| Username |
Post |
| Paschim |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 06:10 AM
Maoist supremo Prachanda appears in the prestigious Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) in its latest issue of October 24.
Here are the links:
1. Main article
http://www.feer.com/articles/2002/0210_24/p024region.html
2. Money they have
http://www.feer.com/articles/2002/0210_24/p025region.html
3. Exclusive Interview with Prachanda
http://www.feer.com/articles/2002/0210_24/p026region.html
The main point seems to be that the Maoists are getting bolder, actually became stronger during the Emergency, and could launch a "strategic offensive" against the State when it is vulnerable (as now?). The report quotes Puskar Gautam, a former Maoist who writes in the Nepali Times, that they attribute the failure of the Colombian and the Peruvian Maoist movements to their waiting too long to go from "strategic stalemate" to "strategic offensive". The Maoists appear to have decided that the time may be ripe for their 'war ki par', Puskar is quoted as saying.
------
On a related note, The Far Eastern Economic Review is also famous for its exclusive interview by Nate Thayer in 1997 with another (in)famous Asian Maoist, Pol Pot, in the jungles of Cambodia. Pol Pot had then openly admitted having ordered mass assassinations when in power. When interviewed, he was under arrest by his own Khmer Rouge cadres for "crimes against humanity".
|
| Jayahos |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 07:26 AM
Paschim thanks for bringin these links.
In my observation:
1. Maoist started their war with strategic enemies as cadres of Nepali Congress and Police. Although they occasionally attacked cadres of UML, they did it only strategically to attract Comrades affiliated with MALE, the then faction of UML – and it helped too. Before formally launching an assault, they never touched Army – the only exception is killing of one Army personnel during the election time – and pretended as BHAI BHAI. They were able to capitalize the cold attitude of Army towards police – which still prevails, and is one main reason in lack of intelligence information with Army – and demoralize the Police force by killing DANTHE POLICE in far remote areas. Now they have come to terms with Army and UML cadres and have shown an upper hand. They have successfully completed their first stage. Prachand says: It's quite clear that how far these (the formation of an interim government, election of a constituent assembly and organizing the country as a democratic republic) demands will be fulfilled through peace talks will ultimately depend on the level of victory achieved in the actual battlefield. By launching a successful attack in SANDHIKHARK, they have gained an upper hand in battlefield.
2. Now they will try to drag the country to strategic stalemate and they have been successful, to some extent, in this endeavor too. They will try to launch political programs viz. BANDHS, Student Protests and try to polarize other political parties on least agreeable common agendas. In the meantime they will be building up their armed capacity. Even if the state brings them under table, there is less likelihood of a meaningful outcome. Prachanda says: It's not a question of willingness rather than a form of struggle that we don't want to be disarmed.
3. Strategy of encircling the city from the countryside. When the peace talks were going on last year, they tried to conduct a Mass Rally. They know the real power centers in Kathmandu and even virtually controlling 60% of the countryside does not have any meaning in so far as taking control of the state. After dragging the country to a stalemate for sometimes, they will launch a war ki par attack. Thanks to havoc in the last 12 years, people have lost faith in all three organs of a democratic state: executive, legislative and judiciary. The only hopes of majority of peoples are pinned now in the KING. MAOIST will wait for sometime to taint King's image – ironically, the king has provided such an opportunity himself – and that will be the time to strike, I think.
Jaya Hos
|
| SMR |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 01:32 PM
What's scary is the increased activity of Al Quida in Bangladesh. An extended network of the two would spell major disaster for the region.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-10-19102-0-13-40.html
|
| Logical Sense |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 03:30 PM
Don't you guys think that past and present king is to blame for all these? I was of impression so far that King Birendra gave us the democracy and nurtured it also and I was respecting him a lot for that.
But, after learning more and more on how the Maoist became more bolder day by day (since 1996) as the Army kept a distant and deaf ears, makes me wonder it was all because of King who never allowed the Army to be managed by civilian government. Now I know that how much King had a say in all political appointments I feel King really never let the Democracy flourish and never lost the grip on power behind the scene. It always wanted the democracy to FAIL so that it can repeat the History.
And present King seems more power hungry. For no apparant reason, he muddied the democracy in Nepal and started a president which will never make Nepal a true democracy. And rest of the Nepalese elite are blindly following him without understanding where he is taking the country and democracy.
Really sad ;(
|
| protean |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 06:22 PM
Logical Sense, your interesting points are valid (and logical). The delayed response of the armed forces did cause this rebellion to gain momentum,and I also agree that the Royal Palace's of control of army, did add to the unneeded confusion and aggravated the situation futher. However, I opine that there were also additional causes,that could have further bolstered the movement.
Of course the feudal structure created and enabled by the monarchy can and need to be attributed to part of the blame. The fedual (mostly in villages) and pseudo democratic system after the 1990s, that was in place, did make matters worse. The caste structure, the social inequities, the economic rift, and poverty, all seem to have contributed to some degree to the escalation of this movement.
Any form of movement, that is based in violence and threat, survives and finds impetus when there is chaos (as depcited in the articles posted above by Paschim & SMR). It can be attempted to be controlled not just only through the use of force and "tit for tat" strategy, but by creating situations where the attempts of the rebels can be foiled.
The army could have been mobilized while back to control the insurgency, and G.K.P's government (then functioning ), could have brought these people to the table. Then, Mr. K., didn't want to address the problem at hand, so it is also the fault of his administration not to have pursued this matter with enough seriousness (similar to George Bush talking about corporate scandals ,but not really being serious about it). The army didn't really heed to Mr. K's proposal, but I think, Mr. K. could have pushed this case a bit harder --as he had support and confidence of the people then.
But, just trying to crush the rebellion, mightn't solve the problem at hand. Instead of pointing fingers, I think, the King, and the democratic leaders have to unite (which is going to be difficult, but possible), create some semblance of peace & stability in the country; give confidence to people; and try to fight this problem from the grassroots level.
Enough damage has been already done by ego imbalances of these leaders, and, we, the common people, don't want to suffer while the country gets embroiled in civiil war.
Hoping for Peace in our land!
Protean
|
| Jayahos |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 07:29 PM
King Birendra (May his soul rest in peace!!) and Democracy:
When JANANDOLAN was announced and many voiced for democracy, King Birendra was busy delivering lectures in Pancha Rally even without a single word about the movement (King G is drawing parallel by not mentioning anything about MAOIST movement in the country while removing Deuba from office!). Many had high expectations that the king would address something about JANAANDOLAN in Pokhara rally in 2046.
King Birendra declared a team in 2047, just after declaring multiparty democracy, to suggest him new constitution on his own. Only after pressures from all major parties, specially Ganeshman and other leaders, and rejection from BN Upadhyaya to head such a team, new commission with representation from political parties was formed.
Sidelining the constitution suggested by the commission, The PALACE tried to impose a constituion developed by themselves! Gorkhapatra played a heroic role and thanks to the then PM KP Bhattarai, the issue was resovled and a constitution - though much compromised with palace but prepared in true spirits of the movement - came into existence.
In many instances the king resisted deployment of army as suggested by the government to quell the insurgency. I remember one instance when JP GUPTA wrote an article in Himal about how the army bargained in these matters.
King was using his stooges to talk with Maoist sidelining the democratically elected government. Maoist themselves declared that they were engaged in talks with Dhirendra with the help from RN Pandey.
Jaya Hos.
|
| Dilasha |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 09:04 PM
Is it true that Prachanda's photograph has never been published? the article says so.
|
| Nixon |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 09:26 PM
Maoists = Taliban
Prachanda = Omar (top leader of Taliban)
No formal Photograph of Prachanda = No formal photograph of Omar
Prachanda a Fundamentalist Communist = Omar a Fundamentalist Moslem
Prachanda started from remote district by punshing wrong doers in villages = Omar started punishing wrong doers in villages
Maobadis exploited the chao in Nepali Politics = Taliban Exploited the chao in Afganistan
Peoples in Nepal were suffering from Scotland Syndrome = Afgan People suffered the same
Now Nepali Middle Class People realized that Maoist hijacked their frustrations = Afgan Peoples also realized the same at the end.
All are insane -reactionaries- if they don't support Maoists : kill them = All killed who ever don't follow the order.
Used Bideshi fighters (indians were reported to be seen in fighting) = Taliban was supported by Al Queda.
Maoist want pure uninterrurpted rule = Taliban enjoyed the same
Maoists dismantle religious statutes = Taliban dismantled Buddha's 2000 year old statues.
Maoist bombed infrastructures = Taliban bombed all infrastructures
Maoist kill school teachers and closed schools = Taliban killed school teachers and closed schools.
What else do you expect ? to prove Maoists are not Taliban of Nepal.
|
| Nixon |
Posted
on 23-Oct-02 09:27 PM
Maoists supported by neighbouring country India = Taliban supported by Pakistan Government.
|
| SIWALIK |
Posted
on 24-Oct-02 01:59 PM
By retaliating against democratic parties and placing a stooge at the helm, the present regime resembles a persanalist autonomus regime--the one most vulnerable to revolutionary movements. The best thing going for monarchy is the corrupt and inept political leaders who have failed to inspire and channel national vision for better future. Otherwise, the rift between the king and political parties plays right into the alley of Maoists.
|
