Posted by: Eutab4 January 21, 2013
Justification of Maoist Insurgency
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        
 Folks, let’s go back to our current history and talk about the ten years of Maoists insurgency that we are still trying to cope up with. Was it at all justified? Did we need that?

Even after ten years of bloodshed leaving thousands dead and a lot more still hurting, here we are…a frustration, no priority for development, no rule of law, widening gap between rich and poor.
Now, I ask readers to raise above all the anger that we may have.  Let’s keep our personal frustration aside and perhaps think like a sociologist. Lets think just like a Nepali...no NC, no UML, no –M, no nothing..just a Nepali….(I am not a follower of any party…just to be clear..Just wanted to start an intellectual discussion here..So I would appreciate if we try not to proselytize here)
 
Nepal, a basically a traditional agrarian society, peoples’ low aspiration of mere bread and butter,  women/dalits/poors’ accepted their state as their karma dictated by their previous life and nothing can be changed. Society was in one level and perhaps was trying to jump into another one. Maoists happened to present a list of demands to the government in ‘96 that (most of them) were fairly patriotic in nature or simply asking for the equality in the society….something that could have been demanded by any political party down the road…absolutely any party including Nepali Congress (NC).
A few points to consider:
-          A lot of nations went through the bloody wars to get where they are now.
-          No authority will be up for the change in old system (Arab springs) and will hand over the power peacefully.
-          Even NC could have started the war in if such social issues were not address by the gov, say, 20yrs if not right around ‘96. …but more people could have died.
-          Situation of people - the absolute suppression to the poors, dalits, and any other nimukha (cannot think of a real English word) people could have been compared to the death in general.
-          Or was there any other way to change the society? A peaceful way?
-          Or was change even necessary? Were the points listed above not really true?
-           Or the sole idea that ‘change is necessary’ is an absolute lie?
-          The mess now: Is it a big ‘---- up’ or just the natural process of transition brought by the change in society?
-          Financially better off perhaps not yet, but are people (those nimukhas) empowered now?
 
What do you think?  (Sorry, it came out little too long)
Read Full Discussion Thread for this article