themselves as human beings, and understand the affairs of the government they are supposed to be ultimately in charge of, if they cannot read? As long as 55% of the Nepali population are illiterate, there cannot be true democracy.
So it is just an example. But it is an example of the kind of thing that can be done if ordinary Nepali people become the number one priority of the political system, and it is also an example of why there could be no democracy in the 90s, and why social development is so crucial to resolving this war.
Mr. Kirat:
If there were only more people who had your attitude and thinking. Unfortunetly the fact remains that Kathmanduites especially those that come from the three ethnic groups mentioned above don’t think like you. Hence the question.
And I agree with you that there doesn’t need to be one symbol.
Basically even after this conflict is over the same old politians will come to power for a while. Now because of this struggle, Madav Kumar house arrest etc. they look like heros and I cannot see anyone challenging them for a while. This conflict has cost us dearly. It has set human development back for years and it is going to take alot of willpower with good development strategies to get us back on track. I am saddened because Nepal will come last in the region. Even Bangladesh, with all its problems, is on course to meeting the Mellinium Development Goals by 2015.
[…] We Blog For Peace And Democracy In Nepal United We Blog, Nepal – 15 hours ago The rebels simultaneously attacked District Police Office, District Administration Office, Armed Police Force Base, Royal Nepal Army s Security Base and […]
[…] We Blog For Peace And Democracy In Nepal United We Blog, Nepal – 15 hours ago The rebels simultaneously attacked District Police Office, District Administration Office, Armed Police Force Base, Royal Nepal Army s Security Base and […]
Back in 1990s, people believed they had to be anti-Indian to be patriotic Nepali. Now it is crystal clear that it was a ploy to continue the authoratarian regime. Shame on all you Royalists, this is 21st century and you still believe on feudal system? I would not like to turn my clock 200 years back, would you? Who ever comes to power is not the point here, the point here is ‘Does this country belong to a handfuls?” Pity we are fighting for democarcy in todays world. This phase should have been ended 60 years back.
If you are getting opportunities, you will not be Maoist. If you are not getting oppertunities but getting false cases just because you do not favor unjustice of some royalist, government supporter, samanta, or whatever. Why don’t you be maoist? If you just think how Maoist war started, how is it spread out and developing, how and why people are attracted to it, you will understand. That’s the root. Ok, lets suppose RNA can kill all the cardes of Maoist, will the problem of nepalis solve? Will people stop struggle for their right of food, selter and clothes, employment, peaceful leaving etc?
As a matter of fact the Royal regime could not give oppertunities for so long time of about 237 years, how long can we wait? Don’t think that if you turn other chick, one will stop hiting. In the village people working as a servent for years ploughing field etc. Can we think that, one day the malik will say his servent not to work for him, it is enough. Royal regime never stop making us raiti, if we let him do. Sabailai chetana bhaya.
m,
You wrote:
“This is not a question of who is the original ‘violent perpetrator’. As far as I am concerned responsibility for the conflict, including its beginning, lies with everyone. The 1990s were characterised by a continuation of the same corruption and neglect of the vast majority of the people as was seen in the times preceding the current constitution. In other words, the basic power structure of the country, particularly the economic power structure, remained unchanged after 1990, although those at top positions were different individuals.”
Yes we may all claim responsibility for the conflict. But a conflict can remain non-violent and should be resolved through dialougue and proper institution building and definitely not by violence. So this conflict may not be about “who started it first?”, but the violent edge to the conflict is most definitely about “who started it first?”, and thereby the response was equally violent, as dialogue was aboandoned many, many times with democratic governments by the Maoists.
BHOLI KO NEPAL KO LAGI KOI MAI KA LAL SANGA KUNAI ROADMAP CHHA? SATTA HAT PARE PACHHI MATRA TYAS TARFA SOCHNE HOLA, HAINA TA? ONCE KURSI ACHIEVED, K KO ROADMAP? BHARSELAI PAROS!