Radical Socialist

Radical Socialist Statement on Ladakh

The latest round of repression of leading activists of the Ladakh Apex Body (LAB)---putting them under house arrest when they sought to organize a peaceful protest march---shows once again the ugly face of the Modi government. This action was earlier preceded by the unjustified and condemnable detention of Sonam Wangchuk under the draconian National Security Act (NSA) ridiculously accusing him of conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Ladakh is close to 60,000 square kilometres in size but with a total population of around 3 lakhs. Some 90% are tribals, an ethnicity that cuts across the religious difference between mostly Buddhists in the Leh region and mostly Muslims in the even more mountainous region of Kargil. This ethnic similarity has overridden so far any religio-political tensions and the other main political body, the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) has stood with the LAB to put forward four common key demands. These are first, the call for separate statehood. The second demand is for the application of the Sixth Schedule that would provide for Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) having their own legislative, executive and judicial powers to enable safeguarding of tribal land, forests and cultural rights. These rights are enjoyed by other tribal areas in the northeastern states. Third, is the establishment of a full-fledged Public Service Commission that would prioritise gazetted jobs at all levels for the local youth and population. Fourth, is the demand for two Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil respectively.

When Ladakh was part of J&K the sense of ethnic separateness meant that the annulment of Art. 370 in 2019 and granting Ladakh Union Territory (UT) status was extremely popular and welcomed. Over time, however, it became clear that this was in many ways a turn for the worse. As part of J&K, Ladakh had greater autonomy with its own revenue section, Divisional Commissioner and Inspector General of Police. Art. 35A, now abrogated, then gave special rights to locals regarding job recruitment and property acquisition.

Why is the Central government behaving this way?

One can point to three main reasons. First, being a border state next to both Pakistan and Chinese Tibet, New Delhi wants to maximize its political and military control especially after its 2020 setback vis-à-vis China in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh. This aim goes counter to the granting of more local powers and rights though it could be argued that giving such rights would enhance the loyalty of Ladakhis politically and militarily. But here comes the problem. Overall, Muslims are in a slight majority in the total population of Ladakh making it the second UT (after J&K) to have this demographic character. The second reason then is that Hindutva in the longer run, and even in the shorter term, wants to alter this by encouraging entry of non-Muslims into Ladakh. Accordingly, it is to be expected that New Delhi will do its best to weaken, indeed destroy, the existing unity and collaboration between Leh and Kargil by all means including promoting religion-based conflict and polarization. Furthermore---and this is the third reason---accepting the demands in toto would reinforce the principle of asymmetric federalism which is something that has long been an anathema to this Hindutva government. It has currently had to suffer this reality in the Christian majority Northeastern states but this asymmetry is not something it is happy about or wanting to extend. Rather, the aim is to eventually eradicate it.

Now even as we recognize the Centre’s ambitions and oppose its repression of Ladakh, what would a more just resolution that we should advocate? While respecting the right to political self-determination by all parts of the original J&K province (including the Pakistan occupied part) we can, if considered necessary or desirable, express our concerns or reservations regarding the four demands as they stand.

Our Stand

Regarding statehood, Ladakh has a population less than half of that of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DDDNH) that is a UT. So this demand is unlikely to be accepted. While Sikkim with a population of over 7 lakhs has statehood, this reflects its very distinctive history. After British withdrawal its protectorate status was passed on to newly independent India which meant that while Sikkim had full internal autonomy, its foreign policy and defence would be under Indian control. In 1975 this autonomy was destroyed by an unjustified military takeover that then provided the sop of statehood. In the case of Ladakh, it is quite likely that LAB and KDA would settle for the compromise of remaining a UT but having its own legislative assembly like Puducherry which has a five times higher population.

Regarding the Sixth Schedule and its rights, this should be fully supported.

The same applies to the demand for a Public Service Commission of its own that prioritizes jobs for locals but does not completely exclude others where there is an absence of qualified personnel locally.

Finally, the demand for two Lok Sabha (LS) seats contrasts with the situation prevailing in the two other more populated UTs of DDDNH and Puducherry that have just one LS seat each. Should there be one seat allotted or one each for Leh and Kargil? A reasonable case can be made either way. Having one seat would push candidates for selection to try and speak for and represent the interests of the Ladakhis across religious differences helping thereby to prevent it from becoming a religious divide. On the other hand, a Central government that continues to remain in the control of Hindutva forces could find it more difficult to oppress the Muslim community if Kargil has separate representation. Perhaps better then, the second more pragmatic perspective than the first more ideal one. Forcible imposition of any final outcome by the Centre is never a just solution and must be forthrightly condemned.

[October 19, 2025]

𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝑵𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒍'𝒔 𝑺𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝑼𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈: 𝑩𝒆𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒅 𝑺𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒆𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑹𝒆𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏

Radical Socialist

The September 2025 uprising in Nepal forced Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli from office and left nineteen young people dead in the streets of Kathmandu. This event requires serious analysis from those committed to real social change. While we stand with the youth who risked their lives against a corrupt and violent state, we must also honestly assess what this movement achieved, what it failed to accomplish, and what it reveals about the possibilities and limits of spontaneous rebellion today.
What the Uprising Revealed
The immediate trigger, a ban on social media platforms, seems trivial until we understand its significance. The Oli government's attempt to silence online criticism revealed a fundamental issue- Nepal's ruling class, despite having a formal democracy, governs with the same authoritarian tendencies as the previously established monarchy. Politicians who once rallied people against royal autocracy have since become a closed group, sharing power among themselves while accumulating wealth that is disconnected from productive activity.
When young Nepalis saw the children of political leaders displaying luxury goods and taking foreign vacations on Instagram and TikTok—platforms the government then banned- they confronted a clear contradiction. The political class that claims democratic legitimacy is visibly enriching itself while the majority struggles with unemployment, poverty, and the need to migrate for survival. Remittances from workers abroad now account for one-third of Nepal's GDP, highlighting the failure of the domestic economy to support its own people.
This pattern is seen across South Asia. In Sri Lanka, the Rajapaksa family’s corruption and economic mismanagement sparked mass protests in 2022. In Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina’s authoritarian rule ended in August 2024 after violent street demonstrations. Now Nepal faces a similar situation. The common element is not just corruption- though that is certainly present- but something deeper: the failure of postcolonial capitalist development to bring genuine improvement in living conditions for most people, even after decades of formal democracy.
Nepal's political elite emerged from real mass struggles. The Maoist insurgency, the Communist Party of Nepal, and the Nepali Congress all played roles in ending the monarchy in 2008. Many made significant sacrifices in that fight. However, political power cut off from a plan for changing property relations and productive capacities inevitably falls apart. Without restructuring the economy to meet the needs of the people rather than just profit for the elite, political democracy becomes hollow- it becomes a way to manage competition among elite groups while leaving the structural issues that create poverty, migration, and dependence unresolved.
The Limits of Spontaneity
The September 2025 protests showed remarkable courage. Young people faced water cannons, tear gas, and live ammunition. They forced a prime minister to resign. They burned symbols of state power, including government buildings, party offices, the Supreme Court, and the Presidential palace. For a brief moment, it seemed as if state authority had collapsed.
But what happens when the fires go out? This is where the limits of the uprising become clear. Spontaneous revolt can cause destruction- it can lead to resignations, damage property, and create momentary crises for those in power. However, it cannot build alternative structures of power or implement a plan for social change on its own.
The protests struggled with organization. While activists like Sudan Gurung of Hami Nepal took on coordinating roles, the movement was intentionally leaderless and decentralized. This mirrors a broader trend in contemporary protest movements worldwide, like Occupy and the Arab Spring. Horizontal organization and skepticism of leadership arise both from valid critiques of hierarchical party structures and from confusion about how power functions and how it might be seized and used for meaningful change.
Without organization capable of sustaining the struggle beyond quick bursts of anger, lacking clear demands that go beyond just removing individual politicians, and not connecting to workplace struggles where workers can effectively halt production and services, such movements will wear themselves out. The anger is real, and the grievances are valid, but anger alone cannot restructure society.
The violence toward individual politicians and their families highlights this issue. Attacking Sher Bahadur Deuba in his home or assaulting Ravi Laxmi Chitrakar may seem like justice to those who have suffered under corrupt governance. Yet individual politicians can be easily replaced. The system that produces them- the integration of Nepal into global capitalism as a dependent economy, the challenging geography that makes it susceptible to pressure from India and China, the lack of industrial development that forces workers abroad, and the concentration of land and wealth- remains unaffected when one corrupt official is swapped for another.
The Question of Class
A Marxist perspective asks us to consider which classes were involved in the uprising and what their interests were. The protests were primarily led by youth, crossing some class lines. Students, unemployed youth, small business owners harmed by the social media ban, and workers all had reasons for anger. However, the movement did not develop specific working-class demands or organization.
Nepal's working class remains small and divided due to limited industrialization. The largest concentrations of Nepali workers are not in Nepal but as migrants in India, the Gulf states, Malaysia, and elsewhere. This migration highlights Nepal's marginal role in the global economy- unable to generate enough jobs or productive work internally, it exports labor.
The protests mainly reflected the frustrations of educated urban youth dealing with unemployment and corruption rather than organizing workplace struggles against exploitation. This observation is not a dig at the protesters, but it points out the movement's class foundation and its potential paths.
Without grounding protest movements in the specific power that workers wield- the ability to quit work and stop production- they remain reliant on street mobilization, which is often temporary and draining. The most enduring and impactful movements historically have combined large street protests with organized workplace actions, where workers not only protest but also demonstrate the capacity to manage production themselves.
Geopolitical Constraints and Possibilities
Nepal's location between India and China influences its political options in significant ways. India has traditionally seen Nepal as part of its security area, with intelligence agencies playing large roles in Nepali politics. China has increased its influence through infrastructure investment and diplomatic connections. The United States pursues its interests through development programs like the Millennium Challenge Corporation grants.
Any truly transformative movement in Nepal must navigate these external pressures. This does not mean accepting control by foreign powers, but it does mean recognizing that small countries sandwiched between major powers face challenges that sheer determination cannot overcome. Regional cooperation among progressive movements, linking struggles in Nepal with those in India, Bangladesh, and beyond, becomes essential rather than simply aspirational.
The reported plans by the Delhi Police Commissioner to respond to Nepal's protests acknowledge something significant: ruling classes throughout South Asia understand that the conditions leading to rebellion in Nepal are present across the region. Youth unemployment, corruption, inequality, and authoritarian governance are not unique to Nepal but are widespread throughout South Asia. The question is whether movements can establish transnational coordination and shared goals.
What Is To Be Done?
The typical activist response to spontaneous uprisings is to call for building ‘the party’ or ‘the movement’ in vague terms. However, effective organizing requires clarity about social forces, immediate demands, and strategic vision.
For Nepal, several tasks seem crucial. First, connect urban protest movements with rural struggles concerning land, water, and agricultural policy. Most Nepalis still reside in rural areas and rely on agriculture. Any transformative plan must focus on their conditions, not just those of urban youth.
Second, develop organization among migrant workers abroad. Since remittances make up one-third of GDP, Nepali workers overseas represent significant potential power- but only if they are organized. Creating transnational worker organizations to coordinate actions across borders addresses both Nepal's specific issues and the broader reality of global labor migration.
Third, clarify demands that extend beyond removing individual politicians to tackle structural problems: land reform, public ownership of key industries, democratic economic planning aimed at meeting needs rather than profit, and real sovereignty that rejects subservience to Indian or Chinese interests.
Fourth, engage in patient political education to help people understand not only that the system is corrupt but also why it creates corruption- how capitalism in peripheral economies inevitably produces the conditions people are rebelling against. This requires study circles, worker education, and developing local intellectuals who can connect immediate struggles to a longer vision.
Fifth, learn from both the successes and failures of previous movements. The Maoist insurgency in Nepal mobilized thousands and challenged state power for years but ultimately reached a political settlement that left underlying structures unchanged. Understanding this requires a honest assessment, not glorification or condemnation.
Rebellion Is Not Revolution
The September 2025 uprising in Nepal is significant. It shows that even in small countries facing various external pressures, public anger against corrupt governance can erupt dramatically. It indicates that South Asian youth refuse to passively accept systems that offer neither dignity nor decent living conditions. It exposes cracks in the legitimacy of political arrangements throughout the region.
However, rebellion is not the same as revolution. Forcing one prime minister to resign while leaving the same system intact is not real change. Burning buildings does not create alternative institutions. Spontaneous uprisings without organization, without clear demands, and lacking roots in working-class power will either fade away or be redirected into replacing one group of elite managers with another.
The job for socialists is not to step back from these movements or lecture participants about their shortcomings. It is to participate actively while addressing the limitations- to help build the necessary organizational structures, develop clarity of program, and connect with working-class power that can turn spontaneous rebellion into a sustained effort for fundamental change.
Nepal's uprising will not be the last in South Asia. The conditions that lead to these explosive moments-unemployment, corruption, inequality, authoritarian governance, and the crisis of capitalism-are growing, not shrinking. The question is whether the next uprising, wherever it happens, can evolve from spontaneous rebellion into organized struggle that truly transforms society rather than merely swapping individuals in positions of power within an unchanged system.
That transformation requires a clear understanding of how capitalism operates on both global and local levels, how state power functions and how it can be contested, and how movements can build the capacity not just to resist but also to govern- to really reorganize production and distribution based on human needs rather than profit. This is the work that lies ahead. Nepal's uprising offers valuable lessons for this endeavor, both in what it accomplished and what it could not.
8 October 2025

June 17, 2025

Radical Socialist endorses the statement of the Fourth International issued on 13th June on the current Israeli war of aggression against Iran. Hence, we are reproducing the statement below. At the same time, we want our readers, especially in India, to note strongly certain concerns, some briefly mentioned in the FI statement, others specific to the Indian context.

The fraudulent basis of the Israeli aggression is to “stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons”. In truth, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Israel does. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1970 while Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Iran has repeatedly cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) whose officials have monitored the development of a non-military nuclear program in Iran. Under the leadership of the then US President Barack Obama, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under which Iran agreed to stricter restrictions on its nuclear program and enhanced monitoring by the IAEA in return for relaxation of sanctions. The IAEA confirmed Iran’s cooperation and compliance until 2018, when USA, under President Trump, scrapped the JCPOA. In recent days, Israel and the U.S. engaged in negotiations with Iran under false pretences. Although talks were scheduled for Sunday, Israel had been preparing military operations all along—with full knowledge of the U.S. Ahead of the strikes, the U.S. ordered non-essential embassy staff and non-military personnel to leave West Asia. Shortly after, Israel bombed Iran and assassinated Ali Shamkhani, one of Iran’s top nuclear negotiators. However, in an Orwellian twist, it is being reported in the mainstream media, as the recent G7 statement also reads, that Israel has the right to defend itself (meaning that they are not the aggressors but the victims), and Iran is the cause of instability in the region (meaning Iran is the aggressor even though Israel has been the one acting in bad faith, and has in fact assassinated one of the main negotiators of Iran).

The aggression comes as a bid to reverse the swing in public perception in many of the imperialist countries about the Zionist leadership and the Israeli state. The genocidal activities of Israel are so widely unpopular (53% of people in the US, 61% in UK and 60% in Canada have unfavourable views on Israel, according to a recent Pew Research Poll) that sections of the conservative journalists, who have been reporting positively about Israel since October 7 2023, as well as some leading state actors of all imperialist countries (except the US) have publicly registered their discomfort at Israeli actions. The current Israeli aggression on Iran has again occasioned the imperialist countries to fall in line and the mainstream media to report that Israel, a country actively carrying out genocide of a starving defenceless population, is actually the victim.

A real reason for Israeli armed aggression is regime change in Iran. This is evinced by their explicit willingness to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, as well as their assassinations of top military leaders, making its actions a cause of grave concern. After all, a regime change imposed by imperialism, which we categorically reject, is fundamentally different from the ongoing popular pro-democracy struggles against the reactionary Iranian regime.

India has relationships with both Israel and Iran. India is the biggest buyer of Israeli armaments, and it also has economic relations with Iran. However, given the current geopolitical rivalries and the proximity of China with Iran, India has deemed it geopolitically prudent to position itself close to Tel Aviv and Washington. It has distanced itself from a statement that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has issued strongly condemning the Israeli acts of war. We find these actions of India to be highly condemnable and immoral. These actions cannot be disassociated from the increase in virulent Islamophobia in India which makes the apartheid state of Israel a natural ally. The same Pew Research Poll which showed a decline in favourability of Israel in the imperialist countries finds that the unfavorability of Israel is lowest in India—only 29% of Indians have a negative opinion about Israel. Radical Socialist decries the diplomatic actions of India, and calls on the working people and civil society of India to recognize the dangerous aggression of Israel and demand that India suspends economic and military relations with Israel, and calls for strengthening the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement in support of Palestine.
17 June 2025



Israel's unprecedented attack on Iran is a direct result of the impunity it has enjoyed while carrying out a live-streamed genocide in Palestine over the past 20 months. Under the false pretext of "self-defense," Israel has escalated its long-standing policy of Palestinian erasure into full-scale genocide. Now, it extends that aggression by bombing Iran, claiming to defend itself from a hypothetical nuclear threat—despite not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and remaining unaccountable for its own nuclear arsenal.

This impunity is made possible by the United States and other governments that continue to arm Israel—supplying weapons, funding, and political cover as it carries out mass atrocities across the region. The U.S. has emphasized that Israel acted unilaterally in its strike on Iran and has denied any involvement while being the primary supplier of the weapons used in this attack. Alongside other governments that arm and shield Israel, the U.S. is complicit in enabling Israel's expanding aggression across the region. They are all partners in atrocity.

This belligerence has not only claimed civilian lives, but it also threatens the long and courageous struggle of the Iranian people against a repressive regime, of which the latest high point was the movement "Woman, Life, Freedom". History shows clearly: there is no path to democracy under the shadow of war.

We stand firmly with the people of Iran—both in their ongoing resistance to dictatorship and in their right to live free from foreign military aggression. We denounce Israel's attack on Iran and demand international pressure to stop its reckless regional escalation now.

We urgently demand:
𝑯𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇𝒇 𝑰𝒓𝒂𝒏!
An immediate end to regional escalation!
Solidarity with political prisoners and human rights defenders in Iran, and vigilance against further repression by the regime.
As we have done for months, we continue to demand:
Sanctions on Israel now!
An immediate end to all arms trade with Israel!
Global mobilization to stop the genocide in Palestine!

13 June 2025

Radical Socialist's statement protesting the disruption and attacks on the anti-war march in Kolkata:-
Radical Socialist condemns the blocking of the anti-war demonstration in Kolkata, called by various civil society organisations and individuals, and the arrest of about 62 activists. Later released on bail.Prior to this there was an assault on the demonstration by BJP forces. The government of West Bengal has shown that it is not willing to let people call for peace, a very normal thing in times of conflict between countries, especially when there are two nuclear armed neighbours.
Radical Socialist notes that the years of aggressive social media fake propaganda and trolling developed by the Hindutva forces has now resulted in the creation of forces going beyond the BJPs aims. The attacks on the Defence Secretary, the beginning of attacks on the Defence Minister, are signs of the emergence of extremely dangerous currents calling for all out war on Pakistan and attacking anyone who talks of negotiations or ceasefire. Yet, Rightwing nationalist politics sees those who call for peace as a greater threat. We call on all left and democratic forces to unite against this.
12.05.2025
Kolkata

Radical Socialist Statement on Operation Sindoor



The Indian Armed Forces have launched Operation Sindoor which has carried out strikes in as many as nine places spread over three cities in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Punjab province while a counter-strike by Pakistan, also to be condemned, has led to lives lost in Poonch. All this is an extremely worrisome development, though not entirely unexpected. After the Pahalgam terror act which deserves to be universally and unequivocally condemned, the Modi government should have made public and transparent the information it has as to who the likely perpetrators are and accepted the call for an international investigation in which Indian involvement would be necessary and central and demanded that the Pakistan government participate in uncovering the complete truth so that the culprits can be caught and punished in the name of justice. A Pakistani refusal to cooperate in this manner would have put it in the dock internationally and then justified various actions that could be taken diplomatically and materially by India against the government but not against the welfare of the general Pakistani public.

Indeed, the most sensible approach and the one most damaging to the Islamabad government is precisely to drive an ever greater wedge between the Pakistani public and a government that is already deeply unpopular. Instead, by illegally holding the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance and calling on all Pakistani citizens in the country (except non-Muslims with Long Term Visas) to immediately leave, this Hindutva government is pursuing the path of endorsing the collective economic suffering of the Pakistan public as well as endorsing the principle of the ‘collective guilt’ of all Pakistani Muslim citizens. First, this only reinforces anti-India jingoism within Pakistan and enhances public support for the military establishment which rules and seeks to drown out all progressive and dissident voices within, thereby eroding efforts to move towards greater democratic freedoms desired by the vast majority of its citizens. Second, these two steps by New Delhi are also taken with the aim of domestically whipping up a hyper-nationalistic frenzy (also the purpose of the pan-national civic military drills) that can benefit the BJP for the coming Bihar elections and more generally beyond this. In carrying out these cross border assaults by its official Armed Forces, New Delhi has entered the terrain of committing internationally illegal ‘acts of war’. This is the second time after Balakot that this has happened. It sets the precedent for this to happen again and again, only at a progressively higher military level should similar such terror acts by groups (i.e., non-state actors) take place which is all too likely despite our hopes.

Also, since the dawn of the nuclear age in 1945 it is only in South Asia that two nuclear powers have assaulted each other with conventional military weaponry creating a frighteningly real possibility of escalatory retaliation that can reach the level of a nuclear exchange. There is a large proportion of people in India, and a very bellicose, communal and loud right-wing media, that have been baying for blood since the ghastly act in Pahalgam. This creates conditions for much stronger calls for war both externally—with Pakistan and internally—against the imagined enemy within, namely the Muslims in general, and Kashmiris in particular. Pahalgam has pushed almost all political parties to stand behind the BJP. Leading members of the Congress, not unexpectedly, have been urging military action. Regrettably, the statements issued by both the CPI and CPI(M), after the launch of Operation Sindoor, have refused to oppose such military action. A similar situation arose in 2019, when India escalated the stakes and struck targets within the borders of sovereign Pakistan. We were lucky that the situation did not then escalate out of control. But there is no guarantee now that Pakistan will act in a manner which might lead to a situation where both India and Pakistan can claim victory and then let matters rest. If that does not happen, and if we go down the path of war, this will only mean further loss of lives on both sides of the border, and intense suffering on the part of those people who want war the least.

Radical Socialist opposes these military strikes because such acts do not go to the heart of the underlying political crisis of Kashmir, which has been exacerbated by the Modi regime since 2019. We condemn fanning the flames of Islamophobia by large sections of the media and organized right-wing forces, and the culpability that the government has shown on that front. Such military exchanges apart from the loss of innocent lives (state terror by each side), strengthens religious and political hatreds in both India and Pakistan. We hope that ordinary workers and people in both countries will stand on the side of peace and a political resolution of the Kashmir conflict, instead of seeking military solutions.