Marxist view of Nepal

[Christopher Hill]

In the late 90s until 2008 Nepal was deep in revolt, caught in a civil war between Maoist revolutionaries and the king's governmental army.. It is now officially run by a "Communist Party" but rather than unifying the people they seem to be trying to split them up, even going so far as to suggest "autonomous ethnic regions" for the different people living in the country, does anyone have any views which they wish to express on this matter or know of any good sources of information from a Marxist point of view on the subject?

[Joshua Purcell]

I'll be honest and say that I don't know enough about the situation in Nepal to speak about it. I'll look into the history of this country when I have time though and come back to this thread. But if you are looking for a Marxist perspective on the concept of 'autonomous ethnic regions' in general, then I can say that I don't believe any segregation in this definition is in line with Marxism. In the interest of protection of a less powerful group from a more powerful one, though... well that may be a necessary short term action in some rare cases (i.e. genocide).

[Christopher Hill]

I'll be honest and say that I don't know enough about the situation in Nepal to speak about it. I'll look into the history of this country when I have time though and come back to this thread. But if you are looking for a Marxist perspective on the concept of 'autonomous ethnic regions' in general, then I can say that I don't believe any segregation in this definition is in line with Marxism. In the interest of protection of a less powerful group from a more powerful one, though... well that may be a necessary short term action in some rare cases (i.e. genocide).

Mainly what I was wondering about was whether Marxists consider the country Socialist/In Transition to Socialism, it was transformed from a Monarchy to a "Republic" by Maoist revolutionaries..but now they are blocked out of the "Communist Party" so it is really hard to tell if anything is happening at all.

edit: Found an article which people here might find interesting.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/on-rumors-of-nepali-maoists-trotskyism-and-socialism-in-one-country/

[mohan]

I still consider it to be a petty bourgeois revolution.

[sameera]

What is happening in Nepal is not at all socialist constructions. There is no basic difference in the question of implementing the pro-imperialist economic agenda by the ruling party or the opposition. This is what IMF said approving the loan to stop a default. "“At the core of the program [that Nepal will have to implement] are a tight monetary and fiscal policy stance to support the exchange rate peg, and efforts to improve financial sector soundness.” So this is what the both parties agreed recently. It is an illusion that Maoists represent the interests of the working class and the poor layers of Nepal. And one cannot understand the political crisis in isolation especially without considering the role of China and India as major imperialist powers in the region.

I suggest everyone to read;

 Constitutional crisis temporarily averted  http://wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/nepl-m31.shtml
 Constitutional crisis looming in Nepal http://wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/nepl-m27.shtml
 Nepali Maoists call general strike against government http://wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/nepl-m05.shtml
 Political standoff in Nepal over constitution http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/nepa-m17.shtml
 Nepali Maoists hold protests to demand a place in government http://wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/nplm-d24.shtml

And more http://wsws.org/category/nepal.shtml