Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maoists aim to rule India by 2050

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by HillTribe View Post
    And still India functions as a viable state!
    Actually, things are not as bad as it looks. The pakistanis love looking at these statistics and it gives them hope that india will fall before them. Things are very complicated for a non-indian to ever understand.

    Most of these movements are internal problems. The only separatist movement in india is the one in kashmir which is fanged from across the border with dreams of a caliphate.

    The naga's are fighting for a greater nagalim but within indian confederation. Much of the problems in north east is plain tribal warfare.

    The naxals are fighting for equality and opportunity. Much of it is social-economic problem. There is no way a COIN operation can tackle that mess. Only development can solve that issue and the indian govt. tries it's best to keep things calm till economic growth trickles down in these areas.

    Then there are the usual IED blasts in some remote village. The usual furious indian muslim who thinks islam is in trouble and blows some things here and there. The usual reports about revivalism of khalistani militancy.

    There are so many such organizations that people have stopped counting. One day, every single international terror organization will have a regional office in india. Anyone can form an org in my country. Just do not engage in violence else you will be designated as a terror org.

    These are just a tip of the iceberg
    List of terrorist organisations in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    List of designated terrorist organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Last edited by Hindu_Infidel; 12 Mar 10,, 10:50.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by antimony View Post
      That sounds so similar to the socilaist crap that the India "anti-globalization" brigade spouts off that it is not even funny.

      India's resurgence will come about through letting the private sector and the people funciton and by having governance, esepcialy judical systems that enable that, not by trying to regulate people and by trying "spread the wealth", as had been the goal since independence
      Antimony,

      It isn't an 'either/or' question. There needs to be a healthy private sector, but when it comes to providing infrastructure, basic services & things like education to large numbers of people (which sounds like part of the issue here) government can & should make a massive contribution.

      And as for that 'socialist crap', wideing gaps are a haven for discontent & breakdowns in social cohesion, even in more affluent societies. It is a particularly good argument to 'lift' the bottom - something 'trickle down' alone won't get done. Not an argument to rape business or kneecap the rich, but an argument for constructive use of government.
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
        And as for that 'socialist crap', wideing gaps are a haven for discontent & breakdowns in social cohesion, even in more affluent societies.
        IMO this thing is over-rated. Can you given some examples?

        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
        It is a particularly good argument to 'lift' the bottom - something 'trickle down' alone won't get done. Not an argument to rape business or kneecap the rich, but an argument for constructive use of government.
        Yup, this is exactly what got India into this state. All those parasites (like Nehru, Indira Gandhi) used exactly this argument to impose socialism. Of course, whether they genuinely believed it would work or whether it's just human avarice for control is up for debate. In any case they deserve to rot in hell for making India into a communist sh!thole. I see these parasites as no different from the Red-Army. Millions of gullible masses would endure so much suffering. Only the putrification of these parasitic idols will serve as India's redemption - something I don't expect will ever happen.

        Comment


        • #19
          BF, Traditionally the Indian government has been crap at precisely those things which you would think think a government should be good at.
          Communications: Crap until private telcos
          Road and Rail: Still crap but improving slowly due to pressure by business and the people
          Law and order: Law for the rich lathis for the poor. Middle class which has neither money power nor mob power is screwed either way.
          Education: A Joke. Private education is taken by all who can afford it.
          Healthcare: Everyone goes private in spite of huge costs, only the destitute are desperate enough to brave the horror of Govt hospitals. (Although some big prestigious ones like AIIMS are better).

          So as government has a poor track record in all areas, it should focus on basics ie. judicial and police reform and leave private companies alone to do other stuff.
          For Gallifrey! For Victory! For the end of time itself!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Ironically, Raman sir has posted a FAQ on maoists on his blog today. He is very explicit in his opinions.
            Given below are my replies to a set of questions on the Maoist insurgency in India e-mailed to me by a journalist of a Brazilian online journal:

            1 Who are the Maoists in India nowadays?
            The Maoists are the cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), who are fighting against the State in the tribal areas of Central India-----mainly in Andhra Pradesh,Chattisgarh, Jharkand, Orissa and West Bengal.They also have some activity in Maharashtra and Bihar. It is essentially a movement of Maoist ideologues for the capture of political power through the barrel of the gun by exploiting the economic grievances of the poor tribals of central India.

            2. How did they appear? Do they keep the same ideology from the Cold War?
            It is a movement inspired by the ideology of Mao Zedong. They believe in Mao's tactics of capture of political power through a rural revolt of poor and exploited peasants and landless workers.Among the foreign ideological influences on them are those of the Chinese Communist Party under Mao, the Shining Path of Peru and the Maoists of Nepal. Even though the Chinese Communists discarded much of Maoist ideology after his death, his followers in India continue to follow them. They look upon the present leaders of China as revisionists.

            3 What is the relation with the Communist Party?
            They do not agree with the ideology of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and other leftist parties which are against violence and which believe in acquiring political power by contesting in elections. The Maoists are fighting against the present Government of CPI (Marxist) in West Bengal which came to power through elections.

            4 What are the main objectives of the group?
            Capture of political power through a rural insurgency of the rural poor in order to work for the uplift of the poor people. It is essentially a movement of the rural poor and the backward tribals. It has no popular support in the urban areas and from the industrial workers.

            5 Maoists and Naxalites are the same thing?
            The Maoists' violent struggle originally started in the 1960s in a village called Naxalbari in West Bengal. They used to be called Naxalites. They have now spread to other areas outside West Bengal and call themselves Maoists. Yes, the Naxalites and the Maoists are one and the same.

            6 Can we compare them to radical Islamist groups?
            One cannot. The jihadi terrorism is an urban movement. The Maoist movement is a rural insurgency. The jihadi terrorism is a religious movement against non-Muslims. The Maoist movement has nothing to do with religion. The Maoists don't believe in religion. The Maoist movement is a movement of the rural have-nots. The Maoists are Indian citizens. It is an indigenous insurgent movement. The jihadis are a mix of radicalised Muslims from India and Pakistan. They are trained in Pakistan by its Inter-Services Intelligence with the help of Pakistani jihadi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET). The jihadi movement is a global movement. The Maoist movement is not.

            7 Are the Maoists more dangerous than Al Qaeda? Why?
            Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation with a global political and religious agenda. The Maoists are an insurgent organisation with a purely Indian and social class agenda. Al Qaeda believes in indiscriminate killing of civilians. The Maoists believe in targeted killing of civilians. Apart from the security forces, the Maoists kill only those civilians whom they look upon as class enemies such as landlords and forest contractors. Al Qaeda has till now not posed a threat to India's internal security because it has practically no support in the Indian Muslim community. The Maoists pose a serious threat to India's internal security because they have considerable support from the rural poor in the tribal areas of Central India.

            8 From where does their philosophy come from?
            Already answered above

            9 Do the Maoists have support from sectors or regions in India?
            Already answered above

            10 Why and how the Government have to deal with them?
            The Government has to follow a two-pronged policy. It has to undertake a crash programme for the economic and social development of the poor tribals in Central India and take legal action against landlords and forest contractors and government officials exploiting and harassing the poor tribals. At the same time, it has to take action against the armed cadres of the Maoists and their leaders. It should not succumb to violence. It should show a caring attitude to the poor tribals.

            11 In which extension this support makes more difficult the operations of the authorities?
            The operations of the authorities are rendered difficult by the failure of the Government to modernise rural policing, poor road communications in the rural areas, and the lack of co-operation from the people of the areas who have sympathy for the Maoists.

            12 How does the modus operandi work? Is it similar to the Al Qaeda’s one?
            It has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. It is a rural insurgent movement which has to be dealt with using a mix of techniques----better rural policing, better attention to the grievances and problems of the rural poor, crash development of the rural areas, and strengthening the capability of the security forces to collect intelligece from the rural areas and prevent the Maoists from moving in large groups and attacking the security forces.The Maoists don't use improvised explosive devices. They use land mines. They often use weapons captured from the security forces. The Maoist modus operandi is more like the modus operandi used by the communist insurgents of Malaya, Thailand and Burma in the 1950s and the 1960s.

            13 To deny the existence of a group or just combat could lead to a reinforcement of Maoists?
            Question not clear

            14 The strategies to fight against them are the same that they use with Al Qaeda?
            Already answered above.

            15 Can the Maoists make a major attack as Mumbai in 2008?
            The Maoists have made many major attacks on the security forces, overran their posts, and captured large quantities of arms and ammunition. But they did not receive the kind of attention the LET received in Mumbai on 26/11 because they operate in rural areas and not in urban areas. They operate far away from the TV cameras. They don't attack iconic targets. They attack class targets in rural areas.

            16 Are there links with terrorists groups in others countries?
            They have ideological ties of solidarity with Maoists in countries such as Nepal and the Philippines. They don't have operational links.

            17 Is there any peace agreement between the Government and the Maoists? What can we expect in a closer future?
            There is no peace agreement. The Government is prepared to hold talks with them on their grievances if they give up the use of violence for achieving political and economic objectives and surrender their arms and ammunition. They are not prepared to. The Maoists pose a typical dilemma to Govt. policy-makers----security vs development. Without security, there can be no development.Without development, there can be no security.How to harmonise the requirements of security and development?.No answer to this question has been found so far.(12-3-10)
            Last edited by Hindu_Infidel; 12 Mar 10,, 15:47.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
              So as government has a poor track record in all areas, it should focus on basics ie. judicial and police reform and leave private companies alone to do other stuff.
              Somebody said it, I dont remember who
              "The reason why we have mobile but not electricity in every village is beacuse the government felt electricity generation was a public good while mobile phones were seen to be something of an elitist toy"
              Keyboard is mightier than gun

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                Antimony,

                It isn't an 'either/or' question. There needs to be a healthy private sector, but when it comes to providing infrastructure, basic services & things like education to large numbers of people (which sounds like part of the issue here) government can & should make a massive contribution.
                That sounded somewhat "Gunnutty", didn't it? Your are right that government has a job providing basic services. I agree wholeheartedly, the GOI and the different state governments are woefully lacking in providing something like basic education.

                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                And as for that 'socialist crap', wideing gaps are a haven for discontent & breakdowns in social cohesion, even in more affluent societies. It is a particularly good argument to 'lift' the bottom - something 'trickle down' alone won't get done. Not an argument to rape business or kneecap the rich, but an argument for constructive use of government.
                It is a great argument in theory, have never seen it work in practice. In reality, in a country like India, "lifting the bottom" came in the form of mindless regulations, administered through bureaucrats with greasy palms.
                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  That sounds so similar to the socilaist crap that the India "anti-globalization" brigade spouts off that it is not even funny.

                  India's resurgence will come about through letting the private sector and the people funciton and by having governance, esepcialy judical systems that enable that, not by trying to regulate people and by trying "spread the wealth", as had been the goal since independence
                  Well a decade of high growth has not decreased the no of poor in the country.According to some surveys the percentage has increased..what type of high growth is that?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by calass View Post
                    Well a decade of high growth has not decreased the no of poor in the country.According to some surveys the percentage has increased..what type of high growth is that?
                    I am not sure if you have experienced first hand the change in ground conditions before and after the 1990's globalization and anti-regulation policies, but I have had the opportunity, to some extent.

                    After the license Raj was demolished (or at least loosened) there has been an explosion in economic opportunities, for those well placed to take advantage of them. It was a boon for the middle class and for those sections of the working class who were able to take advantage of the new range of jobs that came. The pervasive sense of despondence that prevailed amongst the youth of the middle and working classes when I was growing up, has been replaced with cautious optimism.

                    The poorest of the poor, whose basic development (like providing education) the government has ignored in favour of creating jobs (by getting into business) were never geared to take advantage of the situation anyway, and that has nothing to do with private sector.

                    Even now, the government continues to pursue stupid policies of trying to provide employment (like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme where people basically dig up holes and fill them in again) instead of trying to provide basic education for all

                    Hopefully, with basic education now becoming compulsory, that would change.
                    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pChan View Post
                      IMO this thing is over-rated. Can you given some examples?
                      IMO it is very real - try the last 300 years of history as a start point. If that is too much effort just look at the C20th. Google will help.


                      Yup, this is exactly what got India into this state. All those parasites (like Nehru, Indira Gandhi) used exactly this argument to impose socialism. Of course, whether they genuinely believed it would work or whether it's just human avarice for control is up for debate. In any case they deserve to rot in hell for making India into a communist sh!thole. I see these parasites as no different from the Red-Army. Millions of gullible masses would endure so much suffering. Only the putrification of these parasitic idols will serve as India's redemption - something I don't expect will ever happen.
                      Don't get me wrong...this is all absolutely fascinating, really, it is. Nothing I like more than a borderline unhinged rant....honest. In fact, if you want to email some more to me just drop me a line at [email protected] Can't wait.

                      Just one question - what the fvck does it have to do with what I am talking about?? If I had talked about the value of getting trains to run on time would I have recieved a rant about Mussolini? If I had advocated higher defence spending would you have damned Hitler to rot eternally?

                      Others appear to have understood & engaged my points, by all means try again.
                      Last edited by Bigfella; 14 Mar 10,, 11:33.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bolo121 View Post
                        BF, Traditionally the Indian government has been crap at precisely those things which you would think think a government should be good at.
                        Communications: Crap until private telcos
                        Road and Rail: Still crap but improving slowly due to pressure by business and the people
                        Law and order: Law for the rich lathis for the poor. Middle class which has neither money power nor mob power is screwed either way.
                        Education: A Joke. Private education is taken by all who can afford it.
                        Healthcare: Everyone goes private in spite of huge costs, only the destitute are desperate enough to brave the horror of Govt hospitals. (Although some big prestigious ones like AIIMS are better).

                        So as government has a poor track record in all areas, it should focus on basics ie. judicial and police reform and leave private companies alone to do other stuff.
                        Bolo,

                        Based on my limited knowledge of India I wouldn't disagree with any of this. My point is simply that if you want to address societal inequality the 'market' will only get you so far.

                        That doesn't mean that Government has to physically administer all those services, but it certainly has to make sure that there are decent services available to all - especially health & education. If the Indian government (or governments) is not up to this then by all means contract out the services, but they need to be accessible. Education & healthcare are probably the two most important means by which the poor are able to lift themselves out of poverty (law & justice are also important) - they make it possible to access the potential of an expanding economy & consolidate those gains.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by antimony View Post
                          That sounded somewhat "Gunnutty", didn't it?
                          ...well, I wasn't going to say anything...:)

                          Your are right that government has a job providing basic services. I agree wholeheartedly, the GOI and the different state governments are woefully lacking in providing something like basic education.
                          I think we agreeon both points. I've addressed part of this in my response to Bolo. Markets are great at generating wealth but crap at making sure everyone gets the basic services they need. Governmments are crap at generating wealth sustainably but are much better at making sure basic & essential services are widely available. Some combination of the two is necessary to get the most out of any society.


                          It is a great argument in theory, have never seen it work in practice. In reality, in a country like India, "lifting the bottom" came in the form of mindless regulations, administered through bureaucrats with greasy palms.
                          I would argue that it has been happening all over the world over the past 200 years or so - always with a balance between public & private. You can start with western Europe & Nth America in the C19th & C20th & then move to East Asia in the past 25 years. In Chile the 'Concertacion' parties post-Pinochet reduced poverty from 43% to something like 14%. And of course, the most powerful example is on your northern border. While I wouldn't advocate following everything China does, I would argue that it has been better at equitable service delivery than India, and that this has played its role in the successes of the last 3 decades.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                            I think we agreeon both points. I've addressed part of this in my response to Bolo. Markets are great at generating wealth but crap at making sdistrure everyone gets the basic services they need. Governmments are crap at generating wealth sustainably but are much better at making sure basic & essential services are widely available. Some combination of the two is necessary to get the most out of any society.
                            BF,

                            The point is that not only is a socialistic setup inefficient, but also that such a setup has allowed massive mis-appropriation of public resources. Since the government is the sole keeper of public interests, loads of resources have been removed from public hands and have been hoarded. A lot of them have made their ways to cronies of whichever party is in power.

                            Case in point: Delhi is fairly expensive in terms of real estate. It is very difficult acquire property in and around Delhi for the common man (middle class and down). However, prime (previously government owned) property in and around Delhi have made their way into the hands of political parties, where party leaders have constructed lavish farmhouses. This has nothing to do with globalization or corporates, but in the eyes of the destitute tribal lad trying to eke out a living, all this adds up...

                            PChan's rant is not way off the mark, as a lot of this has been made possible by trying to create an all powerful government in the name of a socialist state through abolition of the Right to Property
                            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              IMO it is very real - try the last 300 years of history as a start point. If that is too much effort just look at the C20th. Google will help.
                              Google results tend to be labyrinthine. I genuinely wanted to know examples. If you have any links, plz let me know. I can think of Russia, China, vietnam, maybe modern venuezela, haven't read enough to make any valid extrapolations. Also what is C20???

                              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              Don't get me wrong...this is all absolutely fascinating, really, it is. Nothing I like more than a borderline unhinged rant....honest. In fact, if you want to email some more to me just drop me a line at [email protected] Can't wait.
                              :) . I tender my unreserved apologies for derailing the topic at hand.

                              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              Just one question - what the fvck does it have to do with what I am talking about??
                              It has everything to do with it. The "constructive" use of government was the argument used to push out private enterprises in India. Govt knows good, so it gives out licences, innovation/competition is out of the window. You probably had a european type of system where both private and govt plays it's part when you made that comment. But the reality is govt does not play it's part and for the better part of independent Indian history it has actively prevented others from playing their part. Cannot speak for other nations, but as far as India is concerned, govt is not a solution, it's a problem.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Hindu_Infidel View Post
                                They want justice. There are many villages in india where developmental works have not reached. Regional tensions give rise to them and hence they embrace militancy. They have lost faith in democracy and hope to turn india into a communist state where the last can be first. They have huge support from the villagers. This image shows the level of there acceptance.

                                For eg: The southern part, hyderabad(or telangana) region came under maoist militancy after 1969 when many students where killed in police firing.

                                Telangana students may cross over to Maoists


                                This post explains it in detail.
                                E=mc^2: Telangana 49: Naxals
                                This map is correct to which year? Since the way i see it, that much geography is now NOT under Maoist influence.There has been +ive development.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X