(NEPAL) Chairman Prachanda Condemn's Betrayl

[Red Heretic]

Nepal Maoists reject king's move, call blockade

By Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service

Kathmandu, April 25 (IANS) Even as Nepal Tuesday celebrated the lifting of the 19-day-old nationwide closure called by the opposition parties, the Maoist guerrillas rejected King Gyanendra's move to reinstate parliament and called a blockade and fresh protests.

The rebels plan to oppose the royal proclamation by beginning a blockade of the capital and the headquarters of its neighbouring districts. They have threatened to take action against those trying to suppress their movement, which would include rallies and mass meetings.

The two top leaders of the underground Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai, Tuesday said the king's announcement was a conspiracy to save the monarchy and hinder people's aspiration for election of a constituent assembly that would decide whether Nepal should remain a kingdom or become a republic.

'The king's proclamation on Monday is yet another move to divide the Nepali people and safeguard his autocratic rule,' the rebel leaders said.

'It has not addressed the demands of the people agitating on the streets for a constituent assembly and republic or the understanding between us and the political parties.'

According to the rebels, the reinstatement of parliament through a royal proclamation was a 'conspiracy'.

'The king can then employ some legal ploy to dismiss parliament and the new prime minister,' Prachanda and Bhattarai said in their joint statement.

A fresh rift seemed to be growing between the guerrillas and the opposition parties, who had reached an understanding last year and renewed it recently.

'Those parties in the alliance who have welcomed the royal proclamation have betrayed people's aspirations and dealt a blow to our pact with them,' the leaders said.

'The crux of our understanding with them is holding constituent assembly elections. Before responding to the king's proclamation, the parties did not discuss it with us.

'By supporting the old tradition that kings have the prerogative to reinstate parliament, they have supported the king's autocratic rule.'

The rebel leaders warned they would continue the mass protests begun against Gyanendra on April 6.

The Maoist warning cast a pall of gloom over a nation, brought on the brink of an economic crisis by the agitation against the king.

The rebels' announcement came even as the opposition welcomed the royal proclamation and named veteran leader G.P. Koirala as prime minister to lead a new government.

They also said the new government would call a ceasefire to start peace talks with the guerrillas.



PS. Once I get an english copy of chairman prachanda's statement, i'll post it here.

[bayano]

i have a link to the 12 points of understanding between the maoists and the 7 parties on my blog.

but really, theyre absolutely right, much of the demand has been for, if not the abolition of the monarchy, than the total abolition of its political power. short of that, there can be no trusting the monarchy no matter if ur maoist or radical democrat or pro-parliamentary republic.

this is easily a trick to return to a status quo that existed a couple of years ago, with the absolute power of gyanendra or his heir still capable of quashing the little bit of representative democracy that might come out of this.

of course, ive never been totally 100% behind the maoists, as per their voluntary associations with some other unsavory maoists in other parts of the world and their use of child soldiers. but i can say i am still a critical supporter of their revolutionary efforts.

definitely an exciting situation to watch, has been for a while and guaranteed to be for years to come. thank god that india has its own maoist guerrillas to worry about and cant give as much resources to the counterinsurgency/counterrevolution in nepal as im sure it would like. and hopes that china and the usa stay relatively out of it as well.

[Tekun]

They should reject the king's ploy mos definitely

As I said in another thread, this is just a ploy to ease the tension within the country, and to assess the country's condition
The king, as the Maoists claimed, still holds the power to abolish the democratic process when and as he see's fit
Any acceptance to his offer supports his absolute rule over the country (as they wholeheartedly claim), and does nothing to solve the problems that must be addressed in society

IMO, the Maoists have to galvanize and mobilize the population to cause such a degree, that the King would have to step down voluntarily or forcibly
Yet, as much as they despise the other parties which accepted the king's ploy, they should continue to work with them, so that they won't alienate themselves, which would almost gurantee a say in the Nepal's future once the king is overthrown

The ppl have nothing to lose, they as they have shown, will not back down
The king is buying his time, and sooner or later the ppl will force him from power
And once that has occurred, hopefully the ppl gain full control of the government

[bayano]

just an update: prachanda has called off the blockade and other aspects of this, at least until friday when parliament is set to reconvene. the maoists are smart, i think, to tie themselves to the parliamentary parties, but it should be a somewhat loose bind.

[Dreckt]

I'm pretty surprized that the king hasn't been found dead yet. I think after such events that have happened during a year in Nepal, people there would realize that removing the monarchy is the primary objective.

[Cheung Mo]

And I still think the painful extermination of the entire RNA remains a necessary step.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200604262050.htm

[Red Heretic]

Here are the two statements the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has released. They are in Nepali, but hopefully some of our Nepali posters can translate them for us!

http://66.116.151.85/wp-content/CPNM_12baisakh63.pdf

http://66.116.151.85/wp-content/CPNM_13Baisakh63.pdf

[Red Heretic]

US and other powers think they can dictate Nepal’s future

25 April 2006. A World to Win New Service. The people of Nepal have expressed
their will. As one demonstrator declared, “We will burn the crown, and we will run
the country.” But foreign powers led by the US are mounting what the Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) called “a new ploy to break the Nepalese people.”

King Gyanendra unexpectedly went on television in the middle of the night of 24
April, with both the timing and the king’s face reflecting a decision forced on
him at the last minute, only a few hours before what was looming as the most
massive and militant demonstration Nepal had ever seen. Several million people –
far more than Kathmandu’s entire population – were expected to converge on the
royal palace. Gyanendra announced that he would reconvene the parliament he had
dissolved in 2002. The following morning, the alliance of seven parliamentary
parties that had called the protests with the support of the Maoists met to
consider the king’s offer. A crowd surrounded the home of the former Prime
Minister G. P. Koirala where the seven-party meeting was taking place, and chanted
slogans calling on the parties not to capitulate to the king and betray their 19
days of sacrifice. But the parliamentarians did. The party leaders will retake
their seats in parliament, and
Koirala is to return to office.

This return to the status quo that existed four years ago is not what millions of
demonstrators called for. In fact, it runs contrary to the determination to
immediately end the monarchy once and for all that most observers agree has been
the driving force behind the mass movement. The CPN(M) 25 April statement labelled
the seven parties’ decision “an historic mistake” and “a violation of the spirit
of the twelve-point agreement” the seven-party alliance signed with it last year.
Calling for the nationwide general strike and demonstrations to continue, the
Maoists said that the People’s Liberation Army would blockade the roads around
Kathmandu and all district capitals.

There can be little doubt that the king’s announcement and its acceptance was the
doing of the US and its partners. Immediately after the announcement was made, the
BBC commented that a deal had been “brokered by foreign diplomats.” Assistant US
Secretary of State Richard Boucher had bragged that American diplomats “are in
touch with everybody in Kathmandu, all the players, the political parties and the
king” and “coordinating” with “other countries”.

More than meddling
The previous attempt to save the king came on 21 April, as the mounting tide
against the monarchy tottered the throne. Gyanendra offered to allow the
seven-party alliance to nominate a prime minister. That proposal would have
changed nothing.

For the last two and a half centuries and even since Nepal became a so-called
constitutional monarchy in 1951, real political power has always remained in the
hands of the king and his Royal Army. In 1990, in what was up until then the
biggest social storm in the country’s history, a mass movement forced the palace
to accept a parliament and prime minister, but the monarchy retained control. The
present king has been appointing and dismissing prime ministers as he pleased
since 2002. He has shamelessly centralised power in his own hands since February
2005. A new prime minister – let alone the royal reappointment of an old one –
wouldn’t even restrict the king’s power.

Yet spokesmen for the US, UK, European Union, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
China and India all demanded that the opposition parties accept the king’s
proposal. The palace was said to feel “heartened” by these unanimous public
statements. For instance, Britain’s Keith George Bloomsfield was among the
ambassadors who met with and attempted to dictate to the leaders of the seven
parliamentary parties after the king’s speech. On leaving, he told the press, “The
parties don’t think [the king] has done enough, but we think it is a basis on
which we can go forward.” US State Department spokesman Sean McCormick was more
blunt: “We urge the parties to respond quickly by choosing a prime minister.”

These men were more than meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs. To use an old
cliché that has never been more fitting, these gangsters were making the
opposition an offer it couldn’t refuse. Their governments are the main reason why
the monarchy is still standing. Not only do they control the economic destiny of
this nation they have made dependent, they are mounting intense direct political
pressure. It’s not hard to imagine what kind of threats, spelled out or not, the
ambassadors issued to the party leaders. In fact, the meeting itself was an
outrage, an expression of Nepal’s humiliated position. If some foreign governments
tried to tell the leaders of the US Republican or British Labour Party what to do,
the answer would be laughter – or war.

This diplomatic intervention came with a threat that has been unspoken so far, but
which all concerned know is very real: military intervention.

The next day, however, instead of falling back, the mass movement mounted further.
As the continued demonstrations and street fighting made plain, there was no
chance that the people would accept the king’s offer. Hundreds of thousands of
people, many of them walking a long day from villages in the countryside,
assembled on the ring road surrounding the capital, especially at intersections
with the main streets leading to the city centre where the royal palace is
located. They were met by high coils of razor wire, tanks and massed security
forces with orders to shoot to kill. The crowds pelted the police and troops with
stones and bricks and tore down all signs and symbols referring to the monarchy,
tossing them into bonfires blazing in the middle of the streets. Some 300,000
staged a similar protest in the city of Dang. Huge demonstrations also took place
in Chitwan, Pokhara and other cities. These marches were met with tear gas, lathi
beatings with long flexible
batons, rubber bullets and sometimes live ammunition. Hospitals reported more than
270 people wounded on 22 April in Kathmandu alone, and at least 14 deaths
nationwide as of that date. The Nepalese Human Rights Society said that 3,000
demonstrators had been loaded into military trucks and taken to army camps where
beatings and torture are standard. The group indicated that “many” were missing.
Yet even after five days of daytime curfews and horrendously unequal fighting,
journalists and other observers reported that people in the streets seemed more
determined than ever. The following day, some groups of youth were able to fight
their way within a hundred meters or so of the royal palace.

This is why the king and his big power backers had to come up with something else
to tempt the seven parties into betraying the hopes of millions of Nepalis and
splitting with the Maoists. The American government’s “salute to the people of
Nepal’s courage and resolution in their struggle for democracy” was worse than
hypocrisy. Those who attempt to thwart the people’s clearly expressed will are not
in a position to give lessons about “democracy”. The “salute” was a cover for the
efforts led by the US to impose a resolution to the country’s political crisis not
in favour of the people’s wishes and interests but their own.

The parliamentary parties and the king
The seven parliamentary parties supported the monarchy until the king dumped Prime
Minister Koirala last year. In 1980, faced with an anti-monarchist mass upsurge,
the palace diverted it by staging a referendum on the king’s powers. Gyanendra,
then a young prince, blatantly organized a fraudulent vote count. The seven
parties, however, accepted the results. This is an historical example to keep in
mind when the parties and Gyanendra talk about holding another referendum. Nor
should the talk of coming up with a new constitution under the continuation of the
old regime be given much credit. Gyanendra never let the constitution adopted in
1990 tie his hands too much. After he sacked parliament the last time, he
justified his refusal to reinstate it with the excuse that its term under the
constitution had expired. (The Maoist-led people’s war and successful ballot
boycotts had made it impossible to hold elections.) Now he has just as
autocratically reinstated the parliament
elected seven years ago and its prime minister, unconcerned with constitutional
niceties.

Last November the CPN(M) and the seven parties made an agreement around a common
programme calling for the end of the monarchy, a constituent assembly and a new
constitution for a democratic republic. Just before the current countrywide bandh
started 6 April, the Maoist party announced they would support it and suspend all
military operations in the Kathmandu region to deprive the king of an excuse to
attack the unarmed demonstrators. The massive demonstrations created a difficult
situation for the seven-party alliance, bringing them under enormous pressure from
their own supporters, especially as they became increasingly enraged by the
monarchy’s cruel repression. One 22 April demonstrator was quoted in the press,
“We are the people of Nepal. If the parties make a deal with the king now, we will
march against them. We don’t want a monarchy now.” Reportedly a large crowd
surrounded the meeting hall where the foreign ambassadors were issuing orders to
the parliamentary
parties, chanting a warning to the Nepali leaders not to betray them. Even at the
“victory party” the parliamentarians called for 25 April instead of the planned
massive anti-monarchy street protests, some people marched off toward the palace,
continuing the previous weeks’ chant, “Gyanendra, thief, leave the country!” and
vowing they would not leave the streets.

A king reigning at the pleasure of the big powers
The US, Britain and India have financed and armed the monarchy for decades. All
three ostensibly cut off aid to the king after he dismissed the prime minister in
February 2005, but high-level military meetings between the US armed forces and
the Royal Army were carried out openly.

After India’s initial support for Gyanendra’s 21 April offer, it later hedged its
position, indicating that its support for the king may no longer be unconditional.
But it has no intention of giving up its economic, political and cultural
domination of the kingdom. With the reinstatement of Prime Minister Koirala of the
pro-India Nepali Congress Party, India may feel that the future of its interests
has been protected. It probably believes, however, that the thick and
long-standing ties between the Royal Army of Nepal and the Indian Army are a
better guarantee.

The imperialists and India may or may not have any particular love for King
Gyanendra as a person, but they have been stalwart, at least so far, in their
belief that the monarchy is the best bulwark against revolution in Nepal.

But whatever happens next, what the US and its partners are most determined to
save is the old state structure and especially the Royal Nepal Army. The RNA
military command has once again proved that it is the guarantor of the old order
by willingly shedding the blood of the people, armed or completely unarmed, as in
the past weeks. The representatives of the West and the regional bullies are
unembarrassed about why they have taken this stand. When the conflict between the
palace and the parliamentary parties hotted up, US ambassador Moriarty urged the
king and the parties to unite, warning, “The Maoists must not be allowed to come
to power.” The American government has put the CPN(M) on its list of “terrorist”
organisations, as if the Maoist-led revolutionary movement of millions had
anything in common with organizations like Al Qaeda. On 7 April, US Assistant
Secretary of State Richard Boucher went even further. “These are nasty people,
these Maoists. And I think we
need to work as much as we can to pressure the king to restore democracy, to
encourage the parties to stay together and to come up with a workable, functioning
democracy. And to be able to expunge the Maoists from Nepali society. I think it’s
very much the attitude of governments in the region, including India.”

“Expunge the Maoists” – isn’t this a call for a mass bloodletting? It brings to
mind the “expunging” of a million suspected communists in Indonesia after the
US-sponsored 1965 coup d’état, the extermination programmes carried out by the CIA
in the Vietnamese countryside and the slaughter in Chile when the US brought
General Pinochet to power in 1973.

A new political system and a new society
The advance of the people’s war launched in 1996 under the leadership of the
CPN(M) is what set the stage for today’s political crisis and urban upheaval. The
revolutionary forces have defeated the Royal Army in many major battles. They have
cleared out the regime’s henchmen and established the political power of the
masses themselves in most of Nepal’s countryside. And they have been winning many
millions of people from all walks of life to their programme.

The CPN(M) said in a 17 April statement, “It is necessary for the agitating forces
to seriously bear in mind that the present movement is aimed at a forward-looking
restructuring of the state and not a mere adjustment of power… It is self-evident
that the upcoming new democratic state is not the parliamentary system as of
before February 1 [2005] and October 4 [2002], but a forward-looking multiparty
democratic republic with qualities that ensure wide participation of poor peasants
and workers in the state power, autonomous rule for the oppressed nationalities,
regions and Madhesi people [a particularly downtrodden nationality from the
eastern Terai plains region along the Indian border], along with the right to
self-determination, special privileges to women and dalits [so-called
‘untouchables’], the fundamental right of all to education, health care and
employment, redistribution of the land based on ‘land to the tiller’ by ending
feudal land relations, the development
of a national industry and a self-reliant economy, etc.” The statement warned,
implicitly, against the parliamentarians’ “fatal tendency of completely negating
the decade-long people’s war, heard and observed many times in the present
movement, or the status quo tendency of talking about abstract ‘restoration of
democracy’”.

What Nepal needs – and what the imperialists and other powers are determined to
prevent at any cost – is a new political system and a new society. This is already
beginning to arise in most of the countryside, where under revolutionary political
power, women take an active and often leading role along with men in deciding how
to run and transform the society, the caste system is challenged and beginning to
be broken down, new relations between people are arising, and autonomous republics
have been declared for regions and nationalities long oppressed by the crown and
the centre. The Maoists are leading the people to change their lives – uprooting
the very conditions that are driving the fierceness of today’s protests and that
made Nepal one of the poorest countries in the world: the grip of the feudal
classes and their social system, centred on the monarchy, and the country’s
economic and political subordination to foreign exploiters.

When it launched the people’s war, the CPN(M) set out along the path toward a new
democratic revolution, inextricably linked to the next step, socialism, and world
revolution. To bring it to completion requires establishment of new democracy,
shattering the old state and building a new one where people rule, led by the
party and backed by the power of the PLA.

This kind of radical change is what the US and the other imperialists and big
powers are trying to block, because of what it would mean for Nepal and the people
of the world. They label liberation “terrorist” because it terrifies them. And
this is why all who long for liberation and all those who oppose big power
bullying should support the people of Nepal in carrying out this revolution step
by step.

[Correa]

So the Maoists don't have enough guerrillas to remove the king by force and declare victory or do they just lack the weapons/equipment?

[poetofrageX]

These Maoists in Nepal seem to resemble more agressive Zapatistas more than they resmble the Mao-era CP of China.

and i mean that in a very good way.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 10:15 PM
Nepal Maoists reject king's move, call blockade

By Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service
Well, that didn't last long. They reversed themselves already, and called off their armed blockade. At the request of the new prime minister, Koirala, and the 7-party alliance.

(Those blockades involve attacks or threats of attacks on workers, especially bus and truck drivers, in order to stop traffic on the roads and strangle the cities.)

What's more, they declared a three-month cessation of offensive military operations.

Clearly the CPN(Maoist) is not driving events in Nepal - the dynamic of the mass movement that's arisen in the cities is.

A better thread on these events. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=49182)

[Red Heretic]

Bullshit Sevarian! They fucked created the mass movement in the cities! Before the SPA had the CPNM's support, the SPA was utterly crippled.

[Poum_1936]

this is easily a trick to return to a status quo that existed a couple of years ago, with the absolute power of gyanendra or his heir still capable of quashing the little bit of representative democracy that might come out of this.


This new trick is a last ditch effort by King, every other trick has been used! The monarchy WILL fall. The masses have become more revolutionary than its leaders. “the protests started after an alliance of seven democratic parties announced a four-day general strike from April 6 to 9 against the rule of King Gyanendra. The strike quickly gained a life of its own, with party leaders not seen at the forefront of the demonstrations” (csmonitor.com April 11).

The monarchy has no international support, even China has been quit lately. The international bourgeois is preparing for the fall of the king by the masses, they are hoping the bourgeoisie in Nepal will be able to take power and hold back the movement before it truly gets out of hand (i.e. socialism).

The SPA, if it gains the upper hand and creates a new government, will only be another bourgeois government which will use all new parlimentary and electoral schemes. The donwfall of the monarchy is not an end, but a means to an end.

Communists must defend the interests of the mass of workers and poor peasants in Nepal and launch a campaign to abolish the caste system and to achieve land reform. The masses have felt the power they have and it would be a crime to take it from them by leading their struggle into the safe channel of parliamentary and constitutional struggle.

The two stage theory is a sham, the workers will not half for a bourgeois revolution but will carry forward with the task of socialism.

Big things are happening in this region, recent general strikes throughout occupied Kashmir have shown the inability of the old regimes to solve the problems of to day. If the masses in Nepal were "put back in their place" it would be a crushing blow to the workers in Asia.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by Severian+Apr 27 2006, 10:35 AM--> (Severian @ Apr 27 2006, 10:35 AM)
Red [email protected] 25 2006, 10:15 PM
Nepal Maoists reject king's move, call blockade

By Sudeshna Sarkar, Indo-Asian News Service
Well, that didn't last long. They reversed themselves already, and called off their armed blockade. At the request of the new prime minister, Koirala, and the 7-party alliance.

(Those blockades involve attacks or threats of attacks on workers, especially bus and truck drivers, in order to stop traffic on the roads and strangle the cities.)

What's more, they declared a three-month cessation of offensive military operations.

Clearly the CPN(Maoist) is not driving events in Nepal - the dynamic of the mass movement that's arisen in the cities is.

A better thread on these events. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=49182) [/b]
I mos definitely concurr

They gotta take a stand, and then refuse to compromise, until the people's demands are met
The king has to abdicate, and then the ppl have to take back the power and put it to use in the democratic process

Although I would like to see Lenin's idea about the state being destroyed and then rebuilt, I think in order to avoid distancing themselves from the political parties, the Maoists would have to work within the process and then take power through democratic means (although not my ideal choice)


However, I feel that by lowering their defenses and intensity, the Maoists are wasting an opportunity to get rid of the tyrant, in addition to setting up the conditions needed for a socialist revolution

Only time will tell... :(

[Janus]

It seems that Prachanda called for the ceasefire so that the constituent assembly could try to create a new constitution. It doesn't seem very aggressive at all. However, I wonder how the king or the Maoists would accept the new constitution.

[Poum_1936]

The Maosits "control" 70% of the country, do they have the support of the majority of people in Maoist occupied territory? Or do the Maoists control this territory precisly because of occupation?

[Janus]

The Maosits "control" 70% of the country, do they have the support of the majority of people in Maoist occupied territory? Or do the Maoists control this territory precisly because of occupation?
They don't technically control all that territory as they don't have troops stationed there. They are fighting a guerrilla war so they have influence over a major area. A lot of the peasants do support the Maoists though there have been reports of Maoist abuse.

[Cheung Mo]

"reports of Maoist abuse" = A few dead Brahmans who probably had it coming.

[Tekun]

If they stop now, it will be hard for the Maoists to ever get an opportunity like this
They have to take advantage of the conditions and continue to block and call for protests, the kings on the ropes, time for the knockout

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 27 2006, 01:30 PM
Bullshit Sevarian! They fucked created the mass movement in the cities! Before the SPA had the CPNM's support, the SPA was utterly crippled.
You mean....before the Maoists agreed to stop attacking members of the 7-party alliance, and to call off their blockades of the cities. Yeah. The removal of that obstacle, created by the CPN(Maoist), was an important condition making these mass protests possible.

As was the general decline of fear that the Maoists might take the cities - nobody, including the Maoists, now thinks that's likely. Plus of course growing frustration with absolute royal rule, and its inability to end the stalemated civil war.

Then what role did the Maoists play in these protests? Answer: they helped the protests most by doing nothing, by not blockading the cities. The Maoists were basically on the sidelines throughout, unable to affect the course of events.

***

Now, I said earlier that it would be significant to compare the mass meetings planned by the seven-party alliance and the Maoists for Thursday and Friday respectively.

The results are in: Press reports say "thousands" attended the Maoists' mass meeting in Kathmandu. For example (http://www.samudaya.org/articles/archives/2006/04/senior_maoist_r.php)

But on Thursday, "hundreds of thousands" attended a rally called by the 7-party alliance. The most detailed account of it. (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060428/asp/foreign/story_6155893.asp)

Not only was it larger, but it showed more signs of a rising mass movement. E.g: different forces and opinions contending, the ranks pushing forward past the misleaders, etc.

The biggest significance of the Maoist mass meeting is that it was allowed, that the cops took no action even though some of the speakers were technically subject to arrest.

So they can speak openly in Kathmandu....how long 'til other parties and candidates can openly campaign in Maoist-controlled territory?

That is a necessary condition, if you will, for free elections to the constituent assembly.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:12 PM
The Maosits "control" 70% of the country, do they have the support of the majority of people in Maoist occupied territory? Or do the Maoists control this territory precisly because of occupation?
A good question. Clearly the CPN(Maoist) uses a great deal of intimidation against the peasants they rule over. But no regime rules by repression alone.

They must have had considerable support initially, to spread as far as they did. (Although the weakness of the governments armed enforcers also must have helped a lot.) There's some indication they have less support now; they have to draft soldiers rather than relying on volunteers.

The best way to be sure: hold constituent assembly elections throughout the country - with free campaigning for all parties throughout the country.

***

One description of the "abuses" some people lightly dismiss:
Because the Maoists often kill individuals to punish them for rejecting Maoist rule—that is, collaborating with the government, engaging in non-Maoist political activities, refusing to pay extortion—the Maoists often carry out their executions in plain view, and occasionally demand that local villagers and family members of the victims be present during the killings in an attempt to ensure the maximum deterrent effect on the population. In other words, the Maoists clearly use targeted killings to intimidate local villagers, ensuring that villagers know that deviance from Maoist demands will result in a brutal death. Because the killings are aimed at instilling fear, they are often accompanied by horrific torture and slow and painful killing methods, making the victim suffer for hours before death. In other cases, Maoists simply execute their victims with a single gunshot.

An official of the Nepal Human Rights Commission explained to Human Rights Watch that the “killings from the side of the Maoists were intended to terrorize the population,” and that such killings, particularly the killings of suspected informants, were often “unimaginably brutal,” involving mutilations such as cutting out the tongues of victims, breaking individual's bones until the death of the victim, and burning victims alive.142 The head of Nepal’s leading human rights organization, INSEC, similarly confirmed that his organization had documented that torture was used in the majority of killings committed by Maoists, and explained that his organization had documented many cases where victims had their bones broken or had been mutilated and tortured prior to death.
Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/nepal1004/5.htm#_Toc84254031)

And no, this is not just directed at "Brahmins"; until the agreement between the CPN(Maoist) and the 7-party alliance, it even included members of other "Communist Parties" in Nepal. As HRW and others have documented.

More sources (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=25)

***

Another chance to test ideas against events and time:

In that same thread, almost a year ago, Flyby claimed the CPN(Maoist) was on the verge of taking power. "Someone in this thread implied that it was crudely opportunist to relate to middle class forces and parties....but if you are close to seizing power (as they are in Nepal) -- then they are exactly at the point of finding ways to bring new and broad forces into supporting the new revolutionary order." link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=50)
For those who don't know Flyby, she's been the main representative on this board of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is the U.S. sister party of the CPN(Maoist.)

I responded: "Our different assessments of the CPN(M)'s character lead to different predictions. It's a teensy bit like a testable hypothesis. You say "but if you are close to seizing power (as they are in Nepal)", and gaining support from broader forces. I say they're losing support, are unlikely to take power, and will eventually go the way of Sendero.

Let's see whose assessment is closer to reality. Time will tell."

And time has told. Nobody thinks they are "close to seizing power" today - or even that they have any realistic prospect of doing so. They're making deals with the 7-party alliance on the alliance's terms, not the Maoists'.

Flyby was wrong, and I was right. Not because I'm smarter, but because I had, and have, a better theory. That is the measure of a theory, after all, whether it enables you to anticipate events - rather than being dragged along behind them.

[Janus]

Clearly the CPN(Maoist) uses a great deal of intimidation against the peasants they rule over. But no regime rules by repression alone.
The Maoists say that the peasants support them fully but others, including some of the peasants themselves, argue otherwise. Of course, they do have mass support as many do think that they will positively impact Nepal and they have been making some impact on old, reactionary ideas (worship of the king and women). There may be some forceful coercion going on such as the use of force in gaining "donations" from the peasants but even that's somewhat difficult to prove. But the Maoists have considerable influence and intermittent influence in regions that they don't fully control.

[Severian]

They also have a history of carrying out terror in regions they don't fully control. And no, it's not "difficult to prove"; it's fully and exhaustively proven.

It's just that some people are in denial about this reality.

[Janus]

And no, it's not "difficult to prove"; it's fully and exhaustively proven.
Really? It seems to me that supporters of the Maoists always dub them down as lies and propaganda propagated by the Nepalese government.

[Red Heretic]

I have to admit, I'm terribly exausted with refuting Sevarian's lies. In past threads, I would spend hours pointedly refuting him, but he just keeps on, and I have come to wish I could have all of those hours back.

I will just say this.... For those of you who don't know, Sevarian is a national chauvinist who believes revolutions must start in the first world, and pre-occupies himself with writing relentless rants which he "backs up" by citing imperialist "human rights" reports, as if the imperialists know the first thing about human rights.

Sevarian is a paper tiger who tries to make himself look intellectual and sound in debate by heaping relentless volumes of bullshit at you until you get frustrated give up. He does not believe the revolution is necessary to achieve socialism, and that sort of mentality leads him to gobble up the bourgeois imperialist press.

Repeatedly, he comes to threads much like this one, which are for discussing a particular issue (such as the SPA's betrayl of the CPNM in this thread) and then begins talking about something which has very little to do with the threads original subject matter. He continues to rant until he can convince the people on the board who are less familiar with the revolution in Nepal to oppose it based on his heaps of bourgeois imperialist news sources.

Sevarian is a reactionary, and no better than the US imperialists that he argues for!

[Janus]

Well, that's what this forum is for: discussion. Making ad hominem attacks isn't going to help out the debate at all.



Clearly the CPN(Maoist) is not driving events in Nepal - the dynamic of the mass movement that's arisen in the cities is.
Right now, yes. But what about outside the cities, the rural areas? City events have little influence in those areas.

[red team]

Human Rights Watch

You're taking a human rights monitoring organization funded by billionaire financier George Soros as fair and objective? :lol:

[Red Heretic]

Clearly the CPN(Maoist) is not driving events in Nepal - the dynamic of the mass movement that's arisen in the cities is.

So that's why the protests got even bigger the day after the SPA capitulated? And why large sections of the masses broke off from the "celebrations," marched toward the palace, and burned Gyanendra in effigy, while raising Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) flags?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:18 PM

And no, it's not "difficult to prove"; it's fully and exhaustively proven.
Really? It seems to me that supporters of the Maoists always dub them down as lies and propaganda propagated by the Nepalese government.
What's your point? Some people will always deny even the most solidly proven facts. RH is just infuriated that I provide too many facts and sources.

Like Fox Mulder, they want to believe. They want to believe that a great new revolutionary force has arisen in Nepal....heck, I'd be happy if that were the case, too.

I know the power of wishful thinking; for a long time I searched for some grounds to put some hope in the Iraqi resistance, that it would overcome its religious sectarianism, seek to unite all Iraqis, and break Washington's string of military victories.

But that didn't happen; the resistance evolved in the opposite direction. And it wasn't to be expected of bourgeois nationalists. There is no substitute for the working class. In Iraq, in Nepal, or anywhere else. (There are, of course, potential allies of the working class, which is particularly important in a majority-peasant country like Nepal.)


Right now, yes. But what about outside the cities, the rural areas? City events have little influence in those areas.

There's been relatively little rural participation in the protests, if that's what you mean. Which just highlights that it's the urban masses who have changed the whole dynamic of political events in Nepal.

But it's in the nature of things that cities rule the countryside; who rules and in what way does have a tremendous effect in the countryside.

The events of this mass movement; the call for constituent assembly; whether those elections and assembly occur or not...all these things will affect Nepal's peasant majority, and also the fate of the rural guerilla war. Even the CPN(Maoist) knows that, as shown by their efforts to relate to these events. E.g. their capitulation to Koirala - calling off the blockade and declaring a ceasefire.

***

As for RH's latest: at least he's finally willing to address the thread topic. Unfortunately, he's repeating points I've already refuted.

I wrote earlier of "the day after the SPA capitulated?" (more accurately, made a deal), here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49182&st=0&#entry1292059606)

So far, the popular reaction to the agreement seems to be mostly to regard it as a victory - for example - but one that has to be safeguarded, with the king strongly distrusted and the parliamentary party leaders somewhat distrusted. On the day of the part of the crowd ("tens of thousands" out of "hundreds of thousands" by one account) - moved to the palace vicinity and called for the king to leave the country.

Those tens of thousands could partly be regarded as a measure of CPN(Maoist) support, since that party made a call for continued protest; but it would be hard to estimate how much of that was spontaneous anger.

But now we can estimate that: most of it was spontaneous anger. The dynamic of the mass movement, which has all along tended to push past the SPA leaders.

How? As I said earlier in this thread:

The results are in: Press reports say "thousands" attended the Maoists' mass meeting in Kathmandu. For example

But on Thursday, "hundreds of thousands" attended a rally called by the 7-party alliance. The most detailed account of it.

Not only was it larger, but it showed more signs of a rising mass movement. E.g: different forces and opinions contending, the ranks pushing forward past the misleaders, etc.

The biggest significance of the Maoist mass meeting is that it was allowed, that the cops took no action even though some of the speakers were technically subject to arrest.

There were source links in the original; scroll up if you want them.

See RH, if you're going to discuss, you have to read and respond to my posts, not just repeat stuff I've already refuted. And if you're not going to discuss, why post here?

[Janus]

What's your point?
:blink: What do you mean? I'm trying to discuss.


There's been relatively little rural participation in the protests, if that's what you mean. Which just highlights that it's the urban masses who have changed the whole dynamic of political events in Nepal.
What I'm saying is that the Maoists drive the revolution outside the cities.

[Red Heretic]

What's your point? Some people will always deny even the most solidly proven facts. RH is just infuriated that I provide too many facts and sources.

Sources like rants from the SWP which call everyone a Stalinist, and "human rights" reports from the fucking United Nations? With sources like that, you must be right (sarcasm).


There's been relatively little rural participation in the protests, if that's what you mean. Which just highlights that it's the urban masses who have changed the whole dynamic of political events in Nepal.

BULLSHIT! The protests are the direct result of Chairman Prachanda's revolutionary strategy of Prachanda Path, which advocates surrounding the cities from the countryside, and the unleashing insurrection inside that cities simultaneously. The encirclement of Kathmandu from the countryside has directly sharpened the class contradictions inside the city, and led to the demonstrations and insurrections that are sweeping the country. This strategy works in the same way that all of the rebellion and revolt occured in the US and France in the 60's because of their encirclement by socialist countries and revolutions during that time period.


See RH, if you're going to discuss, you have to read and respond to my posts, not just repeat stuff I've already refuted. And if you're not going to discuss, why post here?

Citing the opinions of the imperialist bourgeoisie and it's publications isn't refuting shit. The reason that I posted a direct attack against you before attacking your post more directly, was because I was exposing you for the pro-imperialist "intellectual bully" that you are. You are a liar and a reactionary, and you decieve the people on this board. It's them that I care about, not you!