Understanding Indian Insurgencies

[Dayuhan]

The unfortunate part is that one has to believe them or else one has to have the finances, organisation, authority and reach to penetrate every action taking place in the world to sift that wheat from the chaff. But then, even that would not be believed by the cynics and the motivate to sell an agenda!

One doesn't have to believe anything. One must be skeptical of everything, and review the evidence, reasoning, and basic common sense behind every proposition one reads. Otherwise one is likely to fall for wacko conspiracy theories.

The nuclear plant is not in a Maoist infested area in case you are not aware.

So why is support for anti-nuclear rallies being equated with suipport for Maoists?

This started out as a discussion of where Maoists get their money. Somehow funding for anti-nuclear rallies came into the picture. I'm not sure how that happened, and I'm not sure what the connection is between anti-nuclear rallies and Maoists.

Would you not drag in the US when none have mentioned it so.

The articles you cited refer to "US NGOs" and accuse them of trying to advance a "Western agenda". The term "Western" is so often used as a proxy for "US" that I may have confused something.

Again, this would be simpler if you would tell us which NGOs are suspected of aiding Maoist rebellion, and which Governments you think are supporting them.

Internet you say is a purveyor of bogus information.

In short, you are indicating that anything said, but for what you say , is mere figments of imagination based on links from a bogus instrument – Internet.

The internet is not a purveyor of anything. It is a vehicle for multiple purveyors. Since anyone can publish anything, everything there must be taken with skepticism. A proposition not supported by convincing evidence and effective reasoning is bogus no matter where you read it. You're just most likely, these days, to read such propositions on the internet because of the ease of publication.

Sadly, I have not penetrated every organisation in the world to obtain ‘authentic’ information, and even if I did so and stated it here, you would declare it as bogus.

Only in the absence of convincing evidence and effective reasoning.

Not only the US, we too feel that the Amnesty International is a total fraud!

When I say "here" I don't mean the US. Either way, while AI certainly has an agenda, that doesn't mean they are agents of some nefarious conspiracy. it just means they have an agenda. Most organizations do.

Has anyone accused anyone of funding and giving support infrastructure to Maoists? You possibly live in the back of nowhere.

This whole conversation started with the question of who is funding the Maoists. NGOs and foreign governments were cited. I'm still trying to find out which ones. When did any other topic come into the picture?

Since you are not aware the Maoists are getting their act together with Chinese support.

Finally, progress! What form is this support taking, and in what quantity is it arriving?

Is there a proposition being made that the Chinese are using western NGOs to support Maoists in India? I ask because it's really not clear. If so, what NGOs?

The best example of Insurgency and Popular Revolution is the Chinese Communist Movement.

You may not know but in 1933, Bo Gu and Otto Braun arrived from the USSR, reorganize the Red Army, and take control of Party affairs. They defeat four encirclement campaigns.

There were a few others involved... Mao, Chu Teh, etc.

1934: October 16, breakout of 130,000 soldiers and civilians led by Bo Gu and Otto Braun, beginning the Long March.

Otto Braun? Funny Chinese name!

You are a pro China person. But you sure need to read more about China!

Does failure to indulge in hysterical Sinophobia make one a "pro-China person"? These definitions seem to change all the time...

Certainly Chiang Kai-Shek wanted to believe that all his problems were due to foreign subversion, and wanted even more to get the Americans to believe it. His allies in the US tried hard to advance that theory. In the end, though, it doesn't hold up: Chiang's problem wasn't foreigners, it was his own incompetence and inability to govern. That's not to say no foreigners were involved; there were a number of foreigners there. The point is that while the revolution may have received foreign assistance, it was in no way a foreign creation. Of course other powers will try to manipulate a revolution to advance their own interests. That doesn't mean they created the revolution or that the revolution couldn't exist without them.

Again, blaming foreigners for revolution is the first choice of the government that doesn't want to admit to its own role in producing revolution.

You seem to be influenced by the college shootings in the US expecting it to become revolutions!

The point was that a foreign power can not simply wave a wand and conjure up insurgency where the preconditions to insurgency - factors within the power of government to address - are not present. Governments need to spend less energy wailing about foreign subversion and more energy resolving those preconditions. Find and resolve the grievances and foreign subversion is a seed cast upon stone.