Guerrilla History - Women in Nepal’s Civil War w/ Hisila Yami [REMASTERED]

Episode Date: July 18, 2025

In this remastered episode (originally aired 18 December 2020) of Guerrilla History, we are joined by Hisila Yami to talk about The People's War in Nepal, and the role of women in it. Hisila Yami was a leader in The People's War, a three times minister of Nepal, a former member of the Constituent Assembly, and the author of People's War and Women's Liberation in Nepal.  She can be followed on twitter @HisilaPost.    Help support the show by signing up to our patreon, where you also will get bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory  We also have a (free!) newsletter you can sign up for, and please note that Guerrilla History now is uploading on YouTube as well, so do us a favor, subscribe to the show and share some links from there so we can get helped out in the algorithms!!

You remember Den Ben-Brew? No! The same thing happened in Algeria. In Africa, they didn't have anything but a rank. The prince had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerrilla action on. Hello and welcome to Gorilla History, the podcast that acts as a reconnaissance report of global proletarian history and aims to use the lessons of history to analyze the present. I'm one of your co-hosts, Henry Huckimacki, joined as usual by my co-hosts, Professor Adnan Hussein, historian and director of the School of Religion at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada.

How are you today, Adnan? I'm well, thanks, Henry. And Brett O'Shea, host of Revolutionary Left Radio. and co-host of the Red Menace podcast. Hello, Brett. How are you doing? Hello, I'm doing good. Yeah, so we've got a pretty early recording time today because we have a guest from a little bit of a different time zone

than we live in, a rather distinguished guest. Today, our guest is going to be Hesila Yami, who is a former president of the All-Napal Women's Association Revolutionary Group, former minister of physical planning and works, former Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation, former member of the Constituent Assembly, and former member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Nepal Maoist, as well as a current member of the Janada Samaj Body Party,

and the author of the book that we read in preparation for this interview, People's War and Women's Liberation in Nepal. So the conversation that we're going to have is going to be really interesting in a topic that I think that most of the listeners are not particularly aware of, which is the civil war in Nepal. So Nepal for a long time was a monarchy. And beginning in about the 1990s, so 1990 specifically, there was sort of an uprising against this monarchic regime led by the communist,

well, it became the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist faction. And over the course of 1996 to 2006, it was just over 10 years, there was a civil war between the Maoists in Nepal and the monarchy of Nepal with the stated aim of overthrowing the monarchy. So before we get into kind of what we're hoping to get out of our conversation with Hesila, I figured I'd lay out kind of a timeline of what was happening for the listeners who perhaps are unaware of what was happening in Nepal at this time. So as I said, the monarchy had been longstanding in Nepal.

In 1990, some left-wing groups began joining together with the aim of overthrowing the monarchy and instituting a democratic rule of the country. Once 1996 came around, there was a split in the party, between the leftist groups, rather. And the revolutionary wing of that group wanted an armed uprising against the government because they saw that they weren't getting the results that they wanted from non-armed uprising. Early on, the monarchic regime of Nepal began using the police that tried to police the Maoist group into basically falling back in line. But after a little bit of time, they began using the Royal Nepal Army.

Once it became clear that the police alone, we're not going to be sufficient for putting. down descent. After some more time, so I'm skipping through time a little bit, one of the more interesting events that happened during this timeline was in 2001. There was a massacre of the royal family in Nepal. So again, something that I think that most of our listeners are probably unfamiliar with, but basically the entire royal family was massacred by a member of the royal family. Something like 10 members of the royal family were killed by one of the princes.

And the prince also killed himself, although he was in a coma for three days before dying and was the king for three days while in a coma, which is just kind of an interesting historical fact. He died, and one of the king's nephews then became the king. After some more time, so in late 2001, the United States started sending money and weaponry to the monarchy and the army. the royal army of Nepal. In 2002, the new king, so this is the nephew of the king who was murdered, dissolved the government, dissolved parliament, reinstated a new prime minister. And then later on, he basically completely took power. So in 2005, instead of just dissolving parliament and putting another prime minister in power,

the king decided to seize all of the power in the country to try to put down the insurgency because he said that democracy and progress contradict each other and by having the auspices of democracy it was preventing them from being victorious against the Maoist insurgency. Around this time, the United Kingdom and India stopped sending support to Nepal

but interestingly, India and China basically were supporting the monarchy of Nepal, despite perhaps having more in common with the Maoist insurgency at that time. Then, over the course of the next year or so, after that consolidation of power by the king, there was negotiations that led to a peace accord that ended the monarchy and allowed the Maoists to enter parliamentary elections. And after that civil war was done,

the Maoists eventually came up to power and became the dominant party within Nepal. So that's kind of our brief overview of the historical events that happened. But of course, we're going to get a lot more in depth with our, with our guest, Hesila. So guys, what kind of thoughts did you have on this book that, you know, what kind of questions did the book raise? And what are we hoping to get from our conversation with Hesila today? Yeah, I'm particularly interested in, you know, as many you might know from where I've left, I've worked a lot in the Maoist realm on ideology and the history of Maoist movements. And this is one that I haven't fully covered. This is one that I haven't explored yet. I have a very close friend who's actually an immigrant from Nepal and has talked to me a little bit about it. But I've always been curious to do a dive into this. And it's also worth pointing out the historical context. You know, this is post-Soviet Union. This is in the years after the fall of the Soviets, places like Cuba are going through a tough time, but we're also seeing the ongoing people's struggles in places like India and the Philippines.

We have the Zapatista movement just a few years prior to the Civil War and Nepal, popping off in the southern state of Chiapas in Mexico. So there is this global sort of context in which this particular fight manifests. But I'm specifically really interested in learning about the struggle, the emphasis put on women's role and what women had to gain through a revolution and the sort of brutality and like the sexual violence they faced in the process of standing up for themselves, etc. And so I think this is a misunderstood, little known fact of proletarian history. It's messy, right? We're going to talk about ever since the end of the Civil War and what has happened because splits and whatnot have occurred since then. So this is a snapshot in time sort of, but I'm excited to explore this and get this piece of history out to people precisely because I think it has relevance for us today.

Yeah, and just one quick thing to add just for the listeners to know, as you said, this is kind of an under understood or under talked about piece of proletarian history, but this was one of the more successful movements of proletarian history. We always talk about movements that, you know, they had good intentions, but they failed, or they came into power, but only transiently before they were crushed by counter-revolutionaries. The thing that the listeners should understand is that the Maoists are still in charge in Nepal. This is 14 years after the Civil War ended. Of course, they didn't come into power immediately after the Civil War, but for almost the entirety of the time post-Civil War, the Maoists have been the dominant party within Nepalese politics. And despite the fact that this is one of the more successful proletarian movements,

it's just underreported. Adnan, what do you hope to get out of this conversation? Well, I think Brett raised a lot of the really key context and interesting issues that I hope we'll get into with our distinguished guest. I think this is a really exciting opportunity because most of the time we might be talking with people who are historians who write a history that they investigate and are themselves not involved or connected to in a very direct way. And what we're getting here is a different form of historical knowledge and experience,

which is quite interesting about somebody who was a participant in this struggle, has reflected on it, written about it, and continues to be engaged in the political transformation and contestation, you know, in the politics of the country. So that's a kind of interesting situation. And this book that we were reading about women's liberation and people's war in Nepal is written right after the end. of the civil war, and it's that snapshot in time. It's related to that context of the organizing and taking of power by a new government based on the success of the people's war, the civil war struggle. And as you point out, Henry, that's very uncommon that we get opportunities to see moderately successful control by, left-wing movements of governments and their fate, as we know from a previous episode of

guerrilla history when we discussed Washington Bullets with Vijay Prussia, that there are a lot of ways in which these movements get derailed before they can take power and governments once in power that might have people's intention and progress and social transformation on behalf of the populace are often brought down and undermined by imperialist forces by the U.S. So this will be a very interesting case study to look at. And so what we're doing is really in a way a kind of oral history, which is fascinating and exciting to be engaged with. So I'll be interested to hear what our guest thinks was accomplished as a result of the people's war. What transformed in Nepal's society as a background to the continuing

transformation of that society. And I want to then state that the focus of this conversation, of course, it's going to be a wide-ranging conversation, everything from what the conditions were like before the Civil War in Nepal to what's transpired since the Civil War and everything in between. But I think what the focus of this conversation is going to be is the role of women in the Civil War. So this is, again, something that isn't highly covered and a lot of people don't think about. But women had a massive role within the Nepali Civil War, particularly within the Maoist side of the conflict.

It's estimated that up to 40% of the individuals within the Maoist side of the Civil War were women, which is an incredibly high amount given that this was an armed conflict that lasted for 10 years. And around 40% of the individuals within that movement were women. And this includes having leadership roles on the battlefield itself. Now, of course, they were underrepresented on the battlefield in leadership positions compared to men. And that's something that comes out in the book is that despite their aims of having women's leadership, they weren't immediately successful. But that was one of their absolute goals within the armed struggle of the Civil War was to push for not only women's liberation as a goal of the Civil War itself, but advance women's leadership in the context of the Civil War

and use that as a springboard for women's leadership after the Civil War. So I think one of the big things that we're going to talk about during this interview, and of course this is particularly relevant with our guest, who was, as I said, the former president of the Al-Napal Women's Association, revolutionary group. We need to understand why it was that so many women were involved and what the effect of having so many women involved were. And this being a successful revolution in Nepal, if we can take some of these lessons that they had in analyzing other movements that perhaps weren't successful or how to basically strategize future movements and whether or not the focus on trying to get women and leadership roles and women's liberation as a goal, but also as a strategy to reaching that goal.

if that's something that needs to be undertaken in the modern context of movements. Either of you guys have anything that you want to have? I just think that that will be a very interesting question to pose ourselves as how successful was the revolution. Obviously on a military and a political level, they were able to take power, form a government. So I'll be interested to hear from a dissident against the monarchy who also participated in forming the new government and who has subsequently, you know, had critiques and criticisms of the direction that Nepal has taken since the, since forming a government in the mid-2000s, it'll be interesting to hear what was successful and what wasn't and what we can learn from that experience. So when we say a successful revolution, I think what we mean is one that was able to take power, which is not often the case for leftist struggles. And then it had to face these new challenges.

It'll be fascinating to hear about what those challenges were and how women's empowerment over the course of the struggle involved, even in military dimensions, whether that had a consequence or an effect on the shaping of political struggle and the political future of Nepal subsequently. It's social and its economic and political consequences. That would be very interesting to hear about. Yeah, and bouncing off of that, another thing. that I'm particularly interested in and hopefully this interview will shed some light on is how does a revolutionary movement get transformed through the process of taking power, right? There's the revolutionary movement that's fighting the revolution, picking up guns and going to war. And then when that has some level of success and there's now a shift to taking over the responsibility

of government or joining a government, how does that actually transform not only the behavior but the ideology of the movement that it, that it, you know, is the vehicle for. And I'm just always interested in that, even going back to the Bolshevik revolution, there's the revolution and then that trying to wield power and how that transforms and morphs things, I think is a fascinating element of this. And I think in the Nepalese case, it's particularly relevant because of the subsequent splits that occurred. Any other comments on things that we hope to get out of our conversation or things that we want to learn from Hisola? Well, I think it is, um, very significant that the concept, we would might call it a civil war from outside the country,

and I think that's how it's been characterized. It would be interesting to understand what the concept of people's war was for those who are participants that, you know, we might highlight the insurgency, the military dimensions, but it clearly involved a lot more. And I would imagine that some of the success or not of subsequent developments hinged a little bit on how they developed a concept of the people's war beyond just the military dimensions of it, the ideological struggle, the social transformation, the incorporation of ideas at the community level, empowering people democratically in their villages to make decisions. That will be very interesting also to hear about how that's part of a full spectrum of resistance to an oppressive system

for it to be successful. So I'm eager to hear about that as well. Yeah, and the last thing I'll say is interested in, of course, the urban rural divide, especially in the history of Maoism. You think India, you think China, you think Peru, you think the Philippines, there's always this deep connection with the Mao in India, the Maoist movement, and the rural area versus the city centers and what that represents.

Going back to Phenon's Wretched of the Earth, I think is relevant here as well. I'm just interested in the intricacies of that particular dynamic as well. Yeah, excellent. I think that those are all things that I also want to learn about. And I think that the listeners can both learn a lot from as well as take a lot of lessons from when we're trying to utilize history when advancing the future. So I think that that'll help us wrap up this introduction. And now we'll just come back in one second with Hesila for our interview with Hesila. So stay tuned. We'll be right back.

But just before we begin our conversation and discussion with Silayami, listeners not so familiar with Nepalese history and politics might find these definitions of terms and identifications of people whom Hissila mentions somewhat useful. So one of the first terms she refers to is Rana, which was the name of a political dynasty that autocratically ruled Nepal from 1846 to 1951. It was both simultaneously isolationist and pro-British. The Treaty of Sugauli. It was a treaty signed after the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814 to 1816, and it established the present borders of Nepal and prevented Nepal being colonized by Britain, as a result of which, however, it had to cede large portions of their former territory to the British East India Company.

Communist Party of Nepal Masal. That's the branch of the Communist Party of Nepal, CPN, led by Mohan Bikram Singh. founded in 1983. Several splits from Masal occurred, such as the Mashal branch splitting in 1984 and another group splitting in 1991 to join CPN Communist Party Nepal of Nepal Unity Center before eventually entirely merging with Unity Center in 2002. Communist Party of Nepal Mashal, which we just mentioned, is a an offshoot of Masal, led by Kiran, whom we'll mention a little bit later, that had a more

nationalistic line. After splitting from Masal in 1984, Mashal merged with another communist group to form Unity Center in 1991, as I just mentioned. So Unity Center. That was a coalition of several communist factions that formed in 1991. The CPN Maoists, led by Bauman, and Abram Batarai and Prachanda were an offshoot of this group that formed in 1994. Unity Center merged with the remainder of Masal in 2002, led by Mohan Bikram Singh, and after several splits, particularly after the fall of the monarchy in 2006, Unity Center eventually merged with CPN Maoist in 2009. CPN Maoist, whom we've mentioned, was founded by Babram Batarai and Prachanda.

They were a coalition member of government led by Prachanda twice, as the largest party during the period 2008 to 2013, and as third largest from 2017 to 2018, at which time they merged with the CPN United Marxist-Leninist to form the Nepal Communist Party. The Nepal Communist Party has been in control of the government since then. People's War is a term that she uses, and this was the revolutionary movement initiated by the Maoists in 1996 with the goal of toppling the monarchy and allowing for parliamentary rule and to upend the caste and class system within Nepal. Raya Mahjhi Keshire Jung Raya Maji was a communist leader in Nepal who was for, former general secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal, but led a line within the party of Royalists. He eventually was kicked out of the Communist Party for his ties to the Royalists in

1962 before becoming head of the party in 1967, then being kicked out yet again in 1983 and from another Communist Party in 1986. She also mentions Pushpa Lal. Pushpa Lal Shresta was founding secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal in 1949. He had friendly ties with the Nepal Congress, a social democratic party, and continued to lead the communists until his death in 1978. Kiran, a name I've already mentioned, also was the name or title of Mohan Baidya, former leader of Mashal branch of communists. Kiran was a product of the Raya Majhi line of royalists and led the nationalist branch of the communists in Nepal.

Prachanda Also known as Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chairman of the Nepal Communist Party and Prime Minister from 2008 to 9 and 2016 to 2017. Prachanda was also leader of the Maoists during the Civil War period as well. Oli. This is K.P. Sharma Oli, current Prime Minister of Nepal, since 2018 and former Prime Minister from 2015 to 2016. He was said to have agreed to a power-sharing agreement with Prachanda during the current governmental term, but has not ceded any power to Prachanda since the arrangement was made.

Bidya Bandari, current president of Nepal. She's been in the position since 2015. Prior to that, she was a member of the CPN unified Marxist Lenin. party. RNA is just an abbreviation that stands for the Royal Nepalese Army, the military forces aligned with the monarchy. PLA, abbreviation for the People's Liberation Army, the armed forces aligned with the Maoists. And Sita, who is the legendary wife of Rama, the central figure of the Sanskrit Hindu epic, the Ramayana, And she is a paragon of purity and traditional feminine virtues in the story.

Now look forward to our conversation. Welcome back to Gorilla History. We've now been joined by our very distinguished guest, Hesila Yami, again a very brief biography of Hissila. She's the former president of the All-Napal Women's Association, Revolutionary Group. She was the Minister of Physical Planning and Works, Minister for Tourism and Civil Aviation, was a member of the Constituent Assembly and a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Nepal Maoist, and is now a member of the, again, as I said in the introduction, Janata Samaj Badi Party, which, as she informed me in English, is the People's Socialist Party

of Nepal and also is the author of the book, People's War and Women's War and Women's, Liberation in Nepal. Hissila, welcome. It's nice to have you join us on the show. Surely. I'm also very happy. This is my first podcast. Actually, I've never been into any podcast kind of interview so far. We're very happy to have you. And I'm sure that I speak for the guys when we say that it's an honor to have you. Let's get right into this interview then. I think that a good way of starting the interview would be asking you how you're feeling. You and your husband, former Prime Minister Baburam Bararai, both. recently contracted COVID as of the time of recording and I believe you said that this is your

last day in relative isolation. How are you and your husband feeling? Yeah. So today is actually the third weekday. I mean, 21st day that we and before that we contracted. So today only we went to get ourselves checked. And the both of us have come more than 30, which is supposed to be a stage where actually even if any remnant of the viruses remain, it cannot affect me as well as others. So I've been told by a doctor to you can go out, you know, because now you're in a safer position. So we are still very kind of confused because we would expect ourselves to be negative before we go. But then doctors say you can now go around, you know, and all that. So we are still confused as such, whether we should be still in a home isolation and wait.

for the negative result to come or go out. So we are in that kind of. Otherwise, we're quite healthy and happy. Wow, it's good to hear that you're feeling well. So let's move on then into the interview itself. Can you tell us a little bit about your background, kind of a brief autobiography of your life, where you came from, you know,

kind of your education and how you got involved in left politics in Nepal? Yeah. Actually, I come from a very political family, which I myself didn't know about it actually because we were seven children and I was the youngest, okay? So being a youngest, you know, I really grew up in a very free kind of environment

because my parents were quite unusual in the sense that, you know, like they were very much against religion, religious kind of all kind of, you know, celebrations and all that, all that. and they were very much inclusive in their kind of outlook. And in fact, they were the product of anti-Rana movement, you see, which there was this 104 years of oligarchic rule of Rana regime. So, in fact, my mother was also imprisoned along with my father.

But being the youngest child, I was never given that political kind of teaching as such. I mean, I knew kind of somehow that my parents, my father particular, you know, he had all kinds of people coming at home and all that. But I was never, you know, politicized as such. So my, you know, like the first 10 or 12 years, or you can say my first period till 16 years old, I just had a very lovely, free kind of life, you know. So from there, when I went to do my architecture from Delhi School of Planning and Architecture, that's where I met Babram Buttray. He had finished his architecture from Chandigar in India. And he had come to my institute, School of Planning and Architecture, to do masters in architecture.

And it was he who he actually introduced my father politically. And suddenly my social awakening were transferred into political awakening. Okay. So we were very much active. amongst the Nepalese workers as well as Nepalese students who were studying in India. And so we were involved in, in fact, bringing up this all-India-Napley students' association and in which he also became a president. And at one point, I became a general secretary.

And then we got involved with the workers, Nepalese workers working in India, who were actually organized by the Communist Party Massal. okay so that's how we got introduced to left politics and then having done that of course then from masal we became part of unity center then unity center became Maoist and and then we joined people's war and so for 10 years we were very much underground and then after that as you say I become actually I became minister thrice not twice so after that we left the party and then now we are part of people's socialist party, Nepal. Excellent. That was a very good overview of your life. And I think that one of the things

that we should talk about before we talk about the Civil War itself and your role within it and women's role within it. Let's talk about what Nepal was like before the Civil War. I'm just going to pull out a quote from your book here in regards to women's role before the Civil War. So I'd like you to speak what Nepal was like generally before the Civil War, but also what it was like specifically for women. So you said women are the backbone of subsistence rural agricultural economy. Because women are marginalized at the household level, they are paid less, sometimes as low as half the amount paid to men for the same job and the same amount of farm work.

That sounds familiar to many people. But you also say the position of women in urban areas is no better. If women in the rural areas are suffering because of backwards medieval feudal oppression, then women in urban areas are suffering under the modern imperialist oppression. They're underpaid and are often sexually exploited in sweatshops run by bureaucratic capitalists backed by imperialist and expansionist forces, such as in garment and carpet factories, etc. This sounds pretty harsh for women. So what was Nepal like before the Civil War?

We know that it was a monarchy, but what were the conditions like in Nepal before the Civil War? The thing is that, you see, they are the main sustainer of the, actually, overall, if you see the economy of Nepal, before the people's war, and of course, to some extent, even now it's the same. So it is really based on sustainable, I mean, you know, based on sustainable, you know, like, you know, like, we don't have any kind of extra produced or, you may say, Sarpras, which we would kind of then export to others, very less amount. In fact, earlier we were exporting many things to Nepal, to India. We were the exporters. Before, you know, 18, 14, as I have said, you know, there was the Sugoli Sunday. So before that, we were exporting many things to India. And after we had that treaty, 1814, 19, 1816, so, you know, actually we had a, we had fight against the British,

which was ruling India, okay? You see, while we were expanding, you see, we were actually, you know, multiple, we had principalities, okay, and that was united into one by Britain and Shah. So while uniting, you see, we had a fight against the British, which was also trying to come towards the, you know, like the hill.

And in hill itself, we were expanding and all like that. So we had a fight against them. And so we lost. So we had to have this very humiliating kind of a treaty. So from then onwards, you see, our economy started going down. Now we are in a situation where we are exporting many things, but we are not able to, you know, we're importing many things, but we are not exporting much.

And in fact, with COVID now, things are getting really bad now. So what I'm trying to say is that sustainable, what do you call that economy. I forgot the word actually. You see? Subsistence. I'm sorry. Consistence agriculture. Yes.

Thank you so much, Hussein. So subsistence economy, I'm talking about it. So it's the women where the mainstay of subsistence kind of economy here. But if you see legally, you see, even if she's co-wired, you know, with very little punishment on the husband, the second wife or the third wife, in fact, becomes legal. After he goes through, he has to pay some $2,000 or maybe even in addition to that, he might have to stay in the locket for, I mean, he may be jailed for one year or so like that. So eventually what happens that the co-wife, you know, it becomes legalized. So that's one point.

Second is that they had no kind of parental property. They had no say in it. You see, second is that. And even culturally, if you say, particularly the, audience. I mean, you know, the way they have been brought up in such a way that, you know, even when in her, before marriage, she's told again and again that this is not your house. Your house is actually somewhere else. And once you get married, you know, you're, you're not supposed to come back. So that kind of a kind of preparation, you know, mental preparation for

women, whereby she's not the part where she's born. And she's, and, you know, by virtue of being a wife, and she's also, it's very unstable there, you know. Because in absence of any property kind of thing, you know, kind of even owe or, you know, once you owe, then the defense of it comes into picture. So, you know, the males, they are taught right from womb or right from their birth that, look, you have to secure this house. You have to secure or you have to expand this land, you know. And so naturally he's allowed to, that's how his leadership is tested, you see. But for women, there's no test for leadership because she doesn't. have any property to defend or to acquire, to show any leadership quality.

And so naturally, you know, you are not born to be a leader. And so this has a repercussion on, you know, like political parties as such. So these are the things, you know. So women's position was, you know, like politically. And even those days, you see, only even in terms of even political participation. What was there, only 5% was actually what was required for a party, not to win, but only to contest for election. So the political party can be illegalized if they are able to show 5% of women contesting the election.

It's not necessarily that they will win or something. So that kind of thing is there at one end. At economic level, as I said, she had no right over the parental property. And culturally, she's, in fact, there's a saying that before her marriage, she's under her father. And after marriage, she's under her husband. And after she becomes without, she's under her son. So she's never allowed to be autonomous on her own as such. So that was the position.

And on top of that, many women were actually being kind of sold, particularly as I think I mentioned in a book also that you know particularly women who come from tamang you know people and there's also one section which actually historically they were working as an entertainer for the kings and all that and now they have kind of transformed themselves into a you know kind of trafficking or kind of a prostitution which is actually safeguarded and guided by the parents themselves. So they are called bodies, you see. So this is the situation before the people's war started. Was that a situation that you've just described of the courtisans? Is that how we would describe it? You mean these entertainers for the kings, this sort of feudal situation where there were women who were entertainers, courtisans, kept in the, yes.

So those actually, the men used to make an instrument of dancing and all that, all that. And females just to dance and all that, all that. So that was up. Right, right. You mentioned in describing this pre-people's war period, a few different ethnic or national communities. For our listeners who may know very little about Nepal, you've described women's oppression.

But I wonder if you could tell us a little bit just what the country was like from a demographic and social perspective. effective, what different ethnicities and national communities or linguistic groups were there, and what is the religious character? And you've alluded a little bit to the social structure that women were under a very difficult patriarchal system and didn't inherit property from their families and so on. But anything else you can tell us about the social structure would be very helpful. That's a lovely thing.

Actually, our country is multilingual, multinational, multi-religious country. I mean, even in today's statistics, you'll find that one third of the people actually come from the ruling class, which is actually Aaryakhas. Okay? And one third is actually the Therians, the Madasis and the Madasis and Tharoos, who are actually inhabiting the... southern part of Nepal, which is Tharay, which is flatland. And one third actually come from ethnic groups, who are predominantly on the eastern and the central part of Nepal. You see, if you go to the western part of Nepal, far western part,

it is inhabited by particularly the Khas area. And at once the point, there is also kind of majority of Dalits. particularly they live in Karnali area. So we have Dalits. Then we've got ethnic groups. And then we've got Taray-based or Madhis-based Aryans who are actually oppressed in terms of their culture, their kind of language is not recognized, you see.

So as before the people's war started, our country was actually Hindu country. and it centrally ruled, you know, and it believed in one kind of a dress-up, one language. So it was a monolithic kind of a kind of, you know, state as such, which encouraged one language, one dress-up and one religion, you see, and also one ruling class, you know, like Arachas. Okay, they would say, who are Nepalese, Arecas, we would see. That kind of projection was there.

So you're saying that there was a very diverse country in many ways, but the predominating and ruling class made kind of a national culture and religious culture under Hinduism and the caste system that it tried to use as the predominant identity of the nation, which suppressed a very diverse population that had very different ethnic and linguistic. We had a parliamentary system, but it was a monarchical parliamentary system.

So there was still the king which had the executive power, you see, because he was above the law, and he was also the head of the army, rural Nepal army. So, you know, like in form you have a parliament to kind of hoodwing the people that there is a democracy.

But actually, above that was the king, which had extra legal power. And of course, being the head of the Nepal army, you could imagine, you know, basically it was an executive head. I want to add one quick thing for the listeners in regards to the monarch being above the law. This is just kind of an anecdote. So we described in our introductory segment how there was a massacre of the royal family in 2001. committed by one of the princes who became the king for three days while he was in a coma after shooting himself in the head. But what I thought was interesting when reading about that event was that when he was in a coma, other members of the royal family said that it was an accidental firearm discharge that murdered the majority of the royal family.

And that was because as he was the king in the coma, if they would have charged him with doing it intentionally, he wouldn't have been able to be charged with murder because the monarchs were literally above the law. It's not just above the law in the context that we typically think of rulers of country being able to do what they want without repercussion. But literally the law did not apply to him in that case. And so they were trying to get out in front of that with some alternate explanations so that people wouldn't be outraged about, hey, he murdered, I believe 10 people, but because he's the monarch, we literally cannot raise charges against him. just thought that that was something that was interesting and that the listeners might be interested in.

Brett, do you have anything that you want to ask regarding the pre-Civil War context of? Well, maybe just for that last question, what was the motivation behind that that royal massacre that might help us understand a part of it before we dive into the Civil War proper? See, well, while everybody was saying that this is actually the internal problem of monarchy as such, okay, it's actually people are saying that actually the prince was not allowed to bury the one he had fallen in love with and all that. You see, even within the, you see, even in the runners, there are two sections, you know. One runners are actually very autocratic.

Another section was actually a bit liberal. So from what I came to know is that, you know, actually the queen comes from a very autocratic, the runner, which kind of was that. And this woman whom she fell in love, she comes from another section of, the runner, which kind of was that. And this woman whom she fell in love, she comes from another section of Rana, which is actually a bit liberal and as such. So, you know, while everybody was kind of, in fact, even the, I think the media was also trying to, we went beyond that and we said it's not as simple as that.

In fact, it is something to do with the monarchy not able to, the present monarchy, which is not able to kind of problem, solve the problem of Maoist, you know, and which is embroiled in their own kind of internal. kind of a tug-of-wall for the power and all that. So it's actually beyond that. In fact, it has been kind of calculatedly done kind of in combination with the Indian expansionist and the imperialist.

So it's not just a kind of a home affair or it's a kind of internal conflict as they are trying to show. It's beyond that. And so, in fact, we use that occasion, in fact, to kind of changed the whole paradigm shift from you see being because in communist movement you should understand that there is a two trend in communist movement in Nepal one is called royalist

communist which is actually being kind of propagated by raiamazi you know there's this guy who was actually he's he comes from a very well-to-do family and he did his he's actually medical field he did his doctor medical doctor and he did his doctor and And he became, later on, though he became the General Secretary of Communist Party, but he always kind of cited with the royalist saying that they are more nationalist. And there's this another group which is actually headed by Pushpalal. And Pushpalabal's line has always been that because the main contradiction is with the king. So we should align with Nepali Congress, which is actually liberal.

democratic kind of a party. So there has always been two kind of trend in Communist Party. Even that kind of thing is still prevalent now. In the present Nepal Communist Party also you have that trend. So I don't know. So what I'm trying

to say is that so how we brought that whole paradigm shift was that now it is high time. We should now align with the democratic kind of political parties and we should now try to hit against the king, the monarchy as such.

So that's where, in fact, this whole episode helped us in, you know, kind of navigating the whole political kind of line against the monarchy. I think that that's a good transition into the next topic, which is during the Civil War. You're talking about being against the monarchy, but during our introduction, we only basically ran through kind of a brief timeline of the events of the Civil War. But can you tell us what the Civil War was like? What was Nepal like during the Civil War? What was the Civil War like personally for you? And what kind of societal things, what kind of societal effects did the civil war have on the people within Nepal? Okay. If I say starting with my own

transformation, I would say that because the way I had been brought up in my childhood, of course, I was feminist, but I was more liberal kind of feminist then, you know, like before even meeting Baburam Bhattray, I was already interacting with people in India who were running this magazine called Manushi. Okay. So from liberal feminist, I think I became a socialist feminist. It helped me in transforming myself into that. And for me, it was very exciting in the sense that I was kind of seeing myself how women

were being transformed you know you know the transformation is not only kind of political it was physical it was cultural

it was political and later on later on later on when we started having our own government

in base areas we also see their potentiality in terms of their economic power you see So, you know, what I had been wanting to see and women, you know, I was saying these are the possibilities things, you know, possible kind of result one can see. And actually, I was seeing that in the whole thing, on whole process, you know, while I was, you know, like head of the front, women's front.

And later on I became head of the department, women's department. So it was very exciting period for me, you know, because I was, you know, what I was dreaming, I was actually seeing, you know. so it was a very exciting thing for me but if you see it from a holistic point of view which you are also saying it so we actually politically we saw two-line struggle within the political party and that was based on as I told you

there was one section which was very nationalistic and that India is the main enemy and then you know they should be fought so that that kind of thing would come and there was another I mean in one way you can say I mean roughly you know Baburam came was in more of a Pushpalal kind of line

and Kieran was more Raya Mazi line and Prachanda would always you know like side here or there to make sure she gets the majority and that he becomes the main kind of a leader

because to become a main leader you have to have numbers so he would always switch from here to there and that's how you know like things had been going and we had as you would say that in 2005 we both of both of us along with other people we had a two-line struggle whereby we had to go undergo

six months of kind of internal kind of political kind of you could say imprisonment you know, even during the people's war as such. Yeah. So, Silla, before I let the guys ask their questions, you mentioned a character of the story that I think that it would be beneficial for you to clear up who he is because we haven't mentioned him yet, which is Prachanda. Who is Prachanda? Who was he during the period pre-Civil War and during the Civil War?

And who is he today? Just briefly, because, you know, we're going to talk more about what Nepal has been like, post-Civil war shortly. But who is Prachanda? Actually, Prachanda is actually, you know, he, just like us, like Bavram But, right, his own parents had, at one time, you know, had gone to Tarai region, especially the inner Tarajan, where particularly most favored place is Chitwan, okay, Chitwan, the student district. So even Baburam's father had gone to Chituan to get land, you see. And then, but he came back again. But even his father, you see, he comes from Kaski district. Bavram comes from

Gorkha district. Okay. So both of the, so, so what happened is that he, because he had less land in his, in Kaski, so he settled there despite all kind of hardship. Okay. So he had actually, Prasant had seen his own father being very humiliated by rich kind of landlords there. And he had to actually leave Chitown to go all the way to India in the Assam area or some way to earn money and then he had to come back. So, you know, like Pachanda actually became communist due to two reasons. One because he actually even in Chiton, you know, there is one river. So, you know, if you are in one side of the river, you automatically became a communist because the majority were there. And the other part, you know, if you happen to be there, you know, you have this liberal.

democratic communist party in Nepal Congress so he happened to be born in that area which was left oriented so that gave him that kind of a you know environment as such and second because he himself

was telling second was he it was a revolt against the humiliation his father went through you see so that that element also played into it so he became communist while he was teaching there and actually he wanted to join nepal army which is and if you read his

biography you will see that he wanted to he wanted to join nepal army but he was he couldn't do it okay so he studied and he studied science also okay and but he was not that good in the sense that you know it is the first division because first division is supposed to be one of the best one and he was not getting that also so as a result he took this agriculture kind of as a subject and then later on he actually he was part of this American sponsored rapti development this thing so he worked briefly for that also and then later on he went to Gorkha to teach and that's where he became you know become he became all the more active and all that

and then at the age of one of 30 he already became the general secretary of Masal, you see. So there are two massals. One Massal is being led by Mohan Bikram Singh, in which we were also parted. We were, we were in that massage. Mohan Bikram led Massal.

And there was another called Mashal, which is M-A-L. The one which we were is M-A-S-A-L. The one which he was into is M-A-S-H-A-L. So Mashal is being led, was being led by Kieran. You know, Kieran, which is, I think you know that he was

or so one of the things. So he later on became general secretary of that party by replacing Kieran. Okay. And then at one point, then he was instrumental in bringing all the other parties to form United, like as a unity center. So by the time unity center was made, so we had, from Masal, we broke up and we formed alternative kind of massal. And we formed alternative kind of massal. And so we became part of, in which he was also there. So he and we, and then we had another section of communist party, which is unity, it's called fourth Congress. And there was another which is called proletariat party.

So there were four, five parties came together to become unity center. Now when unity center was made, there was a two-line struggle. So one line was like that we must go into nine people's war. and there was of course gradualist he said no no no you shouldn't die it's not time is not ripe and all that so you know the the the the real uh who wanted people's who were to take place was actually him his party and our party okay and uh of course kieran was one of them so that's how the people's war started okay now uh so when so when the people's war started prasanda because you know he he studied a lot about military because he wanted to be

He wanted to study, you know, he wanted to become RNA. So in that process, he had learned a lot about the military strategy and all that. So he had a good knowledge about that. That knowledge was kind of augmented with looking at the history of Nepal in a Marxist's history. So at one end, he had that technical knowledge. At another end, Bhavram Bhattray had done his PhD on the regional aspect of, Nepal, why it became poor, you know, internally as well as externally. So he knew the topography of Nepal very well. He knew the economic situation. So, you know, because his PhD

was on that. So he had, and being a student in Janie, he had a good Marxist kind of a background also. So these two became such a good kind of alliance. You had a technical, from him and he was a very pragmatist also in many ways and that pragmatism was also required in the kind of people's war in terms of trying to play with the parliamentary parties versus the king you see many times in the beginning before the five years and the first five years we did not touch monarchy we were against the political parties who were coming directly against us and it was after the massacre that then we shifted and our whole line shifted to aligning with the political parties to weaken the monarchy as such so what i'm trying to say is

that so that that unity so what we would see in people's war as such that whenever there was a political alliance in a way when prasanda took baburam's line there was kind of an acceleration in the in the in the in the in the in the in the offensive both political and economic and very sided with this nationalist which is which is kind of uh represented by kieran and you know so that kind of a dialect is was there between the three leaders you see uh as a result at one and of course at the end of it uh barram's line prevailed and then how the peace process came into being and 12 point program till 12 point understanding was being kind of done between the Maoist and the seven parties and all that all that comes

Prachanda right now where he is is that as I told you that his line always had been the line more than the issue more than the kind of political ideology he would always look at

the number game so he was power centric and as a result Now, what happened? He aligned with the E-MAL, the UML, the UML were the first, where they're really, in the garb of left, they were actually very much against Maoist. And now today he's aligning with them.

And today he's nowhere because the prime minister and he's also the head of that party. He is giving him, I mean, he's in such a humiliating situation right now. in the sense that he's he's not even allowed to play as the the president of the party and of course because he's not now nowhere I mean of course he won the election but then he's neither he wanted to of course there was this understanding when they were unified united that they would share the both in party as well as in the governance they'll share it half by half and half and now it is in the third year in a five years when they would Otherwise, after two and a half years, he should have given his, given prime ministership to Prasanda.

And now Prasanda is nowhere because in political party also, he is not able to excise his power as a president of that party. And of course, he's nowhere in the government, you know, except that he's a parliament train as such. So his position is really shaky now. So I know we want to move on to the discussion of women's role in the Civil War. But Brett, you have one quick question to add into this section before we. we talk about women specifically? Yeah, just really quickly, zooming out a little bit to examine the regional and the international dimensions of this conflict, I was hoping that you could talk a little bit

about the relevance of India and China in the Civil War, what their interests were in the conflict, and sort of which side that those two large regional powers assisted in the Civil War. Okay. See, because as I told you, that our, actually, when we started our people's war, we had very categorically said that our internal enemy is the main enemy, especially when you see the Baburam's line, is that, you see, there's a confusion on the main contradiction, you know, who's the main person, who's the main enemy? So in the Communist Party also, you know,

there's also one line in which the main element is both, you know, the king as well as the external, which is the Indian expansionist. Okay. Now, we did buy that. You know, to some extent, we also decided, and when we were with this masal headed by Mohan Bikram, whose line is actually this, you know, like he never demarcated, which is the main contradiction, you know, and so we moved away from him precisely on this point that you have to point up, which is the main opposition, you know, main contradiction that we have to fight against. So we've always said that it is the internal first. So as I told you that even within our party At one point of course in people's war We had even tunnel war as it There was this dugging of tunnels

In many parts of our base area To prepare war against India as such That was not our actually line as such That was the time when Kieran's line was prevailing And that's what happened So with India as such As I told you that with the people We had a good relation

And particularly with the Maoists there in India, we had kind of a political relation with them. In fact, to many extent you would know that it was we who helped in bringing MCC and people's war group together to form the Maoist group that now is existing here right now. And so we also had this Kamposa, whereby we had all the Maoists from the reasons to come together. and so we were able to use India's kind of cultural and also the open border and all that. So Indian government as such was watching us wait and see to a certain extent. But later on when they found that in fact it was affecting them, that's when they started arresting us and they started taking us in a more serious world. So before that we took all advantage.

of our because for us it was a rare area which which was very important to sustain our base area and you know it was expanding as you know that out of 75 districts except two districts which fell beyond the trans-himalian reason except those two reasons which is two districts which is actually Mustang and what I forwarded so these two Except otherwise, people's world was spread on all the rest 73 districts. Okay. So now when you say about China, we had no relation with China, frankly. In fact, many times when we tried to buy some of the kind of weapons from China,

in fact, those who were caught there were actually, along with the am told later on that, those who assisted the Chinese who assisted in selling some of those weapons. When they were caught, they were given death sentence. And when we, when our people were caught, of course, they were kept in the prison for quite long time. Even after we came into power, after many years they left. I mean, they released them. So with, you see, because Nepal is basically India locked country. Okay.

On the Chinese side, the whole thing is sealed. Okay. So the open border in the three sides helped us, you know, expanding our political line and even our defensive line that way. Yeah. And I just want to also raise one other point before we move on to women. This is just as an aside for the listeners. But as early as 2001, the United States was providing money and weaponry to the monarchy, the royal Nepal army, in order for combating the Mao. in the conflict. And I think it's important for the listeners to understand that even in this conflict, a world away from the United States, with very little bearing on U.S. affairs, the United States was providing millions and millions of dollars and thousands of weapons to the forces of the monarchy. But let's move on to women within the civil war. So as we mentioned within the

introduction, women were a huge force during the civil war in Nepal, particularly on the side of the Maoists. They constituted roughly 40% of the force, and they had a lot of leadership positions, though they were underrepresented, as you stated in your book, they were underrepresented in leadership positions and all of the different components

of the Maoist movement within the People's Liberation Army, the Mass Front, etc. But why were there so many women in the civil war, and what affected having so many women, play on the civil war. First of all, what you should understand is that, you know, before the monarchy got kind of out of the power,

so, you know, particularly, it was only in 1990 that, you know, the monarchical parliamentary system came. Before that, you see, all the political parties were banned. So actually, when political parties were bent, so their work was being kind of done through the, mass movements, you know, mass organizations like women's organizations, students' organizations, youth organizations, you know. So these were very active. They were, in fact, being active on behalf of the parties. So from that point of view, I would say that when we were students

in India and when we made this all-India-Naplea Students Association, we prepared, we created a lovely platform for the political parties to come and participate in our debate, you see. So we used to have political debate, you know. Every year we used to have conference. So in that conference, so the political parties would come and voice their kind of their whatever say. And so from that point of view, and then the left, you must know that in Nepal, there is still a lot of ground for left kind of ideology. There's attraction for the left ideology. And as a result, have right now, the Communist Party of Nepal is leading, the government is, you know, it's more than nearly two-thirds and all that. So it's a very strong and stable party right now,

which is being headed by Communist Party of Nepal, CP. So what they were able to do was to kind of attract women, to kind of mobilize them, to, in the process, and then put, it says them using some of the very cultural fields like these as I said I think it's mentioned in the book also you know and and 8th March was always very very very vigorously kind of kind of because that was allowed to you know kind of that kind of program was allowed to be made you know kind of so we always use that platform to you kind of go against the monarchy as such and we used a platform of these to kind of expose was the feudal culture as such. So that way we were already making a kind of an environment for them to come. But once we made it a mandatory, because we looked at the women's question as a very strategic question, you see, right from the beginning. So now when I look back, now when I look back at people's war,

I think we still lagged was that. Whereas in PLA, we made it mandatory for women to be there, at least two women mandatory at a base level. Similarly, in the URC, which is the government actually in the base area, 40% women's presence was made mandatory. But we never made it a mandatory in the Communist Party. So now when I look back, that was a big mistake, you see. Because when we are saying that women are strategic partner, at one end, we are saying that.

And we are saying that women are actually counter-revolutionary. They are very good at kind of fighting against a counter-revolution. And not only that, we are saying they are a stable force for continuous revolution. Okay, we are making three statements. One is that we are saying that they are a strategic partner. Second, we are saying that they will fight against the counter-revolution because it goes against them. And third, we are saying continuous revolution.

because it is only after the abolition of private's property that women's actual kind of liberation will play into a situation where the difference between male and female in terms of exploitation will be kind of removed and all that. So having said that the main vehicle is the political party, the main vehicle is the Communist Party. So there should have also been kind of compulsory, mandatory this much percentage that should be there in the communist party which was never kind of

in fact even I didn't realize him like I should have fought for that but it never you know kind of came into my mind but now when I look back I say well that's one thing that's one place where we were missing and how come we didn't do you know right now I'm asking that way so so the women got good position in military they got good position in the government that also helped you see and then on top of that also a very very important aspect is the judicial part you see so there was we recruited women at district level at local level to be part of the people's court so you know that also gave a lot of confidence to women because women were always at a receiving end you know whenever there was you know like domestic violence or

any kind of thing. So, they could just see that, you know, like even Lazard told you that physically, they could see the transformation, socially they could see, and later on it was economic also. So it became a holistic kind of a movement, you know. So, I mean, you must understand that the people's war was not

it was not a fight against colonialism as such. It was actually, it was not also a fight for some resource kind of grabbing resources as such. It was actually an economic, social, political, holistic movement as such, you know. So that attracted, I think, the most oppressed domestic, from womb to tomb, you know. Yeah, that's a really interesting reflections that you have looking back on it. In reading your book, you also had some very interesting things to remark about how class conflict and the struggle for women's liberation.

overlap and what some of the kind of contradictions are. And I know, or issues and complexities related to that. And I know that this is something that has happened in left movements around the world is how do you deal with the cultured, historical division of labor under patriarchy? You know, this is something that we've inherited, these ideas, and it's difficult to overcome them with the kind of absolute adamant, you know, idea from the very beginning that there must be absolute equality that also overlooks some of, you know, the sensitivities, as you put it, to women's particular conditions and requirements and needs, that there are two extremes in a way that you were suggesting had to be negotiated.

somehow. And so I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on how that can be done successfully and what the pitfalls are. You know, if you don't foreground class at the outset, you know, you end up having, you know, the possibility, as you point out, of, you know, upper caste or upper class, you know, reaction that takes just a feminist sort of perspective but doesn't really integrate, you know, a class analysis. And yet at the same time, if you demand absolute kind of equality, you're also not taking into account some of the particularities or unique conditions of women coming back from periods of, you know, being mothers. are giving birth and so on. And so there needs to be some kind of way of adjudicating this in a

consistent and clear way to keep the continuous revolution going on, as you said. So I'm wondering, you know, what do you think about that? What were the successful measures? You mentioned something that you wish you had, you know, put in place, which was Communist Party membership being, you know, established at a minimum of 40% for women. But what are some of the things that you thought, I think, helped transform the position of women as a result of the people's war. See, one thing is, like, we had two, as I said, that, you know, at a policy level, we had this women's department. And at the ground level, you had this revolutionary, you know, this women's front, okay? So at the departmental level, we had this advantage of having kind of exchange

of ideas through RIM. So we had women. I particularly remember there was this, I forgot her name, but she was actually Iranian woman who was actually based in America. Okay. And she was very much in touch with the Turkish movement there. P2R and then it's just actually P. I forgot, you know, the most part of the left movement in the left movement in the, in,

in Turkey. The PPK? One is PPK, which is actually not, but there's TPK or something, I forgot. Ah, okay, yeah. So she, she would, I would ask, because I was also in the international department. So whenever I had a domestic problem,

you know, it is a problem we are facing. And so we could always, I could talk with her, and then she would kind of suggest me and all that, all that. So we had this, and then also we had this, the communist part of, I was there. in India. So we would exchange our kind of experiences

and all that. So at one end we had this international remand, which was also giving us good feedback about international movements and how they are dealing with the women's question. At the ground level, we had, of course, the revolutionary front. So we were able to kind of

amalgate a two and then go ahead with most progressive kind of a move. Like I told you, you know, we had, at the beginning of the war itself here, we had one after another, there was this problem of our male leaders getting involved with other women, you see, and then, so that was affecting our movement. So we didn't know how to kind of deal with that.

And then, so in that also we had asked them. And also, we had also another at one point, you see, We had also, you know, as I think I mentioned in the book also, you know, about how to deal with, you know, martyed families, whether they should be allowed to remarry or not. And if they are remarried, whether they should still, you know, kind of be proud of the fact that they are a martyed family and then all that. So, you know, these kind of things. So there was an international kind of interaction as well as, and, you know, whatever contradiction that was coming from the ground level, we were able to kind of. synthesize. Brett, do you have anything that you want to ask in regards to the question of women regarding the Civil War?

I don't have anything on that front. I have some questions about post-Civil War splits, but if there's anything you want to touch on before we head in that direction, you guys can do that first. Yeah, I mean, there's, of course, this book is largely about women within the Civil War. And I think that it's a very important thing for us on the left. to understand when trying to advance our own causes in other contexts outside of Nepal. One of the things that you mention

in the book, and I'm just trying to pull up the quote right now, you say that in economic activities, women have been providing a constant source of levy through money or kind. Although individually, women may appear poorer, right? But organizationally, they're richer than

most of the other mass organizations. Being able to pull women into a mass organization is going to massively increase the likelihood of that mass movement being successful by organizing around causes for women, because even though in many places, women are either poor economically or in terms of political capital, collectively, there's such a large group that by advocating for their liberation and their leadership, by pulling them into a movement, you're really allowing for the best chances for that revolution to succeed, because you're bringing

in such a large and powerful group of people. I don't know if there's anything that you want to comment on that facility. Yeah, actually, even when I look back, I was very surprised to know that actually of all the mass organizations, women's organization was being much better. You know, they were running, you know, like small shops and, you know, like they were in fact investing in some of the projects which the party was kind of for doing and all that.

So I would, as I said, I saw the potentiality of their economic kind of potentiality, which the party was using it very well. You know, we had also, as I say, communes, you see. So in commune also, they were quite active. So there is, there is, I mean, like, if you, see, I'll tell you, political line is very, very important. Now, if you look at the political line of the present Communist Party of Nepal, you see, you'll be surprised that when there was kind of, I don't know whether you know or not, this Mahara case, I don't know you have heard or not. He became minister many times.

He was one of the Maoist leaders. There was a charge against him by one of the Maoist. women against him saying that he had been kind of using her sexually and everything and when this issue came right now if you see the mass organization of their party just didn't say anything about it okay

and then you take another example of Dalit there was a very sensualized sensational case of a Dalit man who wanted to marry non-Dalit women okay and you know they were killed I think you must have heard about this this thing that took place recently in Rukum Rukum is supposed to be one of the base areas and you'll be surprised that you see the women non-Dalit of course her family is actually Maoist family okay and the the word

the head of the ward is also maroused. And that, what do you call, municipality? The head of the municipality is also maraud. And the man, the Dalit, he comes, he is actually, his family is related. His family is near to UML. Of course, now they have become one party. But during the people's war, they belong to UML. Okay.

And what happened? Their whole group was killed. I don't know whether you have read this. This became quite sensational news. And see, see, where has this Maoist party has gone, you see? You take example of Mara's case. You take example of this man, I mean, the woman who comes from a Maoist party. Where have they gone?

I mean, what has happened to this Dalit upliftment? Where has happened to this female women's upliftment? It's all gone to dogs. you know right now. I mean, I feel so sad that in 10 years

what we have achieved you know with the present only who was never for republic. In fact, for him,

he never dream that there would be federalism. And all actions are going to dogs right now. In fact, he truly represents

the Raimazi path. And the real royalists are really enjoying to the hilt under his kind of premier show

panda where he's doing like this to the Maoist within that party it's I mean we just don't know what's happening and like how could it happen and it's it's to do with the political line you know

see this guy Prachanda he was out he was he you know he aligned with the UML particularly to win in the election and now what he's getting out now I mean it's there I don't have to kind of analyze or maybe give information.

That's a really good transition point into the kind of the final topic or two that we're going to cover. I just want to read one quote first in regards to women's role in revolution. So you wrote, and I thought that this was a particularly important line. In war, it is said, it's the wisest tactic to attack an enemy on his weakest point. in a bourgeois state, particularly a feudal state like in Nepal, the women's question is the weakest link. So it was a tactical as well as a ethical point. But I guess let's move on to our final topic of discussion, which is what has Nepal been like after the war? So of course, the Maoists were in, have been in power for the majority of this time after the war. So how has

Nepal changed positively with the ushering in of the Maoists in power? And maybe what are some of the contradictions that we've seen that maybe they didn't live up to the promise that we thought that they were going to. Okay, that's a good question. Positively, if you see, positively, if you see. So one of the good thing is that when we were saying that 40% is mandatory in a URPC, okay, now that same 40% is being made mandatory in the local level. First of all, it has gone into federalism because of us, and also because of Madesi movement. So, secondly, it's our republic country, which is because of us, and it's federal because of us. And it is not, though we claim ourselves to be secular country, okay.

But there's a very tricky kind of word which has been used there. a country of all right but then depending upon you know there's one word which is that paramparagat rupma ida haka culture from time onwards the culture that we have been you know we have been practicing using that as a kind of an appendix with the secular secularism so with that appendix actually

it's not secular as such but the word secular has been used and right now I would say that when Prachanda went to India right now the Hindu

extremists are ruling India you see so when Prachanda went to India he said I'm not for secular because they were trying to put words into his mouth

to go for freedom of religion instead of secularism and he agreed to that you see and actually for secularism Bauram fought Tutanil

and he had to compromise to that point as I said you know adding that that you know that appendix which actually dilutes the thing So that compromise, you had to do it because, you know, you had to work with other this thing.

But while that was taking place, in fact, Pratanda was saying that let it, let you, you write freedom of religion, which he did not agree. Okay, so there. So from that point of view, okay, relatively, at least our country has not been declared as Hindu country. You know, which, again, there's a lot of pressure on all parties to kind of go for Hindu religion. such. So that also is because of our people's war as such. Okay. So there is also input of this you know compulsory representation of Dalits in the local level. That is also because we had also given special rights of women and Dalits in our base area. So that has been translated to many extent in today's constitution. Okay. So we've got many Dalits also.

at a local level. So these are positive things, okay? But negative you have to say, as I said, because Prachanda has, you know, he's mad after the power and he's doing it at the cost of all the achievements which we had got it during the people's war. And people may think that, you know, Prachana, that Baburam left that party all of a sudden.

That's not true. before leaving the party two years before he left the party he had been telling Prachanda that you have to now because now we are in a different phase you see you have to change

many things within the party and you should change it but he did not agree and as a result now what he has done for the sake of party and for power for the sake of power

he's aligned with the most kind of reactionary and most harmful party which never accepted people's war and that too under cousin like Oli who was actually

you know he is a product of japa movement which was actually off the root of a knaksalike movement in the part and he had opposed japa movement although he was

incarsinated there for 14 years, but he went against this movement. And if he went against that moment, how could he be for people's war? He wanted to bring people's war into mainstream party, and he's successful. He's successful from that point of thing. Brett, do you have a question? We have just a little bit of time left in the interview. So I think we have enough time for each of you to ask one more question. But Brett, what do you have for Hissila? Sure. Yeah, in the light of of all your critiques of where the Maoist party has gone since the ending of the Civil War, you created, as we mentioned earlier, the People's Socialist Party of Nepal.

Can you talk a little bit about why you created that party and what its political line is, given the importance of a solid political line that you've mentioned throughout this interview so far? That's a good, very good question. See, what we said is that. Okay, Mao's movement was good in the sense that in finishing the old resigned it was successful but now we are in a stage whereby we have to

now create a new society a new Nepal and it's like you know like it's like building a new house when you build a house your whole your whole mentality your outlook changes you see when you have to destroy

an old house you said the mentality of destroying the old house and making a new house is totally different when you are making a new house a new house, you are always going to different parts of the store to look for what color combination is there for good coloring, what furniture will, you know, fit in with what and what is the size and all. So your whole outlook is changed, yeah, has to change when you are making something new. You can't go with the same old instrument, the same old, same perception, same

this thing you have to change you have to be more open you have to be more open to new surrounding and new requirements and availability and all that so from that point of view you know we started particularly the class issue now the non-class issues which we raised even the federalism which should have been properly addressed as really really what federalism should have been. There also we had a struggle with Prachanda. You see, we were saying that, look, we've already practiced federalism during the people's war.

So why don't we translate it into action? And he was not willing. He was listening to what Maoist, with what Nepali Congress was saying. He was listening to what UMLA is saying. As a result, we are in a position where federalism, we have come to a situation where it's neither the old centralized kind of a situation. not the kind of, you know, identity based with the right of self-determination that we practiced. It's neither that.

So as a result, what's happening is that we have seven provinces which has been made. And if you see their naming and if you see the capitals of that, totally does not follow with what federalism is demanding. It's like if you take example of two, you know, one, even, even. In Kathmandu, if you see the names of all the, what do you call, municipalities, it's based on religions. Even if they were to put religions, there were many Buddhists, this thing, which could have been followed. But it was all Hindu religions.

It was not sounding to what the local things was demanding and all that. And can you believe in two numbers, in two provinces, they are asking that place to be named after Sita. You know, Sita is actually, you know, during people's war, we said she's the worst kind of an example for women's empowerment. And they are saying, no, that two Nambra Pradesh should be a kind of named by Januka or Sita and all that. So, I mean, where have they gone, you know? I mean, I just cannot kind of understand how that 10 years, you know, experience has been kind of lost within two years of, you know, present government. excellent odd none this has been so interesting i just realize how much i don't know that i need to learn

more about to really understand this fascinating case but just you started answering this i just wanted to pick up on the last point that you just made that it seems that um hindu religion is still clearly the dominant one even in official circles um and that the diverse of different religious orientations is not necessarily being captured in the structure of the federal kind of compromise that you're talking about. It also reminds me that you were just in your previous points talking about the influence of India and a lot of pressure being put on undermining the secular character of the Nepalese state. So I'm interested Maybe you could tell us a little bit more about what that appendix says and what are the implications of this kind of policy.

And what does secularism mean in the Nepalese context for you and for the political culture that you're advocating for. So you should understand that when we were making the constitution, okay, there was a lot of pressure from India. You know, because by then the BJP had already come in power. So some of the parliamentarians and some of their leaders would come and then try to kind of, you know, explain. Even they came to Baburamba, right, that you should go for freedom of revolution, of religion, not secularism. You know, and then, so there was a lot of pressure, you know. And in fact, now if you see even the one big, huge chunk of Nepal Congress are a lot of, already saying that there's what's a harm in making Nepal

Hindu country and such. And also you will see that the present president Vidya Bandhari was actually one of the main winner leader of

communist party of Nepal. She openly kind of sides with the Hindu religion and she goes to all these religious, Hindu religious places as the chief guest, you see. And there's a lot of question on in that.

Why are you only going there? I mean, being a secular country, why don't you go to others if you are at all? So that question is there. So, I mean, like, I mean, even your name is Communist Party, but then they are Hindu. I mean, and then you take example about,

you know, that saying that, just recently there is, you know, actually Ram was born. Ayodda is actually in Nepal, not in India. So that question. It also shows, you know, where he's trying to divert amidst this pandemic and amidst all that, you know, he's trying to divert the whole thing into another point and all that.

So this, you know, if you see that, it's very unfortunate. Well, excellent. I think that I speak for the guys when I say that we really enjoyed the conversation with you. And we want to thank you for coming on. So our guest, again, was Hiciliyami, former president of the All-Napal Women's Association, three times minister in Nepal, a former member of the Constituent Assembly

and a current member of the People's Socialist Party of Nepal. Hicilla, thanks for coming on. How can the listeners find you on social media or your website if they want to follow up and find more of your work? I have my Twitter. I'm quite active in Twitter, although I also post some of my things in Facebook.

But I'm more active in Twitter. I have my own Gmail address also where they can come to. And how can our listeners find you on Twitter? Oh, it's actually, Hissila, if you, in a day, actually, I haven't changed the, the symbol of our party, because now the symbol of our party, the socialist party, when we were, we had hand as our, as our, as our, as our election symbol. Now we have, we have, we have, uh, um, but I haven't changed that. My, actually, there are two, three names in my, in Hissila, I mean, you know, the people have also made a fraud kind of for this thing of my this thing.

So Hizila Yami with hand right now, that's my Twitter. Okay, great. So I'll link to your Twitter page in the show notes for the listeners to find. I want to wish you and your husband, again, former Prime Minister, Baburam Bataarai, good health in your continued recovery from having COVID. And so, yeah, guys, let's say thanks to Hissiliyami for coming on the show. Thanks so much. We really enjoyed meeting you, and we wish you all the best,

and we wish Nepal and the people struggle all the best. Absolutely. It was an honor and a pleasure to speak with you, solidarity. Thank you so much. Thank you. I mean, for me, I mean, it's long to see how the whole world has struck to this flat world as such. So I'm really impressed by the... digital world and digital revolution and I think that has really let me tell you one thing you are from America right now okay now America is in a crisis aren't you you have this two system it's not working you really have to think beyond that you know being a typical communist is also not working it's not

sustainable and of course liberal democracy is not taking you anywhere so I think the an alternative way of thinking and that is actually alternative when I say alternative I think if Marx was born today he would be saying the same old things. I think he would develop Marxism to a much higher level whereby inclusive development, inclusive politics will have to come into position whereby the world is now become one with all these digital revolution.

So I think an alternative way of looking at the politics also needs to be kind of looked through. So I would request you also to go beyond what has been given by the traditional left or traditional communist party has given. Thank you so much. Thank you. That sounds like the beginning of a great conversation. A lot to think about there. Thank you, Isilla. Yes, and listeners, we'll be right back with a brief wrap-up. And we're back on guerrilla history. We're just finished.

our conversation with Hesila Yami. We've read her extensive biography multiple times before, so we'll skip that for now. But I thought that was a really interesting conversation, and it was on a topic that we don't get to talk about very often in popular discourse, because the Nepali civil war is almost never discussed, even within left-wing circles, in popular media. So this was really an interesting conversation with somebody who has a very distinguished background within that fight. So I'm going to pitch it over to Adnan and Brett to lead the discussion on how we thought the interview went, how it tied into the book and kind of maybe future things that we

personally would want to learn about Nepal and the conflict that happened in Nepal. But before I pitched over to them, I just want to read one more quote from the book because this quote, it was quite funny and it deals with women's liberation and women's empowerment in Nepal. And I think that this really drives at the heart of the matter while also being a rather humorous quote. So, Hissila writes, The People's Liberation Army not only transformed women in essence, but also in form. Essentially, it has given meaning, value, respect, and dignity, not only to their lives, but to their deaths as well.

Women have been taken for granted for too long. Today, hooligans, gundas, womanizers, cannot dare to come near Maoist women unless accompanied with an armed reactionary force. And I think that that really gets to the heart of the matter that of course this was a class struggle first and foremost, but the women's liberation role of the civil war in Nepal was absolutely integral to both the ideological push

of the force itself, but also one of the reasons that made it so successful to the point where the Maoists are still in control in Nepal. So now, Brett Adnan, I'll pitch it over to you guys and let's just have a discussion about what we thought about the interview and about the book and perhaps future things to look into on this front. Sure. I'll start really quickly, which by bouncing off that quote you read, which is just the utter importance of women in these successful revolutions. You know, Mao said women hold up half the sky and he wasn't just saying it because it sounded nice or because it was a pretty thought to have, but because it was strategically utterly necessary. in order for the people's movement to succeed. And we've seen women play crucial roles in every major revolution throughout history. The ones that jump to mind right now are like

in Ireland and in Algeria, these national liberation struggles are absolutely dependent on the participation of women. And here we have yet another example of that playing a crucial role, the Sandinistas, right? That's another one that jumps to mind. So this is a long history. And again, it's not something where it's just like this empty rhetoric paying homage to feminism. But it really is this materialist understanding of the role women play in society and the necessary role they must play in any revolutionary movement if it is to be successful. And that point was really driven home throughout this entire book and interview. That certainly was the case.

I think it's such an important and huge issue in revolutionary contexts. And it's sad that despite progressive ideas and ideals that even in left-wing circles, very often we see movements reproducing patriarchy in a lot of subtle and not so subtle ways. So the fact that in the Nepalese people's war and in their Communist Party, they did make an attempt very seriously to, advance women's liberation and integrate their skills, experience, and abilities on a more equal level from everything to support services to even the military, waging the fight against the feudal monarchy. It's very inspiring and it's very important to appreciate and understand it. And I think we got a sense also how some aspects of that work were really unfinished.

Hesila looked back and thought there were opportunities to have pushed that agenda further even than she had thought at the time and that there were certain measures that would have been really useful. And I think also the experience after the end of the war bears out that there was a lot of unfinished work because it seems that there has been regression, reassertion of patriarchy in various ways. And that's concerning. This idea that they had of continuous revolution is clearly something that's important because it's very easy for the reassertion of some of these reactionary habits of culture and mind when given an opening to return and undermine the progress

that people have made over the course of costly struggle. So that was a sobering kind of dimension of what she mentioned. If I think that there's one area that I would say was interesting that it came out was how important, both in her book and also in the conversation, was how important ideological development was as well as just other aspects. of material participation. It seemed that she felt and identified that there are historic consequences of patriarchy and the division between the public world and, you know, private worlds in a traditional society like Nepal was, maybe is, but certainly was before the

people's war, that really make it difficult for women to advance. because they haven't developed the mental labor skills because of their experience, even though I think it's very clear that she pointed out in the book that there are so many resources that women's experience brings that makes them absolutely powerful, you know, in the struggle, more patient and, you know, they may join later, but when they join, they're so incredibly committed and they're resistant to reactionary, you know, forces of counter-revolution and so, so they bring so much. But in terms of their path within the party and making advances to really live out the equity that is an ideal, she felt that

ideological training was really important. And so I think that's something what guerrilla history is good for in a way is taking episodes from history. and that experience and then reflecting on it and seeing, well, what are the ways in which we can enhance struggle? And also this podcast really tries to develop our understanding of history and both the ideas and the practices together. So hopefully efforts like this are useful in encouraging, you know, everyone to advance on an ideological level in their commitment to struggle. I agree entirely. I just want to posit a question to both of you, because as you mentioned Adnan, one of the things that we want to do with this podcast is to take lessons from history and use them to formulate methods for the future.

And I was thinking about from our last episode with Halil Caravelli about why Turkey is authoritarian and why the left has struggled so much there versus in this conversation that we just had with Hesila about why the struggle in Nepal was so significant. at least in overthrowing the monarchy and coming into power. What was one of the differences between these left-wing movements that caused that, you know, of course, there's many things that could cause why one was successful and one has been historically a relative failure. And I think that one of the lessons, at least for me, is that we really have to emphasize that we need mass support. One of the things that I think was key from our episode on why Turkey is authoritarian is that

The left has historically been a failure at bringing in the pious, religious community in Turkey into their movement. And by excluding them, by holding up secularism as enlightenment, they basically inhibited themselves from ever developing a sort of mass support or mass appeal amongst large groups of the population. Whereas in Nepal, in this conversation that we just had with Hesila, we see that they consciously made the decision to embrace, women in their movement. They tried to embrace women as leaders of their movement. And as Hesila wrote and said, individually, women in Nepal, in feudal monarchic Nepal had very little individually. They were poor. They were subservient to men based on the, you know, the conditions of the society that they were in. But of course, women are half the population. And collectively, they have an unbelievable amount of power. They have an unbelievable

amount of knowledge, of skills, and by just bringing in the women into that movement, you almost instantly have a mass movement on your hands. And then, of course, you have to go about what Adnan was saying, fostering ideological integrity amongst the movement. But by bringing the women in, you really have that mass support. Whereas in Turkey, by excluding the religious community, they prevent themselves from having a mass movement. So I don't know if either of you guys want to reflect on that.

Yeah, Brett. yeah quickly just to add to that because i agree with all of that and another thing that we see that both in turkey the left and in nepal the left struggle with is this question of nationalism and we see in turkey where it is sort of sort of unquestionably embraced right as part of their tradition and we see how that undermines their ability to move forward in a lot of ways and we see that two-line struggle play out in nepal where at times right that nationalism was always there It was always in the milieu, but it was wrestled with, it was contended with. It was put out in the open as an object of critique, and that allowed that movement, along

with many other things, to advance forward. And I think that reminds us of the fact that these struggles are inherently international. And while nationalism can play a progressive role in national liberation struggles, right, in colonized contexts, nationalism in a context where there isn't that can be detrimental. And even on the U.S. left, we've seen. seen these sort of pathetic attempts to weave in some of the nationalism of America, right? Whether it's in the aesthetics, the iconography, or making these appeals to the founding fathers. I mean, these aren't huge trends on the left, but there's certainly been attempts at them.

And every single time, it's sort of, I think, to our credit as the American left, sort of mocked out of the room, but it's easier to see why nationalism in the American context would be just a wholly negative thing, given the settler colonial white supremacy nature of it. But in these other areas, maybe there are, there's more subtlety with those questions. And to be able to have a really principled way of engaging with that question and understanding the cultural and historical variables in your context that make that a question to go one way or the other with it, something that we can carry forward and think about. I think that's a really excellent observation, Brett, about the nationalism as an issue that

posed particular problems in both these two contexts. And I think, you know, this is an issue really that we have to consider when talking about the non-Western world where the history of the nation is a lot more recent in terms of its incubation and usually emerges in the context of anti-imperialism. So, you know, there was nationalism vis-a-vis India and trying to kind of protect Nepalese nationalism. I gathered from our conversation with Hicilla. But I think there's also this sense of, you know, the real beginning of Nepalese modernity and the modern Nepalese situation came from, you know, resistance to the British that wasn't

successful in the early 19th century, 1814 through 1816. And that therefore nationalism in the non-Western context, just like in, In the case of Turkey, having to preserve the remains of the Ottoman Empire from French and Russian and British incursion, that this ends up creating a different kind of texture to the nationalism that's going to have to be dealt with by appeals on the left for internationalist worker solidarity is that it's going to have to be inflected in some capacity through that experience. It's hard to just dispense with that sense of the nation. That was hard fought to create and achieve in more recent modern history.

But I think one of the other interesting divergences between these two cases is that in Turkey was clearly secularism and whatever revolutionary process of creating the nation was a very elite, top-down, military-based, you know, source for it. That's how it starts under Ataturk. In this case, the people's war and the popular struggle really emerges against the elite. And you have much more of an obvious class-based resistance to this feudal monarchy, to the ruling and land-owning classes that I think is one reason why the character of the struggle was a little bit different when it came to the relationship to religion, for example. And one of the issues with nationalism in this context seems to me that in a diverse and pluralistic society, there was an attempt to promote an idea of religious and ethnic national identity that erased or suppressed those other differences. And in the case of Turkey, we had seen how the terrible consequences of trying to impose that. And here, it's a case where, you know, even after the success of the revolution, it seems that there are attempts to re-inscribe and reintroduce something that's inherited from that national identity earlier on that isn't necessarily descriptive of the whole society, but is the way in which national identity has been framed and how, thus, it's been inherited.

So these are interesting divergences, but there are also a lot of continuities that we can learn from in comparing and contrasting. these two cases. And then Brett, do you add something that you wanted to add? Quickly just bouncing off that, we're talking about nationalism. You know, even in Fanonian nationalism, right, Fanon was an obvious defender and advocate of national liberation struggles and he laid out how the fostering of nationalism is the unifying force in the colonial context. And that's essential. But he also makes clear in the wretched of the earth that it's a means to an ultimately international socialist humanist end. And so, So, you know, I think he says towards the end of the book, if I remember correctly, like,

once nationalism succeeds and kicking out the colonizers and building up your own integrity, your own system that you have control over, then you shift towards internationalism, right? So it's never, it's never an end where you stop. It's a means for a more internationalist end. So even in the most robust defenses of national liberation, there's always that internationalism undergirding it. Yeah. So I think that that is a pretty good way to wrap up our discussion.

There's just one last thing that I want us each to do. before we get out there. So there was, of course, so much more that we wanted to talk about with Hissilif. Time would have allowed, but there was a lot of things that we didn't get to talk about, but we wanted to. So how about each of us list one thing that we would have liked to talk about during the conversation, but didn't get a chance to, just in case the listeners want to look into some of these things that we were looking at.

And I'll start so you can get your thoughts together on that, because I know that I kind of sprung that on you right now because it just came to my mind. One of the topics that I wanted to bring up was the usage of rape as a method of state repression by the monarchic government in Nepal because, of course, the focus of the conversation that we had today was on women's role within the revolutionary movement. And of course, rape is essentially a weapon of terror that's used by more powerful groups of people throughout history. and she has a section in this book called Rape, an Instrument of State Repression in Nepal. And for those of you on our Patreon, I think that I'll do a reading of this section on our Patreon

after this episode drops just in case anybody wants to hear this section of the book. But I think that understanding how rape was used in the context of Nepal might bring to light some of the more hidden aspects of revolutionary struggle. in places such as Nepal, but of course in many other places as well. So do either of you have anything that you would have liked to bring up, Adnan? Well, I just, I don't really have too many topics that I would have. There's so much we could have talked with her. And I have to say, I think she is such an impressive and interesting person that I have a lot of admiration for and respect.

And I just feel like there were a lot of references, perhaps. She was talking about a struggle that's very close. to her and not all of us maybe were able to follow all of the specifics and the various references. But she's very engaging and I feel like it would have been great if we could have maybe tried to make it more conversational because then we would have asked her, wait a minute, I don't know that reference and it wouldn't have interrupted her flow and maybe our audience would understand some of the references that I also myself may have missed. I think not knowing as much as I should about the Nepalese situation. But I feel really inspired to learn more. And partly it was because she seems like a very impressive person after reading her book and engaging with her. And she really opened up when she had advice for us.

And so I would have liked to have tapped a little bit more of that just because then she really became very concrete about, well, what you need to do over there. and I think she opened up some interesting vistas for solidarity and learning from one another's experience. Yeah, I totally agree with that. And at the end, you know, her point really was, you know, you in the belly of the beast, you in America, you have to really commit to this open-ended experimental approach. You know, nothing will, well, you can just copy and paste some other people's struggles and tactics and make it work in the belly of the beast. And so that's just something we all have to remember. And that hedges against dogmatism, which is important. I also wanted to reference. Adnan was talking earlier, the importance of a political line. And I think, you know,

we really got to stress that. It's like, without that political line, you don't make, first of all, you don't know where you're going, right? You don't have a clear picture of what you want to achieve, but also that the clarity of political line allows you to have the necessary line struggles within the movement in the party itself. If you don't have a coherent political line, those things get wrinkled over, they get obscured, and you don't address them, and they're ultimately the Achilles heel of movements in many cases. So just remembering that going forward is important. If there was one thing that I wanted to drill down on a little bit more,

it would have been like I would like to know the direct causes and the lead up to the launching of the people's war, right? How do you get the people ready to launch a people's war? And what are the direct conditions that make such a large percentage of the people in a society willing to put it all on the line for such a revolutionary thrust forward? Those things, they kind of got obscured over as we moved through so much history. It's not her fault. It's nobody's fault. It's the confines of the time and the vast amount of history we're covering.

But that's something for future study that I think I'll personally be interested in. Yeah. And I think that as she said at the very end, she's working on a book right now that'll be published in about a year. Perhaps after that we'll bring her back on to really drill down on some of these concrete things that we want to tease out that we didn't have time for in this conversation. And perhaps having these really concrete points will allow us to really. get to the basic points, without getting into the detail that, as Adnan said, might be lost on some of the listeners. But I definitely recommend everybody look into this event, the Nepalese Civil War, as well as what's happened in Nepal since then. So thanks for coming in, guys. It's

always a pleasure doing these episodes with you. It's both fun and enlightening. I learn a lot from each of you. So I just want to say thanks. So how can our listeners find each of you on social media or whatever. Adnan. You can find me on Twitter at Adnan A. Hussein 1S. And also look for the Mudgellus podcast, the other podcast that I'm involved with. If you're interested in the Middle East Islamic world, issues of Islamophobia, and so on. And I feel the same way, Henry. So thank you so much for all that you do and for creating an engaging conversation. you and Brett. Brett, how do the listeners find you? Yeah, I want to echo the love and the solidarity between us three. This has been really fun to do this. We're only on our third interview. You know,

we're going to organically evolve and make little shifts in our approach over time to make sure that we're hitting all the points you want to hit. But so far, it's been a wonderful experiment. And so, yeah, as far as finding me, you can just go to Revolutionary LeftRadio.com, get both the shows, Patreon, shirts, everything is on that one website. Sure. And your Twitter is at Rev Left Radio. And it's a great Twitter feed. So everybody should follow that if they're not already. As for me, you can find me on Twitter at Huck 1995. I also have a Patreon where I talk about science and public health. And I'm using that to help me get through this pandemic myself. And you can find that at patreon.com forward slash Huck1995. As for this show, Gorilla History, you can follow us on Twitter at Gorilla underscore Pod. That's GUE. R-R-I-L-A-U-L-A-U-R-I-L-A-U-R-I-L-A, and you can get a lot of bonus materials at our Patreon, as well as help keep the show up and running by going to patreon.com forward slash guerrilla history, again, G-U-E-R-R-I-L-A.

So thank you listeners for tuning in. Hopefully you learned a lot. We welcome your feedback. And we'll see you with our next episode very soon. Solidarity. I'm going to be able to be. Thank you.