I thought we were trying to grow strategic thinkers, not whiners http://www.telegraphnepal.com/headline/ ... endra-modi
Who burned Modi in effigy?
Students affiliated with the ruling United Marxist Leninist Party, main opposition Unified Maoists, Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) headed by Mohan Baidya and Kirat-Rai Student union had jointly organized the protest program.
About Nepali communists (from 2013):http://www.kulgautam.org/2013/05/a-nepa ... -in-nepal/
The case of the Indian approach to the Maoists is even more intriguing. India declared the Nepali Maoists as “terrorists” earlier than most other countries. But it allowed the Maoists to operate fairly freely within its territory and engaged with the Maoist leadership through its intelligence operatives. When the Maoist anti-India rhetoric became shrill, the Indians tightened the screws on them, but when the Maoists became more pliant, India tended to cuddle them.
The Indian policy vis a vis the Maoists seems to be devoid of any principles but strictly pragmatic and even erratic. India is a great democracy domestically, but its foreign policy is not guided by democratic principles but by very pragmatic security and economic considerations, as is the case of China. On balance, the Maoists seem to have cleverly played their cards vis a vis India and benefitted more from its patronage rather than suffering from its sanctions.
BRFers - are there any explicit statements from PM Modi which would create a major change in this perception? It might explain why the Maoists are turning on him. Thanks!
PS: Also from the above
Most Nepalis who support and vote for Communist parties, do not really understand what Communism really stands for. Even most members and leaders of Nepal’s Communist parties would not have read Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Lenin’s What is to be Done?, Mao’s Red Book, not to mention Rosa Luxembourg’s dissenting views.
But there is a popular and populist conviction among many Nepalis that Communists – and in particular Maoists – generally stand for the poor and the oppressed; that they support an agenda of inclusion and equity and are against social injustice.
Although many people fear and dislike the Maoists’ use of force and intimidation, Communists still enjoy widespread support among the poorest segment of the population, and particularly the most marginalized communities, including the lowest rung of the Hindu caste system, the Dalits and other deprived groups.
However, I believe Nepal has now reached a turning point. As the level of education and literacy among the people has risen, people are becoming more critical thinkers and are no longer so easily persuaded by populist slogans and grandiose empty promises.
As an open society, with even ordinary people in remote areas having access to information from multiple sources, people can now make more informed judgment.
Communist parties, including the Maoists, now have had a chance to lead the government, rule the country, and show how they deliver on their promises. And in terms of delivery, the track record of the Communist parties, like that of other parliamentary parties, has been a mixed one.
The Maoist party, for example, is more inclusive of the great diversity of Nepal’s population than most other parties, including at the middle leadership level. And its rhetoric of progressive transformation of society rings quite attractive.
However, the glaring gulf between the Maoist’s words and deeds has now become so obvious that they can no longer expect to enjoy the very generous benefit of doubt that people gave them in the CA elections in 2008.
For example, the Maoists started their whole insurgency with a list of 40-point demands in 1996, most of which were highly exaggerated, undemocratic and impractical anti-Indian slogans. But when they came to power and led the government, the Maoists sensibly did not implement any of their own original demands.
On the contrary, they signed new agreements with India which were completely opposite of their original demands. This has revealed the opportunistic hypocrisy of the Maoists for everyone to see.
The Maoists raised loud slogans against corruption by other political parties. But when in power, they resorted to corruption on a scale that was probably unprecedented in Nepal’s history.
The Maoist leaders proclaimed that they did not own any private property, and whatever property they had, it belonged to their Party. However, in the years since the end of the conflict, there have been dramatic revelations of how many Maoist leaders have fabulously enriched themselves, and played many tricks to hide their private property.
Indeed, most of the revelations of the Maoist leaders’ corruption and enrichment have come from their own party cadres and rank and file. It has been widely reported that many Maoist leaders siphoned off huge amounts of funds that were allocated by the government for the Maoist combatants in cantonments as part of the peace process. The sense of betrayal and anger among the combatants because of this blatant corruption and deception by their leaders led to riots in many cantonments in February 2012 when the Maoist-led government had to mobilize the Nepal Army – their erstwhile enemy – to control the situation....