The Maoist leaders were able to motivate the “peasants” to join the revolution (and the PLA) to fight for ideological goals which could then lead to changes for improving lives. However, in 2006 the Maoist leadership decided to team up with the democratic parties to abolish the monarchy. Was this a betrayal of the “revolution?” Their actions might be understood by the answers to these few questions:

1)      Did the Maoists ideas of Communism change and they felt democracy was a better system, or is it just a better system at this time to get power, influence and money?

2)      Is asking for democratic peace just a chance for the Maoist leaders to rest in order to get enough resources to finish the revolution at a later date?

3)      Were the Party and PLA out of steam and the Maoist leaders just wanted to solidify their gains?

4)      Did the Maoists sell out their fighters for power, agreeing to elections and the subsequent money that come with it, all while the cadres sit idly (without weapons) in camps for years?

5)      Was the movement really a Maoist/Communist revolution?

The Maoists used “revolutionary” slogans (“Power comes from the barrel of a gun”) and techniques (surrounding the cities by recruiting the peasant masses), but I don’t know if I could call it a revolution. Nowhere in their demands do they talk of class and the oppression of the bourgeoisie. They seemed to want an isolationist, anti-globalization Nepal with strong national identity while still asking for greater control of regional areas by various ethnic groups. Revolution? At the end of the war, the country went from a partial democracy to a full democracy with one extra political party. As always, I now have more questions than when our class went to Nepal.