Talk:Nepalese Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Himalaya region Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Nepal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Gyanendra???

Listing Gyanendra as the sole leader of the government oversimplifies the history of the war. In addition, it is rivisionism at it's worst.

The War lasted from 1996 to 2006. It was Birendra not Gyanendra who was King from 1996 to 2001. The Prime Ministers had total control of the government from 1996 to 2002. Therefore you cannot list Gyanendra as the sole leader of government forces. He was nothing more than a playboy for the early years of the war.

[edit] "hardline"

Anarcho communism should be the key!

What is the basis of the claim that the CPN(M) is "a hardline section" of Samyukta Jana Morcha that split off after an electoral defeat? Since the CPN(M) openly denies the utility of elections in Nepal as currently constituted, this seems unlikely. Also, what exactly is meant by "hardline" here? Shorne 16:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai, the no 1. and no 2. leaders of the NKP(Maobadi) today, took part in the parliamentary election of 1991 and the local election of 1992. Boycotting elections was a change in line after the NKP(Maobadi) was formally founded in 1994. See my explanations below.
Togrim, user of the Norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-20
The fact that CPN(M) originates from a split in SJM is not even questioned by CPN(M) itself. I don't understand your logic, I think the argument in the article is quite clear. In the view of CPN(M) the electoral path of SJM was a failure (a feeling perhaps provoked by the bad electoral performance of 1994), thus they split and constituted a separate party which would not participate in elections. The term "hardline" would be used in comparison with the mainstream of SJM. --Soman 18:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are factually wrong:
1)The NKP(Maobadi) did NOT originate from a split in the SJM, but from a split in the NKP(Ekda Kendra). See my explanation below.
2)The "hardline" wing of the SJM, lead by Baburam Bhattarai, continued to exist as an organisation "under the leadership of the NKP(Maobadi)" until the spring of 2000. (See below.)
3)The split that officially formed the NKP(Maobadi) was in the NKP(Ekda Kendra) in MAY 1994, thus predating the 1994 election.
4)The SJM (Bhattarai) wanted to participate in the election, but the court decided that the other SJM-wing had the right to the election name. (Several years later, the high court decided that the Bhattarai SJM should have got the right to the official election name after all ... but then it was faar to late!)
5)AFTER THAT, the Prachanda NKP(EK) and the Bhattarai SJM decided to boycott the 1994 election.
6)As they didnt TAKE PART IN the 1994 election, they could hardly be "provoked by" a "bad electorial performance" in 1994!
7)IN fact, it was the other wing, led by Nirmal Lama, which had split from the Prachanda-Bhattarai wing in may 1994, which took parti in the 1994 election. To be accurate, the SJM(Vidya). They had 6 reps before the election, and got none afterwards. (See my explanation below).
Togrim, user of the norwegian Wikipedia, 2006-06-20


I agree that the CPN(M) split from the SJM. My difference is the implication that they did so because a vote proved unsuccessful. "Oh, well, the people didn't vote for us. I guess we'll have to try people's war, then." It just doesn't make sense. The split, as I understand, is the result of a reassessment of the SJM's political line, which the CPN(M) now considers revisionist and hopeless.
"Hardline" suggests rigid conformity to policy and rejection of other options. They're not hard-line; they merely have a different line. The word is mostly of propaganda value. I think it should be removed. Shorne 00:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but what were the causes that provoked that reassessment? Do you beleive that the idea to leave SJM and launch armed struggle was born out of discussions with no relation to the political context in the country? Do you believe that its a conincidence that CPN(M) surges in 1994 and not in 1991 or 1998? SJM was the third force in the first elections after the introduction of multiparty democracy. Many of its cadres believed that the electoral path would be a way forward for the movement. The 1994 elections, in which SJM suffered a defeat, disillusioned many away from that idea (not only those who split away to form CPN(M)).
Also I still don't how 'hardline' would be POV. --Soman 13:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm no authority on the CPN(M), but I understand that they were a faction in the SJM that took a hard look at the party's political line and decided that the party had taken an incorrect turn years before. Although the election may have been a factor, I would guess that the dissolution of the USSR three years earlier was more significant. I'll be glad to read any evidence that the election was a major cause of the break-up. In the meantime, merely asserting that the SJM split over an election seems inappropriate. There was a definite ideological disagreement, whatever its origins—and readers need to know that.
In addition, the CPN(UML) has been quite successful in elections, but the CPN(M) still spurns it as revisionist.
"Hard-line" means rigid and uncompromising. I see no reason to believe that the CPN(M) is more "hard-line" than the SJM or any other party. Usually the term is applied to parties in power, whose openness or otherwise is manifested in policy. If you want an adjective with which to describe the CPN(M), "revolutionary" might be better. Shorne 15:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
as per the comparison UML-CPN(M), I'd say sour grapes pretty much covers it all.
Any evidence of that? Shorne 21:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
concerning the reasons behind the 1994 split, I'd say the USSR debacle wasn't a prokoing factor. On the contrary the period of 1990-1991 was an upsurge of the communist movement in Nepal, quite opposite most of the rest of the world at that time.
Two points:
1) the NKP(Maobadi) tradition starts with a party founded in 1974, the NKP(Chautho Mahadhiveshan) - ( Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention) ). Both Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai were scooled in this party and/or in parties that split from it - the NKP(Masal) (Communist Party of Nepal (Masal)) - NKP(Mashal) (Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) - NKP (Ekta Kendra) - (Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre). All these parties were maoists from the start, and regarded the USSR as as bad as the USA, if not worse. The breakup of the USSR in 1990 didnt influence them at all. The changes in China after Maos death in the late 70s was a much more serious trauma for them.
2) I dont really understand the comments about the NKP(Maobadi) and the UML here. The point is that among the more than 30 somewhat important CPs in Nepal before 1990, the NKP(Maobadi) and the UML come from totally different traditions. The Maobadi tradition start more or less in 1971-74, the UML tradition in 1965-68. There has been no crossover of leaders. That the two parties are both called communist doesnt matter much. Politically and in traditions they are like the Republicans and Democrats of the US - very little overlap of millieus and political traditions.
Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-20


Two points:

Wouldn't SJM be revlutionary, or less revolutionary by your definitions? We've been through this on the discussion of CPUSA, where you seem to equate participation of elections with reformism, a quite simplistic explanation.--Soman 20:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's simplistic about it? You can't conduct a revolution while participating in the parliamentary structure of the government that you're trying to overthrow. No, I don't consider any party revolutionary that tries to get elected. That's democratic socialism, maybe, but it's not Marxism-Leninism. Shorne 21:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are arguing semantics. The Maoists only represent a small portion of the population, only they claim they represent other than Chinese. The Nepalese are a very tradition bound people who don't take well to change. Been there. Learned that. They view their King as their ultimate protector. Like the Malaysian Insurgency, the Maoist only represent a small faction of the population.--Numerousfalx 20:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Maoists may not represent the majority of the Nepali but they are certainly not like fish thrown ashore. To answer the following question: True, it's not a people's war and I don't know why it's always called this way. The people as a whole or as a larger part are not involved. Nevertheless, there is widespread support. Also, the Maoists quite successfully run about half the country (area wise) and it's quite peaceful there. As to the statement about the people loving the king: this certainly could be said about the former king, who supposedly was killed by his son. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in Nepal who really believes this story and also to find pictures of the new royal couple hanging in people's homes. In in public offices I noticed the old pictures on display. It's still the former king who is quite openly revered.--213.6.138.54 20:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to the size of the NKP(Maobadi) ... I'll remind you that they mobilized to a mass meeting in Kathmandu on the 2th of june. They claim there were 500 000, the BBC claims it was 200 000. They mobilized 5 000 people in the new prachanda t-shirts just to keep the crowd in order. If this isnt the biggest political mass rally in the countrys history, it comes close.
If and when the election comes, we'll see how many votes they get. Possibly, they may not be the biggest party in the country in votes. However, they got more than 350 000 in 1991, and THEN they were regarded as a small to medium party. They are certainly several times that now.
My guess would be that they will be one of the 3 big parties (the other two being Congress and the UML). These two other parties during the late 1990s calculated with between 1/2 and 1 million members. My guess would be that the NKP(Maobadi) now organise in the same league (possibly fewer in the party as they are strict about who are allowed in, more in "mass organisations"). Just for the record, their womens organisation alone claims to have over 2 million members. This may mean different things - it may even be a bluff - or it may reflect that, as they administrate areas with more than 10 million people, there are many villages where you GOTTA be a member of the maobadi womens union, even if your politics are to the right of Rumsfeld. Some of their "mass organisations" dont seem to have got of the ground, however, a number of them - the womens league, the students league, some minority nationality orgs etc - seems to be regarded as real big forces in their own right.
Another way to calculate them is to start with the numbers of regular maobadi troops, and then go on calculating the parttimers and civilian organisation out from this. As they are rather strict maoists in military matters, this should mean they have a support organisation of several hundred thousands.
One thing is DISLIKING the Maobadi. Another thing is DISREGARDING them. This is definitely no operation of Che Guevara and 15 guys, most of them ill and many of them wanting to desert, stumbling aimlessly round in the jungle of Bolivia. This is a party organizing at least tens of thousands and administering at least millions.
Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-20


As an aside, I'll point out that the term "People's War" comes out of Maoist ideology, as well as strategy. According to the second paragraph of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the term specifically describes the strategy of developing a rural base of support surrounding cities before engaging government forces. --Brian Z 16:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


I will respond to some questions mentioned in the above discussion. 1. Split of SJM (Sanyukta Janamorcha): SJM was designated to be public front of the underground communist party CPN(M). (uncertain about what name it was exactly). SJM split into two parties due to ideological differences.The hardline communists wanted to wage a war whereas Nirmal Lama and co retained the official SJM name and got the election symbol. Later, the supreme court officially handed the official SJM name to the hardline faction headed by Baburam Bhattarai. By then, the hardline had started preparation to launch a bloody war via SIJE program. The decision to go for a war was indeed a result of failure in election. The point of conflict between hardline and softline is meaningless as Nepalese communists have history of dividing in very tiny parties. Artha - 1 april 2006

A minor error in what is written above: The SJM was NOT launched as an election front for the NKP(Maobadi) (no party with this name existed until march 1995.) It was formed as the election front of the NKP(Ekda Kendra) - a party formed in november 1990, lead by the later Maobadi chief Prachanda. For details, see below. Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-20

[edit] WRONG INFO ABOUT THE SJM

Both the article and the discussion above states - wrongly - that the NKP(Maobadi) is a SPLIT FROM the SJM.

What is correct is that the roots of the NKP(Maobadi) lies in a party called the NKP(Ekda Kendra) - (alias Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre)) - founded in november 1990 with Prachanda as leader.

[edit] Original 1990 NKP(EK) and 1991 SJM

This party (the NKP(EK)) regarded itself as illegal. So in order to take part in parliamentary elections in 1991, the NKP(EK) founded an "election front" called the SJM (Sanyukta Janamorcha - english United People's Front of Nepal) during the spring of 1991. This election front was lead by Baburam Bhattarai.

During the election of 1991 the SJM did quite well, to the surprize of most. It got 9 representatives and became the 3rd greatest party in parliament.

[edit] Split in 1994, two NKP(EK) for 10 months, foundation of NKP(Maobadi)

During may 1994 both the semi-secret party NKP(EK) and the election front SJM split in 2.

The majority of the party continued under Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai. Later, the NKP(Maobadi) officially regards this as the foundation of their new party, the NKP(Maobadi). However, for a little less than a year, until march 1995, Prachandas party continued to call itself the NKP(Ekda Kendra).

The minority group, led by Nirmal Lama, called itself the NKP(Ekda Kendra) too. So from may 1994 to march 1995 there existed two parties with identical names.

(After march 1995 the Nirmal Lama party was the only one using the NKP(EK) name. This continued until the party was merged with the NKP (Masal) (Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) into the NKP(Ekda Kendra Masal) (Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre-Masal)) in 2002.)

[edit] Split in SJM 1994, 2 SJMs exist under the same name 1994 - 2000

The SJM, which was "the open wing" of the NKP(EK), altso split in 2.

Here the MINORITY of the representatives followed the SJMs chair and parliamentary leader, Baburam Bhattarai. (We may call this the SJM(Bhattarai) to make it simple). It got 3 parliamentary reps: The present NKP(Maobadi no 2,

  • Baburam Bhattarai

the present facilitator for the Maobadi in the negotiations with the government (by some claimed to be Maobadis no. 3 today)

  • Krishna Bahadur Mahara

A legendary leader from the later guerilla centre Rolpha from the Kham Nagar minority

  • Barman Budha.

The MAJORITY of the parliamentary reps followed Nirmal Lama (ie the minority split in the party). They got 6 parliamentary reps. (One of them is the present vice prime minister, Amik Serchan.) It was lead by a veteran of the founding of the original NKP in 1949, a parliamentary representative from 1991 called Niranjan Govinda Vidya. So the Lama-wing SJM was for a time called the SJM(Vidya).

The two SJMs themselves didnt use these parenthesises, but just the original name, SJM, ignoring the existence of another group calling itself the same (based on the logic "we are the real thing, they are fake.")

The SJM(Bhattarai) existed until the spring of 2000, when it was dissolved. (More about that below.)

The SJM (Vidya) existed until the name SJM until the NKP(EK) merged with the NKP(Masal) into the NKP(EKM) in 2002. At the same time, the SJM merged with the "election front" of NKP(Masal)

[edit] Battle between the two SJMs for taking part in the election in 1994

After the split in may 1994, both SJMs wanted to use the SJM name to take part in the parliamentary election in 1994.

(Ie, the Prachanda/Bhattarai wing wanted to take part in the election in 1994 too).

A court decided that it was the SJM(Vidya) which had the right to participate with the SJM name. (Ie the Nirmal Lama minority wing of the party.)

The SJM(Bhattarai) then declared that it couldnt participate in the elections, and boycotted the 1994 election.

After this, the Prachanda/Bhattarai party (which was then still called the NKP(Ekda Kendra), but it is now, from may 1994, "posthumously" regarded as the NKP(Maobadi)) decided that this proved it is wrong to take part in elections.

In 1997, the nepalese high court decided that the decision in the lower court was wrong, and the SJM(Bhattarai) should have got the right to use the SJM name in 1994. (This was over 1 year after the "peoples war" was started and so had no practical results).

However, the election results in 1991, 1994 and 1999 suggests that the high court may have been right:

1991: United SJM under Bhattarai - 9 reps - number of votes 351 904

1994: SJM(Vidya) 0 reps - number of votes 100 285

1999: SJM(Vidya) 1 rep, however the result continued falling to 74 669

These numbers suggest that the majority of party supporters indeed followed the Prachanda/Bhattarai wing, like the majority of party members in the NKP(EK) which followed them into the NKP(Maobadi).

(The pro Nirmal Lama SJM continued existing until 2002, when the NKP(EK) and the NKP(Masal) were fused into the NKP(Ekta Kendra Masal) (Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre-Masal)). At the same time, the two election fronts of the parties were fused into one, according to the formula SJM + Rashtriya Jana Morcha (RJM) = Janamorcha Nepal (JMN))

[edit] Maobadi/Bhattarai SJM after 1994

It is absolutely wrong that the NKP(Maobadi) in some way came out of the SJM after the split in the SJM. This is like confusing a man with his jacket. The man is the party here, originally the NKP(EK), later the two parties NKP(Maobadi) and NKP(EK)(Nirmal Lama). The "election front" is like a garment for the party, something that covers the real thing, the real party.

If you split a man in two with an axe, naturally you will split his jacket in two too. However, a man can hardly survive being split in two. Unlike that, a party can survive as two living parties, who keeps each half of the garment (the election front ...)

The NKP(Maobadi) (which, I remind you, was the official name of Prachandas party up to then called the NKP(EK) from march 1995 (even though, confuzingly, official party history says the NKP(Maobadi) was founded in may 1994)) - continued to use the SJM led by Bhattarai for a number of years - as its LEGAL front and MASS front (even if the SJM had stopped participating in elections).

When the decision was taken in march 1995 to launch the "peoples war" (in the party, NKP(Maobadi) central comittee, of course) it was the SJM led by Bhattarai that was used to communicate this.

As chair of the SJM, B. Bhattarai on the 4th of february 1996 sent a letter to the (then) pm Deuba (of the Congress Party) with 40 demands. The letter said that if the demands were not fulfilled within the 16th of february there would be an armed revolution. In fact, the peoples war started on the 13th of february.

The SJM continued for some years to be the official platform used to send out declarations from the Maobadi rebels. (Remember that various maobadi organisations werent FORBIDDEN until late in 2001. So the SJM was a legal organisation that could distribute materials, hold press conferences etc.)

The idea was altso that the SJM should be the mass organisation of the rebellion, that should be joined by large masses that wouldnt or were not allowed to join the NKP(Maobadi). (If you dont understand this concept, read Mao or Dimitrov on the united front, which formed the NKP(Maobadi)s policies on this).

However, as the Maobadi grew hugely during the end of the 1990s, it was clear that the SJM wasnt a practical form to fulfill these tasks. So the NKP(Maobadi) decided to dissolve the SJM in february 2000.

Instead of the SJM, the NKP(Maobadi) organized local governments, that were merged into a sort of national government (The National Peoples Council) under the leadership of the former SJM chair, Baburam Bhattarai, on the 23d of november 2001. This is the body that controls about 75% to 80% of the nepalese territory today.

Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-20

[edit] Name of Article

Maybe I'm being overly nitpicky here, but "Nepalese People's War" sounds like POV to me.. Are the Maoist Rebels really supported by even a majority of the Nepalese People the war claims to be for? --24.147.128.141 02:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps Nepalese Civil War might be better, what do you think? Salazar 01:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page to Nepal Insurgency to more accuratly identify the event. I agree with Numerousfalxx, it has musch in common with the Malayan Emergency than anything else, the Maoist are like the IRA in that they cannot win at the polls so they try to take by force. But times have changed and the Chinese and other ComBloc nations, or those that remain, are in no position to offer significant help. And like the Malay Emergency, they will be defeated. I also believe that the monarchy will be replaced by something better, et de oppressor liber.--Tomtom 22:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Egad! I strongly disagree with this rename on the following basis:

  1. The previous name was the known title of the war in the country
  2. That title of the war was set by the CPN(M) and it is instructive as to their nature and goals
  3. Most online literature (other than some skimmy news items for western consumption) tend to use the full name.

Civil war could perhaps be NPOV, if someone can raise some good points as to why not to use the normal title of the conflict, but 'Nepal Insurgency' is not NPOV - it is supportive of the king and dismissive of the rebels. --prat 23:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are some Google hits for examination:
  • "nepal civil war": 868
  • "nepal people's war": 83
  • "nepal insurgency": 4400
  • "nepalese civil war": 48
  • "nepalese insurgency": 33
  • "nepalese people's war": 706
I'm not sure what to call this. "Nepal insurgency" gets the most Google hits, but the number of hits is distorted by terms not necessarily being used as a formal term; that is, it might be used like "the Nepal insurgency continued to fight..." rather than "This conflict, known as the Nepal Insurgency...". Personally, I think "Nepal Civil War" is perhaps the most NPOV, as the term "insurgency" seems to favor the government while "people's war" favors the rebels.
—Lowellian (talk) 07:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
"Nepal insurgency" could refer to the rebels themselves rather than the conflict itself. —Lowellian (talk) 07:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

How do we call this a civil war when only a small portion of the population are involved. I would think that a civil war we be a seriously divided people, which this isn't. Time to stop courting Chicom propaganda. --Numerousfalx 20:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. Overall though, I think Civil War is fine because even if popular support is small it is defeintly a internally-rooted armed conflict that is transforming the country.
I also agree with the idea that the term "insurgency" seems to refer more to the rebels then the conflict as a whole, and disagree that the term "insurgency" is POV... It has come to seem that way perhaps because of the way it is used in the mainstream media in refence to Iraq, but does not necesserily have to be interpreted that way. I doubt the Maoists themselves can seriously object to the validity of term "insurgent" even if they strongly prefer "People's War".--Brian Z 16:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This isn't something we really need to argue. The definition of civil war is "a war between factions in the same country", not "a seriously divided people". The objector above hasn't even edited in a month. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of word civil war. This is a low intenstiy conflict rather than outright civil war with winning and losing parties. The government army rules the cities, towns and centers. But they can penetrate and camp on Maoist heartland anytime. The maoist insurgents dont have a permanent base. Rather, its a flow of people constantly moving around, organizing and attacking at several localized areas. The term Maoist rule the countryside is not correct. Basically, the state at the countryside is that noone is there - neither government nor maoist. Both of the parties pass by occassionally in countryside but question of effective control is not there. After the smaller police booths and health camps have been removed from rural areas, foreign journalists interpreted this act as state ceding control of countryside to Maoist. This is not the case.

--Artha 1 April 2006

It probably was a true "people's war" from the viewpoint of minorities shortchanged by Shah-Rana rule. During the unification period most of the country was effectively colonized by Khas-speaking Pahari Hindus. After this conquest the Shahs', then the Ranas', then HMG's core constituency was mainly Pahari and perhaps also Newar. Bhagwan help you if you were Bhote, or from any hill "tribe", or Tharu, Dalit or Madhesi.

And I'm sure that the Bhote Prachanda and his Madeshi aide Baburam are going to bring equality amongst the various groups in Nepal. In the modern era, the minorities have been screwed over because they are based in villages, not Kathmandu. Stop trying to write this communal bullshit and look at the facts.

Leftist politics have been around a long time in Nepal, but the Maobadis became far more effective than most leftists by tapping into longstanding minority grievances. Maobadis made less headway with Pahari elements whose support they probably needed to win decisively. In the end there was a military stalemate and the Maobadis settled for a political solution. 76.80.9.100 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not a true People's War The Shahs and Ranas were powerless from 1990 to 2002. There were elected politicians in those years. They however were too busy bickering amongst themselves. The Maoists took advantage of this disunity to begin their war of intimidation against the people. Yes the Maoists have provided basic necessities in some places. However they rule through fear. These is an authoritarian group, not a "People's" group. This should be called Nepalese Civil War.

[edit] Links

I've removed the "external links" articles pointing to the news sites of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. (I left the topical articles, just removing the site links.) Having other unrelated Maoist groups linked in the page is entirely unnecessary; if people want to find out more, they can go through Maoism in WP. Cadriel 14:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I'm removing the NPOV tag on this article. The person who attached an NPOV tag did so without any discussion whatsoever on this talk page. Anyone who feels that there should be an NPOV tag can discuss the issue here. -Cadriel 01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More factual errors

First round of peace talks were in 2001. second round in 2003. THERE WERE NO PEACE TALKS IN 2002!

The attack on the Dang barracs wasnt in 2002, but on 23.rd november 2001. [1]


Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-20

[edit] OK< so the war has ended

The Maoists won, althrough they don't have full power (yet). --HanzoHattori 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They're not even in the government yet. The important thing is that the Nepalese people are given an opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to give Maoists political power. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its unresolved.

[edit] Err...?

Is this page messed up for anyone else? All mine link to either A or It Left by TheEasterBunny, I'm just not logged on.

I see someone reverted "OK this is how it goes a flying lump of cheese fell from space and was eaten by bob who then got constipation and exploded and fed every thired world country from povety" out of the intro. I'm going to miss it, but it really didn't belong here. Lowellt 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Shouldn't it be called the Nepalese Civil War? After all, we talk about the Spanish Civil War, not the Spain Civil War, Russian Civil War, not Russia Civil War... so on so forth. --RaiderAspect 08:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nepal Civil War" appears to be currently the overwhelmingly more common form: Google currently gives 72,500 hits for "Nepal Civil War", as opposed to only 635 for "Nepalese Civil War". —Lowellian (reply) 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Weird, Google hit numbers seem to be shifting by the hour (perhaps because of news articles?). Now it's even more overwhelmingly in favor of "Nepal Civil War" over "Nepalese Civil War": 114,000 to 624. —Lowellian (reply) 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point, "Nepalese Civil War" actually makes sense in English. "Nepal Civil War" doesn't. "Nepal" isn't an adjective, is it? --Revolver66 17:52, 23/11/06 (UTC)

Whether "Nepal" is or is not an adjective is irrelevant: "Nepal Civil War" is what most sources, from academic scholars to news media, are calling the conflict. —Lowellian (reply) 05:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the basis for your argument is corrupted by the fact that Google does not distinguish "Nepal Civil War" from another form, "Nepal's civil war". In fact, out of the top 20 results, almost all of them use "Nepal's civil war", if we discount Wikipedia pages. Lesgles (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
yes that's right we should use the adjective form --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's move it. You guys might be interested to see 2006 East Timorese crisis. It was moved from 2006 East Timor crisis for the same reason. __earth (Talk) 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we replace some of these missing links?

I've gone back and formatted the reference links that still work, leaving the URLs showing for the links that are dead. It would be helpful to users if someone more familiar with the material could replace some of these dead URLs with live links OR with the citation info necessary to look them up in print. Because they were not labeled correctly and the links have gone dead, it's no longer possible for someone like me to go in and find the author/title/date info to label them posthumously, so to speak. Lawikitejana 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't the neutrality tag be removed now?

Surely the neutrality tag be removed now? CL8 11:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that there doesn't seem to be a disagreement anymore over whether the term "civil war" is appropriate or not, I removed it. If anybody disagrees, feel free to stick it back and post your reason here on the talk page. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Army's supposed intervention does not have any citations. All I could find are communist party mouthpieces.(24.60.208.43 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

I dont think the term Civil War is appropriate. It was a so called People's War where most of the combatants were forcefully recruited, didnt know the idologies of the party and many were in only for 2 meals a day. If it was a civil war or peoples war as they claim, I doubt they would have destroyed the infrastructure meant for people, i doubt they would destroy the bridges, the telephone towers or blast of roads. As we can see that the war was meant for the personal gain of the leaders, I dont think the war should be termed Civil war of People's war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goin thru changes (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox:Result

New democratic government established Should we really say that this was a direct result of the Civil War? This only works if we say the Loktantra Andolan was a direct result of the Civil War. Maybe it would be better to change the result bit to something else. Horses In The Sky talk contributions

Mh, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 01:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did rural districts like Rolpa support the war?

As it stands, the article is mainly about what leaders on both sides did. What about the grievances of indigenous peoples who supported the war? It seems to me that even many Nepalese fail to understand these grievances. The rest of the world hasn't a clue.

Deb Bahadur 76.80.26.121 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Rolpa supported the war, they were compelled to show that they supported the war. I doubt they were into the war wholeheartedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goin thru changes (talk • contribs) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article Merger

So, how do you guys feel about perhaps merging this article with Nepali Maoist Peoples War? I've been looking at the two and I feel they're quite redundant. I haven't compared them line-by-line, but they look like duplicates to me. If this is true, Nepali Maoist Peoples War really needs to be put up for deletion because that name in and of itself is kinda skewed, besides the article itself being superfluous. Thoughts?--Jt (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: there is definitely a lot of redundancy between the two articles. In my opinion, a possible way of proceeding may be to add any valuable information that the NMPW article has (and is missing from the NCW article) to this article including the corresponding references. Then the NMPW article can be deleted.Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Army reference

Under 2005 of the Timeline, the following statement is made: "February 28: The Indian Army intervenes and is first spotted in Nepal, killing 32 Maoist rebels."

Are there any references for this? I am not aware of Indian forces operating in Nepal without Nepal's approval. If this cannot be verified, I'll go ahead and delete it. Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)