Maoist Teachers in Nepal Force Closure Of Private Schools

[Saorsa]

Maoist Teachers in Nepal Force Closure Of Private Schools
3/6/2009 5:35 AM ET

(RTTNews) - A strike called by Nepal's pro-Maoist teachers, affiliated to Institutional School Teachers Union (ISTU)--opposing 'commercialization' of education, and demanding the closure of privately-run schools--forced the closure of all private and boarding schools across the country Friday, media reports say.

Private and Boarding School Association of Nepal (PABSON) has opposed the 5% education tax the government recently imposed upon all schools. It called on the 9,000 private and boarding schools in the country not to pay the tax, which, it says, has been imposed by the Maoist government unjustly. They say that parents and schools do not have the capacity to pay it.

Friday, a delegation from PABSON, led by its president Bhoj Bahadur Shah, met with Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala and appraised him of their problem.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai has warned he would initiate stringent action against schools not paying the tax. He also warned that the students of those schools would be barred from appearing for examinations of the School Leaving Certificate, due in a fortnight.

by RTT Staff Writer

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=874766&SMap=1

So much for the strike ban eh.

[Coggeh]

Maoist Teachers in Nepal Force Closure Of Private Schools
3/6/2009 5:35 AM ET

(RTTNews) - A strike called by Nepal's pro-Maoist teachers, affiliated to Institutional School Teachers Union (ISTU)--opposing 'commercialization' of education, and demanding the closure of privately-run schools--forced the closure of all private and boarding schools across the country Friday, media reports say.

Private and Boarding School Association of Nepal (PABSON) has opposed the 5% education tax the government recently imposed upon all schools. It called on the 9,000 private and boarding schools in the country not to pay the tax, which, it says, has been imposed by the Maoist government unjustly. They say that parents and schools do not have the capacity to pay it.

Friday, a delegation from PABSON, led by its president Bhoj Bahadur Shah, met with Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala and appraised him of their problem.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai has warned he would initiate stringent action against schools not paying the tax. He also warned that the students of those schools would be barred from appearing for examinations of the School Leaving Certificate, due in a fortnight.

by RTT Staff Writer

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=874766&SMap=1

So much for the strike ban eh.
Enlightening news . Good stuff . Thanks comrade.

[Dóchas]

thats a good development in nepal, thanks comrade :)

[Ret]

So much for the strike ban eh.Be accurate. Your report does not refute earlier reports of a proposed strike ban by the Maoist led government and statements by Maoist ministers that workers should not strike;

Bhattarai: Yes. At least for some time, there should be no bandas and strikes in the industrial, health, education sectors, on the major highways, in the public utility sectors.
The recent anti-strike legislation, passed in January, is for Special Economic Zones, which are largely non-operational at present.
See 'Nepal-victory turns sour' article on the libcom site.

[Saorsa]

I'd like to see more sources than that Libcom article before I jump to conclusions about what's happening.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Good news.

[Ret]

I'd like to see more sources than that Libcom article before I jump to conclusions about what's happening.The sources are cited in the libcom article - they're from the public domain of the Nepali press, so just as good as the sources you quote. Nothing you have said or quoted contradicts the earlier anti-strike attitudes and legislation of the Maoists. Several earlier libcom articles also show by Maoist statements that the Maoists were quite clear about their intentions to promote 'a favourable investment climate for foreign capitalists' - they were saying this long before they were elected.

The anti-strike SEZ Act was proposed 4 years ago by an earlier incarnation of the ruling class and has now finally been passed by the Maoist-led CA.

Also note that pro-Maoist teachers are striking against a Maoist-led government. If that counts as "good news" for Maoist supporters, good news must be in short supply. Also note that Maoist taxman Minister Bhattarai is responding to the strike by threatening that schoolchildren will be penalised - barred from taking exams - if schools don't pay the new tax.

[Saorsa]

Also note that pro-Maoist teachers are striking against a Maoist-led government. If that counts as "good news" for Maoist supporters, good news must be in short supply. Also note that Maoist taxman Minister Bhattarai is responding to the strike by threatening that schoolchildren will be penalised - barred from taking exams - if schools don't pay the new tax.

Read the article more carefully. The pro-Maoist teachers are striking in support of the actions of the Maoist-led government. They've taken action in opposition to "'commercialization' of education, and demanding the closure of privately-run schools". Your confusing the pro-Maoist teacher's union, the ISTU, with the PABSON, the association of principals and directors etc, who are naturally opposed to this.

As to penalising children, think of the kind of kids that would be attending a private school in a country like Nepal. Big friggin deal.

[Bilan]

Read the article more carefully. The pro-Maoist teachers are striking in support of the actions of the Maoist-led government. They've taken action in opposition to "'commercialization' of education, and demanding the closure of privately-run schools". Your confusing the pro-Maoist teacher's union, the ISTU, with the PABSON, the association of principals and directors etc, who are naturally opposed to this.

That changes little. Having the right to strike in support of the government doesn't equate to the right to strike generally.



As to penalising children, think of the kind of kids that would be attending a private school in a country like Nepal. Big friggin deal.

No. Children are sent to these schools, its by and large, not a choice. The kids may be from bourgeois backgrounds, but that's not a reason to punish them for their parents decision.
Furthermore, shouldn't these schools be turned over to the workers and not closed down?

[manic expression]

That changes little. Having the right to strike in support of the government doesn't equate to the right to strike generally.

Whatever you may say about it, it's a strike in the interests of the working class, and that's what matters most here. The claims of the nay-sayers was that the Maoists had impeded the rights of workers to stand up for themselves, but this is now put into question by this new development.


No. Children are sent to these schools, its by and large, not a choice. The kids may be from bourgeois backgrounds, but that's not a reason to punish them for their parents decision.

What kind of "punishment" are they receiving? It sucks to switch schools, I've done it multiple times and it's never easy, but is there another way around this?


Furthermore, shouldn't these schools be turned over to the workers and not closed down?

Turning it over to the workers, under any practical process, would require that they be first shut down.

[Bilan]

Whatever you may say about it, it's a strike in the interests of the working class, and that's what matters most here. The claims of the nay-sayers was that the Maoists had impeded the rights of workers to stand up for themselves, but this is now put into question by this new development.

This doesn't disprove that the "Maoists (have) impeded the rights fo workers to stand up for themselves". Time will tell.

[manic expression]

Time will tell.

I can agree to that. However, I still think this is a very positive development for the workers of Nepal.

[Saorsa]

No. Children are sent to these schools, its by and large, not a choice. The kids may be from bourgeois backgrounds, but that's not a reason to punish them for their parents decision.

I doubt it'll come to that, the private schools are going to have to give in faced with both government threats and the fact that their own teachers are refusing to work. They don't have any choice. And if they don't, I guess that's the unfortunate side of class struggle. Sometimes people who are innocent to one degree or another get caught in the middle. C'est la vie.


Furthermore, shouldn't these schools be turned over to the workers and not closed down?

They want to change their character and make them public schools that workers and peasants can go to, not close them. This is just an action taken as part of the struggle to achieve that. Try not to be so simplistic and dismissive about everything to do with Nepal...

[Ret]

I stand corrected on that point, Alistair. But the rest of what I said stands. You insinuated that my libcom article may be inaccurate. If so, refute it - I'm happy to be corrected. It's been debated on at least 3 sites, and all the critics have, like you, cast doubt but with no factual evidence.

The claims of the nay-sayers was that the Maoists had impeded the rights of workers to stand up for themselves, but this is now put into question by this new development.
As previously shown, the Maoists have publicly disapproved of/discouraged strikes but not imposed at present a general ban - but have legislated against them in SEZ's, for when SEZ's become generally operational. This legislation will be a deliberate "impedence" for workers. The article never claimed that strikes are at present banned - so you are only refuting a straw man and criticising my article under false pretences.

Bilan's points here are relevant; it would be unlikely that pro-Maoist strikes would be banned by Maoists. Also, if you justify on a class basis the penalising of these schoolkids, then apply the same logic to those Maoist CA members of the ruling class who draw salaries 40 times the average Nepali annual wage and who move round in chauffaur-driven limousines.

[manic expression]

The article never claimed that strikes are at present banned - so you are only refuting a straw man and criticising my article under false pretences.

I'm refuting an assumption many people were making on this forum. I never specified your article once, I was criticizing the (mistaken) conclusions drawn from it. So in the end, you're the one with the straw man, not me.


Bilan's points here are relevant; it would be unlikely that pro-Maoist strikes would be banned by Maoists. Also, if you justify on a class basis the penalising of these schoolkids, then apply the same logic to those Maoist CA members of the ruling class who draw salaries 40 times the average Nepali annual wage and who move round in chauffaur-driven limousines.

I'm not excited about this strike because it's pro-Maoist, I'm excited about it because workers stood up for their interests and struck at privatized education. Apparently, people take exception to this kind of militant working-class activity.

The Maoist party has actually put limits on luxuries its members can use, but I find your argument to be puritanical anyway. Politicians can't live the same way the average Nepali does because they have to live in cities in the first place, and they have to get around them efficiently. I guess if you had your way, leaders of your revolution would be expected to till the fields from can't see in the morning until can't see in the evening. I'd like to hear more about this revolution of yours.

[Ret]

I never specified your article once, I was criticizing the (mistaken) conclusions drawn from it. So in the end, you're the one with the straw man, not me.I know you didn't, but I've only seen the topic discussed on here in relation to that article. And, as you say, I was correct that you were referring to opinions on it. So not really a straw man. The strawman remains that what the article did and didn't say about a strike ban has been misrepresented.

The Maoist party has actually put limits on luxuries its members can use, but I find your argument to be puritanical anyway. Politicians can't live the same way the average Nepali does because they have to live in cities in the first place, and they have to get around them efficiently.Not all city dwellers are rich. The migration to urban areas is growing; over 20% of Nepalis live in cities, most of them poor.
There are no apparent limits on the wages paid to Maoist politicians.

I guess if you had your way, leaders of your revolution would be expected to till the fields from can't see in the morning until can't see in the evening.My revolution wouldn't be a revolution unless it abolished hierarchical power, class society and politicians.
When Mao 'had his way' during the Cultural Revolution, many rival politicians and non-manual workers were sent to till the fields, so I don't see why you would oppose that policy. Of course, meanwhile Mao stayed in his comfy palace.

I'd like to hear more about this revolution of yours. If you're so interested in a topic I've not raised on this thread, go read my contributions on Kasama responding to earlier misrepresentations;
mikeely . wordpress.com/2009/01/29/prachanda-nepalese-people-will-seize-power/#more-6970 - from comment 33 (not allowed to post proper link as it's only my 4th post here.)

[manic expression]

The strawman remains that what the article did and didn't say about a strike ban has been misrepresented.

Right, by people other than me.


Not all city dwellers are rich. The migration to urban areas is growing; over 20% of Nepalis live in cities, most of them poor.

Yes, but all of them live quite differently than "most Nepalis", which was your original statement in regard to Maoist politicians. If you'd like to backtrack on that, you're more than welcome to.


There are no apparent limits on the wages paid to Maoist politicians.

Citing "no apparent limits" on wages is very different from citing concrete facts on what Maoist politicians make. At any rate, the leadership of the Maoists has been addressing the issue of wages within the party (if you want the link, it was discussed on this very forum some time ago), but to be honest I think Nepal has a few more important things to accomplish than getting every politician to wear a hair-shirt.


My revolution wouldn't be a revolution unless it abolished hierarchical power, class society and politicians.

"Your revolution", then, won't happen, because all revolutions are inherently hierarchical.


When Mao 'had his way' during the Cultural Revolution, many rival politicians and non-manual workers were sent to till the fields, so I don't see why you would oppose that policy. Of course, meanwhile Mao stayed in his comfy palace.

I'm not a Maoist and I don't support the Cultural Revolution.

[Ret]

Yes, but all of them live quite differently than "most Nepalis", which was your original statement in regard to Maoist politicians. If you'd like to backtrack on that, you're more than welcome to.No need; I never said that. People live differently in different ways - but my reference was clearly to extreme class differences between ruling class politicians and the exploited classes, wherever they live.

Citing "no apparent limits" on wages is very different from citing concrete facts on what Maoist politicians make.I already did that. I cited; "Maoist CA members of the ruling class who draw salaries 40 times the average Nepali annual wage." This article gives details; libcom . org/news/nepal-a-nice-little-earner-maoist-ruling-class-lenins-footsteps-12052008 The CA politicians' salaries were published in the Nepali press.

all revolutions are inherently hierarchical.Your conceptions of them certainly are. But it would certainly be hard to deny that there have been anti-hierarchical tendencies in some past revolutions.

Whatever, I only stopped by here to refute further distortions of the article and the quality of our exchange is unlikely to improve. For more "puritanical", 'hair-shirtist' criticisms of ruling class politicians I'll leave you with some recent quotes that tend to confirm what the original libcom article had already asserted. No, not from some 'crazy anarchists/ultra-leftists' - but from leading Maoists who've recently split from the governing party;

“Prachanda has deceived all of us, he is the traitor but yet the revolution continues until the down trodden are liberated”.

“A communist leader who rides a car worth ten million rupees and the one who sleeps in a bed worth one lakh plus can no longer remain as the messiah of the people and thus realizing this hidden truth we have abandoned the Maoist party for good ”, said Pandey. (Dipak Pandey)
Telegraphnepal.com 27/Feb/09

I am trying to find out as to why the communists who sacrificed a lot during the revolution start posing like a bourgeois the moment they are in the government or say the power structure? Why they suddenly become attracted towards capitalism? [...]
if the revolution accomplishes a success from the bottom, the counter-revolution is a process that is carried out by those who reach to the upper echelons after the success of the previous revolution. [...]
The party of the ex-rebels then accepted the capitalist form of parliamentary system and the central leadership then began exhibiting capitalistic trends. This has also come to true. (Mani Thapa)
Telegraphnepal.com 12 Mar 09

[Saorsa]

but from leading Maoists who've recently split from the governing party

The only leading cadre that split was Matrika Yadav, the rest are either low level cadre or long time ex-maoists. Time will tell whether his criticisms are correct.

[Saorsa]

And I really don't see what's so wrong with Prachanda using the cars provided by the state he's now Prime Minister of to effectively get around Kathmandu and the rest of the country, let alone him sleeping in the bed in the PM's quarters. It's political line and concrete material achievements that matter, not the bed you sleep in, clothes you wear or whatever.

[manic expression]

No need; I never said that. People live differently in different ways - but my reference was clearly to extreme class differences between ruling class politicians and the exploited classes, wherever they live.

Then please be so kind as to outline the class nature of the Maoists, and do bear in mind that class is based on ownership, not whether or not you have a car.


I already did that. I cited; "Maoist CA members of the ruling class who draw salaries 40 times the average Nepali annual wage."

And what is the average Nepali doing? Tilling the fields. Asking revolutionary politicians in Kathmandu to live on a similar income is ludicrous and the sign of someone who has an axe to grind. This has nothing to do with class character or politics and everything to do with irrelevant attacks.


Your conceptions of them certainly are. But it would certainly be hard to deny that there have been anti-hierarchical tendencies in some past revolutions.

It would be harder, however, to deny that these very tendencies were instrumental in their failures.

[Ret]

please be so kind as to outline the class nature of the Maoists, and do bear in mind that class is based on ownership, not whether or not you have a car.Yes, it is, including ownership of/claims on the apparatus of power. Which includes mechanisms for administrating class power via the exploitation of labour power; hence, proposals and legislations for strike bans. The Maoists rule the state in coalition, for the moment, with other bourgeois forces. I previously linked to the Kasama debate and libcom articles where you can read how I "outline the class nature of the Maoists".


Asking revolutionary politicians in Kathmandu to live on a similar income is ludicrous and the sign of someone who has an axe to grind. This has nothing to do with class character or politics and everything to do with irrelevant attacks. Our conceptions are too far apart; for me, "revolutionary politicians" is a contradiction in terms. I didn't "ask" anything of the Maoist faction of the ruling class. I just pointed out that some of the ruling class are Maoist, accessing all the economic privileges that accompany political power. As I showed earlier, other Maoists say the same (though for different reasons than me). I think most people who defend the Nepal Maoists would happily accept without question these criticisms of class privilege if made of a Western ruling class. But a patronising 3rd worldist double standard comes into play when it's some far away romanticised struggle.



But it would certainly be hard to deny that there have been anti-hierarchical tendencies in some past revolutions.It would be harder, however, to deny that these very tendencies were instrumental in their failures. The working class has failed - for various complex reasons - to abolish capitalism and class society, yes. Past revolutions have only resulted in a new ruling class that rules over the working class in its name. That is my point, that the same process is occurring in Nepal and it should be recognised and opposed. I think many people are becoming aware that this will become progressively harder to deny or pretend that the process is in the interests of the working classes.

As our views are so far apart I won't continue this debate any further. I will continue to occasionally report on Nepal on libcom.

[manic expression]

Yes, it is, including ownership of/claims on the apparatus of power. Which includes mechanisms for administrating class power via the exploitation of labour power; hence, proposals and legislations for strike bans. The Maoists rule the state in coalition, for the moment, with other bourgeois forces. I previously linked to the Kasama debate and libcom articles where you can read how I "outline the class nature of the Maoists".

First, this recent strike shows that the Maoists are allowing workers to stand up for themselves. Second, "ownership of/claims on the apparatus of power" is what all of socialism is about.


Our conceptions are too far apart; for me, "revolutionary politicians" is a contradiction in terms.

Again, that's why your conception of revolution will not be put into practice: because it can't.


I didn't "ask" anything of the Maoist faction of the ruling class. I just pointed out that some of the ruling class are Maoist, accessing all the economic privileges that accompany political power. As I showed earlier, other Maoists say the same (though for different reasons than me). I think most people who defend the Nepal Maoists would happily accept without question these criticisms of class privilege if made of a Western ruling class. But a patronising 3rd worldist double standard comes into play when it's some far away romanticised struggle.

And you've squarely ignored plausible reasons for these "economic privileges", much of which is based in the fact that no politician (or revolutionary, for that matter) can be out in the fields all day.

Were the Maoists a "Western ruling class", that is to say members of the capitalist class, they would be living a lot differently and with far more luxuries than a car for official state business.


The working class has failed - for various complex reasons - to abolish capitalism and class society, yes. Past revolutions have only resulted in a new ruling class that rules over the working class in its name. That is my point, that the same process is occurring in Nepal and it should be recognised and opposed. I think many people are becoming aware that this will become progressively harder to deny or pretend that the process is in the interests of the working classes.

Past revolutions have resulted in a new ruling class: the working class. Cuba has abolished private property, abolished commodity production, abolished the exploitation of man by man and, finally, abolished capitalism. The Cuban workers made a revolution because they built a proletarian state after destroying a bourgeois one. Your naive denial of this is a key part of your denial of revolution itself. Only when one understands that revolution means hierarchy, a hierarchy of and for the workers, can one work towards revolutionary change. That is why the anarchist views you propose have not and will not make any headway.