At this point, it is too early to tell if this is the usual windbaggery by people resistant to change.

I think it's windbaggery!

And this is a great step they're taking. It's time for Nepal to move forward.

It's probably going to be the usual split. Urban areas for secularization, villages against it. The markings on that guy's forehead are ultra cool. Gotta be the most elaborate I've seen.

Macacas are macacas irrespective of caste, creed or religion.

Amardeep and Ennis,

How come no one is talking about "secularising" Pakistan and Bangladesh? Or is it that "secularism" is only for the "Hindu" nations? Looks like went past you.

The markings on that guy's forehead are ultra cool. Gotta be the most elaborate I've seen.

Yeah, his was the coolest image I could find that was associated with Nepal and Hinduism. That's why I want to make sure people understand he was just some Nepalese Sadhu (with dreads and glasses and forehead markings). I have no idea if he's associated with the protests at all, but given how few Nepalese are, it's very unlikely.

How come no one is talking about "secularising" Pakistan and Bangladesh? Or is it that "secularism" is only for the "Hindu" nations? Looks like went past you.

Both of which are good ideas in my opinion. However, we're reporting on this story because it's news. If either of those countries start to secularize, I'll be happy to blog on that as well.

If you have a point to make, for example, if you think that Nepal should remain a Hindu country, why don't you make it directly instead of acting all passive-aggressive?

Windbaggery. 60% of Nepal districts are controlled by Maoists, which is the real challenge to democratic secularism. BTW there was a coup in Thailand yday. Democracy is not doing well in Asia.

Nepali-Maoist control of the countryside may or may not be a challenge to "democratic secularism". Not really a statement you can blindly make, even if you apparently still have Red Scare Fever. Times have changed; boxing that movement into the Chinese Maoist framework doesn't do anyone any justice, and definitely doesn't contribute to any meaningful understanding of what's going on.

Do they self-identify as Maoists or as something else? Do the Maoists wish to work within a democratic framework? What is the leadership's position on this? What relationship do they have with China? You appear to be an expert, well-versed in the "complexities." Yeah shit is going on, poverty sucks, as does oppression of the landless.

There is absolutely no need for Nepal to become secular. Compared to Pak and Bangl, "minorities" in Nepal have much greater autonomy and freedom - when there is no clear benefit, why even bother changing from the way it is now?

you would think that hindus in india would show natural concern to this - given that the muslims, christians, and jews each have their own non-secular states

maoist insurgency is on the rise in eastern india - it would not be surprising to see a maoist coup in nepal similar to that of thailand's this week -

maybe, thats when india will start getting concerned about its neighbor up north :-(

Maybe, Nepal should borrow a page from the Sri Lankan constitution, which precludes a non-buddhist from ever holding the top post.

maoist insurgency is on the rise in eastern india - it would not be surprising to see a maoist coup in nepal similar to that of thailand's this week -

Chattisgarh, with the blessings of the centre, just put KPS Gill on the Maosists. He's set up in a heavily-fortified bunker and promises "quick results." (He's the supercop who put down Khalistani separitism.)

There is absolutely no need for Nepal to become secular. Compared to Pak and Bangl, "minorities" in Nepal have much greater autonomy and freedom - when there is no clear benefit, why even bother changing from the way it is now?

Yes, but compared to the West, they have much less autonomy and freedom. More freedom and less oppression is always a good thing, hence the clear benefit.

you would think that hindus in india would show natural concern to this - given that the muslims, christians, and jews each have their own non-secular states

And the non-secularness of these states cause a lot of problems for themselves and the rest of the world. To quote one of the most ridiculous rhetorical questions parent ask, "...and if all your friends are jumping off a cliff, will you do the same?" Lobbying for a non-secular state just because "everyone else has one" would be similar to following them off a cliff.

SenaX -
"maoist insurgency is on the rise in eastern india - it would not be surprising to see a maoist coup in nepal similar to that of thailand's this week -"

The coup in Thailand was not "Maoist". If anything, it would fall on the opposite side of the (ideological)spectrum.

Btw, why do these so called revolutionaries define themselves as Mao-ists? After all, he was a mass murdering meglomaniac who couldn't care less about the poor.

Maybe, Nepal should borrow a page from the Sri Lankan constitution, which precludes a non-buddhist from ever holding the top post.

Kritic - that's exactly what they had. No non-Hindu could rise to the top post, which was the monarchy. Nor could they rise to the top of the armed forces. You're trying to be clever but your comment comes across as odd.

Btw, why do these so called revolutionaries define themselves as Mao-ists? After all, he was a mass murdering meglomaniac who couldn't care less about the poor.

Yes, in truth he was a murdering meglomaniac, but even in China he's still revered amongst the poor. Maoist just means that you're a peasant based revolutionary group in this context. The Chinese Communists did rely heavily on the people, and before they took power, they did provide their base with much in the way of services. Even afterwards, they showed considerably more concern for peasants than Leninists / Stalinists. The Soviet style of communism was heavily biased towards urban / industrial interests. The Chinese style paid a lot of lip service towards the virtue of the peasant. Stalin used starvation as a deliberate tool to crush peasants, Mao precipitated famine and refused to fix it, but there is much less evidence that he was using it to try to crush "kulaks" or any other such.

Sorry for the long winded response. There are subtle differences between mass murdering meglomaniacs that matter in this context.

Lobbying for a non-secular state just because "everyone else has one" would be similar to following them off a cliff.

Well said, Umang.

And don't get me started on Bhutan either ... but that's a topic for another post.

Sorry for the long winded response.

That was long winded?? ;)

Ennis - "Kritic - that's exactly what they had. No non-Hindu could rise to the top post, which was the monarchy. Nor could they rise to the top of the armed forces. You're trying to be clever but your comment comes across as odd.

Monarchy is hereditary. I was alluding to the Prime Minister's post in Nepal.
In Sri Lanka, the top post would be that of the President.

"And don't get me started on Bhutan either ... but that's a topic for another post."

Let alone Bhutan, we haven't been able to get you started on Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Libya or Iran or Syria or Kuwait or Tunisia or Morrocco either. We wish you would, but we will not hold our breath.

Btw, I was not trying to be clever, I am clever. Too clever, according to my wife.

This may sound like a dumb question, but are hindus threatened by buddhists in nepal? Or is this more about hindus feeling threatened by maoists? The reason I ask is, don't most hindus consider buddhism to be simply an extension of hinduism?

My dad is a sri lankan tamil...I've never been to sri lanka but from what i understand the conflict there is more about tamil v. singhalese not hindu v. buddhist.

Let alone Bhutan, we haven't been able to get you started on Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Libya or Iran or Syria or Kuwait or Tunisia or Morrocco either.

?? You must be reading a different blog from the one I'm writing in. I suggest that you search for my posts before you make claims about what I have and haven't written.

However, I am a bit perplexed - why do you expect us to be writing about Tunisia in a desi blog? I also haven't written about the Red Sox here, but that doesn't tell you anything concerning my feelings on baseball.

Very odd.

Ennis - "Yes, in truth he was a murdering meglomaniac, but even in China he's still revered amongst the poor. Maoist just means that you're a peasant based revolutionary group in this context. The Chinese Communists did rely heavily on the people, and before they took power, they did provide their base with much in the way of services. Even afterwards, they showed considerably more concern for peasants than Leninists / Stalinists. The Soviet style of communism was heavily biased towards urban / industrial interests. The Chinese style paid a lot of lip service towards the virtue of the peasant. Stalin used starvation as a deliberate tool to crush peasants, Mao precipitated famine and refused to fix it, but there is much less evidence that he was using it to try to crush "kulaks" or any other such."

When the choice is between the fire and a frying pan, you are F$%^&d either way.

Ennis - I am confident, you know what I am implying, when I name nations (only to make a point, i admit) outside the purview of this blog. i.e, there is a blatant double standard, esp, amongst the left leaning desis, when it come to critiquing despotic regimes of the Islamic hue.

Ennis - I am confident, you know what I am implying, when I name nations (only to make a point, i admit) outside the purview of this blog. i.e, there is a blatant double standard, esp, amongst the left leaning desis, when it come to critiquing despotic regimes of the Islamic hue.

Eh, are you sure you're posting on the right blog here? I can't think of one post on SM in the 2 years I've been reading that's stood up in defense of quasi-theocratic Islamic regimes. Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

I got an idea, let's get into the "Christianity/Hinduism/Satanism is the fundamental underpinning of all democratic institutions and values and thus further secularization becomes oppression of the majority" argument.

Get a life and stop trying to reason religion. I'm sure none of the Hindus in Nepal will ever be afraid to express their religious identity because of the Buddhists or Muslims.

Kritic,

Ennis - I am confident, you know what I am implying, when I name nations (only to make a point, i admit) outside the purview of this blog. i.e, there is a blatant double standard, esp, amongst the left leaning desis, when it come to critiquing despotic regimes of the Islamic hue.

Dude... Are you nuts? Have you not seen the posts on SM bashing Musharraf? The posts that talk about how insane the practice of gang rapes in Pakistan is? I can't beleieve I even have to point this out to you. Or have you not seen anything else on this site? Are you judging this site by this one post? Which I really have no problem with anyway.

The markings on that guy's forehead are ultra cool. Gotta be the most elaborate I've seen.

I think they're Mr. Yuck stickers, actually. :-)

Lavanya: This may sound like a dumb question, but are hindus threatened by buddhists in nepal? Or is this more about hindus feeling threatened by maoists? The reason I ask is, don't most hindus consider buddhism to be simply an extension of hinduism?

That would sum it up pretty well, yeah.

but are hindus threatened by buddhists in nepal?

Judging from the turnout, I don't think they feel that threatened, especially as they think of Buddhists as only being 20% (Buddhists claim to be 50% of the population though, and it's hard to know who is right).

I think the bigger issue is loss of privelege rather than religious competition.

A positive step in the right direction. Now removing Hinduism from mainstream life remains, followed by removal of Hindus from mainstream society, like it is happening in secular Bangladesh onlee. Maoists are so secular and wesshtern and their fart smells of rose petals onlee, like Comrade Jyoti Basu, the savior of India from Brahminofascism

Ennis, Iqbal & Salil,

While you may have writtem critical posts on Mushy, on the gang rapes, you have neglected to write about the underlying and fundamental reason for the rot in Pakistan, which is extremist Islam and, the utter lack of secular institutions.

Too bad this thread has started to wander towards predictable homilies about beleaguered hindus and islam-pandering left wingers.

Overall, I think this is a good step forward. Some very ugly people (nepali king, army) were really using this hindu state stuff to hide their misbehavior. India becoming a secular state has been good for it overall, notwithstanding all the nasty inter-community dynamics and violence of the last 50 years.

I work with a very positive and forward looking nepali organization (link below) and while they consider most of the maoists as low-level thugs, they are very positive about most of the recent changes.

http://www.edwon.org/

While you may have writtem critical posts on Mushy, on the gang rapes, you have neglected to write about the underlying and fundamental reason for the rot in Pakistan, which is extremist Islam and, the utter lack of secular institutions.

How about you start your own blog and educate us all, then, instead of sniping from the sidelines with your one-track mind from behind your convenient mask of anonymity?

Ennis, Iqbal & Salil, While you may have writtem critical posts on Mushy, on the gang rapes, you have neglected to write about the underlying and fundamental reason for the rot in Pakistan, which is extremist Islam and, the utter lack of secular institutions.

I agree! It's not enough to be critical of Pakistan, one has to be critical of Islamic fascism, and it is absolutely essential to actually use the word "Islamofascism". Also, any criticism of Pakistan cannot be coupled with criticism of the US for supporting it, since we love freedom and they do not. For example, this post accusing the Pakistani government of murdering 500,000 to 3 million people? Very bad. Your criticism must be correct criticism only.

Unless this board becomes an outlet for right thinking thought, it is clear that you are with them and against us. I suggest you see LGF for some very good examples of how to proceed, and where to acquire some Hail Mogambo.

Nepal, much like Bihar, will never improve.

Nepal, much like Bihar, will never improve.

Why do you say that Amitabh? Nepal seems like it will pull itself out in some time (Years/ decades, probably after going into a really hard times first). As for the land of Nalanda, it produced the man who turned around the Indian Railways. Who knows! Unfortunately, he didn't seem to care much when he was the CM of Bihar.

Krap Tastic - first, congratulations on picking a very apt handle.

"How about you start your own blog and educate us all, then, instead of sniping from the sidelines with your one-track mind from behind your convenient mask of anonymity?"

This "start your blog" bit is a silly argument. The pupose of this blog is to invite people to comment, however, disagreeable.
And, If you take time, you will notice that I, despite my anonymity have conceded a point, when convinced otherwise and have also apologized for comments deemed unfair.

Btw,Kraptastic, i will assume you forgot to look in the mirror before writing, "your convenient mask of anonymity"

Kraptastic,

you know, one of the terms the British coined that I dearly love is "the loyal opposition." Frequently, I think people of our generation forget what that means. It means that Goldwater and Kennedy could share a flight while campaigning on opposite sides of the aisle. It means understanding that someone with a different viewpoint from your own is not evil; that he or she came to hold the point of view they do for a reason, or a series of reasons. Some of them may be stronger or more well-thought-out than others, but your job in the dialogue is to maintain position, not spew bile.

But there's nothing to be gained by being abusive. The dialogue goes awry.

Kritic would definitely be what I'd call "the loyal opposition." And at some time or another, we are all in that spot. Some respect, please.

Kritic would definitely be what I'd call "the loyal opposition." And at some time or another, we are all in that spot. Some respect, please.

Salil,

Nobody is saying that Kritic is "with us or against us". But I find his criticism to be ill informed and not constructive. He hasn't read my posts and yet he presumes to generalize about them. Furthermore, he castigates me, not just for not covering certain topics, but also for not reaching the conclusion that he wants.

Pardesi Gori at least admits that she's arguing for her own opinions, Kritic is preaching correct dogma. I have no problem with Kritic giving his own viewpoints, but for him to show up in my kitchen, eat my food, and tell me that I'm doing it all wrong ... that is disrespectful. And on top of that to mischaracterize me, that's worse.

So yes, if he thinks that people should blog on certain topics and reach certain conclusions, let him start his own blog. Let him be misinformed and presumptuous somewhere else. I don't expect visitors to my house to agree with me, but I do expect them to show some common courtesy.

Ennis,

I can't agree more. And I think I've gotten into at least one or two hairy-as-shit debates with Kritic (and others) myself (I'd find the link, but I'm getting busier as the day moves on). It's a bit unfair to criticize your choice of topics, but it's going to keep happening. You know that. I personally thought this one was pretty good.

I dunno, I was just watching more sniping from the sidelines while a debate was shaping up, and it annoyed me.

No, no, in all seriousness...I think most of the people who comment around here are fairly good at defending themselves, so they don't need me to jump in front of bullets for them. Kritic, consider yourself warned: Ennis says the truck will run you down next time. Look both ways, dude.

And as far as hiding behind "masks of anonymity" go, I'm probably the only person around these parts who blogs and comments with my full name, however unwise it may seem to some of you. Y'all may now know each other by name and face from meetups and the like (and we all know that meeting with someone and speaking to them face-to-face gives you an entirely different perspective from their hypertext persona). But no one's gonna know an Ennis from a Manish from a Vinod until they DO take the time, ya dig? It's all anonymous on the Internet, is what I'm saying.

At this point, it is too early to tell if this is the usual windbaggery by people resistant to change.

Perhaps this conflict is a little more serious than such a trite characterization, Ennis. Let me quote a US State Department report on the conlict:
Nepal

Some chosen excerpts:

In 1996 the leaders of the Maoist United People's Front ("Maoists") launched a "People's War" that has led to continued violence in 74 of the country's 75 districts. The insurrection has been waged through torture, killings, bombings, extortion, and intimidation against civilians and public officials.

Although their activities were focused on the security forces, the Maoists continued to kill and injure civilians and politicians. The insurgents killed 518 civilians during the year. For example, on January 16, Maoists abducted, shot, and killed schoolteacher and local AI Coordinator Mukti Nath Adhikari in Chandeshwor, Lamjung (see Section 4). On February 22, Maoists torched a bus and killed five persons in Bandhara, Chitwan, including an 8-year-old girl. On March 12, Village Development Chairman Ram Mani Gyawali was tortured and killed in Kerung, Arghakhanchi. On March 21, Maoists abducted and killed Lekhnath Gautam, a teacher and a local AI member. On May 31, the program director for the NGO Plan International, Ishwor Lal Joshi, was shot and killed in Baitadi District. On June 4, local Nepal Red Cross Vice President Dhruva Dev Acharya was shot and killed by Maoists in Devghat, Tanahun. According to AI, on July 9, 300 Maoists dragged all male villagers above age 15 from their homes in Banke district. The Maoists proceeded to beat 25 persons with clubs, rifle butts, and spears, after accusing them of handing over two Maoists to the police earlier in the day. Two men died after the beatings and several others were wounded severely. On August 16, Manohar Pratap Malla, the son of a former minister, was killed by Maoists in Dhanusha District. On November 9, a Nepali contract guard supervisor was shot and killed by Maoists in his home in Kathmandu. On November 14, Maoists killed Chakra Bahadur Dagaura, a UML member of parliament, in the western district of Kailali. The motive behind the killing remained unclear; however, family members claimed that Dagaura had refused to donate money to the militants.

Although their activities were focused on the Government, Maoists also used bombs on civilians. On March 2, a 16-year-old student was killed in a Maoist bomb blast at a school in Siddhikali, Sankhuwasabha. On September 16, Shiva Pariyar was killed by a bomb during a Maoist general strike in Hamja, Kaski. On November 8, a 14-year-old boy was killed in a Maoist bomb blast in Banepa, Kavre.

And so on and so forth does the report go. But of course, all of that must be good if it results in elimination of Hinduism from Nepal, right? Wow, this *is* low even by leftist standards.

There is only one source of windbaggery here, Ennis. For all your indulgence in fine sophistry about contextual difference among mass murdering megalomaniacs, the reality is that Maoism is an ideology of death and destruction. There's absolutely no possibility that any good can come out of it and everyone should be rightly afraid of where this is going.

Man, I am still shocked by the callousness of this post. Nepal is on the verge of a convulsive upheaval that threatens to rip apart its sociocultural fabrics and this blog - purportedly a voice for desis - is pontificating about the emergence of secularism? This is insane.

See this:
Maoists burn Sanskrit varsity

What does this kind of an act signify? In my book, this is just as despicable as the destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas. I shudder to think of how much venom the Maoists must've been filled with to attack a seat of learning with such ferocity.

Not that the Nepalese Maoists are alone in indulging in such acts of cultural genocide. Their brethren in Manipur did something similar not too long ago:
Book arson 'a Taleban-style' act

I don't know what it is, but attacks on seats of learning or libraries affect me at a very deep level - not only for the irreparable loss they incur, but also for the sheer barbbarity and hatred that underpins such acts.

But that's just me. I am sure that as long as such enlightened ideologues are assuring the advent of secularism in Nepal and eradicating Hinduism, it must be all good, no?

Gujjubhai - do you think that anybody who is opposed to the King is a Maoist? Do you think that anybody who proposes a secular Nepal is a Maoist? You seem to assume that if I'm not with the old order, that I must be with those committing murder. Nowhere in the post did I defend or even mention what the Maoists were doing. I was covering a specific news item on a limited topic.

If those who support secular states are leftists, and Bush wants a secular Iraq, then does that make the President a leftist?

Kritic argues that I'm a leftist for not arguing for secularism hard enough, you argue that I'm a leftist for arguing for secularism at all. There's just no pleasing some people is there. My apologies for not having saffron balls, but my testicles are neither red nor green either.

gujjubhai... you rock dude!

Ennis,

Now you are just insulting my inhtelligence by setting up a strawman. Neither you nor I are against secularism. Nor am I pro-monarchy - you should've known by now that I am as staunch as republican as they come.

However, what ticked me off was your characterization about "windbaggery from people resistant to change" in the main post and then a pathetic leftist apology about "Mao precipitated famine and refused to fix it, but there is much less evidence that he was using it to try to crush "kulaks" or any other such.Sorry for the long winded response. There are subtle differences between mass murdering meglomaniacs that matter in this context." in your comment #15. There is no excuse at all for any contextual "understanding" of Mao's acts or the death cult of an ideology that He inspired. Maoism today is the single-most powerful threat facing India today. Prachanda - the leader of Nepali Maoists - has proclaimed in an Ossama-esque fashion that he intends to create a Red Corridor from Nepal down to Andhra and launch a united war front against India and Nepal. A simple googling will give you the source of this quote.

If nothing else, I see strong Selection and Framing bias at play here - of all the shiite that's going down in Nepal is this all you could find? How can you essentializae the whole mess as just the emergence of secularism? And is it right to frame it as "a good thing" because what you consider secularism and what I consider a Talebanesque anti-Hindu extremist takeover of Nepal in the ongoing power struggle?

Just as I'd expect of a lefty with red balls, you are completely ignoring the murderous ideologoy that is about to replace the traditional HIndu culture of Nepal.

.

Ennis - If you found my (admittedly cynical remarks) offensive, I apologize.

Fact remains, I believe, that the left is reluctant to apply the tools of scrutiny and criticism when writing/covering topics, Islamic.

Btw, Salil, thanks for the heads up. I will look both ways before crossing the road.

Kritic,

When it comes to the left/right portrayal of Islam, the left leans right and the right leans left.

The right - normally socially conservative on gender issues, tends to exploit the "inferior" position of women in "islamic cultures", while maintaining an almost "inferior" stance on women at home.

The left - normally very active in gender equality issues on the ground at home, will gloss over those issues when "sensitively" analysing the position of women in Islam.

Still, I see alot of left leaning criticism of the position of women in Islam coming from the left also.

I guess it all depends on what/who you read.

If nothing else, I see strong Selection and Framing bias at play here - of all the shiite that's going down in Nepal is this all you could find? How can you essentializae the whole mess as just the emergence of secularism?

I'm just writing on a small part of the puzzle. I've been too busy to even finish some of my personal posts that I had promised, so when I noticed something on a small, concrete topic like secularism, I thought it was worth writing up. I'm not boiling the entire Nepal conflict down to secularism, just remarking on the secularism aspect of it.

I made comments about Maoism in response to a question about why Mao wasn't reviled by all peasants, i.e. why would a group find an advantage in identifying themselves as Maoist. I was explaining that unlike Hitler, who had intended to wipe out the Jews, Mao's mass murders through famine were different. Take a look at the "Black Book of Communism" - it's the harshest indictment of communist crimes written by any scholars. If you read the section on the Great Leap forward, even they say that while Mao was fully responsible for the millions who died, it was not his intent to kill them from the beginning. A distinction without a difference, perhaps, but one that explains why Mao's name is not as universally reviled as Hitlers is.

Why don't I write more about the Maoists on this blog? Because blogs are not well suited to deep analysis, and because that would take more time than I have right now. I do my bit, the best I can, on the topics that are current, when I have the time to write. Don't infer from my non-actions, either you or Kritic.

Ennis - If you found my (admittedly cynical remarks) offensive, I apologize.

Kritic - argue with my posts all you want, that's fine. But don't characterize my writing (a) without reading it (b) based on what I haven't written on. What I write about is fairly ad-hoc, and has more to do with what issues are timely one days when my social life is at an ebb and I'm not stuck in the office until late at night. It's hard enough to blog about the topics we do cover, without people carping about what we left out. It's really not intentional.

More Non-Hindu houses of worship???? Will Saudi Arebia allow the same...
Are all Islamic contries to be considered nn secular so marked unfit for business with Secular India???