so the maoists are now for a constituent assembly, with the *hope* that it will lead to a republican state.

my question is: when the maoists went underground in 96, what was their demand? had they always been clamoring for a republic state? or did they want a communist state back then? or was it simply a case of the maoist leaders playing foul after having failed to be counted in the mainstream democratic process?

because it seems like back in 96, nepal was for all intents and purposes functioning as a democratic state. it was pretty much a constitutional monarchy. yes, the army was not under the PM's control, but it was not that necessary. in fact people were questioning the usefulness of the army a few years back.

i am askign these questions because i need to understand whether i can put faith in the recent conciliatory tone of the maoists. even if the maoist leadership is open to joining mainstream democracy, what guarantee is there that they have control over their cadre?

on a related note, badal, the head of the military branch, was reported to have said that anyone making $100, 000 shoudl be killed (or somethign to that effect).

i know people *want* to believe that the maoists' intentions are good. i do too (and sometimes you need ot have faith), but in times like this, one's emotions can sometimes overpower reason.

no commie comie here?

Communists in general are not trustworthy...and Maoists in Nepal are even worse.....

they have started collecting money (hafta Uthaune) in foreign countries as well.

Nepal ko maobadile bideshma paisa batulna thalyo??

kun desh ma??

please come with proof.

Thanks.

Zalim Singh,
I can't say specifically but the past history shows that they have good control over their cadres. You can go back and see. They have now more than 15000 fighting trained red army, many more than those politcal activists. Political activists are also well trained to use weapons. Once they declare cease fire, it becomes effective immediately. They have maintained balance between political cadres and armed cadres. Armed commanders are commanded by political commander. And the armed commander commands red army. Their claims and discipline in the party is incredible.
They are now in republican agenda. I think we can trust them (at least I) because it is impossible to have communism in a small country which has to count on other countries for every single thing. Also communism has failed because people did not get press and peoples right. It seems that they have realized this fact. They want to land safely with a good upshot.

I agree with your point zalimSingh..
also until about 2002, the elected PM was making decision on using military force on Maoist. not the King. The PM at the time failed to hold election due to Maoists. that is a fact we all know.

It is amazing how most of so called Pro Democracy people refuse to acknowlege that our fully functional democray was destroyed because of the Maoist, long before King's interventions.

Removing king only takes back the situation we were in 2002, I don't see how democracy can be acheieved without envirnment for free and fair elections.

zalimsingh,
As far as I can remember maobadis wanted to get rid of the party candidates. They labeled the party candidates their enemy, foreign dlals, anti-nationals etc. Their early literature used to be full of such adjectives. During their "war" they killed many party candidates to fulfill their "objective". They wanted to get rid of the party people and make Nepal a communist state, which was their initial "agenda".

.i do not trust the maobaadi and their agenda. case in point the latest attach in Chautara, Sindhupalchok. what was the need for that during this time of national "peaceful" (i.e. unarmed) movement?

no, my friends, the most difficult aspect of the current movement remains the tricky and unenviable task of neutralizing the king AND bringing the army under civilian control. without the army, the civilians do not have any bargaining power against the armed maobaadi. and we know the maobaadi are very patient. they won't make a move when all the people are in the street. they'll wait till this subsides and then make the next move.

i am not really worried about them taking over - that seems far-fetched. but even if they just decline to put down their weapons after the king is neutralized, our achievment will be halved.

again.. until 2002 the RNA was fighting the Maoist under the leadership of elected PMs. Let's not forget RNA were fighting to protect democracy at the time.

The PM at the time had all the military options and was using it as he thought was necessary. Girja, Sher bahadur all used RNA to fright Maoists. but the maoist could not be defeated.

the fact that king commanded the RNA, was never an issue during all the year of democracy and Maoist insurgency. I see how removing king, gives us any advanage to defeat Maoists.

correction on last sentence:
I don't see how removing king, gives us any advanage to defeat Maoists.

.
removal of the king will help the army fight the maoists IFF
folk realize that once the king is gone, the maoists are left and THEY will not be moved by demonstrations
the citizenery needs to make a stand, and take up arms