the indians and chinese have an understanding and already carved up their respective spheres of influence amongst these highland territories. nepal falls within the indian sphere.

and yeah, hp, I know what you were saying. like you with Israel, I have my little rants.

i could swear you knew that making some tiny contribution to ending the embargo of Cuba is – second to making the same to ending America’s involvement in Iraq – where I come from.

Clearly the Maoists of Nepal are making efforts to neutralize the Indian threat — and buy themselves some space to consolidate their movement and carry though the initial waves of social transformation.

There are quite a few challenges for that kind of process — and the external threat of hostile powers has (historically) been one of them. (soviet Russia was invaded by 14 different powers, including the U.S., in the aftermath of the revolution. twenty years later it faced a new invasion from Nazi Germany. Revolutionary China faced U.S. and UN forces advancing up the Korean peninsula up to the Yalu river, accompanied with threats of nuclear attack on China itself).

There are other threats to revolutionary change — all kinds of internal problems and forces and pitfalls. but the external problems of living as a non-capitalist state in a capitalist world are considerable.

In other words the domination and threat that Nepal faces from India is real and long-standing.

Nepal also shares a border with china, but it is (in fact) the ridge of the Himalayas, and it is a border with the largely desolate tibetan plateau. there is only one road from Nepal to china. It has little trade, and virtually no military potential.

No one here is prettifying the Chinese regime which long ago departed from its previous framework of “serve the people” — and now seeks an authoritarian modernization along the capitalist road.

But China is not a threat against Nepal at this point. And India is.

In many ways, the Indian ruling circles probably assume they can strangle any Nepali government in its cradle. The U.S. applied blockades and commando raids to destablize Castro. Certainly India’s rulers are in an even more powerful position to blockade-to-destabilize a Maoist Nepal. Thiere is a threat of an invasion (which after all is the whole point of maintaining modern multi-million man nuclear armies). but the likelihood is that a hostile India would seek to pressure (or break) Nepal by means short of war (after all India is also preoccupied with the recurring tensions along its western border, and has shifted some military forces toward suppressing their own people in Naxalite-influenced areas.)

HP seems to vicerally reject any analysis of possible Indian threats — as well as any sympathy for radical social change in South asia. OK, hp has a right to his/her opinion. But the facts and geo-political dynamics are pretty clear.

hp, what you stated is exactly what is on paper LOL

stockmarkets, KTVs with naked dancing women, millionaire businessmen, local VCs, luxury brands, KFCs every street corner in Beijing/ Shanghai, Starbucks, credit cards, American/ European cars… the list goes on.

“market socialism” just a term on the paper so that the CCP can retain power. Mark my words, the ignorance and stubbornness of the western world to see that China is no longer communist is creating a bigger problem, she is turning national socialist.

Nando, you have a rather odd definition of “expanionist.”
Losing entire parts of a nation, Pakistan, East Pakistan (Bangladesh), Kashmir(?) is the opposite of expansionist, is it not?

Could , maybe, possibly, used to be, might have.
Very strong arguments, Nando.
If you want to bring up history, Pakistan was once India. As was East Pakistan (Bangladesh). As is Kashmir.
History is the Islamic invasion and occupation and the loss of these parts of India. And now Kashmir. Now that’s expansionism. Islam, not Hindu.
What’s next? Sikhistan?
And after Sikhistan what will you say? More Indian expansionism?
Dude! There really is a bizarro world.

“As far as India being a threat, India hasn’t invaded another nation in, well, 10,000 years. You have to go back to prehistory.”

I think this is a misread of modern history. Through out South Asia the indian government is called “expansionist.” That is because (at one time or another) their troops have threatened each of their neighbors.

The largest example of this was the severing of Bangladesh from the rest of Pakistan — in a series of military events that involved Indian troops. Indian troops absorbed Sikkim into India (it used to be independent). India has gone to war several times with its western neighbor (Pakistan) and in the 1960s engaged in military brinkmanship with china. (Chinese forces responded with a devastating blow and then stopped at the plains of India refusing to advance into India.)

In the case of Nepal, the Indian government imposed the notorious treaty of 1950 on Nepal — that greatly restricts nepali sovereignty (it says that India considers Nepalis to be Indian citizens, it places requirements on Nepal to maintain an open border and gives India veto power on how the national military of Nepal is used and deployed.) and throughout the period of revolution in nepal (starting in 1996) there have been repeated rumbling from India that amount to threats that their armed forces may enter the conflict on the side of the Nepali royal army.

One of the most acute manifestations of this has been the Indian encouragement of secessionist forces in the Terai (nepals main agricultural region, where the people have ethnic and cultural ties to Hindu India). One implication of those encouragements is that India has (essentially) fabricated for itself an available excuse for military adventures — an Indian attack against Nepal’s revolution could take the form of a military occupation of the terai.

One of the reason that Nepal even exists as an independent country is that (like Afghanistan) it is too mountainous and poor to make conquest worthwhile. The british did not seize nepal, but stopped at conquering the northern Indian plains. No one thinks that India will attempt to conquer the Nepali highlands — but they could occupy the terai lowlands (claiming to support ethnic Hindus there) and then try to starve Nepal (and the revolution into submission). Or they could just let the implicit threat of such an invasion hang in the air, with all the pressure that means on Nepal and its leading revolutionary forces.

I think this is a misread of modern history. Through out South Asia the indian government is called “expansionist.” That is because (at one time or another) their troops have threatened each of their neighbors.

The largest example of this was the severing of Bangladesh from the rest of Pakistan — in a series of military events that involved Indian troops. Indian troops absorbed Sikkim into India (it used to be independent). India has gone to war several times with its western neighbor (Pakistan) and in the 1960s engaged in military brinkmanship with china. (Chinese forces responded with a devastating blow and then stopped at the plains of India refusing to advance into India.)

In the case of Nepal, the Indian government imposed the notorious treaty of 1950 on Nepal — that greatly restricts nepali sovereignty (it says that India considers Nepalis to be Indian citizens, it places requirements on Nepal to maintain an open border and gives India veto power on how the national military of Nepal is used and deployed.) and throughout the period of revolution in nepal (starting in 1996) there have been repeated rumbling from India that amount to threats that their armed forces may enter the conflict on the side of the Nepali royal army.

One of the most acute manifestations of this has been the Indian encouragement of secessionist forces in the Terai (nepals main agricultural region, where the people have ethnic and cultural ties to Hindu India). One implication of those encouragements is that India has (essentially) fabricated for itself an available excuse for military adventures — an Indian attack against Nepal’s revolution could take the form of a military occupation of the terai.

One of the reason that Nepal even exists as an independent country is that (like Afghanistan) it is too mountainous and poor to make conquest worthwhile. The british did not seize nepal, but stopped at conquering the northern Indian plains. No one thinks that India will attempt to conquer the Nepali highlands — but they could occupy the terai lowlands (claiming to support ethnic Hindus there) and then try to starve Nepal (and the revolution into submission). Or they could just let the implicit threat of such an invasion hang in the air, with all the pressure that means on Nepal and its leading revolutionary forces.

Nepal is not the fuse to ignite india… it is the other way around..
The nepal maoists have for long been inspired by the naxalbari uprinsing of 1971 in India which is located only a few100 km from the nepal border.

Hardly, the Maobadi see the current Chinese system (socialism with Chinese characteristics!) a perversion of the original Marx/ Mao thinking.

I am amazed by how many Westerns holding on to the very lame idea that China is commie. The only thing red about China nowadays is the 100 RMB notes.

As far as India being a threat, India hasn’t invaded another nation in, well, 10,000 years. You have to go back to prehistory.
“Nepal as a fuse igniting India.” Give me a break. India has absorbed everything under the sun, including the Christians, the British, democracy, communism, capitalism and ten centuries of Islamic invasion. I doubt very much if a little fledgling communist neighbor is gonna cause India to loose any sleep. Especially one quoting Marx to them.

“The courage to climb the unexplored mountain.” Again, what does that mean? Maybe unexplored for them, but if they ask around I’m sure they can find examples of others having climbed, or attempted to climb that mountain before them.
Also…”the Maobadi of Nepal are carrying out tactics for isolating their internal rivals, broadening their appeal, and neutralizing external enemies.”
Not exactly a (reason #3) “radically better world” for the ones on the receiving end of these typical Maoist tactics. Is it?

India is truly one of the few, if not the only place where “been there, done that” applies. Everything under the sun.
Perhaps if Nepal starts off with a different demeanor other than one of seeing India as a threat, an adversary, this may help. And help tremendously. In fact, it could be the difference between success and failure. An attitude towards India such as..”A future revolutionary government in Nepal will have a hard time surviving alongside a hostile India. It could face demands, crippling embargoes and perhaps even invasion,” is counterproductive and overly paranoid, to say the least. Does the author mean China? Or is China seen as some benevolent commie brotherhood?

I’m don’t mean to bash Nepal. Good luck to them. They’re going to need it.
If all this altruistic benevolent commie nonsense gives you a giddy feel good rush, then good for you.

“This revolution in Nepal may yet be crushed or even betrayed from within. Such dangers are inherent and inevitable in living revolutions.”
- sure as hell, Big Brother CIA is watching them…

“After reaching, and reading, Reason #2, I was struck dumbfounded by the fantasy of all this and found myself wondering what this guy was smoking.”
- and, by the way, what are you smoking, hp, reading all this from your confortable, progressive armchair?

Some people have this notion that ‘capitalism’ à la USA and its ancestral form ‘feudalism’ is an inspired God-given ‘system’ that is here to stay on Earth for ever and ever…and it’s just laughable that it will ever be challenged successfully by the abjectly poor and illeterate of this world.
After reading this article, my simpeton’s gut feeling is that such changes won’t come from the Chomskys and Naders of this world but rather from the downtrodden who, like these Nepalese, will rise up and say ‘BASTA, NO MAS!’

I’ve been following the events in Nepal and India for about ten years, give or take, since the first announcement in 1996 that they had started a guerrilla war in the far west of Nepal. That’s a region that’s among the most isolated and backwards in the world.

Zizek said it best: it’s easier for people to imagine the end of all life on earth (from global warming or a meteor or plague) than a change in the capitalist system. And ain’t that the truth.

Here’s a group that has confounded everyone because they seem to actually believe what they say and fight for it… No Jihad, no McWorld.

Socialism. Huh.