No Communism-No Maoism: My Shifting of Paradigm
Arati Singh
July 25, 2007
Reading and listening on Karl Marx had great political effects on me as a young student of social science. I still remember lines on Marx in George Ritzer’s book, “Until there are divisions in society as rich and poor, haves and have not-s and power holder and powerless, Karl Marx as a social thinker would always live on.” Incidentally, it was the same time Maoist movement was gaining momentum in rural parts of Nepal.
As normal for many young Nepali students, I agreed Maoists’ philosophies and their quest to make Nepal a class free society by breaking down the age old feudalist structures that had gripped Nepal’s development for 300 years. Maoist Leaders’ hard rhetoric against United States’ capitalist approach and India’s expansionist tendency left me spell bounded many times.
Highlighted news on Maoist putting ban on alcoholism, prohibiting the operation of suspicious cabin restaurants and punishing the husbands involved in domestic violence made me optimistic in the beginning of new dawn. I also read news on deaths of police, army personals, and politicians by the Maoists. But too possessed in the spell of Marxism I regarded those deaths normal for a society moving towards realignment after years of oppression and exploitation.
Belonging to a family with members in Nepal Army, I started sharing “contrasting political outlooks” with my family ending in the heated debate many times. Fruitlessly, I tried to convince them on Maoists’ vision of the new Nepal. I thought my family members being students of engineering, finance and biological science never got in-depth knowledge on Nepal’s exploitative socio-political structure and how communism could deconstruct it for a better society. I remained a stern adherent of Maoist movement until February, 2002.
In a cold winter morning of 23 February 2002, phone in my house continuously rung for many times before being finally answered. The news that was supposed to reach me by the newspaper did through the telephone this time. Last night, Maoist had attacked a police barrack in Salyan- a remote western district, where thirty two police personals lost their lives. One of them was my uncle.
My uncle was thirty five. His wife was thirty one and they had two young children. I didn’t think about communist philosophies then. I didn’t think about Nepal’s enlightened future. For the first time I thought the other way after hearing the death of police personal. The death was no more a partial fall down of a feudalistic structure. It was the fact that my uncle was now no more. And my aunt was a widow who had to look after two children.
Complex patriarchal Hindu religious values bring acute psychological repercussions for the widows. In Nepali society as in many South Asian countries, after marriage husband occupies a pivotal position in woman’s life. He is her only economic support in most cases. He is the one who can shape her life in the way he wants. Married woman life is dependent on husband as much as it is controlled by him. If husband dies prematurely, woman goes through a devastating ordeal to accept the fact that her life is almost over. Young widows are carefully watched upon as she abides by the dressing rules, ornaments rules and outdoor rules that follow after the loss of husband. Moreover, any form of remarriage for woman is socially prohibited.
But it was not only my aunt who had been widow. There were many mothers who had lost their sons and daughters. Many children had lost their fathers and mothers. Which lines in “Communist Manifesto” would justify the trauma of those who had lost their loved ones? They were not obliged to suffer in memories and pains so that the country could be free, equal and democratic. For the first time I felt communism can be a school of thought to analyze mode of production and its associated systems of inequality and injustice but it cannot be a solution in itself. The tears and blood should not pave a way for an egalitarian society.
In 2003, during a course of a research work, I along with my friends went to Gorkha district- a birth place of Maoist insurgency in Nepal. In a Village Development Committee called Turture of the district we had a small chit-chat with a Sub-Inspector. That small conversation had a lasting impact in my outlook towards communism and the promises it holds. “Who would like to risk life by coming here (Turture)? If I had “my approach” at the top level of the police force, I would have been posted in border area (which were safe and income generating) or in UN force earning in dollars.” These words of sub-inspector are still fresh in my ears.
In Nepal, people join Army or Police as a job through which they can make their living. The reason is not patriotism as in case of United States and Japan. It is evident and transparent that the police and army personals who had been deployed in the remote Maoist affected districts, were those who didn’t have a “caretaker” in the decision making level. They were not serving the Feudalistic State’s interests. They were merely fulfilling the role of bread earner for their family.
In thirteen years Maoists killed 1,480 police, 664 army and 1,450 politicians. Most of them were deployed in remote districts and less developed western region of Nepal. As any other State organizations, Police and Army too in Nepal are shaped by nepotism. Fair enough to conclude that those killed in the remote districts fighting the insurgency had no approach at the top level. Killing the powerless people working in the powerful organizations could have possessed no threat at all to the “exploitative state structure”.
Marx had said, “Religion is opium.” I believe Marxism is opium. Those who have been inoculated by it have no refrains from killing and murdering those who can be defined as obstacles in the venture of pursuing the reformed egalitarian society. Maoists around the world regard Mao as a great revolutionary leader whose thought is the highest expression of Marxism. His regime didn’t have qualms to kill more than 35 million Chinese within two years of time (1958/59) in the name of “cultural revolution”. Interestingly, Marxists hailed it as the “Great Leap Forward”.
I don’t need this “great leap forward”. I believe in peaceful small steps forward that have no blood stains, no curses, and no fears. Steps of proletariat and bourgeoisie, exploiter and exploited and oppressor and oppressed. Let the bourgeoisie and oppressor change but don’t kill them for a change.
As normal for many young Nepali students, I agreed Maoists’ philosophies and their quest to make Nepal a class free society by breaking down the age old feudalist structures that had gripped Nepal’s development for 300 years. Maoist Leaders’ hard rhetoric against United States’ capitalist approach and India’s expansionist tendency left me spell bounded many times.
Highlighted news on Maoist putting ban on alcoholism, prohibiting the operation of suspicious cabin restaurants and punishing the husbands involved in domestic violence made me optimistic in the beginning of new dawn. I also read news on deaths of police, army personals, and politicians by the Maoists. But too possessed in the spell of Marxism I regarded those deaths normal for a society moving towards realignment after years of oppression and exploitation.
Belonging to a family with members in Nepal Army, I started sharing “contrasting political outlooks” with my family ending in the heated debate many times. Fruitlessly, I tried to convince them on Maoists’ vision of the new Nepal. I thought my family members being students of engineering, finance and biological science never got in-depth knowledge on Nepal’s exploitative socio-political structure and how communism could deconstruct it for a better society. I remained a stern adherent of Maoist movement until February, 2002.
In a cold winter morning of 23 February 2002, phone in my house continuously rung for many times before being finally answered. The news that was supposed to reach me by the newspaper did through the telephone this time. Last night, Maoist had attacked a police barrack in Salyan- a remote western district, where thirty two police personals lost their lives. One of them was my uncle.
My uncle was thirty five. His wife was thirty one and they had two young children. I didn’t think about communist philosophies then. I didn’t think about Nepal’s enlightened future. For the first time I thought the other way after hearing the death of police personal. The death was no more a partial fall down of a feudalistic structure. It was the fact that my uncle was now no more. And my aunt was a widow who had to look after two children.
Complex patriarchal Hindu religious values bring acute psychological repercussions for the widows. In Nepali society as in many South Asian countries, after marriage husband occupies a pivotal position in woman’s life. He is her only economic support in most cases. He is the one who can shape her life in the way he wants. Married woman life is dependent on husband as much as it is controlled by him. If husband dies prematurely, woman goes through a devastating ordeal to accept the fact that her life is almost over. Young widows are carefully watched upon as she abides by the dressing rules, ornaments rules and outdoor rules that follow after the loss of husband. Moreover, any form of remarriage for woman is socially prohibited.
But it was not only my aunt who had been widow. There were many mothers who had lost their sons and daughters. Many children had lost their fathers and mothers. Which lines in “Communist Manifesto” would justify the trauma of those who had lost their loved ones? They were not obliged to suffer in memories and pains so that the country could be free, equal and democratic. For the first time I felt communism can be a school of thought to analyze mode of production and its associated systems of inequality and injustice but it cannot be a solution in itself. The tears and blood should not pave a way for an egalitarian society.
In 2003, during a course of a research work, I along with my friends went to Gorkha district- a birth place of Maoist insurgency in Nepal. In a Village Development Committee called Turture of the district we had a small chit-chat with a Sub-Inspector. That small conversation had a lasting impact in my outlook towards communism and the promises it holds. “Who would like to risk life by coming here (Turture)? If I had “my approach” at the top level of the police force, I would have been posted in border area (which were safe and income generating) or in UN force earning in dollars.” These words of sub-inspector are still fresh in my ears.
In Nepal, people join Army or Police as a job through which they can make their living. The reason is not patriotism as in case of United States and Japan. It is evident and transparent that the police and army personals who had been deployed in the remote Maoist affected districts, were those who didn’t have a “caretaker” in the decision making level. They were not serving the Feudalistic State’s interests. They were merely fulfilling the role of bread earner for their family.
In thirteen years Maoists killed 1,480 police, 664 army and 1,450 politicians. Most of them were deployed in remote districts and less developed western region of Nepal. As any other State organizations, Police and Army too in Nepal are shaped by nepotism. Fair enough to conclude that those killed in the remote districts fighting the insurgency had no approach at the top level. Killing the powerless people working in the powerful organizations could have possessed no threat at all to the “exploitative state structure”.
Marx had said, “Religion is opium.” I believe Marxism is opium. Those who have been inoculated by it have no refrains from killing and murdering those who can be defined as obstacles in the venture of pursuing the reformed egalitarian society. Maoists around the world regard Mao as a great revolutionary leader whose thought is the highest expression of Marxism. His regime didn’t have qualms to kill more than 35 million Chinese within two years of time (1958/59) in the name of “cultural revolution”. Interestingly, Marxists hailed it as the “Great Leap Forward”.
I don’t need this “great leap forward”. I believe in peaceful small steps forward that have no blood stains, no curses, and no fears. Steps of proletariat and bourgeoisie, exploiter and exploited and oppressor and oppressed. Let the bourgeoisie and oppressor change but don’t kill them for a change.