names.

Mao Zedong held no value for human life. He was not fighting for rights or equality; he was systematically ridding China of elites, intellects, artists, and “non-communists” in the name of a proletariat revolution. Equality was not the forefront of Mao’s fight, but rather, paranoia, propaganda, thought control, and oppressive fear. Maoism was not then and should never represent a fight for the people.

In reality, everyone suffered. The Great Leap Forward starved the peasants, the Cultural Revolution persecuted the intellects and high officials, and the entire regime was marked by persecution of “class enemies” who would shift at the whim of the great Chairman. Daring not to question his supremacy and never blaming, in solidarity the Chinese chanted: “Long Live Chairman Mao, Long Long Live Chairman Mao, Long Long Long Live Chairman Mao!” More than 20 million died as a result.

These Maoists are fighting for the oppressed: but when the oppressors are justified through religion and are geographically scattered, the ultimate goal of liberation is harder to achieve. Their goal is admirable, if daunting.

When visiting the Maoist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) camp one thing was certain. The “oppressed” people of Nepal are the priority and their liberation is the focal point of the struggle. If mentioned once, oppression was mentioned countless times, reminiscent of the repetitive Tharu drumbeat during the harvest dance heard the night before. This is a good thing. The oppressed people of Nepal need emancipation.

When the vehicle to emancipate is named for one of the most violent leaders in history, there should be pause for reflection and consideration for future implications. There exist divergences in the realities facing Nepal now and China in the past, perhaps making the struggle more ominous.

Religion had no place in Maoist China; Maoism was the religion of the people. Anyone who was not a peasant became the enemy combatant; anyone who did not engulf himself in Communist ideology was sacrificed. The oppression in Nepal stems mostly from the caste system. This traditional caste based system marginalizes and dictates the social status for Nepalis. Who is the target of the Nepali Maoist revolution: Hinduism, the highest castes? The targeting and toppling of religion is a rigorous task unto itself.

Mao’s class enemies were easy to locate. It was mainly urban intellectuals. The urban intellectuals were often sent to the countryside to be “reeducated” by the peasants in order to reach the final solution of a peasant filled, communal China. Maoism in this sense, does not fit Nepal, the enemies are not as easily segregated geographically. High castes reside everywhere. This other divergence from China provides an obstacle. In order to rid Nepal of a caste system, in order to equalize the whole of Nepal, what practical measures must be taken to “reeducate” a diverse and often geographically impenetrable nation?

The pride of the PLA camp was its ability to “equalize” all of its members. Allegedly, no caste system based segregation nor discrimination exist inside the camp. There are punishments by way of fine for those who act in a discriminatory manner. Arranged marriages exist in the camp and many marriages appeared to be within caste. Even this microcosm of 4,000 is a victim of tradition. The Maoists want Nepal to rid itself of caste discrimination but are unable to fully indoctrinate those on their side. This is when the fear of following Maoism grows.

I have limited experience discussing caste-based prejudices. But when I hear urban teenagers saying they want to marry within their caste, women my age touting arranged marriages, and the prevalence of skin-lightening creams and obsession with skin color as a sign of prestige- I cannot turn a deaf ear; caste-based discrimination, old ideologies exist. I do not know how the Maoists will choose to combat the thoughts and feelings of those who are unwilling or unable to transform from caste hierarchy to equality. That is when following Maoism becomes terrifying.

That is when the name starts to matter, because the name forecasts the future actions. That is when Maoist violence and thought control and systematic propaganda seem more probable, because in order to upend centuries long prejudices, treading lightly seems irrelevant. Then again, Martin Luther King, JR and Gandhi both led a non-violent revolution for the oppressed. So I ask, why not tie a revolution for the oppressed to those names?

The challenges facing the Nepali Maoists are difficult to overcome and are intimidating, perhaps even greater than those faced by their namesake. Maoism did not ultimately produce the results Mao Zedong hoped to achieve. In spite of it all, if the Maoists still wish to revere Mao in name, why would they stop there?