A critical take on Hisila Yami's article in the Kathmandu Post on Indo-Nepal relations.
As the Maoists continue with their violent and disruptive activities, sections of the intelligentsia are openly expressing sympathy for their cause. Although the sympathy is often couched in rhetoric against the state and its security offensive against the Maoists, what distinguishes the Maoist sympathizers from a broader community of intellectuals and civil rights groups, who are skeptical of the intent and apprehensive of the efficacy of the Union Government’s anti-Maoists operations, is their stubborn refusal to condemn the anarchic violence and mindless killings by the Maoists.
The inability of the Maoists to transform their spark in 1967 into a prairie fire as late as 2009 is indicative of the stupendous failure of the Maoist praxis. Srinivasan Ramani writes.
While their Indian counterparts continue to believe that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, the Maoists in Nepal have not only endorsed the politics of ballot but also met with remarkable electoral success. The politics of bullet no longer find any place in their agenda. They have endorsed Lenin’s understanding: “we must bear in mind that any popular movement assumes an infinite variety of forms, is constantly developing new forms and discarding the old and effecting modifications or new combinations of old and new forms. It is our duty to participate actively in this process of working out means and methods of struggle”. (Lenin, Revolutionary Adventurism). On the other hand, the Indian Maoists continue to espouse ‘people’s war’ and pursue the path of anarchy and violence,writes Santanu Dey.