This is an e-mail message that has been making the rounds. It's worth a read because it provides some interesting angles to the question of terrorism in Nepal, in the backdrop of the Kalikot incident. ---------------- - Raj Thapa What happened in Pilli was a human rights disaster. The atrocities committed by the Maoists have been displayed for all to see. Not that there was any question to begin with, but it will be interesting to see how Keith Bloomfield (or Sushil Pyakurel) can continue to lobby and deny the ?terrorist? label on the Maoists. Which definition of ?terrorism? do the Maoists fail now? Are they still ?insurgents?? Does the UK still consider them to be any different than their own home-grown terrorists? What does one call a group of people who castrate and gouge out the eyes of surrendered opponents ? combatants? What does Amnesty International have to say about this? Does Human Rights Watch still think the RNA is the biggest problem in Nepal? Does the International Crisis Group think that bringing barbarians into the political fold will jump start democracy? What happened to impartiality? Just because these lobby groups know they cannot grab headlines by criticizing the Maoists (like they do the government) does not mean they should not criticize abuses on all sides. As for Mr. Ian Martin, when the cause of death is gun shot wounds to the head (and footage is shown on national television) an autopsy is only a formality. What? Does the UN?s top HR representative think that every time a Maoist fires his weapon, the bullet goes straight to an RNA soldier?s head? Is this Mr. Martin?s expert opinion? This tragedy is a timely reminder to all eager party leaders who suffer from shortsightedness. They should pay close attention to the mutilated bodies of the soldiers who were murdered. The King may be bad for democracy (and the politicians? habits of corruption) but if this flirting with the Maoists continues, the corpses on NTV may just as well be the future of the political leaders. The military wing of the Maoists are (and have been for some time) out of control of their political wing. There is little doubt about this. What else can explain such brutality at a time when the Maoist leadership is desperately trying to boost its international image? The sub-human nature of the Maoists aside, there is a larger lesson here ? the leadership of the RNA itself has failed the army. Pranab Mukherjee?s claim of the RNA?s inefficiencies are not hearsay. The post-encounter descriptions of the massacre of surrendered POWs points to the nature of the state?s enemies. The negligence of the RNA?s top brass is evidence of the immediate need for a court of inquiry. There are several facts of this tragedy that make one question the RNA?s judgment. First, what were so many new RNA recruits (and ?pipas?) doing in the Maoist heartland when intelligence indicated a coming attack? Can 5,000 people gather in a single location without anyone noticing? There is neither evidence of the RNA?s contingency planning nor evidence to show that the leadership reacted in a timely manner (to counter the Maoists withdrawal). The weather conditions may have stalled the RNA?s reaction, but this should have also delayed the Maoists? retreat. Do rivers not swell during the Monsoon season or can the Maoists walk on water? Are the RNA commanders waiting for the Americans and Indians to give them ?night vision maps? of Nepal or what???? Maybe an American book on ?common sense? and ?how not to get your troops massacred? would be useful. What was the selection process in sending a man with a heart-condition (Col. Devkota) into Maoist-heaven ? is the RNA officer core really that short staffed or is this favoritism/nepotism, backfiring? If the RNA top brass thinks that this disaster will convince military donors to continue military aid (so that more ?commissions? can be collected), it?s time to take off that silly looking hat and replace it with the ?thinking real hard? hat. Why? Because one does not only have to be stupid but completely brain-less to think that the Americans will keep sending M-16s so that the Maoists can arm themselves better. How many weapons did the Maoists get this time??? Probably enough to make the politicians think twice about removing the monarchy and facing the Maoists alone. Also, why does the RNA choose to lie and cover up its mistakes EVERY SINGLE TIME? The INSAS rifles may actually be defective but this realization should have come during trials of the weapon. Blaming the losses in Pili on the malfunction of INSAS rifles is like shooting oneself in the foot ? what about the rest of the 30,000 troops who carry this weapon into battle? How high is their morale going to be the next time they engage the enemy? If a purchase is made based on a cost decision, then why complain about quality after 30,000 units have been bought and deployed? Why keep begging the Indians for more INSAS rifles if they are so unreliable? Is this the way to justify breaking the 1950 treaty? Did this thought never cross the decision-makers? minds? Plus, the Maoists seem to have no problems using the same weapon against the RNA ? no expert opinion on malfunctions coming from there. If this RNA leadership is what the King is counting on to end Maoist-sponsored terrorism, all the republican forces have to do is sit back and wait. No need for demonstrations, no need for revolt, no need to do anything but let the fighting core of the army realize what a group of idiots they are working for. Whether or not the human rights groups declare the Maoists guilty of disregarding the Geneva conventions, the RNA should declare its leadership unfit for duty. Mistakes are made in times of war but a mistake is something that happens because of unforeseeable circumstances, not negligence. What happened in Pili is a obvious insight into the quality of the RNA leadership. It is not just the government and political parties that need new faces ? so does the RNA.