CNN just in -- Maoists 18, Nepal police 7

Bill Martino

Bill Martino

Joined
Mar 5, 1999
Messages
34,096
Watching CNN while having lunch and saw this come in: Maoists raided and bombed a Nepal police station (don't know where) and killed 18 Nepal cops. The cops managed to kill 7 of the Maoists.

Scores like this don't look good.

Old Nam hands will understand perfectly when I say the Maoists are fighting a classic guerilla war in Nepal. They recruit the most downtrodden of which there is an endless supply (many kamis included), terrorize those who don't join or at least support them, fight in the shadows often times wearing masks, play Robin Hood and steal from the rich and give to the poor (makes them popular among the very poor)and destroy/disrupt everything possible anywhere possible just to make life tough. Politicians, cops, teachers, the rich, are all prime targets.

Poor old Birendra's dream of Nepal becoming a "Zone of Peace" looks like it died with him.
 
Well, so much for our planned visit year after next. Don't want my wife and me to become decorative heads on a bayonet.
 
on Nepal News. This was the largest raid in a while (some were reported as 1,000 Maoists attacking a station, village or whatever). They only used the truce to rearm and regroup, and then started up ful blast.

Funny thing, the UML is calling on their legislature and the king to "stop excesses" and call off the national emergency declared by the king. Kidnapping, assasinations and bombing the public is OK, but enforcement of the laws against such frivolities is an "excess".

Before the truce, police stations would actually receive 'phone calls warning of a raid "at 1600, tomorrow", allowing them to go for an early dinner. Some of the news of these had an almost "comic opera" flavor. Since the truce, the hard guys have taken over the Maoist operations, and they are as cold-blooded as the Cong ever were. Several thousand hae defected from the Maoists, turning in their guns and surrendering. Many of these are "paroled" to relatives and allowed to go home, so the government can't exactly be accused of a "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy. With the treasury already broken over this, it is questionable as to who will have won when it is over, but the king seems to have made up his mind that the Maoists won't be the last ones standing.
 
The best I can get is the last attack was along the Banepa-Sindhuli road where there's a Japanese road improvement project under contruction. This is maybe 20 miles from BirGorkha. Pala could be right -- time to get farther into the boonies.
 
Originally posted by SkagSig40
Has America or the U.N. ever thought of going in and throwing out the Maoists?
Click to expand...

Powell was there last week, for one day. I never saw a report of it on the stateside news. "Nonlethal support" was promised, in a meeting following Powell's departure. We're helping the effort in the Phillipines, and being booed for it. Seems as though it wouldn't be too great a stretch to drop a bil or so in a country where it might be appreciated, and could actually do some good. If it got through.
 
This is exactly a case of great Khukuris (and pashmina) but no oil. I was surprised that Powell appeared there, but then he was right next door and Nepal was hitting the news. I hope it was more than a photo op.
 
Perhaps India might do something if it wasn't for the current (increased) Pakistan tensions--India still might if the situation is aggravated--I'm not sure what Vajpayee and his government's thoughts are. However, I somehow don't think the US George II administration is very interested in Maoists in Nepal.

B.
 
India has backed Nepal from before the broken truce. It is a case of "your terrorists are our terrorists", as they run back and forth across the border, their direction depending on who is applying the most heat at the moment. It is probable that the Nepali crowd gets most of its' outside support via their Indian counterparts, since it is an easier route than "over the hills". There is little doubt where it originates, though - after all, they don't call themselves "Fidelistas". India has supplied additional rifles and ammunition, and helicopters equipped with FLIR gear, which aids greatly in locating people under tree cover. Their main tactical advantage has been to lessen the heavy attacks by large groups who intended to flee into the woods. Infra-red sighted chain guns make running away more dangerous than attacking, even though the choppers are by nature a reactionary weapon in those cases. All the niceties are gone, now, and this is a full fledged war. The insurgents are meeting a much stronger reaction than they got before, or ever expected, so maybe the will to continue will go out of them soon.
 
Nepal is a country about the shape and size of Tennessee with 23 million people sandwiched in between two giants -- China and India -- and serves as a useful buffer between the two.

Nepal has never been occupied by a foreign power and the folks there are fiercely independent and want to stay that way. They are very wary about accepting help from India because it would open the door for India to simply make Nepal another state in the Indian Republic. If India comes in and takes care of the Maoists here's the pitch:

"It's obvious that you are unable to govern and control your own country. We are already here and have solved your immediate problem. If we leave more problems are sure to arise and you will not be able to take care of them. Therefore, we have decided to stay and take care of everything ourselves. Next month you will become the state of Nepal, India."

I think the same thing would apply if it were China rather than India. It's a dilemma for Nepal and I feel for them.

Khukuris vs oil. It was the same story in Tibet except it was Buddhists and temples vs oil.
 
Bill, per you post above, the king accepted weapons and ammunition, and expressed gratitude. He was very clear on one point, however - No Foreign Troops on Nepali Soil!! The way it was expressed, it even seemed to include those who might train Nepali pilots in the use of updated gear. This could be unnecessary, as many recent retirees from both British and Indian service could well have this experience. The independence still runs strong.
 
Some money would help IF it only gets to the right place. I know from hands on experience that only a very small percentage of the "do good" money sent to Nepal reaches those for whom it was intended.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
Nepal is a country about the shape and size of Tennessee with 23 million people sandwiched in between two giants -- China and India -- and serves as a useful buffer between the two.

Nepal has never been occupied by a foreign power and the folks there are fiercely independent and want to stay that way. They are very wary about accepting help from India because it would open the door for India to simply make Nepal another state in the Indian Republic. If India comes in and takes care of the Maoists here's the pitch:

"It's obvious that you are unable to govern and control your own country. We are already here and have solved your immediate problem. If we leave more problems are sure to arise and you will not be able to take care of them. Therefore, we have decided to stay and take care of everything ourselves. Next month you will become the state of Nepal, India."

I think the same thing would apply if it were China rather than India. It's a dilemma for Nepal and I feel for them.

Khukuris vs oil. It was the same story in Tibet except it was Buddhists and temples vs oil.
Click to expand...

That didn't happen when India helped Bangladesh (then East Pakistan)....in any case, I certainly don't think that India 'stepping-in' would be the same as China 'stepping-in', for a number of reasons. But, in any case, I think that India in general would/does respect the well-established sovereignty of Nepal, though I can't speak for what any particular government would do. Pragmatically, I think India likes having as many buffer zones between itself and China as possible....

B.
 
India needs the electricity!!!!!!

Nepal has enough water in high places to generate enough electricity for the entire subcontinent and more but lacks the financial ability to build the dams.

And Indians already own a substantial amount of property in Nepal and the Indian population is substantial. I've often commented that India really doesn't need to "take" Nepal, they are already buying it.

But certainly India better than China if anybody is going to step in.

And come to think of it, who would want Bangladesh?
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
India needs the electricity!!!!!!

Nepal has enough water in high places to generate enough electricity for the entire subcontinent and more but lacks the financial ability to build the dams.

And Indians already own a substantial amount of property in Nepal and the Indian population is substantial. I've often commented that India really doesn't need to "take" Nepal, they are already buying it.

But certainly India better than China if anybody is going to step in.

And come to think of it, who would want Bangladesh?
Click to expand...

Hydroelectric dams aren't also as beneficial as one might think. They can create a lot of problems by displacing people who live along rivers (i.e. the River Narmada dam project is being contested because it will display hundreds of thousands of people) - plus sometimes they don't work very well, e.g. they only really generate power in monsoon season and not other times.

I don't think India would want to officially take over Nepal in any case, for a number of reasons. I'm sure they wouldn't mind controlling it in fact, but not in name. And India's a pretty benevolent nation :) biggest democracy in the world!

Well, Pakistan obviously wanted Bangladesh, enough to kill many, many people over it....

cheers, B.
 
There's some rivers that run pretty good all year and are high and long enough to support several major dams. Where money is involved people often take the backseat. We see that everywhere.

You're right about the Indian Republic and I'm not so sure Nepal wouldn't be considrably better off if it did, in fact, become an Indian state.

I think Pakistan is probably lucky they didn't get Bangladesh. That is a hard luck place if I've ever seen one.
 
There were news items early last year concerning an Indian dam project just over the Nepali border, protested by Nepal because they would displace villages on that side. When the monsoons came, flooding above the border killed some 20 Nepalis in one village, and swamped several others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top