Pictorials

From those hills, Kathmandu definitely looks far and voices of their beloved leaders who have assured them of a promised land almost inaudible. But entertainment seems to be of prime premium even to the stern disciplinarians of prolitariat struggle.

N’Tara, wow, the seminary in South Hadley (apart from their infamous parties) did prepare you for expedition to hills of Dhading and comradrie with the revolutionaries afterall.

Disclaimer: all said in good faith; not ‘maska maaring’.

from scratch to a mighty competition. how the hell babu and parchanda managed to organize such a huge army which can compete with a established national (oh sorry royal) army.

anyways i always enjoy looking at goats and animals being slaughtered and being cleaned. i don’t know why.

hey mystikwa are there two pradips commenting here at samu.org

Uncommon lamency of a name too common. Thus we have our ‘nom de guerre’-M’hacker.

Free rice & meat … uh, huh and you think they are just going to give up their guns and what … plough the fields again? Keep dreaming …

Why, if ‘ploughing the fields’ is all you have for them in return then certainly they are not going to ‘give up their guns’ now, are they?

“how the hell babu and parchanda managed to organize such a huge army which can compete with a established national (oh sorry royal) army.”

I wonder the same. Amaing isnt it? How few started the revolution and by them (yes, to credit maobadis’ is neccessary) our country is now being changed for good. Certainly they will be remembered in our history books.

It is just a shit guys. Do not glorify the murderers. They are killing you and I all Nepalese alike. Do never be in cofusion, they are POLPOT of Cambodia. People like me showed THEM including GYANE, how powerful they can be and achieve what these guys could not in a decade or so with their killing machines. I hate and hate both of them (SO CALLED MAOISTS and GYANE alike).

banduk…bomb… hatiyar chaur ma rakhera nachna…gauna… ramailo garna…. ramailo bhayo hola…. tyo guns.. barrels feri naboke ramro hunthiyo hola hai..

reply to #8.

yeah. So why didn’t you do it before they told you too?

niranjan
we are just in the beginning of Act I. But, if the act succeeds, what you said will come true

nayantara:
Great photos. These photos really show that Maoists are human beings also.
I think Maoists have been dehumanized and objectified when in reality they are PEOPLE…

Again, they have been dehumanized because of the inhumane acts they’ve committed, and rightly so. They were always considered ‘people like you and me’ until they did something that you (assumption here) and I wouldn’t do, and crossed the boundaries of acceptable human behavior.

Just like giving the ‘criminal’ label to someone who breaks the law or ‘dictator’ to a repressive regime ‘dehumanizes’ them, the desired effect is the same here.

Come ‘on pple, it’s the ‘humanizing’ of their brutal acts that I find repulsive. Just because they’re having ‘nach-gaan’ and ‘ban-bhoj’ doesn’t make them just like everyone else, it’s the ideology they follow and the willingness for violence that needs to be dehumanized.

to digress a little, and so that we can stray away from repeating the same thing tirelessly, a question for all:

do you think, considering history, considering the present, human beings are inherently capable of killing and of brutal acts if driven by the “right” circumstances? In other words, is it human to be “inhuman”? we’re psuedo-intellectuals here, please get philosophical, make some interesting references. i am tired of the commenters that are repeating themselves like there’s no end. redundancies are strangling the life out of samudaya. say something interesting. quick. please.

Who is ‘them’? Have you taken time to disect the ones that are ideologically bent versus those that are taught the rhetorics of revolutionary war? Those that join the movement out of compulsion versus those that have no other means to but enlist where they are ‘humanized’ more than they would be out there in ‘society’?

From my understanding, the faces you see represent much more than ‘kodak moments’ of, oh let’s say a sly politician smiling, holding a baby and giving a thumbs up — promising to make things better and eventually attending to their own interests.

The pictures do not represent the ‘human side of Maoists’, they represent the general aims, ambitions and desires of young and poor, hopeful of things getting better than what is at present.

f..ck you, whoever you are. explain in simple terms flamer — sweeper

Pay me, and I’ll explain your Kathmandu ass. What am I, a freebee that everyone can take a shot at?

Its because you are an easy target, Mr Hacker. You don’t make any points -just a jumble of poetic words.

enough is enough — sweeper

Oh, look look who’s talking. The same old farce called Ian, biggest busllshit to hit Nepali politcal discourse, always ready to piggyback on commenters without any sense of originality.

enough is enough — sweeper

Who is the sweeper?

Hired exclusively to keep out roaches that infest.

Ok, point taken but this is like Big Brother when ‘Sweeper’ keeps changing my name from ‘oh’ to ‘ian’, what reason do you have to do this when the discussion is unrelated to my name?

to avoid confusion, obviously. you can use different names as long as it is made clear that you are not a differen person. — sweeper

Re posts 16 - 22, here we go again…

This is exactly where our discussions turn to sh*t…

If I may make some clarifications regarding the discussions here, so we can stop with the same ol’ crap over and over again:

1. They are all subjective.
2. No one’s point is strictly invalid.
3. No one here is ‘right’.
5. Everyone here is an egomaniac.
4. If you insult/berate/discredit another’s view, expect the same in return.
5. If you can dish it out, then learn to take it in as well.
6. A little bit of self-reflection will reveal your hypocrisy, before you criticize others.
7. WE’RE ALL HIPOCRITES.
8. Some of you really need to rid the ‘holier-than-thou’ and ‘you don’t know sh*t’ attitude.
9. The arguments here aren’t about whether 2+2=4, nothing is clear-cut.
10. So stop trying to prove people wrong and just make your point.

I agree with Niranjan, do not glorify the maoists. The pictures and the captions do that. They terrorize, torture and kill innocent people. They still do. They chopped your legs off if you didn’t agree with their ideology, they killed your sons if you didn’t send them in their army, they killed you if you didn’t pay up. I agree we have to look forward and think positive, make way for the maoists. Of course, they are talking about peace now, and perhaps they deserve a little applaud for ending all this now, than later. Peace, sooner it comes will save lives, and will give us all many occasions like this one to celebrate. Still, they should not, and I hope will not, be remembered in history as heroes.

Undoubtedly the most shameful article I have ever come across in my life.

Re: 14 and addendum to 15, and all the ‘pseudo-humanist’ commenters.

Puhleezzz, keep your ‘human’ definition to yourself.

Now, ‘humanism’ as we see and understand these days primarily developed post European renaissance, and the most ironic thing is, western narrative contineously excluded minority view and refused to accept (not only tolerate them) as equal human subjects. As recently, after the creation of human rights commission, we see the biggest dilemma facing ‘human civilization’ today. If ‘humanism’ played its role, these governments would fight over each other to intervene in Darfur. If being human is not killing, then all humanity is ‘inhuman’ cause we have all reaped the fruits of war and sucked the life out of those dead. And here we are, making judgements as to who is human and who is not. Let us make all those who bask in glory today of days spent in agony by others accoutable so that we can redefine ‘humanism’ and provide justice for all.

it is as human to resort to brutal acts under “favorable” circumstances as it is to create the very circumstances that make them “favorable.” the inhumanity of the maoists are a bead in a long thread of inhumanity that has yet to leave nepal, or the world, which has never been free of brutal acts from humans since its inception. it would be expected of humans, if we are to accept that distinction between humanity and inhumanity, to be able to uproot the “favorable” circumstances as well as the “brutal acts” that are allowed in these circumstances while accepting we are equipped with the instinct to kill as much as the instinct to reproduce, only we are capable of making judgements and being conscious of a will. it is hypocrisy to accept a military war as a necessity, or a dictatorship as a necessity, but a revolution as not. it is reasonable to reject all three, or to see a revolution as a consequence of the other two, for having created that favorable circumstance for it.

Thanks for everyone who responded my comment. No one in the world should glorify the WAR. Do you applaud Bush for introducing DEMOCRACY in Iraq? Does anyone in the world can praise Stalin for what he did to his people? Can anyone praise MAO for what he did in the name of cultural revolution to his people??? So why so much praise and eagerness to listen this guy called PRACHANDA aka PUSHPA who has given two different names to his disciples as well? Is it just he has guns and can kill anyone at his will?!! So STOP my fellow friends to glorify the thing that is EVIL from the begining.

rcheck,
i disagree with your last point. it is an objective of an argument or a debate or a discussion to challenge someone’s viewpoint or argument. however, just because you challenge it doesn’t mean the right or wrong of either is proven, but the challenge must be accepted without bruises as an integral part of a healthy discussion.

Anyone here actually been directly affected by maoist violence?

Question
“The pictures do not represent the ‘human side of Maoists’, they represent the general aims, ambitions and desires of young and poor, hopeful of things getting better than what is at present”. I agree with that so what do we, just forget all the innocents killed on both sides? how do we reconcile that?

Niranjan:
There is nobody left who is advocating an immediate Communist plan for Nepal. As I have mentioned before, to believe that Maoists must drop their Communist plans and join mainstream politics is to reject the ideogoy of Prachanda and Baburam. To believe that they are humans nonetheless, not much more fallible than we are is to embrace the ideology of humanism which is of great importance to make democracy sustainable.

passing bob,
we give them reconciliation by creating a nepal that does not beg for armed revolutions or military coups or any other autocratic coups, or needless loss of lives in the future, by working towards a country where it’s possible to lead dignified lives, where every life recognizes its importance and that of others. there are dead on both sides. i am not a victim of maoist violence, and you are not a victim of army or police violence. both maoists and security officers, i believe, are victims of a horrible situation, of a horrible era, and a horrible inheritance. i would personally like to see the gory left behind and focus on today, tomorrow, the present, the future. proper punishment would be rehab and community service for a year or two.

well in theory thats sounds great, but do you think thats going to be enough for someone whos father was brutally killed infront of them by either side for example.

response to sarahana 29, I agree that its good to challege someones view point, but i feel that there should be a goal to it, we are disagree in the process to discover or learn something, I think people here try to hard to prove themselves “right” and don’t listen to the other person.

there are wives who join the maoists because their husbands were killed by the RNA. there are children who join the maoists because their parents were killed by the RNA. that is how the cycle of vengeance works. on the other hand, there those who lost loved ones who just want the killing and the cycle of vengeance to stop. we can sell one of the cars at the palace to compensate the families of victims on both sides. how’s that for an idea.

Taking the most simplistic approach to this situation, there has to be a “forgive and forget” policy for reconciliation. No question that neither side will be ready to just go silently, so it should be the goal of the government to ensure safety and initiate progressive dialogue.

The goal should be prevent further violence from either side towards the other, as I’m sure the attempts will continue. It’s not easy to say ‘get over it’, but if the healing is to start, the rehabilitation must be ‘forced’ initially.

I don’t want to mince words nor be gaudy. We all know the following options.

Prosecute both parties if you can which, from logistical point is a nightmare.

Keep on fighting the Maoists which will only increase more casualty going forward, and this will only strengthen their ‘cause’, not ours.

Move on, raise funds, create charity and government programs like free schooling to compensate the surviving families of those victimized.

Have you other options, I’d like to hear it.

I have to agree with those saying that the acts of the Maoists ought not be justified - this is not a rejection of their ideals which when the “people’s movement” started out were indeed noble (vis-a-vis re-structuring land rights, the prospect and hope of equality irrespective of caste, creed, socio-economic status etc)

I know that philosphy can play a huge part in justifying the parsing out the merits/tendencies of humanity vs. inhumanity but, at a a basic level,there has to be accountability in order for the country to heal.

Nepal has the notorious distinction of being the country with the largest number of dissappeared (Even beyond Colombia which itself is a staggering number). The extrajudicial killings, maimings, rapes etc ought not to be left behind in the hope for movement to a better future, because leaving the question of the fate of these people is NOT doing justice to them or their families.

Granted the circumstances that led many to pick up the gun are ones that we need to be cognizant of and I am not blaming them for joining a movement that promised them succor from the life long discrimination that they faced; however, do I forgive them for killing a father before a minor child? or raping a mother? or cutting off arms and legs for no reason other than that they felt their ideology justified it? Do I have the temerity to forgive “The fierce one” for callousness in remarking that civilians burned alive in a bus in Chitwan were “collateral damage” hell no!

Every human being may indeed be driven to deeds as a victim of circumstance, but, does that mean that a lapse of judgment on the part of these very people who had to have known that killing merely on the suspicion of one’s political affiliations is not justified should now be forgiven because of the fact that their bloody ten year struggle finally materialized in a Republic..if anything, it goes to show the futlity of the lives lost, because what the “fierce one” could not achieve in 10 years of a blood bath, came about in 19 days through the power of the people.

I think the Maoists and the RNA need to be held accountable. I’m not sure that what we need is necessarily a repeat of the Nuremberg trials but at the very least a model like the Truth and reconcilaition committee of South Africa whereby we have a system of “Amnesty” in place needs to be held to account for the real magnitude of this struggle….that has as much importance in healing Nepal and moving forward as does the hope of a better Nepal.

…my two cents worth! :-)

what kind of democratic infrastructure would have to be in place, realistically, for this to occur, you think? also, to make sure that the punishments are equally applicable to both sides considering that the number of culprits in the RNA would be significantly higher given the statistics of torture, rape, and killings of civillians.

M’Hacker,

I agree with you that there needs to be a system of rehabilitation in place, but, the issue there again is whose rehabilitation? (who gets in first?..who deserves it more?)..do we rehabilitate the Maosists to get them to drop their weapons with the hope of stopping the violence? or do we first help those that were forcibly maimed to ensure that they have the resources to continue to feed their families?
…it’s bound to be a war of words and more at the starting point..perhaps, if Nepal’s economy was not as defunt as it is presently, we could afford to have a full scale rehabilittion without having to do it in stages, but reality is that the Royals have drained the treasury dry so we as a people are left to confront these issues that by no means posit easy solutions.

As to Sarhana’s thought of auctioning off the Jaguar to collect funds is concerned, I think a legitimate solution would be seeing ways that may be available in petitioning the Swiss govt to return to the people of Nepal money that Royals of yesteryears (Birendra and family) squirreled away…that is bound to be enough to get us back on the road to Economic recovery!

Honestly..and perhaps this is my idealistic naivety comming out in all it’s glory :-)…a leadership with enough interest to ensure that we have an honest and open dialogue with no blame game save the desire to know the truth as to the fate of millions.

That was all the SA commission hoped to achieve and they did it…granted, they had stalwarts like Desmod Tutu to help, but, even a little interest to get to the truth would help get the process moving.

Correction: Naivety to read Naivete

i do think this is more idealistic than realistic, but in a way that it ought to be something in which an interest is kept very much alive nonetheless, even for the sake of making the point.

Sarhana,

Like I said, my idealism in all it’s glory:-)..seriously, it may not be realistic at this stage since the country has other things on its agenda — the Constitution being chief amongst them, but there are already talks of discussions/committees etc and if Ian Martin and the UN would wake up from their deep slumber, I think them along with stalwart organizations in Nepal like INSEC have the dedication and the courage to hold feet to the fire and get the leadership to initiate proceedings.

As to this point you made “the number of culprits in the RNA would be significantly higher given the statistics of torture, rape, and killings of civillians”..is there a report out there that says this with authority- I’m not disputing that the RNA has been grotesque in HR violations..but more than the Maoists?..I’d think they’d be about the same..not that it excuses the behaviour of either side.

i’m referring to the insec reports. amnesty might have some as well. whereas i’ve heard of many instances of coersion and threats from the maoists, i’ve heard of many more actual cases of torture and rapes from the RNA (killings aside). in fact, the cases of rape on the maoist side is rare, from what i know.

I cannot respond to any more references, I am a busy man now.

This is where few leaders with economics background would come in handy. This is basically an issue of (i’m gonna use that ‘evil’ phrase) economic reconstruction.

Feasibility studies need to be completed to examine the economic burden, as well as, solutions such as loans from WB, aid/donations, private funds, ensuring/reallocating/redistributing tax revenues.

All ‘victims’ should be measured in the same platform and not in terms of maoist or RNA atrocities.

“…i’ve heard of many more actual cases of torture and rapes from the RNA”

That’s because HR groups and the international community actually attempts to record the RNA violations, where as the maoist atrocities are only hearsay and ‘word of mouth’. And many times, maoist crimes are not reported either out of fear or cause there’s no one left alive to report them. I think, if an proper investigation was to be conducted, many more incidents would be discovered.

Personally, having relatives in the remote areas, I’ve heard many more gruesome stories of violence committed by the maoists.

i’m guessing maoist violences would be more gruesome and theatrical. however, i’d also think that because the more random incidents that don’t come from a chain of command are exceptions and not the norm in their case (given that most of their actrocities are intentional and planned), they woulud be fewer in number, and more targetted (for example, rebelling teachers, suspects, etc.) whereas the RNA’s has been more indiscriminate, not knowing very well the local alliances as outsiders, and most often lumping them all as one. in any case, the now unsalveagable inaccuracy of the incidents that have gone undocumented itself would be a big problem in delivering justice.

This isn’t a time to be ‘salvaging’ atrocities on either side. Trying to determine ‘who did what’ is only going to cause a messy situation. Both sides are going to justify their cause and neither side is right in its actions.

I do not know why people are arguing the way I can read here. Why not we just STOP publishing glorified pictures, comments and deed of both GYANE and PRACHANDE and their disciples namely MAOISTS, who have guns to kill anyone in their will without a chance of litigation and RNA which is as bad as their counterpart MAOISTS.
My heart cries for PEACE for my country which has been raped, destituted and left alone. Can anyone here in this discussion group imagine , we have had no DEVELOPMENT for a decade? No infrastructure left with all vulnerability of destruction mainly from those who claim themshelves “PEOPLES ARMY = MAOISTS”??? Does anyone has the answer for millions of people crossing border to India for job and fear for their life? Who is responsible???

first of all, how are these pictures “glorified”?

Pointed noted Niranjan bro!

But there has to be some ‘reconciliation’ and ‘rehabilitation’ before development can start.

Yes, I’m definitely an advocate of major economic reconstruction for implementation of some vital infrastructure. The social disparities can only be addressed when we are capable of sustaining an economy and providing basic necessities.

second of all, that we have had no development in the last decade is outrightly inaccurate (check any reports of development in terms of literacy, roads, income, etc.)

third of all, the people in these images are neither prachanda nor gyane.

Re: 50

Oye, dig your head out of the sand and face ‘reality’. There is no glorifying this or that, it is simply being brought out to the public, besides don’t you want to know/see who these people are that are really making lot of noise in last ten years?

RE 52 para 3, sentence 2

E la re malaka!

We seriously need to engage in Marxian dialectic before making conclusive remarks. Your claim would ONLY make sense if the disparity were strictly ECONOMIC which, we all know is not. Rather, people seem to think we need to start with a piece of paper called constitution.

Reconstruction is actually the effect of all the processes that go into making possible for a country to build itself; not really a cause or lack thereof for a success and failure of states.

i would just like to pose question which i see is relevant in this discussion:

what is violence?

it is very vague topic and changes its definition according to the context of the discussion. in the context of this discussion, i define violence as injustice. anything that is unjust is violent.

now from that perspective, is the political structure of nepal peaceful? personally, i don’t think it is peaceful.

muluki ain was promulgated in 1854 making all the citizens of nepal equal and discrimination based on caste, race, sex, among other things illegal. ironically, that was during the time of junga bahadur rana. but even one and half century later, we have a war-ravaged country and main rationale behind the war is injustice exactly based on caste, race, sex, among other thing.

in this context, can we say every nepali was treated equally before the war started. in reality, that war was going on for a long time. only difference was it didn’t have a voice loud enough that everybody can hear. now the voice is so loud and clear that many people want to shut their ear and go back to the ‘peaceful’ days that were.

it is not only about maoists. people who tried to work to raise the political awareness in rural areas, who tried to make people conscious of the injustice during the panchayat era were summarily imprisoned and killed even. that didn’t stop even during the early days right after the 1990 andolan. so, saying that before the war started it was peaceful would just be nothing more than lack of understanding of the situation.

problem is not just whether maoists will come to power and impose their brutal and absolute rule or not. problem is whether we are ready to acknowledge the existence of the problem at all. be prepared there is still more to come in very near future. there are still more filth to come out in the open. even at that time many may choose to shy away from the problem. but whosoever is ready to face it, will have plenty to deal, discuss and work with.

As you can probably ascertain by now, I’m not much of a Marxist. I don’t buy his theories nor have any respect for them. He’s really not saying anything special; it’s like a beauty pageant contestants’ quest for ‘world peace and equality’. He never made much of himself, and the only reason his theories get attention is because some ‘crazy ass mofos’ in history have used it as a battle cry and made f’ed up implementations of it. So I’d rather not engage in that dialectic.

Marx’s theory was more conducive for industrial Europe anyway, where majority of the ‘lower’ class were union workers. There may be some parallel but it’s still a stretch; India is more of a candidate for implementing his theory. That’s probably why babu ram picked Maoism, as it dealt with the ‘peasant farmers’.

Disagree with me if you wish, and I’m sure you do, but Marxism is not the way… for me. I’m not one of those, who are educated and live lavishly in the west with all the privileges, who reap the fruit of capitalism and exploit free market, and hypocritically advocate some form of communism. You have the right to do it — I just find it funny.

The main point being, I agree that economic disparity is not the only issue, but it is one that can be most feasibly addressed and planned for. Of course we should tend to all the inequalities along class, caste, and gender lines that has been infested by ages of feudalism. It takes generations to correct these mentalities, so the process needs to be initiated. But as someone said ‘a hungry man is an angry man’; so what we need to do is find ways for the populace to be self-sufficient economically first.

[Dipesh,

I have been following you post for quite some time now. There is greater amount of depth that you generally try to bring into conversation which, I think is quite commendable, but, given the nature of comment section, gets generally overlooked due to well, depth and complexity of it. Nevertheless, I have for the most part enjoyed reading your post. If you are interested, you could submit your writing to samudaya which would give commenters opportunity to ‘critique’ on your work. Feel free, now@samudaya.org]

I wasn’t sure where to post this but it is an interesting counter perspective of the mainstream view of the protests in Nepal from another source:

Just a few notes on the “Mass Uprising”:

1. The “mass uprising” consisted of between 100,000—200,000 people, counting protestors all over the nation on the best days. That is 0.87% of the 23 million Nepali people.
2. In the periphery of Kathmandu and outside Kathmandu, throughout Nepal, the Maoists dictated that households had to send at least one volunteer to the protests or face the consequence of paying NRs. 5,000. That is about US$ 70. A fresh college graduate with a government job gets paid about NRs. 7,500 per month in Nepal. So the fine imposed by the Maoists for not participating in the protests was about two-thirds the monthly salary of an employed government officer in Nepal.
3. Kantipur media repeated the same footages of the protests day after day, even when there were no one out on the streets, like in Lubhu of Kathmandu, where people came out only one day, but Kantipur kept reporting of “thousands of people marching towards the ring road from Lubhu…” everyday for the remainder of the 19-days. God knows where else people were actually not out on the streets except in the eyes of Kantipur reporters. Except of course the three main junctions, Gongabu, Chabahil, and Kirtipur/Kalanki, reporting of movements in all other areas as reported by Kantipur Inc. is very doubtful.
4. I think we all know this, even those of us who were no where near Nepal. THE DEMONSTRATIONS WERE BY NO MEANS “PEACEFUL.”
5. Despite the above fact, Kantipur and the rest of the media failed to show the extent of the vandalism and utter disregard for public and private property by the mob, always choosing to start filming footages only after the cops had no other choice but to charge with (i) tear gas, (ii) batons, and (iii) rubber bullets—A clearly biased perspective.
6. Some reliable sources told me that Kantipur had actually approached the King’s men right after February 1 and flatly told them that their business was about making money, so if the King could “compensate” them what the “others” were paying them then they would write on behalf of the King’s government. Apparently they were not paid. This is how media is run in Nepal.
7. Bottom line is, our Big Brother in the south has apparently guaranteed that they will mainstream the Maoists into the democratic process—and the world turned a blind eye to all else. Now let us hope that Big Brother is right—or else salute to Prachanda for fooling the entire world!

Reality Check,

Karl Marx would not have supported the Maoist movement in Nepal because his theory is based upon historical determinism. He did not believe that nations such as Nepal could jump from semi-feudalistic societies to communism without passing through capitalism. In his early writing he was also supportive of the idea of colonialism. He once famously remarked that ‘the country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed the image of its own future.’ and supported the British colonialism of India. In later life he grew more disillusioned with colonialism but he remained true to historical determinism.

pay ian to write some columns in this site! he knows how to sex it up.

…but WHO IS THE IMBECILE? its driving me mad.
somebody help me.

I did not call for Marxian justification to something that is understood at such shallow level. The concept of ‘class struggle’ itself need to be deconstructed if you want to understand Marxism better, but to whom do I preach but someone who relentlessly focuses on economic reconstruction without providing any basis for reconstruction to stand on, instead advocates on ‘bridging the economic gap’ using the same structure and system which itself prevents from doing so in the first place. What contradiction!

While industrial revolution was the point of departure for most European countries; it also became the greater stratifying force that shifted the traditional socioeconomic structure of European society. Just that European population found a ‘lower class’ in colonized natives who felt the greater effect of class dynamics than an average iron worker in England. No shit India is all ripe to revive its classic Marxist struggle now.

Your disgust towards Marxism is quite apparent, though lacking in critical analysis; your claims are typical of those groomed in capitalist and libertarian ideals—not much of an ideal if you ask me, simply a theory of ‘dog-eat-dog’ which gets shoved down the throats of those hungry ‘fobs’ who get fed two square meals and are sold the dreams of maximum proportion with minimum wage—consumerism at its best. Smith couldn’t have hoped for anything better.

So, then we presume you are one of those who bask in the filth of consumer capitalism—determined by exploiting ‘modern corporate slaves’, that remain loyal to their adopted master who taught, fed and keeps feeding you with false sense of security and independence. Rest, who advocate against the excesses of consumerism, acute capitalism and unrestricted ‘free market’ are all hypocrites living in capitalist world and advocating communism. Holy crap! I run into narrower and narrower perspective here in samudaya by day.

Again, reconstruct away, but tear down the old construct, replace it with something tangible, something that appeals to the general demography, and socioeconomic population of the country/region before falling prey to certain system that is subordinate to the whims and excesses of global capitalists that want to turn Nepal into Switzerland overnight without addressing deeper structural concerns of Nepali society today. Astu!

It is kind of funny the broth of the posts, nevertheless u r quite an item Mistik^wa. Couple of days ago I remember u paraphrasing ”affluent society” ”countervailing power” n stuff, about time when JKG passed away and now someting of ‘create ur own pizza’ and the toppings/combination u choose smell something good… hmm.
I guess u r exploring on perspectives everyday on Samudaya…cud u reflect on it in vaccum?
M’Hacker for sure is Jazzy….but what is it with Mistik^wa???

Ian:
I am not quiet sure what you are trying to prove by posting that article.
It wasn’t only kantipur who covered the events - all the major international media houses were there as well and they did not have contradictory accounts of the events. It seems to me that you are somehow unconsciously implying that the protests were unjustified or wrong maybe?
It is of no suprise to me that Kantipur is in the business of making money… which media house on this planet isn’t?

Mystic:
“Again, reconstruct away, but tear down the old construct”

Could you be more specific… It would help me understand your argument better.

Reply to #14

Humans are quite capable of great atrocities. At the same time capable of showing great compassion.
same person can be a ‘dev’ to one and ‘danav’ to the other.
my opinion is that, it is very rare that one will find a person who is ‘danav’ in its purity. even the notorious characters in histories and epics have a very humanistic qualities and vice versa as well.
classic examples can be found in the’Mahabharata’ examplary comparisions can be made if somebody is interested.

Pundit,

Let me drive my point home by an example/fact. Almost 80% of Nepal’s population is engaged in farming. Now, without getting into complex economic theories, the only way I see to ‘uplift’ that socio-economic group is to either: find jobs for them elsewhere (where, I have no clue), or have them work on land and produce. However, if these ‘peasants’ had land to work on, we wouldn’t have seen the whole Maoist charade in the first place, would we? Thus, if you want to ‘reconstruct’ Nepal — start with addressing issues of income gap, income distribution, land reforms/land redistribution etc.

JBK

Who or what is JKG?

Mystic:
I was reading the Nepali Times and I came across this article. Kindly read the following excerpt and tell me what you think.

“If there was a reform program sharing the arable land equally the result would be that each man, woman, or child would receive a plot of land 24 m x 40 m. That’s slightly less than one tenth of a hectare. It is perhaps enough to raise a goat on but insufficient by far to provide a decent standard of living for a human being.

There actually isn’t any land to redistribute in Nepal. The myth of agrarian utopia is being propagated by ruthless counter-elites who are influenced by an outdated Marxist ideology and exploiting the myth to further their own political ambitions rather than furthering the commonwealth of the people.

The real problem in Nepal is that over the past 50 years, well-meaning and morally justifiable health care programs have cut infant mortality, while educational expansion has created greater literacy and demand for employment. Yet Nepal’s population has grown faster than its economy. Infrastructure and social services development have not kept pace.

Nepal has passed its carrying capacity as an agrarian society. There is only one practical solution: it must have a realistic plan to change from 85 percent rural to 85 urban over the next 20 years. Nepal must industrialise and urbanise—and create the infrastructure for modern city states where dynamic shifts in culture, education and technology can take place.”

Pundit,

It’s Friday, I really need a break. But here’s to you anyway.

It is very easy to toss any reform that calls for redistribution of anything as Marxist propaganda. In reality, such have no merit. The fact of the matter, whether a Marxist or a capitalist looks at Nepal remains the same — 80% peasants, majority of them without lands. Now, in my above post, I had pointed out two options — either replace them in some other sector/industry or give them lands to cultivate. The author proposes the former without pointing out specific areas where we could use that population. That is not a proposal; it is a rhetoric. Anyone agrees that we need to bring the ratio of peasant-urban down from 80/20, but how? Send them all to Malaysia or UAE?

Second, Steve mentions Nepal has reached the output capacity in agriculture sector. What bullshit! Any Nepali would tell you how we have not even properly harnessed nor exploited our agritural resources nor capacity. There is so much potential to produce if the arable lands are managed well.

From 85% rural to 85% urban. Ha, this is exactly the pipe-dream capitalists try to sell you. US and their similar strategy in Latin America and Africa concerning oil/gold have only ennded in fattening the pockets of private businesses; neither the community nor the country. This is an open proposal to privatize hydropower, and that also by some American/Indian company, I bet. We cannot afford to privatize natural resources in Nepal. What will Nepal get it most of its revenue goes into the pockets of foreign companies, besides royalties on land and income from taxes, which would be minimal comparatively. Think about it.

thanks Mystic for such a nice comments. i will try to collect my thoughts together and write that up over the weekend.

Mystic:
It’s a Friday I realize but since I am thinking about this stuff I might as well spit it out… you can reply at your convenience…

My understanding (which might be incorrect) is that currently Indian argricultural products flood our markets. Our farmers have really no prospect of competing with Indian imports unless the government adopts a protectionist policy. The chances of our government standing up to India and initiating this is highly unlikely. So what are land and agarian reforms really going to accomplish? Our farmers are still to be just as worse off as before without a market to sell their goods.

(#67)
About redistribution of land (sic)- refer Universal declaration of human rights (1948)
Art 17.1: everyone has the right to own proporty alone as well as in association with others
Art 17.2: no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property

“Marxian justification to something that is understood at such shallow level”

Whatever!

Without getting into this debate, and giving no merit to m’hacker’s usual attempt to disregard any argument that undermines his own beliefs, I will argue only on the basis of the facts. Please provide one instance of Marxist theory ever being implemented properly anywhere and anytime in history.

Again, I agree that there are other forces in play in our nation than just economic constraints. But these issues take time to ‘fix’. We definitely need to address greater issues on social disparity, but making it possible for everyone to provide meals for their family should be the primary concern.

Even the argument for land reforms and redistribution falls under economic reconstruction. I’m not sure what your understanding of that term is, and you automatically combust on even the mention of the word ‘economics’. But redistribution of any resource, such as land, is reconstructing the existing economic structure.

It will help if you step out of your socialist agenda for a bit and broaden your perspective; economics, not just in the capitalist sense, but the fundamental basis of exchanging goods, is what is most necessary in our country right now. Swaha!

(#62)
Any exposition of Marx’s ideas is also an assesment of them. In arguing that marx’s main achievments- his theory of history and economics- are NOT scientific discoveries

Marx:
“income gap between capitalists and workers will increase”
“workers’ wages will, with short lived exceptions, remain at subsistence level”
“the rate of profit will fall”
“proletarian revolutions will occur in the most industrially advanced countries” !!!… etc etc

Most of them are so plainly mistaken that one can only wonder why anyone sympathetic to marx would atempt to agree about his greatness. Throughout the industrialized world, the gap between the rich and poor have narrowed. Proletarian revolutions have broken out in the less developed nations, rather than the developed ones.

Land Reform:

If the government has political will no law or HR conventions can be a barrier. Government can do it by respecting all property right laws. All they need to do is impose a SMART land taxation system that discourage holding large size land. And imposing new tax is not against democracy or property right. For example, in Japan, the inheritance tax is so high that when the property is trasfer from Grand father-son-grand son, 75 % goes to the government coffer.

Land-reform Loving Jamindar —  — 

This isn’t really a land issue. Nepal has too many people living in it.

Question is: should people go, or should people come?

Since Nepal is a nation that is undeniably divided along ethnic lines, Nepal should aim for heterogeneity. More ethnicities than there are now, rather than less. More languages, so that one is privileged, as is inevitable.

We need rather a rational spirit, more than we need national spirit. Bad rymes and predictable cliches are always the winners when there is a national spirit.

We need the populaiton of Nepal to go down substantially, over a period of half a century or whatever long it takes for there to be no need for a discussion like this. We are always greedy.

We also need a lot of people, from all over the world, to come and people it. This should be nothing new: That land has always been like that, haven’t you noticed?

People should leave, and people should come. Let us face it: there are plenty of miserable people in Nepal who would leave, and people would come if it were a 85% urban-15%, you know, developed, I guess, a place people would want to migrate to because they would make a lot of money, I guess, or because it’s nice to live there; the high school system is among the best in the world, although there are still very few universities.

Land isn’t the problem, the pests are the problem. Earth isn’t the problem, man is. The Kuire is trying to sell water to us. People should go the way of micro-hydro, no, don’t you think?

Or, lets go the way of the Kuire. But lets also get rid of a lot of people before that. Look at the Bhutani king. He has a fucking Happiness Index to worry about. But he only has six hundred thousand [and the rest are our guests]. He has gone the bijuli way.

That man makes this argument: since you are fenced by India, you will be milked by India. The Bhutani king’s happiness index spends a Bihari housewife’s bijuli money. We should go the way of micro-hydro projects, no?

But, still, it is people that are the problem. There are too many Nepalis in Nepal.

Nepali people should migrate away, but maintain an urban presence in Nepal. And skilled people from all around the world should be encouraged to settle in Nepal, freely, if they first meet whatever criteria a parliament finds necessary.

Of course, the parliament wouldn’t be like the circus we are tolerating now.

Mystic said,
“Now, ‘humanism’ as we see and understand these days primarily developed post European renaissance, and the most ironic thing is, western narrative contineously excluded minority view and refused to accept (not only tolerate them) as equal human subjects.”

That is an immense problem but then the world never has been bothered about it. Anything that has emerged from west has always been good, and everybody has agreed. The perfect exampel is Democracy itself. A western philosophy which teaches a man to be blood sucking, money loving, whore fucking, bastard. Doesnt it?

Anyway, the defination of humanisim has been a favorable game for the rich west, and oh boy has it shunned anything that goes against their defination of “humanisim” and hence their defination of civilization. The greatest fasination to me of this morale has been the two classics , Heart of darkness and Things fall apart. What is civilization? At last nothing but a faint change in time. Always the coming generation will think they are civilized and same is with being humane and inhumane. There are no boundries of “acts” that make you a human, their are only physical attributes: legs, arms, and a face. Even Nazis were human.

pradip said,
“Throughout the industrialized world, the gap between the rich and poor have narrowed.”
That is not a correct assumtion. It is a assumtion because they have not narrowed. Many have just grown up to the level where they are happily fed. lEts call them the Middle Class, and that is the defination of the PoAs it is on first few pages of Manifest for the Communist Party, Proletarian are those people who will always work for the rich because they have no control over the means of production. How blind are you that you cannot gaze over the large cooperations?
And as revolutions have not taken place in big big captalist world because thigns have materalized. When Marx wrote there was no television that could keep you on your house for hours without moving. The achivements of captilism has destryoed the core value of socialism in a very successful way. If communisim was supported then you would be saying the same thing about Mr. Adam Smith. And even an elementary kid knows how capitalisim favors the rich so that is why communisim never made it big. The major flaw in communisim is not at all its idealogies, Marx writings, but viewing it through the captalist democracy.

And sweet Sahara, love of my life!

Inhuman is “inventive” term to settle the world “human.” In other words when people became tired of war and its horror, they invented the inhuman to satisfy their soul. They said, it is inhuamn. And war itself is human to one fighing and inhuman to the people that are not fighting. So the opposite of any word is “rhetoric” We know humanity exists because, “We think therefore we are” ( itself. A western philosophy which teaches a man to be blood sucking, money loving, whore fucking, bastard. Doesnt it?

Anyway, the defination of humanisim has been a favorable game for the rich west, and oh boy has it shunned anything that goes against their defination of “humanisim” and hence their defination of civilization. The greatest fasination to me of this morale has been the two classics , Heart of darkness and Things fall apart. What is civilization? At last nothing but a faint change in time. Always the coming generation will think they are civilized and same is with being humane and inhumane. There are no boundries of “acts” that make you a human, their are only physical attributes: legs, arms, and a face. Even Nazis were human.

pradip said,
“Throughout the industrialized world, the gap between the rich and poor have narrowed.”
That is not a correct assumtion. It is a assumtion because they have not narrowed. Many have just grown up to the level where they are happily fed. lEts call them the Middle Class, and that is the defination of the PoAs it is on first few pages of Manifest for the Communist Party, Proletarian are those people who will always work for the rich because they have no control over the means of production. How blind are you that you cannot gaze over the large cooperations?
And as revolutions have not taken place in big big captalist world because thigns have materalized. When Marx wrote there was no television that could keep you on your house for hours without moving. The achivements of captilism has destryoed the core value of socialism in a very successful way. If communisim was supported then you would be saying the same thing about Mr. Adam Smith. And even an elementary kid knows how capitalisim favors the rich so that is why communisim never made it big. The major flaw in communisim is not at all its idealogies, Marx writings, but viewing it through the captalist democracy.

And sweet Sahara, love of my life!

Inhuman is “inventive” term to settle the world “human.” In other words when people became tired of war and its horror, they invented the inhuman to satisfy their soul. They said, it is inhuamn. And war itself is human to one fighing and inhuman to the people that are not fighting. So the opposite of any word is “rhetoric” We know humanity exists because, “We think therefore we are” (

*We know humanity exists because, “We think therefore we are”. Inhumanity is just the cover up that was created for the evil deeds that man did not want to claim. Just like god. What do you think, did God create humans or humans created God?

Mystik,

JKG= John Kenneth Galbraith [popularly known: JK Galbraith] who died last saturday. Is a social Economist who always thwarted the theoritical economists. He is the famous Harvard Prof. who made headlines with his ruthlessness towards pure Economists.
He was an advisory to governments since JFK’s time.
Of more than 30 books he wrote on socio-economic issues, the one that stands out is ‘The Affluent Society’ 1958.

As I find it, he is VERY interesting character as a social economist and I only presumed u read him.

Somebody put it nicely:

“He was arguably one of the most famous economists outside of his profession for the way he was able to communicate complex ideas in a compelling way to non-economists,” says the London Business School’s Dominic Swords.

Have a good weekend M’Hacker.

The articles are astounding for someone like me who rarely had a chance to take a peek into the whereabouts of the red armies.

comment on 58. ian

if there was only 100000 people one the road i am sure kill will run bull doaser over them… there were greater than 5000000 people (25 percent mass on road)… in chitwan all house were locked and people were on road…. it is not nice to give wrong information and datas… i was on gongabu and only on gongabu there were more than 75,000 mass….

(#76)
The central thesis of Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1776) is that capital is best employed for the production and distribution of wealth under conditions of governmental non-interference, exactly opposite to what Marx expounded. He stated that the state should control all means of production and distribution. China has abandoned its Marxist economic policies and has emerged as a tiger in the playing field.

Capital has been defined as a collective term for a body of goods and monies from which future income can be derived.

Marx also stated that it was first necessary for nations to experience ‘capitalism’ before socialism and the communism.

The experience of Russia and China are a case in point. For ‘orthodox Marxists’ they are example that you can jump through stages.

Although neo-marxists tend to disagree with historical determinism it would appear the evidence is with the orthodox marxist if indeed -it is with any marxist.

Let us also draw a distinction between socialism and communism for there is a distinction between the two and historically no state has experienced communism according to Marx’s definition.

Under a socialist state, the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat and under communism it is the final nirvana.

I like Marxism but i believe it must be tempered with socio economic reality and the idea of public over private property is regressive to say the least.

I would understand that the accepted definition of communism is it is a term used in political science denoting either a society where all property is held in common or a political movement whose final aim is the establishment of such a society.

Pradip,

Yes, you are right but the critical analysis offered by Marxism is quite relevant even if the solutions they offer are out of touch with reality.

‘Whatever!’ indeed, a more blatant and popular slang mostly practiced my teenagers to disregard any belief that recognizes the redundancy of ones own point. Boomerang!

Anyway, moving along, you insist me to point states where Marxist theories have been successfully implemented. The basis of Marx’s historical materialism is the stages of transformation a state/an economy need to pass through to successfully implement a classic Marxist model, hence India an ideal candidate. The Bakhunin’s believed that such could be attempted by a short/intense revolution, bypassing stages of capitalism. In a nutshell, all the revolutions in the world have been incomplete; all the capitalist forces are in constant threat.

The major thrust of the argument is not preventing ‘economic reconstruction’, but rather providing or creating environment conducive for such reconstruction to take place at greater efficiency. You refer to the issue of land reforms/land redistribution, now, how would one address such sensitive issues without necessarily attending to its ‘socialist’ nature, and how would one address socialist nature without making policies that allow states to carry out such idea of ‘reconstruction’. Subsequently, how would one address the issue of 80% peasants without addressing the issues of land reform/land redistribution at some level? Further, even if the government wishes to provide agricultural initiatives to such farmers, how could it be considered initiatives if farmers are not allowed in the process of deciding and shaping economic policies affecting them?

Thus, chill, nobody is trying to discredit you. My sincere request to you to look at the riddle called Nepal is greater depth, having wider repercussions and requiring greater participation from all different classes and socioeconomic groups.

JBK,

Ah yes. Let me sheepishly confess that I had the opportunity to meet the dignitary in Cambridge once, although the context was far divorced from economics itself, the guy was nevertheless revered as a modern incarnation. Anyway, his approach was more geared towards addressing socio-economic issues of societies and the effects of affluent nations on poorer ones and the moral dilemma of affluent nations with societies that consumed conspicuously while ignoring the wretched existence of other larger world population.

Pradip,

Do you wish you debate with me on this issue? Follow the general discussion and attend to me like most people do here—Pundit, RC, drunk etc., rather than throwing out your usual side notes on Marx and Smith. What are we to make out of it—your sentiment expressed in terms of cliff notes? Write a substantial and cohesive comment for once, geez!

Mystichacker
I would not agree with you in citing India as an example of a model of a successful Marxist theory in practice. Yes, I do agree that after independence, Nehru (I hope that he is resting in peace) did follow the Marxist economic principles in its five year plans, but Manmohan, in the early 1990s, had the wisdom to disband it and go for a free open competetive economy. Look at India’s growth rate now. It is 7 percent plus, only after China at about 9 points.

Mystichacker, I hope that you are living in 2006. Mystichacker, nobody is inerested in long writings like yours which are all jumbled. Ah, I guess you are getting paid for it.

stick to the point — sweeper

Read the post again and if you don’t have patience to, don’t copy and paste stats. in return that take away essence of discussion.

The effect of India and China’s modern growth has been at the cause of their socialist agenda which, if viewed from classic Marxist perspective provide opportunity for (sub)middle-classs to go through the process in the future. Get it?!

I see you have run out of argument besides the stats., thus you digress. Even the sweeper thinks it is ‘out of context’.

Mystic did you read my post # 70?

Pundit,

I will pick up on your 70 later today, I need to go right now.

What a pity!!!!! Maoist are really attracting expats, who think they can change Nepal by writing some words in here so called blog sites.How much they are paying you ??? #is what Sarahana or Mystic***ker writing is the total motive or attitude of samudaya(organisation)itself???

Sarahana:
Please ask your sweeper to stop banning this Ian character. Let him come here and say what he wants to say - who cares?… if its worth a respose we’ll respond and if not we’ll just ignore his comments. He is making Samudaya look like a very biased forum where alternative views are not tolerated - when I know this is not the case!

I disagree. Ian has been warned multiple times, and since he’s obviously chosen not to heed them, it is understandable that he be disabled for 24 hours, so he can reflect a bit until his next post. I believe this will contribute to a better discussion in the long run and also deter people like me who might do the hit and run number, disrupt serious discussions, and disappear.

Good job, sweeper. I also recommend that you be especially vigilant of hit and runners like me, especially when they spew shit. A good way to keep people like me away would be to have people register before they can post. That way, the smart brains — like RealityCheck, Jazzy, Bhudai, Kripa, Sarahana, Box Cutter (sly mofo who likes to play dumb), etc., even Ian when he is not playing the immature, aggrieved victim or the superior white father — aren’t distracted into petty digressions. I believe Samudaya has grown enough to require registration to post.

I lurk here occasionally and have learned tremendously from just listening in to the many, polyphonic conversations. I am very thankful for that and would hate to see this site turn to shit. By the way, I am the original SD, there is another SD here as well, who must be my better twin!!

Oh, oh, I almost forgot, Nayantara, thank you, thank you and thank you again.

I think registration is a good idea and people like SD (above) should be banned from making inflamatory statements that go against the chain of debate.

Here is my take on Marxism:

Development, to Marx and Engels, is a process of stages that societies pass through; with each new stage being inherently superior to the last. At the heart of this movement is the Hegelian dialectic; the contradiction within each stage leading to the next. Capitalism is one such stage, higher than the last, but containing its own contradictions that will ultimately bring about its destruction and lay the groundwork for the next stage: socialism. In this conception of history, modern Marxists have found an ample supply of controversial material. Is the process of history linear and deterministic or is this reading of Marx too literal and strict? One would think that Engels, co-author of many of the classical Marxist texts, knew what Marx had meant. The quote above, written after Marx’s death, indicates a clear answer: ‘each stage is necessary’ and hence capitalist economic development is as much a necessary step to socialism as the previous stage of feudalism was for capitalism. In this essay, this orthodox or classical reading of Marxism will be contrasted with the neo-Marxist interpretations of history as a non-linear process of development. This questions the deterministic reading of Marx and suggests that capitalism in fact is not a necessary condition to attain socialism. Given that Marx himself appeared to have changed his philosophy, from a linear (up to 1860) to a non-linear (1860 — 1883) understanding of history there is ample textual support for both views. This essay will discuss what implications the non-linear reading has for Marxist philosophy, and consider the criticism that it would render Marxism hollow and meaningless. Lastly this essay will suggest that the case of China and the USSR lends stronger support for the orthodox reading of Marx.

Dialectic:
Marx was very much a child of modernity. The ancient philosophers saw the history of mankind as a cyclical process of growth and decay; ‘remain(ing) eternally the same’ (Jean Bodin in Callinicos: 1999, 12). The modernists, on the other hand, consider history as progressively moving forward . Marx saw history passing through stages: from primitive communism to feudalism (Asiatic) leading to capitalism and eventually via socialism, culminating in communism. Communism, according to this view, will be the end of this historical process . What drives history forward, according to Marx, is the dialectic. Marx built upon this fundamentally Hegelian concept which is ‘based on two assumptions: first, that ‘all things are contradictory in themselves’. Secondly, that ‘contradiction is at the root of all movement and life, and it is only insofar as it contains a contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity” (Hegel, in Callinicos, 1983: 59). Marx is therefore able to give an explanation for history’s progression in the contradiction expressed in class struggle . The first line of the Communist Manifesto declares it thus: ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’ (Marx, 1992: 3) Capitalism, like the former stages, is defined by this contradiction, in this case, the inherently opposing interests of the capitalist class to that of the working class. These conflicting interests lay the groundwork for socialism.

Although the aim of Marxism is to overcome the supposed evils of capitalism, it is often forgotten that Marx and Engels held a positive view of capitalist development in pre-capitalist societies: ‘All these nations of free barbarians look very proud, noble and glorious at a distance, but…they…are ruled by the lust of gain, and only employ ruder and more cruel means. And after all, the modern bourgeois, with civilization, including order and at least relative enlightenment following him, is preferable to the feudal lord or to the marauding robber, with the barbarian state of society to which they belong’ (Engels, in Warren, 1980: 44).

This quote by Engels indicates that capitalist economic development is indeed seen as progressive and desirable, but to what extent is it considered necessary in Marx’s theory? It appears at various instances in Marx’s writings, that he considers his theory of history as more than a mere interpretation, but rather a kind of natural, biological law similar to the evolutionary theory of Darwin (Singer, 1980:35). One can see this in his choice of words in the writings on The Future of British Rule in India, in which he states that: ‘…the world does but reveal, in the most gigantic dimensions, the inherent organic laws of political economy…Bourgeois industry and commerce create these material conditions of a new world in the same way as geological revolutions have created the surface of the earth’ (Marx, in McLellan, 2000: 366) If this is a natural law of historical progress then capitalism indeed is a necessity for socialism. This leads to the commonly made conclusion that Marxism is deterministic .

Productive Forces and Relations of Production:
What are these ‘inherent organic laws of political economy’ that Marx describes? His explanation is grounded in the primacy of the productive forces which in turn determine the relations of production. Productive forces ‘were conceived by Marx as including means of production (i.e. technology, land, materials etc) and labour power’ (Harris, in Bottomore, 1983: 204), while relations of production ‘are constituted by the economic ownership of productive forces…’ (Harris, in Bottomore, 1983: 204). The general argument is that as the productive forces develop, for example through improvement in technology, the relations of production will have to change with it. In The poverty of philosophy Marx gives the example of the change in technology: ‘the handmill gives you society with feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist’ (Marx in Kiely, 1995: 17). The capitalist stage developed due to the process of ‘primitive accumulation’, which saw peasants forcibly expropriated from their land , their means of production. This change in the productive forces meant that peasants became the proletariat, and with the growing demand for paid labour was the corresponding creation of the capitalist class: new relations of production were created. The relationship of the productive forces to society is therefore one of cause and effect: the latter determines the former. It is due to this reasoning that Marx’s account is often considered as ‘technological determinist(ic)’ (Kiely, 1995: 17) . Orthodox Marxists in general argue due to the primacy of the productive forces, that capitalism hence cannot be simply by-passed through the guidance of the state or the socialist class. There are no cutting corners given the ‘organic laws’.

Capitalism
The necessity of capitalism for socialism is due to its unique characteristic of being able to develop these productive forces faster than any previous stage of history. It is due to the rapidity of accumulation that mankind is becoming increasingly impervious to the restrictions of nature: ‘…what is wealth, if not the universality of needs, capacities…productive powers…What if not the full development of human control over the forces of nature — What if not the absolute elaboration of his creative disposition….which makes the totality of his evolution…an end in itself?’ (Marx, in Warren, 1980: 24). Hence it is only after the development of capitalistic production that mankind can shed his dependence on nature and be truly free .

And here is the rest:

There are other aspects of capitalism which help lay the groundwork for socialism: 1.It ‘simplified the class antagonism…’ (Marx and Engels, 1992: 3) and it is unique to capitalism that it produces the working class. 2. ‘…the increased independence of the individual…and the collective organization encouraged by their aggregation in large factories’ (Warren, 1980: 26), allowing for faster worker mobilisation 3. Democracy, increased literacy coupled with the spread of communication means the working class is better informed and educated and is able to express its views in an organised fashion through the democratic processes. This allows for increasing socialisation (Fine, Saad-Filho, 2004: 177) as worker will be able to demand better conditions i.e. the current welfare states.

The Problem of Determinism
Do all these factors therefore add up to a deterministic claim that capitalism is necessary and somehow pre-destined to lead on to socialism? It would ignore the fundamental aspect that class struggle has to play. It is not simply a matter of sitting back in one’s chair while waiting for history to do its work. Gellner makes this generalisation when stating ‘It (communism) will come without conditions or, for that matter, consultation. We will be saved whether we like it or not…’ (Gellner, in Wood, 1984: 105-106).

This interpretation is too crude even for most orthodox Marxists. Marx placed much importance on the human ability to consciously change circumstances for the better. Mankind cannot progress unless humans take concrete actions . It is for this reason that Marx sees stagnation in underdeveloped countries: the people are ‘spiritually weak, unable to build a strong state…’ (Larrain, 1991: 236). Hence there is the white man’s burden to bring ‘the people without history’ (Hegel’s words) into the historical process. This is spelt out clearly in Engel’s attitude towards the US domination of Mexico: ‘In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico, which has pleased us. It constitutes progress too…that such a country be thrown by means of violence into the historical movement.’ (Marx, in Larrain, 1991: 231)

The Case for Imperialism
According to orthodox Marxism, it is the historical progress that is of primary importance. The linear interpretation of Marx will therefore be supportive of any policies that promote capitalism in pre-capitalist countries. Imperialism for example is thereby justified as one effective way of forcing capitalism onto underdeveloped regions. Bill Warren argues that neo-Marxists today ‘actually reverse the views of the founders of Marxism, who held that the expansion of capitalism into pre-capitalist areas of the world was desirable and progressive…’ (Warren, 1980: 3) If one looks at Marx and Engels’ earlier writings, one can find a lot of support for Warren’s interpretation. In The Future Results of British Rule in India for example, we find that ‘England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating — the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in Asia’ (Marx, in McLellan, 2000: 363). Britain has a ‘mission’ to bring ‘western society’ to Asia .

It needs to be emphasized that Marx did not consider imperialism a positive force in itself, rather its progressive role depends wholly on its function in furthering the historical process towards socialism. ‘England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about the revolution’ (Marx, 1853: 94) (added emphasis).

Imperialism’s good image had its downfall with Lenin who claimed that imperialism was linked to the last phase of capitalism (monopoly capitalism) which, rather than helping countries develop, in fact causes their stagnation. This reversal in socialist theory set the groundwork for much of neo-Marxist thinking i.e. dependency theory (Warren, 1980: 48-70). While imperialism is not of much relevance to today’s political climate, one could perhaps find the substitute in the form of institutions such as the IMF or World Bank and their now infamous structural adjustment programmes . The aim of both imperialism and the international institutions is to promote capitalist economic development. While imperialism used force, the institutions use policy recommendations attached to aid packages. Policies such as opening up markets to foreign investment, rolling back the state etc. may very well be considered progressive by orthodox Marxists in their ability to promote capitalist development .

Shift in Marx’s writings (1860s -):
So far we have seen how Marx has supported any development and spread of capitalism in underdeveloped regions. This lends support to the linear reading of Marx. This reading however is weakened by several excerpts in his later writings, particularly from the 1860s onwards. In these writings Marx becomes increasingly sceptical of imperialism (i.e. the case of Ireland, as well as a revision of the Indian case) (Kiely, 1995: 24). Furthermore, he starts to question the need for capitalism at all. It is especially these writings that later Neo-Marxists focus on to find support for their non-linear interpretation.

Looking at Russia, Marx states that ‘if Russia continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance ever offered to a people and undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime’ (in Warren, 1980: 34). This change in his writings is in stark contrast to the earlier optimism towards the spread of capitalism in India. In fact it questions the linear view and gives an indication that Marx may have had a much deeper and more complex view of history. Progress neither has to follow one particular determined path, nor is it clear that in fact progress will take place at all. In his letter to Mikhailovsky, Marx makes it clear that his philosophy is not an immutable law: to ‘metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophic theory of the general path every people is fated to tread, whatever the historical circumstances it finds itself…is both honouring and shaming me too much’ (Marx, in McLellan, 2000: 618).

Implications: Hollow Theory?
According to post-1860 Marx, capitalism is therefore not a necessity for socialism. One can still maintain that it is the most probable path, but the deterministic flavour is dampened by Marx’s own words. How problematic is this for Marxist philosophy as a whole? If one questions the function of capitalism as the bridge to socialism, one questions the unilinear understanding of history. This would imply that the stages are not fixed. Feudalism may skip right to socialism. Capitalism may or may not lead to socialism. And stagnation may rule forever. Does giving up the linear theory necessarily mean that all is up to chance ?

That would be a hasty conclusion as theories need not be seen in such stead-fast manner. It is perfectly coherent to argue for a general historical trend passing through stages while accepting that specific social and cultural factors contribute to this trend in different ways (i.e. Plekhanov’s argument, see above). As Saad-Filho argues ‘communism is neither inexorable nor unavoidable…the core of capitalism will change only if overwhelming pressure is applied by the majority…Nonetheless, the passage to socialism can only be achieved in stages rather than being magically completed on demand…’ (Fine and Saad-Filho, 2004: 175). Again, the general trend is emphasized (passing through stages) but that trend is not historically determined from the outset. This is neither a vacuous nor some type of chaos theory. Rather it is the basic understanding that while certain historical patterns repeat, they need not be determined and universal for all societies (Wood, 1984: 100-101)

USSR and China
Looking at the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s development into a booming capitalist state, one could argue that the orthodox school has the upper hand at the moment. It would appear that skipping stages does not work. It would be interesting to hear what Marx would have to say about the former USSR and China today. Surely he would not have deemed socialism as seen in the former USSR and China as providing an acceptable groundwork for the capitalist mode of production. That would reverse the order of historical progress. Would he see the fall of the Soviet state and China’s move towards capitalism under Deng Xiaoping as perhaps a regression in history?

The trend towards capitalism can be seen not just in the former Soviet State and China but in many Third World countries, i.e. the East Asian NICs . Marx’s predictions about capitalism spreading across the globe have much relevance in today’s topical globalisation discourse. In the search for new markets, capitalism ‘chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere’ (Marx, 1992: 6). While the fall of the Soviet Union and the general trend towards capitalism seen in the world, is providing stronger support for the orthodox reading of Marx, it does not prove it indisputably right. It neither validates a deterministic view, nor does it undermine the neo-Marxist argument to a large extent, as society’s development is neither clear cut nor easily foreseeable.

I have shown how Marx’s work contains support for both orthodox and neo- Marxist readings; the former comprising a fundamentally linear and more deterministic argument, while the latter supports a non-linear one. The linear argument claims that capitalist economic development is a necessary stage for socialism. With this reading, capitalism ought to be promoted and its spread supported by Marxists even through imperialistic methods. The neo-Marxists, basing their claims on the writings of an older Marx (1860s onwards), argue that the orthodox reading is too simplistic and ‘fetishizes’ Marx’s theory. I have discussed and criticised the claim that a non-linear account of Marxism renders it vacuous. Lastly I have looked at how the case of China and the Soviet Union in turning capitalist, appear to provide stronger support to the orthodox reading of Marx.

SD,

What has the colour of my skin got to do with anything?

“Ian when he is not playing the immature, aggrieved victim or the superior white father — aren’t distracted into petty digressions.”

Pundit,

People have had chance to say what they have. They have over and over again abused their ‘rights’ in this open forum by diverting discussion that have resulted in scenario you see now.

Moving along, in reference to post 70 I have the following to say.

You point out that Nepali markets is flooded by Indian agricultural goods right now. But why do you think such is the case? Clearly because we have not been producing at optimal level or ‘distributing’ at highest efficiency. This is a classic case of supply and demand. People in Kathmandu buy vegetables regardless of where it is grown, but when local farmers are not producing, the demand needs to be filled by someone, and that someone just happens to be an Indian cooperative.

Of course, we are not proposing that Nepalis consume ONLY those that’s produced in Nepal, but what we are saying is let Nepalis produce and sell at local markets in the same way others currently do. This would be good for both — producers and consumers. Nepali farmers will get to sell their goods; Nepali consumers will get to bargain for lower prices between various producers.

Mystichacker,

"This is a classic case of supply and demand. People in Kathmandu buy vegetables regardless of where it is grown, but when local farmers are not producing, the demand needs to be filled by someone"

True, but the immediate question would be, why are they not producing to meet demand?

‘Given the statistics (80% farmers), one naturally expects the country to be self-sufficient in regards to farm commodities—crop and livestock. The saddest part is, the country is not only running behind in producing optimal level of output but is importing crops from other countries to meet its basic needs. Among its most imported crops, rice also tends to be the staple diet of most Nepalis, especially in the hills and valleys. However, such frequent import of farm products are not necessarily because of exponential boom in demand that is not met by local suppliers, but more because of the lack of adequate focus in production within the country. The growing boom in international services and support of basic middle-cap industries that one observes in Nepal today has undoubtedly been at the expense of agriculture and farm sector. The upward trend in labor migration to parts of Asia, Middle East and Americas which has resulted in the structural shift in social and economic pattern has also been due to misguided economic policies of the past governments of Nepal.’

I suspect that there are a number of reasons for Nepali farmers not producing at levels to meet demand:

1. Property rights -ownership rights of land are not clear in parts of the country whilst huge amounts of land have been accumulated through dubious means. Land reforms are necessary.
2. Subsistance farming -farming in Nepal is predominantly to meet the basic needs and not for sale thus production is manual and does not take advantage of technological advances to increase production
3. Geography:
The lower flatlands are the most fertile in Nepal whilst the rest of Nepal of relatively low yield
4. Transportation: It is more economical food food supply to travel south-north than it is from north-south (as a generalisation) because it quicker and easier to transport.
5. Political: obvious really
6. Indian exporters have the capital to break the Nepali markets but Nepali farmers do not without support from the state.
7. Population explosion in Nepal and particularly urbanisation in Kathmandu:
Nepal can not keep pace with demand and so must import.

I was writing comment 102 whilst you were writing and i agree with most of your points and you are right about a failure of political policy at national level as well as at international level. Development agencies have a lot to answer for here too.

Mystic/Ian:
But Indian agricultural imports are far cheaper even if our own farmers were producing at the optimal level. Like you said people will buy vegetables no matter where it was grown. Should we then opt for protection and subsidies?

Bhudai,

My initial reaction would be to say yes to subsidies and protection but i think it is better to limit subsidies in the face of the economic power that India wields over Nepal. One would be concerned with India\'s response if its trade were threatened by perceived distortions to the market.

I would encourage the state to invest in agricultural reform that encourages specialisation. Mystichacker is right to say that 80% of Nepal is agrarian but it is not at productive capacity but subsistence. If we are proposing that Nepali farmers compete with Indian imports -one would need the necesary technological and structural reforms to increase efficiency, output and lower transaction costs.

All things being equal, if encouraged by the state, Nepali farmers would have the competitive advantage over India -unless of course Indian imports were subsidised by the state which would be a market imperfection that Nepal could counteract with higher tariffs specific Indian agricultural goods.

Pundit,

I guess we then get into semi-complex economic theory of ‘comparative advantage’, but even without that, the point is, in ‘free-market’ producers do not necessarily set prices, consumers do, or at least the ‘market’ does. Thus if you want ‘kathmandu ko mula’, you want ‘kathmandu ko mula’ regardless and not ‘madhesh ko mula’, so people might be ready to pay slightly more ‘generic taste’.

Anyway, generally, if imports can be controlled (tariffs, taxes, treaties etc) and policy reforms on governments end is addressed, perhaps there is a greater chance of making this work.

Bhudai,

I am not sure whether Indian agricultural exports are subsidised by their government and unless they are, there is no technical reason why Nepali goods can not compete although there are natural limitations in Nepal (such as geography) that can counter act any competitive advantage that can be built up.

Personally, I would lean towards the notion that agriculture in Nepal is at a disavantages due to the lack of structural reform in agriculture.

Mystic,
dont be ruthless to a drunk. Understand, I am just a psedo intelectual, who was just philosophizing on his terms.

anyway, this might not belong here, but in any case, can you tell me the best resource that nepal can generate in these circumtances, if not agricultre? in other words, what should all these 85% of nepalese should be doing now?

we have great apple and peach growing regions in the north-west like jumla, dolpa…and they taste so much better than those small ones imported from india…but those places are so remote..no roads..only donkeys, horses and flights from certain places..it’s almost impossible to bring and sell those products in ktm and other markets at competitive prices…

(107)
Drunk is correct about the data. 14.2 percent of the population in Nepal are urban and the rest 85.8 percent are rural (Central Bureau of Statistics Nepal, 2003:180).The urban population in Nepal refers to inhabitnts residing in designated municipal areas. Nepalese municipal town is defined primarily in terms of population size.

can someone please elaborate on the 80-85% agriculture based economy…does it include people who sell agricultural products as source of revenue or all ppl who are engaged in some form of agriculture?

we have a substantial number of people who grow their crops and seasonal vegetables primarily for their own use than selling..esp in the hills, there is a very little prospect of farming with large surplus to sell..we also have a lot of families that own land and farm while also engaged in other occupations…

Sappy Maoist Moment

such emotional video from the Comrades. please watch. please watch

Thank god, now we’re talking!

I had hoped that being adamant and ‘over selling’ the idea of economic reconstruction would start a discussion as such.

I have never undermined the necessacity of broader discussion on the social justice and addressing the great socio-political issues, but I think solving the economic disparities is just as, if not more, important. Also, I feel we, given our education, are well equipped to contribute tangibly to this discussion; while issues dealing with mending the social disparities is probably better handled by people there who ‘live and breathe’ these issues and are more knowledgeable on the matter.

Great inputs so far…

NPR on Maoist Women

another at NPR of women role in Maoist movement.

Nayantara,
Whatever u r doing in Nepal…..u r doing great..U should be the example for these young Nepalese who always Bullshit in this Blog site…Keep up the good work. Its always good to have a critical thinking…which most of the Nepalese lack that credibility and becomes ignorent…my good wishes and lucks r with u….to bring awareness to nepali people, that Kathmandu is not Nepal……Nepal has 14 zones and 75 Districts.

samudaya is a good website but you must carry also some educational articles and about life in USA, especially for students

from ktm

land/agarian reform in Nepal is far more complex then that meets the eye.
Research has shown that small land holdings reduce the level of productivity and if you have large plots the yield per hectar declines and land distribution remains unequal. The best solution would be medium sized land holdings supported by good rural infrastucture which would increase agricultural productivity. The problem like we have stated above is that 85% of Nepal’s population live in rural areas… so we need to redistribute land with people getting medium sized plots - given our arable land area this might be a problem. Also as Ian pointed out that if our government put tarrifs or other barriers to Indian imports, the Indians are going to screw us over somewhere else.
Besides what are we going to export to India? Rice and Wheat production is subsidized making it extreamly difficult for Nepali farmers to compete even in the domestic market…
I don’t know perhaps someone else has done more research on this but it seems like we might need to look beyond just land/agarian reform.

Pundit,

Look, nobody is saying it is going to be easy, neither is negotiating with India on all these issues and more — hydropower distribution, transit treaty etc. But, the REALITY is such that we cannot escape our socioeconomic catch-22. The peasant population is simply too overwhelming to channel them into some other sector or simply ‘urbanize’ them all of a sudden. These are the issues that need to brought to the table and in any case, it is due time to stand against unjust treaties that have strangled Nepali economic life for I don’t know how long now.

Let us consider agricultural sector beyond cultivating crops. Where there is almost no arable land, running dairy farms, raising livestock for ‘mass’ consumption are options I see contributing to upliftment of region. This will locally employ people while meeting the demand of population regionally.

I agree with you.’Let us consider agricultural sector beyond cultivating crops’.

One prespective is to also concentrate effort in foregin employment. Currently man power agencies in Nepal screw the workers really bad. The government should step in and regulate the industry. Also the government should make sure that our embassies in the Middle East have the proper resources to help workers.
I agree that land/agarian reform is important. However, creating a skilled/Semi-Skilled labor force and send them abroad for employment might help transform our socio-economic reality. My premise is of course that the money these workers send back will be used to send their kids to school and their famalies will consume more stuff which would subsequently spur economic growth.
We have surplus labor - I say we put it to good use.

Pundit,

Personally, I don’t think foreign employment is bad (not that you said so, but still) — financially, socially, individually et al. There are social and psychological issues that families and individuals face during the process, but apart from that, it is generally a good lifetime experience to step out of the country at least once and get exposed to ‘different views/cultures’, I think.

Yes, Pundit, I think you are on the money when you say there has to be some regulation in manpower industry. But, if you dig little deeper, you’ll find that post-1990, Nepali government itself promoted this industry to soaring heights. The industry is a cash cow for the country, and further ‘regulation’ might actually hurt the economy/people instead of making things better for them, IMO. There’s a popular saying on Wall Street and elsewhere — if it ain’t broke, don’t ‘fix’ it, and this might actually be one of many cases where we could apply the above.

Further, I agree with you 100% when you bring up the issue of our country needing to ‘generate’ skilled-workers. And once we have ‘skilled’ labor force, we need not send them overseas for employment, instead, it would actually attract foreign companies who exploit cheap labor market, the likes of which you are seeing in China and India tody. But, how do we create a new generation of skilled workforce or how is it that we implement/analyze ‘theory of labor’ in modern Nepali context is beyond me.

119,
lets continue agriculture beyond crops..
we do have good prospects for himalayan herbs..if we could organise the farming of those then those could be exported…
also the market of ‘organic’ vegetables is growing..

Labour market forces:

In a country where 80% of the economy is agarian the need for skilled labour outside the agrarian markets is limited. Thus, although I agree that education and skilled labour is important -some fundamental interventions by the state are required so that demand for labour can meet supply.

There is no shortage of SLC, 10+2, Bachelors, Masters passed gradutes who constitute a skilled and semi-skilled workforce but they represent a growing number of the unemployed.

Thus the movement abroad to Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Bahrain, South Korea, Saudia Arabia and so on.

Nepal needs structural adjustment and I do not mean in the neo-liberal sense of the word. I mean that state intervention must recognise to relate the skills gained from education with the requirements of the labour market. If they do not match, you have an uneven flow of human capital into the market.

Thus, although i see the benefits of generating a skilled work force, I don\'t see it as a solution but as a direct benefit of change.

Whilst recognising the value of Nepali labour working abroad, I would hasten to add that it is currently not as efficient as it could be and does not provide or encourage the full benefit of foreign remittance. The government needs to intervene so that the Manpower agencies and banking systems are more open and responsible to the movement of labour abroad. Responsible because Nepali citizens are often held left and high and dry when they have left the country. Open, because the banking facilities of Nepal are inefficient and do not allow the efficient flow of funds into the country from private sources. Whilst Manpower agencies make employment abroad often a financially crippling business with Nepali citizens having to sign up and give away a fortune just to submit.

Sorry for my jumbled ramble but currently distracted by other work…

Anyone capable and willing to put aside own opinion should read this blatantly truthful analysis of current Nepal -
NEPAL: Hope is Not a Method, LAchronicle, 5/7

Good analysis, Marks

JAI HOS PYARO NEPAL KO!

blatant right wing shit. this fellow works for the american security establishment.

(124,126)

The Maoist goal is to establish a revolutionary zone from the Himalayan foothills of Nepal and Bhutan to the Bay of Bengal. It would encompass Bihar and West Bengal as well as parts of Uttar Pradesh state and Assam. In short, the triangle of east and north east would be lopped off, of course, with the help of Yachuri and the likes. A western diplomat in Kathmandu was quoted to have said ’ If we have a Pol Pot scenario, this would be extremely destabilizing for the region. India would probably come in and that would upset China. Who knows what would happen next?’.

excerpt from bbc’s interview with prachanda on maobadi movement’s 10th anniversary..

Q. Some people have felt that you are probably trying to export revolution throughout the subcontinent. Are you saying that you are not?
A. Ideologically we want to move the global revolution forward. We want to take the lessons from the positive and the negative experiences of the 20th century; from revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century. Globally the suppressed classes should get their rights, and that’s what we want. But in practical terms we do not believe that one country’s army should go to the other country and fight for it. Ideologically we do want there to be a revolution in the USA and even in your UK, and that the working classes should rule. That does not mean that once we conquer in Nepal we will go and spread revolution in other countries. But we will give ideological support, for sure. We are a part of a global revolution but we do not believe that revolution is something to be exported.

at the end of this article, there’s a transcript from the recent interview with prachanda…
cudnt find any english version.. http://www.kantipuronline.com/Nepal/aabaran.php

Now, a little more on the Sri Lanka scenario vis-a-vis the Nepali context .Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or Tamil Tigers, Tamil nationalist movement in Sri Lanka, led by Velupillai Prabhakaran, one of the most militarily ruthless, highly disciplined, and politically sophisticated guerrilla movements. The political objective of the LTTE is to create a separate state of Tamil Eelam (homeland) in the north-east of the island, whereas that of the Maoist is to set up a proletarian republican of the revolutionary order.
In 1976 a group of Tamil youths, disaffected by laws that were perceived as discriminating against Tamils, formed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to secure by guerrilla tactics what Tamil parties had failed to achieve through the parliamentary process: Tamil Eelam. This bears a striking resemblance when the Maoists were formed under the name of Janmorcha and managed to secure only six seats in the parliament. Initially, the LTTE, like the Maoists, was engaged in acts of