In light of my earlier discussion with Anarcho Rebel, I thought I'd post this.
Telling Lies in Kathmandu
Revolution #007, June 26, 2005, posted at revcom.us <http://www.revcom.us>
Eliza Griswold's article, "It's Not Easy Here in Kathmandu--Caught
between the Maoist rebels and the king's army" appeared in the May 2005
issue of Harper's magazine. I have traveled into the guerrilla zones in
Nepal and closely follow developments in this conflict, and I'm
constantly angered by this kind of journalism which contributes to a
growing mountain of harmful disinformation.
The Lie of "Caught in the Middle"
People like Eliza Griswold are very disturbed by the reality that the
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) now controls most of Nepal's
countryside, their People's Liberation Army is able to mobilize
thousands of guerrillas in battle against the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA),
and in areas run by new revolutionary governments, they are radically
changing the economic, political, and cultural life of millions of poor
peasants.1
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote1>
The Maoists began their People's War in 1996 and, ever since, Nepal's
ruling class has been in constant crisis over how to deal with this
insurgency which is now threatening to seize power. But instead of a
serious discussion about why the Maoists have grown so rapidly,
Griswold's theme, indicated by her subtitle, is that the majority of
people in Nepal are caught in the middle--between a brutal government
guilty of horrendous human rights abuses, and Maoists who are even worse.
To paint this scenario, Griswold introduces: an 18-year-old girl in the
RNA; an RNA Brigadier General trained at Fort Leavenworth; the editor of
a conservative Kathmandu newspaper; the U.S. ambassador to Nepal; a
doctor and several people at a center set up only for "victims of Maoist
torture" (no victims of the RNA); villagers in a contested area in the
Terai; two girls and the principal at Kathmandu Valley school who say
they were "abducted by Maoists"; a human rights researcher who says "no
one wants to abandon Nepal to the Maoists."
Almost all of these two dozen or so people are by definition hostile to
the Maoists and were in cities or other areas under government control.
Sweeping censorship and systematic disinformation by the Nepalese
government2
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote2>
have had a huge impact on people's opinions and what they know and don't
know about the Maoists, not only internationally but within Nepal
itself, and this is especially true among many of the people Griswold
quotes.
Griswold talks to three Maoists--two rebels she arranges to meet along
the roadside and a journalist who left the Maoists, was imprisoned and
tortured by the government and now writes for a Maoist newspaper. There
is a quote from a leader in the CPN(M). But other than this, there are
no views from Maoist supporters and no conversations with people living
in Maoist base areas.
In Griswold's "caught in the middle" scenario, Maoist supporters are
simply written off as if they are not part of the people. But the
People's Liberation Army is made up of tens of thousands of common
peasants who are not "caught in the middle" but have joined the
insurgency. And many more are participating in the new revolutionary
governments.
In Nepal over 85% of the people are peasants in the countryside,
desperately poor, malnourished, and exploited by corrupt officials,
landlords, and moneylenders. Lower castes and oppressed ethnic groups
face systematic discrimination under a rigid caste system. Women are
intensely suppressed and treated as inferior in every facet of society.
A king controls the army and an oppressive monarchy is deeply embedded
in the ruling structures of society. The whole country is subordinate
to, dependent on, and dominated by India and imperialist countries like
the U.S.
The Maoist revolution aims to get rid of all this. The Nepalese regime
rules over, enforces and is fighting to preserve all this. Are the
masses of people, as Griswold argues, caught between these two fires?
No! The Maoists are organizing and providing leadership to millions who
are brutally and systematically oppressed by the system AND who are
inspired by and support the Maoists' vision and concrete program for
building a new liberating society.
Nepal's ruling class has not and cannot solve the basic problems of
food, water, sanitation, and health care because this requires tearing
up the existing economic, social, and political relationships within
Nepalese society and between Nepal and other countries. While Griswold
acknowledges the dire situation of the masses, she wants us to believe
the Maoists are cynically "taking advantage" of and manipulating this.
In truth, the Maoists have support in Nepal exactly because they are
addressing the deeply embedded oppression people face. In areas they
control real changes are taking place: redistribution of land, equal
rights for women, end to the caste system, autonomy for oppressed ethnic
groups, healthcare, education and the building of roads and bridges.
Even a young woman in the government's army tells Griswold: "The Maoists
have high principles.so they attract everyone who is interested in
struggling for equality. Some of my friends from my village have joined
them. If I lived in the village, I'd be a Maoist, too."
When I was in the guerrilla zones in 1999, I was very struck by the
composition of the PLA squads and platoons. They were overwhelmingly
made up of those on the very bottom of society--lower castes, ethnic
minorities, peasant youth and many, many young women. This says a lot
about the nature of this revolution.
Revolutionary Authority
Let's get right down to it. People like Griswold may talk about
government repression, deep poverty, and powerlessness among the poor.
But they don't uphold the right of the people to really struggle against
any of this. And what they hate a lot more than the oppressive status
quo is revolutionary authority being exercised to actually transform the
prevailing economic and social relations, as well as the culture and
thinking that goes along with this oppressive setup. In effect, this is
an argument that the people should just accept their horrible conditions
and ends up justifying crushing the revolutionary struggle.
Griswold mentions that the Maoists hold power in 73 of the 75 political
districts, but is content to stay in the disinformation zones and never
goes into areas under Maoist control--which constitute most of Nepal!
She doesn't even talk about what's happening in these areas. Instead,
the view running through her article is that Maoist rule is a
totalitarian and horrible thing.
But what is actually being accomplished under Maoist authority in Nepal?
Another way to pose this is: What is the power the Maoists have achieved
through armed struggle good for?
I could go into a lot of examples here. But just take the question of
women--which revealingly Griswold doesn't talk about, even though the
huge participation of women in this revolution is a fact widely
acknowledged.
Feudal traditions like arranged marriages, dowries, and polygamy are
enforced in many ways and under a mixture of feudal and capitalist
rules; women's bodies are owned, controlled, and bargained over in
everything from marriage to sex trafficking. Religious and cultural
practices promote and perpetuate male domination. And everywhere a woman
turns, her freedom and independence is policed and smothered. For women
to be free of all this, the basic economic relations of land ownership
in the countryside have to be upended. Control has to be taken out of
the hands of the religious, political, and military forces which back up
the tyranny of local landlords, corrupt politicians, and moneylenders.
Social and cultural institutions which provide a foundation for the
patriarchal control of fathers, brothers, and mother-in-laws have to be
done away with. The whole education system has to be revolutionized.
And this is exactly what revolutionary authority and power is good for!
In the Maoist base areas land is being redistributed, and for the first
time women own land. Arranged marriages, polygamy, and other feudal
traditions oppressive to women are no longer practiced. Wife beating and
rape are severely punished by people's courts. Women are given the right
to divorce, go to school, and fight in local militias as well as the
People's Liberation Army. And women are equal participants in the new
economic, political, and social life of the villages.
Extremely significant and liberating changes are taking place in the
Maoist base areas, but Griswold cynically writes them off. When she sees
men building the roof of a new school, her only response is to question
why the Maoists charge a $3 tuition. For literally hundreds of millions
of people around the world, life is dictated, ruined and suppressed by
horrible caste distinctions. No amount of capitalist globalization and
westernization has gotten rid of this. But Griswold doesn't even comment
when she hears that in the Maoist areas caste distinctions have been
abolished and intercaste marriages are common.
The Nepalese people need revolutionary change--not a "solution" within
the present order which has as its foundation exploitative economic
relations and intense social inequality, as well as an entrenched
dependence on foreign powers. Daily life for the majority of people
concretely and repeatedly demonstrates this--which is why the Maoists
have real support.
Tales of Coercion and Terror
Griswold's analysis includes quoting a man who tells her, "99 percent of
the country don't like the Maoists"--a ridiculous claim given the growth
of the insurgency, which even those unsympathetic to the guerrillas
admit. But this goes along with Griswold's claim that the Maoists only
get support through coercion and terror. She says: "The Maoists have
begun to demand that every family sacrifice one person to their cause."
A reporter in Nepal for the Maoist newspaper Janadesh responded to
Griswold's charge, saying,
"The Maoists do not force anybody to fight. How can anyone force a
man or woman to fire a gun? You need courage, dedication and spirit
of sacrifice to become a fighter in the People's Liberation Army.
It's not like playing video war games on a computer. It's a life and
death struggle. Only the most courageous men and women can prepare
themselves to fight for revolution. There is a saying in Nepal that
'a carried dog cannot hunt a deer.'"
Think for a moment. The guerrillas started off small and up against the
brutal coercion of a regime backed by India and the U.S. How could the
Maoists have achieved their current military and political strength
without the genuine support and participation of thousands who believe
in the goals of the revolution and on this basis are willing to go into
battle and risk their lives?
There is video, photographs, and reports of massive Maoist rallies in
the countryside.3
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote3>
Reporters who have been in Maoist-controlled areas have written about
the guerrillas organizing people to build roads, bridges, and schools.4
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote4>
During the 2003 negotiations 30,000 people attended a Maoist rally in
Kathmandu.5
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote5>And
the RNA has engaged in battles where they faced thousands of guerrilla
fighters. Can anyone seriously explain this as just "coercion"?
Most of the poor peasants in Nepal's countryside are illiterate and
uneducated-- but they are not stupid and childishly na
Tortured Arguments
Griswold quotes someone saying, "The Maoists torture roughly 60 percent
of those in their custody, but the army tortures 80 percent."6
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote6>
She talks with a doctor at a center for "victims of Maoist torture" who
claims torture is increasing on both sides. She then writes, "His theory
was that local Maoists and government forces were engaged in a game of
one-upmanship over who could be more brutal. He cited the now familiar
torture statistics for the Maoists and the government." (Note how
Griswold gives a "now familiar" adjective to an unsubstantiated
statistic.) This passes for "theory" about a serious conflict-- that the
Maoists and RNA are having a contest over who can torture more?!
The Maoist guerrillas, unlike the RNA, do not believe "the ends justify
the means." Their actions reflect their goal of bringing into being a
new consciousness among the people that will lead to building a society
aimed at getting rid of oppression and inequality.
One way this comes out is in how the Maoists treat prisoners of war in a
humane manner along the lines of the Geneva Convention. The PLA has
released many captured POWs in good health to the Red Cross or other
human rights organizations.7
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote7>
RNA soldiers and police captured by the Maoists have told reporters that
while they had to listen to propaganda and were asked to join the
revolution, they were not harmed. They were warned that if they were
captured again, they would be severely punished, but they were given
money and food so that they could go back to their village instead of
returning to the RNA. This reflects the Maoists' policy of politically
struggling with even those who are working with the government. I have
heard numerous stories about the rebels giving such people at least
three warnings, asking them to stop their counter-revolutionary
activity, before administering any punishment.
The Kathmandu Post , reporting on 18 captured police, said, "Their
release has a human ring about it. In fact the rebels had set them free
only after handing out sums ranging from Rs 800 and Rs 1500 as expenses
for their return journey... The freed hostages have said that the rebels
did not misbehave with them throughout the period they were under their
control. 'Don't involve in vile deeds. You would certainly have killed
had you taken us under your control,' rebels have been quoted as saying.
They also had sent two of their cadre to guide the cops out safely."8
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote8>
Griswold paints a picture where "both sides" are killing innocent
people. But let's compare the policy and practice of the RNA and the
PLA. The vast majority of the 12,000 killed since the start of the war
have been civilians murdered by the Royal Army, along with suspected
revolutionaries also tortured and murdered. And like the U.S. policy,
from Vietnam to Fallujah, of "destroying the village to save the
village," the U.S.-trained RNA has carried out human rights abuses
against a wide swath of the population, killing thousands suspected of
"supporting the Maoists," which could mean simply providing food and
shelter for the guerrillas. Human rights organizations have documented
how the police and RNA have burned whole villages and rounded up,
tortured, murdered and jailed thousands of people. In 2003 and 2004,
Nepal recorded the highest number of new cases of disappearances by
security forces in the world.9
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote9>
On the other hand, the vast majority of people killed by the Maoists
have been police and soldiers in combat. When others, like informants,
have been targeted, this is because their actions have directly led to
Maoists and others being jailed or killed.
The CPN(M) is leading a mass armed revolution which is unleashing
thousands of poor, angry peasants. Their families were suffering and
dying under "normal times." And now, the RNA and police are carrying out
horrendous crimes against the people. When the people rise up against
their oppression it isn't "nice and neat" and leadership is necessary
for the struggle to go beyond bitter revenge. This is exactly what the
CPN(M) is providing. On several occasions, the Maoists have issued
criticisms of actions they felt were wrong and have even changed some
policies after being criticized.10
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote10>
An Argument for More Blood, More U.S. Intervention
Griswold quotes James Moriarty, the U.S. ambassador to Nepal, saying he
is "appalled by how easily they [the Maoists] move through the country,
how much terror they spread." And Griswold notes that "The United States
has placed the Maoists on the State Department's terrorist watch list,
one step below those groups that, in the ambassador's words, belong to
'The Great War on Terrorism.' " Moriarty says,
"It's not Islamic fundamentalism, obviously. but it is a very
fervent brand of Maoism that could cause great trouble in this area.
They've said they're going to invade the United States. I'm not too
worried about that, but you ignore what they say at your own peril.
You can't pooh-pooh the Maoists and the threat that they represent."
I find it ludicrous that I even have to refute this ridiculous claim
that the Maoists in Nepal have said they are going to invade the U.S.
And I actually think Moriarty and probably Griswold know this is a lie.
But this little lie is part of a bigger lie--that the Maoists in Nepal
are terrorists, so backing the regime in Nepal is part of the "war on
terror."
In 2002, Michael Malinowski, then U.S. ambassador to Nepal, stated that
the Maoists in Nepal are "fundamentally the same as the globally
recognized terrorists."11
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote11>
And the 2002 proposal by Bush for $20 million in economic and military
aid to Nepal said, "We currently do not have direct evidence of an
al-Qaida presence in Nepal, but weak governance has already proved
inviting to terrorists, criminals and intelligence services from
surrounding countries."12
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote12>
The Maoists in Nepal have nothing in common with groups like al-Qaida,
but this has not stopped the U.S. from trying to fabricate some kind of
comparison or arguing that if the "terrorists" are not stopped in Nepal,
the country will become a "safe haven" for other terrorists.
Griswold goes on to fuel an argument for more U.S. military aid and
intervention. She interviews an RNA General and writes, "Peace, the
general thinks, will be forged only through more military spending,
particularly by the United States. 'More troops and better weapons will
reduce the loss of human life,' he said. 'If we're weak, the Maoists
will keep fighting. Unless our American friends help us, the Maoist
problem may not be solved. Whether it's in the name of politics or
religion, terrorism is terrorism whether you like it or not.' "
Here sits Griswold, talking to a general of an incredibly vicious army,
and she is not only totally uncritical of what he says, but actually
provides a forum for him to argue his case for even more weapons of
murder and torture!
*****
So now, in the page of liberal Harper's, we've come to this: From an
article that begins with a premise that "the masses are caught in the
middle" between "two evil" forces, we come to the conclusion: one side
should be crushed--the Maoists. These arguments in Griswold's article
are hardly original. They aim to convince people--including those who
might support such a liberation struggle--that while the government may
be bad, the Maoists are worse, so there is no other choice but to
support the regime. And they are an outright apology and justification
for the bloody U.S.-backed war against a genuine, mass struggle for
liberation in Nepal.
Li Onesto traveled deep into the guerrilla zones of Nepal in 1999 and is
the author of the book, Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal (Pluto
Press and Insight Press 2005), available from: Pluto Press,
www.plutobooks.com <http://www.plutobooks.com>; University of Michigan
Press, www.press.umich.edu <http://www.press.umich.edu>; Insight Press,
insight-press.com <http://insight-press.com>; amazon.com
<http://www.amazon.com>; Revolution Books stores and outlets. Go to
lionesto.net <http://www.lionesto.net> for photos, updates on news,
reviews, and speaking engagements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
1. See: "The people's War in Nepal: Taking the Strategic Offensive," A
World To Win , #31, 2005
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote1return>]
2. Under a state of emergency declared in November 2001, Maoist
newspapers were raided and closed down, their staffs arrested. Editors
and writers in the mainstream press were interrogated for simply quoting
Maoist leaders in their publications. In the first nine months, 130
journalists were taken into custody. When King Gyanendra suspended
parliament and grabbed total power again on February 1, 2005, soldiers
were literally sent into newspaper offices to "edit" articles before
they went to press.
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote2return>]
3. The DVD "Eight Glorious Years of Nepalese People's War" is available
from BM BOX 7970, London, WC1N- 3XX, England or e-mail
[email protected] <mailto://
[email protected]>
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote3return>]
4. Reuters News Service, "Amid war, Nepal rebels build road to win
hearts," March 2005.
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote4return>]
5. BBC News, April 3, 2003.
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote5return>]
6. An article in the Kathmandu Post (September 20, 2004) on the report
by the Center for Victims of Torture reported different statistics
saying, said, "In recent years, almost 60 percent of the people detained
by the state, and 40 percent of those abducted by the Maoists have been
physically tortured, inflicting a serious psychological blow on them
besides causing them physical damage."
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote6return>]
7. See International Committee of the Red Cross Web page
http://icrc.org/eng <http://www.icrc.org/eng>
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote7return>]
8. Kathmandu Post , November 26, 2002, "Freed cops say weapons let them
down."
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote8return>]
9. Human Rights Watch report: "Clear Culpability --Disappearances by
Security Forces in Nepal" available at: hrw.org/reports/2005/nepal0205
<http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/nepal0205>
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote9return>]
10. See: "Nepal Rebels 'regret' bus deaths, launch probe," Reuters, June
7, 2005; "Nepal: Maoists offer self criticism after bus bombing,"
AWTWNS, June 13, 2005; and Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal by
Li Onesto, the section on "Revolutionary Policies," pages 121-124.
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote10return>]
11. Indiatimes news online, February 26, 2002.
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote11return>]
12. FY 2002 Foreign Operations Emergency Supplemental Funding
justifications available at
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/aidindex.htm
[Return to article
<http://rwor.org/a/007/nepal-refutation-harpers-article.htm#footnote12return>]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online
http://revcom.us
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497