Blog 8

Categorizing Political Violence

In 1996, “Civil War” broke out in Nepal. However, if we study the definition of civil

war, along with definitions of other forms of political violence, questions arise. What really

is civil war? Do acts of political violence always fall into a clear-cut category? Are the

definitions of political violence all-inclusive and comprehensive? This blog will attempt to

look at the very isolated event of the Nepalese Civil War to answer these questions.

The story of the Nepalese Civil War is fairly simple. In 1996, a group called the

Maoist Communist Party of Nepal started a guerilla war in the Midwest part of the country.

The rebels were a group of members of the former 1949 Communist Party of Nepal. The

title of Maoist came because they “claimed an ideological legacy from the Chinese

Revolutionary leader Mao Zedong.” (BIPPI). The rebel group basically demanded an end to

the monarchy. After about 8 years of war and 15,000 deaths, the war came to an end with

the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord. The treaty compromised greatly with the

Maoists by making steps towards a new democracy and by giving the insurgents say in the

happenings of the new government.

According to the textbook, a civil war is combat within the boundaries of a state

between parties subject to common authority. The “Nepalese Civil War” fulfills that

guideline. They occur within the boundaries of a single country, they last at least a year,

and have at least 1,000 casualties. The war we are looking at fulfills all of these definitions.

So according to the textbook, this war could easily be classified as a civil war. (Samuels).

But what if we look at the definition for a revolution? A revolution is an armed

conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state. The Nepalese Civil War

fulfills that definition. The insurgents and state must claim the allegiance of a significant

amount of the population. The Maoist party held the allegiance of a large amount of the

population. The insurgents must bring about wholesale political change. The country of

Nepal started as a monarchy, and ended as a new democracy. And the state’s authority

must be forcibly taken by the insurgents. This is the only point that is up for debate.

(Samuels). Obviously this was a large war, many people died, there was a large amount of

force being exerted, but was it force that overthrew the government? The war ended with a

After looking at both of these definitions, it seems to me that the Nepalese Civil War

might be better categorized as a revolution. Unfortunately, the defining of key concepts like

political warfare is very difficult and not very clear.

"Nepalese Civil War." Wikepedia. Wikepedia, 27 2012. Web. 8 Nov 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War>.

"Nepalese Civil War – 1996/2006." BIPPI. BIPPI, n.d. Web. 8 Nov 2012.

<http://www.bippi.org/bippi/menu_left/conflicts/Nepal/Nepal.htm>.

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Minneapolis: Pearson, 2011. Print.