Talk:Prachanda/Archive 1

Should not this article be moved to Prachanda? There are many political figures (especially revolutionaries, for the natural reason that revolutionaries must often run from the law) whom Wikipedia lists under their more familiar noms-de-guerre. Compare Malcolm X, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky... QuartierLatin 1968 22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Prachanda and the Peruvian Shining Path

The article writes that Prachandas political line to a great degree is derivative of the peruvian Shining Path:

- quote -

It takes the strategy of Shining Path insurrection in Peru as an important point of reference, along with the Chinese Revolution.

- end of quote -

Here it looks as the Shining Path is even more important than the chinese revolution as a model for Prachanda/the nepalese Maobadi.

I have never been entirely comfortable with this.

From what I have read by and about the nepalese maoists, the source no. 1 for their political line is China under mao, no. 2 is the beginning of the Russian revolution about 1917. "Prachanda Path", their somewhat vague and contradictory official line from 2001 on, explisitely says that it is a merger of the chinese line of prolonged peoples war in the countryside (a maoist term) with the russian line of city rebellions.

In programmatic documents, the Shining Path doesnt appear as a source of inspiration at all.

However, it IS correct that Prachandas Party, the CPN(Maoist) and its forerunners (before the spring of 1995) made mutch propaganda about "the peoples war in Peru", especially before year 2000.

At the same time, it is clear that the nepalese maoists altso have made some critisisms of the Shining Path.

Now, there is a new interwiew with Prachanda from this autumn, where he explicitely critisises the Shining Path on several imporatant points.

The interwiew is posted HERE:

http://klementgottwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/interview-with-prachanda-hoist.html

The part about the Shining Path starts with lauding its "major role in inspiring us".

However, then he goes on to describe it as "left sectarianism" , "mechanical and one-sided thinking", "negating completely ... compromise or front ... against the main enemy", "idealizing Comrade Gonzalo as a supernatural leader who never makes a mistake" (Gonzalo is the indeed very autocratic leader of the Sendero Luminoso) "being unable ... to learn ... from the metaphysical mistakes of Comrade Stalin " etc etc.

Based on the word from the horses (Prachandas) mouth itself, which I guess should be supposed to be a primary source about the politix of the man, I find it hard to defend this formulation:

- snip -

Prachanda's extension of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to take specific account of Nepal's situation is known as the Prachanda Path. It takes the strategy of Shining Path insurrection in Peru as an important point of reference, along with the Chinese Revolution.

- snip -

Now my first comment is that I have not been able to find an exact comment about what really IS and what is NOT supposed to be "Prachanda Path".

My second comment is: WHERE - in what document, interwiew etc, - is the documentation that "Prachanda Path ... takes the strategy of Shining Path insurrection in Peru as an important point of reference"?

I cant find it used as a reference for Prachanda Path at all. And an IMPORTANT point of reference?

Again, I remind you that "Prachanda Path" was voted in as the CPN(M) line at a central comittee meeting during the spring of 2001. As far as I have been able to see, this was at the end of the period when the party used to say much about the "glorious peoples war in Peru" etc.

YES, the nepalese maoists used to say much about Peru during the 90s and even before. But, on the other hand, this was long before "Prachanda Path" was launched.

I personally know of NO mention of Peru or the Shining Path in any programmatic document about Prachanda Path. (I dont lay claim to have read everything available in english, not to mention nepali which I cant read at all. So references of this kind may possibly exist. However, I have not seen them).

So what is the documentation for this claim?

My suggestion is that the reference to Shining Path is taken out.

At the very least, it should be cut from the direct connection with "Prachanda Path". To put it in front of the chinese/maoist influence is clearly wrong.

Possibly, a solution may be to mention that Prachanda and the CPN(M) during earlier years used to make much propaganda about the war of the Shining Path in Peru, but that in more recent years, Prachanda has been criticising them.

Factually, Prachandas political tactics and Shining Paths are very different.

For instance, the nepali maoist rebellion started with a number of demands to the state, and allways made the propagandistic point that if the state would accept the demands, the war would be over.

The Shining Path never made any demands at all, exept that the state should capitulate.

The nepalese Maobadi has, as the article about Prachanda mentions, made extensive use of armistices and negotiations.

The Shining Path, as far as I know, never made any armistice, and was totally unwilling to consider any form of negotiation

etc.

Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-09-29

Bias

"the autocratic leader"

This seems like blatant bias by a pro-capitalist, I suggest it be changed to simply "the leader". --70.191.145.250 14:24, 3 September 2005

I agree, but I've got a better solution: I found a fuller attribution for the Prachanda-as-autocrat accusation (that's what Bhattarai's supposed to have said; but no doubt the royalists and a fair few of the political parties have said similar things if we can find more precise sources...). QuartierLatin 1968 16:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Prachanda

I'm very strongly in agreement with DanielM that this article should be at Prachanda. TJive and I have argued about this on each other's talk pages, and my position remains the same. QuartierLatin1968 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As does mine. I am strongly suspect of Daniel's intentions here. --TJive 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since only three people have taken an interest in this question so far, and since our positions are not likely to change, should we solicit opinions from a wider forum? Perhaps W:Requests to move? Solidarity, QuartierLatin1968 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have other things to worry about besides whether TJive is strongly suspect of my intentions. His position here is that Prachanda and Pushpa Kamal Dahal are similarly common names for this individual. Man, I keep up with this person, read something on it almost every week, and I can barely ever remember "Pushpa Kamal Dahal." He just is not generally referred to that way. If you look at the frequency of those terms in a search tool, let's try Altavista for example. 173,000 instances of Prachanda and 13,000 of "Pushpa Kamal Dahal." It is difficult for me to believe that TJive doesn't grasp this, and I don't think his reversions here are good faith edits. DanielM 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Color me paranoid, Daniel, but I find it odd that with your relatively small number of edits and extremely limited focus of most of these, largely pertaining to Galloway/Coleman/OFF/Iraq sanctions, where we have come into conflict/disagreement, that you have shown up twice behind my edits here to move this article, with months between where I was not an active editor but this article remained as it was.

I would agree to Quartier initiating his proposal and would accept the results of a wider vote. I do not have a strong enough feeling about it to oppose such a move. --TJive 02:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All right then, I suppose it falls to me to motivate. [Bear with me TJive, you've heard my points, but this is for those just joining the discussion]:
Pushpa Kamal Dahal is rarely known by his birthname; instead, as a Maoist revolutionary, he is known by a nom-de-guerre, similarly to Subcomandante Marcos, Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, and many others who have adopted pseudonyms for dissident political purposes. In each of the cases named, Wikipedia employs the most recognizable nom-de-guerre. In Prachanda's case, this would be 'Prachanda'. My sense is that there are millions of people, in India as in Nepal, to whom the name Pushpa Kamal Dahal means nothing, but who would immediately recognize Prachanda as the name of the Nepalese Maoist leader. Internet searches, which can be expected to be biased towards richer countries and also Wikipedia knockoffs, remain nevertheless dramatically slanted towards Prachanda: Google gives 90,500 hits for Prachanda against 15,000 for Pushpa Dahal (I'm being generous by leaving out Kamal as an extra search term and omitting quotation marks) and 627 for P.K. Dahal. Yahoo gives 170,000 hits for Prachanda against 14,200 for Pushpa Dahal; the numbers on Altavista are similar. Google News search as of today gives 332 hits for Prachanda against 43 for Pushpa Dahal. Furthermore, a great proportion of the hits for Pushpa Dahal are articles that begin with the words "Comrade Prachanda, who was born Pushpa Kamal Dahal..." and then subsequently refer to him as Prachanda throughout the article.
Okay, watch our spot at Wikipedia:Requested moves#2 February 2006. I sincerely hope we can keep personal insinuations out of this discussion. QuartierLatin1968 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do there have to be a number of votes for the move to take place? The page doesn't look too active from my quick glance. --TJive 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah, the votes are supposed to pile up here. I'll add mine for the record. The voting runs 5 days, so people still have plenty of chance to weigh in. QuartierLatin1968 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand Quartier's rationale since "Prachanda" would be a more accessible name for anyone looking up info on him. However, there is a redirect from the "Prachanda" page to the "Pushpa Kamal Dahal" page so someone entering search details for either name is going to end up at the same article anyway! To be honest, I've never heard of either name for this fella, so for the simple reason above, and from a wholly neutral and open-minded perspective, I would be in favour of keeping the status quo. So I suppose that puts me in the oppose camp. However, just to be a bit flash, I've had a few more minutes to ponder on this subject and I think it should be moved. Why? Well firstly, if other revolutionaries go by their nom-de-guerre on wikipedia then maybe just to keep things tidy, this one should do the same. And secondly, just from reading the banter above, it would appear that Quartier's a wee bit more emotionally involved in the outcome of this than TJive who admits to being more or less unaffected by the outcome of this vote; so why don't we all be good wikipedian neighbours and support the change for someone who will definately be annoyed if the change isn't made. I hope you two can shake internet hands once the votes are in! No hard feelings, TJive, Brian 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say he is emotionally involved because there were months he could have changed it with impunity and did not. As far as words we exchanged on each other's talk pages rather than here, but I did not reiterate my own comments. --TJive 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. --TJive 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Why do even simple things have to be made difficult? Wait, don't answer, I know why. DanielM 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Are Big Communist Link Box and Emblem Appropriate?

I like the idea of being able to go to a few related subjects via links at this entry, but the big red box with many liks and a hammer & sickle emblem seems a bit over the top to me. It seems to me that we should have a traditional, simpler entry with some links at the bottom. Maybe a small, Communism in Nepal text box would be okay. Any thoughts? DanielM 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. I actually thought that just bringing the Communism in Nepal box down to a width of 300px would help, but it just ends up splitting the names of lots of parties across two lines. It's sort of like that "Topics in Hinduism" template – there's now a big version, a little version, a version you can show or hide at will, etc. I think we need a little version of the Nepal Communism template here! QuartierLatin1968 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the giant text box because it had limited relevance, took up an inordinate of screen space and was a distraction, and for the reasons discussed above. Additionally, one of the first wikilinks in the Prachanda article is for Communist Party of Nepal, so people can click right to that if they choose and get all the information in the text box. DanielM 10:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Incompatible with orthodox Marxist ideology?

I have recently discovered from a RCPer that Prachanda wants to establish a socialist state after the creation of a multi-party democracy. He believes that a democracy must be established before moving forward into the next stage.

That's an interesting thing to consider, but what you find out from an acquaintance can't be put in the article because that would be original research and is against Wikipedia policy. Prachanda says that the Maoists are not locked in the past and are instead developing the new political paradigm of the 21st century. He says that they agree to multi-party democracy as long as it is anti-feudal and anti-imperialist. I don't think he has publicly articulated any plan to seek a one-party system after that. He hasn't said anything about any "next stage," at least not openly. So we can't write in the article that that is what he wants to do. DanielM 21:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai have both stated on the record that in a future socialist state, there should be multiparty democracy, and their party should leave govt if it is voted down by the people. This is all over the net, including in the big Prachanda interwiew from february this year. No "original research" there, it is directly from the horses mouth (follow the link to the Norsk (bokmål) wikipedia and the links are in the bottom parts of the article).

Wether you believe him or not is your decicion, but this is what he says. Togrim, norwegian wikipedia user. 2006-06-02

PS: Bourgeois revolution before socialist revolution in feudal countries like Nepal IS marxist orthodoxy. And there is nothing in Marx for or against multiparty democracy under socialism. Togrim. Oslo

Correcting some major inaccuracies

I am quite surprized at the factual errors in this article. Among other things, it said:

• That the king dissolved parliament when he took power in 2005. Wrong. Then prime minister Deuba dissolved parliament in may 2002. (King Gyanendra made a point on that when he recalled parliament in april. Deuba was at the time prime minister for the Nepali Congress Party, the main govt party today.)

• That PRACHANDA released the 12-point agreement last year, and this reflected "maoist" wiewpoints. The agreement was released by the Seven Party Alliance and the CPN(M). It did maybe reflect maoist wiewpoints, but it did represent the wiewpoints of the parliamentary parties too. It has recently been confirmed BY VOTE OF PARLIAMENT!

• It is mentioned that Prachanda has declaired one-sided armistices (which he really hasnt, that often!), and then the april armistice is mentioned. In fact, the parliament has voted over and accepted this armistice, about one week after Prachanda proclaimed it - this was NOT mentioned.

• Then a number of the common stands from the 12-point agreement were mentioned as MAOIST DEMANDS. Wrong, the two parts agree on all of them, EXEPT a REPUBLIC (which is now demanded by some parts of the parliamentary parties too (f.inst congress youth).

I have corrected this.

However, there are more errors.

Why isnt this article more factually accurate?

All the best, Togrim, 2006-06-02

The article depends on contributions by everybody to be factually accurate, and this includes you, Togrim. Some of what you say here is accurate, some, not exactly. I'll answer your bullets in reverse order:

4) There was no text in the paragraph describing the twelve-point agreement that called anything "MAOIST DEMANDS" as you claim. There is such a phrase in the paragraph describing the 40 demands from 1996, but that is what the Maoists themselves called them. So the other stuff you say there doesn't make sense.

3) Here you both say that he has declared ceasefires and then that he really hasn't that often so it is not really clear what you mean. I guess you mean that the previous text implied that he declared them more often than he actually did. The previous text said he declared them periodically, if you disagree you should say that it was a rare or infrequent thing, but I think that would be wrong. You say why wasn't it reported that the parliament accepted the Maoist armistice but that only happened a month ago. Nobody got to it yet or it wasn't seen as so critical. Why didn't *you* report it if you are so fired up about it?

2) You criticize the article for saying that Prachanda released the 12-point agreement, but why don't you click on the reference and go criticize nepalnews.com because they also said this?

1) Well here you really earned your Wikipedia pay for the week because you are right, the king sacked the government in 2005, not the parliament. All hail mighty Togrim, who got one right! ;)

Seriously, I can see you might be able to contribute a lot to this article and Wikipedia but please be a little less loud and judgemental with your criticisms, because sometimes you just aren't right either. DanielM

Dear Daniel

Either we havent been reading the same text or I dont understand english (which is possible, it isnt my native lingo.) So let me describe how I understand this, answering in your order:

Point 4) Daniel. heres your claim:

4) There was no text in the paragraph describing the twelve-point agreement that called anything "MAOIST DEMANDS" as you claim.

Here is what I read in the (then) article (copied from the articles history) and later corrected:

- quote -

On November 22 2005 Prachanda released a "twelve-point agreement" that enumerates CPN (M) political positions and claims to identify areas of agreement between the Maoists and seven more conventional Nepali political parties.

- end of quote -

My comments: The wrong points here are:

• The text says: PRACHANDA released a "12 point agreement".

Wrong: The two sides, the NKP(M) and the 7-party alliance, BOTH released this document. The impression given is that this was something that came from Prachanda as a person, NOT from the two main nepali sides.

• The text says: "twelve-point agreement".

In norwegian use the "" would signify that it WASNT really a 12-point agreement, but something that somebody SAID (maybe incorrectly) was a 12. point agreement. So it would be understood as a way of trowing doubt on the claim that this REALLY was an agreement between two sides. Is this different in english?

• The text says: that enumerates CPN (M) political positions and claims to identify areas of agreement between the Maoists and seven more conventional Nepali political parties

The impression given here is that this "agreement" contained the maoist positions - but only CLAIMED to identify areas of agreement between the CPN(M) and the seven. So, again, trowing doubts on wether this REALLY represented the wiews of TWO sides.

This is, in my opinion (and, frankly, in the opinion of the western press, which wrote extensively about it) a misrepresentation. The document DIDNT "claim" to represent agreement on a number of points, it DID represent some agreements (and even at least one or two disagreements, as far as I understand it!) which both sides agreed on.

I read the text above as implying, more or less, that this was sometning the maoists had made, which contained their policies, and some "claims" about agreement with the 7.

Which was very far from correct. I remind you that this 12. point document now has been voted on and accepted as a part of the present parliaments (ie the reinstated 1999 parliaments) plan of action.

So was I totally wrong when I criticised this description of the very real 12-point agreement?

• So you are right that the article i critizised didnt contain the words maoist DEMANDS in connection with the 12 point agreement.

Well, this was my error. However, to explain why I made that error: The original formulation in the article gave me (at least) the impression, that the 12 points unecvivocally contained maoist POSITIONS, while referring to the agreements as something doubtful.

I find my error, which was made in a rapidly and roughly written and unpretentious discussion posting, rather small, as compared to the errors in the wikipedia article, which was presented to the world as a factual information about a nepalese political event.

Nobody expects everything on the debate pages to be a collection of pure and exact truths. However. a number of our readers really believe that what stand in the wikipedia ARTICLES is true.

Point 3) Daniel.

On the question of "periodic unilateral ceasefires".

Here is what the article said:

Periodically, Prachanda has announced unilateral ceasefires that are not reciprocated by the Royal Nepalese Army.

My comment:

No, he hasnt. He has done that ONCE: In september 2005, after the 7-party alliance asked for it.

Since 2001, there has been 4 long, national ceasefires:

• During the second half of 2001. This was declaired by then PM Deuba (then of the Nepali Congress).

Prachanda answered it after a few days.

• Spring to early autumn 2003. This was a reciprocal ceasefire too.

• September 2005 to january 2006. This was the ONLY unilateral ceasefire declared by Prachanda.

• April 2006 until now. This was declared by Prachanda and immediately joined by the government,

which confirmed it in parliament some days afterwards.

How ONE unilateral ceasefire can be in any way PERIODIC, I really cant understand.

Then you have this weird little comment, i quoute Daniel:

- quote Daniel -

You say why wasn't it reported that the parliament accepted the Maoist armistice but that only happened a month ago. Nobody got to it yet or it wasn't seen as so critical. Why didn't *you* report it if you are so fired up about it?

- end of quote -

Excuse me, here you quote ME wrong. I didnt ask you WHY you didnt mention that parliament confirmed Prachandas latest ceasefire: "You say why wasn't it reported that the parliament accepted the Maoist armistice ..." I just POINTED OUT that it was confirmed in parliament, which the article didnt mention, TO CLARIFY THAT THIS WAS NO ONE-SIDED CEASEFIRE!

My point is that the april armistice was in no way UNILATERAL, (it was accepted by the govt side BEFORE the parliament formally voted on it), and the Nepalese Royal army DEFINITELY had to "reciprocate". NO WAY this can be used to argue for these "periodic unilateral ceasefires". Dont you see this?

3 RECIPROCAL ceasefires RECIPROCATED by the nepalese royal army, ONE unilateral NOT reciprocated by the nepalese army, HOW does this become "periodic" announcements of UNILATERAL and NOT reciprocated ceasefires?

So is the article WRONG OR NOT?

More seriously, the article give a wrong impression of the entire Nepalese negotiation process. There has been more than one year of ceasefires since 2001, most of them agreed on by two parts, and the royal army had to respect every one of them exept for the 2005 unilateral one.

The ceasefires have sometimes been initiated by one side, sometimes by the other. It was the nepali govt that initiated the first one, and it seems it had tried to get it in place at least from the year 2000.

However, the article would give the hapless reader the impression that here was this weird guy Prachanda, who now and then proclaimed ceasefires that the army didnt take seriously.

Am I clear enough now?

Point ::2), Daniel:

You wrote:

You criticize the article for saying that Prachanda released the 12-point agreement, but why don't you click on the reference and go criticize nepalnews.com because they also said this?

My answer: Because the nepalnews.com article is misquoted by you. Since you make a point out of my inexact quotation of the wikipedia article, putting in the two words MAOIST DEMANDS, I think i am entitled to mention that both you and the original article make an incorrect statement about Prachanda, namely that he "released" the 12-point agreement.

He didnt, and neither does the nepalnews.com article claim so.

Here is what nepalnews.com writes:

• The 12-point agreement between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance as listed in statement by Pushpa Kamal Dahal on Tuesday.

Not a word about him "releasing" the agreement. What he did, was to make a comment on the agreement in his statement, and in this comment he quoted the 12 points. The nepalnews.com then used prachandas statement as a source, because they got it before they got the simple 12 points.

As a pro journalist, i dont find this very strange. This was a breaking story, and a very big breaking story in the world and especially in Nepal. Here were these secret negotiations, and India was - quite surprizingly - involved. Something was going on, but exactly what? When the 12 points were made official - first, thru leaks to the press - there was a race to get hold of them. The press-savy Maobadi used their chance to be the first who got it in the hands of nepalnews, wrapped in a Prachanda statement (which got that published and extensively quoted, too). And nepalnews, as good press guys, of course published an unoficial translation immediately.

The writer of the article misunterstands this and interprets this as meaning that this was "released" by Prachanda, and even that the alleged "agreements" are thus maybe doubtful. However, there were at the same time several different versions (mainly because there were slightly different unoficcial translations) which confirmed that this was no maobadi ploy or fabrication. And more than 1/2 year afterwards, there is as far as I can see, NO REASON to let this rather serious misunderstanding stand uncorrected.

And even if you HAD been correct, and the nepalnews.com HAD written that this agreement was "released" by prachanda? Well, then it would have been an error in ONE, DATED source article. I dont see why it is my duty to expose an error in the source, even if the article had quoted a wrong source? (but then, the source wasnt wrong, it was the writer of the wikipedia article who MISQUOTED and MISUNDERSTOOD a source.)

point 1) Daniel.

Nice that we agree on the King. I still happen to think I got the 3 others right too.

However, the article still states the - well, excuse the word, but isnt it right? - rubbish about the "periodic unilateral ceasefires".

- quote -

Periodically, Prachanda has announced unilateral ceasefires that are not reciprocated by the Royal Nepalese Army.

- end of quote -

How come? Is there some kinda point of pride that the article MUST contain uncorrect stuff?

Let me give you another error in the present article:

- quote -

On February 4, 1996 Prachanda and Bhattarai gave the government, led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, a list of 40 demands, threatening civil war if they were not met.

- end of quote -

Well no - Prachanda didnt! And this was because the statement was made ONLY by Bhattarai, NOT by Prachanda, because the uprising was officially made by the Samyukta Janamorcha Nepal, and NOT by the CPN(M). This fiction continued for a number of years, statements about the "peoples war" used to come from Bhattarai and the SJM, because Prachanda and the CPN(M) were seemingly not involved.

There are SOME statements made by Prachanda, some by Bhattarai, some by both togheter. The CPN(M) has a SYSTEM here, and its interesting to try to GET IT RIGHT, if you wanna understand what these quys are up to.

I have written a lot of Nepal in the norwegian wikipedia. Errors are unavoidable, but I have at least pulled them out whenever Ive found them. I am amazed at the numbers of elementary errors there are in the much larger english wikipedia when it writes about Nepal. Wrong dates and years, wrong descriptions of parties splitting and merging, wrong facts about political processes. Supposedly, you should have more and better resources. You definitely have many more readers, so your greater errors have much more effect than our smaller ones.

You may think that this kind of critisisms of details are nitpicking. But i mean, whats the REASON to write about details if you dont take care in getting the details right?

all the best

Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-06-28

"The two sides, the NKP(M) and the 7-party alliance, BOTH released this document." If Togrim and Daniel write a joint statement, either Daniel or Togrim or both of them can release it. Or they can hand it off to someone else, like their press secretary, to release it. Nepal News said Prachanda released a statement that listed the twelve points. I see what you are saying that he was actually only quoting the points from the joint statement. This wasn't clear from the Nepal News story. It wasn't clear whether there had been a joint statement or whether Prachanda was just giving his own characterization of some talks. So the original text was okay given that. There wasn't any attempt to throw doubt on the joint authoring of the twelve-point agreement. This is a stupid thing to quarrel about.

"Well, this was my error." Okay enough about that one then.

"No, he hasnt. He has done that ONCE..." That's a nice listing of the ceasefires you did. But what is the source of it? My recollection is that the Maoists have declared at least more than one ceasefire and I think more than two that then failed to be reciprocated by the RNA. I have no particular attachment to the word "periodically" you can go and zap it. But this is another stupid thing to quarrel about. Rewrite the sentence if you don't like it, but stop going on about it, please.

"Well no - Prachanda didnt!" Yeah, I knew that Bhatarrai's signature appeared on the 40 demands, not Prachanda's. I was trying to think of a good way to fix that without taking out the part about the 40 demands. Did this have anything to do with your original criticisms? I think you're coming up with new ones. Go ahead and fix the stuff if you see a problem, your english is good enough.

"And this was because the statement was made ONLY by Bhattarai, NOT by Prachanda, because the uprising was officially made by the Samyukta Janamorcha Nepal, and NOT by the CPN(M). This fiction continued for a number of years, statements about the "peoples war" used to come from Bhattarai and the SJM, because Prachanda and the CPN(M) were seemingly not involved." Well, you have got into a level of intrigue here that may indeed be very interesting but it is deeper than my knowledge of the subject, and I would argue inappropriately deep for the Prachanda article.

Anyhow, nice talking with you. I agree with you on some things. Maybe I will make some of these changes. Hey, I would like to see that Norwegian Prachanda article sometime, can you give a URL? DanielM 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC) PS: I don't think there was any attempt to portray Prachanda as a weird little man saying strange things, if something happened to look that way it was accidental.

Dear Daniel (i suppose this is from you?)

The simplest way to find my nu-wiggin Prachanda article is to go to the english article and click on No:Prachanda - Norsk (bokmål). The url is http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prachanda

Most of the political articles (about parties, politicans and similar) in the nu-wiggin Nepal categories are written by me. (About 90 now, I think?) Most of the links to Norsk (bokmål) from english nepal articles lead to articles ive written.

As to errors in the english-language wikipedia about Nepal: Ive been writing in the nuwiggin wikipedia about Nepal for a bit more than 1/2 year. Initially I didnt know much, and I used the rather extensive coverage in the english-language wikipedia as a very welcome windfall of source material.

However, after a time, when I had bought and borrowed some basic texts, I began to find a number of errors. Some you might call trivial, some Id call major.

If you want to see some of the changes I have done in the english wikipedia, look at:

• Communist Party of Nepal (Democratic).

• Nepal Communist League

• United Left Front (Nepal) (1990)

My criticisms and changes are documented in the discussion pages, and in the page history, of course. You will see that I first asked about the sources for what I came to regard as wrong information. I then extensively googled this information trying to find ANY confirmation for the claims in the articles, and found NONE. Neither did I get any answers with factual information. I then, finally, corrected the articles.

I am not a regular contributor to the english-lingo Wikipedia. I write for the nuwiggin one, and have got enuff to do there. However, I found it irritating - and, well, just a wee bit shocking - that I had included rather gross errors in the norwegian wikipedia, because I too naively believed in the at best rather inaccurate stuff from the english wikipedia. (I started, reluctantly, correcting some of the worst errors, because I sympatised with smaller lingo wikipedia writers like myself who will be copying the biggest and most authoritative of all wikipedias, in the belief that the stuff there has been REALLY double-checked.)

You may think that this is really small potatoes. However, I repeat: What is the REASON for including details IF THE DETAILS ARE NOT CORRECT?

WHY include a list of 7 parties that created the ULF in 1990 (which was a big and important organisation then) if 2 of the parties were NEVER members of the ULF (one didnt even exist during the time of the ULF) and 2 parties that WERE members, are left out?

Not many people in the world are interested in the Communist Party of Nepal (Democratic) that existed (under that name) just for a few months in 1991. However, the english wiki has an article about it. So WHY give wrong information about it?

What's going on in Nepal is growing in importance, and many people in the rest of the world are growing more interested in it. Unlike Göring, who famously said that "history is bunk" (I believe? But I wouldnt put it in a wikipedia article without checking the source!) history IS interesting, if we wanna understand whats going on there now. (F.inst. the CPN(D) under a new name (CPN(United Marxist)) is a present government party. Allmost all central politicans now - pro maoist, 7 party alliance, royalists - were central players in the 1990 rebellion.) So it IS useful to be correct in details when you give historical information.

Briefly about what we have been discussing, now:

1) On the alleged "Prachanda release" of the 12 point agreement in november 2005:

This, apparently, was a misunderstanding on the person writing the wikipedia article based on ONE source in november 2006. My comment, as a pro journalist, is that even at the time there were MANY sources which got this right. However, I agree with you that THIS is very small stuff and nothing to discuss now.

My main point is that NOW, this is over 7 months ago! There is no REASON for defending this one error more than 1/2 year after, when the real facts are well known. To claim that the original text was "was okay given that" is, in my wiew, doubtful, as better information was available then. However, Im not discussing that. Im discussing wether it is OKY NOW (my criticism came in JUNE 2006, NOT in NOVEMBER 2005!) when any elementary search will show that this was a joint document NOT "released by Prachanda" (not to mention all the other errors in the original text).

Dear Daniel, THIS IS NOT A HISTORICALLY CORRECT INFORMATION, whatever good (or bad) reasons the writer of the article had to bleieve so last year. We all make errors, I make lots of them! However, that is not the problem, the problem is when we dont check and change, when we oughta know better! That is my entire point.

2) The ceasefires. What are my sources?

Well, Ive worked with this for some months, and Ive tried to make a documentary chronology over it.

If you look at the article no:Nepals kommunistiske parti (maoistisk) point 6.2. Kronologisk (thats cronology in norwegian) you will find more than 100 links to sources, most of them in english, so they will be easy to check for you. This is the result of more than 8 months of googling. And I HAVE FOUND no mention of other armistices than these 4, one-sided or not?

I HAVE checked most of the available books on the civil war after 2000 (before 2001 there were NO armistices, or I am a budhist!), and I have found NO mention of other armistices?

I add, with some reluctance (as this article contains a number of errors in the details, too) the english wikipedia on the civil war, Nepal Civil War. This article doesnt mention the FIRST armistice of the autumn of 2001 (but only the peace talk at the time). It does, however, mention the start of the SECOND armistice during the spring of 2003, I quote:

• January 29: A second ceasefire is established and peace talks begin. [1]

The next ceasefire the english wikipedia article refers to is the 4-month UNILATERAL ceasefire from september 2005 to the start of january 2006. Then the article mentions the start of the bilateral ceasefire going on now from april-may 2006.

So the english wikipedia article knows of no more ceasefires than the 4 i mention, apparently?

I gotta return the question: WHERE IS THE SOURCE MATERIAL for MORE than these 4 ceasefires? And where is the source material for PERIODICAL UNILATERAL SEACEFIRES? Can this claim be supported by googling? Shouldnt this have been made available by the writer who put this incorrect claim IN? Is the method here that I should DISPROVE that something that is not documented happened, or that somebody who put in a doubtful claim should document it?

About the claim of periodical unilateral OF COURSE I can go and zapp! it. However, this doesnt make me very happy, as my question remain: WHY are SO MUCH inaccurate stuff put into the english nepalese articles, apparently with no previous fact checking at all?

3)About the 40-point declaration of 1996:

I got no beef with you about the difference of formal roles between the NKP(Maobadi) and the Bhattarai-led Samyukta Janamorcha Nepal being "too deep" for this article about Prachanda.

However, the info that Bhattarai and Prachanda JOINTLY signed the 40 points IS SIMPLY WRONG! Again, my point: WHY include such a detail when it is NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT?

This is very easy to check too! The 40 points are all over the Internet, they can be googled in a moment, and anybody who does so, will find that they were ONLY signed by Bhattarai. Look f.inst. at this link, which is included in the nuwiggin NKP(Maobadi) article (link given above): http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/nepal/document/papers/40points.htm

Did this have anything to do with my original criticisms? Frankly, YES! This is ANOTHER example of the many inaccuracies in detalis that, in my wiew, PENETRATES the english wikipedia Nepal articles.

As you can see from the examples I give above, my criticism of the Prachanda article is far from the first criticism Ive been making of this. Nor have I listed all the errors I have not bothered to comment.

The connection here is, to put it frankly, that it seems to me that there is a lack of methodical checks of what is put in, a "spirit of sloppiness" apparent in writing many of these articles.

FINALLY: I LOVE WIKIPEDIA. I love the IDEA and the RESULTS. I do not write to denigrate Wikipedia or the people putting in volunteer time. I write because it PAINS ME when the results arent - in my wiew - good enuff!

I dont want to take the will to write in Wikipedia away from contributors, who, like me, have other things to do, write about themes that they (we) initiately dont know too well, etc. Wikipedia is, among other things, a wonderful LEARNING TOOL for us poor sods writing here.

I write because I want these wonderful people (they/us!) to DO BETTER. I dunno any other method than to POINT OUT AND CRITICISE ERRORS. If that hurts, Im sorry, that was not my intention.

I altso write because I feel I represent the readers, streaming to Wikipedia in greater and greater numbers, and the WRITERS of smaller wikipedia (like me) who use the english wikipedia as a basic source. I feel that these kind of inaccuracied LET THEM DOWN.

It is an important point here is that this kind of stuff IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIX. It doesnt demand of you that youre an expert about Nepal, or similar. (I found these errors, and Im not!) It basically demands that you walk that extra mile (or km, as we would say here!) checking your claims before you print them. Prachanda signed the 40 points of 4th of february 1996? Google that and look if his name is under it! Prachanda is a sorta pulsating one-sided declarer of armistices? Well, for gossake, GOOGLE armistice, ceasefire, Prachanda, BEFORE you write that! Prachanda released the 12. point declaration with a lot of maoist politix and some doubtful stuff about the 7 parties? (By the way, another wikipedia article claims that the 12. point agreement came in 2006!) Again, google it, and DONT look at only ONE article about this, SO YOU GET IT RIGHT! (Lots of internet articles about this stuff is inaccurate, too ...) Maybe even go to a LIBRARY, borrow a BOOK, and check it there! (Or even, find out which books that are referred to as STANDARD TEXTS and borrow THEM!)

Ordinary iddjits like me can actually DO this without being rocket scientists! However, it DOES demand of us that we feel responsible for what we post, and are willing to NOT BE LAZY.

And it is NOT good enuff to say: Well, this is small stuff. Who cares?

You agree, Daniel?

All the best to you, from Togrim, Oslo 2006-06-29

PS: Two points:

1) Daniel, you write that you dont think it has been anybodys intention here to portray Prachanda as a weird little guy making these weird little one-sided armistices, etc.

Oky, probably youre right.

However, my IMPRESSION when reading the text is that this is how the ordinary reader would read it. And that is unfortunate, even if it is not intentional.

Im not out to portray Prachanda as some kinda saint, nor as a tremendous genious. (To put it in another way, I dont believe in doning propaganda for any side here!) What I believe in, is to try to dig up historical information, which makes the PHENOMENON Nepal (including Prachanda) easier to understand.

It seems to me, that Prachanda/the Maobadi leadership, since 1999-2000 have been using armistices (the demand for ceasefires, the acceptance or non-acceptance of them, the periods of ceasefires used for troops r&r, organisatorical reorganisation, building up contacts in cities etc, the breaking of ceasefires when they didnt get what they wanted etc) with great tactical and strategical skill. One may call this moral or unmoral, good or bad. However, as compared with the various Kathmandu govts, which seems to have been split, delaying, going into armistices with no clear programmes, loosing the initiative now and again (here the word REGULARILY may be appropriate!), etc, it seems the Maobadi have been faaar superior.

My point is that Prachanda, good, bad or the very devil, has shown himself to be a devilishly clever political operator. Just the study of the armistices is ONE example of this. The (wrong) claim about him time and again declaring armistices which the royal army doesnt give one fuck about certainly does not convey that information. And that is unfortunate, even if it was not the intention to show him off as a weird little creep.

2)If I can help anybody writing in the english lingo (or other) wikipedias about Nepal, with source material or whatever, please take contact! Im at tron@steinen.net Now Im no guru, no expert, just an ordinary iddjit like all of us, ive not even BEEN to Nepal and I DONT TALK NEPALI! However, within those great and serious limits, i HAVE dug a bit.

Still all the best on the next to last day of june, 2006! Togrim

Very good, Daniel! Sfar as I can see, you have taken all my criticisms into account. Based on my limited knowledge of Nepal, I now see no big or basic fault in the article.

A coupla minor debating nits:

1) on the 12 point agreement, I think there is one small, but important error. Let me hasten to add that I made THE SAME ERROR when I wrote about it before christmans, and I really dindt get what I had missed until may this year.

The point is rather subtle, and easy to miss. I missed it, as have apparently many others. However, NOW it is a basic sticking point in the negotiations:

The article writes, quote:

...a "twelve-point agreement" that expresses areas of agreement between the CP(M) and the parties that won a large majority in the last parliamentary election in 1999. Among other points, this document states that a dictatorial monarchy is the chief impediment to progress in Nepal, that the Nepali parliament must be reinstated, and that the Maoists are committed to human rights and press freedoms and a multi-party system of government.

- end of quote -

Well, as I have admitted, I wrote the same. However, later I became aware of the one error:

The two parts here agree on all the points - EXEPT THE ONE ABOUT THE REINSTATING OF THE 1999 PARLIAMENT.

This is stated in the 12. point document point 2 as THE 7. PARTY ALLIANCEs WIEW ONLY. No reaction to this by the NKP(Maobadi) is in the 12. point agreement at all! (So the agreement didnt say, explisitely, that the NKP(M) was AGAINST it.) However, AFTER the recall of the 1999 parliament the NKP(M) has stated that they never have agreed with this, they were against it, dont like it etc. However, they have accepted the 1999 parliament recall - sortoff ... But there now is a thug-of-war about how long the 1999 parliament should sit. Some (but possibly not all) of the 7 parties want it to sit until the new election for the constitutional parliament is finished. The Maobadi want it to be dissolved when the new joint 7-parties + Maobadi + NGO reps govt is created, ideally during july this summer.

Here is the documentation for this. The quote is from the 12. point agreement, the unnoficial translation used as a source in the Prachanda article:

- quote -

The entire text of point 2). The agitating seven political parties are fully committed to the plan to reinstate parliament whose decision will lead to the formation of an all-party government, hold talks with the Maoists and go for an election to a constituent assembly. They identify this as the way to end the present conflict and restore sovereignty to the people. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has made the commitment to organise a national political convention of democratic forces. The meet should decide on the formation of an interim government and hold elections for a constituent assembly to achieve the agreed goal. The seven political parties and the CPN (Maoist) will engage in dialogue and explore a consensus on procedural matters. It has been agreed that People’s power is the only alternative to meet the goals.

- end of quote -

As you can seem the plan to reinstate parliament is ONLY said to be a comittment of the 7 parties. (This is rather subtle, as "the formation of an all-party government, hold talks with the Maoists and go for an election to a constituent assembly" are all old demands of the Maobadi - so it is easy to read the entire phrase as something the two parts have agreed on.)

(And, for the record, I even forget to mention this in my first posting to this debate. So I wasnt strictly accurate there, either ... As ive said, I make lots of errors.)

The Maobadi separately commit themselves ONLY to "organise a national political convention of democratic forces. The meet should decide on the formation of an interim government and hold elections for a constituent assembly to achieve the agreed goal." The agreed goal, under point 2, is "People’s power", which have, however, been defined under other points as "to end autochratic monarchy" (but, as Koirala now insists, not ALL monarchy!), create "complete democracy", respect press freedom, multi-party democracy etc.

So the formulation in the article is correct - exept for the agreement on the recall of the 1999 parliament. This was a stand on ONE SIDE ONLY, the 7-party alliance. The wily diplomats of the two sides at the time wrote in this difference between the 7 and the M in an oblique way, just as they wrote in the difference over monarcy by referring to "autocratic monarchy". (I wouldnt be surprized to find out that theyve written in more such differences, too!)

2) On Prachandas last visit to Kathmandu:

The article writes that,

- quote -

Prachanda met for talks with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala on June 16, 2006, in what is thought to be his first visit to the capital Kathmandu in decades.

- end of quote -

According to Prachanda, he was at Bir hospital in Kathmandu toghether with his brother for about a month while his mother Bhawani Dahal was dying of leukemia in 1995. However, he was spotted by the police and had to dissapear. At the same time, he brought his wife and children away from Kathmandu.

Source: Power play av SNM Abdi - interwiew with Sunday Times, India, 4. november 2001. (See norwegian Wikipedia, Prachanda.)

So at most, he has stayed away from Kathmandu for 11 years. He was IN the city much of the time up to that date. (Among other things, he was a leader in the "sector incident" in 1989, which was a wave of attacks against unnmaned police pillboxes in kathmandu during the late 1980s.)

Prachanda altso recently mentioned his meeting with G. P. Koirala during the last ceasefire in 2003. Source: English exepts from interwiew with Kantipur online, Posted on: 2006-06-20 http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=77214

However, the interwiew doesnt make it clear where the 2003 meeting was. But I would not be surprized if he had been in Kathmandu after 1995.

Anyway, decadeS away from Kathmandu is not right.

3) When did Prachanda become the main leader of the Maobadi wing of the Communist movement?

- quote of the article -

Since 1996 Prachanda has emerged as the leader of the CPN (M) military wing and overall leader, whereas Bhattarai has fallen into a secondary role.

- end of quote -

Strictly speaking, Prachanda became the gen sec (ie main leader) of the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) in 1989. The NKP(Mashal) was the main force in organizing the Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre) in november 1990. Again, Prachanda was the gen sec. The NKP(Ekda Kendra) split in 2 in may 2004. Prachanda led the majority section. This split is officially counted as the start of the NKP(Maobadi) (even if Prachandas majority faction didnt change name to Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) until march 2005.

Baburam Bhattarai was a member of a different party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Masal). (Mashal and Masal are easy to confuze, however, they were two different parties!) According to some sources, he split out with a minor faction (altso, even more confuzingly, called NKP(Masal) which joined the NKP(Ekda Kendra) at the first congress in november 1990. But according to the souces that seem to me to be most accurate, Bhattarais split from Masal and his group joining the NKP(Ekda Kendra) didnt happen until the spring of 1991.

What is clear is that from this spring he became chair of the NKP(Ekda Kendra)s legal election front. He was a well-known leader from the Jana Andolan 1990 too, and this gave him an even higher profile.

However, Prachanda was the unopposed number 1 in what became the Maobadi party at least from 1989. In this kind of movement, the (illegal or legal) PARTY is allways leading the party FRONT - including ann election front. So there was no doubt that Prachanda was the overall leader.

In that sence, Bhattarais role has ALLWAYS been secondary. When the party started, he was a relative newcomer and outsider, coming in with a minor split group. He was the party's main "talking head", but that didnt make him anything like the no. 1 leader.

It altso seems a bit difficult to see that his role has been MORE secondary during the later years than during the early ones:

• Bhattarai (and not Prachanda) was the one that proclaimed the 40 points that started the maobadi "peoples war". Bhattarai likewise made the official proclamations on the "peoples war" during the 1990s, on behalf of the SJM. When the SJM was officially dissolved during february 2000, Bhattarai was instead made no 1. leader of the official maobadi government (so the opposite of the prime minister on the government side). Bhattarai led the two first rounds of negotiations with the government in 2001 and 2003. He kept his role as the no. 1 mouthpiece too, writing a famous comment on the Royal Massacre in 2001 in a Kathmandu newspaper, etc.

It is even difficult to see that his role has become more secondary after he was thrown out of all party posts during the spring of 2005, and reinstated during the summer:

• What appears to have been Bhattarais line (alliance with India) became the NKP(M) line during the summer of 2005, while the Prachanda line of proposing an alliance with the Royal Army against indian invation (proclaimed as late as the autumn of 2004) was discarded.

• During the Jana Andolan 2006 and negotiations afterwards, Prachanda and Bhattarai have appeared like siamese twins. All important statements during the Jana Andolan were signed by Prachanda AND Bhattarai. When the 3-member team to start up negotiations was sent to Kathmandu in may, one of the 3 was a close collaborator of Bhattarai who had lost all party posts and been reinstated toghether with him in 2005 (Dinanath Sharma) and the two others had worked closely with Bhattarai for years. In the top-level negotiations Prachanda and Bhattarai have BOTH participated toghether.

So my wiew is: Prachanda has been the undisputed no. 1 from before Bhattarai joined the party. Bhattarai has been the more well - known external face, and (exept for the spring episode of 2005) the clear no. 2 from 1991. However, Bhattarai can hardly be said to have a "more secondary role" now than before. Maybe the opposite.

- + -

I got a coupla minor differences in wiews too, but I cant claim that this is about errors that can be documented, big or small. (If you or anybody else are interested, I leave them for later, maybe.)

All the best, Togrim, 2006-07-02