Alt Left: Repost: The Failed State of India Grew from the Indian Mind

A very nice old post. People started commenting on it again today and I went to read it and thought it was worth a repost. The original post got 118 comments! Boy those were the days, huh? Should still stimulate a few comments even on the repost.

And it’s quite well-written if I do say so myself!

Seriously? writes: This blog tries too hard, and still only manages to draw one or two angry Indians — if that.

There is no hatred of the ‘White man,’ including even of the British, because Whites aren’t special enough to warrant hating. While there’s a consistent income gap between Black and White Americans, there is an even larger Indian-White income gap in favor of Indians.

India’s relationship with so-called White nations is similar to that of Japan. We don’t feel threatened and are progressing quickly enough to put history behind us.

But I think you’ve missed a fundamental shared characteristic of Indians, so much so that this blog can never be reconciled with reality. In fact, of all the stereotypes of Indians, I think this is the only one with any real merit. Indians have a kind of “brotherly love” predisposition which is hard to describe.

The second a Pakistani, for example, shows any type of support for an Indian, he or she can expect an endless stream of positive responses and absolutely no negative ones.

Recently there was a poll done to determine India’s second (after Gandhi) “greatest” individual. India’s first Muslim president received the most votes, even over the likes of even Nehru, who only ranked 15th. Despite the poll’s assumption that Gandhi was bar none the greatest Indian, polls including Gandhi invariably show Ambedkar (India’s Dalit activist and philosopher) ahead, usually ranking Ambedkar first or second.

But I guess you still may be able to twist this around to still trash Indians.

I suspect the main motivation for this blog and the posters on here is that Indians you come across don’t consider you as great as you consider yourselves. This ends up coming across as arrogance to you, so you feel the need to react by trying to situate them further below you in the imaginary hierarchy you had before meeting them. Indians don’t react as negatively as you had hoped and so the effect is repeated and overall magnified.

Combine that with confirmation bias and then you eventually reach the conclusion that Indians have no good qualities whatsoever, have never accomplished anything, and are scheming to take over the world. But you can’t afford them anything positive, so you then say they don’t have the capability to do anything special like take over the world in the first place. It’s all pretty sad, really.

That is very interesting about that poll.

But how come every Hindu one meets has an extreme hatred of Muslims and/or Pakistan then? What’s it about? If Ambedkar is such a hero to most Indians, then why is India still mired in the most barbaric casteism known to mankind?

It doesn’t make any sense.

And I am starting to think that like most Indians, just about everything “Seriously?” says is a lie. There is hatred of the White man, and it’s most prominent among Hindus. Among Hindutvadis and on Hindutvadi websites, hatred for European White Christians and their civilization is quite extreme. I have even seen some of it in Indian nationalist Sikhs (most of the Sikhs in my town are actually strident Indian nationalists, not Punjabi nationalists).

I treat Indian people the same way I treat any other human. I thought they were extremely cool for a long time until I finally started to figure out what was really going on with these people, and since then, I have been less than impressed.

The most arrogant of all Indians around my town are surely the Hindus. They are much worse than the Sikhs. They have a strange attitude. They really do think they and their civilization is superior, but on the other hand, they are not going to tell you two words about it, and if you ask them anything about it, they get suspicious and hostile and act like they think like you are an enemy spy, and they clam up and shut down.

What you have here are people who have extreme pride in one of the backwards, barbaric, and reactionary civilizational structures known to mankind. From a Left POV, that is nothing to cheer about.

Then you look at the country they have created, or really destroyed, and you start to put it all together. This throwback socio-religious culture has created one of the most outrageous and pathetic civilizational trainwrecks and failed states on the Earth. Of course the civilizational pileup we see on the ground was created cognitively and emotionally by the barbarism inculcated in the Indian mind. The two must be connected.

As long as backwards barbarism continues to rule the Indian mind, we will continue to see the smoking ruins on the ground.

How I Determined Intelligibility For Turkic Lects

Steve: This is amazing. Well done. But how can you possibly know the degree of mutual intelligibility between two languages you don’t speak or know if something is a language or dialect when you don’t speak it? That seems strange. How is it worked out?

Linguists don’t speak all these languages we study. We just study languages, we don’t necessarily speak them. This is confused with the archaic use of the word linguist to mean polyglot. Honestly, many linguists do in fact speak more than one language, and quite a few of them have a pretty good knowledge of at least some of the languages that they study. But my mentor speaks only Turkish and English though he studies all Turkic languages. I don’t believe he has ever learned to speak any Turkic lect other than Turkish.
In reference to my paper here.
We are not looking for raw numbers. We just want to know if they can understand each other or not.
A lot of it is from talking to native speakers and also there was a lot of reading papers by other linguists. I also talked to other linguists a lot. Linguists typically simply state if two lects are intelligible or not. Also there is a basic idea among linguists of what the boundary is between a language and a dialect, and I used this knowledge a lot.
Can they understand each other? Yes or no. That’s pretty much about it. Also at some degree of structural difference, we can see the difference between a language and a dialect. It’s a judgement call, but linguists are pretty good at this.
There is a subsection of very loud linguists, mostly on the Internet, who like to screech a lot about this question cannot be answered by answered because of this or that red herring or some odd conundrums that work their way in. The thing is if you ask around enough, you will be able to get around all of the conundrums and you should be able to eventually reconcile all of the divergent responses to get some sort of a holistic or “big picture.” You finally “figure it out.” The answer to the question comes to you in a sort of a “seeing the answer as part of a larger picture” sort of thing.
The worst red herring is this notion that speakers from Group A will lie and say they do not understand speakers of Group B simply because they hate them so much. If this was such a concern, you would have think I would have run into it at some point. A much worse problem were ethnic nationalists who lie and say that they can understand neighboring tongues when they can’t.
The toxin called Pan-Turkism or Turkish ultranationalism comes into play here. It is almost normal for Turks to believe that there is only one Turkic languages, and it is called Turkish. All of the rest of the languages simply do not exist and are dialects of Turkish. I had to deal with regular attacks by extremely aggressive Ataturkists who insisted that any Turk could easily understand any other Turkic language. Actually my adviser told me that my piece would not be popular with the Pan-Turkics at all. I don’t really care as I consider them to be pond scum.
Granted, some of it was quite controversial and I got variable reports on intelligibility for some lects like Siberian Tatar vs. Tatar, the Altai languages, Kazakh vs. Kirghiz, Crimean Tatar vs. Turkish.
Where native speakers differ on such questions, often vociferously, you simply ask enough of them, talk to some experts and try to get a feel for that what best answer to the question is.
Some cases like Gagauz vs. Turkish probably need raw intelligibility testing. That’s the only one that is up in the air right now, but it is up in the air because the lects are so close. Intelligibility between Gagauz and Turkish is somewhere between  70-100%. In other words, they have marginal intelligibility at worst. My Gagauz expert who knows this language better than anyone though feels that Turkish intelligibility of Gagauz is less than 90%, which is where I drew the line at language and dialect.
It is also starting to look like Nogay is a simply a dialect of Kazakh instead of a separate language, but that might be a hard sell.
Some of these are seen as separate languages simply because they are spoken by different ethnies who do not want to be seen as part of the same group. Also they have different literary norms. Karapalkak is just a Kazakh dialect, but the speakers want to say they speak a separate language. Same with Bashkir, which is simply a dialect of Tatar. The case of Kazakh and Kirghiz is more controversial, but even here, we seem to be dealing with one language, yet the two dialects are spoken by different ethnies that have actually differentiated into two separate states, each with their own literary norm. Kazakhs wish to say they speak a language c called Kazakh and Kirghiz wish to say they speak a language called Kirghiz although they are probably really just one language.
We see a similar thing with Czech and Slovak. My recent research has proven that Czech and Slovak are actually a single language. But the dialects are spoken by different ethnic groups who claim different cultures and histories and they have actually divided into two different states, and each has its own literary norm.
It is here, where dialects become languages not via science by via politics, culture, history and sociology, that Weinrich’s famous dictum that “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy” comes into play.
Scientifically, these are all simply dialects of a single tongue but we call them languages for sociological, cultural and political reasons.

A Very Unusual Request to My Readers

I know this is a very unusual request, but bear with me.
I have a friend in India. He absolutely hates India, he hates the culture, the religion, everything. To him, it’s just rotten. And of course he is right. It is rotten. India is where you soul goes to die. He’s a Christian, so the whole society offends him.
He is a very smart guy, an intellectual, and he’s quite learned. He seems to have quite a bit of money. He is part way through completing a course in Accounting. I have no doubt that he can become an Accountant. He seems to be a nice looking guy to me, but I am not much of a judge of male looks. He is 36 years old. His English is excellent, albeit with a strong accent. He is very Aryan in looks. Honestly, if you met him, you would not even know he was Indian. He looks like a European, albeit a rather swarthy one, maybe a Med.
He’s not particular at all about women. He has almost no requirements that way.  Just under 40, speaks English and no Indian women for some reason.
This guy wants to get out of India even though he has money. The place is literally killing him, basically because he is a good  person, and Indian society is rotten. He is also very afraid of the new fascist BPP party in power. He says there is no place in India for people like him and he is afraid that the Hindutva fascists will beat him up or even kill him.
He will do anything to get out of that place.
He figures his best shot is to marry an American woman. However, he absolutely does not want to do a VISA fraud immigration marriage. That’s a fake marriage just to get into the country. It’s a felony and he wants nothing to do with that. He was formerly married to a Frenchwoman, so he is compatible with Western society and Western women. As Indian men go, he’s not much of a pig at all. He genuinely loves women. He will only marry in a real marriage to a real woman who really wants to marry him. Anyway there’s nothing in it for her for a fake marriage anyway.  He won’t pay her a nickel for that.
She  could talk to him on Facebook, and he can call her and talk to her on the phone. He calls the US all the time. If she talks to him on Facebook and on the phone and likes him, he will fly her to India so she can meet him. She can spend some time with him there to see if she likes him or not. He wants a woman under 40.
The thing is, if one of my readers can help me with this  problem and run an amateur marriage bureau for this fellow and find him a wife, he can make it very much worth our while. And there is nothing whatsoever illegal about that.
If he is lying to me and he is really trying to do a fake immigration marriage, well, that is a felony and he may well be caught. At that point, he will have to face the music.
I do not get involved in shady schemes, but this is 100% legal for you and me, and he seems to be on the up and up. He wants to do this in a legal and proper way.
My haters are going to rake me over the coals for this post, but so what. The thing is that if one of my commenters can help me with this, this fellow promises to pay for being a marriage bureau for him. And he will pay well.
Most  people are going to say this is nuts and blow it off, but if you think you can do it and you want to make some money, comment or shoot me an email and we will talk about it.
Thanks in advance.

Internet Hindus Don't Like Me

Oh noes!
Some people are just mean! Oh dear, what is one to do?
What could be worse than being insulted by Indian ultranationalists and Hindutwadis?  One shudders to think!
Let’s see what they called me: chutiya?, White Supremacist, degenerate Hindu hater (RL: Thank you), huge faggot, Lundsay?, toxic person, skinny, formerly homeless, degenerate fag, and maderchod?.

Robert Lindsay is a White American and a degenerate Hindu hater. He will take any opportunity to bash Indians and Hindus. He’s essentially an Abrahamic supremacist. Thank you for the kind words, sir.
He is definitely a huge faggot. A Randian once posted Lundsay’s blog on r/india, saying that we must not look at those “harsh words” and rather self-reflect. Self-reflect, my ass. Try it some time for once.
Lol, I remember sending multiple email death threats to Robert when I was pissed off reading his anti-India posts. He bans people from his blog for disagreeing with him, perfect twat to become a Randian mod. I was 17 back then. I never had encountered such a toxic person. Why thank you.
He’s a skinny white 50 year old who used to be homeless, who cares what that degenerate fag thinks?  Indeed.
Who the Fuck is this Lindsay? The hater is right about the shitting though. It’s a fucking deep cultural malaise. I have traveled to piss poor countries and even they don’t have this massive problem of shitting on the roads or indeed stuff like absolutely disrespecting road rules and all that. One word: Designated!

Turkey – The Sick Man of Europe, a 100 Year Running Joke

The Turks make up a single race – Turkic-Armenian-Kurdish-Ashkenazi Jewish. The Turks tried to turn most of these people into Turks by eliminating their ethnic identity via abandoning their religion and language. The Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians refused to give up their languages but most importantly their religion, so the Turks killed over 2 million of them for that sin. The Kurds continue to see themselves as a distinct ethnic, cultural and linguistic group from the Turks. The Turks wish to eliminate the Kurdish language, culture and even ethnicity. and that is why the Kurds are slaughtered like flies over there.
Turks are a profoundly backwards people, and they like it that way just fine. In fact, it infuriates them that anyone demands that they act civilized. Turks don’t exactly have European Enlightenment values – in fact, they have exactly the opposite. Erdogan is an Ottoman imperial Sultan and Caliph combined with a murderous Young Turk mixed with an Ataturkist ethnic ultranationalist. He’s literally one of the worst human beings on Earth, and the Turks worship this man like a God.
The Turks are enraged that Europe sees Turkey for the Sick Man it is. Hence they refuse to let them into the EU.
Letting Turkey into the EU would be catastrophic.
First of all, Turkey is incapable of abiding by the EU’s European White Christian Enlightenment values which now verge on Culture Left parody. The Turks don’t even believe in the Renaissance. Why would they believe in the PC SJW Left? Get real.
In order to join the EU, one must do a minimum number of things, including have a minimal base of European civilized Enlightenment values. These include basic human rights, limits on corruption, basic rights for minority groups and their languages, religions and cultures, etc. Turkey fails as miserably on all of those counts as they did a century ago when the Young Turks unleashed their Shoah/Islamic Jihad.
Turkey is a land frozen in time or worse where clocks actually run backwards instead of forwards like they do everywhere else. An example of this is how Erdogan has recreated 19th Century Turkey as the new imperial Sultan/Caliph.
A good guess of how backwards a nation is is whether or not the Left has been driven to such desperation and exasperated rage that they have take up arms. Nowadays, the Left only takes up arms in the most reactionary of holes. The Turkish Left has been so abused that they have been armed for decades. They carry out regular bombings and assassinations. Turkey is the Colombia of Europe, the India of the Near East.
The only way to let Turkey in would be to so weaken these EU ultra-liberal laws to the extent that they barely existed anymore. Further, poorer Turks would flood all through Christian Europe, further Islamicizing an already badly Islamicizing Europe. Even with only a few Muslims, they are causing havoc and chaos all through Europe. Imagine 10’s of millions of Turks given free reign to move to any part of Europe that they wish.
Turks have moved to Germany in large numbers and they have assimilated very poorly. Many of them hate Christian Germans, both their culture and their religion. They stage regular riots calling for the death of Jews, etc. Many are sympathetic to radical Islam. In Germany, many Turks have turned to street crime. Honor killings continue.
There are already far too many Turks in Christian Europe. Let’s not let 10’s of millions more in please.
There is of course a minority of more or less progressive Turks often working in and around academia, the opposition parties and the media. There are good people in the opposition, even in Parliament and there are many fine journalists, including some of the bravest and most daring investigative journalists. I work with a lot of Turks like this now. They bear no resemblance to what I just wrote above other than perhaps denial of their land’s backwardness. These are finest sons and daughters of the land.
Sadly the more forward-looking Turks have long been a minority, though they may make up 20-30% of the population. That’s enough to cause a lot of rowdy (and often violent) street protests, but it’s not enough to win an election.
Like the Colombians, every four years, the Turks march off to the polls to vote for another reactionary ultranationalist nut.
I would say that Turkey is hopeless. 20-30% is not enough to turn a land around, and Turkey has hurdled horribly backwards since Sultan Erdogan assumed the throne and crowned himself Caliph. He has emboldened all of the worst aspect of the Turkish soul in the same way that Trump is doing in the US. Perhaps Turkey can move forwards, but I will not see it in my lifetime.
There is nothing a Turk hates more than a mirror. It’s like a cross to a vampire. Turks refuse to look in a reflection and see what its really there. Instead they wrap themselves up in Rube Goldbergian fortresses of psychological defense because the truth is too ugly to bear. You can’t begin to cure an illness until you diagnose it, and until Turkey looks deeply into the illness of its body politic, it will remain, as always, the Sick Man of Europe, first as harsh truth a century ago, now as pitiful caricature and running twisted joke a century later.

He who is not busy growing is busy dying.
– Bob Dylan
To thine own self be true.
First of all, know yourself.
– famous aphorisms

 

How the H-1B Job Scam Works

The H-1B scam is a scab-hiring scam engaged in by all US IT corporations, both parties of Congress almost bar not one Congressman, and the entire US media with no exceptions designed to create a fake IT job shortage in order to fire US workers and hire phony Indian “guest workers” at 60% of the American’s salary.
This is how the phony scam works.
A job is advertised. They interview a number of Americans for the job. All of them are mysteriously not hired. Then the company puts in an H1B application, lying and saying that they could not find an American to do the job. Then they import the lousy H1B worker who performs poorly and is paid 40% less than an American. This goes on and on. Halfway through the year, the 200,000 Hindu 1B quota is filled. Microsoft, Google and all the rest of the scum corporations run screaming to Congress yelling that they need more H-1B’s because of a horrific labor shortage in IT.
In fact, many White IT workers have left the Industry after being fired and replaced by Indians or having been driven out by Indians. Many White IT workers have given up on the industry and retired or gone into other fields. Others move around all the time from job to job.
At many shops most to all of the American IT workers are fired by the new Indian manager. The new Indian manager comes in and replaces all the Whites with Indians from his caste, extended family, tribe or ethnic group.
Whites working with Indians in IT report appalling behavior by high caste Indians in the industry. Casteism is rife among these high caste Indians and seriously disturbs many IT projects. Indians refuse to work with or deliberately sabotage the work of the other castes in the workplace. Many of these Indians are Indian nationalist Hindutavadis who have an extreme hatred of Whites, Westerners and Christianity. White IT workers have to listen to their hate-filled rants all day long. At one shop, an Indian IT worker kept threatening to dose the White workers’ drinks with HIV. Nothing happened to him. Usually nobody does anything to the Indians because the managers are Indians too.
Quality of work usually falls off greatly because almost all Hindu 1B’s are lousy workers. Nearly all or all of them have phony degrees saying things like “Masters in Computer Science.” Supposedly this means an MA in Comp Sci, a highly prized degree in the US. In reality, India is full of phony, crooked, lying schools that are little more than sleazy degree mills. You enroll in the “nationally accredited  world-renowned Indian Computer University” with no background in IT whatsoever, take six months of Introduction to Computer Science courses, and you get a Master’s Degree in Computer Science. Pitiful.
And the worst is that all of the US IT executive scum know full well that 99% of degrees Indians have are faked or phony crap like above, and they don’t care! The IT interviewer just says, “Wow, Masters Degree in Computer Science, very impressive!” and the Indian eagerly nods his head. Even worse, many Hindu 1B’s have no degree at all in anything, much less computer science, and they still present all sorts of phony degrees and credentials, all of which are faked and forged. The IT interviewer once again can probably tell if a degree is fake or not or at least he ought to, but he doesn’t care.
The Hindu 1B thing has been a huge flop. Indians are notoriously lousy cut and paste coders, and most of them could not code their way out of a paper bag. The mangled, barely readable, never commented spaghetti code produced by Indians often doesn’t work or barely works at all. Typically it has to be sent to another IT shop full of American coders who have to spend a lot of time to fix it up and get it up to par. So apparently this wicked scam is not even saving much money.
Many IT professionals say that the quality of computer code produced has declined markedly precisely in line with mass offshoring of IT jobs to Indian “programmers” in India and the replacement of quality American IT people with Hindu 1B scabs.
Yet no one wants to stop the Hindu 1B fake guest worker scam. Both parties are 100% down for it. From conservative Republicans all the way to the most liberal of Democrats, they all rant and rave about the IT job shortage and how we need more H-1B’s this year.
I am wondering if Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump mentioned anything about Hindu 1B’s. I think Bernie mentioned it early in the campaign before he went full Cultural Left retard, but whether he still holds to that position is uncertain.
After all, Hindu 1B’s are these glorious things called immigrants. Immigrants, our new Gods. Immigrants, these special workers that we worship over and above all other workers, especially American workers, who all need to be replaced by these glorious holies called immigrants. I remember Counterpunch ran one article against Hindu 1B’s, and ultra Leftist (((Louis Proyect))) otherwise known as “Lou the Jew,” flipped out and wrote a piece having hysterics about Counterpunch’s “racism” for daring to attack these holy immigrant scabs. For Proyect, I suppose there’s no limit to the number of American workers who can be replaced by immigrants. I suppose he would just as soon replace every one of us with an immigrant.

Aryan Invasion Again and Why Narcissism Is the Core Indian Personality

Nelly (note fake British female name) an Indian nationalist, writes:

I personally find it so funny that so many people hold onto the Aryan Invasion theory with such tenacity. This theory was made popular by Hitler, which is really funny because he was also the same person who said that the superior people were those with blonde hair and blue eyes, and also went around claiming that Jewish people were evil and should be exterminated.
Today, the majority of people know that those with blonde hair and blue eyes are not superior to any other people nor are Jewish people evil and should be eliminated. That being said, why do so many people still believe the Aryan invasion theory even though it came from a man who did nothing but spread lies in an effort to brainwash people? Why are you guys so selective in what you want to believe as being true? Why does Hitler’s credibility suddenly increase for the entire Aryan theory?
I don’t usually get involved in these debates because I realize that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and I respect that. But, there is a difference between what is an opinion and what is a fact. And the fact is that the word “Arya” is Sanskrit for “noble.”
Max Mueller, who came up with the idea of two Aryan races, used this discovery as a means of showing the common ancestry between the Indians and Europeans, not as a form of racism (Esleben, 2008, F. Max Müller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas (1888), Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2004, p.120; Dorothy Matilda Figueira, Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorizing Authority Through Myths of Identity, SUNY Press, 2002, p.45).
There is also a mountain of evidence that debunks the idea of there ever having been an invasion. Archeologists and researchers have never found any indication that an invasion occurred as the skeletons discovered never suggested that an invasion ever occurred  (Gregory L. Possehl, 2002, The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, Rowman Altamira, p. 238, ISBN 9780759101722).
The majority of Western scholars don’t refer to it as an “invasion” because they are educated enough to know that it isn’t. Those who still call it an invasion are not viewed as being credible by the rest of Western scholars, but are rather seen as racist. (Witzel, Michael, 2005, “Indocentrism”, in Bryant, Edwin; Patton, Laurie L., The Indo-Aryan Controversy. Evidence and Inference in Indian History (PDF), Routledge).
Again, I’m not expressing any opinions in the last three paragraphs. I’m literally just stating facts. That is, information that has been proven to be true by people who are experts in this topic. So, if you choose to attack me, then I don’t know what to say except go hash it out with the experts who, after years and years of research, came up with these theories instead of me.

My remarks: The Aryan Invasion Theory was not created by Hitler. The Indians called themselves Aryans. They didn’t need Mueller or Hitler to make it up. Iran means “Aryan.”
Almost all Western scholars agree that the theory is true. Only a few crackpots and nuts disagree, and they are very isolated and cannot even publish in peer reviewed journals because their theories are so antiscientific. It is not a fringe theory. It is cutting-edge modern social science.
Further, I believe that there is excellent evidence of an actual Aryan Invasion that resulted in a vicious war that left many dead and entire cities in the Indus Valley razed to the ground.
And you won’t get called racist for calling it the Aryan Invasion Theory either. You might be called that by some idiot Indian, but who cares what Indians think about this or much of anything really?
This response is also interesting.
First of all, in order to show how well read they are, this Indian nationalist peppers her comment with a lot of nice references. I admit that the references are nicely done, and I commend the commenter for her scholarship. However, I must painfully point out to this apparently blind commenter that every single one of those quotes that she quoted actually supports the Aryan Invasion Theory instead of opposing it. So her references do not support her thesis; instead they disprove it!
I see so many Indian nationalists and Hindutvadis come here adopting European-sounding names, both first names and surnames.
We even had an extreme Indian nationalist here posting under “Snow is fun.” Snow is white. It’s white and cold, and there’s not much of it in most of inhabited India. To me, giving himself that name meant that he secretly wanted to be Scandinavian. And in fact, he was an Indian expat posting from Sweden.
Others post under names like “Arya” and then proceed to rip the Aryan invasion theory to shreds. And note how many of the wildest Indian nationalists have long bailed out of Shithole India for the hated White Man’s Land, where they paradoxically live so much better than they do in glorious Bharat Mata.
They hate Whites, but they disguise their identities under White first names and last names.
They hate Whites and consider them inferior to superior Indians, yet they left superior India for inferior White man land where they somehow live much better than in Mother India.
They call themselves Arya yet viciously attack the Aryan Invasion Theory.
They hate Whites but post from Sweden.
They hate Whites but call themselves Arya.
They hate Whites but come from a society that worships White skin like a God.
They hate Whites but give themselves names describing white things like snow that are only found in cold climates were Whites are common.
They hate Whites but call themselves “Snow is fun,” which to me means “I love Whiteness.”
In other words, almost all of these Indian nationalists are absolutely crazy. The cognitive dissonance here would deafen you.
Furthermore, obvious psychological complexes such as inferiority complex, envy, reaction formation, projection, denial, narcissism, false confidence, etc. are painfully evident here. The “Indian complex” seems to be characterized by hatred and envy for their “inferiors” who they secretly ape, emulate and live among. The painful recognition that their “inferiors” are actually superior to their falsely “superior” selves is blatantly on display.
Hatred, envy, false and fragile overconfidence, an inferiority complex and especially the subconscious knowledge that their “inferior” rival is actually better than their “superior” selves and the resulting shame and rage that this engenders is almost a textbook definition of the narcissist.
I suggest that narcissism is the base personality of many Indians, especially the nationalists, ultranationalists and Hindutvadis.

"Time of Monsters," by Peter Tobin

Peter Tobin is a Marxist activist and author who is an experiment on the recent goings in in Nepal especially with regard to the Maoist revolutionaries who recently fought a brutal civil war there and are now part of the government. Turns out that with disarmament, a lot of the Maoists sold out completely on almost all of their revolutionary principles, become rightwingers and in the process become millionaires with huge mansions. In addition, as you might have guessed, all and I mean all of the Maoist leaders were Brahmins.
And this was an anti-caste revolution.
In this part of the world, caste is like dirt. No matter how many times try wash the dirt off, there’s always some on your skin. And no matter how many attempts are made by South Asians to cleanse the body politic of caste, there’s always some of it remaining on the skin of their culture. you can’t take enough showers to wash all the dirt off and you can’t do enough reforms to wash caste out of the culture. It’s looking like caste in now an integral part of South Asian culture like curry, saris or gurus.
Warning: This work is very long. If it was a book, it would be 60 pages, long enough for a novella if it was fiction.

Time of Monsters

by Peter Tobin

The cartoon above reflects a widespread perception among many Nepalese that the four parliamentary parties are servants – in varying degrees – of New Delhi. It appeared in the 2013, August edition of Nepal – a popular monthly – showing Prachanda (UCPN(M), Nepal (UML), Sitaula (NC) and Gaddachhar (MJN), (Brahmins all!) blubbing uncontrollably as Nepal against history and the odds beat India 2-1 in the South Asia Football Championships in July 2013.

Nepal’s Brahminical State and Problems of Legitimacy

From Machiavelli:

What’s more, you can’t in good faith give the nobles what they want without doing harm to others; but you can with the people. Because the people’s aspirations are more honorable than those of the nobles: the nobles want to oppress the people, while the people want to be free from oppression.
Machiavelli, The Prince, 1516, p.39. Penguin 2009.

To the present day:

How can people trust them to run the state? Our boycott is therefore a political act to expose the failure of this parliamentary system. To build a new democracy and renew the revolutionary process we must go in a different direction.
– Mohan Baidya, ‘Kiran’, Chairman, CPN-Maoist, October, 2013

Introduction

Political parties in all societies reflect specific histories and display the balance of social and political forces at any point in their narratives. Nepal is no exception to this truism; the classes and strata arising from the socio-economic conditions obtaining in the country’s history gave rise to caste, party and faction. The aim of this article is to provide detail of their historical gestation as a means of examining and explaining the present impasse in Nepalese society.
This is presently evidenced by argument as to whether a Consultative Assembly, elected in November 2013 in a disputed ballot, has authority to promulgate a new constitution and is another issue of serious division that pervades every sphere of Nepalese society – political, cultural, social and economic – that cumulatively call into question the legitimacy of the essentially unreconstructed state founded by Prithvi Nararyan Shah in 1769.
The article will argue that discord has been inherent since the state’s inception in the mid-18th century, with the campaign of unification driven by a minority elite imposing a nationality upon a multi-ethnic majority and which despite changing modalities of state power in the succeeding two-hundred and fifty years, remains the dominant power in Nepalese society, surviving monarchical absolutism, feudal clan autocracy, constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy, successively appearing as contrasting if not antagonistic systems.
It is certainly the case that internecine power struggles among ruling Nepalese elites, regarding modalities of power, are crucial to understanding the forces shaping the present. However, evident systemic discontinuity should not obscure persistence of upper caste, particularly Brahmin ascendancy, surmounting every upheaval, and turning every change of polity into a vehicle for retention of power and privilege.
Responding to the pressures of the modern world, and with long experience in judging the vagaries of historic authority, these same castes have melded seamlessly into the local bourgeoisie – domestically hegemonic but internationally subservient.
Not every ancien regime is oblivious or impervious to demands for change from formerly subaltern classes. Note the nationalist leader Tancredi’s maxim, in di Lampedusa’s epic novel The Leopard about the 19th century Risorgimento (Italian unification):

“Things have to change so that everything can stay the same.” (“Tutto deve cambiar perche tutto reste uguale.”) (Il Gattopardo, G. di Lampedusa, 1958)

The Nepalese ruling castes are exemplars of this paradox, having survived successive changes in polity, a point underlined in contemporary Nepal where the major constitutional parties and organs of state are dominated by the same higher caste/class, as supreme in the new democratic republic as they were under the preceding Hindu God-Kingdom created through war and conquest by their Brahmin/Rajput ancestors in the 18th century. Unification was more empire than nation building, pitting a warlike Indo-Aryan warrior caste against a rural majority comprised of over sixty Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups, each with its own languages and specific Buddhist/pantheist/shamanist cultures.
Over time this may not have precluded the forging of national identity: consider the example of Britain, which emerged from English subjugation and colonization of the tribal Celtic peoples that flourished on the periphery of the later named, with breast-beating triumphalism, British Isles.
Similarly the English had emerged as a distinct people following military invasion and occupation by French Normans over Anglo-Saxon natives. Christianity in the form of Roman Catholicism already provided a common ideology for conqueror and conquered. In the centuries following, the former lost both their French language and territories with the European feudal system they imposed upon Anglo-Saxon England taking root and dominating until the emergence of bourgeois capitalism in the Late Middle Ages.
Nepal has never overcome the contradictions engendered by its violent birth which was compromised by its Hindu ruling castes retaining political, cultural and economic ties with caste peers governing India the sub-continental empire, and who, since Bhimsen Thapa, Jonge Bahadur and the Ranas, have, unlike the nation-builders of medieval Europe, proved unable or unwilling to act with national impunity.
The notion of the present ruling caste elite representing the national interest is presently even more unlikely as their growing cosmopolitan class interests political, ideological and economic necessitate the country continuing as neo-colony of Brahminical India, subject to the ubiquitous, all-conquering global market and the multinational institutions established by US and other First World powers after 1945.
The last serious threat to centralized caste power was the People’s War from 1996-2006, which saw a 12-point peace agreement between parliamentarians and revolutionaries, following the success of these two former bitter enemies allying to overthrow King Gyenendra in the 2006 second Thulo Jana Andolan (Great People’s Uprising/Revolution). It did not, as promised, lead to a ‘New Nepal’, instead seeing the elites of ‘Old Nepal’ regrouping, and remaining ensconced in power.
This had also happened after the 1990 Jana Andolan, when the Brahmin leaders of the democratic movement summoned the Janjatis (ethnic minorities) and oppressed castes and classes to join the struggle for democracy against King Birendra and the feudal Panchayat system.
Promises made, offering cultural and political autonomy to redress historical injustices, were later reneged on, with the subsequent constitution drawn up by the victorious New Delhi-backed political parties even retaining Nepal’s status as a divine Hindu Kingdom. It was not until 2008, with the declaration of a republic, that the monarchial system was finally abolished.
However, that was the only tangible political gain from ten years of People’s War, while the major socioeconomic and cultural inequities that had provoked it were left in place, with attempts to ameliorate them blocked or sabotaged by a resurgent rightist bloc that seized the political and military initiative in the years following the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
Nepal’s political parties are defined by which side they take in relation to this history; whether they want to either preserve the existing system, albeit with minor tweaks and modest reform, or completely replace it with a new dispensation. Conservatives and revolutionaries are adversaries in the struggle for the body and soul of the nation.
First, some empirical details about the country that provide the inescapable, epidemiological conclusion that the socio-economic antagonisms fermenting in Nepalese society point inevitably to further eruption.

Economy and Society

Nepal is an aid-dependent, landlocked country, accessed principally from India, with a population of approximately 28 million. It has over sixty ethnic groups or Janjatis (called Adivasis in India) reflecting a rich linguistic and cultural diversity. Over 80% of its peoples are rural inhabitants, mostly dependent on subsistence farming. The agricultural sector contributes approximately 38-40% to GDP, with the tourism/service industry adding 47-50%, and the industrial/craft sector contributing 10-13% (1).
The CIA World Factbook estimates its labor force at 16 million: 70% of those employed are in agriculture and 18% in the services sector with the remainder in industry and craft production. The imbalance between numbers of population engaged respectively in these sectors and the value each one adds to GDP is striking. What distorts the figures is that 25-30% of the tourism/service GDP (where it measured by income) comes from Gurkha pensions and increasingly over the last decade from émigré labor remittances (2).
As its contribution to GDP shows, the manufacturing sector is small, with carpet weaving dominating its light industrial sector and the rest made up of skilled handcraft production in metal, stone and wood. Since the decline of the jute industry based in Biratnagar, heavy industry is negligible, and Nepal has to import everything from cars to computers – necessities of modern life – which add to its trade deficit.
Nepal has always faced the difficult situation of being a small economic power next to a big one that is denied economies of scale that accrue from size, thus insuring that Nepali companies could not compete with bigger Indian ones in the home market. This problem has, for example, caused the virtual collapse of its cotton and garment industry. Exports are inhibited because India imposes high import duties to protect its own industries.
The pan-Indian Marwari Corporation/Clan dominate the domestic industrial and commercial sector in collusion with the traditional caste elites of Ranas/Shahs. A further aspect of its neocolonial status is that Nepal is forced to concede an open border with India and must endure a ‘take or leave it’ in terms of trade with India, a market that accounts for nearly 70% of Nepal’s total exports. In some instances Delhi has even reneged on prior agreements in order to sabotage specific Nepalese attempts at establishing nascent industry (3).
Nepal’s manufacturing base was further weakened by the global march of neoliberal capitalism (4) that saw, for example, Structural Adjustment Programs introduced in Nepal from the mid-1980s’.
SAP’s are loans to aid-dependent, underdeveloped or economically unstable countries that have strong conditional clauses requiring adoption of rigorous free market policies, including privatization, trade and finance-sector liberalization, prices determined by the market and precluding and retreating from state intervention in any form.
They were implemented by the IMF and World Bank, acting in a ‘bad cop/bad cop’ scenario and affected all sections of Nepalese society; the removal of subsidies on such items as cooking gas hit many homes, while those on fertilizers reduced agricultural production. Privatization programs ended public enterprises, many of which had been initiated by a dirigiste Rana regime in the 1930’s in a desperate attempt to modernize.
There was, for example, sustained pressure from multilateral development financial institutions – the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in particular – forcing a sale of water utilities, resulting in their complete privatization by 2006. Tariffs protecting indigenous industries were also removed and the penetration of multinational capital was facilitated across all sectors.

Inequality and Poverty

This regime, which does not even manufacture a needle in the name of a self-reliant and national economy, has handed the whole economy to a dozen families of foreign compradors and bureaucratic capitalists. This handful of plunderers has become billionaires, whereas the real owners of this country and the national property – the toiling masses of Nepal – are forced to eke out a meager existence of deprivation and poverty.
– (CPN(M) leaflet, distributed on the eve of the start of the People’s War, 13th February, 1996.

The UN Human Development Report 2014 listed Nepal as the 31st poorest country in the world and among those classified low in Human Development indices with glaring inequalities in incomes and lifestyles that has the top 10% owning 42% of wealth and the bottom 10% accruing 2.7%. The Multidimensional Poverty Index, which measures schooling, nutrition, infant mortality, sanitation, and access to clean water among its criteria for standards of modern life, puts incidences of poverty at 65% whereas an income-poverty criteria at $1.25 per day gives a 55% figure of those suffering deprivation. (5)
Government Household Survey statistics for 2010/11, by contrast, estimated deprivation at 25% of population but only by using a smaller cohort, with the sole criterion defining poverty as daily consumption of less than 2,220 calories. By whatever measure, poverty is endemic and exacerbated by increased levels of unemployment that since 2000 have inexorably risen to nearly 50% of the working population in 2014. By conflating the above figures along with other relevant indices, the Gini Coefficient statistics for 2010 (6) showed that inequality has worsened over past two decades of western-style parliamentary democracy and capitalism. (7)
While the majority of Nepalese are rural dwellers, the agriculture sector is weak and inefficient; hilly and mountainous topography with subsequent scarcity of arable soil apart from the southern Terai plains allows mostly for only subsistence farming. A poor infrastructure of roads and communications inhibits movement of produce. The continuing failure to reform land ownership sees huge, growing numbers of landless Dalits, Muslims and other minorities, especially in feudal and populous Terai. The failures to implement scientific management and introduce modern technology combine to render Nepal dependent on importing foodstuffs from or through India.
The failure of the present system to provide necessary conditions of existence for an expanding demographic adds greater urgency to the antagonisms between the Establishment Right and Radical Left. These will be further accentuated given that India’s newly elected BJP administration has signaled the intention of pursuing more aggressively expansionist policies and is fully committed to the neoliberal economic project. The latter is being promoted as ‘shock therapy’ necessary for economic lift-off that will rescue the Indian people from poverty and deprivation.
It is it problematic because it is set out as an ideological as opposed to an economically rational project deliberately masking the aim of increasing the penetration of Western monopoly capitalism into the Indian economy through the mediation of the Brahmin/Banyia oligarchy. One of the new regime’s first acts was to increase hikes in diesel prices, allowing the state subsidy to shrivel, while signaling an intention to do the same to fertilizer subsidies. It has since announced that the health budget is to be slashed in a country that already has one of world’s lowest expenditures in this sector.
When all such state aid is rolled back, if wealth ‘trickles down’ perhaps by the conspicuous consumption of luxury commodities and lifestyle of a privileged cosmopolitan caste elite or charity (not a noted Brahmin characteristic) and alleviates some poverty – so be it, but it will be serendipitous. Such an outcome is not what drives au courant ‘capitalism with its coat off’ mutation, (4) so eagerly embraced by India’s caste elite as greed is a noted Brahmin characteristic.
However, for all the Hindutva histrionics and bravura posturing of the demagogue Modi, his BJP regime is in fact morphing effortlessly from Mohan Singh’s Congress Party Administration’s line of march. This became apparent in 2005 US/India Memos of Understanding (MOU) which, inter alia, initiated opening up India’s agricultural research establishments to American monopolies and activated policies of ‘rapid commercialization’ of already hard-pressed Indian farmers.
One commentator noted at the time:

The treaty is a partnership between two unequal partners. American agriculture is highly mechanized and organized, energy-intensive and market-centric. Indian agriculture, by contrast, has been for millennia the way of life for the vast majority of the population. (8)

The present Nepalese establishment invariably marches in step with New Delhi and accordingly rolled out the red carpet for the newly-elected PM Modi’s August 2014 official visit to Kathmandu. Addressing the Nepalese Parliament, he emphasized his government’s neoliberal economic priorities and the benefit Nepal would derive from deepening existing bilateral links by “…taking our relationship to an entirely new level.”
Nepal’s establishment parties were receptive, as the post-1990 administrations had closely shadowed India’s descent into neoliberal policies, and Modi’s regime was seen as continuation of this course.
The August visit was also marked by concluding agreements that increased Indian access to Nepal’s vast untapped water resources, which the revolutionary opposition denounced as a blatant example of neocolonial subservience to Indian expansionists and betrayal of the national interest.
The argument over this abundant but as yet untapped natural resource constitutes a longstanding fault line in Nepalese politics that bears examination; it concentrates many existing socioeconomic and political contradictions in one issue.

The Politics of Water and Unequal Treaties

On September 6th 2014 the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist announced its intention to publicly burn copies of the Power Trade Agreement (PTA) recently negotiated between India and Nepal which allows for the construction of hydropower projects by Indian companies so as to facilitate energy trading, cross-border transmission lines and grid connections between the two countries. (9)
The coalition government concluded a further agreement with the Indian company GMR to construct a 900MW hydropower project on the Upper Karnali. It was claimed that combining these two accords would enable Nepal to utilize its hydropower resources to produce enough surplus to permit the already agreed export of electricity to India and help reduce the country’s trade deficit.
The extraction of Nepal’s water resources began in 1920 when the Indian Raj signed the 1920 Treaty of Sarda that secured access to the Mahakali. After independence, India’s Nehru’s Administration continued in a similar manner with the 1954 Koshi and 1959 Gandak Treaties that saw dams constructed solely to irrigate the thirsty Gangetic Plains of North India. There was outrage at these one-sided deals from Nepalese nationalists and communists, which led to greater caution by successive regimes faced with India’s insatiable water demands paralleled with failed attempts in securing international aid or a loan from the World Bank to develop the country’s hydropower resources independently.
After the 1990 upheaval that ostensibly reduced Birendra to constitutional status, the fledgling democracy experienced renewed pressure from New Delhi that led to the 1996 Mahakali Treaty which was described as revealing:

“…the larger neighbor as bulldozer and the smaller one as hapless and internally divided.” (10).

While this treaty was supported by the both the constitutional communist party, the Unified Marxist-Leninist Communist Party which turned full circle from the anti-Indian position of its mother party in the 1950’s, and the always reliable pro-Delhi Congress Party (NC), it was denounced by CPN (Maoist) spokespersons who pointed out that Nepal would only get 7 out of the projected 125 megawatts output. (11)
The symbolic burning of the present PTA as ‘against the national interest’ by the new Maoist party was manifestation of an ongoing campaign for retaining Nepalese jurisdiction over its water resources, resisting New Delhi’s strategy to monopolize them. This is underscored by observation that Nepal has huge hydropower potential estimated at 40,000 MW but is presently realizing only 600 MW.
All of this is happening against a backdrop of daily power cuts and the fact that 60% of the population have no access to electricity. Harnessing hydropower resources will provide the means of modernizing and enriching the country, putting its growing young unemployed to work and ending its dependent, underdeveloped status.
Lenin famously stated that for USSR: ‘Communism was Soviet power plus electrification’ to which Nepal’s unreconstructed Marxist-Leninists paraphrase the end as: ‘plus hydropower’; reflecting the importance of this power source for realizing an independent socialist Nepal.
The PTA is described by patriots of left and right as yet another unequal treaty among the many that began with the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli imposed by the East India Company. This is now seen a British land grab that resulted in Nepal ceding one-third of its territory to the Company, including Sikkim and what is now called Uttarakhand.
The reduction of ‘Greater Nepal’ to its present territory resulted from military invasion and defeat. Treaties covering trade and resources have been facilitated by the Nepalese ruling caste/class acting in collusion with first imperial Britain then Brahminical India .
The Brahmin/upper caste supporters of the power deal tend either to not recognize or to remain oblivious to the idea that any treaty agreed with brother India has ever been ‘unequal’. The same political class once again faced a 2011 furor over by the ‘Bilateral’ Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) which allowed for greater penetration and increased security for Indian capital in Nepal. This sellout document earned the parliamentary apparatchiks, parties and the Bhatterai Administration who negotiated and agreed to it epithets from the stooges and hirelings of the extra-parliamentary Maoist opposition and royalist factions.
The definition of unequal agreement is where an imbalance of power, political, military or economic, exists between the parties to the agreement. Chinese nationalists and communists in the 20th century used the term to describe all treaties extracted from China in its ‘century of humiliation’ at the hands of Western imperialists in the 19th century.
These treaties between Nepal and India involved loss of Nepalese sovereignty over territory and domestic markets and facilitated imports of commodities, including, notoriously, opium produced by East India Company, accompanied by the threat or use of superior military force. The period also saw the emergence of indigenous merchants acting as East India Company agents/intermediaries described as ‘compradors’.
Nepalese patriots use the term “unequal treaties” to describe a history that began with Sugauli, was carried over from the East India Company to the Raj and continued in postcolonial India with the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty formalizing Nepal’s neocolonial status by allowing India increased access and control of the Nepalese economy and veto over Nepal’s foreign relations with third parties.
It guaranteed Nepal as a captive market for Indian commodities and along with further revisions and succeeding agreements allowed exploitation of Nepal’s natural resources, principally water as described above, and access to cheap Nepalese migrant labor.
New Delhi was driven as much by geopolitical considerations; Nehru saw Himalayan Nepal as a bulwark on India’s northern frontier against Communist China, and serving along with Bhutan and Sikkim as part of a “chain of protectorates,” so described by Curzon, a particularly bellicose, expansionist Raj Viceroy at the turn of the 20th century.
Nehru was a ruthless autocrat and saved his fine words regarding nonintervention and non-aggression for the Pansheel Principles set out as a stratagem to bamboozle Mao’s Communists, burnishing India’s Gandhian credentials and non-aligned status in 1954 Treaty with the PRC. Nehru accordingly extracted the 1950 Treaty from the last Rana PM three months before he authorized an invasion of Nepal from India by a joint royalist/ democratic army which signaled the beginning of the end for Rana rule.
Independent India under the imperious Pandit owed more to the martial warrior spirit of the Maharbarata than it ever did to the myth of Hinduism’s essential ahimsa (pacifism) peddled by the casteist charlatan Gandhi. Recent information shows that Nehru may have slaughtered even more Muslims in Manipur in 1947 than Modi managed in Gujarat in 2001.

Constitution or Revolution?

The new Maoist party, the CPN-M, is extra-parliamentary and does not accord legitimacy to the present institutions of state, distinguishing it from the three major parties in the Constituent Assembly, who supported and negotiated the PTA. In descending order of electoral strength, they are: Nepali Congress, Unified Marxist-Leninist CPN; and Unified CPN (Maoist). The first two are in coalition government, with the NC leader GP Koirala as Prime Minister. Koirala’s family is a Nepalese political dynasty akin to India’s Gandhis.
A split in the third biggest party, the UCPN(M), in 2012 led to the launch of the CPN-M by cadre led by veteran Maoist leader, Mohan Baidya (‘Kiran’) (12), increasingly disillusioned with perceived growing revisionism of the UCPN(M) under the leadership of Prachanda and Bhatterai. They concluded that following the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the UCPN(M)’s political practice had degraded into reformism, conforming to Lenin’s bitter reasoning for the ultimate treachery of the German SPD’s voting for war credits in 1914:

…by making a fetish of the necessary utilization of bourgeois parliamentarianism and bourgeois legality.

In the view of many cadre, the party had lost its revolutionary edge and has been remade to suit New Delhi’s requirements. The party was guided by two leaders, Dahal (Prachanda) and Bhatterai, reconnecting with their Brahminical caste roots.
The final betrayal was the surrender by Bhatterai’s ostensibly Maoist-led administration of the People’s Liberation Army and its weapons to the Nepalese Army in 2011 after being laagered in UN cantonments following the 2006 CPA. In reaction to this and policies such as handing back expropriated land to the feudal landlords, the new CPN-M declared a return to revolutionary first principles and building on the foundation of the principle of People’s War as a precondition for future political work.
A fourth political bloc represented in the Constituent Assembly (the National Assembly – an upper house created in 1990, was abolished in 2007, and Nepal now has a unicameral system) is the United Democratic Madeshi Front representing landed property class parties from the Terai, a region of flatlands in southern Nepal and topographically an extension of the Gangetic Plains of North India.
Ethnically and culturally the Terai’s upper castes are closer to India, so this group’s political support for increasing bonds between the countries is guaranteed. The Terai was formally a NC fiefdom, but party membership collapsed when leaders and activists principally drawn from the Bhadraloks (Terai upper castes) deserted the party which they believed had become dominated by the Brahmins of the Kathmandu and the Central Hill regions referred to as Pahadis (Hill People).
This political bloc, following the 2006 Peace Agreement, appeared to upper caste Madeshis to be too weak to stand up to the Maoists, perceived as all-powerful after ten years of People’s War and a real threat to feudal and zamindar (landlord) interests in the Terai. Madeshi parties subsequently emerged seeking either regional autonomy or direct integration with India.
The more militant among them advocated armed struggle and were instrumental in driving the 2006/7 murderous conflict with the Maobaadi (Nepali for Maoists) in order to defend the status quo in the region. Indian security services were rumored to have been heavily involved in arming and funding these groups, signaling New Delhi’s growing alarm at the threat to Indian interests posed by the Nepalese Maoists as they stood on the verge of a takeover.
There are 22 other parties represented in the CA, the largest two being royalist – the Rastriya Prajantra Party (Nepal) and the Rastriya Prajantra Party – representing the ancient regime and seeking in one form or another a return to divine Hindu monarchy abolished when the Prachanda’s 2008 UCPN(M)/UML coalition government declared the republic. However, many monarchists are patriots with a deep distrust of India to the extent that some prefer China in all circumstances.
After the RRP(N) and the RPP, there are many small socialist, communist and peasant parties reflecting the patchwork and multirepresentational nature of Nepalese politics. This plethora of parties is also apparent among the forces outside the CA led by CPN-M in a 33-party alliance.
The CPN-M (13) and its allies – other communist, socialist and social democratic parties along with Janjati (ethnic) organizations – came together in 2013 to boycott the November election for a second Constituent Assembly. They argued it was a ‘phony, rigged election’, promoted by the same forces that had blocked a progressive federal constitution in the first CA. Now the parliamentary ‘Four Party Syndicate’ was seeking a mandate to forge an anti-people constitution ensuring that power was retained by upper castes and that in any event, asserted the boycotters, would be written in New Delhi.
Among the international supporters of the second CA election were the US, China, EU, India, the UN, NGOs like the Carter Center, ANFREL etc. 70,000 police, army and paramilitaries along with 50,000 temporary police personnel were mobilized to counter the campaign organized by the CPN-M, leading a 33 party alliance around the slogan:

Boycott this corrupt/so-called election (Kathit nirbaachan bahiskaar gare).

The election duly took place, pre-weighted through the creation of a High Level Commission that excluded all other parties, ensuring the ‘Four Party Syndicate’s unchallenged control of proceedings. Rs 30 billion was allocated to pay for it, a staggering amount considering only Rs 2.8 billion was spent on the 2008 election. The election was further tainted as turnout figures were disputed, with nearly five million voters disappearing from the 2008 election rolls. There was also no postal vote provision for the estimated two million émigré workers scattered through the Gulf States and South East Asia.
Each side claimed higher or lower percentage turnouts, but the significant result was the major setback for Prachanda and Bhatterai’s revisionist UCPN (M). The party lost its place as the biggest party gained by a shock victory in 2008 election, where it garnered 40% of the vote but was now reduced to third party status after the NC and the UML.
In any event, the CPN-Maoist ‘Dashists’ did not halt the election, but held their nerve in spite of powerful domestic and international enemies, a sustained hate campaign from the Brahmin/bourgeois controlled media sequestered in Kathmandu led by the Kantipur Corporation, Nepal’s largest media house, and internal party tensions. Notwithstanding the final number of votes cast, the election showed that the boycotters represented a critical mass of the citizenry. Whatever the outcome of the charade, Kiran said emphatically, they would burn any constitutional declaration emerging from the new CA and “write one in the streets.”

The Caste System & Democratic Deficit

However, it may also be stated that most Dalit leaders are right when they blame the ‘Brahminical’ order of society for the grievous discrimination practiced against them…the reification of the caste system, even to this date, depends for its authority on the socioreligious observances of Brahmins, the high priests of Hinduism.
– V. Rajan “Dalits” and the Caste System in India, p 3, 2010)

As in India, it is formally illegal under the Nepalese Constitution to discriminate on grounds of caste, and the education system is also nominally open to all. In reality though, the caste system remains pervasive with the upper castes constituting 70-80% of personnel in all institutions of the state, education, media, commerce and health sectors, while forming  only approximately 20% of the population.
The Kathmandu Valley Newaris, for example, form 3% of the population but occupy 13% of civil service posts. In the 1990’s it was shown that 80% of civil service, army and police posts were shared among Brahmin and Chetri castes. (14)
A more recent study in 2004 showed little change. Brahmins, while forming 13% of the population, accounted for 74% of top civil service posts. (15) Brahmins also lead the establishment parties which espouse the virtues of western-style multiparty democracy and the global market.
Nepalese Brahmins in politics, culture and business defer easily to fellow Brahmins ascendant in India, claiming a realism similar to the pragmatism of a small boy before a bigger sibling.
This assumes that Nepal and India are ‘family’, albeit one where might confirms right. They also note admiringly that Indian Brahmins have since Independence retained power and privilege in alliance with the Kshatriyas, the military caste, and the Banyias, the commercial and merchant caste, making a mockery of the great Dalit scholar/statesman Ambedkar’s 1947 Constitution prohibiting discrimination on grounds of caste and guaranteeing equality for all citizens.
Words were also cheap in the 1972 Amendment to the Indian Constitution that added the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to the original declaration of ‘sovereign, democratic republic’. Against the evidence and from the beginning India was also touted in the capitalist West as rival to Red China’s ‘totalitarian ant heap’ and gushingly described as the ‘World’s Biggest Democracy’.
Yet caste and democracy are mutually exclusive; caste rule is anti-egalitarian, and democracy requires equality. India and Nepal are clear examples, still controlled by the same caste configuration that in the political sphere refracts into parties and factions with acquired skills, resources and enough cohesion to collectively jump through regular electoral hoops. Effective democratic camouflage disguises elective oligarchy. A lesson well learned from the White Sahib’s mastery over and increasing sophistication in the dark arts of electoral manipulation and illusion, important because the popular mandate confers legitimacy to uninterrupted ascendancy of the bourgeois capitalism.
The Dashists and their allies program the end of the upper caste monopoly of state power by establishing a New Federal People’s Democracy that represents the hitherto excluded Janjatis, Dalits, minorities, working classes and urban underclasses. Federalism is crucial to New Democracy as it means breaking up the centralized Brahminical state by devolving power to previously oppressed national minorities.
It will correct the historic wrong that began with the autocracy founded by Narayan Shah and extended by the Ranas through King Mahendra’s Panchayaat and continued since 1990 with elective dictatorship coalescing around establishment parties as they cartelized political and state power.
It was significant that one of the organized manifestations that followed victory in the 2006 Andolan was the mocking of Prithvi Narayan Shah’s statue in Kathmandu by Janjatis, indicating both that there is continuing antipathy to the oppressive central power he founded and that this historical wound remains very much open. The event was complemented by royalist outrage at such desecration, further testament to the irreconcilability of contending forces in Nepalese society.

Maoist “New Nepal”

From Marx:

…the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalist regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation…
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, p. 73

To the present day:

Gender, Dalit and regional issues are important, and they are tied into the class struggle. But working to solve just these issues will not bring a full solution. This can only be reached by completing the class struggle.
– KB Bishwokarma, Prakanda.

The CPN-M Dashists affirm their wish to break with global capitalism and establish economic autarky featuring tariff walls to protect infant industries along with land reform and infrastructural development, all through socialist state planning and ownership. Nepal, they argue, has failed to straddle the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and its traditional ruling classes have been incapable and unwilling to provide effective governance to tackle deprivation, poverty and inequality. Since 1990 it has increasingly aped India’s development, a huckster capitalism overseen by wholly corrupt caste elites dressed in “emperor’s new clothes” of bourgeois Western multiparty democracy.
Maoists maintain that socialist transformation will improve conditions for the people and ensure genuine national sovereignty. Kiran, citing Mao and Stalin, argues that the national question in the case of Third World countries like Nepal is a class question. These weaker states have become subject to the interests of a dominant First World requiring them to be maintained in various stages of underdevelopment and to enable open markets for imported goods and foreign investment and to increase the plunder of their natural resources to feed insatiable Western consumer societies.
Third World countries are further valuable sources of low-paid indigenous labor for production of cheap commodities intended for the Western market, dramatically highlighted by the 2013 Rana Plaza clothing factory tragedy in Dhaka. These nations also provide a reservoir of migrant labor for international capital projects, graphically exposed by the slave-like conditions endured by émigré workers, many of them Nepalese, on the notorious Qatar World Cup project.
Even if not dramatically affected as migrant workers, neoliberalism, through international institutions led by IMF and World Bank, impacts on the Nepalese masses by shackling its government along with those in other impoverished, underdeveloped Third World countries to market-based austerity policies and denying whole populations benefits of modernity, decent infrastructure, modern schools, basic health care, access to clean water and sanitation, decent housing &c. Measuring everything by market criteria also blocked welfare programs, food subsidies and all state intervention aimed at reduction of poverty or stimulating domestic growth.
In Nepal it has led to growing numbers of Sukumbasi (squatters), increasing, persistent mass unemployment, landlessness, rural flight to towns/cities, especially Kathmandu, exacerbating already high urban poverty, bonded, émigré and child labor; all salient features of a failed state, where a traditional elite continue to flourish, retaining social and economic privilege.
This elite increasingly lives in ‘forts of gold’, while the world and the city outside crumbles over the head of the excluded and increasingly impoverished majority. Kathmandu is symptomatic, where, as in many Third World urban centers, the spectacle of private affluence for the few contrasts starkly with increasing public squalor for the many.
Hope for a more egalitarian Nepal following the 1990 transition from monarchical absolutism to multiparty democracy was quickly dashed in the years of corruption and reaction that followed, when a newly empowered political elite proved even more venal than the Panchas they had supplanted. Ideologically colonized, like the Brahmins of Congress India, they were transfixed by western liberal democracy, whose representative institutions and personal freedoms, they were conditioned to believe, enshrined universally applicable and superior European Enlightenment values.
Whereas imperialists once hawked a Christian Bible, their contemporaries now peddle the snake oil of capitalist democracy as salvation for, in Kipling’s infamous phrase from the poem Recessional, “lesser breeds without the Law”. Just as missionary societies once flourished, now Human Rights industries thrive and NGO’s promoting Western values and practices proliferate, employing some indigenous educated and enlisting them into the comprador class while sustaining patchwork schemes in a parody of development.
From the beginning the conditioning of native elites through education invariably inculcated western values and ideologies which, on one hand informed and articulated claims to national independence and produced the leadership for anticolonial struggle, while one the other, ensured the same leadership was sufficiently psychologically colonized to slavishly adopt after independence the parliamentary model, including the flummery. An exotic plant in wholly unsuitable conditions. (16)
As Franz Fanon caustically opined:

 The colonialist bourgeoisie, in its narcissistic dialogue, expounded by the members of its universities, had in fact deeply implanted in the minds of the colonized intellectual that the essential qualities remain eternal in spite of all the blunders men may make: the essential qualities of the West, of course.(17)

Bourgeois parliamentary institutions emerged in the Europe of the Late Middle Ages as a revolutionary and contingent challenge to residual feudal control by divinely mandated monarchs scattered across the kingdoms of Europe. Increasingly, with bourgeois power assured, they became functional requirements for regulation of class interests and instruments of chauvinist aggression against other nations, initially in Europe. In their early gestation they provided an arena for systemic compromise where differences could be aired and reconciled by parties representing old and new forms of propertied ruling classes in given historical transitions.
This occurred in England following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, establishing a constitutional rapport between Whigs, the nascent bourgeoisie, and Tories, the old landowning class, but significantly this same transformation did not emerge from Les Etats Generaux of Bourbon France, making inevitable the 1789 Revolution and bloody, bourgeois victory over L’Ancien Regime. However, modern First World states, despite the potential democratic threat of universal suffrage, increasingly stabilized, and bourgeois capitalism established unchallenged supremacy.
Parties are now even less class-based, representing sectional interests within the ruling class competing for control of the state apparatus, with elections determining which of the intraclass rivals accedes to government, enabling exercise of executive power and policy implementation until the next poll. Among the mature Western democracies this increasing homogenization of parties barely masks elective bourgeois dictatorship, now tricked out in ballot box ritualism, steeped in what Marx derided as ‘parliamentary cretinism’ and nailed by Engels as:

…an incurable disease, an ailment whose unfortunate victims are permeated by the lofty conviction that the whole world, its history and its future are directed and determined by a majority of votes in just that very representative institution that has the honor of having them in the capacity of its members.
– Frederick Engels, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, 1852, ME Selected Works, Vol 1, p. 370)

Yet this system was adopted by the ex-colonies of the British Empire in Asia and Africa, all of which have signally failed. India is the worst example, especially after the collapse of Nehru’s dreams of socialist democracy involving state ownership, five year plans, and deficit spending within integument of a mixed economy, etc. all evaporated in the early 1960’s, following the disastrous defeat in the war of aggression launched against China in the Kashmir Aksai Chin. Nehru had always allowed for a degree of corruption, but after him it was unchecked; reflected in the Lok Sabha which degenerated into the kleptocracy presently extant.
In Nepal, similarly, after 1990, the new democratic state institutions quickly became synonymous with cronyism, nepotism and carpetbagging. A pervasive corruption disfigured Nepalese society and subsequently Nepal scored 2.2 on the 2011 World Corruption Perception Index, where 10 is ‘very clean’ and 0 is ‘highly corrupt’. (18) The economist Arun Kumar further estimated that the Nepalese black economy, in 2006, accounted for $4 billion in contrast to an official GDP of $7 billion, an even higher percentage than India where the same phenomenon accounts for a still eye-watering 50% of GDP.
Like a fish stinking from the head, the godfathers or Thulo Hakimharu of NC and UML contributed to this state of affairs by pursuing a brazen policy of enrichessez-vous as vigorously as the state campaign of terror and foreign-funded mayhem they unleashed before and during People’s War against the Left and rural agitators who challenged the new corruption.
Nevertheless, communists are not anarchists, grasping that participation in bourgeois elections is often a tactical necessity, so that if on occasion normative bourgeois control of electoral process as a result of political, economic or military crises is problematic, then communist parties should participate, particularly if it offers them the possibility of advancing proletarian interests. It was on such practical eventualities as well as principles that Marx and Engels campaigned for universal suffrage in the Communist Manifesto. They saw communists using the extended franchise to subvert the elective dictatorship of the bourgeoisie:

Transforme, de moyen de duperie qu’il a ete jusqu’ici, en instrument d’emancipation. (Changed by them from the usual means of deception, into one of transformation.)
(K. Marx, Manifesto for French Workers’ Party, 1880. ME Selected Works, Vol 1, p. 546)

It was in this spirit that the  CPN (M) following the CPA entered the 2008
election campaign for a Constituent Assembly from which it emerged as the biggest party with 40% of the vote, to the surprise of many and to the particular alarm of domestic and foreign reactionaries. Prachanda had used his premature cult of personality, giving him unique authority over the party, PLA and United Front, to promise that the CPA would provide access to the towns and cities, enabling the party to use a CA as an engine for bringing the urban masses into the revolution.
The Maoists were aware that they had considerable support in towns and cities but could not connect with it as People’s War had reached military stalemate, with the PLA controlling the countryside and the RNA and Armed Police Force (APF) paramilitaries the urban centers, particularly Kathmandu. It was a logjam that had to be broken if the Prachanda Path strategy, the fusion of Maoist protracted rural struggle and Leninist urban insurrection, was to succeed and the revolution carried through.
In any event, the CPN (M) formed an administration in alliance with the UML with Prachanda as Prime Minister.
The administration’s first act was to abolish the monarchy and declare a republic, but an attempt by Prachanda to bring the army under civilian control by sacking the insubordinate CoS, Katawal and the royalist generals around him for refusing to integrate PLA ex-combatants en corps into the NA as per the CPA provoked a virtual coup openly orchestrated from New Delhi involving its Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) foreign intelligence service acting in collusion with NA officers and apparatchiks from NC, UML and UDMF.
This resulted in Yadhev, Nepal’s first President, significantly one of the few remaining prominent NC Terai Madeshis, exceeding his constitutional authority and reinstating the insubordinate Katawal.
The UML, following instructions from New Delhi, pulled out of the coalition, and with the Maoists now unable to secure a majority in the CA, Nepal’s first Maoist-led government collapsed after only eight months in office.
What provoked New Delhi to act with such speed and malice was triggered by Prachanda’s challenge to India’s right of veto over Nepal’s foreign policy by ‘playing the China card’, repeating Birendra’s ‘mistake’ with an attempted arms purchase from the PRC. Any hint of a China/Nepal alliance was anathema also to the Nepalese officer class and high command, who were historically close to India, and had, post-9/11, forged a deep relationship with Washington and the Pentagon, based on dollars, weaponry and training in return for allowing Nepal to become another link in the US chain surrounding the People’s Republic.
When Biplav (Netra Bikram Chand) was asked during the 2013 boycott campaign why he opposed elections, he replied that Maoists were not opposed to them per se as they were a ‘relative matter’. He opposed this specific one as political and financial larceny on a grand scale, attesting:
“It is a criminal conspiracy against the Nepalese working class.”
The 2009 coup showed that electoral results as democratic expressions of the popular will are also, when the occasion demands, a ‘relative matter’ even for those who peddle democracy as a universal panacea at least when it serves class interest but are as quick to ignore or subvert it when it doesn’t.

Class and Patriotism

It would not be incorrect, if very insulting, to say that Nepal’s top leadership vis-à-vis India, has been morally bankrupt, greedy, hypocritical and have served as no more than errand boys. People are tired of these slick, fast-talking politicians. In fact their reputation has gone down the drain. In a culture aimed above all at seizing power, with material motivations, political democracy and thereby sustained peace is unlikely.
– G. Thapa, Republica, Nepalese daily newspaper, September 30, 2013.

Marxist-Leninists argue that nation and class are linked in Third World countries. In these countries, traditional ruling elites and the emerging bourgeoisie have been suborned by transnational capitalism and accept
neocolonial status as preferable to revolutionary change and national independence. It is therefore not in their increasingly cosmopolitan class interests to seek genuine self-determination; only the exploited working and marginalized classes have a genuine interest in such an outcome. (19) The symbiosis of communism and patriotism is therefore contingent to the epoch of imperialism.
The lack of concern of the present ruling elite for its people is shown in the case of Nepali migrant workers in Qatar, cited above, because their remittances contribute over 25% when included within the tourist/service sector’s contribution to GDP. At the macro level they improve the immediate balance of payments but over a longer term contribute to decline in manufacturing and agriculture, which leads to rises in imports, augmenting the structural weaknesses noted earlier in the economy.
Aside from BOP advantages, the money sent back also reduces governmental responsibility for the alleviation of poverty, especially in rural areas. Consequently there has been little or no representation from successive governments for the rights and well-being of the estimated 2.2 million émigré Nepalese presently working in India, Malaysia and the Middle East. (20)
This echoes an early initiative of Jonge Bahadur, who established Rana power after 1846 Red Kot Massacre by reducing the monarchy to titular status. He negotiated a payment per head for every Ghurkha recruited into the British Army. (21) This was one aspect of a new strategic alliance with the East India Company through which the new rulers began to draw material benefit from trading their subjects as commodities in the form of mercenaries, while being left unchallenged in Nepal to establish Rana monopoly control over all trade and to plunder state coffers and lands with impunity.
The arc that connects the establishment of Gurkha mercenaries with migrant labor is one where benefit accrues to the same high castes exercising state power, albeit under superficially different political systems by different means of extraction in different epochs.
Kiran’s Maoists, in this sense, expand the concept of patriotism beyond concern for territory and existing culture into one that includes the justice and welfare of the people. This criterion goes beyond but does not ignore traditional concerns: the defense of borders against constant Indian encroachments, ending the shameless political obedience to Delhi, the rolling back of foreign ownership in vital economic sectors, and protecting Nepal’s largely untapped vast hydro resources from continued Indian predation.
The CPN-M Dashists are equally quick to point out that they are only anti-Indian to the extent that they oppose the Indian government’s neocolonialist meddling in Nepal. The hatred of Brahminical expansionist policies does not extend to the Indian people, who they argue have and are beginning to make their own revolution against the same enemy.
This internationalist perspective is axiomatic for the patriotism of national liberation struggles in countries oppressed by imperialism and distinguishes it from bourgeois chauvinist nationalism that breeds racist hatred and jingoist aggression. This was the ideology that fueled rivalry between the nascent European states and then mutated into the racial superiority engendered by the subsequent colonization and subjugation of native peoples in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
Imperialism no longer requires direct colonial occupation but operates in neo- or semi-colonial form. Exploitation of peoples and resources continue, and even intensify, but are now fronted by local ruling elites, comprador upper castes and classes, conditioned and rewarded to front for and spare imperialist powers from the obloquy and resistance engendered by 19th century European colonial empires.
Mao described the modus operandi:

When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war but by milder means – political, economic and cultural – the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people.
– Mao Zedong, On Contradiction, Selected Works, Vol 1, p.331

The present Nepalese ruling class, in this respect, cannot represent the national interest, Maoists aver, as they constitute an anti-patriotic bloc sustained by and servant to international capital and great power geopolitics. Kiran concluded:

Both the King and the Nepali Congress Party represent the feudal, bureaucratic and comprador bourgeoisie.

Patriotism in Nepal and similar Third World countries, is not, argue the Maoists, ‘a refuge for the scoundrel’, but rather a home for the homeless and the hope of the hopeless. In this regard Pushpa Lal, when founding the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) in 1949, absorbed Mao’s definition of patriotism and learned how the Koumintang degenerated from the patriots of Sun Yat Sen into the quislings of Chiang Kai Chek. He also derived lessons from the Soviet Union’s Great Patriotic War against Germany’s virulent, fascist imperialism. Patriotism in the modern age was, by these examples, anti-imperialist by definition.
Therefore, in the epoch of imperialism, the mantle of patriotism falls upon the shoulders of the proletariat in the oppressed Third World. The bourgeoisie in the metropolitan heartlands invoke it to mask imperial aggression and aggrandizement, while the big bourgeoisie of monopoly financial and industrial capital have transcended the nation-state and its parochial ideology, instead pledging allegiance to the ascending global megalopolis of money.

Communist Politics: 1949-2014

Inspired by China’s liberation in 1949, the newly founded Communist Party of Nepal took up arms against the Rana regime, which was in power via an alliance with NC led by the Koirala brothers and royalist forces under King Tribhuvan (Nepal’s Ivan the Terrible to the Ranas’ Boyars) Together they forged a Mukti Senaa (Liberation Army) which invaded from India in 1950/51.
These activities were supported, with arms, funds and facilities and funded by Nehru’s Congress government, and even included providing officer staff from Bose’s recently demobilized Indian National Army. Nehru had already godfathered the creation of Nepali Congress in 1948 from progressive Nepalese democrats exiled in India, and wanted to settle accounts with the pro-British Ranas. In the final event India limited their support to the NC, forcing it into a three-way peace agreement with the Ranas and the King.
There followed a short-lived NC/Rana coalition government, the collapse of which signaled a decade of political struggle between the NC and the King, followed by thirty years of monarchial executive government, with New Delhi steering a seemingly contradictory ‘Two-Pillar’ policy of supporting the monarchy and the aspiring democrats of Nepali Congress.
Lal, who, in 1949 first translated the Communist Manifesto into Nepalese, linked armed struggle to a domestic program, principally advocating a ‘Land to the Tiller’ policy in tandem with breaking up big feudal estates and following the example of China’s ‘New Democracy’ also proclaimed the intention of promoting state-sponsored national capitalism.
The party also advocated a Constitutional Assembly, which was agreed among all the parties, foreign and domestic, but reneged on by Tribhuvan’s successor, Mahendra, who, following the 1960 coup, replaced the parliamentary system with a feudal Panchayat, a series of interlocked consultative committees, starting at village level and ending with the King as final arbiter.
It was in these conditions of a Shah/Brahmin autocracy and the international US-led post-1945 onslaught to roll back Communism that saw the Communist Party and movement grow, recruiting from the intelligentsia, disillusioned radical NC members, urban workers, Dalits and oppressed rural minorities.
However, aside from having to operate underground, it faced the same problem as that of succeeding communist parties and cadre in maintaining a united revolutionary line. Lal’s CPN split in the early 1960’s between pro-Moscow reformists such as Tulsi Lal Amatya and pro-Beijing revolutionaries.
There was a parallel split between the Rayamajhi faction which scuttled off to serve the Panchayat system and Puspha Lal, who remained committed to proletarian revolution against domestic reaction and international US imperialism, supported by Mao’s communist China,  at least until Deng Xiaoping’s 1976 Rightist coup left the proletariat at home and abroad to its own devices.
After the Japha Uprising in 1971, Nepal’s first communist armed struggle, the UML emerged. But by 1990, it was fully committed to multiparty democracy and conciliation with Delhi, following the lead set by its homologues in Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Its transformation into a comprador bourgeois parliamentary party epitomized when the short-lived 1994 UML Adhikary administration instigated the Integrated Mahakali Treaty, which, under its NC successor, signed after an orgy of corruption, ceded sovereignty of the river to India. The UCPN (Maoist) path from People’s War into parliamentary politics and accommodation with Delhi has already been noted.
However, Nepalese communism, while disputatious, has shown great vigor, and unlike the post-1945 Western communist parties has never surrendered intellectual or political hegemony to the bourgeoisie. Schisms and splits followed deviations, but the result always ensured that the torch of patriotic, anti-imperialist revolution was passed to a new generation and party. The CPN-M is the latest manifestation of this cycle of action and reaction and may not be the last, but it has inherited the legacy of Puspha Lal Shrestha at a time when Luxemburg’s historical option of ‘Socialism or barbarism?’ confronts with even greater urgency, a century after she coined her prophetic question.

Jo Chor Usko Thulo Sor (Proverb: ‘He Who Steals Shouts Aloud’)

The feudal system was by no means brought complete from Germany, but had its origin, as far as the conquerors were concerned, in the martial organization of the army during the actual conquest, and this evolved after the conquest into the feudal system proper through the action of the productive forces found in the conquered countries.
– K Marx, Feuerbach – Opposition of Materialist and Idealist Outlook, Selected Works, Vol 1, p.72)

Nepal was unified in 1769 when the Gorkhali warrior state subdued the three kingdoms in the Kathmandu Valley and created a myriad of fifty or more smaller principalities under the leadership of Prithi Narayan, who became its first Shah and centralized royal power in Kathmandu. It was not an organic process with common national identity evolving from a shared history, economy, language or culture but one of force majeure that involved conquest and subjugation over many indigenous ethnicities, each with their own language and customs.
Narayan Shah’s ruthless empire building was partly driven by desire to forestall the inexorable northeastern expansion of the East Indian Company, then easily colonizing small kingdoms in its path. The creation of a martial Greater Nepal did indeed halt the feringhees (foreigners) advance, which appeared unstoppable following Clive’s decisive victory at Palashi (Plassey) over the Nawab of Bengal in 1757. This battle secured Company rule over India until the precise centennial challenge of the first War of Independence in 1857, denigrated by the British using the euphemism, ‘The Indian Mutiny’.
However, a decade after Plassey, in 1767, Narayan Shah’s Gurkhali army routed a British expeditionary force under Captain Kinloch at Sindhulighadi and kept the greedy, expansionist British in the guise of the East India Company out of Nepal until the second decade of the 19th century and, many claim, helped ensure that the country was never formally colonized. It necessitated creating a domestic power imbalance with a minority ruling a majority that, apart from some cosmetic modification, exists to the present day and for a century was marked by Rana regimes so servile to British interests that invasion and colonization were rendered unnecessary.

1769 – The Dawn of the Hindu Kingdom

The extent of dominion had been acquired entirely during the last fifty years, by the systematic prosecution of a policy likened by the Goorkhas themselves, and not inaptly so, to that which had gained for us the empire of Hindoostan.
– HT Prinsep, The Goorkha War, p 9, 1825)

Prithvi Narayan Shah established a state in Nepal that in many way was analogous with those of European feudalism that emerged from the collapse of the Roman Empire and lasted until the rise of capitalism in the late Middle Ages. It also was an agricultural society presided over by a divinely ordained monarch, nobility and priesthood existing on the labor and produce of a mass of serfs. Even the manner of its inception by force of arms echoes Marx’s comments on the origins of feudalism in Northern Europe as a response to anarchy and decay of the times:

From these conditions and the mode of organization determined by them, feudal property developed under the influence of the Germanic military constitution. (Marx-Engels, Feuerbach – Opposition of Materialist & Idealist Outlook, p.23. ME Selected Works, Vol. 1)

In this respect, Narayan Shah’s unification of Nepal was similar to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, where advanced military forces involving disciplined infantry and cavalry in integrated battle tactics was decisive in sweeping aside patchy and ill-coordinated Anglo-Saxon resistance.
In terms of comparative logistics and technical support, it was complemented by Narayan Shah’s adoption of modern weaponry and training of a third of his army along British lines that proved crucial to eventual success in a grueling twenty-year campaign culminating in the declaration of Nepal as a Hindu Kingdom in 1769.
Gorkhalis and Normans conquered foreign lands and peoples, and Kings William and Narayan used countrywide grants of confiscated lands to their warrior and clerical castes as both reward for past service and to secure the future of the central regime. In each case repression was used to entrench the system and reduce respective populations to serf/Shudra servility. The speed and ruthless nature of Norman expropriations was such that by the end of William’s reign in 1087, 20% of the land was owned by the royal family, 25% by ten of his leading nobles and another 25% by the Church.
It was a more attenuated process in Nepal, but by the time of the Ranas in mid-19th century, similar patterns in ownership and access to land were firmly established that, despite some fragmentation and formal abolition of feudal land titles, remain into the 21st century for want of serious reform. A 2004 Human Development Report, UNDP, reported the top 5% owning 37% of the land, with the bottom 47% in possession of 15% (22). A decade earlier the Maoists presented more dramatic statistics calculating the top 10% as owning 65% of the cultivable land with exactly reversed percentages for poor peasant possession of land. (23)
From the birth of the new state, each of the subjugated peoples were subject to feudal rent in labor, goods or money in the case of Nepal where a sizable portion took immediate monetary form, while in Europe such remittance mode emerged gradually, attenuated by feudal society fragmenting under the impact of a growing urban society of flourishing markets and small-scale commodity production. In this situation money’s use-value as means of facilitating commodity exchange enriched and accelerated the rise of an increasingly prosperous merchant burger class that finally burst the constraints of European feudalism.

Land Tenure Post-1769

Should the direct producers not be confronted by a private landlord, but rather, as in Asia under direct subordination to a state which stands over them as their landlord and simultaneously as sovereign, then rent and taxes coincide, or rather, there exists no tax which differs from this form of ground-rent. Under such circumstances there need exist no stronger political or economic pressure than that common to all subjection to that state. The state is then the supreme lord. Sovereignty here consists in the ownership of land concentrated on a national scale.
– Marx, Capital Vol 3, p 791, New World edition)

Aside from the geopolitical considerations of blocking the feringhees, the Gorkha state was driven by hunger for land, and Narayan Shah particularly desired the fertile Kathmandu Valley. Brahmins and Rajputs who had settled across Nepal, having being uprooted from North India by Mughal invasion and settlement, were also instrumental in securing the new system established by Narayan Shah from the Kathmandu center.
They were particularly enthusiastic participants in the abolition of tribal land rights and the creation of a royal monopoly over all land under the Raikar Law. This allowed for individual/family use and transfer as long as taxes were paid to the King’s state treasury. Private ownership of land eventually mutated from this private use, creating a largely Brahmin landlord class.
When Raikar was abolished in 1950, the system accounted for 50% of cultivated land. Equally important for the Shahs and especially the later Ranas was Birta tenure where land was allotted to servants and soldiers of the King free of tax. When it was abolished in 1959, it accounted for 36% of cultivated land. (24)
The Guthi system further allowed for state or private grants of land to religious institutions and was free from tax and repossession by the donor. This continues to the present time but accounts for only 2% of cultivated land.
A specific subset of Birta was Jagir tenure, which was land in lieu of pay to army personnel, both officers and privates, which intensified expropriations of a scarce resource and entrenched the new order by, as one historian notes:

…granting of Jagir lands to such of them as received appointments in the government and army was an important factor contributing to the stability and organization of the newly established regime. Without the Jagir system it would have been virtually impossible for the government to distribute rewards to its nobility and military personnel.
Land Ownership in Nepal, p 74, MC Regmi).

Certain ethnic groups in Eastern Nepal had traditional rights to common land under the Kipat system. The Limbus in particular had these rights as quid pro quo for their agreement in 1774 to accept merger with Nepal under Narayan Shah’s sovereignty, which extracted a pledge that Kipat land would remain outside the Raikar system in perpetuity. This was never honored by succeeding shahs and particularly the later Rana regimes that relentlessly encroached upon these lands during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Limbus suffered especially as literate and legally informed Brahmins exploited their skills to dispossess them of their traditional lands. It was comparable to the enclosures of Tudor and Georgian England, where the gentry used Acts of Parliaments to dispossess an equally unwitting rural people of their common lands.
Rai Kipat land was largely untouched, reflecting the uneven development in the extension of royal autocratic hegemony mingled with deliberate divide et impera strategy. It shows how oppression was relative, with some national minorities eventually binding to and serving Narayan’s state, even applying stratification by caste among their own peoples, acquiescent in their deities’ acceptance as avatars of the Hindu God, &c.

Caste and the Feudal State

When born in the same way – all are one. None superior –none inferior. What is the use of caste that discriminates between human beings?
– From Basavanna’s Vachanas, written by a 12th century Indian philosopher/statesman.

The modalities of tenure imposed by the first Shah were pivotal in creating the economic and political sinews of a strong central state and went hand-in-hand with the imposition of the Hindu caste system throughout the country. This showed that feudalism in Nepal, while it shared features with the European variety, was deeply rooted in the culture of Indian tributary societies which flourished in the Middle Kingdoms between the first and thirteenth centuries.
The caste system originated as a means for a colonizing group of light-skinned Indo-Aryans to distinguish themselves from the indigenous dark aboriginal peoples (Adivhasis) they were colonizing by establishing three Varnas (Varna denotes color) – Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishaya in order of superiority.
However, according to scholars, by the time of Gupta Dynasty around 100 AD, this structure was recast as a socioeconomic hierarchy after large grants of land were given to the Brahmin priests, administrators, astrologers, temples and monastic institutions. This largesse had earlier been declared a sacred duty in the Dharmashastra, Hinduism’s foundational scripts where Brahmins are declared Pratigraha, the one caste entitled to receive gifts. There are further references along these lines in the epic poem Mahabharata.
The fourth caste, Shudras, were called forth during this period as an agricultural labor force in servile symbiosis with a rapidly expanding landlord class. Slaves at worst, chattel at best; a Shudra could be killed by a Brahmin with impunity. They were untouchables, subject to enforced endogamy and exclusion. The peasantry of contemporary village India are their descendants. Eventually a fifth category evolved, Dalits (Hindi for oppressed) which took over menial tasks connected with bodily waste, pollution and dirt – they and other tribal subgroups became the ‘Untouchables’.
This essentially was the system that Narayan Shah and his Gorkha warriors imposed upon Nepal, notwithstanding the Shah’s attempt at inclusivity by describing his Kingdom as ‘a garden of four castes and thirty-six subcastes’. No rosy description could, however, mask the reality of a ruthless struggle for land (intensified by salient, topographical fact that only 20% of the country’s area is cultivable) resulting in the new masters seizing the best land and extracting disproportionate produce as feudal rent.
Janjatis were accorded the same status as Shudras and Dalits, and aside from extractions of surplus and rent, had to provide free labor for specified periods and military service as necessary, under the Jhara Code, comparable to Corvee Labor in European feudalism. Hindu patriarchal law deprived Janjati village and farmstead women of property rights. This was accompanied by a sustained campaign to ban ethnic languages and culture that culminated in the Panchayat slogan: ‘One nation, one king, one language.’

Religion in Tributary/Feudal Society

In Kalikot, Hinduism has incurred into disfavor after the Maoist uprising, temples have been abandoned or even demolished. There was no use for them after the upper castes lost their land and moved to the city. In this place we had a temple of Dedhedu, and we were not allowed to enter the temple from this area onward. If we are not allowed to worship the idols that we ourselves made, then there is no point. We came to understand this and stopped maintaining the place.”
– Interview with Dalit Kalikot resident.

The Panchas did not add ‘One God’ to the attributes of the Khas nation as this was axiomatic to the state’s divine Hindu conception where religion was integral, functioning as means of ideological control over the laboring masses. It is strikingly similar to the role played by the pre-Reformation, Roman Catholic Church in European feudalism.
The Church of Rome preached that serfs were chattel, a property category introduced into the world as divine retribution for the original sin of Adam and Eve and carried from birth by their descendants. However, by virtuously accepting his/her lot and offering it up as penance in this life, a serf could attain a ‘state of grace’, ensuring admittance in the next life to Heaven at Dies Irae (Judgment Day). The Church was also a great land and serf owner and had a vested material interest in the temporal status quo. As is so often with organized religion, the basest of motives were tricked out as divinely inspired credo by ferocious, proselytizing clergy.
Their Hindu Brahmin homologues achieved the same end by teaching Shudras, Dalits, and other lower castes that their reward for accepting low caste in this life and creating good karma would be reincarnation into a higher one in the next. There is a potentially endless cycle of life, death and rebirth expressed in the concept of Samsara until the totality of Karma, achieved by soul’s migration through various physical manifestations is sufficient to achieve final mukti (liberation).
There are, of course, significant differences between Catholicism and Hinduism – one a transnational, centralized, corporate entity, the other a syncretic, subcontinental, decentralized network, but in credal terms of ‘justifying the ways of God to Man’ as mechanisms for strict hierarchical control, they were equally prescriptive. The Brahmins are as fanatical about  prohibiting intercaste marriage or upholding Sati as Catholic clerics were about burning heretics for denying the Trinity or Transubstantiation doctrines.
Each presented priestly castes functioning to reconcile the exploited and submerged masses to their inferior position by rationalizing the respective socioeconomic systems as ‘divinely ordained’ and eternal. The historian Kosambhi’s assessment below on role of caste in Hinduism could be equally applied to that of the Catholic Church in medieval Europe.

Caste is class at a primitive level of production, a religious method of forming a social consciousness in such a manner that the primary producer is deprived of his surplus with the minimum of coercion.
– D. D. Kosambhi, Combined Methods in Indology, p 59.

Consensus and Conquest

Whatever the arguments concerning the urban genesis of Indian feudalism (25) in the Gupta period (300-600 AD), there is no doubt that in Nepal it was driven from a central urban power in Kathmandu. Whereas towns and cities in Europe rose in opposition to the feudal countryside, in Nepal the city of Kathmandu was instrumental in superimposing a unified feudal system in a region, and the process was marked by an uneven impact upon urban and rural populations. For the former it was consolidation or even preservation, for the latter – a ’Big Bang’ whose reverberations, like the cosmic microwave background, are still detectable.
In this regard, the unification of the petty principalities, city states and major kingdoms within the Gandaki Basin of Central Nepal ranging from Pokhara to Kathmandu was facilitated by shared Indo-Aryan ethnicity, religion and language among the various protagonists. The regional ubiquity of Hindu upper castes – Brahmins, Chetris, Newaris, Thakuris and Rajputs – in various independent micropolities, petty principalities and kingdoms thus enabled Narayan Shah to develop a strategy that allowed for guile, diplomacy or force of arms to be juggled as necessary on a shared terrain as predominantly a manageable political or dynastic problem.
Most of the town and city statelets absorbed were, nolens volens, either feudal or proto-feudal, with rural lower castes and untouchables producing the agricultural surplus appropriated by urban higher castes.
Devout Hindus obviously welcomed the extension of the caste system that underpinned their privileged conditions of existence but were also roused by the Gorkhali King’s call to defend Hinduism against the Christian feringhees’ inexorable advance – Bible in one hand, rifle in the other. The warrior castes, forged in the wars against Buddhism and the later Mughal incursion, responded with particular fervor, ensuring them an influential position in the ruling elite thereafter.
For the Janjati Tibeto-Burman (26) peoples it was a military conquest by Indo-Aryans subjecting them to economic exploitation and cultural coercion. It created multifaceted oppression based on ethnicity, caste and gender that intensified under the Ranas who, led by Jonge Bahadur Rana, seized power in 1846. The Ranas were Rajput warriors (the name means, ‘field of battle’) raised originally by Narayan Shah, and their century-long rule was marked by persecution, corruption, and debauchery. In return for being left alone to plunder the country, a succession of mostly Shamsher Ranas developed a neocolonial relationship with the British that began seriously starting with the 1857 War of Independence.
Domestically, they used the Birta system extensively in order to seize more land, which increased rural deprivation and landlessness. Birta was particularly applied to award large tracts of the fertile Terai Plains to the Rana clan and other upper castes such as Thakhuris, Brahmins, Chhetris and Rajputs.
The 1854 Muluki Ain (Country/Civil Law) was essential to the process of freezing Nepal in the Middle Age. This set of laws derived from orthodox the Hindu sanctions and laws of the Dharmashastras, giving legal validation to the caste system by, inter alia, prohibiting intercaste mixing, regulating submission of peasants before landlords, and generally preserving the sociocultural and economic status quo. It also continued the tradition of Brahmins being exempt in law from capital or corporal punishment.
There was always resistance in some form to Rana autocracy – for example, the Gurung and Magar Risings in the 19th century and the mass movement inspired by a young widow, Yog Maya, a campaign for rural justice and against caste discrimination which lasted for two decades until the early 1930s. The response to any challenge to the existing order, whether socioeconomic or political, was always repression. In 1940 activists from the Prajaa Parisad (Citizens’ Council) Party were hung for daring to advocate a constitutional monarchy.
While the Ranas’ political grip was loosened after 1950, it has maintained military influence in the officer class and high command of the Nepalese Army, with the present Chief of Army Staff, J. B. Rana, one of the seven Ranas out of eleven occupants of the post since 1974.

Failure of Post-1950 Land Reforms

Towards the end of the uncertain 1950s’, Nehru’s duplicitous Delhi Compromise disintegrated, with the Ranas retiring from political, but not military, power. Nepali Congress and King Mahendra entered a struggle to determine ascendancy, as the democratically elected 1959 Koirala government tentatively began land reform with the twin aims of raising agricultural productivity and alleviating rural poverty.
This was undermined in 1960 by Mahendra’s military coup, proroguing parliament, banning political parties and trade unions, and beginning direct monarchical rule through a Panchayat system of ‘managed democracy’, and in 1962 implementing a pro-landlord program.
This provoked the American agronomist who had helped draft the previous NC administration’s progressive legislation complaining, in a 1963 letter,that landlords were an obstacle to reform because:

They opposed any attempt to improve the situation of tenants.
They were content with low productivity because it generated enough surplus that would be at risk from reform. They were pursuing narrow caste/class sectional interests at the expense of national prosperity and advancing the forces of agricultural production. (27)
Garibiko Bahas. Discussion on Poverty

However, by this time Mahendra had consolidated power with help of a ruling elite that included a significant tranche of landlords and therefore substantial reforms such as setting upper limits on land ownership, increasing access to land for marginalized groups, and greater legal protection for poorer tenants were rejected. Subsequently, his successors, kings and democrats alike, emulated this approach, paying lip service to land reform and radical transformation of the agricultural sector.
Probing Mahendra’s support for the landlords encapsulates the premise of this essay, limning a ruling elite that established its caste predominance by force majeure in 1769 and was still clinging to political power and economic privilege.
Looking at the composition of the landlord class extant at Mahendra’s accession provides a microcosm of Nepalese history, with soldiers and high civil servants from established Brahmin and Chetri castes forming a core of absentee landlords. This was leavened by in situ landlords who became the activists and officers (Panchas) of the Panchayat system and were instrumental in implementing the 1967 ‘Back to the Village’ campaign and generally eliminating rural opposition to the absolutist regime.
From 1964 on there were a succession of five Land Acts, none of which led to any perceptible change to the basic inequities suffered by the rural masses. Hopes for restructuring the sector were dashed when both NC and UML’s ‘Land to the Tiller’ policies failed to survive the transition from underground to legality, following the 1990 Andolan that humbled King Birendra and established for New Delhi a more amenable multiparty system.
The short-lived 1996 Adikhari UML-led coalition administration tried to pick up the pieces and set up the Badal Commission which recommended measures to increase access to land by hitherto marginalized rural peoples. Its recommendations fell with the government that commissioned it, and reform was off the agenda, as successive administrations preferred stasis to reform.
The NC-led Deuba regime, in 2002, did propose a program of radical change, ostensibly to aid poor farmers and tenants but which in reality turned out to be a political stratagem rather than a serious reform initiative, the purpose of which was to neutralize and outbid support for the Maoists’ truly radical rural agenda at the height of People’s War.
The only changes attempted by the many governments from 1990-2006 were guided by neoliberal policies enforced on loan-dependent Nepal by the IMF and World Bank. Permitting only market mechanisms, they enabled the landlord-moneyed class to acquire even more land through a Land Bank. Furthermore, land registration and government improvement grants were designed to benefit big Hindu landlords. Meanwhile, the governments resisted ceilings on land ownership aimed at sharing land more equably by creating tenancies among the hitherto landless and marginalized rural populations and also rejected improving rights and security of tenure for existing small and single family tenancies.

Failure of Post-1990 Land Reform

It was significant that the landlord class, following the collapse of the Panchayat system in 1990, flocked into the ranks of Nepali Congress, entrenching it further as a formidable conservative bloc, winning the 1991 election that, after a hiccup, saw the ferocious anti-communist GP Koirala installed as Prime Minister. He needed little urging to launch a harsh campaign of state repression against the urban Left and their Janjati allies in the countryside.
This commenced in April 1992 with police shooting demonstrators in Kathmandu and led remorselessly to the notorious 1995 Operation Romeo which subjected the western district of Rolpa to sustained police terror, lasting weeks and featuring arbitrary killing, rape and mass arrests, followed by detention and often torture. This insensate, brutal operation was decisive in swelling the ranks of a nascent Maobaadi (Maoist) PLA, and provided the spark that ignited a prairie fire of rural revolution marking the decade following 1996. Dr. Bhatterai provided an overview:

The most disadvantaged regions within the country include those inhabited by indigenous people since time immemorial. These regions, which were independent tribal states prior to the formation of the unified state in the latter half of the 18th century, have been reduced to the most backward and oppressed condition due to internal feudal exploitation and external semi-colonial oppression.
They have been left behind in the historical development process because of the blockade of their path to independent development and the imposition of sociocultural oppression along with economic oppression with the backing of the state, by forces that came from outside.
B. Bhatterai, Political Economy of People’s War, 1997, from PW in Nepal, Seddon-Karki, p 153)

It was no accident therefore, that the Maoists in 1996 chose to launch People’s War from rural West Nepal, beginning with the ransacking of an Agricultural Development Bank office located, with appropriate historical symmetry, in Gorkha District. Loan agreements lodged there, which extracted rent from tenant farmers by usurious repayments, were seized and torched, while ownership documents, held as collateral against the loans, were carefully retrieved and returned to respective titleholders.
It was no accident that land reform was a key element in 2006 negotiations for CPA, where Maoists wanted further confiscation of land from the big landlords without compensation and the application of ‘scientific management’ to agriculture. In so doing they were echoing longstanding communist aims of land reform, highlighted in the 40 demands promulgated in 1996 by CPN (M) and whose anticipated rejection was the trigger for People’s War.
Communists and anti-imperialists argue land reform is crucial for underdeveloped Third World countries if they are to gestate into modern genuinely independent societies. Forgetting the propaganda about it being the ‘world’s biggest democracy’, India is presently the world’s greatest failed state, with staggering levels of poverty and deprivation.
This stems from the failure to transform its inefficient feudal land system after independence, because, prior to it, Gandhi and Nehru had made an alliance with the feudal landlords and guaranteed their property and privilege. The much vaunted ‘Green Revolution’ of the 1960’s came and went without altering the systemic depressing reality noted by a leading economist:

Famines in India were very frequent during the period 1940’s to 1970’s. Due to faulty distribution of food and because farmers did not receive the true value of their labors, the majority of the population did not get enough food. Malnutrition and starvation were a huge problem.
Sen, A. Poverty and Famine, 1981

In 2008 the World Bank estimated the global poor at 1.29 billion, of whom 400 million were in India. Communist China by contrast expropriated its landlord class and created over 70,000 communes that overcame residual difficulties and not only eliminated famines by 1970, but also, against the background of the mid-1960’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, provided the springboard for Deng Xiaoping’s launching China in the direction of state capitalism (28) after 1976.
Other socialist countries have followed this path: DPRK, Vietnam, and Cuba. Even Japan, post-1945, under MacArthur’s US imperium – initiated land reform clearing away feudalism as precondition for a capitalist future and a bastion against the march of communism in Asia. In all cases it was intended as precursor to industrial development and national autonomy. It is the only way for semi-feudal (29) and feudal societies to advance beyond  subsistence agriculture – by planning, collectivization and ‘scientific management’ in order to expand reproduction and accumulate the surplus necessary to feed the urban populations.
It is especially crucial in supporting a growing working class engaged on infrastructural projects or in domestic industries that hopefully flourish when protected behind tariff walls.
The nature of the society shapes its revolution’s priorities; as Dr Bhatterai, then in camp of revolution, detailed:

In a semi-feudal agriculture based economy like Nepal, the New Democratic revolution means basically an agrarian revolution. Revolutionary land reform, is, therefore, the biggest and the most important economic program of the New Democratic revolution. (B Bhatterai, ibid, p 158)

Summary – Historical Constituents of Discord

The imposition of a feudal system from the urban center created unresolved contradictions in Nepalese society. These contradictions are intensifying under pressurized conditions effected by the modern global capitalist market, but their provenance lies in Narayan Shah’s successful, ruthless unification campaign. More conquest than consensus, it seeded the antagonisms that continue to flourish in a divided, heterogeneous society and are recapitulated below.
1). The urban and rural paradox, which saw an urban center dominating the countryside as was touched on earlier, was an inversion of European feudal experience where towns and cities grew in dynamic opposition to the stagnant nature of rustic society. This caused Marx to remark in the Communist Manifesto that the one thing you could thank the bourgeoisie for, was that they built cities and rescued the mass of the people from ‘rural idiocy’. On the contrary in Nepal, unification and comprehensive extension of Hindu feudalism/Brahminism was driven by an autocratic, central state that remains largely intact and unreformed.
As with many capital cities in the developing world, Kathmandu has also come to epitomize uneven development, with the city growing into a First World citadel, in a Third World society, a progression expedited because its ruling elites in politics, the civil service, the armed forces, business and, increasingly, the media have been suborned by global and regional imperialism, manifested in mixtures of military, economic and cultural Soft Power.
In today’s Nepal, continuing resentment of central power, even dressed up as ‘democracy’, is revealed in dissension between those defending it against federalists seeking to liberate national minorities in the regions.
The CPN (M) placed decentralization among its 40 demands in 1996, and it has since provided detailed policy necessary to establish a federal state. The major parliamentary parties are opposed, wanting to either retain power in the Kathmandu center or gerrymander a federal state that ensures continuing upper caste/class hegemony.
2). Narayan Shah’s triumph is echoed in the confrontation between Hindu Khas chauvinists and Janjati national minorities, with the former from the outset dressing up socioeconomic oppression of the latter in religious and linguist garb. The Rana record of attempting to stamp out the many ethnic languages and cultures is attested, but successive Shahs and soi disant democratic politicians were no better.
As late as 1994, the Adhikari UML administration launched a Sanskrit radio station and tried to make its teaching compulsory in schools. Something to note – Sanskrit, the root of all Indo-Aryan languages as Latin for the European ‘Romantics’, has no linguistic connection with any ethnic minority language in Nepal, and the strategy of its imposition was another cultural humiliation, provoking an anti-Sanskrit campaign led by Janjatis.
This event was a particularly salutary example of the gulf between the UML’s communist appellation and its political practice, which in this case was distinguished by arrogant, implicit Hindutvaism.
Reflecting back to the 1066 conquest of England, Marx, quoted earlier, noted that the Norman system was grafted onto a pre-existing embryonic form of Anglo-Saxon feudalism. It could also be said that the two peoples shared the Catholic faith, perhaps offset by the Papal blessing given to William, rewarding his Ultramontanist credentials and the Church’s temporal interest in extending this more efficient and proven pious Norman feudalism and its own theological-political hegemony.
However, even points of concurrence did not disguise a brutal invasion followed by a century of military oppression at the hands of a French-speaking army and a new nobility ensconced in castle, on expropriated land. The evolution of feudalism into the more benign form of manorialism and the consolidation of Royal and Papal power in England was greatly facilitated by fact that within four generations, the hitherto alien invaders, kings and nobles alike, had abandoned the French language for an evolving English one. This linguistic event was crucial to the formation of the modern English language and vital in establishing a cohesive national identity.
It was not, therefore, unification by force-of-arms at the behest of foreign invaders that has precluded a similar Nepalese national identity from appearing; rather it is the failure to heal the original divisions created between vaunting conqueror and resentful conquered.
3). Landlord and tenant antipathy is rooted in the appropriation and expropriation of land that continued until the second half of the 20th century. The abolition of feudal land tenure and its subsequent mutation from private use to private ownership under market conditions benefited upper caste landlords by enabling them to consolidate their lands, with access to capital giving them immediate preference in acquiring released former royal/state lands.
As shown previously, the pattern of land ownership has scarcely changed since the covetous Ranas and upper castes used the state and its repressive apparatus to monopolize swathes of it. Reforms such as setting ceilings on land holdings were either resisted or circumvented. Small tenants were given few protections, and they either fell prey to usurers or were driven into sharecropping and landlessness.
This last group have swollen to include almost 30% of the rural population, mainly Dalits, ethnics, Terai Muslims, and together they form a reservoir of cheap labor, first supplementing and then replacing Kamaiya bonded labor after its abolition in 2002. Thus the feudal landholders devolved into landlords, rentiers – often absentee – and usurers. Over 80% of this last category were drawn from this traditional rural elite (30) despite the Asian Development Bank’s attempts to break their monopoly of usury. Consequently feudal relations continue to dominate an increasingly proletarianized rural workforce.
4) The crucial component defining the relations of production in the tributary system established by Prithvi Narayan Shah was the rigorous application of the Hindu caste system and the enforcement of it on Buddhist, pantheist, or shamanist Janjatis. The ideas of the ruling class, as Marx observed, tend to constitute the dominant ideas in any society, and in the subcontinent, caste was the Brahmin elite’s mechanism for maintaining and rationalizing oppression and exploitation.
It expressed a fusion of ideological and economic function in a society characterized by the rigid hierarchy of caste and rendered immutable by divine genesis and command:

The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and low
And ordered their estate

This Christian hymn’s maxims are paralleled in the precepts of Hindu casteism as set forth, among other sources, by the God Krishna in the Bhavagad Gita:

“The caste system has been created by me…According to the differentiation of…Karma”
Ch 4, Verse 13
“…of (the castes) the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their nature”
Ch 18, Verse 41

The continuing grip of this system, however informal, is evidence of residual feudal mindset and practice. A contemporary Brahmin is just as likely today to be a newspaper editor, political boss, professional, or civil servant, as a Pujaari (priest) or Jyotisi (astrologer), but this has not diluted the influence of the caste; rather it has equipped it to expand into the many crevices of power in contemporary civil societies.
In all events, the secular opinion-former or the Thulo Hakim (party godfather/boss), laagered in Kathmandu, is no less the arrogant, prescriptive Brahmin, than is the cleric, functioning as interlocutor between humanity and God, under the gold roof of Pashupatinath Temple, on the banks of the Bagmati River that flows through Kathmandu and from where Dalits, as with all temples, are barred from entering.
Caste in Nepal often overlaps with class, with Brahmins and Kshatriya morphing into bourgeoisie, and Dalits in their designated laboring and semi-skilled occupations recalibrating as workers and forming unions. Whatever the taxonomy, caste discrimination remains deeply ingrained in a society dominated by upper caste Hindus, despite the advent of multiparty democracy. Dalits and their organizations and unions have consistently supported the Maoists, seeing the revolution as the means of consigning the system into the dustbin of history.
In this respect the CPN (M) were decisive in purging caste-discriminatory practices in liberated base areas, setting an example that stills cries out for general application.
5). The creation of Nepal under the auspices of deeply patriarchal culture was a qualitative setback for gender equality as post-pubertal females under Hinduism were regarded as domestic chattel to serve and gratify male needs and reproduce the species.
This conflicted with the more liberated mores of Janjati societies based the villages and valleys of the hinterland. They represented the close-knit, gemeinschaft ideal, where survival in a harsh, unforgiving environment, was problematic for both sexes, precluding prejudice and requiring cooperation and mutual respect. Consequently women were influential in the community and could obtain and inherit property.
This was prohibited under Hindu religion and law; women were also stopped from working in the fields under this rubric and generally subject to humiliation and constraints that marked their low status. They suffered the twin oppressions of class and gender, expressed in economic, social and political forms.
The Maobaadi slogan was:

Working Women of the World, Unite. You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Double Chains!!

There is also significant empirical evidence that discrimination has deleterious health effects, especially to lower-caste women. Nepal is unique because female life expectancy has always lagged a few years behind that of males, an inversion of the normative death rate gender differential obtaining in most societies. Up to 2000, the country had one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the world – 875 per 100,000, and it is little better now.
Lower caste women suffer further sexual oppression, are subject to rape with impunity by high caste males and are forced into sex slavery and prostitution. Hindu women, especially in urban centers, are made to observe Teej (husband worship), and the fifth day Tihar (Nepal’s Deepawali) is set aside for Hindu sisters’ Bhai Tikka (brother worship).
However, People’s War raised a challenge to the subordination of women in Nepal; the CPN (M) was committed to female liberation, from Marx to Mao a consistent communist principle, and proved this in the red base areas. There were dramatic effects on women in these zones, both indirect and direct. In the first place the conflict caused male displacement into PLA and militia and accelerated the increasing flight of men into migrant work, leaving the work traditionally assigned to them, from plowing the fields to repairing roofs, to be carried on by females.
That many women enthusiastically took up these challenges and supported the revolutionary cause is further demonstrated by the fact that by the time of CPA, one-third of the 30,000 PLA ranks were women serving alongside men in the front line. As with caste, the Maoists promoted and enforced equality, in stark contrast to the patriarchal and chauvinist Hindu culture of towns and cities. Even these urban centers were affected, as there was an increase in women’s’ organizations and agitation which owed as much to the impact of cosmopolitan petit bourgeois feminism as it did to urban Maoist women engaging in those legal or semi-legal campaigns for women’s rights that were open to them.
However, there remains a long struggle for full equality between the sexes on the subcontinent. The appalling treatment of many, especially Dalit, women in India, highlights the worst effects of Hindu male chauvinism. It is also apparent in culture with the Soft Power of Bollywood and in politics with the election of a Hindutva BJP government showing that patriarchalism is systemic and pervasive on the subcontinent. For Nepal, it forms part of Narayan Shah’s enduring legacy, and for those of Indo-Aryan stock, secular or Hindu, male chauvinism is reinforced by cultural and political mores emanating from ‘Mother India’.

Patriots and Compradors

The major divide between patriots and compradors is not directly attributable to the first Shah but began with the deliberate neocolonialist turn taken by the military clan he had called forth as the monarchy’s Praetorian Guard, the Ranas. Following Jonge Bahadur’s precedent, their subservience to the British rendered direct colonization unnecessary.
In the light of the post-1857 rebellion which the Ranas helped the British put down, the new Raj was more concerned with consolidating what he held than advancing into new territory and he actually returned to Nepal parts of the Terai seized following the 1814-16 Anglo-Nepalese war and Sugauli Treaty.
While the Ranas suffered for their pro-British proclivities in 1950, with Nehru aiding the King and NC invasion, the returned Shahs from Tribhuvan to Gyenendra were always ambivalent towards India. Mahendra, for example, was quite willing to play the China card after its decisive military victory over India in 1962 by securing Peking’s aid in constructing a modern highway from the Tibetan border to Kathmandu. Birendra’s humbling in the events of 1990 Andolan was precipitated by an Indian blockade on Nepal that closed four out of the five major roads and quickly brought hunger to Kathmandu.
This was prompted by the King’s attempt to purchase anti-aircraft equipment from China without consultation with and the agreement of New Delhi. These and other royal stratagems were nevertheless exercises and attempts at national sovereignty opportunistically exploiting interstices in the bedrock of Nepalese general political, cultural and economic deference to India and pragmatic royal acceptance of India’s strategic interests as the regional superpower. This ambivalence continues today as even the two RPP royalist parties are divided by pro- and anti-Indian sentiment.
It is all the more surprising that, from Nehru onward, Indian administrations maintained a ‘Two Pillar’ policy towards Nepal following the collapse of the Delhi Compromise which supported the king and the political parties. It was never a rational option; attempting to balance the conflicting interests of Royalist absolutism and popular democratic sovereignty was destined to end with the victory of one group or another. Tigers want blood – not grass, and New Delhi appears naïve not to have understood this.
It was especially puzzling that it involved India, as mentioned, supporting frequently freewheeling monarchs and marginalizing its natural allies in NC, and latterly UML, who had followed their Indian CPI comrades onto the parliamentary road and establishment status.
New Delhi had a major geopolitical stake in ensuring a compliant regime in Nepal as a bulwark against the threatened proletarian expansionism of the PRC and yet tolerated often opportunist, awkward Nepalese monarchs who, in their turn, were trying to maintain neutrality and pursue and independent foreign policy. They were conscious of Narayan Shah’s warning that: ’Nepal was like a yam between two stones’, therefore, cunning and room for maneuver was required to avoid being crushed.
Why successive Indian administrations continued to tolerate an, at best, ambivalent monarchy, when it had much more congenial partners in waiting is puzzling, especially given that the policy was not abandoned until 2005, when New Delhi finally lost patience and facilitated talks in India allowing the prorogued seven parliamentary parties and the Maoists to forge an anti-Gyanendra alliance.
NC, after all, was created under Nehru’s aegis, and he effectively betrayed the party in the aftermath of the 1950 invasion, with first the Delhi Compromise and next with the subsequent Two Pillar policy.
It may be argued that as the supreme arbiter of power on domestic and international issues, Nehru’s quixotic and capricious nature – if not Brahmin presumption – led to unchallenged contradictions. But even that does not fully explain the persistence of this approach post-Nehru, especially after the 1990 Andolan, which New Delhi precipitated and again drew back from by agreeing to having King Birendra stay on condition of accepting constitutional status (yet crucially allowing him to keep control of the army) in a ‘parliamentary democracy’.
A former Indian diplomat turned critical establishment sage noted in exasperation in 2003:

“There is a serious inherent conflict between the interests of multiparty democracy based on the concept of popular sovereignty and the King’s political aspirations and self-perceived divine role to rule. Even in 1990 the coexistence between the King and the political parties was neither natural, nor sincere nor honest.” (31)
– S. D. Muni

As this essay has argued, it was obvious from 1990 on that the parliamentary parties, governments and upper castes were either supine or in active collusion with Indian interests against the interests of the nation. They stood in even greater neocolonial submission to India than the Ranas before the British Empire. Their anti-national character was reinforced by functioning as agents/functionaries/transmission belts for imperialism in all its manifestations.
There is no role for independent states under the present global imperium. The modern state was called forth by the European bourgeoisie during the early progressive birthing struggles against feudalism. These states later degenerated into a struggle between these new nations across the European continent. It was nationalism distinguished by a xenophobic hatred, intensified when rivalry spread from the continent to a world stage in the age of mercantilism and colonialism as each European power fought rivals for a ‘place in the sun’.
The aim of these various rampaging states was to either exterminate or exploit native peoples and by blocking independent development maintain their subjugation. The aim of the First World has always been to kick away the ladder of protection it climbed up, from under Third World countries preserving them as arenas for super-exploitation. If there are domestic capitalist sectors in underdeveloped countries, they are crushed by unfair competition or leveraged out by multinationals using the dominant financial and political institutions and instruments of international capitalism.
Since national capitalist sectors are not permitted in underdeveloped countries like Nepal, no national bourgeoisie can exist. Only one that is comprador can flourish. Individuals from upper caste/bourgeois backgrounds do at times betray their caste/class interest and join the struggle for national liberation, and their contribution is not negligible, but patriotism finds critical mass among the rural and urban working masses because it is materially intertwined with class interest and takes political counteroffensive against oppressive conditions created by international capital.
For the ‘wretched of the earth’, Fanon’s memorable, passionate characterization, in Nepal and other Shudra states of the present global dispensation, there is no ‘trickle-down’ from the engorging imperial heartlands. The much-touted benefits of capitalism are chimerical, a Coca-Cola sign on a Third World shanty mocking poverty inside.
The gap between a banker on Wall Street and a sharecropper in an Assamese paddy field is as wide and unbridgeable as that between a patrician Brahmin or Newari Thulo Hakim in the gated Lazimpat area of Kathmandu and a barelegged Dalit sanitation operative sifting city filth and inhabiting a hovel in a less salubrious quarter. Capitalist imperialism has overseen Brahmin and bourgeois class rule equalized by mutuality of greed and hierarchical praxis.

Material Basis of Social Contradiction

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history; the simple fact hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even on ideas of religion, have been evolved,…..”
– F. Engels, Speech at the Graveside of Marx, 1883, Selected Works, Vol 3, p 162.)
“…an economic rationale can be provided for the origins of the Indian caste system as it can for European feudalism. All the great Eurasian civilizations being dependent on plow intensive agriculture needed some institutional means to tie labor…..Serfdom, indenture, slavery and the caste system were all ways to do so.”
D. Lal, The Abuse of History, p. 2.

The genesis of Nepal’s divisions principally lies in the system imposed by Narayan Shah after 1769. This was an economic process galvanized by political means, with a ruling elite extracting surplus from downtrodden peasantry in an agricultural society through control of the land. Following Professor R. S. Sharma’s taxonomy (32) of this phenomenon in India during the first millennium AD, the appellation feudalism is used. Asok Rudra created the term ‘Brahminism’ (33) to emphasize the unique nature of the Indian system, rejecting parallels with European feudalism.
What unites them, however, is mutual recognition that, whatever its discrete mechanisms and subsequent nomenclature, this was a tributary society. In other words, a type of pre-capitalist economic formation marked Eurasian history in this period. It was characterized by two main classes – first, a peasantry deployed in communal production, and second, a ruling class comprised of a priesthood, a nobility/military and an absolute monarchy that appropriated the surplus product/labor through control of land by repressive and extra-economic mechanisms
There were marked divergences in the forms taken by these societies in Europe, India and China, but all instantiate the level of class struggle at this historical stage, albeit subject to differential momentum, development trajectories and cultural configurations.
This is applying the methodology of historical materialism, précised in Engels’ quote above, which posits a sociopolitical superstructure arising from and sustained by an economic infrastructure which is appropriate to specific historical stages and the development of the forces of production therein. These successive modes of production encompass therefore not just the technological level of the productive forces but the corresponding relations of production under which they operate.
The conditions under which social formations organize immediate physical necessities such as food and shelter shape their culture and provide a dominant worldview consistent with specific modes of reproduction. There have been qualitatively distinct historical stages in systematizing preconditions of physical existence, each sustaining its appropriate ideology. Marx reasoned:

“The hand mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist. The same men who establish social relations in conformity with their material productivity, produce also principles, ideas and categories, in conformity with their social relations.”(34)
– Karl Marx.

Therefore European feudalism gave rise to Roman Catholicism with all souls subsumed in the Corpus Christi (Body of Christ) and with divinely ordained functions complementing hierarchical society.
Capitalism, for its part, produces bourgeois individualism as an appropriate ideology for a dynamic or even unbridled society that is in constant flux.
Similarly the caste system on the Indian subcontinent, as has been argued earlier and noted by Lal above, is a socioeconomic phenomenon brought forward by exploitative elites applying superstitious doctrine to rationalize and mask their extraction of surplus. It is, as Dr. Ambedkar rightly concluded, a mechanism for the ‘social division of labor’ within an ’unequal hierarchy’.
Just as Hindu metaphysics spawned numerous avatars and manifestations of Para Brahman (the Supreme Being), increasing refinement in allocation of fixed, discrete socioeconomic functions gave rise to a plethora of subcastes and Jatis that remain determinate to this day, despite the impacts of urban cosmopolitanism and the phenomenon of many Dalits and lower castes forming their own organizations and joining trade unions. Hinduism’s credal syncretism contrasts strikingly with the rigidity of its hierarchical stratification by means of caste.
Religion is an ideological component within a general culture and along with political and legal systems is a constituent element of the superstructure which consistently corresponds to the economic base. It is called forth and shaped by ruling classes to serve the base and changes accordingly as it does. It cannot be otherwise. It is not economic determinism, acknowledging there is a reciprocal relationship between the two.
So, for example, changes to the social relations of production in the base give rise to distinct world views; while conversely, political activity in the superstructure such as revolutionary upheaval can transform the base. Feudalism gave way to capitalism, which reduced religion to residual role and developed education as mode of enculturation.
These are Blake’s “mind-forged manacles,” prefiguring Gramsci’s concept of hegemony in civil society, showing how a dominant class maintains ideological control over exploited classes and thereby complements its monopoly of the physical means of repression. Human societies have always commingled consent and coercion in varying combinations according to circumstances and history, but all rest on specific, sequential economic infrastructures that are ‘determinate in the last instance’:

“… According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimate determining factor is the production and reproduction of life.” (Engels to J. Bloch, 1890. ME Selected Works, Vol 3, p.487)

Conclusion

The ideal for any ruling class is where its ideology takes root and is accepted by the subordinate classes as expressing normative, eternal human verities. The lower classes then, as Marx held, “…share the illusion of that epoch” (35). In this essay I have argued that the brutal genesis of modern Nepal continues to engender resistance that precludes mass popular consent to such ‘illusion’ because its inceptional arrangements remain largely intact.
The caste system therefore remains pervasive and influential, if sotto voce, because the upper castes it benefits retain political and economic power, despite changes in polities from monarchy through the Ranas back to the return of monarchy and finally culminating in the multiparty parliamentary system, with each in turn representing a different modality of Brahminical predominance. This elite has lasted nearly two-hundred and fifty years, and it has managed to preserve a feudal/tributary mode beyond its epochal termination elsewhere.
Although circulation of money, small scale commodity production and burgeoning private property penetrated this society assisted by inherent Brahmin avariciousness mediated as hucksterism, it did not produce a strong national capitalist sector. Therefore, it was easily sold out by entrenched upper caste interests ready to accommodate the socioeconomic and geopolitical authority and objectives of India’s Brahminical oligarchs and international capitalism’s power elites and institutions.
Consequently the heirs of Narayan Shah via the neocolonial Ranas have mutated into today’s comprador ruling class, equally marked by cupidity, corruption and cultural capitulation.
The Seven Party Alliance was squeezed between Gyanendra’s royal coup complete with dissolution of parliament and banning of parties on the one hand and the Maoists, strengthened by the gains of Protracted People’s War, on the other. The parliamentary parties in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement gave formal assurances to the latter in order to defeat the former regarding restructuring the state and army.
In the following years, re-energized as a reactionary bloc and assisted/prompted by New Delhi and Washington, the same parties, led by NC and UML, decisively reneged on those commitments which they had conceded in a moment of weakness. Those promises, if translated into effective policies, would have effectively ended their role as Nepal’s traditional governing class functioning from the Kathmandu center.
Thus discord continues to disfigure Nepalese society and is characterized by a plurality of contradictions reflected variously as antipathy between landlord and tenant, Brahmin and Dalit, Khas Hindu and Janjati, comprador and patriot, casteist and egalitarian, capitalist and worker, patriarchalist and feminist, centralist and federalist, Maoist and Status Quoist.
They are all aspects and expressions of fundamental class antagonism, with a ruling elite on the right confronting the interests of the popular masses on the left.
Finally, I will conclude with a quote from an assessment made just after the 2006 CPA outlining the steps necessary to avoid a repetition of Protracted People’s War. It encapsulates the arguments made at greater length in the preceding pages. It is not from class warrior ‘usual suspects’ or any of more erudite and equally committed Nepalese specialists, but it hails from a well-meaning and of course well-funded Norwegian ‘Conflicts Resolution’ NGO:

The long-term conflict trends in Nepal are linked to whether or not one succeeds in replacing social, political and economic exclusion with more inclusive institutions, processes and practices. Continued exclusion on the basis of caste, ethnicity, gender or other means of distinction will provide the basis for continued armed conflict, including the possibility for further violence.
In political terms the key issue revolves around the ongoing efforts to establish legitimate political institutions accepted by all groups in society. In socioeconomic terms, this system will also have to, over time, succeed in becoming more genuinely redistributive that the current system.
In the short term, several factors might trigger increased violence in Nepal, including:
Increasing poverty: As noted above, the poverty and exclusion issue will remain central, in particular for the new regime when it will be established. Meanwhile, the government should succeed in providing at least some symbolic progress on the economic front in order to encourage belief in the system and indicate the way forward.
Ethnic mobilization: With widespread exclusion and discrimination still the norm across Nepali society, the danger will remain that some groups may mobilize on the basis of violence. This danger will grow unless the government and Maoists succeed in driving the negotiations forward and ensure redistribution in broad terms. (36)

These aims, necessary for Nayaa Nepal (New Nepal), have been either ignored or had their implementation blocked by a revived Brahminical status quo that despite its rampant corruption and its inability to provide functional government or generally represent the national interest still clings to power and privilege. Meanwhile the country decays and the people grow poorer while a younger generation takes up the challenge of the unfinished revolution.

“The old world is dying away, and the new world struggles to come forth: now is the time of monsters.” (Gramsci, A. State and Civil Society, Prison Notebooks, p 276)

Gramsci’s apercu applies to the present right/left impasse in Nepalese society – for the moment.

Postscript

In these poor, underdeveloped countries, where the rule is that the greatest wealth is surrounded by the greatest poverty, the army and the police constitute the pillars of the regime; an army and a police (another rule which must not be forgotten) which are advised by foreign experts.
The strength of the police force and the power of the army are proportionate to the stagnation in which the rest of the nation is sunk. By dint of yearly loans, concessions are snatched up by foreigners; scandals are numerous, ministers grow rich, their wives doll themselves up, the members of parliament feather their nests, and there is not a soul down to the simple policemen or the customs officer who does not join in the great procession of corruption.
– F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, 1961, p. 138)

At the turn of the millennium, the Royal Nepalese Army had a complement of approximately 35,000 front line personnel, and bolt-action 303 rifles (first issued to the British Army in 1892) were the standard infantry rifle. Now, post-2008, as the Nepalese Army is 105,000 strong the and standard issue weapon includes the much more deadly American M-16 fully automatic, state of the art, high-velocity, assault rifle, replacing the substandard, fault-prone INSAS light machine gun, India’s generic AK-47.
This results from Washington’s geopolitical strategy of encircling a rising China with a chain in which Nepal forms an important potential link. Egyptianizing the Nepalese Army was important in advancing this aim. Under the pretext of post 9/11 ‘War On Terror’, following the 2002 Powell mission to Kathmandu, Washington agreed to help Gyanendra by equating Maoist rebels with Jihadis in a spurious world ‘crusade’.
In the following years, except for the brief blip of Gyanendra’s absolutist rule, guns, guidance and greenbacks have flowed in to the army as US military advisors implemented a strategy of re-equipping the army. The US has supplied the army with improved weaponry. In the air, the US is supplying aerial reconnaissance and attack capability with helicopters and short take-off-landing aircraft (STOL). And the US has introduced counterinsurgency training. All of this for an army that, prior to being sent into serious action against the PLA following the pro-Maoist King Birendra’s assassination, was only experienced in UN peacekeeping duties in various hotspots.
Through the Office for Defense Cooperation, Nepal’s top military convene monthly at one of the two US Embassies in Kathmandu under the auspices of the US Commander in Chief – Pacific (CINPAC). (37) Many of the NA high command and officer class are Sandhurst trained, and like their Indian Army homologues are willing Koi Hais, the Indian colonial term for a native servant.
Collusion with Uncle Sam, allowing him a forward base in Nepal in return for practical assistance turning the NA into a primarily domestic counterinsurgency force, came easily with this pedigree.
Aside from the Pentagon’s infantry weaponizing of the NA, most of the army’s supplies have come from India. In 2013, India resumed its role of supplying most of the army’s other military requirements, including means for ground and air mobility. This followed an eight year break that had begun in protest against Gyanendra’s coup but was also motivated by suspicion and resentment at growing US presence in India’s traditional sphere of influence.
The recent unity of purpose between Washington and New Delhi in regard to Nepal is evidence of a broader and deeper economic and strategic partnership between the two countries. This has been extended into the military sphere with the Pentagon providing guidance for Operation Green Hunt, a counterinsurgency campaign launched in 2009 aimed at defeating Maoist and Adavasi rebels who are resisting the plunder of resources and destruction of their traditional lands by insatiable multinational corporations in the five states comprising India’s ‘Red Corridor’.
There is also a 40,000 strong paramilitary group, the Armed Police Force (APF). This group was originally set up under Deuba’s NC 2001 administration to offset Gyanendra’s NA monopoly of state repressive potential. With the advent of the republic, it morphed into common purpose with NA, giving the state nearly 150,00 armed personnel at its disposal. The UK, with twice the population of Nepal, has an army half its size of the NA.
Further, Britain’s imperial heritage marks it as a singularly bellicose state, permanently at war with someone somewhere, usually as faithful deputy in various American campaigns of international aggression.
Apart from the People’s War, the Nepalese Army fought a minor war in the 1970’s, routing a marauding Khampa rabble in Mustang Province that had been trained and primed by the CIA to cross into Tibet and continue America’s war-by-proxy against the People’s Republic. Nepal is not threatened by imminent military invasion from either of its neighbors and has a particularly casual arrangement of an open border with India without even a dedicated border guard. The Nepalese Army’s UN peacekeeping duties involve 4,000 personnel at most at any one time.
It is obvious that the NA and APF are primarily intended as forces for domestic repression; they are ostentatious and ubiquitous across the country, with six fixed army divisions straddling the regions, backed up by three mobile specialist brigades. They have used the years since 2006 to improve fortified positions and entrenchments in rural areas and are everywhere in urban centers. Katmandu City itself is like a military camp, with never less than 20,000 personnel in barracks dispersed across the City like chocolate chips in a cookie.
Soldiers regularly patrol streets and thoroughfares, man major chowks (public squares and intersections) and parade in Tudikhel Park, a private army marching ground in the center of the city which, apart from the national football stadium is the only grass covered area in Kathmandu. Strutting their stuff, the soldiery are designed as much to intimidate as impress.
The army is the elephant in the room in the Nepalese situation, and has been referenced throughout this paper for its role and influence at key points in Nepal’s history from its birth under Narayan Shah, to the early years of the 21st. century. In the last decade it has become bigger and better armed, equipped and trained than at any point in its history.
It proved politically decisive in forcing Gyanendra’s surrender that signaled the victory of the April 2006 Andolan, and crucially succeeded in overthrowing Prachanda’s administration when it attempted to enforce the CPA provision that the PLA regulars be integrated as a corps into the NA. The further seizure of PLA weapons from the UN cantonments in 2011 on paper cemented the Brahminical state’s monopoly of violence in Nepal.
Its comprador officer corps and high command, well-groomed by American and Indian patrons, have demonstrated in such interventions decisive executive ability; dumping a malfunctioning, hubristic King, blocking army reform, martialing the phony 2013 election, and holding an informal veto over policies or proposals inimical to the status quo.
The officer corps is dominated by Chetris and Thakuris and represents a military ascendancy formed under the banner of Narayan Shah. It stands ready for counterrevolution either as a state of emergency or military dictatorship as possible options should the existence of the state be problematic or in imminent danger of collapse. The State’s political class presents no coherent power, and in any event is presently sunk in corruption, paralyzed by the specific difficulty in getting the existing order ratified in a bogus constitution and its sheer general uselessness in providing clean, functioning government.

Unfinished Revolution

War hath determined us, and foil’d with loss
Irreparable: terms of peace yet none
Vouchsafed, or sought: for what peace will be given
To us enslaved, but custody severe,
And stripes, and arbitrary punishment Inflicted?
And what peace can we return,
But, to our power, hostility and hate,
Untamed reluctance, and revenge though slow
Yet ever plotting how the Conqueror least
May reap his conquest, and may least rejoice
In doing what we most in suffering feel?
Milton, Paradise Lost, Book 2, lines 330/40.

However, the People’s War may resume in some form based on the announcement in early December that barely two years after the CPN-M (Dashists) broke from the UCPN(M) (Cashists), the CPN-M (Dashists) haves also split, with a faction led by Biplav (Netra Bikram Chand) forming the CPN Maoist.
At the time of writing, the Two-Line Struggle’s policy differences that prefigured the rupture are not fully understood, but the new party is driven by what it perceives as the treachery and reversals of the eight wasted years since 2006 and declaring that if provisions given by SPA on behalf of the status quo are not honored then struggle will resume, and organs of dual power will be revived in re-established liberated zones.
The split does not appear as politically and ideologically rancorous as that between the Cashists and Dashists and may exhibit a generational difference regarding timing; Biplav and many around him are in their forties but have considerable battlefield experience from the People’s War. On the other hand, Kiran’s close comrades are in their fifties and sixties, and while many are primarily political figures, they also include active-service veterans.
Each party recognizes that the stalled revolution is certain to recommence at some point, but the lack of technical support makes any attempt in the short term to ‘go back into the jungle’ or resume any form of armed struggle against a new, domestically refocused, re-equipped, and expanded state repressive apparatus militarily inadvisable if not suicidal.
A more immediate likelihood is military and police repression of the party that, whatever its evident caution, has openly declared the task of completing the revolution, sooner rather than later. That is why its launch was held at a secure location in the Kathmandu Valley, but there was still a palpable sense of urgency behind Biplav’s opening statement that, failing the NC-led elite unblocking and implementing the reforms of the 12-point agreement of 2005 between the SPA and CPN (M) that were ratified the following year with the post-victory CPA, there would be a return to:

Armed struggle in order to protect national unity, integrity, sovereignty and rights of people. (38)

The Nepalese security establishment and its foreign advisers have every reason to take Biplav seriously. He was an effective military leader during the People’s War. With his close ally Khadga Bahadur Bishwkarma, Prakanda (Mighty) offered a vision of a reformed PLA with the creation of a youth wing in the CPN-M, the National Volunteers, that made a strong impression during the 2013 election boycott with uniform red T shirts and formation marching. It is a proto-army and significantly, most of its cadre have gone over to the new party.
State surveillance agencies will also note Kiran’s statement:

We will meet if Chand will raise arms and fight for people (39).

All of which makes a pre-emptive strike by security forces a rational option. It also demonstrates that the understanding that ‘political power comes out of the barrel of gun’ is the one point of agreement between implacable enemies. This is not only perceived in abstraction, an axiom that distills a precondition for establishment and maintenance of power in human society from its tribal origins to the contemporary nation-state, but it is directly informed and shaped by Nepal’s recent history since unification in the late 18th century.
The major and inescapable lesson is that violence was the midwife of the new state and has marked every significant subsequent upheaval since. From Prithvi Narayan Shah to Jonge Bahadur’s seizure of power in the Red Kot Massacre that established a century of brutal Rana despotism to the NC/Royalist 1950 invasion and uprising to Mahendra’s 1960 feudal coup to the People’s War and Andolans of the last decades to the 2001 assassination of Birendra which paved the way for Gyanendra – all of these events combine to confirm that there has never been any significant change in Nepal without the use of physical force.
All of the present political parties have their roots in violence; the RPP, NC, UML, UMF, and UCPN(M) all emerged sequentially from Nepal’s history through force of arms.
This paper commenced with Machiavelli’s comment on the right of the people to engage in struggle against the ruling class nobility of his time and so will conclude with an equally apposite rubric from the first great European political scientist. It expresses a truth understood by revolutionary communists everywhere on necessity for the revolution to have an experienced, disciplined, combat-ready armed wing, and is reflected in the author’s his rueful conclusion on witnessing the execution of the charismatic Florentine preacher Savonarola in 1498 following Rome’s condemnation of heresy:

That is why the visionary who has armed force on his side has always won through, while unarmed even your visionary is always the loser.
– Machiavelli, The Prince, p 23, Penguin ed.

Peter Tobin, December 2014

Citations/Footnotes

(1) Index Mundi, Nepal Economic Profile, 2014.
(2) Karobar National Economic Daily, 05/10/2013.
(3) Economist, “The Trouble With Ghee”, June, 2008.
(4) A political project to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and restore the power of economic elites.
See A Brief History of Neoliberalism, D. Harvey, p 19. Harvey provides further elaboration of neoliberalism’s elevation of market criteria over all aspects of life, particularly the shrinking of the state’s responsibility for welfare, economic planning, subsidies, &c. From the 1970’s on, it began dethroning Keynesian policies, with neoliberals believing that the Keynesians’ emphasis on state deficit spending as means of stimulating employment and production distorted the market and lacked fiscal rectitude. The phenomenon has also been described in popular parlance as, “Capitalism with its gloves off.”
(5) OPHI Country Briefing: Nepal,  2010.
(6) B. P. Bhurtel. 17/10/2013. “Rich Man’s World as Wealth Gap Grows in Nepal.” The Nation/Kathmandu Post.
(7) However, it can be argued that the link between bourgeois capitalism and bourgeois democracy is purely contingent, with neoliberal capitalism flourishing equally in dictatorships and democracies both. It is worth noting in this respect that Pinochet’s Chile was chosen by Washington as an experiment in extreme free market capitalism, dispatching Friedman monetarist acolytes of the ‘Chicago School’ to Santiago and placing them in charge of the Chilean economy.
This is not because contemporary transnational capital is neutral but because it has become a superior executive power reducing political systems and governments to irrelevance. A review in Le Monde, 10/10/2014, of the German scholar Wolfgang Streeck’s Du Temps Achete – La Crise Sans Cesse Ajournee Du Capitalisme Democratique (Borrowed Time – The Postponed Crisis of Capitalist Democracy) quotes his comment describing advancing global capital as class avatar:

“…elles est inapte a tout fonctionment democratique, par le fait qu’elle pratiquee en tres grande parti, en particulairement en europe, comme une politique international – sous la forme d’une diplomatie financiere interetatique.”
– Wolfgang Streeck. Borrowed Time – The Postponed Crisis of Capitalist Democracy.

A rough translation of which argues that it is incapable of functioning democratically, because it is, in fact a politically dominant power, especially in Europe, in the guise of interstate financial diplomacy. He uses the word ‘post-democracy’ to describe this stage of the present era.
(8) K. P. Prabhakaran Nair. February 2006. Grist for US Mills. GMWATCH. It is salutary to note that up until 2014, over 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide as a result of such policies reducing rural populations to immiseration and destitution.
(9) Republica (English language Nepalese daily newspaper) 07/09/2014.
(10) D. Gywali/A. Dixit. April, 2000. “How Not to Do a South Asian Treaty.” Himal South Asian.
(11) H. Yami/B. Bhatterai. 1996. Nationality Question in Nepal.
(12) ‘Kiran’ is a nom de guerre for Mohan Baidya. It means Ray of Light. All Maoist leaders adopted one during People’s War. ‘Prachanda’ (P. K. Dahal) means ‘Fierce’, ‘Biplav’, (N. B. Chand), means ‘Revolt’, &c.
(13) Colloquially known as ‘Dashists’ because of the –M in their name. Conversely, the UCPN (M), the party the Dashists split from, are called the ‘Cashists’ by their opponents because their leaders and many cadre were accused of falling before ‘sugar-coated enemy bullets’ after ‘coming out of the jungle’ and decamping to Kathmandu and corruption in 2006, following the CPA.
(14) 1991. “Caste and Ethnicity,” Ch. 7 in Nepal – A Country Study.
(15) R. Dangal. Administrative Culture in Nepal,  p.95, Table 9: Caste Distribution of Higher Civil Servants.
16) This needs an essay in itself! Briefly parliamentary/presidential, multiparty systems emerged as systems to meet needs of emerging bourgeois capitalist society in the West. The various parties represented class interests devising contingent institutional solutions. Part of Western hubris is claim their necessity in all circumstances.
It was applied unilaterally by an indigenous elite in many postcolonial situations. Apart from a democratic deficit, adoption of this project indicated loss of nerve and residual ideological colonization among otherwise resolute anticolonial political leaders of independence struggles such as Nehru, Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Kaunda, and Bandaranaike, &c).
But the main reason it proves ‘wholly unsuitable’ is total failure to provide effective governance in postcolonial situations anywhere and to have descended into nests of thieves and similar mechanisms of naked class aggrandizement when not replaced by sanctioned western ‘strongmen’ or red revolution.
Going hand in hand with capitalism and its contingent institutions demonstrated how indigenous elites were fostered and suborned by their colonial masters.
Marx, enthused, saw the inception of the program:

From the Indian natives, reluctantly and sparingly educated at Calcutta, under English superintendence, a fresh class is springing up endowed with the requirements for government and imbued with European science.
– Marx, Future Results of British Rule in India, 1853, M/E Selected Works p. 495.

Nehru is an exemplar of the success of this project:

“By education I am an Englishman, by views an internationalist, by culture a Muslim and Hindu only by an accident of birth.”

He epitomized Macaulay’s ‘Brown Englishmen’. His pretensions, along with his secularization of Hindutva, are set out in his 1943 magnum opus, The Discovery of India, (written in English of course) where he establishes the existence of a precolonial Hindu ‘golden age’ civilization and his particular ancestral call to restore its historic harmony expressed in language reflecting his Cambridge education in the classics with references to Pericles, Demosthenes, et al, although when required he could refer to:”..the old Vedantic spirit of the life force.”
(17) Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, p. 36. Marx benignly notes emerging use of education as conditioning and improvement mechanism, A hundred years later Fanon is responding to its deleterious postcolonial effect as the ideological component of a comprador class.
Vide (16) above re Nehru shows how this strata were eventually conditioned to reproduce bourgeois polity, albeit in ersatz, parodic form.
(18) WCPI, 2011. Transparency International,
(19):

…the peasantry constitutes the main army of the national movement…there is no national movement without the peasant army, nor can there be. That is what is meant when it is said that, in essence, the national question is a peasant question.
– J. V. Stalin, The National Question in Yugoslavia, Works, Vol 7, pp. 71-72.

(20) Prachanda’s short-lived 2008 administration might be excused, as it was forced out by a military coup orchestrated by New Delhi in league with NC & UML. But Bhatterai’s second ‘Maoist’ administration, 2011-13, had less excuse for being so supine.
(21) Ghurkhas are not an ethnic group but, according to their websites are a warrior caste claiming descent from the Hindu Rajputs and Brahmins of Northern India. Their valor, tenacity and loyalty deeply impressed the British enemy. After a successful invasion and defeat in 1814-16, the East India Company began recruitment into a specially created regiment that, in modern times, has been mainly drawn from the Rai, Limbhu, Magar and Gurung ethnic nationalities.
The added glory of Hindu provenance (possibly a retrospective embellishment), but their cry “Jaya mahakali – Ayo gurkhali!”  (“Glory to great Kali – Gurkhas are coming!”), shares an evocation of Kali as the goddess of destruction and death with the Rajputs, belonging to the Kshatriya warrior caste, spread across Northern India, many driven into Nepal by the Muslim invasion of North India.
In the Terai they became one of the ruling Bhadralok castes mutating into professional occupations as doctors, lawyers &c. Also Narayan Shah was from a Kshatriya jati, although he was pragmatic enough to recruit given national ethnicities into his army while raising up Hindu upper castes and establishing a divine Hindu Kingdom.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymological root of Gurkha as:

 ORIGIN name of a locality, from Sanskrit goraksa ‘cowherd’ (from go ‘cow’ + raks – ‘protect’), used as an epithet of their patron.
Oxford English Dictionary

This lends credence to Gurkhas’ claims of provenance from Hindu warrior castes.
(22) J. Adhikari. 2008. Land Reform in Nepal, p. 23.
(23)  CPN (M). 1997. One Year of People’s War in Nepal. GS’s Report.
(24) J. Adhikari. Land Reform in Nepal, p 39.
(25) The early Marx claimed centralized despotism as the essential feature of the Asiatic Mode of Production – a pre-capitalist form that he believed existed in static, ossified, oriental societies.
He infamously commented:

Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history.
Marx – Future Results…ME Vol 1, p. 494. 1853.

and, while acknowledging the base motives of the English colonizers, he thought that imperialist incursion would, nolens volens, drag it into the modern world. However, after the first War of Independence in 1857 and subsequent study he revised AMP and undermined the despotic, stagnant society premise by declaring the uprising a ‘national revolt’, and expressed support for the insurgents. Though he never accepted that India, precolonial incursion, was feudal, he conceded that it could be described as in transition to feudalism.
In this respect he wrote in 1859:

In broad outlines, Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society.
Marx – Preface to Critique of Political Economy, ME Selected Works, Vol 1, p. 504, 1859

The concept has been an issue for polemic and debate among Marxists and communists and survives more as an analytic than a descriptive term. Whatever the taxonomy, Marx, by looking at the relations of production, outlined how an elite could appropriate surplus using the state as a mechanism for generalized exploitation. Dalits and Sudras stood before their Brahmin masters in the same relationship as a slave before a slaveowner, a serf before a lord, or a worker before an employer.
(26) These are linguistic categories used by modern ethnographers, and while there were obvious physical differences between the two groups that added to perception in the case of Nepal, they are not a racial classifications. For example, the other linguistic group in South India is Dravidian, with minimal physical differences between its speakers and those of the Indo-Aryan bloc.
(27) J. Adhikari. 2008. Land Reform in Nepal, p. 25.
(28) ‘State capitalism’ is as fraught a term as feudalism, with multiple definitions, inspired by political polemics not only expressed between left and right but also a lively source of debate within the left denoting ultimate political allegiance .
For the right, it can mean any state intervention either through ownership or control such the post-1945 policy of Dirigisme in France where, apart from extractive and heavy industry, private ownership dominated in a free market but was subject to indicative planning from a government setting national objectives.
It could also be applied to the Scandinavian and British mixed economy model that was discarded after the 1980’s. In the case of France, state intervention predated capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie, and in the form of Colbertism, was initiated under Louis IV’s first minister, J. B. Colbert.
The concept of ‘state monopoly capitalism’ has also been applied by left wing and extreme rightwing free marketeers to describe the state protection and support for the big corporations in the USA. The Military-Industrial Complex that emerged in the new triumphal global imperium following the Second World War is often cited as example because huge contracts are awarded rather than won, characterizing a cozy symbiotic relationship between business and the political functionaries of the American ruling class.
For anarchists, Neo-Trotskyites and the Ultra Left, it is what happened after 1917 in Russia and 1949 in China, or indeed anywhere else there has been a socialist revolution. It assumes that party apparatchiks and bureaucrats inevitably become a new ruling class, owing to their control of the means of production and the appropriation and direction of the resulting ‘social dividend’ (surplus value).
For Marxist-Leninists/Maoists it is what occurred in the USSR after Stalin’s death with Khrushchev’s failed attempts to follow Yugoslavia’s ‘market socialism’ and re-occurred with a vengeance in the PRC after Deng Xiaoping’s seizure of power in 1976.
Apologists for China’s system describe it as a ‘socialist market economy’, where the commanding heights of the economy, the banking sector and land are state owned and where the state is responsible for macroeconomic policy with microeconomic decisions left both to management of state enterprises and licensed capitalists operating as private companies in designated Special Economic Zones.
Therefore the political decision to allow free market mechanisms to determine price and allocations of goods and services with retention of profit by private companies, commentators opine, is more indicative of state capitalism especially when set against the background of scrapping the egalitarian, ‘Iron rice bowl’, full employment guarantee from the heroic period of socialist construction and mass mobilization. Therefore, it should be said that, like feudalism and indeed semi-feudalism, the concept of state capitalism is often used subjectively, indicating class or political orientation. See following note.
(29) ‘Semi-feudal’ obviously relates to accepting the thesis of pre-existing feudalism on the subcontinent, Samantabaad is the Hindi and Nepalese word for feudalism and derives from the nobility of the Gupta Period, which some historians claim led the emergence of feudal society in India. The Samantas were also influential during the Licchavi Dynasty (400-750 AD) who established the first central state in Nepal.
Even those who do accept the taxonomy applied recognize that it was a tributary society of a type that flourished the early city states, empires and later, nascent nation-states. European feudalism was one type of tributary society, with the exception that it enabled the growth of classes and productive forces that eventually burst its integument and established the capitalist society and mode of production.
Marx did not recognize this dynamic in the Orient, and his AMP was his initial response in distinguishing its ossified despotisms with those of medieval Europe. It was this formulation that, while recognizing the utter venality and brutality of the British, nevertheless led him describe them as unwitting agents of progress, in breaking down the ‘Chinese Walls’ of societies incapable of generating internal change.
Subsequently it has been argued that Indian society, pre-colonization, was subject to change, but that compared to Europe’s historical transformation it was imperceptible (as indeed was most of its history at that time). This had important political ramifications for Indian communists because they refused acknowledging any positive results from imperialist incursion and applying the term feudal to describe periods of Indian history implicitly underpins this position. Plus ‘Down with feudalism’ is less of a mouthful than, ‘Down with the Asiatic Mode of Production!
The notion of semi-feudalism follows this thesis because it posits transitional developments. In the case of Nepal, it is marked by backwardness of the productive forces, sharecropping, increased tenancies and the growth of usury. The last are linked, representing the dominance of money payment in feudal rent, reflecting generally growth of a market economy but specifically the transition of feudal owners into capitalist rentier landlords.
Semi-feudal is also used to describe relations of production continuing after their originating conditions of existing have changed, as expansion of agricultural capitalism has led to increasing numbers of landless and sharecroppers, who are objectively proletarianized but are learning to recognize residual feudal deference as subjective flight from their objective class reality. As descriptive tools, these terms are a continued source of argument not only between Marxists and bourgeois, but also intestinal within these respective groupings.
As a slogan, however, ‘Down with Feudalism’ and the commitment to abolish ‘neo/semi-feudalism’ is a political call to the oppressed to break free of feudal/exploitative relations in order to confront the reality of capitalist modes of employment and exploitation in the agricultural sector. (cf: Pushpa Lal’s CPN’s program and Mazumdar’s for the Naxalite struggle in 1960s.).
(30):

The informal rural credit markets of Nepal seem to be characterized by an aggregate constraint at the village level and oligopolistic collusion on price discrimination. Entries of new lenders are likely to be rare, due to high initial information cost. Lenders need to interact with the borrowers for a long period to be able to screen the borrowers and enforce payments….
Although it is reasonable to target poor households, the analysis indicates that one may as well target the higher priced segments. The analysis thus supports credit programs that target low status castes. Examples from Nepal are programs that target ethnic groups living in Terai. These households pay real interest rates that are almost double of the rates paid by high castes living in the hills.
– M. Hatlebakk. 2000. “Will More Credit Increase Interest Rates in Rural Nepal?” Technical Report and Recommendations, pp. 42-43. Nepal Rastra Bank.

(31) S. D. Muni. 2003. Maoist Insurgency in Nepal, p.61. Muni is perhaps too close to see the Brahminical tree from the wood, he is a pragmatic, secular ex-diplomat critical of and puzzled by the ambivalence of Nepalese policy that allowed King Mahendra, e.g. to block: “India’s legitimate and enlightened interests in Nepal.” (ibid, p 62).
His views are an apologia for Indian expansionism, pitting progressive capitalism against residual feudalism, which synchronically informed the position of Dr. Bhatterai, earning him the sobriquet of ‘Mr. India’ in anti-revisionist Maoist ranks. I would also speculate that the attitude towards the last divine Hindu monarchy was schizophrenic, with even ostensibly Westernized secularists like Nehru acknowledging the weight of Brahminical Chaturvarna tradition and unconsciously deferring to caste supremacy, however apparently exotic and uncongenial to a Cambridge-conditioned cosmopolitan world statesman.
Nehru was a Hindutva with an occidental humanist face. Successive Indian administrations, particularly Rajiv Gandhi’s administration, elided further into more open Hindutvaism, which, mixed with growing accommodation with Western capitalism in triumphalist form following the suicide of Gorbachev’s USSR and collapse of Soviet Bloc, was Modiism avant la lettre.
(32) R. S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism, 1965.
(33) A. Rudra, Non-Eurocentric Marxism and Indian Society, 1988.
(34) Marx. 1847. The Poverty of Philosophy, p.105.
(35) Marx, Feuerbach. 1846. Opposition of Materialist and Idealist Outlook, ibid, p 43.
(36) NORAD. 2007. Report on Conflict Sensitivities, pp. 67-68.
(37) Tobin, P. 2011. “Balance of Military Forces in Nepal” Beyond Highbrow – Robert Lindsay, website.
(38) http://www.ekantipur.com, Chand Announces CPN Maoist, 02/12/2014.
(39) Republica, D. B. Chhantyal, 06/12/2014.

References

Adhikhari, J. Land Reform in Nepal – Problem & Prospects.
Bhatterai, B. Monarchy vs. Democracy & Articles, Essays from People’s War.
Dangal, R. Administrative Culture in Nepal, 1991.
Fanon, F. The Wretched of the Earth.
Karki/Seddon, (eds.) The People’s War in Nepal – Left Perspective.
Kumar, A. The Black Economy in India.
Lecomte-Tilouine, M. (ed.) Revolution in Nepal, Collected Essays.
Marx/Engels, Selected Works. 3 Vols, Poverty of Philosophy, Anti-Durhring, Capital, Vols 1 &2.
Maxwell, N. India’s China War. 1970
Muni, S. D. Maoist Insurgency in Nepal.
Nehru, J. The Discovery of India.
Prinsep, H. T. The Gurkha War – 1814-16.
Regmi, M. C. Land Ownership in Nepal. 1976
Sharma, R. S. Indian Feudalism.
Thapa, D. A. Kingdom Under Siege – Nepal’s Maoist Insurgency – 1996-2003.
Upadhyaya, S. P. Indo-Nepal Trade Relations – 1858-1914 .

General

Rough Guide to Nepal.
Studies in Nepali History & Society, Vol. 15.

Reports/Commissions

NORAD (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) Report on Conflict Sensitivities in Nepal – 2007.
Transparency International. “Nepal.” World Perception Corruption Index – 2011.
UN Human Development Report – 2014.

Articles

Ambedkar, R. B. The Annihilation of Caste.
Basnyat, P. S. Nepalese Army in the History of Nepal.
Dak Bangla, Nepal’s Civil and Military Relations and the Maoist Insurgency.
Habib, I. Kosambi. Marxism & Indian History.
Lal, D. The Abuse of History.
Puniyami, R. Hiding the Truth About Caste.
Rajan, V. ‘Dalits’ and the Caste System in India.
Tobin, P. Balance of Military Forces in Nepal – in Relation to PLA Integration – 2011.

Newspapers/Journals/ Periodicals/Websites

Dak Bangla – website.
Democracy & Class Struggle – website.
Economist – magazine.
Himal – South Asia – magazine.
Himalayan – newspaper.
Kathmandu Post.
Nepal Monthly – magazine.
Red Front – One-off English language version of Krambaddha (Continuity) Pro-Kiran 2012 journal, editor, Prem Darnal, Bikalpa (Alternative).
Republica, newspaper.
Worker, English-language journal of CPN (Maoist).

Worst Terrorist Attack in Turkey’s History

Here.

86 dead, 186 wounded. The attack hit supporters of the Kurds. They were having a peace rally denouncing the latest violence between Turkey’s army and the Kurdish PKK. President Erdogan has waged all out war on the PKK as a fake pretext for fighting ISIS. Also he is furious that the YPG (PKK Syrian force) has conquered so much territory in northern Syria from ISIS. Turkey supports ISIS to the hilt. No other nation supports ISIS more than Turkey.

A suicide bomb blast went off at a rally of Kurds near the Turkish border a while back, killing many Kurds. ISIS was blamed, but the Kurds said local police was in on it. A few days later, the PKK killed two Turkish policemen who it said were working with ISIS. Then the all-out war on the PKK was on. Turkey has unleashed the full force of its military against the PKK. However, the PKK is a pretty strong force with better weapons now, including IED’s. The PKK kills Turkish soldiers and police every single day. Probably over 100 Turkish security forces have been killed since the violence started. Videos show Kurds digging trenches in the southeast to guard against the Turkish military.

Although this was an ISIS hit, the government may have been in on it as the Turkish state works closely with ISIS. After the attack, survivors rushed to the scene to try to assist survivors. Turkish police teargassed them to prevent them from going to the assistance of their comrades. Later an ambulance rushing to the scene was blocked for no apparent reason by Turkish police. There was a media blackout on the attack across all the media.

The worst terror attack in Turkey’s history, and the controlled media carried on as normal. Turkey also blocked Twitter and Facebook in the country so people could not post about the attack. Turkey has never been a democracy for one day, ever. They’ve never had one minute of a free press and they don’t now.

Most Turks are ultra-rightwing ultranationalists (frankly fascists) though, so they could care less. Turkish fascism is the legacy of the Christian Genocide of 1915-1924 which Turkey has never owned up to and Kemal Ataturk, the child of the genocide, who built a secular and rather fascist state on the bodies of the murdered.

Now this secular fascism is combined with a strain of radical Islam that looks back to the Ottoman Empire and sympathizes with the most radical strains of Islam. Recently there were riots in the southeast as Turkey would not permit Kurds to go to the defense of their people while they were besieged by the IS in Kobani. In the course of the riots, hundreds of Turkish police fighting the rioters chanted pro-Islamic State slogans.

This is modern Turkey, one of the worst countries on Earth, down there with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sudan, Indonesia, Morocco and Pakistan.

Notice something about this list of the worst countries on Earth? They are all staunch US allies.

Novorussia Signs Outrageous Peace Plan (Surrender Plan)

This makes no sense at all.
The political leaders of the LPR/DPR completely sold out everything that so many fought and died for? Why? The Novorussian people and especially the armed forces are up in arms over this sellout plan. There are threats to lynch the two political leaders who signed this ridiculous plan if they ever show their faces in Donetsk or Lugansk again. The 12-point plan simply reads like a wish list for the Nazis. The Novorussians gave the Nazis everything they want. Worst of all, it calls for “the disarmament of illegal armed groups from the territory of Ukraine.” What this means is unilateral disarmament for one side only – the rebels. The Nazis get to keep their army, of course.
The Novorussians are all screaming that Putin sold them out. The notion that Putin is behind all of the unrest in SE Ukraine is madness.
1. Putin has always wanted, and still wants, a whole Ukraine, federalized. He does not want Ukraine broken up. He will accept it if he has to, but that is not his first choice. So the notion that Putin is causing the armed breakup of Ukraine is an insane lie.
2. The Novorussians have been calling Putin a sellout and a traitor from Day One of this mess. If Putin is running this whole show, then why are his so-called proxies calling him a traitor? It makes no sense. This was an indigenous rebellion of, by and for the residents of the SE who refuse to live in a Nazi Ukraine. They received some support at the start from Russian volunteers.
These were Russian nationalists operating outside the state. The Russian state didn’t start giving weapons until the war had been going on for quite some time. And when they started, they gave them on 4th class aging weapons, the worst of the stockpile. They finally changed that in early July. But even while Russia was arming the rebels (mostly to keep the Novorussians from being genocided) Russia still wanted federalization and only federalization. They only reluctantly supported independence when they were backed into a corner.
3. The West is telling a gigantic lie that Russia is trying to create another frozen conflict along the lines of Transdniestria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. All of these were indigenous rebellions against racist nationalist states who discriminated against non-titular citizens – Ossetians and Abkhazians were discriminated against by Georgian ultranationalists and Russians were discriminated against by Moldavian ultranationalists.
After the rebel areas had beaten the national government to a draw, Russia entered with peacekeepers. They entered the breakaway Georgian provinces because Georgia was run by fanatical Russia-hating ultranationalists. This Russophobic menace on Russia’s border was a serious national security threat for Russia. So separatists were supported. But all three of these were simply indigenous separatist rebellions similar to those that occur the world over.
One thing Russia does not like are these frozen conflicts. The lie is that they are trying to create another frozen conflict in SE Ukraine. It’s not true. Russia hates these frozen conflicts. They would rather that South Ossetia and Abkhazia form independent states. The frozen conflicts are a nightmare for Russia. The last thing they need is another one. Anyway the whole reason that these conflicts are frozen in the first place is because the West has refused to ratify the independence of these newly created nations.
The US acts like hypocrites here just like they always do. Briefly, the US tries to break up its enemies (supports separatism in its enemies) and opposes separatism in its allies. There is no moral basis to this foreign policy at all.
4. Putin completely sold out the Novorussians and forced them to surrender with this document. If he’s behind all the armed unrest in SE Ukraine, why would he do that? Because he never liked this armed uprising, that’s why. He never liked it, so he’s only to glad to sell it out at the first opportunity.
5. Putin may be hoping that the West will ease up on sanctions by signing this surrender document. That is fanciful thinking. America is a like a shark. When it smells blood, you’re already dead meat. The American shark has already smelled Russian blood. No way are they going to back off now. In fact, I expect the sanctions to be increased even more.
6. The document has no legal basis whatsoever. It was signed by Kuchma, the former President of the Ukraine. He was the worst president Ukraine ever had. Corruption was worse under him than under any other Ukrainian regime which is probably why the US likes him so much. He let them steal so much stuff, so he’s their pal. As former President, Kuchma has no legal basis to sign this document for the Nazi government. In other words, the agreement is illegal and unenforceable – it’s as meaningful as toilet paper. Nevertheless there are consequences even for breaking illegal agreements.
7. The Nazis’ word is no good. They violate any agreement they want to anytime they want to. Why sign any agreement with the Nazis when you know that they never honor any agreements?
8. There is a suggestion that the Novorussian leaders who signed the document were either paid off or threatened. I would suggest certainly the latter.
9. The instigators behind the sellout were probably the Russian oligarchs. These are the people that to a large extent run Russian society. In a lot of ways, they have more power than Putin does. Putin has to listen to them rather than the other way around.
10. The Nazis are already using the ceasefire to heavily rearm. As soon as the ceasefire was announced, several Western nations announced that they would be arming the Nazis.

Ukrainian Nationalism is Nazism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giYwMVSlAGs
Pretty much all Ukie nationalists are Nazis. It is simply a National Socialist movement. What is odd is that some of these Nazis are Jews! The presence of Jews is odd but not extremely unusual. I have always said that Israel was a National Socialist country. National Socialism can unfold in any country. Anyone is susceptible to it, and National Socialism need not be anti-Semitic though it often is. As we can see, in Israel we have a wildly philosemitic National Socialist movement. In the place of the Jews are the Arabs. More than an anti-Semitic movement, this Ukie nationalism is more of an anti-Russian National Socialist movement, with the Russians substituted for Jews.
There are indeed some liberal-Leftists in Ukraine, but their failure has been profound. They are not necessarily Nazis themselves, but they are also extremely Russophobic, and they support the Nazis by not criticizing them. They support them with their silence. The Trotskyite sectarians, of course, refuse to discuss Ukrainian Nazism at all, and instead focus all of their rage on their favorite enemy – the “Stalinists.”
The Libertarian-anarchist grouping has not been much better. Many marched in the Nazi Euromaidan protests, and a number of anarchists have even joined overtly Nazi battalions like the Azov Battalion to fight in the Donbass. Many Libertarians have lent strong support to the new Nazi government.
This represents a scene we see all to often – the utter collapse of the Left in the face of an extremely popular ultranationalist movement in their land. This is truly pitiful. The Ukrainian Left have a lot to be ashamed of. I will exempt the Communist Party of the Ukraine from my criticism. They have suffered greatly during this war, many comrades have been killed, arrested, beaten or tortured. Party headquarters have been burned down and otherwise destroyed. The party itself has recently been outlawed. Of course this shows the regime’s true colors. The first thing fascist movements do when they take power is attack and outlaw the CP. History has proven this well.

Welcome to Lugansk


Thank you America! Thank you for supporting the Ukie Nazis that are terror bombing this city with their artillery. Nazi artillery in these cities does not aim at anything in particular. It is just terror bombing. It is typically directed at hospitals, water plants, sewage plants, manufacturing plants, markets, and residential areas. The rebels are all spread out through the whole city so there is nothing to target. The object is to get all the civilian population to flee. Then they can level the place, and if they conquer it, they can settle it as settler-colonialists with their own Western Ukie invaders.
Vacate the land, create the lebensraum. Populate the vacated land with your settler-colonists. From Nazis to Zionists, tried and true, works very well.
Certified effective in Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia in the 1990’s, where ethnic cleansing was strongly supported by the US and NATO. In particular, Tudjman’s Ustasha were backed 100% by the CIA and the Pentagon. While the Kosovars were victims of ethnic cleaning themselves, they turned around and ethnically cleansed the Serbs. Really you have fascist ethnic cleansers on all sides here fighting against each other. There are no good guys. It’s a choice of one scumbag country over another. Which is sort of the definition of the sociopathic game called geopolitics anyway.

More Anti-Russian Lies

rantus writes:

First off: according to whom? Well, according to my wife’s grandfather who lived through it. When he was a kid he watched Russian troops massacre people out in the woods for days on end. He hid in the trees until it was over. He grew up in Poland, and was a staunch anti-communist because of what he saw them do to the Polish people.
He spent three years in a communist prison because he refused to join the Communist Party. The reason I bring up Stalin is because he’s the one who populated Ukraine in the East with Russians. Ukraine is not Russia, that’s just another fairytale that Russophiles promote. Russian has been terrorizing Ukraine into submission for quite a long time. I bring up Stalin because he literally reshaped the nation of Ukraine through his policies of ethnic cleansing and the execution of the native intelligentsia, just like the soviets did in Poland. Oh, that and systematic rape and murder.
Putin longs for that empire to be restored. You romanticize it because you think that the US is corrupt. It may well be, but I’ll take it any day compared to living under a despot like Putin. And if you actually paid any attention, the vast majority of Ukrainians want an independent country, not a Russian satellite state.

These could be considered Cold War lies of US imperialism, but more properly these are the Cold War lies of those in Eastern Europe and parts of the USSR who hated the USSR. So it is East European anti-Soviet propaganda.
Now I see! Rantus is a Polish Russophobe by proxy! I get it now. Never listen to a Polish Russophobe. Or a Baltic, Finnish, Ukrainian, Czech, Romanian or Bulgarian one. They hated Communism, and to them, Russia = Communism. They are not rational, will never be rational, and many of them are fascists, especially the Nazi type of fascists. This is especially true of Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalists, most of whom are fascists and in particular, Nazi-type fascists. In East Europe, many to most Russia-haters are fascists, often Nazi-type fascists.
However Polish nationalists are not Nazis. They had a very bad experience with Nazism, worse than with the Communists. But Polish nationalists definitely hate Jews.
Many Hungarian and Romanian nationalists are fascists, typically Nazi-type fascists. With Czech, Slovak and Bulgarian nationalists, I do not think they are so fascist and Nazi-like. Czech nationalists in particular are quite progressive. Check out Milan Kundera.
Of course, Russia abandoned Communism long ago and is now just another capitalist country. The Poles have always hated Russia and have long harbored an official policy to destroy Russia by breaking it into small pieces. This policy was officially dreamed up around 1920, and many documents were written in support of this policy. You can still read them to this day. At the moment, Georgia, Poland, the Baltics and Ukraine still support this “Destroy Russia” plan as official government policy.
The Poles have been attacking Russia forever. This goes all the way back to the 1600’s and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Poles have conquered parts of Russia, mostly the Western Ukraine, many times. The conflict goes back to West versus East, Catholicism versus Orthodoxy, Rome versus Antioch. There is more to it than that, but you get the picture. Bottom line is that Poland is a long-term deadly enemy of the Russian people and the Russians have a right to be wary of them. The Poles have never dropped their “Destroy Russia” plan, so I do not see why Russia should be nice to them.
In 1920, the Russia-Polish War was fought. Although the West has been lying about this war forever, the truth is that Polish attacked Russia out of the blue for no good reason during this war.
There really is no such thing as the Ukraine. It has never really existed as an independent state, except for two years from 1919-1921 and a few years during World War 2 when a Nazi puppet state, similar to the French Vichy, the Croatian Ustasha and the Romanian Iron Cross regimes, ruled for a few years.
Western Ukraine was only connected to the Eastern Ukraine by Stalin’s annexation of part of Poland in 1939. Before that, this fake Ukraine country was always part of Poland. Everything from Kiev east was always part of Russia, known as Malorussia and Novorussia. There was a Ukrainian SSR that was part of a the USSR, but it was just a state in the USSR, not a nation-state. It was put together by gluing all sorts of strange regions together for no particular reason. The present borders of Ukraine have no legitimacy whatsoever.
However, I will grant that in terms of a real Ukrainian nation exists in the sense that nations exist independent of nation-states. Therefore, everything from Kiev west I would call the true, pure Ukrainian nation, now the Ukrainian nation-state. The rest is just Russia. Crimea was always a part of Russia. So was Novorussia.
However, I am willing to grant the Ukrainian nation any territories to the east of Kiev that want to join it since rejoining Malorussia to Russia does not make sense logically. However, central and east Ukraine may not want to be part of this Nazi regime.
Already Transcarpathia is in open rebellion. They have declared independence and there are armed roadblocks all over the land. They only let authorized people through. The Transcarpathians want nothing to do with this Nazi regime.
There are strong signs that Kharkiv does not want to be part of this Nazi country either, but they decided not to have an independence referendum.
It is true that the USSR committed many crimes against Poland under Stalin. I do not condone that. And forcing Communism on the Poles never worked. Stalin said it was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. This very Catholic country never liked Communism, however most Polish nationalists are socialist-type people.
I also agree that the USSR committed many crimes against the Ukrainian people, including a genocide of 390,000 people during the anti-kulak campaign. The leading figures and intellectuals of most nations of the USSR were decimated by Stalin in 1938 during his purges. The Ukies were not singled out.
There was no Holodomor. It never even happened. There was a famine, but it was not a deliberate or terror famine. Anyway the Western Ukrainian Ukies were not part of the Holodomor as they were living in Poland at the time.
After Stalin died, Khrushchev came in. He was a Ukrainian and he did many good things for the Ukrainian people. He annexed Crimea to the Ukraine, riding roughshod over history in doing so.
It is time to let bygones be bygones. The USSR is over and done with.
The West Ukies were Nazi sympathizers who worked closely with the Nazis, set up a Nazi government, and participated gleefully in the Jew roundups and Jew-killing. And the commenter’s relative may be interested to know that his cherished Ukie nationalists (the direct ancestors of the present Nazi regime) slaughtered 100,000 Poles in West Ukraine while their Nazi state was in power. The man who did this was their national hero, a man named Stephan Bandera. Bandera is the finest hero of Ukrainian nationalism, and there are statues of him all over the new Ukraine. The Ukies have never apologized or renounced Banderist doctrine. In fact, a good name for the new Ukraine would be “Banderistan.”
It is beyond me why Russia should tolerate a psychotic, murderously hostile Ukie Nazi government on their border. In fact, they should not and cannot tolerate it at all. They really need to overthrow that Nazi government in Kiev. Let the Nazis go back west of Kiev to Banderastan where they can seig-Heil until they get tired of it and return to their senses.
The commenter makes a typical patriotard comment when he asks, “Where would you rather live, the US or Russia?” If you say the US, then you must support the US and hate Russia. If you say Russia, then they will tell you to leave the US and go live in Russia. This is the way the patriotard thinks. Nations fighting for good against evil should be supported whether you want to go live there or not. Your own nation should be opposed when it fights for evil against good (as the US usually does) even if it is a pretty nice place to live.
To the patriotard, “nice place to live” means “the foreign policy is perfect” and “my country right or wrong.”
Similarly, “lousy place to live” means “evil country with evil intentions that is an enemy of America.”
It’s insane, but US patriotardism never makes sense anyway.

US Supported Ukrainian Nazi Calls for Killing 1.5 Million Novorussians

This Ukrainian Nazi journalist is named Bogdan Boutkevitch. He is a well-known Nazi reporter who writes frequently for Nazi publications such as Ukrainian Weekly and appears regularly on Nazi TV. The TV station that aired his interview, Hromadske TV, is 100% funded by the US Embassy (in other words, the CIA), the Dutch Embassy (Dutch intelligence) and George Soros.
So there you have it, Holocaust survivor George Soros is supporting Nazis in the Ukraine. It’s a bit hard to figure, but he’s also supporting Jew-Nazis in Israel, so I guess it all makes sense somehow.
Soros and the rest of the heavily-Jewish US mass media has apparently decided to throw down with these Nazis as a proxy force to destroy what they truly hate which is Russia. For what I have heard, Soros has an extreme, nearly maniacal hatred of Russia dating back to his experiences in Communist Hungary. Also, lately Soros has been trying to overthrow the Russian government via his NGO’s, color revolutions and all his other fancy tricks. Pussy Riot was heavily backed by Soros as a wedge issue to damage his hated Russia. Soros and other US Deep State members have been saying that they want a color revolution in Russia for some time now. They want Putin gone.
This whole fight is really about the dollar and US hegemony. Putin is seen as as the one man who is standing in the way of the domination of the dollar as world fiat currency and the consequent US hegemony as Dictator of the World. Because Putin is standing in the way of these profound interests of the US Deep State and the banksters, Putin must be destroyed. I believe that the Deep State/banksters will even go to war with Russia to keep their fiat currency and world domination. There is simply too much at stake this time.
The US Jewish elite has tied its wagon to US imperialism since the end of World War 2. They allied with the US around the Cold War, which enabled these Jews to work with and support many Nazis and fascists in Europe.
For instance, the Gladio Stay Behind Network, a mostly fascist web of connected paramilitaries, was set up in all of Europe in case of a Soviet conquest of Western Europe. In that case, the Gladio Network would form the “stay-behind forces,” the guerrillas who worked behind Soviet lines to disrupt the new Soviet rule. The Right Sector and Svoboda fascist forces are part of the Gladio Network that the West set up, and now our fascist proxy army is being used against as the need arises.
The brownshirts and stormtroopers of the Ukrainian government. They are very heavily involved in the fighting in the East, forming much of the fanatical Ukrainian National Guard. These are their private thugs, their private paramilitary street forces. Apparently Soros is also involved in funding these Nazi brownshirts and stormtroopers now rampaging across the Ukraine.
Senator John McCain had his photo taken with his arm around the leader of one of these fascist street gangs. Also these gangs were used to by the West in the Maidan protests to overthrow the Yanukovitch regime.
The Israelis also appear to be supporting the Ukrainian Nazis, probably because they are in a deep alliance with the US. However, Israeli support for the Nazis is fairly weak. In addition, Israel has excellent relations with the Putin government.
Not all Jews in the world are supporting the Nazis in the Ukraine. For instance, the Russian Jews are 100% behind Putin because they fear that the Ukies are real deal fascist Nazi types.
There are some Ukie Jews supporting the Nazi government, in fact, one of the richest men in the Ukraine is a Jewish oligarch from Dnepropetrovsk. He has set up a particularly brutal and vicious fascist paramilitary which is fighting now in the Donbass. It is thought that his notorious private army was behind the downing of the jetliner. He has also issued calls for genocide, recently calling for killing all of the Russians of Novorussia. On the other hand, the Jews of Novorussia tend to support the Novorussians. So there is no real Jewish position on Novorussia; instead, most Jews are simply following the national interests of whatever region they live in in the conflict.
This man’s opinions are not particularly unique for a Ukie. In truth, the Ukies are more Russophobic fascists than pure Nazis, but that’s a distinction without a difference. All fascists are really the same, it is only that some are worse than others.
This is really a repeat of World War 2, when the Ukies in the West Ukraine supported the Nazis via their leader Bandera and the Russian Ukies in the East Ukraine supported Stalin and fought Hitler. Jews who lived in Western Ukraine at the time of the Nazi invasion said that the West Ukrainians treated them terribly, throwing them out of their homes, stealing their stuff and cursing them as they fled the area. These Jews have never forgotten.
The Western Ukies not only allied with the Nazis, but they also assisted the Nazis in carrying out pogroms of the Jews. In this way, they were no different than most nationalist groups in Eastern Europe, most of whom also embraced the Nazis when they marched in and gleefully helped the Nazis in the Jew-slaughter. It was certainly the case in Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. The Vichy French also rounded up some Jews for their Nazi buddies.
Notice that this man uses Nazis-style language. He refers to a “surplus population” in the East. This is Nazi-talk. Nazis talked of “useless eaters,” who were the people who needed killing. There is nothing unique about this man and his views. Most Western Ukrainians think like this. Why do you think I call them Nazis?
The ex-President, the female oligarch Yulia Timoshenko (the gas queen) has issued calls for dropping nuclear weapons on East Ukraine. And she is considered to be a moderate. Timoshenko is a murderer. She has had at least four or five people killed and possibly more. After she and her allies lost a recent election, Yulia and her friends (who include much of the current regime) roamed around killing the leaders of the party that had beaten them in the election. She is also horribly corrupt, and she deserved every minute she spent in jail. When she was thrown in jail, all the West screamed to let their Nazi Queen free.
This is America’s hero in the Ukraine.

Bogdan Boutkevitch: You Need to Kill 1.5 Million People in Donbass

Preamble: Hromadske TV is now officially the Ukrainian version of Rwandan RTLM. Just like RTLM called for the extermination of the Tutsi, calling them Inyenzi, or cockroaches, so now Hromadske TV is legitimizing the genocide of the population of Novorossiya. From Inyenzi to Colorados, we have come full circle. Hromadske TV, this mouthpiece of Ukrainian genocide, is financed directly by US and Dutch embassies. The blood of the population of Novorossiya is on all our hands – we have allowed this to happen. Please circulate this as widely as you can and stand witness to this Holocaust.
Hromadske TV is Financed Directly by US and Dutch Embassies
Hromadske

  1. Link to the Hromadske TV Annual Financial Report, 2013 – the US and Dutch embassies and George Soros implicated.
  2. Link to the Hromadske TV Annual Financial Report, 2014 – again, clear evidence of US financing of this genocidal TV Station.

Transcript: “It’s perfectly simple. You need to kill 1.5 million people in Donbass”

Translated from Ukrainian by Valentina Lisitsa

Bogdan Boutkevitch: Ok, you ask me “How can this be happening?” Well, it happens because Donbass, in general, is not simply a region in a very depressed condition, it has got a whole number of problems, the biggest of which is that it is severely overpopulated with people nobody has any use for. Trust me I know perfectly well what I am saying.
If we take, for example, just the Donetsk oblast, there are approximately 4 million inhabitants, at least 1.5 million of which are superfluous. That’s what I mean: we don’t need to [try to] “understand” Donbass, we need to understand Ukrainian national interests.
Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is. I don’t claim to have a quick solution recipe, but the most important thing that must be done – no matter how cruel it may sound – is that there is a certain category of people that must be exterminated.

The Moshe Feiglin Plan for Gaza

Scary stuff.
This guy is the head of the major faction of the ruling party, the Likud. Most people do not realize it, but the Likud really is a hard rightwing party. It is nothing more than far right fascist political party, and it always has been. The roots of the party are in man named Jabotinsky, who wrote what amounts to the ultimate Likud party statement in 1921 (The Iron Wall) that has governed their philosophy ever since.
Feiglin is considered one of the real hotheads of the rightwing of this rightwing party. Some of his party is embarrassed by him. The Israeli Left hates him. While Netanyahu is a “shadow fascist” (does not display overt fascism), Feiglin is the real deal, a hardcore, hardline ultranationalist fascist of the 1930’s type. He even admires Hitler (as many fascist Zionists did) except for the Jew-killing part of course. These fascists have more in common than you think. A Nazi and a Jabotinsky Zionist might be able to get along just fine as long as they agreed to separate homelands.
Feiglin has also made some very ugly statements about Arabs.
He has made some anti-gay statements, but lately he is sucking up to the increasingly powerful Israeli Gay Lobby.
Feiglin of course is an Orthodox Jew. I honestly think he could get along with Hamas. Hamas are Muslim fundamentalists, and Feiglin is an Orthodox Jew. One’s as religious as the other. I think on some level they respect each other as deeply religious persons. And I have always felt that the real enemies of both the Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists were their secular brethren.
Seizing Gaza and throwing out the Arabs would be nothing new. The Jews have been doing this in Palestine since 1932. It really accelerated from 1947-1949 and then again in 1967. Every month of the year, Israel steals more land and throws more Palestinians off their land. It’s as regular as clockwork. Zionism is a settler-colonial project that is still in its active settler-colonial phase. Think the US before 1890.
Steal more land!
What’s scary is that this nut is really in the Israeli mainstream now. Israel internal politics have become quite frightening in recent years. How much further to the right can they go?

Red Cross – Israel War

For 50 years, the Magen David, the Israeli version of the Red Cross (who do superb work by the way) were banned from international Red Cross conferences under pressure from the Red Crescent, the Arab version of the Red Cross (who also do fine work). Jewish nationalists still fulminate about this, screaming that the Red Cross was “anti-Semitic” for doing this. I doubt if they were.
They probably just caved under pressure from the Arabs. Every other word out of a Jewish nationalist’s mouth is “anti-Semite.” Everyone and their aunt is an anti-Semite. You are, I am, he is, they are, oh look, over there, there’s more of them, under the bed, oh noes, more anti-Semites darn these damn critters are everywhere!
When a Jewish nationalist utters the word anti-Semite, just stop listening to them. The word has a meaning of course as true anti-Semites do exist and they are definitely not good for the Jews, but the term has long been ruined by Jews themselves through sickening, gratuitous and dishonest abuse. At this point, it’s just another cuss word. It’s about as truthful as calling someone an asshole, in other words, it’s simply a matter of opinion.
All of you Christian Zionists out there think that the Jews are your best buddies. And you would be wrong in thinking that.
And I have some news for all you Christian Zionists out there. Guess what? Jews don’t like Christians! If you don’t believe that’s true, then you obviously haven’t been around many Jewish people. And the Jewier the Jew, the more they hate Christians and Christianity. And of course the Jewiest Jews of all are in the land of Israel.
With super-Jews and hardline Jewish nationalists, you can’t win. If you’re doing anything but severely kissing their ass 24-7,  you’re an anti-Semite. You’re just like those people who put them in the ovens.
Do I hate Jews?
Well.
I hate some of them!
Hardcore Jewish nationalists and super-Jews (many, though by no means all, of these types are in Israel) really rub me the wrong way. And I hate Jews who always running around screaming anti-Semite all the time (pretty much the same idiots). Basically what these people are doing is creating their own rejection. They act horrible, you complain about their awful behavior, they label you a Nazi, and that’s that.
And I think you Christian Zionists ought to maybe think twice about those best friends of yours. As in, do they even like you or what?

Israel Supports the Ukie Fascists

Here.
I had heard that they were sitting this one out, but I guess not. All of the West is supporting the fascists, so it makes sense that the Israelis are too since the Israelis are the whores of the West. Whatever the West does, the Israelis fall in line and follow the leader.
The Israelis are also fascists themselves. All ultranationalists are fascists, everywhere on Earth. Not all fascists are anti-Semites. You don’t need to be an anti-Semite to be a fascist. It’s certainly not a requirement.
The Israelis are simply Jewish fascists. That’s all they are, and that’s all they have ever been. As sick as it seems, it makes sense that the Israeli fascists would support their fascist brethren in other parts of the globe, especially as major parts of the Ukie fascists are not particularly anti-Semitic.
For instance, one of the top Ukie fascist leaders is a Jew. 37% of Ukraine’s oligarchs are Jews. One of the most evil Ukie fascists of all is a Jewish oligarch from Dnepropetrovsk. He controls his own private fascist militia that has been very active in the Eastern Ukraine. He recently made a statement that his goal was to kill all of the “moskals” in Eastern Ukraine. And you wonder why Novorussians want no part of the fascist Ukie state! If you were a Novorussian, and Ukie fascist leaders were making statements saying that they were going to kill all the moskals in Novorussia, would you want to be part of such a state?
However, some of the shock troops of the Ukie fascists like the Right Sector and Svoboda are indeed real, died in the wool Nazis. Apparently the Israelis are supporting these Ukie Nazis 100% too!
Although it seems odd, the Israelis have often backed their worst enemies. A number of Islamist and Al Qaeda type groups have long been backed by the Israelis in order to sow chaos and terror in Arab states and turn stable Arab nations into failed states. Also, Israel’s worst enemies in the region have always been secular such as Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad. Israel has long backed radical jihadi Islamists trying to overthrow its secular enemies. Recently in southwestern Syria near the Golan, Israeli artillery and warplanes attacked a Syrian army unit that was deep in battle with the Islamic Army, a radical Salafist jihadi group known for chopping off heads and murdering Christians and Shia.
Sometimes I wonder if there is anything more repulsive than the Israelis.

World War 2 Rebooted

Two visions of the Donbass - the Ukie one on the left, and the Novorussian one on the right.
Two visions of the Donbass – the Ukie one on the left, and the Novorussian one on the right.

See that Nazi looking symbol at the upper left? That is one of the favorite symbols of the Ukie fascists, as is the fascist-like shield symbol at the lower left. While the Ukies are not precisely Nazis, they are fascists indeed. They are Russiaphobic fascists, to be precise, and they are just as dangerous as any ultranationalists anywhere on Earth.

Jews Lie, Part 1,530,961

Yes, Jews lie. They do it a lot. I don’t necessarily hate Jews. They have a good side and a down side. The down side is the lying, among other things. A lot of times, I think the good side outweighs the bad side, and a recent long-term girlfriend was Jewish. I do not think being a liar per se makes you a bad person. It has to be weighed against the good side of the person to see how it all balances out.
Jews mostly lie about themselves. They are not capable of being objective about themselves, hence, anytime Jews are saying anything relating to themselves as a group, you need to be careful, because they lie constantly about this sort of thing. This is unfortunate as a lot of our sources about the Jewish people and especially their conflicts with others were written by Jews, hence they are very suspect.
For instance, most work on “anti-Semitism” is written by Jews. A lot of this work is complete garbage. In fact there is a whole institute set up in Israel that does nothing more than study anti-Semitism. I think it is called the Steven Roth Institute. Almost nothing they write can be trusted. Anti-Semitism is a complex phenomenon and it would be better if disinterested parties wrote about it.
The biggest Jewish liars of all are Jewish nationalists – Zionists. The problem with Jews is that almost all Jews are Jewish nationalists or Jewish ultranationalists. Nationalist lie. Ultranationalists lie. Not just Jewish nationalists and ultranationalists, but all of them.
Jews have a great deal of power in US media. This is not necessarily a horrible problem except that having one ethnic group have so much power over one’s media is always troubling, whether they are Jewish-Americans, Swedish-Americans or whatever. It is not exactly democratic to have one ethnic control so much of a nation’s propaganda network.
Jewish media power is not as important as most make it out to be. Jewish media barons are simply US imperialists who work in tandem with large corporations, the Pentagon and the State Department exactly as their Gentile colleagues do.
If anything, Jewish media barons are a better class of the 1% as they tend to be fairly progressive for rich people. If we tossed out all the media Jews and replaced them with media Gentile moguls, the media would not be much better. In fact, it might be worse because Gentile 1%ers are very reactionary and they are not nearly as progressive as Jewish 1%’ers. Furthermore, Gentile 1%’ers might not differ much from Jewish 1%’ers on the Israel Question.
However, on the subject of Israel and US support for Israel, Jewish media power is a very bad thing for America and this is where the lying comes in.
Jewish nationalists have been very active lately screaming and yelling about “growing anti-Semitism” in Europe and the West. There really isn’t any growing anti-Semitism in the West. There is growing sentiment against Jewish nationalism – Zionism and Israel – but beyond that, anti-Semitism is not very high. Jewish nationalists need to do this because they have an extreme hatred for White Christians and especially White European Christians.
Lamentably, White European Christians do have a long tradition of anti-Semitism. The subject is extremely complex and the reasons for it go beyond the scope of this essay. This phenomenon culminated in the Holocaust, in which the Germans received a lot of assistance in the Jew-killing from European Christians, primarily in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, many European Christians saved Jews and many others effectively laid down their lives to save the Jews by fighting the Nazis. Tarring all European Christians with the Nazi brush is ridiculous, but Jews, especially Jewish nationalists, have been doing this ever since the 1940’s.
Jewish nationalists need to do this since Zionism is predicated on the notion that Gentile (especially European Christian Gentile) anti-Semitism is perennial and eternal in that it will never go away.
This can be seen in the preposterous Jewish nationalist saying that begins, “Every generation they rise up to kill us all…” The Zionists need to see the Gentile World as full of raving, genocidal anti-Semites, and they are always working on this propaganda meme. All nations in the Diaspora must be seen as savagely anti-Semitic and not safe for Jews. In order to be safe, all Jews must go to Israel (except don’t hitchhike and watch out for missiles landing on your head). Hence every anti-Semitic incident in the Diaspora receives breathtaking coverage in the Israeli media. Leading Israeli politicians then go on TV and urge the Jews of the nation where the incident occurred to high-tail it to Israel right this minute.
In the Jewish nationalist media in both Israel and in the US (including huge media networks like CNN that have been effectively taken over by Jewish nationalists) a recent meme is that the Jews of Europe are no longer safe due to rising anti-Semitism in Europe. They single out Sweden, France and the UK for particular abuse. This is a clever lie since like most propaganda, it’s not completely false. In fact, there is rising anti-Semitism in Europe, including the three nations listed above.
However, the problem is in how the story is told. Jewish nationalists tell the story as if Sweden, France and the UK have been raving Nazi countries full of White Christian Nazis ready to kill all the Jews at any moment. All of these reports also conflate the anti-Israel movement in Europe (often a project of the Left) with the rising anti-Semitism. In fact, the Left anti-Israel groups are committing few if any anti-Semitic acts. Beyond that, White Christians are committing few if any of the grotesque anti-Semitic attacks in Western Europe. Nevertheless, Jews are in danger in these nations, but it’s not from Nazi Whites.
Who are they in danger from? Simple. Arabs. Arabs and other Muslims, such as Pakistanis and Iranians. There are indeed quite a few very ugly anti-Semitic attacks occurring in France. Jews are assaulted on the streets, synagogues are attacked and there was recently an anti-Semitic murder at a Jewish Museum.
The US media cleverly lies about all of these attacks to make it look like evil, Nazi anti-Zionist leftwing French Whites are doing this vile things. But it’s not true. Almost 100% of the anti-Semitic attacks in France are being done by North African Muslim Frenchmen, immigrants and sons of immigrants. These people come from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. The recent homicide at the Jewish Museum was by an Arab member of the ISIS group in Mesopotamia.
There are some anti-Semitic attacks in the UK, but not many. Almost all of these are being done by Pakistani Muslims. None or almost none are being done by White Britons.
Sweden is becoming a dangerous place to be Jewish due to an increasing number of frightening anti-Semitic attacks. All or almost all of these assaults and threats are being committed by Arab and Iranian Muslims, particularly in Malmo, where many of them reside. White Swedes are committing few to no anti-Semitic attacks.
In conflating European White Left anti-Zionism with White neo-Nazis and Muslim anti-Semites, Jewish nationalist liars create an effective yet devious propaganda piece.
In suggesting that White European countries are “turning Nazi” by suggesting that Muslim anti-Semitic attacks are actually being by White Nazis, Jewish nationalists get to lie about ancient enemies (White Christians) and modern ones (Left anti-Zionists), resurrect the hoary image of the Holocaust as an eternal part of White Europe’s personality, and bash innocent White European nations as Nazi countries (such as “Nazi France”).
The most troublesome part of the equation is the notion of anti-Semitism itself.

  1. Jews (especially Jewish nationalists) act terrible.
  2. Good people notice Jews acting horrible, get upset at their bad behavior and protest it.
  3. Good people protesting bad behavior are called evil. They become evil people – anti-Semites, Nazis, etc. – merely by being good people protesting bad behavior.

It seems there is no way out of the rigged anti-Semitism game that the Jewish nationalists have set up.

"The Venom of the Hindu Radicals, with Additional Reports from Goa, Kerala and Nagaland," by Alfred Fernandes

I received this very nice piece by a Goan Christian. I do believe that my Christian brother speaks the truth!

The Venom of the Hindu Radicals, with Additional Reports from Goa, Kerala and Nagaland

By Alfred Fernandes

Western governments and Western news media are targeting Islamic radicals because Islamic radicals are targeting White people. If Hindu radicals had also targeted White people be 100% sure that Western governments and Western news media would have also targeted Hindu radicals.
US Pastor Terry Jones has no problem with Hindu radicals burning Bibles in India. Hillary Clinton has no problem with Hindu radicals vandalizing churches and graveyards in India. Barack Obama has no problem with Hindu radicals encroaching land belonging to Christians in India. Ban-Ki-Moon has no problem with Hindu radicals preventing Christians from getting government jobs and facilities. The United Nations Security Council has no problem with Hindu radicals threatening and attacking Christians in India.
Hindu radicals not only have a large number of sympathizers in the police, army, judiciary, intelligence, Ias/Ips, administration but also have a very large number of sympathizers among middle/upper class Hindus, Brahmins and OBC Hindus.
The only three states in India where the Christians have not experienced the VENOM of Hindu radicals are Goa, Kerala and Nagaland but not for long, as  Hindu radicals are expanding their networks in Goa, Kerala, Nagaland.
The only state in India where Hindu radicals don’t dare to spread their venomous tentacles is Kashmir. Even the Indian Government does not allow people from other parts of India to encroach on land in Kashmir because the angry Kashmiri youth will not tolerate migrants. If the natives of Kashmir succeed in getting independence from New Delhi, then the natives of Goa, Konkani, Assam, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and the northeastern states will also start agitating for independence from New Delhi. This explains why the Indian government is doing whatever it can to prevent the Kashmiris from getting freedom from New Delhi.
The Indian government, armed forces, the police forces, intelligence agencies, judiciary, IAS/IPS officers, and local administration – among all of these, nobody is prepared to crush Hindu radicals. Under such circumstances what are the options left for Christians in India?
Should Christians migrate to Christian countries as suggested by Hindu radicals? Should Christians convert to Hinduism to avoid persecution from Hindu radicals? Should Christians in India undergo commando training and arm themselves with guns and bombs for self-defense purposes? Should Christians continue suffering at the hands of Hindu radicals?
The Indian Prime Minister, President and Supreme Court need to advise Christians in India on which option is best to choose.
The secularization of the church by the clergy and the separation of the church and the state are the two main reasons why 90% of White people have removed Christianity from their lives and have become atheists. And obviously these atheists will not bother with what Dan Brown writes or what Hindu radicals do to Christians in India, etc.
Wealthy Hindus in America donate millions of dollars to the Vishwa Hindu Parishads Branch in America, which is registered in the United States as a charitable organization in the 1970’s, where it has, and continues to receive funds from a variety of individuals and corporate organizations run by Hindus. The VHP also has registered charitable branches in Canada, UK, Australia and various other Christian nations.
The VHP transfers the foreign funds to the various Hindu radical organizations in India which are involved in various Hindutva missions including attacking Christians and bringing down churches in India. Hindus left India to earn big money in the USA, UK, Europe, Canada, and Australia and yet, while enjoying the relative tolerance of their new countries, they fund hate campaigns in India against minorities, including Christians.
Due to fear of Hindu radicals, some Christian parents who had Christian names have given their children Hindu names in order to protect their children’s Christian identity.
In the last two decades there has also been a deep infiltration of Hindu radicals into the press, as well as other institutions — political, military, bureaucratic, civic, business, educational and law and order — of India.
All senior leaders and Chief Ministers of BJP are selected by the people at the RSS headquarters at Nagpur. These senior BJP people in front of the media may talk of secularism but officially they do exactly the opposite. They give away government land for building temples and training camps to Rashtriya Swamyamsevak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal and other right wing Hindu organizations. They authorize the Hinduization of school textbooks. They select Hindutva sympathizers in the administration, bureaucracy, police, and judiciary. They do whatever is necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of making India a Hindu Rashtra.
When one Congress Minister talks of banning Hindu radical organizations other Congress Ministers talk of losing Hindu votes if Hindu radical organizations are banned. Hindu radicals are absolutely right when they say that no party in India can come to power without the votes of Hindus, and of course a vast majority of Hindus in India sympathize with Hindu radicals, especially the middle class and OBC Hindus. Whether Hindus vote for Congress or BJP is irrelevant because both the parties are two sides of the same coin.
Governments have failed to create infrastructure/industries/job opportunities in rural/backward districts due to which millions of people from rural/backward districts will continue to pour into cities and towns of India for jobs with the resulting growth of slums and illegal construction.
Governments have failed to strictly enforce the two-child policy due to which the Indian population will continue to increase and with a corresponding increase in the stock of poor and unemployed people.
Governments have failed to setup fast-track courts to deal with divisive politicians, rioters, arsonists, black marketers, scammers, hoarders, marauders, female aborting doctors, slumlords, black money Swiss account holders, slumlords, unscrupulous builders, money launderers, Hawala operators, corrupt IAS/IPS officials, corrupt bureaucrats, corrupt government servants, politicians, and municipality ward officers, etc. due to which these unscrupulous people who should have been behind bars are instead out on bail and living a luxurious lifestyle and are also carrying on with their unscrupulous activities without any fear.
Hindu radicals are absolutely right when they say that Christianity and Islam are foreign religions on Indian soil, but when Hindu radicals are reminded that Hinduism is also a foreign religion on Indian soil brought from Persia some 2,500 years ago by the Indo-Aryans (ancestors of present day Brahmins and Upper Caste Hindus) Hindu radicals go into a defensive mode.
Some Tribal/Dalit Christians have formed an association by the name Poor Christian Liberation Movement (PCLM) and are demanding that the Christian missionaries stop conversions in India for the next 100 years and utilize the foreign funds for the benefit of the Tribal/Dalit Christians. The PCLM also wants the Christians/Catholic institutions in India to reserve seats for Tribal/Dalit Christians. Because of the various demands of the PCLM, the bishops, cardinals, and priests are at loggerheads with the PCLM. The PCLM has also urged the government that no clergy (bishops, priests and nuns) be appointed in government committees, commissions, etc.
It has been observed that due to such appointments, bishops, priests, and nuns are deviating from their original work of the church and misusing their positions and funds. Instead, the government should appoint ordinary Christians as the members in such committees and commissions. The PCLM also wants Dalit/Tribal Christians appointed in the various committees of the Church and its institutions (schools, colleges, hospitals, etc).
The PCLM has also urged the Union government to institute a law allowing the Christian minority institutions to admit 50% of students who are Christians. Any Christian educational institute claiming minority status will be punished if they refuse admission to a Christian child. Currently, there is no such provision, therefore the church educational institutions  ignore poor Christians. Those not following the directive should be declassified and put under the Income Tax Act as commercial ventures.
The PCLM has also claimed that due to the illegal sale of church properties in various dioceses, the Union government should set up national/state boards similar like the Waqf Board to protect church properties.
The PCLM has also urged the church leaders to prepare the laity for more responsibilities so that the real message of Christ becomes acceptable to all without offending any other religions. The key concept is to respect all religions equally.
The PCLM has made allegations that foreign funds coming into India are being misused by a section of church. The PCLM wants the church to use these foreign funds properly for the development and uplifting of Dalit/Tribal Christians.
St. Peter has two keys. One for Heaven and other one for the Treasury. The Treasury key must be handed over to the laity for transparency. Economic committees should be formed to oversee the fund’s expenditure. In every diocese, the Treasurer must be a layperson appointed on rotational basis – for two years. After that term is up, it must be changed.
Hindu fundamentalists have brainwashed the Hindu majority with a five-decade campaign that portrayed Muslims and Christians as disloyal, anti-national or criminal. Militant nationalists always need an enemy in order to grow. Hitler had the Jews. In India there are the minority enemies within along enemies on the outside in Pakistan, China and the West. Hindu fundamentalists pack all the national parties with their people so that they will be in command no matter which party comes to power. This explains why the Congress led UPA has not banned any of Hindu fundamentalist groups (RSS, VHP, BAJRANG DAL, SHIV SENA, etc).
Hindu fundamentalists are evolving new ways of humiliating, marginalizing and crushing their opponents (Muslims, Christians, Tribals, Dalits, etc ). They humiliate and disarm their critics by accusing them of being foreigners and anti-nationals. They provoke them beyond endurance and any self-defense is described as violent. They keep spreading misinformation in a studied and systematic way so that at least half of it will be believed. For this, they take inspiration from the manuals of the Nazis whom they greatly admire. They harass minorities with court cases so as to wear them down.
Hindu fundamentalists use the print, celluloid, audio and video media to further their cause, especially during elections. One cannot underestimate the vastness of their designs. If you send a Christian or Muslim explanation to the press against false accusations, it is ignored.
The organs of the state bureaucracy, judiciary, police and armed forces are polarized…when one officer takes action, another rushes to the rescue of Hindu fundamentalists.
Anti-democratic attitudes are today widespread in the same urban middle class in India that was the backbone of democracy…Gone are the days of slogans like “Unity in Diversity”.
Hindu Fundamentalists’ (Sangh Parivar, RSS, VHP, BAJRANG DAL, SHIV SENA, etc) clear-sighted aim is to establish Aryan rule in India, and impose the Manu Code with its caste norms. Just as for the Nazis, the Jews were a great threat, so Hindu Fundamentalists considers the Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Tribals, Socialists, Communists and Modern Hindus a great threat.
Hindu Fundamentalists definition of nation is not acceptable. It is monocultural, negating other religions and people. The struggle between the Brahminical forces under the disguise of Hindu nationalism on the one hand and the dream of an egalitarian, pluralistic and democratic Indian state and society on the other hand will determine the direction and destiny of the Indian state and society.
Why the Christians? Have Hindus run out of Muslims and Sikhs, that a small and insignificant minority should be threatened, attacked, and burned at will by right wing Hindutva forces? This may sound strange, but in a real sense, the saffron mob has indeed if not in words run out of options. This is why they have now turned against Christians. They are the last soft target.
The Sikhs set the retaliation game in motion. They hit out, often randomly, at designated targets making it known to Hindu sectarians that taking on a Sikh will not be a picnic any longer. This stopped further attacks against the Sikhs. The Muslims picked up this lead and set their own pace by orchestrating the Mumbai blasts of 1993, and several after that in quick succession. So the Muslims can no longer be hunted down either for casual Hindu amusement. This only leaves the Christians.
It must be borne in mind that Hindutva activists are at their predatory best when the kill is easy and their own safety assured in advance. This is why where Christians are in sizable numbers, such as in Nagaland, Kerala or even Goa, Hindutva sectarians dare not touch them. Instead they turn to areas like the Dangs in Gujarat or Kandmahal in Orissa where Christians are scattered and isolated. In these places it is easy to kill without the fear of being killed.
Hindu extremist parties and organizations, all the way to the BJP, can encourage, condone and organize mobs to kill for Hindutva, but none of them are willing to die for it. Muslim terrorism in India has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Taliban, Palestine, or even Iraq. These terrorists are home bred and are direct outcomes of Babri Masjid and Godhra.
Why don’t Hindutva activists go to Nagaland or somewhere else where Christians are a majority? Why is it that Hindutva activists are active only where their safety is guaranteed, like BJP ruled states? In places where there is no administrative encouragement, sanction or connivance, Hindutva activists of whatever description, dare not strike any minority community.
Wherever Hindutva presence is built into the state administrative system, saffron forces are assured that every ethnic attack will be a picnic.
When it comes to linguistic and caste wars there is social science involved, as jobs are to be won or lost on these grounds. But when Muslims or Christians are killed, nobody wants their income or livelihood. They are attacked only to make Hindutva organizations look good and nothing else. This is why, in such contexts, social science of any kind is irrelevant.

The Hindu as "Nazi"

This is from a Hindu poster from India, obviously high caste. I cannot tell you how many comments like this I get. Many of them are just banned without being published, but a number do get published. I removed a lot of the obscenities and sexual insults.

No Lindsay, the Asian females you refer are sluts from China and Korea and monkey looking shui like features who are horribly looking who came there for just money tired of relentless cheating for money these bitches want to marry some white trailer trash for money alone and get settled there which the percentage is relatively small than niggers banging White women. Pure and cultured White men do not marry these sluts with horrible looking features, only vermin like you go for these ugly trashes. Only Indian and Japanese women living in America still go for men from their race. White race has always cheated, looted, and raped other people’s culture, and niggers are also bad since they engage in criminal activities. Asians like Chinese and Korean are scum of the earth. Only good race is the Hindu Aryan race and some Japanese to some extent and white people some one like Nazi.

Amazing really. These guys really do think they are a Master Race! Wow. I always wondered by Hindutvas loved Hitler so much and why Mein Kampf sells so many copies in Hindu India. Apologists say the Hindus love him because he was anti-British, but obviously it goes far beyond that. The high caste Hindus practice a form of ethnic supremacism and even racial supremacism.
As you can see above, they hate most Orientals, think they are ugly and hideous. Orientals are usually called “chinkies” in Hindu India and are widely despised as an inferior, monkey-like people. It goes without saying that Indian Hindus have an extreme level of hatred for Black people, who they think are and unevolved, primitive, savage, monkey like race. There is also extreme hatred towards Whites and their religion, Christianity. They call us trailer trash and think we are morally debased and a conquering, enslaving, looting, colonizing race, which is actually true to some extent.
In addition, they absolutely hate all Muslims everywhere on Earth. They also have extreme hatred for Arabs, probably because they are mostly Muslim.
Note that this fellow says he only likes the Japanese (one of the most racially supremacist people on Earth who just recently went on an extreme and genocidal Nazi like racial ethnonationalist rampage). He also likes some Whites, mostly the White nationalist or neo-Nazi types. In other words, he’s a Nazi and he only likes other Nazi like folks around the world, including the ethnosupremacist Japanese and White neo-Nazis.
The Hindutva movement has had a long love affair with fascism, dating back to its very roots. This is not hyperbole or a smear. It is the dead truth.

The Future of the Hindutva Movement in India

Good comment from India Land of Rapes on the Hindutva Movement:
Hinduism never had an identity to begin with. The British created this new religion of Hinduism.
The Old Brahminical Order which you are talking about lost its identity during Sunga dynasty. Buddhism attained greater intellectual status during Sunga dynasty. War between Brahmins and Bhikkhus created a permanent chasm in South Asian society.
You only see one side of story. Islamic invasions were not so fierce. In fact, many lower caste Hindus converted to Islam as this new religion gave them some social standing.
South Asian society became too weak. Islam and other European invasions were able to control and rule vast regions of south Asia because South Asian tribes and princely states were in permanent war with each other. Society lost meaning and purpose. In the Vijayanagara Dynasty, they tried to resurrect this lost spirit, but they failed. In fact, corruption and incompetence led to the downfall of Vijayanagara Kingdom.
The Kakatiyas collapsed due to same reason. They were busy backstabbing and preserving their rule. At one point, they became authoritarian and did everything to preserve their rule. The Kakatiya Kingdom was in a bad economic state. Internal chaos, low agrarian output and mass starvations led to food riots in Telangana region. Finally the Deccan Sultanate took over, and many in the Telangana region and Hyderabad converted to Islam as they had no hope in Hinduism or Sanathana Dharma as it was called earlier.
Gandhi was right when he stated – “No one can take your freedom, Power unless you voluntarily give it or you become so weak that a Dominant force will overpower you”.
Hinduism/Sanathana Dharma/Brahmanism became weak, arrogant, and closed-minded much like Islamic Mullahs.
At one point over 90 percent South Asians were functionally illiterate, and superstition and blind rituals entered mainstream culture.
Black magicians, con artists, and fake gurus became intellectuals.
Society entered an abyss; chaos was everywhere.
So called patriotic Hindus fought against the British, and when they lost, they sacrificed over 50,000 children for Lord Shiva, in hope that Shiva would reincarnate and destroy the White Race on Earth.
Modern Hindutva is a reactionary movement. Brahmins have not accepted defeat. They are using new techniques now, new tools, new propaganda techniques. But they will fail, not because Hindutvas are bad, but because their influence died long ago. Now they have forced their ideology onto people, and I assure you that many Indians, especially minorities, will not take to Hindutva any longer.
They should have settled down and allowed society to progress and adopt any new ideology which fit people’s reason, but they still believe that Hindus are like small kids who need to be taught “Hindu way of Life”. They think they own everything in India, but they are just blowing in the wind.
The Hindutva movement is like the Muslim Brotherhood in Middle East.
Political Islam is dead in Egypt. It brought only chaos, divisions, conflicts between Sunni, Shia, and minority Coptic Christians. The same will be the future of Political Hindutva. Caste based violence will increase, and this movement will alienate 210 million Muslims and over 70 million Christians in India.

Indians Angry at Indian Hindus

Jerome writes:

Just for the record, the Goans were and continue to remain unhappy about India’s occupation of their land.
If India’s ‘liberation’ was in any way legal, then so was what Hitler did to the Jews and Pol Pot to his countrymen.
The following are a list of people who seriously have a problem with Hindus and their oppressive regime:
1) Northeastern peoples: Who want’s to be known as a ‘chinky’? Who want’s their women raped and stereotyped as loose? Why should these people love India? They rightfully deserve independence or deserve to be merged with China. What good are the Hindus doing them?
2) Sikhs: It’s a well-known fact that Nehru promised these people freedom from India. Just like he did for Goa. He lied – a common Hindu ‘strategy’. Since independence, the Sikhs have been murdered and killed and forced to serve the Hindus. Research the 1984 anti-Sikh riots instigated by Hindus to get a glimpse of what this is about. They continue to fight for their freedom. Research – The Khalistan Movement.
3) Kashmir: Every Indian knows that Kashmir doesn’t belong to India. Typical Indian strategy – create a religious problem where there isn’t one, then say Hindus are being oppressed – then walk in and destroy the indigenous peoples while encouraging native Hindus from India to settle there. The same strategy was used in Goa.
4) Lower Caste Hindus: Interestingly enough, the group with the biggest issues against Hindus are their own lower castes. Many are now converting to Christianity (this pisses of the upper castes who won’t give them a fighting chance at a decent life but want them to remain lower caste slaves) or even Islam (Maybe this is a better option for them?) Research ‘Lower Caste Oppression’
5) Groups of organized militia throughout central, eastern and western India known as the Naxalites: These people are disgruntled villagers of every religion who have decided to throw off the shackles of a nation that does nothing for them and fight for their own independence. They are communist and often resort to Violence. A few weeks ago over 100 (!!!!) policemen were killed by them. Research the ‘Naxalite movement’.
6) South Indian Tamils: For decades, these people have been fighting for independence from India. They rightly claim that India has forced cultural attitudes, an official north Indian language, etc. while doing little to educate or help the people. Interestingly enough, it is the Catholic Church that has and continues to play an influential role in educating the poor here, caring for the sick, dying and homeless and helping people in general live decent lives. The Christians are hated for this.
Research the ‘Tamil Eelam’ movement.
7) Muslims: India is 14% Muslim as per the latest government records. Every 5-10 years since independence, Hindus have organized (with the support of the government) genocides against different pockets of Muslims. Hindus do not let Muslims settle in their areas and cut off supplies of water, food, medical supplies, etc. to ghettos where Muslims live. Naturally, an entire generation of Muslim youth are now awakening to a world where everyone hates them and in some parts (research Gujarat Muslim Genocide 2002) EVERY MUSLIM FAMILY has lost at least one family member. How would you feel if this happened to you?
8) Christians: Last, and certainly the least since they’re the smallest and most helpless minority, the Hindus have now begun attacking us – the Christians. They allege forced conversion of Hindus – a laughable allegation. Christians have had to face genocides in Orissa in 2008 and Karnataka, Goa and Madhya Pradesh more recently. Interestingly, each of these states were run by the Hindutva fascist BJP government which directly advocates the killing of minorities and the imperialist expansion of India’s territory. Research ‘Hindus killing Christians’.
Hindus – Do you still wonder why India is such a F*****G mess?
Readers – Don’t fool yourself – Hinduism will spread in your country and then attack you using the freedom and liberties you’ve bestowed upon them. Do no underestimate the hate of the Hindu. You will be sorry that you did.

Northeasterners: I think there is a lot of truth to this. I never knew that the Hindus hate their very own northeastern people. The term “chinky” and their belief that the women are loose applies to their very own Northeasterners who are apparently hated.
Sikhs: It is true that many Sikhs do not want to be part of India. However, I live in an area where there are many Sikhs and I have spoken about this with many of them. Most of them are anti-independence at this point, possibly because they think it is a lost cause. There were more pro-independentists around in the 1990’s. Worse, many of the anti-independentist Sikhs are wild Indian nationalists, which is really tragic.
Kashmir: I think it is clear that Kashmiris do not want to be a part of India. That is obvious. India never had a right to it in the first place, but neither did Pakistan. Most Kashmiris apparently want independence, and only 6% want to merge with Pakistan, which is another failed state. A few have completely given up the fight as hopeless since independence will never be achieved and have decided to make peace with India. One thing is for sure, India will probably never give up Kashmir. It’s so sad. India encouraged colonists to move into Kashmir?
Lower caste Hindus: Some lower caste Hindus have become members of the Hindutva movement, but many others are estranged from Hinduism and seem to hate the religion. Thing is on the Net you will see almost exclusively high caste Hindus, and you will almost never see a low caste Hindu, so it is hard to get a feel on how these people feel. It is true that many of them are converting to Christianity and this infuriates high caste Hindus who accuse Christians of “proselytizing.”
Naxalites: For the time being, these are mostly tribals in the forests of India who have been oppressed since time immemorial by their Hindu overlords who consider them as worse than Dalits because they are not even Hindus. Most of them still practice tribal religions and they are outside of the caste system. The Naxals have not done a very good job of expanding their movement to at the very least Dalits, not to mention the cities as a whole.
South Indian Tamils: I am not aware that there is a big independence movement among this group. Notice the rage and fury the Hindus have for the Catholic Church since it cares for the sick, the hurt and the dying.
Muslims: I did not know that Hindus do not allow Muslims to settle amongst them. Interesting fact. I also did not know that public services are cut off to Muslim ghettos. The Jews of Israel do this same thing to the Muslim towns and areas of their own cities. Yes, there are frequent pogroms against Muslims in Indian cities and towns.
Christians: The Hindu hatred for Christians is absolutely off the charts. I have never in my entire life met a single group that hates Christians as much as Hindus do. In recent years, pogroms have been organized against Christians in many villages, and many Christians have been murdered.
I doubt if Hindus will attack us in our own country, but this people are so morally depraved that we really should not be letting them into our country.

India As an Imperialist Country

Creaders writes:

The man white ally with India. The white man is always covering India. White man media do not report the real truth about India and all India transgression was forgotten. India is a key player against China. But I will honestly say its not a NATO style alliance but a low level type.
India invade Diu, Daman, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli from Portugal, no white man newspaper ever bark.
India invade Hyderabad, white man keep quiet. India invade Kashmir, white man keep quiet. India invade Sikkim, white man keep quiet.
When India invade Kashmir, India say Kashmir ruler like India but so I don care if they people hate India. When India invade Hyderabad, India say Hyderabad people like India, but I don care the ruler hate Indian.
When India annex Manipur and Sikkim, both people and ruler hate India. India say fuck it, I just want your land, never mind if you hate me. In fact, Indian just know how to talk and talk. They are liars and can come out any reason to harm you.
white man keep quiet. India invade China, white man keep quiet.
China arrest India’s aggression in 1962 Sino-Indian war, white man say China is aggressor and send arm to India.
India is really a crap nation.

I thought US imperialism was bad until I heard about Indian imperialism. India is obviously one of the imperialist countries. Even worse, like the early United Snakes, Zionist Israel, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it has been conquering and annexing land since the day of its birth. I suppose one could argue that many new nations engage in a “nation-building project” that involves some sort of conquering of other people’s land to annex their lands into the new nation.
However, if we look around the world, we do not see a lot of examples of new imperialist countries engaging in nationalist conquests upon independence.
In the modern era, the examples are not many:
Nazi Germany: program of conquest, annexation and colonization in WW2.
Imperial Japan: program of conquest, annexation and colonization in WW2.
Fascist Italy: program of conquest, annexation and colonization in WW2.
Indonesia (independence in 1949): Program of conquest and annexation of Aceh, East Timor and part of New Guinea now called Irian Jaya. There was also a project of settling colonized lands with settlers in order to subdue the natives. A number of genocides ensued. This project was led by an openly fascist political party pushing a fascist project called Pangasinan.
Pakistan (independence in 1948): Attempted to annex Kashmir by force (uncertain if Kashmiris wanted to be annexed by Pakistan). Annexed Balochistan by violence soon afterwards after Balochis voted not to join Pakistan.
Israel (independence in 1949): Its very birth was created by invasion, conquest, ethnic cleansing and displacement of natives. Colonization of new land by settlers followed. The following years, more and more land was conquered, more natives were thrown off the land, and more settlers were moved onto new conquered land. The project continues to this day.
Russia (newly independent in 1991): Invaded and conquered Chechnya which declared independence from the new Russian nation. Later invaded other Caucasus republics attempting to break away from the new nation.
Armenia: Invaded and conquered part of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabagh on an uncertain moral basis but strategically because it was full of Armenians. Later conquered “buffer zones” of Azeri territory similar to Israeli “security buffers.”
Georgia: Invaded South Ossetia when South Ossetia refused to join the new country called Georgia.
Morocco: Invaded and conquered Spanish Sahara after the region was decolonized. It then settled the area with 200,000 settlers.
Sudan: Upon independence in 1954, launched a war against South Sudan that continued for decades and killed 2 million people.
Eritrea: Soon after achieving independence in 1991, Eritrea attacked Ethiopia and tried to annex border land. It also attacked Djibouti and tried to annex part of that country.
Ethiopia: After independence, Ethiopia immediately annexed Eritrea. This led to a 30 year war which Eritrea finally won and achieved independence from Ethiopia.
Somalia: The new nation of Somalia attacked Ethiopia in 1977 and attempted to conquer the Ogaden region and annex it to Somalia.
Libya: In 1978, Libya attacked Chad and attempted to annex a strip of land called the Aouzou Strip.
However, India seemingly takes the cake. Soon after independence, India quickly invaded Hyderabad, Diu, Daman, Goa, Dadra, Nagar Haveli, Sikkim, Manipur and Kashmir. All of these places had decided that they did not want to be part of India, but India invaded them anyway. Sikkim was actually a separate country, but India invaded it anyway and annexed the place. Many people died because of India’s imperial conquests. The Manipur conflict lasted many years and the Kashmiri conflict continues to this day. Many other areas in the Northeast also refused to join India in the beginning and all were attacked sooner or later.
In the midst of this wild imperial conquest spree, apparently India received 100% support from US imperialism. When India attacked China in 1962 for no good reason, US imperialism supported them 100%, apparently as an anti-Communist move against China. India was even supplied with weapons with which to attack the Chinese people.
When you talk to Indians (generally high-caste Indians) one thing you will note is the fanatical nationalism many of them have. Many don’t know their country’s history, but if you recite it to those who know about it, almost 100% of them will support Indian imperialism to the hilt. The average Indian is an ultra-nationalist, a nationalist fanatic. In part this is because the media and the government has been pushing fascist like ultra-nationalism from the early days of the Republic. The number of Indians opposed to this fascist ultra-nationalist and imperialist project must be very small, because you never hear of them.
Of late, radical Indian ultra-nationalism has been married to Hindu fanaticism in the form of Hindutva ideology. This is a marriage of fascist ultra-nationalism and with radical religious fundamentalism. The result has been a potent movement that looks fascist in many respects. This nascent fascist movement has taken high caste and middle class Indians by storm. We should not sit idly by and watch this fascist movement form while we twiddle our toes. Instead we should watch this dangerous movement very closely. It threatens not only India itself but parts of the rest of the world too.

China Versus India

New commenter Jeff remarks on the differences and prospects for both China and India. China comes out on top and looks great for the future, whereas India has its head up it’s ass as usual. Before you accuse me of being racist, I’d like to point out that most of India’s problems are 100% amenable and are attributable to a crap culture.
In other words, India is a mess not because Indians are genetically inferior or defective (although that’s possible, I’m not aware of any good evidence that it is true). Instead, they could knock it off anytime they want to as the problem is with cultural and thinking styles and not and inborn nature or deficiency.
A commenter writes: “Which to me indicates either that the Chinese model is superior or that Chinese culture is superior.”
Jeff responds: It’s both and more. Culturally speaking, the Chinese are more industrious, more meritocratic, more egalitarian, more practical, more disciplined, and more secular. The Chinese articulate a vision, set goals, and then go about achieving them relentlessly. The Indians make idle boasts and delusional forecasts and then vegetate: no one seemed to have taught them that the cart shouldn’t come before the horse.
For China, the erstwhile Maoist system, while monstrously flawed, secured an economic foundation by vastly improving nutrition, numeracy, literacy, healthcare, and advancing women’s rights. Deng Xiaoping’s post-Mao reforms would not have succeeded without the aforementioned accomplishments serving as a steppingstone.
India, on the other hand, is just fucked up, OK? Just straight up FUBAR. It’s still plagued by the caste system and mired in sexism. After some 60 years of self-rule, India still hasn’t managed the basics: 58% of Indian children suffer from malnutrition; 20% of Indians go hungry everyday; functional literacy rate is around a pathetic 50%; 1/3 of the population have no access to electricity; 1/3 of the country is controlled by various insurgencies, etc.
With such atrocious fundamentals, all the Hindutva drivel about India Rising and India Shining will remain just that, drivel.
Whereas Chinese leaders are selected primarily based on merit and qualifications, Indian politics is largely a family affair (e.g. the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty) in which performance is irrelevant but blood ties all important.
Despite the much ballyhooed Indian “democracy”, the Chinese system is far more accountable and responsive. Case in point, when the emergency management system was deemed deficient during the recent flood in Beijing, the mayor was fired; when Bangalore experiences annual floods, the local honchos are re-elected, repeatedly, by promising handouts to largely poor and illiterate vote banks.
The Chinese know what they want: to get rich and to reclaim their former position as the hegemon. They are open to adopt whatever systems or methods that can propel them there: this is the essence of Deng’s motto that it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long it catches mice.
The Indians, by contrast, have never articulated a collective vision and are therefore content with a hodgepodge of caste-based feudalism, socialist license raj, and neoliberal excesses: a little something to appease every constituency and ideological group.
And just to miff the Hindutvas and PC banshees, let me close by pointing out that Chinese are generally more intelligent and have a much tougher mental constitution, which undoubtedly contribute to their superior performance vis-a-vis the Indians.
P.S. For those of you interested in enlightening cross-cultural comparisons between India and China, read Mr. Navneet Bakshi’s blog. Mr. Bakshi is an Indian who had lived and worked in China long-term. He endears with his brutal honesty and incisive observations.

How I Came To Be an "India-Hater"

Seriously? writes:

If you’re looking for an Indian to go out of his way to proclaim love for Christians and Muslims, you’re not going to find one. My Brahmin Hindu mother has four best friends, whom she spends all hours of the day talking to: two Pakistani Muslims, a Sikh, and a white Christian. No Hindus. She has no need to go around showing this off to prove her tolerance.
What you’re asking for is unreasonable. Indians don’t run onto the streets, trumpeting their respect for other groups of people. No one does. It’s true some Indian American communities are insulated, but much less than Muslim and East Asian ones.
You guys kind of remind me of newly converted high school atheists, who, upon hearing not everything they’ve been told about Christianity has been accurate, go out of their way to make Christians (in this case Indians) much worse than than they really are. It’s all really just an angry reaction to what you perceive as a lie.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the lost tribes of Israel, the Parsis, etc. who found refuge in India. I’m sure you can also imagine few other places, much less Europe, would have absorbed these diverse groups and accepted them so fully.
There’s no denying that, while not all Indian Hindus are tolerant, India has been much more tolerant than other civilizations have been. India may very well have been the first truly multicultural society on Earth.
Think about it, India has all the major religions (along with many minor ones), perhaps a hundred different ethnic groups, all coexisting. It’s been that way for thousands of years and still is now. Now think about Pakistan which was once the same way, where all the other major religious groups have since been all but wiped out.
But I guess when you found out that India wasn’t entirely the land of peace, and there have been a few attacks against Muslims, you suddenly brandished this next to meaningless piece of information. You wanted to make Hinduism and India look as bad as Christianity and Islam do. It’s understandable, but both wrong and an exercise in futility.

Not at all. I have known about attacks on Indian Muslims for years. I was always suspicious of Hindus and Indians, but I let it pass because I am a liberal and we are supposed to love everyone.
My close friendships with a couple of Indian Hindu Brahmins were very eye opening. Very nice guys, good people, but Hindutvadis and Indian nationalists. They hate the British, Pakistan, Muslims, Christianity, the White man, Europeans, European civilization, on and on.
There was a rage there that was very hard to describe. And they believed the most profoundly anti-scientific non-theory, like rejection of IE and the Aryan Migration Theory. They tossed about all sorts of antiscientific tripe. They both supported the caste system to the hilt, while saying it didn’t exist anymore, while railing against reservations.
Before that, I knew a few others. I had a good relationship with a couple of Hindu guys from Delhi who worked for me, except the programmer grossly oversold his abilities to me in a typical Indian fashion. His brother was so profoundly classist that I had to school him on how that was not cool in the USA to act so classist like that. He arrogantly dismissed my concerns.
I knew a Hindu woman from Pune who hated the US and Pakistan. She was kind of a trip though. Always bugging me to send her dirty pics. I kept sending her dirty pics, but she said they weren’t good enough. She wanted pics of me fucking various women, but to tell the truth, I didn’t have any! She was pretty kooky and emotional.
Every Hindu I ever met was stark raving nuts on the subject of Kashmir. They all insisted that all Kashmiris loved India and that the whole problem was Pakistan stirring up shit among content and happy Kashmiri Muslims. I told them that Kashmiris themselves wanted to go free and be independent and not join either country, and they all acted like I was speaking Greek. They were brainwashed worse than a North Korean, and this was in the world’s biggest democracy.
Then I met a lot of Hindutvadis on the Net and that was a real eyeopener. Then I read a lot about US programmers losing their jobs to Indians and the hatred these Hindus had for the White West, and that was really eye-opening too.
The rage, really the impotent rage, of Indian nationalists and Hindutvadis is very frightening and reminds of other ultranationalists the world over and throughout history. Honestly, Hindutvadis remind of me Nazis in the 1930’s.
They done us wrong! We are getting back at them!
I’ve met only a few Hindus here in the US. Mostly I have met Sikhs, who I am starting to think are just Hindus are disguise! Mind you, I made some Sikh friends here of a sort (one was one of my physicians, a Sikh nationalist), and some of them were ok. The best and most progressive Sikhs are the Sikh nationalists – the rest of them are just typical backwards and reactionary Indian nationalist types, little different from Hindus.
The more I dug into the Sikhs, the more I figured out they are just as backwards and barbaric as the Hindus. Really disappointing.
The few Hindus I met here were odd. A couple were doctors. They could be very, very friendly until you asked them something about their country. Then they got very bizarre and suspicious, shut up immediately and often left the room.
One guy was a physician. Between visits, I looked up his name and it turned out he was some mid caste from Andra Pradesh. Next time I saw him towards the end of the visit, I asked him if he was from Andra Pradesh, and he flipped out, said yes and left the room. Then he turned cold and hostile when we had to have some dealings afterwards. He acted like I was an enemy spy.
The few regular Hindus I have met around town are Gujaratis (Patel) and Punjabis, and they are profoundly arrogant. I do not know why. They get incredibly weird if you ask them anything about India, and even weirder with me because it’s obvious that I understand the place more than 98% of Goris.
Not that I let Islam off the hook. I already think that Islam is backwards, barbaric and reactionary. But many Muslim societies are quite stable and even prosperous. There is little crime or social disorder. Things work, in an odd way.
It’s really up for grabs which religion is worse – Islam or Hinduism. Both are reactionary, backwards, sexist and barbaric. Hinduism tosses in feudal to make it a full monte.
Islam is expansionist and treats minorities very poorly, but Hinduism doesn’t treat minorities well either. Prejudice against Muslims in India is profound. There are routine pogroms and mass murders committed against Indian Christians. Sikhs were treated to a near genocide a couple of decades ago. Hindu tolerance leaves much to be desired. Further, as Hinduism hardly accepts converts, it doesn’t even absorb minorities via conversion, which is at least one nice thing about Islam.
Secular Muslim societies, now under attack all over the Middle East, worked very well and were very tolerant towards minorities. Much more tolerant than Hinduism.
Of all religions, Hinduism cares about human beings the very least of all. It’s quite possibly the most backwards and barbaric remaining ancient religion. We can theorize this as all ancient religions seemed to resemble Hinduism in their polytheism, nature worship and caste system.
Monotheistic Judaism was advance upon Hinduism, but as a tribal religion that hardly accepts converts and preaches hatred for those outside the tribe, it’s still an ancient tribal religion in some ways similar to Hinduism. It’s a typical tribal anti-universal religion.
Monotheistic Islam which held out the branch of conversion to all of humanity was an advance upon amoral and casteist Hinduism. There is also a socialist feature to Islam, and at its root, it is a law and order religion par excellance. No Muslim was above any other Muslim; all were part of the ummah.
Monotheistic Christianity represented a further advance upon Islam, holding out the branch of conversion to all of humanity. Heathen were to be loved and saved, not declared war on or converted by force. Modern Christianity preaches pacifism and no longer converts by force, which was never common anyway. Christian pacifism was an advance upon militaristic Islam, and Christian socialism went beyond the rudimentary socialism of the Koran.
At the end of the day, I just feel that there is something terribly wrong with Indian people in general and with their whole society. It’s fucked up something bad.
And as long as that’s going on, I am going to continue writing about it.

More to Punjabi Sikhs Than Meets the Eye

Beartrix wrote:

Hey Robert, did you hear anything about this murder suicide of a Mr Avtar Singh in Selma, CA?
‘From Kashmir to California: in the footsteps of a wanted killer-Journalist Zahid Rafiq tells how he tried to reach Avtar Singh, a former Indian military man living outside Fresno with a dark past in Kashmir. On Saturday, Mr. Singh killed his family and himself.’
It’s quite interesting, Mr Singh was a former Indian Army officer wanted for ‘atrocities’ committed during his service in Kashmir.

Yes we heard something about it.
What’s funny is that around here most Sikhs are rabid Indian nationalists. They are almost Hindutvas too, because they won’t let you say two words against Hinduism before they get mad and shut you down.
I have tried to talk to a few of them about Kashmir, but they always take a strong Indian nationalist line on that. One family started pounding on their table and ranting about Pakistan. I asked why they cared so much about Kashmir, and they said a lot of Sikhs including their relatives had served in the Army in Kashmir.
Around here, Sikh separatists are quite rare. I have met a few of them, but they are not common. Sikh separatists are critical of their own society, and they really hate India. They are sympathetic to Kashmiri and the separatist rebellions in the Northeast.
I thought I would get somewhere saying shit about India and how Punjab would be better off separate. That typically doesn’t work at all. One guy got mad and started ranting and raving about how great India was, and then he went on this crazy tirade against the West, especially America. He was a Sikh! But he may as well have been a Hindu for all intents and purposes.
Most Sikhs will tell you they don’t believe in caste, that caste sucks, and that Sikhs don’t believe in caste. But that’s as far as they will go against Hinduism. You get the impression that Sikhs think they are part of Hinduism or at least a branch of it.
Sikhs seem extremely cool at first until you scratch the surface a bit. I noticed the same callousness and selfishness that I have seen in most other Indians.
All Sikhs insist that Punjab is very rich, and there are no poor people. I told one guy that there was 25% malnutrition in Punjab, better than 50% in India but still. He shrugged his shoulders and said there are rich and poor in every country. He clearly was not bothered in the slightest that 25% of his own people were starving! Then I started to realize that Sikhs are really Indians first and Sikhs second.
Some of them around here can be friendly enough, but typically anything other than the most casual conversation is quickly shut down. A few will be friendlier than that, but that’s the minority. One guy lied and told me he was a Mexican when he was really a Sikh.
I asked a couple of them about their religion and they just shut me down. They said there’s a temple if you want to go and learn about it. They clearly don’t want converts at all! The truth is that they are pretty difficult people to get to know, and I think they really only want to socialize with their own kind.
I will say that they are model citizens, and they commit almost no crime. They have very strong families with strong emphasis on discipline in children. The men are good family men who work hard and help their kids every day after school with their homework. The kids are quite studious and seem to do well in school. Many around here are either in college or headed to college. You see them in coffee shops crowded around their books.
Punjabi women are very beautiful, and the guys are handsome too. But it seems that they only date their own kind. I haven’t been able to get any Punjabi women to say more than a few words to me in general.
However, there are some young Sikhs now who are born in the US. They are extremely assimilated, and most of the bad qualities of their immigrant brethren are gone. I met a few of the guys, and they are very cool. They are also quite smart and intellectually curious, which is pretty rare around here. They become full-fledged Americans very quickly.

Comrade Kiran's Answers to Journalists During the Press Conference on June 19, 2012

The Nepalese Maoists have been very successful. After waging a long revolutionary war, they hung it up with a peace settlement in an effort to try to obtain power peacefully. In recent elections, they got 40% of the vote.
However, since then, their leaders have been engaged in some major sellout activity, especially Prachandra, their leader. He has aligned himself with the US and India, and has praised unequal treaties signed by Nepal and India in the past in addition to supporting new treaties that India has lined up for its neo-colony called Nepal.
India has always treated Nepal like dirt, used and abused it in a neocolonial fashion. The traitor Nepali Congress Party went along with this treason by aligning itself with the establishment India Congress Party.
What this really is is Indian imperialism. In addition to being a reactionary state, we need to think long and hard about the extent to which India is also an imperialist power. India’s actions in the Northeast and in Kashmir nearly smack of imperialism. These are arguably occupied territories of Indian imperialism and Indian ultranationalism.
As a regional hegemon and a large capitalist state with a huge army, it was only a matter of time before India would start acting as an imperialist power. As Lenin pointed out in his seminal essay, modern capitalism is necessarily imperialist. A large modern capitalist state must be an imperialist state, and modern capitalism must inevitably lead to imperialism.
This is where the antiwar Libertarians have it all wrong. They envision a large ultracapitalist US or even world in which all states would be isolationist and noninterventionist. But if modern large state capitalism cannot be anything other than imperialist, this is simply not possible. Large capitalist states will not sit idly by while other nations take actions against corporate capitalist interests and in favor of their peoples.
The US has supported repeated coups and coup attempts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, Bolivia and most recently in Paraguay. There were recent imperialist interventions in Libya and now in Syria mostly to secure the interests of Western capital and Zionism.
Zionism itself has profound links with imperialism, and some argue that the Israeli state itself, while obviously a s colonial power, is also an imperialist power. I am not certain if Israel is actually a regional imperialist power.
I do not know what the BIPPA is, but it sounds like globalist World Bank IMF bullshit designed to privilege corporations and capital at the expense of sovereign nations, people and the Earth itself. It’s mind-boggling to think that Prachandra has gone along with this.
This split in Maoist parties is not a bad thing and was a long time coming. Let’s see where it all leads.
These questions and answers are from the press conference that was organized on the 19th of June 2012 by the newly formed Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, which finally ruptured from the then Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) after a 2 day long National Convention held in Kathmandu, Nepal. Chairman of the newly formed CPN-M, Comrade Kiran (Mohan Baidya) answered the questions raised by journalists during the press conference.
Thanks to Comrade Pooja for taking her time to make this speech available in English.
Q: – How do you justify the formation of the new party? How should general people understand this?
A: – Communist party is a party for the benefit of the proletariat and the people. In the case of Nepal, the aim of a communist party remains to move forward, raising the issues of safeguarding national sovereignty; people’s democracy and livelihood then ultimately leap towards socialism and communism.
This is self-proven. In the process of attaining this aim we went through people’s war, and did considerable amount of work among and with the people. We built our base areas, practiced our newly formed people’s power but then conciliation took place amidst as we moved forward to build a new Nepal.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t compromise, we should, but while compromising, the act of abandoning our entire basis (achievements) has happened. The act of slipping down from our mission and objectives has happened. The dream we carried was of a constitutional assembly, but where is the constitution? How did the constituent assembly function? Talking about people’s livelihood, how has the corruption been mounting-up?
That fact is clearer. In the process of making a constitution there was an agreement to move forward institutionalizing the rights of the working class, indigenous people, ethnic minorities, women & Dalits; including the rights of all oppressed class, region and gender but ditching all these primary issues of constitutional thematic committees it is apparent that ex-chairman, Prachanda surrendered everything to Congress & UML by forming a dispute resolution sub-committee under the constitutional committee.
In the process of making a constitution the question of ethnic-identity-based federalism is extremely important. Our party takes the decision of an ethnic-identity-based federalism while in process of restructuring the state Prachanda & Baburam joined their necks together with Congress-UML and agreed up on eleven anonymous federal states.
The situation was that they were forced to take their decision back, as we and all others in the constituent assembly carried-out a signature collection campaign against their decision. They have failed to institutionalize ethnic-identity, it is important for us to do it.
Where are the perquisites for women and Dalits? There have been serious betrayals on these issues. That is why we want to raise all these issues again. Not only that, we are also talking about issues of national sovereignty. Since the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement (BIPPA) was signed, now the issues of water resources agreement and extradition treaty have come to surface.
The main thing is that there has been a wrong tendency to maneuver our party as a puppet of imperialism and expansionism; along with this all the core concept of the party including the guiding principal has been distorted. We are against this. We cannot let our party function as a puppet of imperialism, expansionism and feudalism. We had to revolt in order to safeguard people’s rights, interests and benefit. This is the main justification of the split.
Q: – In the past we have witnessed vicious confrontations between two factions after the split of Naxalite struggle in India. How are you cautious about bloodshed happening after the party split? What is your view on the question of the government?
A: – You raised the question of possible confrontation between two parties and the question of the Naxalite struggle in India; we are very cautious about this. There won’t be any such confrontation from our side. We won’t go into confrontation. It has been proven even in the course of history of our two-line struggle that we never exerted any physical force anywhere. Instead we have heard many cases of exertion of force by Prachanda’s group in places. During that time we alerted the concerned party to be serious on the matter.
Therefore, firstly what I want to assure you is that we will not be exerting any physical force anywhere from our side. Secondly, we have to be extremely aware. There has been talk with Prachanda and other people within his circle that we have to be very serious in these matters after separation of the party. Therefore, how to move forward is primarily dependent on Prachanda’s group.
Not to become serious in this matter and exert physical force is against  democratic norms; it is a dictatorship to exert force instead of seeking a solution to the problem through discussions and debates in a communist party. That is fascism. No one accept dictatorship and fascism, including us. In such a situation the masses will resist these acts.
There are two things on the issues of how to move forward with other parties. Firstly we have to initiate talks with all the parties and reach an agreement in any issue that can be agreed upon. If anybody raises an issue that is in favor of the nation and the people, we must have to support that. We have been supportive so far, and that will continue.
It doesn’t matter whether the Congress-UML or a neo-revisionist camp, if they raise similar issues as we do, we support that, but again the other important thing is that we should neither merge in the coalition of Congress-UML nor in the coalition of Baburam-Prachanda’s coalition of neo-revisionism. We will carry forward an independent revolutionary line of Nepalese politics.
Q: – There are allegations that the monarchy assisted you to split the party, and you have close ties with Gyanendra, do you have RIM’s support or not? Who played the role from the international community to split the party? Has the president the right to dismiss the prime-minister, what is your say on this?
A: – Firstly, you raised the question of collaboration with Gyanendra, who told you this and where? Reveal the factual basis of this, substantiate and tell me. Secondly, in the process of a two-line struggle, Baburam accused Prachanda as pro-king, and Prachanda had accused Baburam as pro-expansionist. This was documented in writing.
Have you studied that written document or not? Did you understand that the pro-king and the pro-expansionist forces united together to attack us in the process of the two-line struggle? Thirdly, each and every political party has to have a capacity. That capacity means capacity of logical argument.
When it’s not possible to annihilate someone through the means of factual arguments and debates, then there will be malevolent attempts to label them as corrupt, to denigrate them through the means of conspiracy and deception.
Fourthly, if you look at our programs, we ask for establishment of a people’s federal republican state, emphasis on safeguarding the achievements of the ten years of the great people’s war. Let us look at things from a factual basis; when we look from this basis, those baseless allegations bear no truth at all. This isn’t anything but false allegations hatched by the pro-Indian-expansionist elements.
Yes, we are in the RIM. There are many different parties in the RIM. You may even know what sort of discussions there are. Do you raise a question with the knowledge or without? We used to be involved in decision making in the RIM. The RIM is actually not operative at this moment. Perhaps you are trying to point to a particular party, but we had fraternal relationships with all the parties involved in RIM, and that continues.
Fraternal parties reserve some rights. Our communist party is a proletarian internationalist party. If any party involved in such an umbrella organization slips into the quagmire of opportunism, then the other parties oppose this, and the international community has clearly said that the Prachanda-Baburam gang has slipped into the quagmire of revisionism. Therefore, let’s forget about RIM – any other genuine communist parties do not acknowledge that this gang is Marxist anymore. So, the issue of RIM etc. is total nonsense.
Again, power & greed; look at the agenda– the only and one agenda of Congress-UML is that Baburam has to step down from the government. Probably this is a major cause of the dissolution of the constituent assembly without forging any political resolution. On the other hand, the only agenda of Baburam is that he has to retain power. So, these two camps are ready to abandon anything and will abandon everything for power. Therefore, we are not in this controversy.
We are not in the row of their greed of power. As a tactic we have forwarded the agenda of multilateral roundtable conference. The so-called top leaders of these parties have become incapable of solving people’s problems.
We have put forward the agenda of the United Interim Government, and we have said that the problem can be solved from there. Therefore, we won’t involve ourselves in the corrupt power play of the government.
Q: – How will you make the constitution, you have claimed that there has been massive intervention by India, how have you scrutinized the new developments? In the past you formed COMPOSA, will it be continued?
A: – In the process of making the constitution the issue of Indian intervention has always been there since B.S 2007 (1951).
Firstly, making a people’s constitution is not possible by collaborating and wrangling day and night with feudalists, compradors and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie class. Secondly, making a new constitution involves the participation of all oppressed people. Now this has been clearly proven. Therefore, in such a situation, the constitution cannot be made.
So whether the agenda is of reinstating the constituent assembly or yet again another election, this is all incorrect. Now the political outlet has to be forged by conducting discussions and debates through a roundtable conference in a multilateral convention. Even if this process fails to make a new constitution, then those who are in the line of federalism should begin the process of establishing people’s government at a local level.
We have to move forward with the concept of establishing a people’s government even at the central level. It is complete nonsense to talk about making a constitution without forming a pro-people government. We are very clear in this issue.
We are also very clear about what we should do on the question of Indian intervention. Basically, it won’t be wrong to say Nepal is a neo-colony of India. The act of destroying border-pillars by the Indian side has been talking place on a daily basis, and the border has been encroached in many places including Sustaa, Maheshpur and Kalapanee.
Forget the other governments – even Prachanda and Baburam who led the government from our own Maoist party could do nothing to stop it from happening but instead just became hopeless spectators.
The intervention of Indian expansionism in all sectors – economic, political, social and strategic has been rapidly gearing up. Indian expansionism is fulfilling its self-interest by providing space to the Indian puppets in Nepal. Indian expansionism has no respect for the Nepalese. We respect Indian people, but the Indian government points its evil eyes on the Nepalese on a regular basis.
There have been many unequal treaties with India since 1950. Instead of nullifying these unequal treaties, arrangements are being made to sign even more unequal treaties including Upper-Karnalee and Arun-III. Baburam’s government has signed another water resource agreement with India.
Therefore, we have been relentlessly insisting on the nullification of all these unequal treaties. In an interview with The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, Prachanda claimed that we (Nepalese) have an exceptional relationship with India. Those who have exceptional relationship with India are parties like the Nepali Congress.
Now, Prachanda has also started to follow Nepali Congress. Therefore, we rigorously oppose all these trends. What we have said is that all the unequal treaties signed so far in this 21st century between India and Nepal have to be nullified, and new arrangements to sign new coequal treaties that benefits Indian and the Nepalese people need to be made.
If the intervention doesn’t stop, as we have been saying– we also have principal contradiction with Indian expansionism, we will target our struggle of national sovereignty against the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in Nepal as well as Indian expansionism.
Finally, you asked about COMPOSA (Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia), COMPOSA is not something to fear! This is an umbrella organization to struggle in the interest of patriots, leftists and all other pro-people elements in the South-Asian region. This organization has been weakened for sometimes now. We think about the ways to strengthen it again and carry on with it.
The main thing is that if the imperialists, expansionists and opportunists conspire to weaken the people of any countries, and then the people and the pro-people forces also have to unite in tactics and form a united front to struggle.
Q: – In the process of forming a new party there are allegations that the new party is reminiscent of old alcohol in a new bottle, what do you want to say on this? And, what is the assurance that you will also not deviate from the revolutionary line? What do you think of a unity with Prachanda? Now, what will be your relationship with the existing state, will you divorce with it and begin to declare people’s governments as in the past?
A: – You indicted the new party as an old alcohol, on this what I want to say is – please at least look at our decisions carefully. If you examine our decisions carefully, then you will be able to discern whether the new party is old or new alcohol. I think the word alcohol here has been fairly tainted, but it would be better to understand the crux of the matter. We didn’t separate without valid reasons. Many things justify the reasons for this divorce.
I have already said a lot about the issue of Indian expansionism– think about it, can patriots and genuine republicans progress work together with those who sign treaties like the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement (BIPPA) and those who claim an exceptional relationship with India?
Can revolutionaries progress together with those who renounced all of the promises that were made to people in the process of the great people’s war and who cremated the constituent assembly by joining their necks together with the reactionaries and opportunists? We have to look at things from this prospective.
Talking about unity with Prachanda – unity is not feasible in such a situation. It is not possible at all. We have kept the door open if someone transforms themselves and comes to unite. This is the main thing. Even under this condition we will not go to Prachanda – he has to come to us.
On the question of separation with the old state, even a person with a very basic knowledge of Marxism knows that communists want to smash the old reactionary state and replace that with new people’s government. The great people’s war we fought, the agenda of socialism, the journey to communism – all this means smashing the old reactionary state and replacing that with new people’s government.
Not just this, beyond here we aim to abolish the existence of the state as a whole to establish a new world of humanism by creating a stateless, classless society that is completely free of all forms of exploitation and oppression. Our politics is fairly farsighted. We won’t stick to the government as a leech like other rulers here do. We will continue to struggle to establish a new state – this is our main goal.
In the current situation, we will carefully think about what can be done for the benefit the people and the country by restricting ourselves within the limitations of the current state and the existing law. Proletarians have utilized parliaments and elections in the past. We cannot detach ourselves entirely from the principals of Marxism. We will decide what to do and where by formulating policies through analysis of the concrete situation.
Q: – What is the decision of the National Convention on the question of dissolution of the constituent assembly? Now that the party has ruptured, which faction has the majority, the new party or the establishment faction? You have mentioned about united front, who would you unite with in united front?
A: – We have already said a lot about the dissolution of the constituent assembly. There is a direct conspiracy of national and foreign reactionaries in dissolving the constituent assembly. The greediness of Baburam and the Nepali Congress to hold on to the power has also played some role here. It is well known to all that the autocratic behavior of those who have been proclaiming themselves as top leaders of the main four political parties has played a vital role in dissolving the constituent assembly.
The autocratic behavior of these top leaders which completely mismatched with democratic practices and also bypassed the dignity of the 601 members of the constituent assembly is a major cause of the dissolution of the constituent assembly.
While talking about which party is smaller and which is bigger, the world knows who is in the majority and how.
Firstly, the issue of majority is transparent, those who came in the party through the unification process, some of the comrades are fine, no argument there, but the majority of them are total rubbish.
We would be in the majority in the Maoist Party– in this situation; the fact is that there had been malevolent attempt to change the color of the party through absolute unification.
Secondly, talking about which party is larger– we can evidently claim that even though we are in the minority in the central committee we have parallel party committees throughout the nation. If necessary we can demonstrate our strength. Thirdly, the issue of which party is bigger and which is smaller– perhaps this issue is not very significant.
Throughout history smaller parties have become bigger, and the big ones have diminished. This is the way we have to understand the dialecticism of party unity. We have come thorough a long history. UCPN (Maoist) was also tiny in the initial phase.
The issue of smaller and bigger– the party with correct thought, politics, ideology, which can substantiate politics in practice advancing resolutely in capacity of a genuine revolutionary communist party, acting in the interest of the country, people and proletarians expands. Those who betray the country and the people gradually evaporate.
I have already clarified with whom we need to form a united front. A united front has to be formed. And we advance ahead forming a united front including the patriotic republicans, leftists, federalists, women, workers and Dalits. Another thing, the issue of party registration is the issue of conditional necessity. We will think about whether we should register the party and if we deem it is important then, we may register.
If not we may not register at all because we are resolutely convinced that through parliamentarianism the people’s problems cannot be put to an end. Therefore, whether to register the party depends upon the situation.
On the question of comradeship with Prachanda and Baburam, we came throughout our life in comradeship with them. Now, we did not leave Prachanda and Baburam but they left us. We did not separate from the party as well but they split themselves ditching the political ideological line of the party. Therefore, now the issue of their class categorization is a real bizarre. An independent political line of Prachanda and Baburam has come to an end.
What should we label those who are the puppets of foreign reactionaries and expansionism? It is not possible to join neck together with the puppets. We cannot join our necks together with class capitulationists.
Our desire and proposal to them is that they have to break all ties with all sort of reactionaries, only then we can go ahead together. As long as they have ties with those reactionaries, we don’t trust them.
Q: – As heard, you are ambiguous about whether to go for people’s war or people’s revolt? What is your say on the question of corruption thought have been taken place in cantonments? How will you treat the journalists?
A: – We are not ambiguous about whether to go for People’s War or People’s Revolt.
Firstly, we will revolt for new democracy against parliamentarianism. We don’t acknowledge parliamentarianism. The democratic republic, the aged-decayed parliamentarianism of which all the parties here sing the retro song of democracy deafeningly, that democracy has completely failed, the Constituent Assembly has also failed.
Therefore, as an alternative, in the interest of the country and the people we move ahead to establish New Democratic Republic in Nepal against Feudalism, Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism. This is our key agenda. To attain this goal, if asked how we move ahead, both ways, legal and underground, a revolutionary party can utilize every essential method. We came to the peace negotiation honestly. When we arrived only the Maoists had to make all the compromises but now we don’t compromise up to this excess.
So, that is beyond doubt, if necessary – People’s War or People’s Revolt, anything can happen, this is the key issue.
And you talk about money and corruption in the cantonments; I’m not here to talk about that. This is not a place to investigate corruption. So lets not talk about these things here. People are finding out where there has been mischief; most definitely the revolutionary members of the people’s liberation army are investigating it. That space is there.
On your query about the role of Baburam-Prachanda while our arrest took place in India, but these are not things that only we look into. This can be a case of a serious investigation. This is also something that the masses and you people (journalists) can look at. Our journalist friends are very far-sighted, introspective and detail oriented. I am convinced that you will help us through this. We want to respect the media on how media is being treated. We will continue to fight for the rights of working class journalists; we will fight for the rights of the working class people.
What we are worried about is that in the veil of professional journalism, mission journalism happens, and that is not a good thing. Let this not be the main issue, and we will respect you. If any shortcomings on our part we are committed to self-criticism.

Update on National Bolshevism

Repost from the old site.
There is something downright nasty about these guys, and I can’t even put my finger on it. National Bolshevism is some type of Third Positionism.
Third Positionism is one strange beast all right, and I can’t figure out what to make of it. Their Celtic cross symbol gives me the creeps; it reminds me of the Zodiac killer, and it looks fascistic.
It’s supposedly some species of fascism that combines unspecified elements of the Left and Right, in particular, Leftist and socialist economics. As they have never held power anywhere, no one really knows how this plays out IRL.
I’m not necessarily going to oppose anyone that gets lumped into some Third Positionist “fascist” grab bag by political scientists, but so far, I don’t like what I see.
The National Bolshevik Party is Russia is one strange beast. They support the Russian minorities in all of the former SSR’s, which is theoretically a valid cause, but in many cases probably reeks of national chauvinism. But there’s a lot of national chauvinist crap going on in those new states anyway, this time victimizing Russians.
They supported, and apparently still support, the War on the Chechen People in Chechnya and now generalized across much of the Caucasus to Dagestan, Ingushetia, Southern Russia, North Ossetia-Alania (When did they change their name?! Ok, 1994. The history of the Alans, especially as relates to the peopling of Japan and NE Asia, is an interesting one, if you like strange theories), Karachay-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria.
Originally, their project was the usual fascist imperialist expansionist crap, envisioning a vast state encompassing all of the former USSR (which would have to be reconquered in some way) and all of Europe (I guess this would have to conquered too), to be ruled by Russians. That’s actually kind of humorous. Well, since then, they have dropped that.
They are also anti-Semites, accusing ultranationalist Zhirinovsky of being a Jew, as if that is a bad thing (he has a bit of Jewish heritage, but I don’t enough to go to Israel). They hate Putin and accuse him of being a fascist.
That’s strange, but if you study fascists for a while, you realize that one of their fascist games is that fascists are always going around calling others fascists as a term of abuse. It doesn’t make sense until you are around them a long time.
Lenin hated the precursors of the National Bolsheviks and said they were a class enemy, but he’s not a God to me.
At the end of the day, I’m sorry, but I just can’t get behind these guys. Ultranationalism pretty much sucks just about everywhere, without many exceptions.
National Bolshevik principles.
Update: R.M. Schultz of the Soviet Overseas Trading Company News blog, author of the principles above, stopped by the comments section and made some interesting points.

Who Were the First Residents of Los Angeles?

Repost from the old site.
In our never-ending attempt to fight ignorance and stupidity everywhere it shows its ugly head, we will examine the question of the racial makeup of the Californios, the original Mexican settlers in California. Later on, we will look at the racial makeup of the first settlers of LA, along the same lines.
First of all, let us demolish a particularly obnoxious form of Chicano nationalist crap: the Aztlan lie, perpetuated by radical racist Chicano nationalist idiots like this, this and this. According to this mountain of leftwing ultranationalist racist manure, Mexicans, otherwise known as Aztecs, are the true owners of a place called Aztlan, encompassing much of the southwestern United States.
These folks are upset because we fought a nasty war in which we invaded Mexico and stole part of their country. However, most of the Mexicans in California at the time (the 7,000 Californios) hated Mexico so much that they welcomed the Americans who started this immoral war. After all, the Californios had waged their own unsuccessful secessionist war not long before, a war savagely put down by the Mexican government.
However, the Aztlan BS lies on a steaming heap of lies of its own. For the Mexicans themselves stole “Aztlan” from the very Native Americans who they claim to represent! Holy hypocrisies, Batman! Yes, the Native Americans, not the Native Mexicans, were the original owners of this land.
I have worked extensively with Native Californians and their opinion of Mexicans and Mexico is not extremely high. I am sure they would be furious with the notion that this land really belongs to Mexico. They are still smarting over being taken over by the Americans.
So let us see now. Spain conquered Anahuac (the stupid name Chicano nationalists give to their fake country) in the 1500’s. Spain also conquered “Aztlan” right around this time, though they pretty much left “Aztlan” alone. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain in an anti-colonial war.
Mexico then assumed imperialist domination over the Native Californians, herding them into missions which frankly resulted in the genocide (in terms of destruction of a people) of many Native California tribes, especially those on the coast.
The Indians were captured by force by these “charming Mexicans”, herded into missions against their will (a process that had really reached its peak under Colonized Mexico), where they were worked very hard and mixed in with so many other tribes that their languages and cultures were wiped out in the attempt at Catholic conversion. Running away from the mission was punished by whippings, beatings and imprisonments.
The death rate was high in the missions, mostly due to diseases. There were repeated Indian uprisings at these missions against their wonderful Mexican overlords. These usually ended unsuccessfully, but in a few cases, some priests were killed. Leaders of uprisings were typically executed by priests.
The Indians on the coast of California were particularly devastated by missionization. In many cases, we have few or no records of some of these languages since they disappeared as early as the early 1800’s.
So in all their endless bitching about White invaders coming from Europe and genociding the Indians (largely true to some extent) Mexicans themselves, both colonized and independent, invaded “Aztlan”, stole the land from Native Americans, and committed a variety of crimes against the natives.
So, Aztlan doesn’t really belong to Mexico – it belongs to Native Americans. But since they have been integrated into the US peacefully, it goes by default to the US.
As if the notion of Aztlan were not lunatic enough, not to mention the BS called Anahuac . Anahuac is the name given to the Valley of Mexico, where Mexico City is now located, by the arriving Aztecs.
The conflation of the Aztec Mexico City place-name of Anahuac by Chicano nationalists into the name for the whole continent of the Americas is extremely ethnocentric and is likely to fly well with few, if any, other (non-Aztec) Native Americans. Further, it is a frankly racist notion in and of itself. Chicano nationalists, being partly of Mexican Indian blood, claim Aztlan in the US for (partly) Mexican Indians, of all people!
Outrageous or what? And on what do they base this claim of sovereignty of (part) Mexican Indians over Native Americans?
Because, supposedly, according to some crazy Aztec myths, the Aztecs came from a land far to the north before they settled down by Mexico City. However, this is actually a misreading or deliberate propagandistic distortion of those myths, which actually refer to Aztlan as a land to East of Mexico, across a great sea, an island, to be precise.
Clearly, this story is just that, a crazy myth with no basis in reality. Yet Raza propagandists have either ignorantly or malevolently twisted this myth of an island across a sea into a myth of a “homeland to the north”.
This silliness rests on still more nonsense, mostly that all (part) Mexican Indians are actually Aztecs! In fact, the Aztecs were simply one large tribe (at this point a large collection of tribes who can no longer be considered one people) who had conquered, in Genghis Khan viciousness, many of the surrounding tribes.
They were hated by almost all tribes that were familiar with them as basically a Mexican version of Nazis, they were savage, vicious, cruel and brutal, they practiced horrible human sacrifices, and they either tried to Final-Solution or actually Final-Solutioned many other tribes. In short, they were a bunch of bastards, and their principal pastime was Final-Solutioning surrounding “Mexicas”.
Somehow, radical Chicano nationalists have decided that all Chicanos are really Aztecs! How the Hell do they know? Check out this page: there are 289 living Indian languages in Mexico. Granted, 28 of those languages are varieties of Aztec. But that makes 28 different tribes of Aztecs.
That’s 261 separate non-Aztec tribes if you will. Add in another (at least) five non-Aztec tongues that have gone extinct since Cortes landed in 1519 to get 265.
Out of 289 separate tribes, how do these idiots assume that all Mexicans are really members of the 28 Aztec groupings amongst the 289? Based on what evidence?! It’s as stupid as saying that all Native Americans are really Navajos.
Now, maybe the Aztecs really did have a homeland to the north and maybe they did not. Linguists and historians are unsure about this, and this “highly advanced tribe” called Aztecs, had not yet figured out, by the late date of 1519, a coherent way of writing stuff down, when Europeans, Middle Easterners and Asians had been doing so for centuries.
This same tribe of super-people had also not figured out bronze age metallurgy, which many cultures around the world had accomplished centuries or millenia before.
According to legend, Aztecs came from somewhere to the north around the year 830. Various suggestions for this Aztec homeland have been put forward, all the way from Wisconsin to the middle of Mexico.
The idiot Chicano nationalist claim to Aztlan is based on a misreading of the homeland of all of the Uto-Aztecan people (the Aztec tongues are all part of a large language family called Uto-Aztecan, which contains many non-Aztec tongues). But Uto-Aztecan is a huge language family that may be 5,000 years old . The homeland of the Uto-Aztecans was probably in southern Arizona.
But that does not mean that that is where the homeland of the Aztecs was, anymore than saying the homeland of the Germans (Germany) is the same as the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Southern Ukraine). Somewhere around southern Arizona about 5,000 years ago, the proto-Uto-Aztecan split into Northern and Southern groupings.
But after that, there were a variety of splits inside of Southern Uto-Aztecan. As you can see, this theory just gets dumber and dumber. Proto-Aztecan itself did not even come into being until 600 AD, before which where was no such thing as the Aztecs.
Furthermore, the builders of Tenochtitlan built the city between 2100 and 1400 years ago. In 600 AD, it was destroyed. It appears that the builders of Tenochtitlan, then, were not even Aztecs, but instead were some other group.
Since the beginnings of the Aztec languages coincide with the appearance of a new group, described as Aztecan, and the destruction of the Tenochtitlan civilization, it appears that the Aztecs were not the builders of those pyramids but the destroyers of them!
And so what if Aztecs used to live in Arizona or wherever centuries before 1519?
We now accept that virtually no Indian tribe in the US was always in the spot where they were contacted, from the time of settlement from Asia to contact. We have been able to plot many migrations of Indian tribes pre-contact. It’s clear that they moved around, conquered, enslaved and genocided each other, practiced cannibalism on their enemies, (and were victims of all the above) and did all the things that tribes normally do.
Point is, giving “Aztecs” a bunch of Native American land in the Southwest because they “used to live there centuries ago but left” makes about as much sense as the Zionism that these La Raza morons despise so much, often to outrageously anti-Semitic degrees (see here for a sample, or, really, most anything on La Voz de Aztlan).
Now that we have demolished a few of these La Raza ethnic nationalist dung piles, let us move on to one of another of their cherished myths – that the original Californios were Mexican Indians.
Shall we start with a fascinating tidbit about the very first residents of Los Angeles ? Los Angeles was founded by a group of settlers from a place called New Spain on September 4, 1781, soon after the US Declaration of Independence. Here is a map of New Spain. Does New Spain (its jarring yet powerful flag is here ) mean the same thing as “Mexico”, not to mention “Aztec”? Of course not.
It included the entire Western US, a good part of the Midwest, all of Florida, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, (yes) Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, Cayman Islands, the Mariana Islands and even the Philippines.
The best evidence is that the original settlers to LA came overland from Mexico. For a long time the Spanish government had been trying to get Spaniards to go to California, but hardly any of them wanted to go.
The first settlers were regarded by a local priest as “the dregs”, similar to the first settlers of Australia. It seems they were escaping something. Quite a few were criminals or fugitives. 2/3 of them were Mestizo or Mulatto. So much for “Aztlan”! Some even came from the Philippines (via Mexico). Do Blacks, Mulattos and Filipinos all get to carve out a chunk of “Aztlan” for themselves?
Here is the actual rundown, incredibly, from a Chicano nationalist website:
Jose de Lara, 50, a Spaniard from Spain (evil White man), with an Indian wife and three (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo children
Basilio Rosas, 68, an Indian from Durango, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 Black, 1/4 White) children
Antonio Mesa, 38, a Negro from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five mulatto (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) children
Antonio F. Felix Villavicencio, 30, a Spaniard (evil White man) from Chihuahua, Mexico, born in Mexico with an Indian wife and one (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo child
Jose Vanegas, 28, an Indian from Jalisco, Mexico, [Los Angeles’ first ‘alcalde’ or mayor], with an Indian wife and one pure Indian child
Alejandro Rosas, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico, with an Indian wife
Pablo Rodriguez, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico,, with an Indian wife and a pure Indian child
Manuel Camero, 30, a mulatto from Nayarit, Mexico, with a mulattress wife
Luis Quintero, 55, a Negro from Jalisco, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) mulatto children
Jose Moreno, 22, a mulatto from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife
Jose Rosas , 67, an Indian from Durango, Mexico and his mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 White, 1/4 Black) or Coyota children
*A Filipino, Antonio Rodriguez, from Manila, Philippines, and his 11 yr old daughter were among the original group that set out to settle Los Angeles. They got sick in Baja California of smallpox and stayed there until they got better. When he got to Alta California, it was discovered that he was a good gunsmith and he was ordered to Santa Barbara Presidio to be an armorer.
There were:
14 mulattoes
12 Indians
9 Spanish-Negro-Indians
8 Negro-Indian Zambos
5 Spanish-Indian mestizos
2 Whites
2 Blacks
34 were at least partly Indian
33 were at least partly Black
29 were at least partly White
The Indians were clearly Mexican Indians; many early settlers to Los Angeles came from poverty-stricken Sinaloa in Mexico. Sinaloans, pre-contact, were not Aztecs.
Look at the above – one could hardly find a more mixed group of people. It’s Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition 200 years in the past. Does that look like a bunch of Aztecs from “Anahuac” to you? Of course not.
Idiots.
Let’s look at something else. Exactly what percentage of Mexicans were living in Alta California, which Mexican invaders, recall, stole from Native Californians? A whopping .1% of the Mexican population was living in “Alta California” in 1846 – only a pitiful 7,000 of the entire Mexican population were Californios, mostly members of 800 families.
White Americans made up 1,300 of the population and Europeans (both evil Whiteys, who La Raza claims has no right to be in Aztlan) were 500. Going by adult males, the Whites and Europeans, who were concentrated from about Monterey to Sacramento, were about equal in population to the Californios.
Here is a photo of a famous Mexican officer who led a war against local California Indians in 1828-1829. He looks about as “Indian” as I do. So much for the “Aztecs” of “Aztlan”.
Also, if the evil White European conquerors were so diabolical and all, why does the Raza not only speak the language of these evil White conquerors, but why also have they adopted much of the culture and religion of these hated genocidal folks? Not only do they speak this “evil language”, they champion it to the point of demanding that it be an official language alongside English.
Along the same lines, see here for an excellent demolition of an apparent radical La Raza professor, Manuel Servin’s, allegation that the Californios,

as the study of California’s settlement shows, were not Spanish, but overwhelmingly mixed-bloods from Indian, Spanish, and also Negro stock.

Attacking the notion that “Hispanic” or “Chicano” (whatever those words mean) culture or people were largely or even partly “Spaniard” is one of the favorite pastimes of the La Raza ethnic nationalists. Why the obsession?
Probably because they hate Whitey and European culture so much, while glorifying Mexican Indian (But only Aztec!) culture so much, that the notion that “Spaniard” forms a large part of “Hispanic”, “Latino” and “Chicano” culture and/or DNA really ticks them off. It’s self-hatred plus denial, pure and simple.
Ralph Vigil does a good job of demolishing this nonsense. First of all, “Spaniard” itself is not any kind of pure White race; instead, for 700 years or so before 1519, Spain had undergone an incredible amount of race mixture.
In the New World, a mestizo born in wedlock was “criollo”, or Spaniard; one born out of wedlock was “Creole”. There was a lack of White women at first, so 1/8 Indian and 1/16 Black still qualified one as “White” or “Spaniard”.
So much for race!
So much for race indeed, even to the present day. A Mexican Indian leaves behind Indian ways and magically transforms into “mestizo”. A Guatemalan Indian drops Indian ways and starts dressing like a mestizo and automagically becomes “Ladino”. Neither without a drop of White Blood.
Back to Vigil:

In order to arrive at a better knowledge of the Hispanic heritage of the borderlands, one should perhaps always keep in mind that this heritage consists of a Spanish, Mexican, and regional Southwestern past, and that an extreme emphasis on any part of the Hispanic heritage, whether it be the “Spanish cult” or the “Mexican-Indian” past, makes for a distortion of borderlands history.

So neither “they were Spaniards” nor the La Raza fetishization of Mexican Indians explains the matter well.
Vigil concludes that the matter, like so many things, is complicated. It does not lend itself to simple explanations or La Raza propaganda soundbites:

In conclusion, the student of the history of the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest encounters a civilization that in varying proportions has elements of Spanish, Indian, Mexican, and Anglo origin today.
Although these background influences are important for the analysis and evaluation of the formation of the people variously called Mexican, Mexican-American, Spanish, Spanish-American, Chicano, and other names, the difference between that which was Spanish, Mexican, and Southwestern or New Mexican in the colonial period can only be a matter of regional distinction within a similar general culture.
To claim, as Servín does, that Hispanos in New Mexico are not of Spanish stock or language or culture because of some race mixture over the centuries is to miss the importance of miscegenation completely. Vertical mobility existed socially and by the early nineteenth century, all those colonists in New Mexico not obviously Indian were Spaniards.
To claim otherwise is almost the same as stating that Spain ceased to be Spanish because of the Berber invasions, or that “Anglo-Americans” today are Indians because they eat corn, potatoes, and use tobacco.