Outrage: Obama Keeps Nepal Maoists on Terrorist List
Posted by Mike E on May 1, 2009
government if army chief Gen Rookmangud Katawal was not dismissed, an unexpected blow came from Washington that said the Obama government would continue its predecessor George W Bush’s policy of keeping the former rebels on its watch list of terror organisations.
As Kathmandu filled with people demanding popular control over the national army, the Obama Administration added its voice to those (like the Indian Ambassador) who have been encouraging the Nepali Army to resist the creation of a New Nepal.
Citing the continued radical activity of forces like the Maoists’ Young Communist League, the Obama Administration announded that it would keep the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on its international Terrorist Watch List.
This decision is revealing and outrageous on many levels.
First, it is unjust and even absurd to put a mass revolutionary and popular movement on such a “terrorist” list — and it amounts to a public decision to dishonestly equate any radical movement for change with “terrorism.” It is, in addition, an encouragement to extreme, royalist and reactionary forces in Nepal who are seeking a way to thwart the powerful popular will for radical changes in this heavily feudal country. And finally, this decision represents a clear legal threat to the members and leaders of the UCPN(M) — threatening them with international sanctions, surveillance, travel restrictions and even kidnapping-by-governments. In a world where Guantanamo Bay prison still exists, and where CIA rendition has not been publicly exposed and repudiated — the placing of organizations on a “terrorism” watch list is also a threat of future kidnapping and torture by U.S. government agents.
This outrage needs to be widely known among the people of the world — and among progressive the people of the United States. And this requires an energetic effort to break through the media blackout on Nepal and its revolutionary movement.
* * * * * * *
From the Times of India:
KATHMANDU: As Nepal’s ruling Maoist party amassed its cadres at the heart of the city for a May Day rally Friday and threatened to quit the government if army chief Gen Rookmangud Katawal was not dismissed, an unexpected blow came from Washington that said the Obama government would continue its predecessor George W Bush’s policy of keeping the former rebels on its watch list of terror organisations.
The US Department of State’s 2008 country reports, released in Washington late on Thursday, said that though the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) won the Constituent Assembly election in 2008 and took control of various government ministries as well as the prime minister’s position, it remained a US-designated terrorist entity under the Terrorism Exclusion List.
The report on Nepal blamed the Young Communist League (YCL), the strong arm of the former guerrillas that has been dubbed the Young Criminal League by the opposition, for much of the continuing violence despite the end of the Maoist insurgency three years ago.
“Although the Maoist party ended a 10-year insurgency in 2006 and entered into the interim government in April 2007, factions of the Maoists continued to engage in violence, extortion, and abductions,” it said. “The Maoist-affiliated YCL, which included former members of the People’s Liberation Army and grew increasingly prominent during 2007, carried on the Maoist militia’s tactics of abuse, abduction, murder, intimidation, and extortion in cities and villages.”
The YCL violence, according to Washington, triggered further violence from the other political parties “In response to continued violence by Maoist-affiliated youth, other political parties condoned the use of violence for their youth wings,” it said. Washington also felt that its antiterrorism assistance was “constrained by the presence of the Maoists within the government”.
The new Democrat government’s decision to keep the Maoists on its terrorist list comes despite their hectic lobbying both in the US and at home. Last year, Maoist Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda attended a dinner hosted by Bush and after consultations with Richard Boucher, assistant secretary for Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, had exuded confidence that the terror tag would be lifted.
There was no immediate response from the Maoists as their top leaders were busy attending May Day rallies where they continued the war on the army chief. Maoist Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai said at a massive meet in Kathmandu’s Tundikhel open ground that his party would pull out of the government if its coalition partners refused to sack the controversial general.
Zack said
Can you smell it?
It’s the Change We Can Believe In.
Tell No Lies said
Well, I think we have a campaign we can build Nepal solidarity committees around.
nando said
I agree Tell No Lies.
I think we need to build solidarity around both India and Nepal… for all kinds of reasons.
And I think we should interpret this statement by the Obama government as a green light for a military coup d’etat. This is not a quiet signal through their military advisors and spooks, but a public signal seen by all the forces in Nepal, intended to help congeal a political support behind the high command. At moments like this you see the relative autonomy of institutions — and the military is emerging as the only remaining functioning center of the old society (plus its amen chorus’ among the parlimentarians).
land said
I agree. We have some work to do around Nepal. It is clear now if it wasn’t before.
We went to a small May Day. We had flyers around Nepal and the Think Again flyer. There were a number of farmworkers and several people spoke from the Sanctuary Movement.
I made a copies of the picture of the Maoist-led march on April 27th in Nepal demanding the resignation of the army chief.
The article has info on how Maoists from across the country have been arriving in the capital for May Day.
We had alot of debate throughout the day. How or should we talk a bout Nepal when there is an economic crisis going on.
“Why are you talking about a country people haven’t even heard of when all this crap is happening to the people in this country.”
This is an important debate that needs to go on. Not just because of Obama.
It was a very challenging day.
n3wday said
Land says,
(in reference to what people were asking regarding nepal on mayday)
“Why are you talking about a country people haven’t even heard of when all this crap is happening to the people in this country.”
I think its important to point out how international struggles can inform our own. That people weren’t connecting how LIVING revolutionary struggle in another country is important is interesting. I would respond that we need to learn from some of the lessons of Nepal. That they achieved the changes they’ve experienced so far through revolutionary struggle and 10 years of war. How the reform movement in this country is stale and ineffectual, perhaps pointing out Obamas seeming (its still unclear what will happen in the coming years, but hes certainly not moving like he promised) back away from his promises to organized labor, etc.
There are a lot of directions those discussion could go in.
nando said
I think that the people are asking a reasonable question. There is a huge planet, and you have chosen to step out and talk about this distant place. Why? And how does it relate to all the immediate and personal problems that often occupy people awakening to political life. (In other words working people mobilized by their unions to come out to a demonstration are being mobilized specifically around their own grievances.)
And the answer is that Nepal shows that “communist revolution changes everything.” In both India and Nepal you get a sense of how to solve the problems that humanity faces. These experiences show that revolution is possible, that communist movements can connect large sections of oppressed people with a vision of a radically different society, and that the poverty, attacks, and globilized competitions of capitalism find their solution in a revolutionary change of system.
Why Nepal? Precisely because these events give revolution and communism the “dignity of immediate actuality” — and so need to be known.
land said
I think it is “the dignity of actuality.”
Also this discussion was not a discussion one does not want to have.
But there is this stageist way of looking at how people understand the world to change it.
People weren’t saying “Don’t talk about Nepal. I am not interested.” But they were putting out a certain verdict (I think)
on how people think in an imperialist country.
A verdict I do not agree with. First there are different sections of people, ages of people and one’s own ability to bring this revolutionary struggle alive and make it relevant.
But really. How could anyone not be interested on what is going on in Nepal?
They may sum it up differently but first they have to know about it.
Miles Ahead said
To focus on one paragraph from what Nando wrote (people can read his response just fine, Comment #6):
If some people’s disgruntlement is over whether or not to even be discussing Nepal, as example of a living revolution and revolutionary example, because of its distance, size, economic position, how is that any different than focusing on “immediate and personal problems that often occupy people awakening to political life”? How does that outlook not feed into “working people mobilized by their unions….specifically around their own grievances”?
Instead, doesn’t the very existence of the ongoing revolution in Nepal put an onus on revolutionary-minded forces worldwide, to start to think beyond and outside the confines of their own limited boxes?
To be rather snarky, seems to me that a lot of folks are worrying about falling into some economist trap, while at the same time misinterpreting seemingly economist struggles that have the seeds of much more political ones. And to bastardize internationalism, per se, and within that each internationalist’s role and potential contributions no matter where they might be, is a portend for economism and all its “trappings.”
I am reposting on this thread, a comment I recently made on another thread– “The Origins of May First”—because I think it is relevant:
Mike E said
Miles, it is a little hard to know what you are referring to.
You write:
Uh, ok. Who are you talking about? where is this misinterpretation going on? which “seemingly economic struggles” are you referring to?
perhaps you can break this down, cuz I have no idea what that means.
Miles Ahead said
Guess I was being sloppy with my comments.
In terms of “economism” and May Day, what sparked my reaction was a comment at the end by Radical Eyes’ Comment Nº 2 on the thread “The Origins of May 1st”. Radical Eyes was talking about (and exposing) the RCP in particular, but what he raised, also had me reflecting on the many posts (even a leaflet) and comments by Eddy Laing, John Steele, etc. who keep trying to point out that the global capitalist-imperialist economic crisis might also provide, for the first time in years, a crack and fissure for revolutionary forces; an opportunity for potential unrest (and change in mood) amongst the masses internationally.
I am not going to cite every time there has been mention or question of, is this or that struggle “economist”-leaning, on Kasama. Nor am I going to cite the many times I have read that the “60s are dead,” and blame for not going all the way is laid at the feet of some organization like the Black Panther Party.
But here’s what Radical Eyes said,
https://mikeely.wordpress.com/interviews/the-origins-of-may-first/#comment-13358
and although I for one don’t think the RCP’s latest, in particular, is that important, if their thinking represents some others’ thinking, it is important to call it out:
Radical Eyes:
But perhaps even more relevant, here is what Nando said, Comment Nº 9, “May First 2009: Comments and Reports Here” https://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/may-first-2009-comments-and-reports-here/#comment-13353 :
IMO, we should always raise the red flag, go beyond what we’re seeing or experiencing at face value and in the moment, and be keenly aware of what is bubbling below the surface. But to raise the red flag on May Day 2009, has the potential to have more significance in today’s world than it has had for a long time (even amongst a trade-union led demo or contigent). May Day for revolutionaries has never strictly been about economic struggles, even if some of those same struggles have had some import. The red flag is the banner of internationalism and revolution amongst an internationalist class. And within that context, Nepal can play a more than positive role. So for someone to pose that Nepal’s revolution is not particularly significant because of its size, distance, etc. is to me not only lame, but a breach of our internationalist duties and responsibilities.
A small example of what perturbs me…and I am not saying this characterizes Kasama as a whole…far from it, but different outlooks (and lines) are obviously in contention here, as well as in lots of places. (One only has to read various websites, propaganda, etc. to figure that out. Frankly I think it is a good thing that things are in contention at all.)
I have been following the threads on Swine Flu, as well as combing Spanish-speaking news sources, and talking with people as much as I can on the subject Was mentioning to someone the other day, wondering why there hasn’t been more interest in the subject, and this person, who I respect, said something like: “What can you say about Swine Flu?” Well, I think a lot.
It calls for further investigation and interest, beyond what the WHO is saying, in terms of the disease itself. My point of view is, not only is this “pandemic” affecting millions around the world (and in Mexico, most especially the poor and most oppressed), but in particular, and in terms of Mexico, what are the economic and political ramifications of this virus? What are the ramifications for immigrants? How has this latest disease, and the way it is being “handled” affect the already profound economic crisis that people face in a country like Mexico? Besides unveiling the warped and heinous capitalist/imperialist relations of the U.S. with Mexico, (Tell No Lies was referring to this flu as the NAFTA-flu), if one bothers to investigate the developing “mood” of the Mexican people further, one gets the sense that this is becoming a political hot-potato, as well as the more blatant, obvious economic crisis, for the Mexican government. And here too is an opportunity for us as internationalists, to show our solidarity with the Mexican people who are suffering most. As dastardly as the flu has been for many, it is also an opportunity to expose further the deepening economic and political crisis and unite with a growing change in sentiment amongst the Mexican masses. Those same “masses” are starting to segué from fear into some righteous anger, especially around a virtual shutdown of the Mexican economy, as well as a growing clampdown of the people by gov’t forces.
When there was a fatality in the U.S., a small child of Mexican descent no less, there was a lot of feigned concern by some in the U.S. government; meanwhile, there have been over 160 deaths in Mexico related to Swine flu. The latest criticism coming out of even the Mexican government, is to blame the WHO for not acting in a timely fashion to try and stem this disease; in other words, as long as the WHO thought Swine flu was contained to Mexico, they took over a week to react. (Can’t help but think there are similarities concerning the AIDS/HIV pandemic.)But, this summation is also a convenient “pretexto” for the Mexican government to point the finger at the WHO, and gloss over their own corrupt role (and bankruptcy) in perpetuating the unspeakable poverty of the Mexican people.
I guess my main point in my rather seemingly vague comment about both economism and internationalism is that we need to look beyond the surface and superficial. And if what I added above is still unclear, sorry.
Mike E said
I’d like to share my understanding of this:
1) There are economic struggles and economist politics. And they are not the same things.
Economic struggles are (as the words imply) struggles waged by people over their conditions of life — wages, work conditions, taxes, housing conditions, unionizaton, job grievances etc.
Economist politics is a current among communists that says that economic struggles are the most fruitful focus for organizing people and raising their political consciousness (toward class consciousness and socialist politics).
2) Communists have always supported economic struggles. The basic point by Marx is (i believe) valid: i.e. that if workers don’t wage such struggles they will be forced down by capitalism to a mass of broken wretches. And so there is a semi-permanent conflict — as the workings of capitalism relentlessly drive people down, and as the resistance of people is sparked by that.
3) Lenin makes a number of cogent points about economic struggles: that they are an important means of pulling the relatively passive, politically unaware sections of people into social conflict and struggle. He was writing during 1905, when there were many kinds of struggles going on — and the more backward workers were erupting in a frenzy of econmic struggle, while in the places of more conscious working class politics the strikes and struggles were taking a more explicitly anti-tsarist and revolutionary political character.
4) Lenin famously argued hard against economist understandings. He thought that, in fact, you can’t draw political “lessons” out of mainly economic struggles, and (by their nature) economic struggles have a powerful pull into the existing system (that the understandings the repeatedly guide economic struggle don’t break with the system, and are focused on getting “fairness” or “fair days pay for fair days work” within the framework of capitalism. Lenin argued that for oppressed people to get a broader and more revolutionary understanding of themselves and the struggles around them — they need to first be engaged in political struggles (aimed at the state and the ruling classes), and they need the agitation and propaganda of communists (which exposes in a clear and materialist way the interconnections of society around them, and the historic possibility of socialism.)
5) the Haymarket events were political struggle not economic struggle. In other words, the eight hour day movement of the 1870s was organized as a classwide demand — not against individual employers in a trade unionist way, but as a revolt of a whole class against the rulers of a system. Marx discusses this movement as an example of the difference between political struggle and economic struggle. Lenin’s bolsheviks organized their agitation around three key political demands (the “three whales” as they were called): land to the peasants, an end to the Tsarist autocracy, and the eight hour day. Later in the conjunctures of World War 1, their revolutionary movement congealed around different political demands: all power to the Soviets, and a program of “bread, peace, and land.”
6) I believe that Lenin’s critique of economism is deeply true — i.e. that you can’t pull a radical political consciousness largely out of economic struggles, however militant. I was lucky enough to be part of the largest economic upsurge of workers in modern U.S. history — the wildcat strike movement of the coal miners in the 1970s — where there was truly elemental, militant, sustained, relentless, often armed struggle over economic matters arising from the people themselves, year after year, in opposition to their employers, their trade union heads, the police, the state government, the feds, the judges, and anyone else who stood in their way. And we tried (as communists with a distinctly left economist politics) to “extract” from these experiences class conscious “lessons” that could become part of a rising political consciousness among the workers. In ways that I hope to write about more, it doesn’t work. The political consciousness of the most radical and active workers was realy not a particularly different spectrum from the mass of workers generally — and even the repeated collisions with the state, police, courts, etc. did not itself lead to ruptures with illusions about american democracy and capitalism (even in the presence of rather energetic agitation by the communists).
And the experience of miners emerging from this intense decade of upsurge and voting (in large numbers) for Nixon and then for Reagan is something to think about soberly.
In fact, as we communists came to understand (learning from Lenin’s polemics), the more politically radical workers were not the same as the more militant and active fighters of the economic struggles. And the road to revolutionary class consciousness (in the 1970s coal fields) did not lie mainly through the workers own economic struggles, but through the larger winds of those times (the war in Vietnam, the black liberation struggle, the rise of African liberation, the struggle over women’s place in the family and society). And when we engaged in political work around THOSE faultlines, the communist work we were doing (including within the economic struggles) started to engage more directly with the political life and understanding of the people.
Again there is much to say about this.
7) I think it is true that this deep economic crisis will condition and accelerate all kinds of contradictions in society, including political ones. But that does not mean that the economic struggles of people against the effects of this crisis are now (automatically or naturally) the focus of struggle for the people, or the focus of political work among communists. In fact, the economic crisis may accelerate many other faultlines in this society (the border region, the question of undocumented workers and their legality, the position of women in society, the future of farmers, the activity of students around war….)
Again, some distinctions: there is an economic crisis. There are economic struggles. and there are economist politics and assumptions among communists. I don’t think they are the same thing. Or should be linked in mechanical ways.
In the main, revolutionary politics arise from political confrontations over how society is governed, and from movements among the people that want radical changes in how society is organized…. (that want puerto rico independent, or that want equality for black people in the 1950s, or that demand an end to the military defense of empire, or nuclear threats against the world). And it is true (as in Lenin’s time or in the coalfields) that economic struggles are important, and (in particular) that they play a role of bringing relatively unawakened forces into struggle.
8) I do not doubt that we will see new waves of economic struggle. I have long expected that the undocumented workers in the U.S. will form an increasingly militant movement that merges a trade union demand for better conditions with a civil rights movement for amnesty and citizen rights. that has to do with their conditions, the consciousness they bring from Mexico and other countries, the history of tradeunionism in their home countries, the political program of forces working now to congeal the immigrants into a movement…and so on.
I thin the economic crisis will heat up many contradictions — cause governments to topple, accelerate the formation of political movements, cause millions to look around themselves, challenge deep rooted illusions etc. But that does not mean that economic struggles around the effects of the crisis will (inherently or automatically) come center stage. It may be other struggles around other questions that come forward (within a largely charged atmosphere).
In another post I described the fact that economic crisis doesn’t automatically give rise to economic struggle — that was the experience of the 30s and other times. Often the collapse of economic conditions makes it harder to win short-term demands from individual employers — and that simple reality affects the decisions of workers to take up that kind of action.
And the emergence of such a movement would be an important development for the U.S. (and for communists). Just as early Maoists sent organizers into the coalfields, and the autoplants, and the garment shops and so one…. so we should consider becoming part of such a wave of resistance as it emerges.
But we should do that with a rather sharp and communist appreciation of the dangers of economism — which have played themselves out graphically in the 1930s and then again in the 1970s. Major sections of the new communist movement picked up the economist politics of the old 1930s CPUSA, and tried to implement them again in the 1970s. And the results were different, but disasterous both times. And the lessons affirm Lenin’s basic point.
And the chalenge before us has been before us for quite a while: HOW exactly should we do COMMUNIST political work among the people, among the people rising in various forms of struggle. How do the events of today potentially give rise to revolutionary political consciousness and what are the ways of accelerating and organizing that process of political change?
Miles Ahead said
Mike:
Thank you for the distinction, and subsequent distinctions. Definitely agree that the current of “economist politics” especially if that is your focus, is ultimately a dead end.
Do have some rather simplistic questions:
How do we as revolutionary communists act as “tribunes of the people”? How does reformism fit into this mix? Do you think that when the rcp, for example, abandon its notion of the “center of gravity”, which I agree with primarily, do you think that there was also an abandonment of the “economic” struggles across the board? Are there not struggles seemingly economic or reformist on the surface that have something in common with, or have seeds of a more revolutionary political nature, or as you said, the “the larger winds of those times” (and what about now)?
As a sign of the times, but not exclusive to these times, and given the political landscape of this century thus far, don’t you think that taking a staunch (revolutionary) internationalist stand is of the utmost importance?
To put things even more simplistically, I suppose my “fear”, if you could call it that, is that we simply categorize the struggles of the people, as well as the people themselves, and aren’t aware of other things and contradictions brewing, not just within their particular struggle, but in the world as a whole.
I agree re the economic crisis, maybe most especially around a “charged atmosphere” that is growing more charged as we speak. But from what I have read, even just on Kasama, this is a deep and profound crisis of capitalism/imperialism, and they’re having a hell of a lot of trouble trying to rise above this global crisis. And maybe even more so, the capitalists/imperialists are finding it tougher to rule, politically, in the same ways. The economic demands of many workers, around the world are not simply for wages, housing, etc. This crisis exposes to broad numbers the inner-workings of the system itself, on many levels.
On the other hand, you say—
To go out on a limb, think the struggle of the undocumented workers in the U.S. (and these same migrantes/inmigrantes in their own country) is wracked with a lot more contradictions than you are speaking about, and it would behoove us to be aware of those contradictions. There is a current of both patriotism for the U.S. as well as nationalism for their native country that exists. The “history of trade unionism and the consciousness they bring from Mexico and other countries” is very uneven. I would say that most undocumented workers do have a more heightened understanding of the machinations of imperialism, as well as their own puppet governments who are in bed with the imperialists (this coming from their own life experience).
As far as a history of trade unionism…that remains to be seen and the role that the trade unions have played in the main, (which is pretty exclusive and elite) certainly the honchos but also the rank and file to some degree, is to isolate and screw over not only the majority of workers in say Mexico, but those very same undocumented workers you referred to, and are blatantly working alongside the Mexican and U.S. governments.
Re the Mexican people (including the undocumented immigrants), what is more pronounced amongst the working class and campesinos, is a sense of their history, and a reverence (together with some criticisms) of their revolutionary past and legacy. Neither socialism nor communism have pejorative meaning in Mexico (as well as parts of Central and Latin America); instead socialism and communism are part of their common language.
I also think it is important for us to better understand the role of the Catholic church, religion and cultural tradition in all this. Very contradictory amongst the people, even if those same people are predominantly progressive and/or revolutionary-minded. But pockets of revolutionary struggle do exist in Mexico, and in lots of ways, it has been the indigenous people who have helped ignite some of those same struggles.
While recently talking with a very dear and respected friend, who is Mexican and has been an activist in the developing gay movement there since its beginning, suddenly he turned to me and said, “I just don’t understand why there hasn’t been another revolution in my country. I am getting totally impatient!” But then he added, that he thought the biggest problem was that there was no real leader or organization to lead, nor any cohesiveness on the Left with a more revolutionary line. “Most people in Mexico aren’t looking for revolutionaries to reiterate how bad things are, they are looking for answers for real revolutionary change.”
S Thapa said
I (dis)agree with you Mike. As a Nepali student studying in the U.S., I can see the logic behind why the Obama Administration, India, the Nepal Army, the major peaceful political parties (Nepali Congress, UML, RPP) and all sane Nepalis in general are perfectly happy to see the Maoists remain on the U.S. terrorist watch list.
Yes, the Maoists are progressive and more attuned to the plight of Nepal’s backward and impoverished masses, which is commendable. Nevertheless, they have murdered and terrorized their way into the political mainstream and into government (thankfully for a short-lived tenure!). As such, the hooligans of the Maoist Party and of their young thugs branch, a.k.a. the Youth Communist League, should stay where they belong for now – on terrorist lists! There is nothing “outrageous, absurd or unjust” about this, as you so hyperbolically claim. I don’t want to see cold blooded killers, be they Maoists or the former monarchy, ruling my beautiful country. Please direct your fake proletarian, Western concern about the masses to your own country.
Thanks for reading this!
Mike E said
S Thapa:
We Maoists have a saying “The emperor can burn villages, but the people are forbidden to light a candle.” That applies directly to anyone who complains about the Maoists of Nepal using violence for liberation.
This applies directly when you talk about the Maoists having supposedly “murdered and terrorized their way into the political mainstream.” And when you then support the U.S. denunciations of them.
But have you over looked that it is precisely the U.S. who murders and terrorizes on a huge and global scale — in ways that are incomparably more odious to the people. And the role of their so-=called “war on terror” for that?
And aren’t the people steadily murdered and terrorized throughout history (including in Nepal) by the authorities, by the ursory of the feudal countryside? by the police? Daily? Constantly? Who has (and used) nuclear weapons? Who just unleashed torture across the globe and invaded Iraq without provocations?
You write:
Well, we are internationalists, we don’t confine our concern or politics to one country — ESPECIALLY when the U.S. ruling class doesn’t confine its “concern” just to the masses here in the U.S. If U.S. threats and support goes to the reactionary army and parties of Nepal — don’t we too have the right to speak and oppose such unjust interventions? And don’t we need to explain to the people here the importance of supporting Nepal’s farmers and poor when they (finally finally!) rise up?
a shrestha said
Mike E,
I am a Nepali living in Australia. I was in Nepal when the Nepali Maoists practised their ideology (in their own way ofcourse..) These pathetic self proclaimed leaders who stand for nothing should never be allowed to run our government. Yes the commoners were ignored by previous Governments, but they are being “abused and manipulated” by the Maoists. So, your comments and thoughts about Maoism in Nepal, have absolutely no ground. You should only talk the talk, after you’ve walked the walk.
Have a nice life
selucha said
A Shrestha, care to make an analysis or are you just going to throw accusations at the Maobadi with nothing to back it up? How are people being “abused and manipulated” by the Maoists, exactly? To what ends? Why do the Maoists have such a massive base of popular support if they are simply abusing and manipulating people? What would you like to see happen in Nepal?