Strategic Interaction Between Rebels and the State: A Study of the Maoist Conflict in Nepal

The “people's war” in Nepal during 1996–2006, led to two significant outcomes—the elimination of monarchy and political victory for the Maoists. These political outcomes raise important questions about the process of Maoist conflict in Nepal. While several studies on political conflict are concerned about “why” such conflicts happen, I focus on “how” the strategy of conflict unfolded in Nepal. In this article, I argue that strategic interaction between rebels and the state explain why the conflict led to negotiated settlement in Nepal. To discuss the sequence of rebel–state interaction, I introduce a game theoretic model. In addition, I show how territorial control, target selection, and levels of violence used by the rebels in comparison to the state are crucial in understanding the conflict process. The case study in this article analyzes the relevance of rebel–state interaction to reveal micro processes of political conflict and further suggests that negotiation can become an important tactical choice in resolving conflict.     

Verses Attributed to Bṛhaspati in the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha: A Critical Appraisal

Sāya?a-Mādhava closed his exposition of the Cārvāka philosophy in his Sarva-dar?ana-sa?graha, Chap. 1 by quoting 11 and a half verses, the authorship of all of which was attributed to B?haspati, the eponymous founder of materialism in India. One of these verses is presumably taken from the Vi??upurā?a. However, it is not B?haspati but some demons, deluded by a Jain and a Buddhist monk, who say this. B?haspati does not appear at all in this Purā?a. Variant versions of the same story are found in other Purā?as but B?haspti is not invariably present in all of them. The origin of the story may be traced back to the Maitrāya?īya Upani?ad. Although B?haspati plays a leading part in that story, the background is quite different. By comparing all the versions found in the Purā?as and the subject matter of the epigrams attributed to B?haspati the paper proposes to show that the Vi??upurā?a story has nothing to do with the materialists, whether the Pre-Cārvākas or the Cārvākas; the Jains and the Buddhists are the target of attack. Sāya?a-mādhava, by placing these satirical epigrams either in their original or in altered forms, and attributing them to B?haspati, has mixed up the views of all sorts of nāstikas, particularly the Jains and the Buddhists, with the Cārvākas and thereby succeeded in deceiving several generations of readers and misleading even the best of scholars.     

Education for Child Labour: Evaluating the National Child Labour Policy in West Bengal,India

Transitioning child labourers from work to education is a key component of global efforts to eliminate child labour. In India, the National Child Labour Project is the central programme aimed at achieving this goal. This paper examines the operation of the project in the state of West Bengal using original survey data collected in 2008. The survey reveals a number of promising findings, including high rates of provision of both midday meals and free learning materials to students, as well as evidence of adequate schooling quality and availability. However, areas of concern were also identified, including irregularities in stipend payments to parents of child labourers who send their children to school and inadequate provision of free health services to children who attend school rather than work. These operational short-comings revealed by the survey reduce the incentive and ability parents have to send their children to school rather than work and, accordingly, undermine the effectiveness of the project.     

What the Cārvākas Originally Meant

This essay proposes to review the problems of reconstructing and interpreting ancient texts, particularly philosophical commentaries, in the context of the Cārvāka/Lokāyata system of India. Following an overview of the Indian philosophical text tradition and the ontological and epistemological positions of the Cārvākas, three cases are discussed: (1) when there is no invariance in the text and the commentary, (2) when commentators differ among themselves in their interpretations, and (3) when contradictory interpretations are offered. The paper further discusses why certain commentaries are to be treated as inconsistent with the base text and concludes that innovations inconsistent with the intention of the author should be treated differently from glosses that seek to explain the author’s original intentions.