Online Maoism, A Farce

We found you in internet, and too we found the Communist Maoist party of Manipur. We are interested to both organizations, because, we have the same international line which come from principality of Maoism as Command of World Revolution. 

- Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan 
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist (Feb. 15th, 2012)

I originally intended to write a blog entry outlining some preliminary thoughts I had on the work of the noted council communist theoretician and historian of science, Anton Pannekoek, regarding his ideas regarding the party and worker consciousness. But due to my own time limitations and just having read the new sectarian attack by a new “online Maoist” presence, the Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist), on a legitimate Maoist organisation, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afganistan, I have decided to write about this new farcical phenomenon: online Maoism.

There is nothing new about the existence of organisation and groups that have more words in their name than actual members, indeed at different points in my life I have even found myself a member of different ones, but what is new is the capacity of such groups to make their voice heard by a larger number of forces than ever before. In the past, your little groupsicle of you and your best friend forever (right before you denounce one another) was likely to either go unheard of or only have a visible presence in very limited areas of work, but today any party-of-one with a computer and library card is able to go online, make international declarations about the need for revolution and bombard us with their half-witted opinions on things that they obviously have not bothered to, or are incapable of understanding. In the last few months there has been a rash of such online Maoist groupsicles that have been denouncing this and that organisation around the world for having adopted a revisionist line. Revisionism is an old slur that has been hurled by all and sundry, and sometimes is even on the mark as even a broken clock is right twice a day (for example the half-baked theories of Chairman Bob of the RCP,USA called the “new synthesis”). However, this new tendency of online Maoist groupsicles has sought to demarcate itself from the rest of the circus that is the contemporary Left by developing a new danger, centrism. Centrism is a sin that some organisations around the world have made by suggesting that there exists a “red” faction within the UCPN(Maoist), and for expressing the desire to include said “red” fraction in any new international regroupment of Maoists. This charge is based on the following argument: the UCPN(Maoist) is a revisionist organisation; all of its members are revisionist as well because they have not split with with the UCPN(Maoist) and; thus there is no “red” fraction inside the UCPN(Maoist) because if they are truly revolutionary they would have already split from the UCPN(Maoist). Indeed, it becomes quickly clear that those who are making this charge are incapable of grasping what a two-line struggle looks like in an organisation that is not simply comprised of five adolescent men gathering around their mother’s kitchen table, and actually has hundreds of thousands of members organised into either the party itself or involved in party-led mass organisations. Comically these organisations often are closely aligned to a group of supporters of the PCP that continue to defend Chairman Gonzalo, harbour utopic delusions about the protracted people’s war in Peru, and emphasise the need for Maoist formations to recognise that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an insufficient formulation and should recognise “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism”. Indeed, this ridiculous latter charge about “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism” demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about Maoism.

Finally, I have to say that this latest open letter does great disservice to the revolutionary movement of Afghanistan as it clarifies nothing about the balance of forces in Afghanistan, and instead simply muddies the waters even further. Indeed, most Leftists around the world unfortunately know little about the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan as it as, are further burdened with prejudices against Maoism and revolutionary movements that are Maoist in nature, and all this letter does is to make the revolutionary movement in Afghanistan sound completely surreal or out-there, and marginalised. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that this online organisation does not attack the Afghanistan Liberation Organisation or RAWA (its women’s front), which are actually revisionist organisations and are accomplices in the American-lackey regime. I really hope that the Maoist Communist Party of Manipur will distance itself from such online entities.

Letter of the Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist) To Proletarian Party of East Bengal (Maoist Unity Group) [Bangladesh]

Hello Dear Comrades,

Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist) is the vanguard of the proletariat and other oppressed of Afghanistan. We are fighting for the cause of Communism. We Believe that: Only Maoism May Assume The Command of The World Revolution. So, The New Democratic Revolution of Afghanistan is part of the world proletarian revolution.

We are very unhappily by seeing that: today there is no Maoist world center. Once RIM seemed to fulfill such a base. But wrong line of RIM, especially its undermining of the works of Chairman Gonzalo, deviated this organization from the line of Maoism, and lead it towards Avakianist opportunist line. 
We strongly believe that: only Maoism may lead the oppressed people of the world to victory.


In Afghanistan, the US imperialism and her Co. imperialist and hegemonist united forces, have destroyed every thing. They have invaded our country and have suppressed the people of our country. Everyday they commit new crimes. They kill the people. they rape young girls and boys. they put on fire our villagers, and finally they have brought slavery for all our society. Only the unity of the proletariat and other oppressed classes may bring the ability of building an independent strong Afghanistan by breaking down the invaders. Only New Democracy can save us.


So, the unity of Afghan Maoists is the key to build a strong Communist party based on Maoism. unfortunately, the Maoist forces of Afghanistan are still scattered, and they still lack a central unity point. This mainly comes from the domination of Centrism and Avakianism among the major section of Maoists. Our organization is the first and the only organization in Afghanistan which bases itself in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Principally Maoism. We believe on concentric construction of the three magic tools of revolution. We believe on ” Peoples’ War until Communism”. We are on building a new organization up on thesis of Chairman Gonzalo: A militarized Maoist organization that be able to fulfill the peoples’ war. We strong emphasize in: People make the history, the party leads.

We found you in internet, and too we found the Communist Maoist party of Manipur. We are interested to both organizations, because, we have the same international line which come from principality of Maoism as Command of World Revolution. Today, in Afghanistan, centrist parties and organizations claiming to be Maoists, are denying the People’s war until communism. For example. Communist Maoist party of Afghanistan, which is an ex-Avakianist party, still denies chairman Gonzalo’s achievements. It still denies “Thought” to be a Maoist one. “Afghanistan Maoists” is another group which argues to be a Maoist one, but it has a diversity and enmity with chairman Gonzalo and Principality of Maoism. They reject Principality of Maoism and our organization. They reject us because they claim that principality of Maoism is not true. Nevertheless, our organization, however alone, is fighting and leading a two lines struggle. We are fighting for communism, so We Uphold, Defend and will apply Maoism. misfortunately there are still a few organizations in the world based on revolutionary Maoism. Only Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism can save as in a sound and strong two lines struggle. Centrists and other opportunists are hiding behind their so-called “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” to fight against principality of Maoism. They still recognize and prefer “Mao-Tse-Tung thought” based organizations and parties, but they fail to recognize the historical importance of communist party of Peru and its achievements. They still fail to recognize Chairman Gonzalo, and some of them like “Afghanistan Maoists” assume him as non-Maoist. We uphold, defend and apply Maoism, so we do have to defend chairman Gonzalo and his all powerful thought as an international issue of a great importance for world proletariat.

We keep in contact with you because, we want to have close relation with you. We have the same true stands, and that is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism. 
Our web address is: 
www.proletar.blogfa.com 
our email is: chap_af@yahoo.com 
still our materials in our website is in Persian. We seek to find the opportunity to translate some materials in English, and we will send them to you.

With Communist internationalist regards 
Long Life Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism

Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan 
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist

Book Review: Jose Maria Sison’s “Philippine Society and Revolution”

I, like most Maoists, have been following with interest the developments in the revolutionary movement in the Philippines for the last few years. However, despite my interest in the Filipino movement and the fact that I had read numerous statements from different organisations affiliated to the National Democratic movement, their ideological leader and Chairman of the International League of People’s Struggles, Jose Maria Sison, and the documents of the Second Great Rectification movement that was launched in 1992 inside the CPP (I have briefly discussed the debates surround the Second Rectification movement here), I had not read Jose Maria Sison/Amado Guerrero’s Marxist-Leninist classic, Philippine Society and Revolution. There were several reasons for this blind-spot in my knowledge of the Filipino movement: 1) finding copies of Philippine Society and Revolution proved to be more difficult than I had imagined insofar that few affordable second-hand copies were available, there had not been a re-printing of the book since 1996 (and thus I had to wait for the 2006 edition), and the only website from which one could purchase a new copy was based in the Philippines; 2) after I had finally procured a copy of the book (which I was really excited about) did not find the time to read it and; 3) I found it to be quite dull (I feel very differently about the book this time, however till now this has been my experience with it). However, I recently did sit down to read the book and felt very differently about the book. Indeed, I really enjoyed reading the book.

I would like to briefly explain the impetus for reading the book. I took the time to read it because I intended to attend a seminar on it that was being held in the Netherlands. This time I found it to be much more interesting, partially I am sure because of the context of the seminar, however, it was simply not such a narrow reason. I think its because I started to read the book with a very different relationship to the book. Previously I simply wanted to read the book because it was a Marxist-Leninist classic and written by a key Maoist intellectual. However, this time I also asked the following questions: Why read a Marxist-Leninist book about the Philippines? And that too a book that was written in 1969? I developed several reasons for this:

1) Philippine Society and Revolution is a very good example of an attempt to actually apply Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, or in its more contemporaneous and renovated form, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to actually analyze the social structure of a given country i.e. the Philippines. Please, permit an aside and to briefly explain a few of the terms I just used above: a social structure is composed of both, the superstructure – which is itself is constituted by competing different ideological formations, the juridical and political structure of the society etc. – whilst the base is composed of the relations of production and social relations, and recognizes that in a given structure that there could exist a single of multiple mode of productions. In the case of the Philippines, Sison demonstrates that there simultaneously exist two modes of production, one in the urban centers which is characterised by largely capitalist relations of production and social relations, although there feudal remnants persist, and in the rural countryside a feudal structure, which of course has some nascent capitalist forms of productions and social relationships. He characterizes this social structure as semi-feudal semi-colonial. One can see other examples of such works that have been produced such as the works of Chairman Mao Zedong and other leading members of the Communist Party of China in the case of China; the documents of the erstwhile unified Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), and its successor the Communist Party of India (Maoist); and the work of Dr. Baburam Bhattari of Nepal entitled, “Politico-Economic Rationale for People’s War in Nepal” (which has not been translated although a shortened version of it is available). Unfortunately similarly intensive and developed work does not exist for Canada or France, although preliminary analyses do exist, thus Philippine Society and Revolution does serve as an example of how such an analysis may be done and definitely provokes comrade to produce similar work for their own countries.

2) Many of us who are abroad and have been keenly watching the development of the revolutionary movement in the Philippines for many years, and may have read many of the statements, presentations and interviews that Professor Sison, the NDFP and the CPP have released. However, fewer of us may have taken the opportunity to read carefully a key text in the Filipino people’s struggle for national democracy and people’s democracy. But, it is only with reading Philippine Society and Revolution is the revolutionary movement laid bare for all to see, and can only come to actually comprehend the reasons be behind the specific goals and tasks of the revolutionary movement. Indeed, it becomes clear that the tasks and strategy of the Philippines revolution, led by the CPP, do not simply appear out of nowhere, but rather emerge out of the very material conditions of Filipino society and political economy. Thus, the book serves as a powerful ideological weapon against petit-bourgeois impatience and adventurism, revisionism and bourgeois idealism.

I definitely have some criticisms of the book and agree with some that the book needs to be re-written to reflect the conditions of the Philippines today, especially in light of the collapse of the USSR, the development of capitalism in the PRC, and the rise of the USA as a sole super-power. I recognise that Sison has provided revisions and addendum’s to Philippine Society and Revolution in a variety of articles and a course of 10 lectures entitled, Philippine Crisis and Revolution (which have been published in Philippine Economy and Politics), but continue to think that since Philippine Society and Revolution is meant to be a central document of the Philippine Revolution it should reflect the new realities in which Philippines society finds itself. However, I think that there are six major sections of the book that need to be further developed including: 1) a more careful analysis of the role of the Filipino bureaucracy which according to Sison is simply a representative of the comprador bourgeoisie and the landlord classes, and does not have its own class interests; 2) the autonomy of the comprador bourgeoisie which according to Sison largely does not exist as the Philippine comprador bourgeoisie are simply puppets of the American government; 3) a more thorough and clear articulation as to why Philippine society continues to be semi-feudal inasmuch that Sison himself admits thats a greater percentage of the agricultural workforce are actually agrarian workers rather, than feudal serfs (a similar critique has been made to the Indians); 4) the book itself does not provide a very good account of the line struggles within the CPP that lead to its rectification in 1962 and thus at different points the narrative is rather confusing and contradictory; 5) the section on women is incredibly weak  and does not reflect the real difficulties in developing a feminist proletarian society and; 6) it seems like Sison uses the word “fascist” to describe brutal police actions against the population, and does not have a rigorous understanding of fascism itself.

Overall I strongly recommend people read this book, however, I would suggest reading it in the context of a study group whilst thinking about how you could use it to understand your own conjuncture inasmuch that it serve as a useful model of how to do such analysis.

Matrika Yadav’s Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) Splits

In 2009 Matrika Yadav, a firebrand leader of the UCPN(Maoist) (at the time it was simply called the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)), split from the party. He cited the decision of the Maoist-led government at the time to return lands captured to their original owners as his reason. Yadav made it clear at the time that he felt that the decision to end the people’s war had been a wrong one and that the party had effectively ceased to be a revolutionary party, although the majority of its rank-and-file continued to be honest revolutionaries who had been misled by a revisionist leadership. Many comrades inside the UCPN(Maoist) were sympathetic to Yadav’s concerns, but felt that the timing was inappropriate as a number of other key leaders in the party’s Left faction had not opted to split as well and there was still a fair amount of confusion regarding the direction that the party was headed in.

In the past I have suggested that one possibility in the future could be that the revolutionary left of the UCPN(Maoist) could split from that party and merge with some of the other dissident factions that have left the party in the last few years, including Matrika Yadav’s Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Mani Thapa’s Revolutionary Communist Party (Nepal). Yadav, Thapa and several other factions have been coordinating political actions for the last few years against the government and the UCPN(Maoist), however, due to Yadav’s sectarianism had been unable to merge to form a single party of any meaningful capacity (Yadav argued that he did not trust many in the Thapa-led party because he felt that they were dishonest elements who had split from the UCPN(Maoist) on questionable grounds). Unfortunately, in the last few days there has been a sudden split within Matrika Yadav’s Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) with two factions effectively expelling the other faction. This split renders the possibility of any merger between the Left faction of the UCPN(Maoist) and these Yadav’s forces inconsequential to say the least. Indeed, both factions have accused one another of ideological deviations, a boilerplate denunciation in such situations, and of financial and moral misconduct. It is unclear how large any of the factions are, and which has subsequently become the larger faction of the two, however, it is clear that Yadav’s marginal party has simply become even more marginal.

These developments are unfortunate as it seems that building a consolidated Left-Maoist revolutionary pole, capable of completing the ideological, organisation and political tasks, is becoming increasingly difficult and that the pole is in fact fracturing into a series of minor sects, much like the Maoist movement in Nepal did in the 80′s and 90′s. Furthermore, all of these splits do not seem to be grounded in any kind of ideological developments or differences, but rather around the personalities of some key leaders and their incapacity to work together in some form of coordinated manner. Indeed, I do not think that it would be premature to say that with this split Yadav and his Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have similarly been consigned to the same dustbin of history as others like Mohan Bikram Singh have. This does not mean to suggest that Yadav has no future in the revolutionary movement, but it means to suggest that he has become an increasingly minor and impotent leader whose reputation has been thoroughly dragged through the mud, and has not demonstrated the kind of political maturity that is needed to lead the revolutionary movement in Nepal at this critical crossroads.

Matrika-led Maoist party splits

KATHMANDU, Sept 22: The CPN (Maoist) led by Matrika Yadav formally split on Thursday, with party Spokesperson Bharat Dahal, accompanied by a few central committee members, declaring eviction of Yadav from the party.

At a press meet held in Kathmandu, Dahal accused Matrika of being “anarchic and opportunist” and launching an “extortion drive” across the country, and declared that he and Dilip Yadav, another faction in the party, joined hands to evict Matrika from the party.

“The two factions reached an agreement to evict Matrika and his aides from the party,” said Dahal.

According to Dahal, Dilip Yadav is making preparations to join the UCPN (Maoist).

Earlier, Matrika had suspended Dahal for six months, accusing the latter of being involved in “factionalism” and “raising donation for personal purposes”.

The United People´s Front led by Dahal had merged with Matrika´s party last December.

While Matrika claimed that Dahal did not attend the CC meeting held in Saptari last Sunday and Monday, the later countered that he was not invited there, and the decision to sack him was taken by a minority vote.

Both Dahal and Yadav are former Maoist leaders who quit the party accusing Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal of “ideological deviation” and moral impropriety.

Matrika’s party on verge of split

KATHMANDU, Sept 20: The CPN (Maoist) led by Matrika Yadav is on the verge of split after Yadav suspended party spokesperson Bharat Dahal on Tuesday.

Issuing a press statement, Yadav said the party has suspended Dahal for six months, accusing the latter of being involved in factionalism and raising “donation for personal purposes”.

United People´s Front led by Dahal had merged with that of Matrika´s last December.

Both Dahal and Yadav are former Maoist leaders who quit the party accusing Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal of ideological deviation and moral impropriety.

Talking to Republica, Dahal, however, claimed that the decision was taken by a minority vote of the party´s ad hoc central committee (CC) and termed it null and void.

“He himself is involved in financial irregularities and anarchism,” Dahal said.

While Matrika claimed that Dahal did not attend the CC meeting held in Saptari last Sunday and Monday, the later countered that he was not invited there.

Dahal said he would hold a press meet in a day or two to make public his stance.

According to Dahal, his faction and another faction led by Dilip Sah had demanded the party´s national gathering to deliberate Yadav´s “anarchism” but Yadav instead chose to sack him.

On Dr. Baburam Bhattarai

Dr. Baburam Bhattarai spoke this this past week at the New School in New York, as well as the UN General Assembly. I have provided the videos for those lectures below as I think that they are very interesting and clearly demarcate and demonstrate the direction in which Dr. Bhattarai would like to take his government. However, I do not wish to speak about Dr. Baburam Bhattarai’s politics for they are well-known to all, and I have already made it abundantly clear that I disagree with him on a number of key issues, rather I wish to speak about Dr. Bhattarai, his wife and comrade Hisila Yami, and their daughter Manushi. I have had the honour of meeting and having spent time with all three of them, and had the great honour of introducing Hisila Yami in a programme in Canada. Indeed, some of my most cherished moments have been my discussions with Hisila Yami and Manushi about Nepalese politics, and both, despite their busy schedules have been more than gracious with their time.

I was recently asked why I have always favoured a Kiran-Bhattarai led party despite the fact that it is clear that Dr. Bhattarai’s politics are not the same as one that I believe will actually lead to the Nepalese revolution and to communism. I was asked why I would want to have a person who would be considered the archetype reformist by all who have paid any attention to Nepalese politics in the last 30 years to continue to be an influential member of any future revolutionary party. Indeed, I have been mocked by some on the Left like the Maoist-Third Worldist organisation Leading Light Communist Organization for advocating such an alliance. People are puzzled why I find disparaging remarks about him to be distasteful and unacceptable. And I can say that I with great clarity that the reason is simple: Dr. Bhattarai is one of the most honest, humble, intelligent, hard-working and subtle minds that the communist movement has produced in the last 50 years, and that nearly all of those who disparage him are simply not cut of the same clothe as him. Indeed, despite the fact that he has a reformist position I think that he has forced the party to develop better strategies and theoretical documents than it may have done otherwise. His work, “The Politico-Economic Rationale” remains one of the best articulations for the need for a people’s war in Nepal, and only has one volume worth comparison, Mohan Baidya’s “The Philosophy of Struggle” (which has yet to be translated but is in the process of being translated and published in English). Indeed, Comrade Mao said that two-line struggle was inevitable, so then why would we not clearly identify the rightist line and ensure that it is represented by one of the most intelligent comrades in the world today as to force the leftist line to become better comrades with more thorough theoretical and organisational solutions? Furthermore, I believe that Hisila Yami, despite my differences with her politics as well regarding the two-line struggle, except on the question of women on the party which she is 100% correct about (an issue that was much discussed with great fanfare by an international communist movement dominated by men, but has been largely subsequently dropped), also enjoys these traits, as does their daughter Manushi. In fact, both Hisila Yami and Manushi have tirelessly worked in Dr. Bhattarai’s shadow and have done so because of their dedication to the improvement of the Nepalese people’s lives. Whereas many other leaders of the UCPN(Maoist) have taken the reformist path due to the allure of riches and power, Dr. Bhattarai, Hisila Yami and Manushi have taken this path because they firmly believe that this will deliver the best possibilities to the Nepalese people at this current conjuncture. Unlike many other comrades’ children Manushi has worked her way up from the very bottom of the party and has risen up the ranks due to her own hard work. She is well-known in Nepal for leaving Kathmandu for days at a time and going into villages to investigate the conditions of the everyday Nepalese peasant and worker. This is especially remarkable in a time when many comrades have ceased to even go to the villages and areas that they are supposed to represent.

I have consistently argued that the Left faction of the party has to clearly articulate, as Dr. Bhattarai has and continues to do as evidenced in the below video clips, their vision of how to build a better Nepalese society within the restraints of the current conjuncture. Without doing so they can easily fall into a form of Left opportunism. Indeed, the Left faction of the party needs to present to the masses a strategic and philosophical document that measures up to Dr. Bhattarai’s “Politico-Economic Rationale for People’s War” and Mohan Badiya’s “The Philosophy of Struggle” for the current conjuncture. Dr. Bhattarai in a number of interviews, speeches (like those below), his tenure in the Chairman Dahal-led government and through the constitution-writing process a vision of Nepal has clearly demonstrated to the people of Nepal how he would take the country forward and has found support amongst some sections of the masses. Indeed, even in rural villages where the desire for a proper revolutionary process burns bright, the village comrades cannot but help point to social works projects, like hospitals, that Dr. Bhattarai has helped ensure were built. Comrades, despite their faction, cannot but admit that Hisila Yami has been one of the strongest voices for women in Nepalese society in general, and within the party as well, and has helped put into law a number of key provisions that have directly benefitted women and children. It is awfully easy to criticise comrades for their failings or theoretical shortcomings, but it is far more difficult to actually articulate a vision. This is something that continues to elude the Left faction.

I wish I could say that I was sympathetic to Dr. Bhattarai’s line. Indeed, I think I would have been a much happier person because Dr. Bhattarai cannot but help inspire people. However, I cant. I don’t think that the people of Nepal should have to wait another two generations, as Dr. Bhattarai has suggested, to make their revolution and firmly believe that there must be another way forward. However, I think that it will take an intellect like Dr. Bhattarai to do so. Mohan Baidya in the last three decades has often served as that intellect and has been able to produce documents for the Left that have been able to propel it forward. When Mohan Baidya split the Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) Dr. Bhattarai was on the wrong side of history and stayed at the side of Mohan Bikram Singh. The time has come again for Mohan Baidya and C.P Gajural, the leaders at the helm of the Left faction, to prove once again that they are Dr. Bhattarai’s intellectual equals. If they are not up to the task then they must step aside and make way for a new leader who is. It does not negate their previous roles, nor does it preclude them from playing an important role in the future, but it does mean that they will have to take lesser roles. However, I know that they are not such insecure men to not allow that to be the case. Indeed, it was this very Mohan Badiya who in 1986, due to the Sector Incident, who relinquished his role as Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) and allowed Chairman Dahal to take the role that he has become so famous for. Chairman Dahal was never known for his ideological capacity, but rather for his capacity to synthesise the documents of Mohan Baidya and Dr. Bhattarai and push the party forwards with organisational unity. However, it has become obvious to all and sundry that he is no longer capable of fulfilling that role and has become just another Nepalese politician, that he simply continues to bask in the light of previous glories and the fact that he has not had to deal with a serious revolt against his leadership since 1986. Whether one likes him or one despises him, Dr. Bhattarai is an intellectual force to be reckoned with and till date, despite that he has the smallest faction out of the three, has been the one who has firmly established the political programme and direction of the UCPN(Maoist) since 2005. If the Left is to have any chance of creating a new revolutionary process they had better best him, otherwise they risk being swept into the dustbin of history like so many other notable Nepalese communist leaders.

‘I like to identify myself as a radical democrat’

The following extract is based on interviews with Dr Baburam Bhattarai, Hisila Yami, and Manushi Bhattarai and is a part of an introductory chapter on Baburam Bhattarai from a draft manuscript by authors Bhojraj Pokharel and Shrishti Rana to be published as a book on Nepal’s peace process and Constituent Assembly elections.

The authors target to bring some untold and inside stories as well as hard realities and complexities of transition.

The Week brings you an exclusive sneak peek.

Baburam Bhattarai, who would later become a key actor in abolishing the all-powerful monarchy in Nepal, was born poor.

The Bhattarais stayed in the remote backward village of Belbase, Gorkha district. Though down-and-out, the family had seen better daysmany generations ago.

They belong to the priestly class family which helped to install the same Shah dynasty, which Baburam so bitterly opposed, some five centuries ago.

Within a few days of the tragic death of her eldest son who was just four, Dharma Kumari gave birth to a tiny light-brown complexioned baby boy with black gimlet eyes on June 18, 1954. An astrologer predicted that her newborn son would bring much fame to the family.

They promptly named him ‘Ram’ after a Hindu God yet his mother lovingly called him ‘babu’. That’s how he became Babu Ram.

Though illiterate and oppressed like other Belbase women, his mother had instinctive leadership. In Belbase, the poor and dalits approached her with their problems.

That’s how her son developed sensitivity towards injustice. She was his first and undying source of inspiration. But his father Bhoj Prasad was entirely opposite.

Introverted. Indifferent. Impassive. Baburam’s personality combined their characteristics in varying degrees. He had his mother’s rebelliousness and his father’s gentleness.

When he was barely seven, a relative came to Baburam’s home. This relative, Krishna Prasad, was a Congress Party activist hiding after King Mahendra’s power seizure in 1960. Krishna Prasad would sit inside their mud-house the whole day scribbling endlessly on scraps of paper.

A seven-year-old boy who had just started to read could not contain his inquisitiveness and would read all that had been written down. It was all against the King of Nepal.

That experience somehow convinced Baburam that the King was a bad person. That was how the first seed of republicanism was sown in his mind.

Baburam was rather attached to his mother but she could hardly spend time with him. She had to toil day and night in the parched fields just to eke out a living.

Life in the hill villages in one of the poorest countries was hard. Baburam’s life would have followed the same pattern had it not been for the magic wand of education he got to break through Belbase’s pastoral drudgery.

In 1963, the United Mission to Nepal established Amar Jyoti School in his village. It gave that nine-year-old peasant’s son an opportunity to get formal education which was then limited only to the urban elite.

A reserved boy, he enjoyed solitary studying. His mother encouraged him; she willingly sold off the property given to her by her father to pay for his education. Baburam’s favorite area of knowledge was science.

His interest in natural science and space science grew over time and he wanted to be like Stephen Hawkins or Einstein.

At sixteen, he drew public attention by being the first boy ever from the rural areas to gain the first position in the SLC examination.

His simple-minded father thought that the prediction made by the astrologer earlier about Baburam becoming famous one day had come true.

This success also gave him the chance to meet the royal who would later become the cause of his first jail sentence in life. Crown Prince Birendra personally gave awards to those students who got the highest marks in his favorite subject – Geography – in the SLC. A mere teenager, Baburam was curious about this meeting.

His impression at the end of the brief encounter was: “the Crown Prince was a decent person though the palace was not as grand as I had thought.” The event did nothing, nevertheless, to tone down his hostile childhood feelings for the monarchy.

Further studies brought him to Kathmandu. While pursuing an Intermediate in Science (ISc) from Amrit Science College, he got involved in various student activities.

After finishing his ISC, he chose to study engineering instead of medicine, a subject in great demand, because of his fascination with mathematics.

Bright that he was, he was awarded with the Colombo Plan for studying at Chandigarh Engineering College (CEC), Punjab. In the library of that college, he came across a name tied to a story so inspirational that it completely changed his life.

A wannabe Einstein got transformed into a revolutionary after reading that biographical book. It was just a matter of time before the whole of the Kingdom of Nepal and then most of South Asia would hear about him.

He even began to imagine how similar their lives were though the countries they came from were thousands of miles apart. After reading that book, he vowed to himself to devote his own life to the socio-economic transformation of the Nepali society like the young and revolutionary hero of that tragic epic.

A total metamorphosis as Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara’s life story transmuted the shy scholar into an unreserved rebel.

Not long after this, the bright alumnus of CEC turned into a full-blown political activist. He became the founder president of the All India Nepalese Student Association (AINSA) in 1977.

The AINSA helped him to befriend both prominent Nepalese and Indian leaders like BP Koirala, GP Koirala, Rishikesh Shaha, Sharad Yadav, Karan Singh, and Chandra Shekhar. Baburam respected BP Koirala greatly.

In his words, “B.P. was the only Nepalese leader who really impressed me. BP was quite fond of me too. I would have, may be, joined the NC due to BP’s charismatic leadership had it not been for his policy of national reconciliation. I was so sure that the monarchy needed to be abolished for any modernization in Nepal, any compromise with the King was just not acceptable to me. So after BP called for reconciliation with the King, I steadily drifted towards communism. Till then I liked to identify myself as a radical democrat.”

In 1977, Baburam joined the School of Planning and Architecture in Delhi. As an outstanding student, he frequently got invited by his Indian friends to their homes.

These were mostly well-off Delhites whose apartments were looked after by Nepalese servants. It broke his heart to see his fellow countrymen working for survival in a foreign land; he felt that the love and honor he was getting from his friends was meaningless when his own people were menials – the actually exploited underclass he’d read about – in those very grand habitations.

It made him more of a radical. In 1980, he waved a black flag at King Birendra on a visit to Delhi and got arrested (though freed later).

In 1981, Baburam joined Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) “purely to pick up politics.” The same year he enrolled as a member of the Communist Party of Nepal.

At JNU, he studied Marxism and wrote a thesis, The Nature of Underdevelopment and Regional Structure in Nepal – a product of his own study.

*

While in JNU, Baburam also got married. It was in the mess of the Architecture School, where he had met his future wife, Hisila Yami, when she was just seventeen years with longer black hair.

She had enthusiastically extended her hand and said, “Hello! I’m Hisila Yami.” Belonging to a traditional Newar family, she did not know the Nepali language too well; so she spoke in English.

Yami was an unusual Nepalese surname. The sharp Baburam quickly remembered coming across that surname in a book mentioning a Dharma Ratna Yami.

Unable to stop himself, he asked her, “Are you a daughter of Dharma Ratna Yami?” Hisila nodded, appearing astonished. It was not love at first sight; such a “frivolity” was not possible for a wanting-to-be-a-celibate Baburam. They became friends first.

Hisila was full of youthful energy and enjoyed her life. Her passions were dance, music, and sports. Baburam was almost the opposite. His philosophy in life was not to enjoy it but to make it meaningful. Despite these personality differences, they came to spend a lot of time together.

As Hisila had grown up in India, she did not know much about Nepal’s history and politics at that time. Baburam taught her about politics, including her own father’s aborted political struggle and Nepalese history in general of which she was completely unaware.

That was how the duo fell in love while discussing politics. Somehow it took them a long time to realize it. By educating Hisila, Baburam expected her to work towards transforming the Nepalese society, but she was destined to transform his life first.

When Baburam left Architecture School where his junior Hisila was still studying, his life took an unexpected turn.

He started yearning for Hisila, missing her terribly. The only way to end his mental turmoil was by giving up his goal of celibacy. Young and outgoing Hisila had been the heartthrob of many boys then, both Indian and Nepalese, receiving numerous proposals of marriage.

When Baburam proposed to her, she gladly accepted, magnetized by his “seriousness.” In her words, “He was so intense, so completely different than me, I couldn’t help liking him.”

In 1983, Baburam met with a serious accident. Worried about his recovery, Hisila wanted to nurse her injured partner. It was not easy in intrusive South Asian society. At that time, she was the general secretary of AINSA.

It was sure to set off rumors. To avoid any scandal, they decided to get married in a low-key wedding. Despite belonging to different backgrounds, their marriage was unopposed. Baburam’s mother was rather happy that her “bairagi” son had finally settled down. Soon, Hisila became his strength.

She was loving, though the loss of both her parents at an early age had made her tough. She loved dancing and would dance whenever she got an opportunity – even on her own! Even while she was imprisoned during the democratic movement in 1990, she entertained her jail-mates by dancing for them. She also gave this leader joy in his life – his family.

Baburam had always dreamt of having a daughter due to his sensitivity towards women in general. His dream came true when Hisila gave birth to their daughter.

They named her after a radical feminist magazine that Hisila was associated with – Manushi – meaning “a dignified woman,” While politics kept Baburam busy, Hisila single-handedly ensured that their only child was brought up well.

Baburam greatly enjoyed going on vacations with his small family, watch “meaningful movies,” and discuss his political philosophy with them whenever possible. Baburam was proud that his daughter had grown up to be a sensible person. Its credit belonged to his dear wife.
*
In 1990, Baburam joined the Prachanda-led Unity Centre Party and was elected as its politburo member.

As this party was dissatisfied with the compromise between the King and the non-radical political parties, it passed a resolution to prepare “objective and political condition” for establishing “the People’s Republic.”

Baburam was made the Convener of its political front, the United People’s Front Nepal (UPFN). Under his leadership, the UPFN participated in the General Elections in 1991 and managed to become the third largest party in the Parliament.

Post-elections, the UPFN launched several protests against the elected government, demanding a range of socio-economic reforms, and conducted social activities to attract the general people.

As the government suppressed their movement instead of heeding to even their legitimate demands, it became easier for the UPFN to launch their planned People’s War in 1996. Baburam was one of the chief architects of the People’s War.

His clever strategies combined well with Prachanda’s fine organizational skills. By the age of 50, Baburam Bhattarai had established himself as one of the most powerful leaders of the CPN-Maoist at war with the Nepalese state. He would settle for nothing less than the full restructuring of Nepal.

His mission had become a grave threat to the very institution of a monarchy that had the accumulated strength of twelve divine Hindu monarchs.

Rift Inside the UCPN(Maoist) Deepens

In the last few days there have been regular political programmes held by the Baidya faction of the UCPN(Maoist) and this has ruffled the establishment faction, especially with sharpening rhetoric about the nature of the party and the direction that it is headed in. On a series of key political issues like the 4 point agreement made with the Madheshi parties to ensure Baburam Bhattarai’s Prime Ministerial post (which now Vice-President Mohan Baidya claims was kept secret from him and other top leaders), the handover of the keys to the PLA’s arms in the cantonments, the rumoured relations between Chairman Dahal and Indian secret services (which would in fact would be a very dangerous turn of events for the revolutionary Left not only in Nepal but also India and Bhutan), and the planned return of properties seized during the people’s war, the left-wing faction of the UCPN(Maoist) has staked out clear political positions that are in opposition to that of the establishment faction. Indeed, it is possible that in the process of holding their national programmes and talking to cadres about recent developments in the party and its path forward that the party that the Left will be establish greater ideological clarity for itself on a more comprehensive strategic and programmatic level, and establish a clear revolutionary alternative to the one that is being currently offered by the party establishment.

Disturbingly all of this suggests that the establishment faction has been the active agent in Nepalese politics, whereas the Left faction has been reduced to being solely reactive. I understand why Vice-President Baidya needs to insist that they will only challenge the establishment faction ideologically for the time being, as otherwise it would play neatly into the hands of the establishment faction that the Left faction is actually acting in an anarchic manner and is not simply just airing its views which is permitted under party rules (although it is clear that the establishment faction is also trying to shut down the Left faction’s capacity to address the party rank-and-file which means to suggest that think that there may be popular support for the Left’s political positions, and that the rank-and-file is not completely amenable to these decisions). However, it simultaneously means that the Left faction is no longer playing a key role in establishing the nature of the agenda on the basis of which this ideological struggle is waged. Furthermore, worryingly, if we are to take Vice-President Mohan Baidya’s comments seriously that he and the rest of the leadership had no knowledge about the 4 point deal with the Madheshi parties prior to the deal being signed, much in the same manner that they were not privy to the deal to handover the keys to the cantonments, it strongly implies that a) that effectively here has been the development of a leadership circle within the leadership of the party which has a black box status, in effect a parallel headquarters that is no longer accountable to the formal structures of the party like the politburo; b) that the Left faction of the party is so organisationally weak within the party that they are unable to gather time-sensitive information about inner-party activities and major decisions which they should have knowledge of in real-time of and; c) that the Left faction is so organisationally weak that they are having circles run around them by the establishment faction which says little positive about their leadership capacity.

However, it is welcome to see a Left faction that is willing to take sharper and sharper positions against the establishment faction, although I believe that the Left continues to trail the establishment faction and is going to have to mature its own political positions at a faster pace than has been the case thus far. Furthermore, I think that the Left faction has to clearly demarcate a revolutionary programme that offers sharp relief to the positions of the establishment faction and actually start to establish the agenda for the ideological struggle, and thus go on the ideological offensive rather than simply responding to the decisions of the establishment faction. And Vice-President Mohan Baidya needs to seriously consider using the power that was invested in him, when the part decentralised power from Chairman Dahal, as head the disciplinary panel of the party and launch disciplinary investigations against Chairman Dahal and Vice-President Baburam Bhattarai for possibly colluding with Indian secret services and violating party statuettes about decision-making processes. I do not think that an enfeebled Left faction, unable to do much besides complain about its own predicament, is an attractive option for the majority of rank-and-file comrades. They may share the Left factions distaste for recent developments within the party, but are unlikely to take its leadership unless they feel confident that the Left faction is actually capable of taking on the establishment faction and winning. I have often heard Trotskyists from around the world complain about the slaughter of the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement at the hands of Ho Chi Minh and his party, and I do not want to debate here whether it was a correct thing to do or not, but rather want to state a position of realpolitik: if the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement could not survive the onslaught of Ho Chi Minh and his party then they definitely were not up to the task of taking on the Americans in a prolonged guerrilla war. If the Left faction of the UCPN(Maoist) is not capable of clearly establishing and demonstrating its leadership in the current situation (which is a lot safer than relaunching the people’s war or an urban insurrection), and that includes building the necessary internal structures within the party to gather sensitive information on a real-time basis in order to win the inner-party ideological struggle, then it has no chance of winning a revolution and should just admit that they have been bested by politicians better than themselves, and call it a day.

Chand to block return of seized properties

KATHMANDU, Sept 26: UCPN (Maoist) Standing Committee Member Netra Bikram Chand, who is close to Senior Vice-Chairman Mohan Baidya, has threatened to block the government bid to return properties seized by the Maoists during the conflict.

Addressing a function in Kathmandu on Sunday, Chand announced that he would go to the places where the government will deploy police to return the seized properties and obstruct the police.

“Wherever Baburam [the prime minister] sends police, I will be there. We will see how the police will fire at us,” a participant in the closed-door meeting quoted Chand as saying.

Chand also accused Bhattarai of forgetting the circumstances in which he became the prime minister, a reference to the Dhobighat meeting based on which Bhattarai became prime minister.

The meeting had brought together Vice-chairmen Baidya, Bhattarai, Narayankaji Shrestha and General Secretary Ram Bahadur Badal, which apparently prepared ground for Bhattarai´s election as prime minister.

“He should not forget the ladder that he used to climb up to be the position of prime minister. If he throws the same ladder, how will he ever come down? If he tries to jump down, he will end up breaking his limbs,” the source further quoted Chand as saying during the function.

Similarly, addressing the same function General Secretary Thapa informed that he would table new agendas for discussion–whether Marxism or Buddhism should be the party´s ideology or whether the party should side with bourgeoisies or suppressed group.

Thapa´s remark was an allusion to the fact that party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is a co-chairman of Asia Pacific Exchange Cooperation Foundation that recently floated a plan to develop Lumbini, the birth place of Gautam Buddha.

“The central committee meeting should come up with the party´s work plan and decide on its ideology,” another participant quoted Thapa as saying. Thapa also accused Chairman Dahal of trying to split the party.

“He went Siliguri [India] without informing the party and met with RAW [Indian intelligence] and other persons. He handed over the keys of arms containers without discussing the matter within the party and signed a four-point deal with the Madhes-based parties without informing the party,” he said.

Nepal Maoists Dahal-Bhattarai panel to penalize Mohan Baidya team: Report

The panel led by Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattarai has served stern warning to the rival camp led by senior vice chairman Mohan Baidya Kiran.

The party will take strong disciplinary action if the Kiran section did not stop its erratic activities, says Agni Sapkota of the Dahal panel.

Fractured party.

“Their activities are against the party line and tantamount to anarchism”, Sapkota adds, “If they do not apologize for their unruly acts the party will take the necessary disciplinary actions.”

The Baidya panel had organized a national level meeting of the likeminded leaders in Kathmandu, September 21, 2011 and had heavily criticized the Dahal-Bhattarai panel for singing the ‘anti-national’ power sharing deal with the Madhesi Front.

On the other hand, C.P. Gajurel of Baidya panel is of the view that the separate meeting held by his panel was not against the party discipline.

“When they hold similar meetings it is compatible to party line whereas when we do it required disciplinary action. Isn’t it illogical”, he questions.

Rift widening inside the Maoists party. Heavy toll likely.

Baidya faction holds national gathering

Kiran Pun

KATHMANDU, Sept 22: In a show of strength, the Maoist hard-line faction held a massive gathering of the party leaders and cadres in Kathmandu on Wednesday to sensitize them about the “ideological deviations” of the party leadership and work out a strategy to save the “revolutionary” character of the party.

Over 250 representatives, including district secretaries from all the 75 districts, party´s various sister wings, and party´s foreign branches participated in the gathering at Krishna Bhog Party Palace in New Baneshwar.

Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa, and standing committee member Dev Gurung delivered firebrand speeches at the gathering, while party Secretary CP Gajurel was the master of ceremony.

Baidya argued that his faction has already launched a struggle against compromises made by the party establishment on the basic principles of Maoism.

“We should counter them [party establishment] ideologically for now, and our future course depends on the moves of the party establishment,” a participant quoted Baidya as saying.

Baidya, who leads the party hard-line faction, argued that there is nothing like a majority or minority when it comes to issues of revolution.

“They have already enmeshed the party into dirty parliamentary politics,” the participant quoted Baidya. The party establishment has been saying that they have a comfortable majority in the party central committee to get their decisions endorsed.

According to the participants, Baidya also stated that he made a mistake during the insurgency by supporting Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal in the latter´s maneuverings to centralize power in his own hands.

Party General Secretary Thapa was more aggressive against Dahal and accused him of joining hands with the Indian establishment and India´s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

“The Indian establishment and the RAW members have become his family members. Now it is time we chose whether we want revolution or Indian domination,” a leader quoted Thapa.

He also bashed Dahal for hobnobbing with the people who operate “dubious businesses.”

The party general secretary came down heavily on Dahal and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai for handing over the keys of the weapons containers to the Special Committee and the decision to return the lands and buildings seized by the party cadres.

“They decided to return the land of the feudal lords. Now they should clarify what we mean by the term “people”, whether it is a handful of feudal lords or the poor,” another participant quoted Thapa.

Thapa argued that he took a “neutral” position amidst the growing factionalism in the party so that he could bridge the gap and drive the party on the path of revolution, but that he can no longer do so.

Similarly, Dev Gurung accused the government of preparing to make compromises on the issue of national sovereignty. “This government has become the most acquiescent since the one that signed the Sugauli treaty,” a leader quoted Gurung.

The Maoists are holding their central committee meeting on Sept 30 to take up the controversial issues, including the keys handover and return of the seized properties.

The disgruntled hard-line faction has not joined the government, accusing it of making compromises on the party´s fundamental principles.

Scrap four point Nepal Maoists-Madhesi Front pact: Mohan Baidya panel

The panel led by senior vice chairman Mohan Baidya Kiran has demanded immediate scrapping of the four point deal signed between Unified Democratic Madhesi Alliance and the Unified Maoists Party.

The hardliner panel will formally forward the demand in the upcoming party central committee meeting beginning September 30, 2011.

“With the signing of the deal, we have observed that differences between parties have widened further and, the party leadership has even failed to take party insiders into confidence” Maheshwar Dahal-Unified Maoists’ Party member and chairman of Revolutionary Journalists Association told a national daily.

Yet another report has it that the panel has already decided against joining the government led by another vice chairman Baburam Bhattarai.

“The decision to handover keys of Weapon Containers and to sign the four point deal with Madhesi alliance is a grave mistake of the party leadership,” says politburo member Narayan Sharma talking to another daily.

“There is no question of joining this four point pact government. We should try to form a national unity government under our own leadership”, says central committee member Surya Subedi.

On Monday the Baidya panel had held a separate meet and had taken the decision against joining the government, it has been reported.

The meeting also took a decision to organize a national level meeting of the likeminded leaders in the party to devise further strategies.

Pressure is building against PM Bhattarai.

Nepal Maoist-Madhesi Four Point pact was kept a secret: Baidya

Q1: So how you take the fresh relief measures brought out by the Dr. Bhattarai led government?

Baidya: It had not been decided in the party internally as to such a program for relief measures would be made public. No talks as such have had happened as regards this. Yet, on the average, the relief measures are not that bad. But some points contained therein the relief measures appear vague.

Q2: Is it that the relief measure appears incomplete because the government is yet to take a full shape? When will your panel then join the government structure?

Baidya: The talk of giving a full shape to the government is not only the inclusion of our men who were close to us on ideological grounds. It is instead a talk of bringing in the Nepali Congress, the UML and some other parties also in the government set up. It is being talked that the government formation process be completed only after the conclusion of the party’s Central Committee. It was as per this consideration, the CC meet was convened for September 18, 2011. However, the CC meet got deferred due to the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to the United Nations. The government formation process will remain stalled as long as the party’s CC meet doesn’t take place.

Q3: While the issues pertaining to the handing over of the key, peace and constitution were in an unsettled state, why it is that the meet of the CA had to be deferred due to Nepal PM’s UN trip?

Baidya:  Circumstances cropped up like that. I suppose the trip to the UN was a pre scheduled affair. And so we can’t intervene on such matters. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister must attend the UN body meet. It is an act of wisdom not to convene the CC meet when two of our party Vice Chairmen remains out of station. Let’s not take this affair as a ploy to shift the CC meet. It is not like that. It happened so.

Q4: What were the key issues to be settled down by the CC meet?

Baidya: The last meet of the party’s steering committee too has already decided that the peace and the constitution drafting processes should go together. Prior to that, several such meets have too decided on those similar lines. But the debate and the discussion, heated ones, are intense over the submitting of the keys of the weapon containers by disarming the People’s Liberation Army. The debate on this issue is strong.

Q5: What proposals are you carrying at the party’s CA meet?

Baidya: We have already made a statement wherein it has been stated that the key of the container-weapons were submitted violating the party’s decision. We will push the point that the keys were handed over to the government ignoring the party’s decision which has disarmed the PLA. We will take up this issue and target it against the party’s top leadership.

Q6: Is it that you got an inkling that keys were being handed over and when you demanded the fact from the party’s leadership, it ignored?

Baidya:  Had the keys to be submitted then the leadership could have dared to convene the steering committee meet prior to handing over the keys. The debate should have been there. Had it been an official decision then it would have meant that the decision was in line with party’s procedures. The decision was made by keeping us all in the dark and later approved by the Special Committee of the party. We were not given even an indication that the keys were being submitted.

I wish now to reveal a secret which has yet not been made public or the people do not know about this fact. We were also kept ignorant while signing the four point agreement with the Madhesi Front. I along with some of my colleagues have registered our ‘note of dissent and reservation’ at the Steering committee meet.

Q7: What else you differ on the signed four point agreement with the Madesh Front?

Baidya: The fourth point in the said Maoists-Madhesi Front agreement is related with the inclusion of the Madhesi Army as a separate unit in the Nepal Army institution. The language used is as vague as it can’t be explained. The agreement makes the commitment for the recruitment of ten thousand strong army men through the tool of having inclusion. We have reservation over this issue. This issue definitely demands adequate debate and discussions.

Q8:  Your party has been forwarding the notion of inclusion and now you are opposing such moves? Why so?

Baidya: We fought the people’s war and facilitated the advent of republican order in the country. Why it is that the army which formed the premise for a new constitution is not being allowed to have a separate unit in the Army institution? Likewise, why the party’s past decisions as regards the number of Maoist militias undergo through repeated revisions pushed by other parties? Why the number of militias for integration purposes have come down from ten now to seven thousand only? How it could be that you accept the number what has come from the other quarter? How could a ten thousand strong separate army from the Madhesi population be included in the institution at a single stretch?

This doesn’t mean that we do not want that the Madhesi population be included or say recruited in the Army. No! We do not mean that. The other ethnic tribes too should be brought under the inclusion scheme much in the similar manner as has been agreed upon for the Madhesi population. This issue will certainly crop us sooner than later. If we award the Madhesi quarter with ten thousand strong separate army, shouldn’t we provide the same treatment to the people from the indigenous communities?  Shouldn’t the dalits, the oppressed and the ones who fall in the backward class be allowed their entrance as well inside the Army? Isn’t it that the nation in effect demands the inclusion of all the tribes and ethnicity?

Q9: You too were in the party committee for talks with the Madhesi Front which decided this issue. Then why is this protest?

Baidya: Yes! It is correct. I too was in the government formed seven member committee. But we did not know that a sort of tantalizing agreement was in the pipeline with the Madhesi Front. Only two persons participated in the entire affair. These two men stamped the deal.

Q10: You claim that Peace and constitution drafting processes were very much linked with one another. However, your party chairman has already vowed for the Militia re-classification. Why it is so?

Baidya: It is not that we were against the re-classification of the Maoist militias. We are committed on that. Let’s understand what the Chairman has said. Let’s first set the modality and then initiate re-classification process. The peace process must be carried forward towards its desired end. If not done so and only you go ahead with re-classification then that would be completely a wrong move.

Q11: Your party chairman has very freshly said that those who shy away from confronting debate and also those who can’t move ahead with the peace and constitution drafting processes will turn into ashes. Don’t such utterances weaken the party’s unity?

Baidya: One should not have talked on a wrong way. I would say instead that those who “deviate from the party’s structured policies will vanish in the ethereal medium”. Those who ignore party ideologies, politics and established working procedures will finally be ruined. But I would not like to present myself in that manner. I believe in the notion of having adequate debate and dialogue on contentious issues and keep the party in a unified manner. Party’s unity is important.

CPI(ML)[Naxalbari]: On the Current Situation, Tactics and Strategy in Nepal

One of the most active participants in current debates in the International Maoist movement is the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) [Naxalbari]. The CPI(ML)[Naxalbari] was a member of the now defunct Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and has its roots in the Central Reorganization Centre, CPI(ML) led by K. Venu. The CPI(ML)[Naxalbari] was formed as a result of the merger of the Maoist Unity Centre, CPI(ML) [itself a merger of the Maharashtra Communist Party and Kerala Communist Party in 1997; both parties were State committees of the CRC,CPI(ML) when it dissolved itself in 1991) and a small section of the Andhra Pradesh State unit, led by Com. Rauf, of the CPI(ML)[Red Flag] (which itself is led by K.N. Ramachandran and split from the CRC,CPI(ML) in 1987 over issues including the formation of the RIM and the question of Maoism). The organization from what I can tell is quite small (even by Indian Maoist standards) and most people in the Indian Maoist movement seem to have never heard of it. They seem to largely play a propaganda role, although reportedly in the 1980′s they were involved in armed struggle in Andhra Pradesh.

The CPI(ML)[Naxalbari] was one of the first organizations to publicly critique the UCPN(Maoist)’s line and tactics in the last 5 years and have recently distributed two new documents in which they outline their differences with the UCPN(Maoist). The first document reproduced below is a recent statement by their spokesperson, Krantipriya, and the second document was published in a Nepalese journal in February (copied below, but also available as a Word document here). In the first document the CPI(ML)[Naxalbari] protest the slide towards revisionism by key sections of the leadership of the UCPN(Maoist), especially recent moves towards dismantling the PLA and demand that the revolutionary sections of the UCPN(Maoist) “raise the flag of open rebellion against the revisionist headquarters”. It must be noted that the question of PLA integration remains an issue that divides the international Maoist movement with many parties around the world regarding any attempt to merge the PLA and the Nepalese Army as a betrayal of the revolutionary masses and liken it to the disastrous liquidation of the Communist Party of China into the KMT; whereas others like myself would argue that the issue is not as clear cut as the historical allusion implies and simultaneously emphasise the corollary question about how such an integration may occur whilst ensuring the sustainability of an ideological and political coherency and unity that will then enable an effective infiltration of the Nepalese Army in order to overcome the military impasse that the UCPN(Maoist) continues to face. Furthermore, they point out that the 4-point deal with the Madheshi parties itself is a form of political capitulation to Indian expansionism as it is well-known that the Madheshi parties have largely represented Indian interests in Nepal.

However, it is the second document entitled, “Sadak, Sadan, Sarkar – Tactics of Struggle or Compliance?” that is truly interesting because Com. Ajith provides a very detailed analysis of the strategy that the UCPN(Maoist) has deployed in the last 5 years. Indeed, Com. Ajith convincingly argues that the “street-legislature-government” strategy that the UCPN(Maoist) speaks to a tension between the demands and possibilities afforded by a movement from the “streets” and wrangling in the “legislature-government”. Com. Ajith points out that there is an inevitable tension, something that many progressives in North America even experience in regards to President Obama and the Democratic Party in the USA and the New Democratic Party in Canada, between what the popular masses on the streets want and what the politicians in the ‘legislature-government’ deem possible. Often this is simply because of the parliamentary illusions that are fostered in elections which strongly suggest that by simply electing x, y, z politicians the desired political programme will be carried out and result post-election in the complete collapse of the movement in the “streets” or; despite all of the rhetoric from politicians about how they represent the voices of people in the “streets”, or need those very “streets” to hold their feet to the fire and “keep them honest”, it becomes abundantly clear to the progressive movement that any political action critiquing the activities of those elected representatives is deemed unwelcome, and are often told that they are undermining the parliamentary cause and weakening the “Left” as a whole. Often those who persist with demanding the original political programme are simply dismissed as being “utopians” or “ultra-Leftists”.  In fact, one can easily see in the case of Nepal since 2006 that the movement in the “streets” has been subsumed under “parliamentary” and “governmental” concerns and that an independent programme for the “streets” has not been developed. As Com. Ajith notes, “Avoiding the concrete specificity of the situation, the contest of revolution and counter-revolution, it was restricting the revolutionary forces to a secondary issue, the matter of the Constituent Assembly. Instead of addressing and promoting the objective split in interests between the revolutionary and reactionary sections and making this the basis for new polarisation and mobilisation, it was papering over the split.”

Furthermore, as Com. Ajith correctly has pointed out, the desire for a “Constituent Assembly” (one that has been a mainstay demand for the Nepalese communist movement since its inception) reduces the contradictions to simply one between democracy and feudalism, and does not clearly see that a whole host of other politico-economic positions are able to similarly exploit the situation, such as the weak nascent Nepalese bourgeoisie that is hostile to both communism and feudalism alike (the tension between this nascent bourgeoisie and feudalism is something that Com. Mao wanted to exploit in his 4 class alliance and also was the reason that he emphasised the need for a strong Communist Party at the helm of the New Democratic Revolution). Additionally, Com. Ajith points out that it is unlikely, nigh impossible, for a constitution that would instrumentalise the New Democratic Revolution to be passed through the Constituent Assembly and that it is only through a real movement on the streets that this is possible. However, they note that this has resulted in the Left and the Right of the Party to simply emphasise one aspect of the SLG tactic, so the Left emphasises the streets whereas the Right emphasises the Legislature-Government, and neither is able to develop a strategy and tactics that is actually capable of dealing with the quandary that the the UCPN(Maoist) currently finds itself mired regarding the capacity to make the revolutionary change that is actually required through the dissolution of the State and the re-foundation of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I really recommend that all revolutionaries and scholars interested in the current situation in Nepal read the article by Com. Ajith because I think that it is one of the most concise and useful documents that has been written in the last few years that actually explains the failure of the UCPN(Maoist) to take the revolutionary process forward, and firmly grounds their critique in a close and critical analysis of the post-2006 SLG tactic (something that to my knowledge has yet to be done by anyone). The article does not resolve any of the questions that I have pointed out regarding the possible economic isolation of Nepal, the apparent lack of desire in the urban classes to make a revolution, and the military impasse, but does provide a useful analysis by which to understand how the revolutionary process in Nepal has come to an end and addresses the tactical-strategic problems that the Left of the party has to overcome. Simultaneously, the article does not mindlessly cheerlead for any given faction, as many are given to do, but rather places the blame at the feet of both the Left and the Right, and is thus a far more honest appraisal of the situation in Nepal.

On the current situation in Nepal and the challenge before the Maoists

Participation in the Constitutional Assembly process, and in government, in Nepal has been used by the UCPN (Maoist) leadership to liquidate the revolutionary nature of the party and sink it in the morass of parliamentarism. For quite some time now, this has been the concrete political manifestation of revisionism, of the derailment of the party from the path of New Democratic Revolution. It has now been taken to a new depth with the recent appointment of Dr. Baburam Bhattarrai as the Prime Minister of Nepal through a deal with the Madheshi parties, known agents of the Indian expansionists. Following a script already given by the reactionaries and endorsed by the UCPN (Maoist) leadership, the new government promptly handed over the keys of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) stored weapons. Severely drained of its fighting qualities through the policies followed by the leadership of the UCPN(Maoist), it is now being prepared for formal elimination, to finish off the last remaining, and one of the most important, achievements of the 10 years of People’s War. Thus the people will have nothing to bank on and will be helplessly thrown back to the reactionary wolves.

10 years of heroic war of the masses and their immense sacrifices gave the tiny organisation CPN (Maoist) international fame and recognition. Once the emerging shining armour in the glorious history of the international communist movement, this party is now reduced to being ‘just another petty political party’, shamelessly bargaining for some space in the ruling class benches. Today the very leaders of this organisation are trading sacrifices and pains of the revolutionary masses for a few ministerial posts and recognition from the Indian expansionists, in the service of the imperialists. Every step taken by them is meant to prove to their aakkas (masters) that they are genuinely committed to abandoning the path of revolution.

When communists turn colour and rot the stench is far worse. The slogan ‘serve the masses’ is converted to ‘serve the imperialist-expansionist masters’. As the class nature of the party changes, it acquires the ‘most favoured status’ from the ruling classes. The veil of minimum bourgeois morality too is shorn off. Shameless degeneration, craving for consumer goods and luxuries replace communist plain living, revolutionary self-respect and modesty. Revisionists are the seeds of reactionaries and slaves of the imperialists in the revolutionary ranks. In no time they infect the whole organisation, decapitate its ideological strength and denude it of its revolutionary sheen. The first thing they do in order to liquidate a revolutionary organisation is by bringing in liberalism in place of firm and clear ideological position. They abhor Leninist party principles and convert the organisation into an open non-functional debating forum. Conspiracies and manipulations become the hallmark of functioning. All these features can now be seen in the UCPN (Maoist).

The Maoists had gained strategic advantage through the ten years of People’s War, which liberated vast regions of the country and established people’s power. The advance of revolution intensified the crisis within the ruling classes and pushed their imperialist, expansionist mentors into a quandary. This set the context for the Peace Accord of 2006 and the mass upheaval that eventually led to the ending of the hated Gyanendra monarchy. The Maoist party was propelled to a unique position of national leadership, gaining overwhelming support for the unfinished agenda of revolution. But instead of utilising these favourable factors and applying tactics suitable to the fulfilment of these aspirations of the people the leadership deviated from the strategic tasks of revolution. The ideological, political roots of this deviation, including the different trends contained in the turn to ‘peace tactics’, are already a matter of ideological struggle within the Nepalese and international Maoist movement. The views of our party on this matter, including correspondence with the UCPN (Maoist) leadership, can be seen in ‘Naxalbari’ No: 3 ( http://www.thenaxalbari.blogspot.com ). This ideological struggle must be certainly deepened, most importantly by the Nepali Maoists themselves. But the immediate task before the Maoists and the revolutionary masses in Nepal is to raise the flag of open rebellion against the revisionist headquarters and thus initiate the reconstruction of the party on solid Marxist-Leninist-Maoist bases, firmly united with the masses. They must get out off the revisionist swamp of Constitutional Assembly politicking and retake the road of revolution. The revolutionary heritage of the Maoists in Nepal, much enriched by the heroic People’s War they led and the glorious sacrifices made by thousands of the valiant daughters and sons of Nepal, along with the boundless solidarity of people all over the world with the Nepali revolution provide the bedrock basis for taking up this challenge. As called for in the Political Resolution of the CCOMPOSA, “People all over the world look up to the Maoists in Nepal to break out of all domestic and external conspiracies and advance determinedly towards the completion of new democratic revolution.”

Krantipriya
Spokesperson,
6^th September 2011

Sadak, Sadan, Sarkar – Tactics of Struggle or Compliance?

Ajith

This was written in February 2011 for a Nepali Maoist journal as a contribution to the ideological struggle

When a great revolution marks time the silence is all the more ominous. The humdrum routines of peacetime often dull one from sensing it. But, no matter what, swords are being sharpened. Will the 5 years of peace end up liquidating the gains made through 10 years of people’s war or will it provide new resources for the revolution to once again rage on? Much depends on an accurate assessment of the present situation and tactics derived from it. This, obviously, is beyond the capacity of a spectator. But then, the outsider view is not without its benefits too. It allows a distancing, and its objectivity, denied to those on the stage. This is an opportunity for a broader view, a critiquing from outside. It also allows one to take liberties and indulge in wayward thinking. Having thus oiled my hands in anticipation of a sticky time (literally), let me get into the messy business of carving up the jackfruit.

Two cardinal principles of the Marxist understanding on tactics can be summarised as follows: (1) tactics should serve strategy; (2) they should address the concrete, specific demands of the given situation. As put by the master tactician Lenin, “Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation.” (‘Letter on Tactics’) Between the two the former is most important. Tactics that violate or deviate from the correct strategic orientation of any specific stage are of no use; no matter how ‘concrete’ they may appear to be. Regarding the second principle, the question of identifying ‘demands of the given situation’ also requires the guidance of the correct strategic orientation. Identifying what exactly they are, defining the ‘given situation’ is no straightforward, simple matter. It depends very much on one’s outlook. Moreover, the ‘specific demands’ of the situation must be grasped dynamically, focussed on the emerging aspect. In other words the concreteness of tactics should keep in mind, or address, not just the present but the emergent future too. This is how one ensures that tactics really serve strategy. Because the task of tactics is to promote objective and subjective factors that would assist in the fulfilment of strategic aims (or eliminate/weaken those that obstruct these aims). With this perspective, let’s now get on to an examination of the ‘sadak, sadan, sarkar’ (‘street-legislature-government’) tactic advanced by the UCPN (Maoist). I will term it the ‘SLG tactic’

This tactic was first put forward in 2007.  Though a lot has happened since then, it is still retained as the main tactics by the UCPN (Maoist). Its latest CC document states: “The party has adopted a clear-cut policy of mobilizing the people for the mass insurrection to establish people’s federal republic or people’s republic through according priority to struggle from all fronts including the front of peace and constitution and the front of the government with especial focus on the front of street struggle on the basis of four preparations and four bases.” The context of the SLG tactic, in 2007, was the complexity of the Interim period leading to the Constituent Assembly. We need not get into all the details here. Reactionaries, domestic and foreign, were persistently trying to block the Maoists and subvert the revolution. The tactic of SLG was supposed to check this in an all-round manner. But could it really deliver?

First of all, though the idea of tackling the enemy at all levels looks quite attractive, its actual implication is a rather one-sided application. This is inevitable. One cannot mobilise the party or the masses for any meaningful fight in the streets while being in government. It is simply impossible to put up a real fight from the streets – 1. against one’s own government and 2. against a power structure one is planning to join or continue in, even if temporarily. All that can be done is some stage-managed business where both the ‘fighters’ and the ‘defenders’ stick to their pre-set roles; throw in a few broken bones on both sides for ‘effect’. In other words, though positioned at the end, getting into or hanging on in the ‘sarkar’ is the real center of this tactic. Sadak is meant to serve this center, a pressure point. The sadan part is an obvious corollary to sarkar.

One may object that this ‘sadan’ is qualitatively different since it is not the usual parliamentary pig-sty but a Constituent Assembly (CA). That much can certainly be admitted. But this is precisely where the SLG tactic is shown up at its worst. The alliance between the parliamentary parties and the Maoists continued in the form of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim government even after the monarchical dictatorship was ended. But, objectively, while still under the common banner of Interim Setup and Constituent Assembly, the interests of the two sides within the alliance had started diverging sharply. The outstanding feature of the post-Jan Andolan 2 period is the urge of the broad masses to push ahead towards a new society, towards revolution. In opposition to this stand the conspiracies of domestic and foreign reactionaries to prevent revolution at all costs. So far as they were concerned, the matter of retaining or disposing of the monarchy was secondary to this. The matter of Constituent Assembly too is secondary for them.  It is useful to them to the extent it can be used to carry out some reforms in the state structure, widening its social base and thus making it more capable of ensuring domination and exploitation. But if counter-revolution so demands, they will not hesitate to shut it down, democracy be dammed!

So what exactly was the SLG tactic addressing? Avoiding the concrete specificity of the situation, the contest of revolution and counter-revolution, it was restricting the revolutionary forces to a secondary issue, the matter of the Constituent Assembly. Instead of addressing and promoting the objective split in interests between the revolutionary and reactionary sections and making this the basis for new polarisation and mobilisation, it was papering over the split. What was needed was tactics to translate the division into a formal split from the ruling classes. Instead SLG offered the illusion of struggle, strictly within the boundaries set by the outmoded alliance. In essence it was a guideline for manoeuvres in power play, not struggle. Hence the big mobilisations and mass protests could not but end tamely in new compromises and deals. Whether conscious or not, a strategic shift from revolution to reform was underway. The Constituent Assembly (CA) elections and completion of the constitution-making process through the CA came to be seen as an unavoidably necessary step, an aim in its own right.

The shifting of the tactical issue of CA into a strategic aim is evidently linked quite closely with an absolutising of the abolition of the monarchy. The monarchy, as an institution of the state and as a hegemonic ideological apparatus, was indeed the main lynchpin of feudalism in Nepal, one which has a centuries old suffocating grip on Nepali society. But once Nepal came under British imperialist domination and became a semi-colony, it no longer represented feudalism alone. It became the lynchpin of all reaction. The class character of the king and court nobles itself changed. They were increasingly tied up directly with the growing bureaucrat capitalism. Distinguishing between feudal forces and the comprador-bureaucrat bourgeoisie and targeting the monarchy in order to tactically utilise the contradiction among these two parts of the ruling classes was correct.  But viewing and presenting the monarchy solely in relation to feudal forces was wrong. The monarchy was only a form of the existing Nepali state, a state which serves all the ruling classes. Lack of clarity on this promoted the danger of absolutising the struggle to end the monarchy. The form of a republic with parliamentary democracy resulting from an abolishment of the monarchy could thus be presented as a means of realising ‘bourgeois democracy’. It could be offered as a ‘realistic’ target; for some as a substitute for the strenuous task of destroying the existing state and completing the NDR, for others as a transitional, but inevitable, goal.

Given the centuries old existence of the Nepalese monarchy, its abolishment was no doubt a significant achievement of the revolutionary process led by the Maoists. It considerably weakened the institutions of the reactionary state and deepened divisions within the ruling classes. But the ending of the monarchy did not mean the abolishment of the state. Moreover, the ending of the monarchy was something that could be utilised by the enemies also. And that is what they did. They claimed that the tasks set forth by the 2006 mass movement had been mainly accomplished and that there was no further justification for the Maoists’ separate agenda. This possibility was already seen during the 2007 political crisis when the Nepal Congress hastily declared in favour of a republic.

Nepal needs a new, revolutionary constitution that will ensure inclusive democracy for the people. But this can never be realised under the Interim setup. So long as dual power existed within it, de facto if not de jure, this setup could at best serve as a launchpad for revolution. As part of an immediate plan for organising the revolutionary seizure of power, constitution making could have been a tool for exposing the enemies and mobilising a broad mass movement. In the absence of such a concrete plan (not vague calls for insurrection) the Constituent Assembly is a trap that ties down the revolutionary party. That the UCPN(Maoist) does not have the required majority to push through its constitutional proposals is well known. But there is an even more basic issue. The principles of any constitution are only as weighty as the force that can be employed to ensure their implementation. This much is clear from the basic teachings of Marxism on the matter of the state, constitutions and government. In the situation of Nepal, the old state is yet to be destroyed. Dual power no longer exists. Therefore, no matter how progressive a constitution may be presented in the Constituent Assembly by the UCPN(Maoist), it will be a dead letter. One didn’t have to wait for the results of the CA elections to come to this conclusion.

Our examination of tactics thus takes us to the realm of strategy. Revolution versus reform, this is the strategic issue at stake. Since reform, in the present world and geo-political context, will inevitably end up as service to Indian expansionism, this should be posed more precisely as revolution versus capitulation. It is self-explanatory that these opposing strategies cannot be served by the same set of tactics. There is a further problem. Rightism dressed up as realism, or for that matter centrism masquerading as cool-headed perseverance, invariably insist on sharing verbiage with revolution. The tactics of revolution must therefore shoulder the additional task of separating itself, even in words, from them. How is this being handled by the left in the two line struggle? The left has been crucial in keeping the prospects of revolution alive. If not for the determined fight it is putting up, (and the fortuitous dismissal of the Maoist led government!), things would have been in a very bad shape, revolution-wise. But has it really broken away from the premises of rightism and centrism?

The left has persistently argued the need for new tactics. But this is premised on the ‘new situation’ that emerged after the completion of the CA elections and abolishment of the monarchy. The separation from those who claim that the Chungwang process is not yet exhausted is evident. Yet doesn’t this argument, with its premises, still remain within the perceptual frame of those it wants to oppose? It locates the need for new tactics in the post-monarchy, post-CA election situation. Thus these events are made the indices of the completion of the Chungwang process. But in doing so isn’t it missing out the fact that the victory of Jan Andolan-2 had already inaugurated the completion of the Chungwang process by objectively causing a split in the immediate interests of the two sides in the anti-monarchy alliance? By taking the ending of monarchy and completion of the CA elections as indices it too acknowledges that they were essential. As a result, the shifting of tactical issues such as the CA and abolishment of monarchy into strategic aims, the role this has played in strengthening the grounds of ‘sub-stage’ views and promoting the deviation from the revolutionary road is missed.

New tactics had to be formulated, but premised on the reality that the Chungwang process was exhausted by mid-2007 itself. New tactics were needed; not because the CA elections are over and monarchy abolished, but because the party had made sufficient  headway by 2007 in the tactical aims set by it in 2005, as part of preparing for the final assault for political power. After all, this was the declared aim of the Chungwang tactics. If this revolutionary frame of reference is not retaken, the left will not be able to break out of the frame set by rightism and centrism.

This apparently is the context of the continued support given by the left for going back to government and the SLG tactic as seen in the recent CC document. Inevitably, the distinction between the right and the left is blurred. The ranks of the party and the masses are left disarmed.  Within the left, there is a strong tendency to see the abandoning of the ‘street’ part of SLG as the main error. It urges a ‘full’ application of the three pronged tactics. This begs the question, struggle for what? Rightists take to the streets when out of government. They need it … to get back into government and enjoy the crumbs of power. We in India are quite familiar with such revisionist ‘street-government’ tactics. Can anything different be expected in Nepal? A series of mass struggles were launched by UCPN (Maoist) in the period following its dismissal from government. But they have not led to any decisive, qualitative change. All that energy was finally pooled into pushing the ruling class parties towards a new compromise (yet to be actualised) that will allow the UCPN (Maoist) into government.

The argument for continuing the SLG tactics is bound up with thinking, still influential even within the left that the CA process must be taken to its logical end. The crucial need today is to regain the revolutionary road. The SLG tactic will block this. What are needed are tactics and plan to break out of the existing Interim setup and advance towards completing the NDR. These tactics must help expose the hard reality that the CA and Interim setup have become tools in the hands of reactionaries. The masses must be educated to see how reaction is trying to dissipate and destroy the revolution by prolonging the CA/Interim process. Today, posing as the true defenders of the CA is self-defeating. To argue that the CA is fine but the NC-UML combine, tutored by India, is blocking its functioning is nothing but disarming the people. The truth must be told to the people that the existing CA has been made into a mockery, a trap of reaction, that it can never deliver what the people aspire.  Nothing less will do. Insurrections are not known to drop out of clear blue skies, all primed and set to go. You need the brooding clouds, the thunder and lightning. Insurrections must be prepared.

The Maoists in Nepal have to advance in a very complex and challenging situation. In fact it is almost similar to a new initiation. But one that is more complex and challenging. At the time of the initiation of the people’s war the party did not have to deal with diplomatic or other similar relations. Everything was a new beginning. But now it must handle a lot many more aspects and pay attention to properly handling their relations, so that the maximum gain can be retained while making the new leap. But what is decisive is the leap and gearing up the party to take it. Because, no matter how good a job is done in handling such complex relations and tasks, a restructuring of the present support base, the falling away of a substantial section particularly from among the middle classes, is inevitable. In fact this partial destruction is a necessary corollary to the leap. All this crucially hinges on the deepening of the line struggle and decisive rupture from rightism.

The Maoist movement in Nepal has a rich history of struggle against rightism. It has a powerful Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideological tradition. Political power enjoyed by vast sections of masses for the first time in the country, oppressed sections and regions of society living a life of dignity, backward Nepal being transformed into a beacon for the whole world, daring thinking and initial steps towards building up a self-reliant Nepal – these glorious achievements of the people’s war, realised through the sacrifice of innumerable martyrs, has added even more might to this heritage. The Nepali Maoists will surely succeed in drawing on it and regaining the revolutionary road.

The Rise of the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur

A couple of years ago I asked Tariq Ali at a public event to speak about Indian imperialism and the role that it played in the region. Tariq Ali balked at the question and did not answer it, and thus one of the most articulate Leftist and well-known commentators from South-Asia missed an opportunity to explain to his North American audiences some of the most important, yet underreported and under-discussed, trends in the last 50 years i.e. the rise and shape of Indian expansionism and imperialism. Indian expansion and imperialism has taken shape in two forms, the production of a classical political-economic dependency on the Indian State and economy by surrounding countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh (with Pakistan as a perennial “external threat”) and the construction of internal colonies like Manipur, Nagaland and Kashmir. The Nepalese revolutionary Left has recognized this relationship for many years, even Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has penned papers on the question and has referred to the process as the “Bhutanization of Nepal”, and has emphasized the need to resist it, especially in economic matters like the unfair allocation of power from Nepalese dam projects or political matters like the influence the Indian government has over the Nepalese Army.

Similarly, the Kashmiri independence movement, which is perhaps the best known national liberation movement in the region (which is not saying much as most of the international Left neither knows much about their struggle nor seems to care, despite the tireless work of public intellectuals like Arundhati Roy to publicize the issue) and is one of the world’s longest military occupations has similarly highlighted the issue of Indian imperialism/expansion for over 60 years. The Manipuri people, despite their heroic struggle against Indian internal colonialism, unfortunately have gotten nearly no press in international circles and remain largely an invisible people with an invisible movement. Thus, it was with great surprise and joy that anti-imperialists around the world came to know of the 1st political conference of the the Kangleipak Communist Party (Maoist) and the adoption of a new party program (available here). The Party also decided, in order to reflect its new political program, to rename itself the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur, and has almost immediately worried security officials in India (see “KCP’s Ultra-left Turn Worries Manipur” copied below). Indeed, in a short period of time the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur has been able to emerge as a significant force and was able to enforce a peaceful 12 hour general strike to protest the disappearance of a RPF/PLA comrade today. The general strike saw cars and buses off the streets, and many public and private offices closed (see “KCP general strike ends peacefully, paralyses normal life in state” copied below).

However, I feel it is important to place these development in Manipur in an historical context. In 1949 the Indian government annexed the princely state of Manipur (Manipur had been declared an independent state in 1947, like Kashmir) and declared it part and parcel of an unified India. Interestingly it was on October 29th 1948 that Com. Irabot, a communist who had won a seat in the independent Manipur Assembly, formed the first Manipur Communist Party and its armed wing the Manipur Red Guards, rather than join the Communist Party of India – Manipur State committee (indeed, the KCP(Maoist) identifies itself as being part of this tradition in the Manipur communist movement, rather than being part of the traditional Indian communist tradition that has largely emphasized electoral activity and has underemphasized the right of self-determination for oppressed nationalities). In 1956 Manipur was “granted” the status of a “union territory” and was only given “statehood” in 1972 as a means to placate the Manipuri people. However, like the people of Kashmir, the people of Manipur have never recognized the central Indian government as their true representatives and have consistently fought against Indian imperialism.

The movement for Manipuri national liberation first took a clear political shape in 1964 with the formation of the United National Liberation Front, but the UNLF at this time did not place much emphasis on the armed movement. In the early 1970′s because of the Bangladesh war for independence a number of Manipuri activists and leaders, including UNLF leader N. Bisheswar Singh and his associates, ended up prison especially in Tripura, where they came into contact with Naxalite prisoners who also were being arrested at the time. This had a profound influence on the movement as a number of key leaders were released from prison in the mid 1970′s with a new ideology, Mao Zedong Thought and the military strategy of Protracted People’s War. On September 25th, 1978 N. Bisheswar Singh and his associates formed the People’s Liberation Army, although it must be noted that unlike other Mao-inspired organizations it did not form a political wing, the Revolutionary People’s Front, until 1989 (N. Bishewar Singh has now been declared an enemy of the people for his anti-people activities in recent years). Almost a year earlier, on October 9th 1977, R.K. Tulachandra along with S. Wanglen, Achamba, Tajila, Meiraba, Meipaksana, Y. Ibohanbi and Paliba formed the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK). Com. Y. Ibohanbi however led a split from PREPAK to form the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) on April 13th, 1980. Yet, it must be noted that until 1992 the PLA was regarded to be the largest armed left-wing organization and overshadowed both the PREPAK and the KCP. Indeed, the death of Tulacandra in 1985 resulted in the fracturing of PREPAK into numerous smaller factions, some of which merged with the UNLF and the PLA/RPF. It was only with the formation of the Revolutionary Joint Committee by the PLA, a then recently reunified PREPAK and KCP in 1992 did the PREPAK and KCP become significant forces in the armed movement. In 1995 the death of Com. Ibohanbi, during a military encounter, resulted in the fracturing of the KCP into a number of competing factions. Many of these factions would unify in 2006 to form the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) due to the fact that their factional strife in the preceding years had caused them to lose support from the mass majority of the people, although several other factions remained outside their fold.

In 2009 a group of Manipuri comrades unified to form the Kangleipak Communist Party (Maoist). This new organization argued that it was not part of the KCP, although it did identify itself as being part of the revolutionary tradition that began in 1948 and the Manipur Communist Party and was reignited in 1980 with the formation of the KCP, but rather was a completely new organization that represented a new Manipuri communist movement. The KCP(Maoist)/Maoist Communist Party, Manipur in the past 2 years has been involved in a number of ambushes and attacks on police and military forces and has quickly become one of the most important armed groups in Manipur, as can be seen from the fact that they were able to hold this successful general strike. Since 2009 the KCP(Maoist)/Maoist Communist Party, Manipur has allied itself with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in the armed struggle against Indian imperialism and semi-feudalism.

KCP general strike ends peacefully; paralyses normal life in state

IMPHAL, Sept 21: The 12 hours statewide general strike called by the proscribed KCP (Moist) against the enforced disappearance of assistant publicity secretary of the under ground RPF/PLA, Gurumayum Jiteshwar Sharma alias GM Changjou alias Gypsy of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak seriously affected the normal business in the state today.

The KCP (Moist) had called a statewide general strike from 5am this morning till 5pm in the evening after taking serious count of the failure of the authority concerned to officially declare the whereabouts of the 49 years old RPF leader GM Changjou who was reportedly wisked away from his rented house near SM College in Dimapur by army personnel in civvies on August 18 evening at around 7pm.

All markets, shops and business establishment and the educational institutions located in the four valley districts of the state remain close during the general strike and there were reports of minimum turn out of the employees in all major departments of the state today.

Besides, the general strike also cause serious impact in the hill districts of the state due to the stoppage of the all forms of transport systems along the inter district roads.

However there has been no reports of any unwanted incidents during the general strike even as an extensive security preventive measure have been enforced by deploying maximum police and VDF forces at all strategic points in the state.

All cdo teams were also put on patrol duties along various vulnerable areas to prevent any untoward incident during the general strike.

It may be mentioned, The JAC which was formed in connection with enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention of assistant publicity secretary of the under ground RPF/PLA, Gurumayum Jiteshwar Sharma alias GM Changjou alias Gypsy of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak have submitted their memorandum to the Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh on August 28 demanding an initiative from the government in finding his whereabouts and thereafter the JAC had called a 24 hours general strike from the midnight of September 1 till midnight of September 2, after the concern authority had failed to fulfill the demands of the JAC.

KCP’s ultra-Left turn worries Manipur

KOLKATA: Since the Eighties, the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) has been waging a bloody struggle for a sovereign Manipur. Of late, a faction of the outfit has embraced Maoist ideology to carry on its armed movement like the ultra-Left wing guerrillas are doing in states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal.

A faction of the outfit, known as KCP (Maoist), has not only rechristened itself as the Maoist Communist Party of Manipur, but has also revised its “constitution” on the lines of the Marixist-Leninist-Maoist school of thoughts. In a statement issued recently, the outfit said the decision was taken during its first conference at some unidentified location in the northeastern state.

During its formative years, the KCP under the leadership of Ibohanbi and Ibopishak had decided to follow the communist ideology. But with the passage of time and the death of the two leaders, the outfit split into many factions. Police sources in Imphal indicated the existence of about dozen of them – the KCP-City Meitei, the KCP-Prithvi, the KCP-Mangang, the KCP- Military Council, the KCP-Maoist, the KCP-Lamphel, the KCP – Sunil Meitei, the KCP-Mobile Task Force, the KCP-Lamyanba Khuman, the KCP-Loyallakpa and the KCP-Noyon.

The KCP (Lalumba) has already signed an agreement on the suspension of operations with the Manipur government for starting peace talks.

In a signed document, W Malemnganba Meitei, spokesperson of the newly-floated Maoist Communist Party of Manipur, said, “Our immediate aim is to carry on a new democratic revolution in Manipur to establish a communist society through armed revolutionary war. We will carry out the Protracted People’s War by joining hands with other Maoist revolutionary parties.”

Security forces, though, said the group was floated to protect the Meiteis and its activities would be confined mainly in the valleys of the state.

Owing to the factional feuds, the KCP lost its stronghold in Imphal valley. This prompted leaders of KCP factions going for unification drive. Some KCP cadres got unified and held a convention in 2009. It was during this convention that the outfit reconstituted its central committee. While Marx Ningshen was made its president, the charge of the outfit’s publicity wing was given to W Malemnganba Meitei. Immediately after this, they called itself the KCP (Maoist) and denied any relationship with other KCP splinter groups.

Documents and press statements issued by the KCP (Maoist) suggested that since 2009, the outfit started maintaining close links with the banned CPI (Maoist). In November 2010, KCP (Maoists) issued a statement pledging support to the Indian Maoists like some other Manipuri outfits.

“The Maoists are now closely associated with two Manipur-based outfits – the Peoples Liberation Army (Manipur) and the now-disbanded KCP (Maoists),” said an intelligence officer.

Security agencies believe that a senior CPI (Maoist) politburo member -probably somebody in the second in command – has been assigned to maintain liason with the Maoist Communist Party of Manipur. The apparent aim is to set up base in this part of the country. The senior Maoist is also reportedly in charge of maintaining relations with Bangladesh-based Maoist outfits.

Sources in security agencies said “Following this development, Indian Maoists might now find it easy to set up bases in the northeast, a region that has always been in the news for insurgency and cessationist movements. They might also use the northeast as a conduit to move on to Bangladesh, Myanmar and other South-East Asian countries,” a source said.

This whole process for years went on creating an objective base suitable for reformism

In the past year, Com. Indra Mohan Sigdel (Basanta), has penned and publicly distributed some of the most important documents regarding the the on-going two-line struggle within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). As part of this on-going effort to delineate the problems that the Nepali Maoists face and possible solutions to said problems, Com. Basanta has written an useful overview of the line struggle that his party has been mired in for the last 5 years since the signing of the peace accords which point to two key issues: 1) that the party does not have a clearly articulated set of tactics that are capable of actually organizing the masses to capture State power (I will not discuss this issue in this post as I feel like I have been consistently hammering on this point for a while now and have little new to say about it) and 2) something that Gyorg Lukacs described as “dialectical separation” between the party and the working classes and peasantry (more on thus later). Com. Basanta previously distributed two other documents entitled, “The question of building a new type of communist party” and “The International Communist Movement and Nepalese Revolution” (both of which were made available here earlier). At the time I wrote,

In these two articles we begin to see the nascent articulations of a new revolutionary programme for the UCPN(Maoist), however, I personally find Com. Basanta’s contributions to the debate regarding the ICM to have greater clarity than his article on the problem regarding a party of a new type. Indeed, Com. Basanta summarizes the classical positions put forward by Marx, Lenin and Mao regarding the role of the Party and its organization, and argues for the need for a revolutionary transformation of the Party that avoids the revisionist pitfalls it is currently mired in. However, Com. Basanta does not clearly articulate a vision of what this new revolutionary party would look like and how it would differentiate itself from the UCPN(Maoist) in its current, save its present reformism. Indeed, I agree that the two-line is the manifestation of the class struggle in society, however, it seems to me that then one would assume that the form of the organization or at least its must change to also reflect this new class content. However, no such organizational programme it clearly articulated. In regards to the ICM, an issue that Com. Basanta is closely intimate with due to his current role in the UCPN(Maoist)’s International Bureau, Com. Basanta argues that there needs to be greater attentiveness on the part of the UCPN(Maoist) to its internationalist responsibilities including to the RIM. Furthermore, he decries the relationships that the UCPN(Maoist) has made with the CPI(Marxist) and SUCI, whilst neglecting relations with other Maoist parties. And calls for the resuscitation of a RIM-like organization, and a broader anti-imperialist united front.

I do not wish to revisit these former articles because I think that my analysis of the documents stand, but I would like to make it clear that I deeply appreciate the theoretical work that Com. Basanta has been doing and his willingness to share his ideas and criticisms with the rest of the ICM. Indeed, Com. Basanta has been one of the rare few, who have been willing to go back to the letters between the RCP,USA and the UCPN(Maoist) and argue that, despite the RCP,USA’s religiosity regarding the “new synthesis”, the RCP,USA was in fact correct to warn against the corrosion within the UCPN(Maoist) and their handling of the peace accords. In Com. Basanta’s latest public article, dated, August 30th 2011, he provides an important overview of the two-line struggle thus far and highlights some of the key events and political turns that have taken place. I do not wish to rehash these twists and turns as you can read the document for yourself (something I strongly recommend), but rather would like to focus on the under-examined theoretical and organizational problem that Com. Basanta identifies in his document i.e. the aforementioned problem of “dialectical separation”.

The problem of “dialectical separation” basically identifies that there is a gap between the Party and the working class, inasmuch that the Party has ideology/science but may have little base in the working class itself, whereas the working class are the actors that are capable of actually overthrowing the State but often are not organized in a manner capable of overthrowing the State and are ideologically constituted by the bourgeois dictatorship (in an aside I would like to note that I believe that Mao provides us a different epistemological system through the “mass line” that tries to address the problem of “dialectical separation”, but that is another post). The Party itself cannot overthrow the State (that would be a form of substitutionism) and needs the working class to organize itself into a revolutionary movement using the leadership and ideas of the Party. In times of revolutionary upsurge, the working class and the Party are able to lessen, and ideally bridge, this gap which then produces a revolutionary movement capable of overthrowing the State. However, the problem of “dialectical separation” is not only important in the capture of State power in the production of a revolutionary working class movement, but also is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of “democratic centralism” in the party and ward off an ever encroaching “bureaucratic centralism”. Indeed, this immediately goes to the heart of Com. Basanta’s organizational problem which relates to the question of freedom of speech/expression inside and outside of the party.

Even prior to the entry of the UCPN(Maoist) into the parliamentary field there have been internal political movements against the ever-increasing bureaucratism in the party, especially through the centralization of power into Chairman Dahal (for example in 2005 when Dr. Baburam Bhattarai protested against Chairman Dahal’s leadership style, and this past summer when the party finally decentralized power from his hands into a number of key leaders including Vice-President Dr. Bbauram Bhattarai and Vice-President Mohan Baidya). However, with the entry of the UCPN(Maoist) into the parliamentary field one can see an ever-increasing gap between themselves and the working class at large and an increasingly high-handed approach towards the masses. As Com. Basanta notes, “Most of the leaders and cadres forgot their previous bases, the poverty-stricken countryside, rather started enjoying in big hotels, in the name of building cities a base of revolutionaries. The struggle, which was waged in Balaju meeting against the danger that the problem in working-style of that kind may become a cause to liquidate party’s revolutionary line and as a result the revolution, is noteworthy to mention here.” By forgetting their previous bases in the countryside, leaders and cadres, began to separate themselves from the vast majority of the Nepalese working class and peasantry who do not get to enjoy luxurious hotels, big homes and ample food. Indeed, the revisionism that is being wrought within the party is because the material conditions of the party’s cadres and leaders has changed without a parallel change in conditions in society as a whole. Indeed, as time went on it because clearer and clearer that the party was no longer responsible or accountable to the masses that they were supposed to represent. Indeed, even a key event like the indefinite strike of May 2010, which was supposed to be the spark for the rebellion that would capture State power, was inexplicably called off and no summation was ever produced for either the masses or the party itself. As Com. Basanta writes, “It was declared to be the last rebellion before People’s Federal Republic was established in Nepal. But it was suddenly stopped in the middle. Party is yet to appraise in depth the objective and subjective factors that caused to call the indefinite strike off”. There have been numerous reports about wide-spread dissatisfaction and disillusionment amongst the village committees and cadres who saved up scarce resources so that they could send active militants to Kathmandu for the indefinite strike and fully expected to return to their villages victorious. The experience of the long slide towards revisionism is summed up by Com. Basanta when he writes, that, “In this long course, the leadership, firstly, did not in general opt for calling meetings, secondly, even if the meeting was called he seemed reluctant to bring revolutionary and major agendas in the meeting apart from day to day issues, thirdly, if revolutionary agendas were introduced for some reason he inclined to take eclectic decision on them, fourthly, even if revolutionary decisions were taken he did not emphasize on implementing them in practice etc. This whole process for years went on creating an objective base suitable for reformism.”

They are Minimising the Ideological Struggle

A serious ideological struggle is going on in our party now. While saying so, it does not mean that there was no ideological struggle in our party before. It perseveres in a party; sometimes it is extensive and sharp and sometimes not. Moreover, it does not always centre on only one issue; but on different issues depending on time and context. The ideological struggle in our party has now been manifested in two lines, Marxism or reformism, and it has centred on ideological, political and organisational lines. It is very much piercing and serious too.

Two-line struggle is the life of a party. It is also known as the motive force of a party. Struggle is the base of unity. Mao has stressed on transformation for a new unity to take place upon a new base. Unity is not achieved through compromise, higher level of unity is not achieved without transformation and there is no transformation in default of struggle. That is why, two-line struggle is said to be the motive force of a party.

After we entered into the peace process, the two-line struggle that had surfaced from our party’s Balaju Expanded meeting has been going on till today. In essence, the ongoing struggle is focused on ideological and political questions. However, its central expression has been in different forms depending upon time and context. From the Balaju expanded meeting to now, the two-line struggle in our party has developed through different phases, which can be mentioned in short as follows.

First, the phase of struggle against bourgeois working-style. Once our party entered into the cities after signing in the comprehensive peace agreement bourgeois working-style started to dominate in the party. Most of the leaders and cadres forgot their previous bases, the poverty-stricken countryside, rather started enjoying in big hotels, in the name of building cities a base of revolutionaries. The struggle, which was waged in Balaju meeting against the danger that the problem in working-style of that kind may become a cause to liquidate party’s revolutionary line and as a result the revolution, is noteworthy to mention here. However, the document adopted by Balaju expanded meeting was never distributed in the party to study and implement in practice. Why it happened so, is a serious issue to sum up in the days ahead.

Second, the phase of inner struggle to determine party’s new tactic. Subsequent to the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, which declared Nepal a federal democratic republic, party’s tactic adopted by the CC meeting in Chunwang had ended. In that situation, the party must have adopted another tactic right away, but that did not happen. Party did not have any tactic almost all through a period of one year after democratic republic of Nepal was declared. In the situation when the old tactic was over and the new one was not taken up it was obvious for the party not to have any plan to go ahead except cycling around the parliamentary exercise. It was necessary for this situation to bring the ideological struggle to the fore centring on what should be the next tactic. There was a sharp and extensive two-line struggle in Kharipati Convention held on November 2008. Finally, elucidating that Nepal was still a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and the federal democratic republic was a reactionary political system, party adopted a new tactic, People’s Federal Republic, to accomplish new democratic revolution. This tactic is still valid and is awaiting its execution.

Third, the phase of developing plans to implement the aforesaid tactic. Kharipati convention succeeded to build up party’s next tactic but failed again to put forward a concrete plan to implement it. Party didn’t bring in any tangible plan till about nine months after the convention was concluded. Later, three months long central committee meeting in August 2009 took up some important decisions. Of them the decisions, first, people’s insurrection is a must to establish People’s Federal Republic and second, four preparations and four bases are the prerequisites necessary to make people’s insurrection a success, were the important ones. These decisions, which were adopted through a process of intense ideological and political struggle carried all the way through three months, are very much important in our party history.

Fourth, the phase of implementation of plan. Party decided to launch this plan in three steps, first the mass protest on April 6, 2010, second the May Day rally and third the indefinite strike. On May 1, 2010, party declared from the open stadium at Tundikhel, Kathmandu that the indefinite strike would be continued until it culminates to people’s insurrection through which Nepalese people become the master of the state power. It brought an unprecedented enthusiasm among the broad masses. But a strange, before two weeks of its declaration had gone by; the said ongoing strike was suddenly brought to a stop, which did nothing other than bringing a complete demoralisation among the people. It was declared to be the last rebellion before People’s Federal Republic was established in Nepal. But it was suddenly stopped in the middle. Party is yet to appraise in depth the objective and subjective factors that caused to call the indefinite strike off.

Fifth, the phase of ideological struggle around Palungtar. The ideological struggle that had started from Kharipati reached to its climax after the indefinite strike was stopped in May 2010. Everyone from our leaders to cadres and as well the Nepalese masses is aware of the height of the Palungtar debate held in November 2010. But, that gathering too failed to bring forward a concrete plan and develop a method to deal with dissents on the basis of democratic centralism. What it did was it concluded the gathering with a synthesis that there was no alternative to transformation, unity and people’s insurrection. The meeting that was called after the gathering brought out agenda to chalk out the future plans. Management of inner-party dissent on the basis of five-point procedure, further clarification of four bases and four preparations and the formation of people’s volunteer mobilisation bureau were the important issues on which the meeting reached at decisions. It spread enthusiasm in the rank and file of the party and the masses as well. But a strange, the main leadership was not found to have laid emphasis on implementing them in practice.

Sixth, the present phase after the U-turn of the leadership at Sukute. The two-line struggle that was being waged from Kharipati took a different turn after arriving in the standing committee meeting held at Sukute. Explicitly speaking, the contradiction between reform in essence and revolution in form that existed in our party leadership was resolved while arriving at Sukute. Why our leadership, who did not see anything other than the possibility of insurrection till four days before, started seeing counter-insurrection everywhere when there was no any convincing change in the objective and subjective situation, after he returned back from his tour to Singapore. It is a serious question to review.

Aforesaid points give a general glimpse of how did the inner struggle develop in our party and how it is advancing. In the long course of inner struggle from Balaju to right before Sukute we can see a peculiar type of situation in our party. In this long course, the leadership, firstly, did not in general opt for calling meetings, secondly, even if the meeting was called he seemed reluctant to bring revolutionary and major agendas in the meeting apart from day to day issues, thirdly, if revolutionary agendas were introduced for some reason he inclined to take eclectic decision on them, fourthly, even if revolutionary decisions were taken he did not emphasize on implementing them in practice etc. This whole process for years went on creating an objective base suitable for reformism. And finally it arrived at such a situation that revolution was being liquidated while hailing it. It is not that the leadership deliberately did all these things in a planned way. What is true is that the ideological problem in our leadership is the main reason behind it to happen. It is only an instance proved at Sukute that the obvious result of eclecticism in philosophy and centrism in politics is reformism.

In addition to the inner-party struggle centred on aforementioned ideological and political issues, struggle is going on in the organisational line too, in our party. Organisational problems like how to manage freedom of expression and unity in action, how to systematise division of labour, how to institutionalise collective decision and individual responsibility i.e. how to make effective the system of democratic centralism in party are the issues that are being debated now. Particularly, in the present context when centralism is going towards bureaucratization and totalitarianism, the ideological debate which is going on in our party now is to bring the main leadership, from top to bottom, in a committee system as a centralised expression of collectivity.

The ongoing two-line struggle is based on the goal of re-establishing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in our party, developing a correct ideological, political and organisational line, building a disciplined party and achieving unity after transformation. The more healthy, patient and well-managed is the line struggle the more is the possibility of revolutionary transformation from the leaders to cadres and the more it opens the door of principled unity in the party. The deeper and farther the line struggle we take to, the more we can mobilise people in favour of the revolution. It is also the lesson of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to us. The practice of confining ideological and political struggle within a small periphery of the central leadership is not and cannot be in agreement with Marxism.

However, what is surprising is that some of the comrades of our party, who claim to be close with the establishment, seem to be very active now to minimise the ideological importance of two-line struggle, confuse honest cadres by projecting it in a wrong way and fulfil their rightist ambition in this process. The understanding of those comrades who conceive that the ideological struggle waged by the revolutionaries is a squabble to get to the post shows their ideological bankruptcy. On top of that why does not it become a squabble for posts on the part of those comrades who bargain their ministerial post to be reserved for their close kins when they quit, on the contrary, how did it become a squabble for the post on the part of those comrades who struggled for inclusiveness and proportional representation in cabinet as provisioned by the interim constitution. Even a layman understands it.

It is clear that new democratic revolution in Nepal is now at the threshold of counter-revolution. It is being manifested in the danger of surrendering PLA in the name of army integration and in the writing of a document of compromise with comprador, bureaucratic capitalists and feudal in the name of building consensus. But, it does not mean not to integrate army and not to write constitution. Integration of army and writing of constitution is a policy declared by our party. None in our party has anywhere opposed to the modality of army integration in consistent with national security policy, provide duty of combatant status by way of group-wise integration of the PLA and write people’s constitution with an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist content. However, without fulfilling these conditions if army integration is carried out in a capitulationist way and if a document of compromise is adopted in the name of writing constitution, it will be an outright counter-revolution.

The crux of two-line struggle from Balaju meeting to now is centred on whether to emphasize on struggle mainly against the comprador bourgeois, which leads the reactionary state power in Nepal now, to ensure people’s constitution from CA and carry out army integration in compliance with national security policy or to emphasize on compromise with the reactionaries to surrender PLA in the name of peace and write a piece of status quo constitution in the name of consensus. It is clear that the first one opens the door of new democratic revolution by establishing people’s federal republic of Nepal while the second one pushes the new democratic revolution far away by institutionalising the bourgeois democratic republic.

In this way, the ongoing two-line struggle in our party is centred on whether to open the door of new democratic revolution by establishing people’s federal republic of Nepal or push the new democratic revolution far away institutionalising bourgeois democratic republic. I do not think it necessary to explain how much weighty and important is this struggle going on in our party. However, some of the people minimise this ideological struggle being waged to defend revolution by saying that it is a squabble for posts and privileges. It is the clear expression of right revisionism and serves counter-revolution. Only by defeating this kind of counter-revolutionary thinking and trend, which is noticed in some of the comrades of our party, can the revolution be defended, the people’s federal republic be established in Nepal and the door of new democratic revolution be opened. To strive for this is the task of revolutionaries at present.

August 30, 2011

This Simply Will Not Do

President Barack Obama in the last few days has started an all-America tour to promote his jobs plan and has requested the American people help push his agenda forward. Faced with an “intransigent” and “ideologically dogmatic” Republican party which is hell-bent on ensuring that any legislation proposed by Obama not be passed, just in case it could be seen as a legislative and political victory for him, Obama has decided to go straight to the American people and has asked them to help him pass his agenda by mobilizing around his new jobs bill and by putting political pressure on Democrats and Republicans alike by calling their political representatives (the classic liberal bottom-up campaign). Ironically this is the very kind of political campaign that the Obama-maniacs had hoped to staff and run in the post-electoral victory glory 3 years ago, only to find that the Rorschach test that they had elected was far more interested in being the career politician that he had always been.

Interestingly, in a parallel gesture, in there have been an increasing number of news reports that chief representatives of the Kiran faction, including C.P Gajurel, have been holding independent meetings with the Party rank-and-file and also using the bully pulpit as a way to clarify political issues for their base so that they can put pressure on the Party headquarters to change the line of the Party (there has also been one report that the Kiran faction has been training in secret a security force of its own). It is important to note that the Kiran faction has continued to consistently emphasize that they are not interested in splitting the Party but rather, wish to change the line of the Party and move forward in unison, and are opposed to what they feel are attempts by the establishment faction to quash their independent voices (a positive note about this process is that the UCPN(Maoist) allows factions to hold independent meetings with Party cadre to discuss political lines, which I believe is the only way to have a proper democratic centralist process). Of course such attempts are not new as evidenced by similar reports earlier this year about factional meetings being held (this blog covered news reports about these events earlier in the year), although admittedly unlike those earlier meetings which were held in secret these meetings are being held in public. The exact content about what is being discussed in these meetings besides the recent developments in Nepal and what effect that they are having on the Party rank-and-file remains unknown, however, it is clear that all the Party factions are preparing the ground for the yet to be announced Party convention. Indeed, the Kiran faction will have little choice but to split or to politically surrender if they are incapable of convincing a majority of delegates at such a Party convention that the current line of the Party will not result in a process that will deal with the  socio-economic and political problems that plague the country. However, it is unclear as to how the Kiran faction will be able to provide any clarity to the Party rank-and-file when there seems to be little clarity within the faction as how to solve the problems they face. It is even unclear whether Com. Kiran wants to be a politician or a revolutionary leader. Before he and his faction can answer these questions honestly there can be no discussion of restarting the revolutionary process, whether it be through urban revolt or peoples’ war.

I am sure that there will be some of the pro-Maoist Left that will get their hopes up again, in light of these meetings, that some kind of rectification or split within the Party will restart the revolutionary process in Nepal. There will also be those who will further call for a wait-and-see approach and will remain unwilling to take a position. However, I think that the time has come for the pro-Maoist Left to actually take a stand in the developments in Nepal. I do not mean that the international Left should make its often repeated perfunctory comments about the importance of the revolutionary movement in Nepal and cheer for a given faction from the sidelines (a modus operandi that does little for the actually political process underway, but gives the impression of deep political involvement when in fact little is being accomplished), but rather, there needs to be serious discussion and debate about the political and socio-economic issues that the Nepalese comrades face and the advocacy of possible solutions through the development of concrete policy documents and proposals (so what a revolutionary party of a new type actually look like). In fact, I would like to suggest that Com. Kiran, like Obama, in the last few months has become a Rorschach test himself with the international Left using him as a projection of their own fears and desires, and have thus avoided any contact with the reality of the given situation through a thorough investigation of the problems that the revolutionary movement in Nepal faces. This is a responsibility that international comrades have repeatedly shirked from, and have preferred time and again to make the far simpler judgement as to whether a political process remains revolutionary or not. The Nepalese comrades in their letters to the RCP,USA said that they did not need the RCP,USA to teach or remind them the ABC’s of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but rather help solve particular theoretical problems that they faced, and they were right. The RCP,USA, in a complete evacuation of their role as a member of the CoRIM and as a fraternal Party, demurred from such a role and preferred to simply make repeated calls for the Nepalese comrades to understand Avakian’s “New Synthesis”. Similarly, international comrades in the last few years since the publication of those letters have taken a similar position and have said that although they claim the Nepalese revolution as their own, and quite explicitly support one faction over another, that they could not opine as to specific theoretical questions that have arisen. The status quo, in Nepal and internationally, simply will not do.

Maoist factions up rival campaigns

KATHMNADU, Sept 18: Countering the aggressive campaigning by hardliners against the party´s moves on the peace process, the establishment faction of the UCPN (Maoist) has stepped up separate gatherings of party cadres and orientation programs in Kathmandu.

Both sides are playing different cards to weaken the position of the other and also show their own strengths as the party has not held its general convention for the last two decades and they are not quite sure of each other´s strengths at the grassroots level.

On Saturday, senior Maoist leaders Posta Bahadur Bogati, Barshaman Pun, Lokendra Bist and Shakti Basnet made speeches at a cadre orientation program held by the party establishment faction at a hotel at Solteemode, Kathmandu.

While Bogati, Pun and Bist imparted training to members of the Maoist Newa State Committee and Kathmandu District Committee members, Basnet attended a program held by Maoist students loyal to the establishment faction.

“Since we are the party establishment, we should try to keep the party unity intact. But we have dissimilar views and if they want to split the party, there is nothing we can do,” a participant quoted Basnet as saying.

Talking to Republica, Basnet conceded that he attended the cadre orientation programs, but added that such gatherings and programs are absolutely normal.

“There is nothing wrong in holding discussion programs,” he said.

Similarly, the party´s cultural group loyal to the establishment faction held a musical program at Bhaktapur on Saturday. The party establishment has formed a separate cultural group after most members of the party´s official Samana Parivar showed their loyalty to the hard-line faction.

Meanwhile, the party hardliners also held separate gatherings in Kathmandu and Lalitpur on Saturday. Party politburo member Dharmendra Bastola addressed the gathering in Lalitpur, while Indra Mohan Sigdel, another politburo member, gave a speech at the gathering in Bhaktapur.

After the party handed over the weapons container keys to the Special Committee, polarization between moderates and hardliners in the party has sharpened.

Accusing the party establishment of deviating from the party´s basic principles, the hardliners led by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya have just wrapped up their nationwide campaign to weaken the positions of Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Vice-chairman Baburam Bhattarai in the party.

Baidya´s righthand man Netra Bikram Chand had trained cadres from the mid-western region, while CP Gajurel visited the eastern region.

Party cadres close to Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal had even seized the keys of the vehicle belonging to Gajurel and tried to disrupt the training program.

Politburo members Hari Bhakta Kandel, Khadga Bahadur Biswakarma and Kul Prasad KC, among others, have been actively frequenting the districts.

The Maoist cultural group Samana Parivar, which is loyal to the Baidya faction, is still out in the districts holding musical programs.

“We have been holding orientation programs to make the party cadres aware of the party establishment´s move of handing over the weapons container keys to the Special Committee and the four-point deal signed with the Madhes-based parties, among other things,” said leader Bishwakarma.

The Maoists are holding their Central Committee meeting on Sept 30 and heated exchanges are expected between hardliners and moderates over the party´s latest concessions on the peace process, including the return of properties seized by the party during the insurgency and handover of weapons container keys.

We will expose party headquarters: Gajurel

BIRATNAGAR, Sep 15: UCPN (Maoist) Secretary C P Gajurel on Thursday said that the hardline Mohan Baidya faction will start political campaign to expose the party headquarters if the party establishment fails to undergo self-criticism over the keys handover decision.

Accusing the party of launching “atrocities” against the Baidya faction, Gajurel said the decision of handing over keys of arms containers is a move toward disarming the Maoist combatants.

“The combatants should be integrated in a systematic way; the hasty decision to hand over the keys is wrong,” said Gajurel.

Talking to a select group of journalists at a guesthouse in Biratnagar, Gajurel said that they will resume their street protests if the party delays in admitting that the key handover decision as a mistake.

“Party Chairman [Pushpa Kamal] Dahal wants us to surrender or intends to see us break the party,” he said, adding, “For that, the party leaders have started politics of exclusion.”

Maoist cadres supporting the Dahal faction attempted to physically attack Gajurel at Illam and Sunsari districts where he had gone to hold training for cadres of his faction. He said their faction also has the right to hold separate gatherings just like Dahal and party vice-chairman Baburam Bhattari.

He also refuted the statement of Maoist chief Nanda Kishor Pun that the Baidya faction had consented to the keys handover decision, terming it conspiracy. “The keys were handed over despite our opposition,” Baidya said.

Baidya faction holds training amidst protest

KATHMANDU, Sept 15: The ongoing internal rift within the UCPN (Maoist) has widened as the faction led by senior Vice-chairman of the party Mohan Baidya expedited unilateral mass meetings in the eastern region.

The Baidya faction has been conducting training programs following the government’s decision to hand over the keys of the arms containers to the Special Committee.

Maoist district level leaders and cadres have been protesting continuously against the programs organized by the Baidya faction in the eastern region. On Wednesday alone, Maoist cadres close to Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal held a separate press conference in Dharan and protested the training programs organized by the Baidya faction.

Addressing a program organized by the Baidya faction, Maoist secretary CP Gajurel, who is close to Baidya, said peace and constitution writing are possible only through a people’s revolt. “I would like to ask Maoist cadres and leaders to be ready for a revolt,” Gajural said, speaking in Dharan.

Gajurel and another Maoist leader, Hitman Shakya, conducted the training programs for Maoist cadres close to the Baidya faction.

Gajurel warned that the Maoist party can be split if the Dahal faction treats them as an enemy. “I am here to conduct a training program and all senior party leader know about this,” he said, adding, “Everyone has the right to organize programs and express opinions without obstruction. The party can split if attempts are made to create problems in organizing programs and expressing opinions.” Gajurel alleged that Dr Baburam Bhattarai became prime minister with the help of India.

“The agreement with Madhesi allaince clearly shows that there is an Indian role behind the deal. Though he was the priministerial canidadate of our party, he was appointed from somewhere else,” Gajurel said.

He was of the view that the agreement with the Madhesi parties and the decision to hand over the keys of arm containers tantamount to surrender. Maoist cadres close to Dahal protested the Baidya faction’s program in Itahari. They showed black flags to CP Gajurel while he was on his way there on Wednesday.

They also attempted to pelt stones at Gajurel’s vehicle. Police arrested six Maoist cadres trying to vandalize the vehicle. Despite obstructions created by the Dahal faction, Gajurel attended the program and instructed the Maoist cadres. They have already conducted training programs in Morang, Jhapa and Ilam districts amids obstructions by the Dahal faction.

Maoist district level leaders and cadres close to the Dahal faction have demanded action against Central Member Baburam Nepali and District Secretary Tak Bahadur KC for organizing a torch rally against the government decision to hand over the arms container keys to the Special Committee.

Baidya faction’s secret training

ITAHARI, Sept 12: The hard-line faction of the UCPN (Maoist) held a separate cadre training program in eastern Nepal Sunday.

The training, which saw the participation of members from the Maoist Kochila state committee, was conducted by UCPN (Maoist) Secretary CP Gajurel, who is from the hard-line faction led by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya.

He is staying in eastern Nepal for a week to give training to the members of all the state committees here.

Gajurel, who is also the party in-charge of the eastern region, said that his faction is holding such training throughout the country.

Over 150 Maoists from Jhapa, Morang and Sunsari participated in the meeting.

“We were not in favor of conducting secret gathering. But we are doing so as other factions in the party have been holding such gatherings,” he told Republica.

“We realize that we were left behind in holding secret gathering and training,” he added.

The Maoist secretary informed that his faction would train other subordinate committee members in the next phase.

“There is no ban against such meetings,” he said.

Gajurel argued that the party leadership made a grave mistake by handing over the keys of the weapons containers to the Special Committee. He said his faction would intensify struggle against the current coalition if it doesn´t admit the mistake, but added that the faction doesn´t want to topple the government.

Gajurel conceded that the party is undergoing intense internal struggle, but argued that the party would not split. “We formed the party through a revolutionary process. If someone compels us to do so, we will counter,” he said.

‘Party’s principles are being compromised’

Maoist senior Vice chairman Mohan Baidya has vociferously opposed the party´s move to hand over the keys of the arms containers to the Special Committee. Republica´s Post B Basnet caught up with him to get his views on the keys handover and about giving full shape to the government. Here are the excerpts:

The government has not taken a full shape as yet. Not all the factions in your party have joined the government. When do you think will the government take a full shape?

We told the last Standing Committee meeting that we would join the government only after holding a Central Committee meeting. The CC meeting scheduled for Sept 19 has been deferred. We will decide whether or not to join the government only after the CC meeting is held.

The meeting was supposed to take some important decisions, including the handover of the keys of the weapons containers to the Special Committee. How far was it justifiable to defer the CC meeting?

Some disputes and debates have surfaced over issues including the keys handover. So there is no point in joining the government without settling these disputes first. While talking about the peace process, there are two issues that need attention. First, the disputed issues should be resolved. Second, there must be some agreements with other political parties, including the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML. On Thursday, the NC and UML held a bilateral meeting. Though, we are not quite sure what transpired at the meeting, it is said the parties have decided to push for the completion of the peace process first and constitution drafting later. If this is so, the peace process will not move ahead. We hold the view that the peace process and constitution drafting should move ahead simultaneously. So it is important for the party to hold talks with the NC leaders and reach consensus.

What is the dispute over the weapons containers handover all about?

Firstly, the peace process, integration and constitution drafting are interrelated. This is not only about the keys handover. Secondly, I must clarify our party´s decisions vis-à-vis the peace process. The first point of the decision is related to the integration issue. A proposal was tabled at the party meeting a day before the decision to hand over the keys to the Special Committee was taken. After holding debates and discussions, the point was removed. But the keys were handed over without holding further discussions. We hold the view that the PLA and the weapons containers should have been handed over to the Special Committee all at once. It was wrong to hand over the keys only as it means disarmament. This dispute has not been resolved as yet. So we have already made public our views that the move is against the party decision.

What will be your argument at the forthcoming CC meeting? It is also stated that the decision was taken secretly ignoring your faction.

We had previously decided to handover the combatants and weapons simultaneously. So the modality for integration should be determined first. The party is supposed to lead the peace process and constitution drafting side by side. They should have held a meeting of the standing committee to clarify the issue.

Besides, I would like to make public some of our decisions that are yet to come out in the media. Some friends including myself put forward some notes of dissent and reservations on the four-point deal signed with the Madhes-based parties. The third point of the agreement that is about the constitution making states that there would be “inclusive democratic republic”.

But “democratic republic” is not the party´s decision. We have been pushing for “people´s federal democratic republic” which is the official decision of the party. So we wrote a note of dissent against that decision. Besides, we also expressed our reservation over some vague points on the agreement. The second point of the agreement is about the implementation of the past commitments which includes the right to property. It states that no one would be deprived of the right to property. But we have the issues of the land tenants and peasants. It is also directed against the scientific land reforms and against the fundamental principle of the party. Similarly, the fourth point of the agreement is about the mass recruitment from the Madhesis. It is agreed that 10,000 from the Madhesis would be recruited unit-wise into the army. I agree that the Madhesis should get space in the army, but there are such demands from other janajatis also. Now, let´s come to the first point of the agreement.

The standing committee had decided to go for unit-wise integration of the PLA, but we later agreed revise the point. Likewise, we had decided to integrate 8,000 PLA into the army, but a compromise was reached on that point too. The number was reduced to 7,000. Similarly, it has been stated that attempts would be made to address the proposals by some countries. This is very abstract. What are the issues that have not been addressed? There are no such issues from China or other countries. We have issues with India only. India has demanded stationing air marshals at the airport, signing an extradition treaty, and keeping Indian army at places, including the Koshi dam. So the agreement reflects that we are ready to agree on such issues.

On top of that, there are seven members in the party´s talks team, but they were not informed about the talks. Only two leaders (Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai) participated in the meeting and struck the deal. We feel that the party is bowing to the demands of others. It is wrong to make compromises on the fundamental principles of the party.

Do you think the current coalition is natural at a time your party has been raising the issue of national sovereignty in view of the widespread perception that the Madhes-based parties sympathize with the southern neighbor?

I don´t want to make comments on this. Sometimes, the events themselves make things clear. We can work with the Madhes-based parties following the party´s norms and values. But it would wrong to bow to others and work with them.

What will be your strategy if the party endorses the keys handover move by a majority vote? 

I don´t think the move would be endorsed by a majority vote. I have already made my point clear, and I don´t think the CC would take such a decision.Sometimes you are in a minority and sometimes you are in a majority. At times the decision of the minority is right and that of the majority wrong. It is the first time in my political career that I have been reduced to a minority. I have been in the central committee for nearly 38 years. What I want is to take the decision to the CC and hold debates on the issue. The CC is the supreme body to settle such disputes when you are not holding a general convention.

If it did, will the party split?

Let´s not think that the party would split. The party would move ahead united. Ours is a communist party and we understand the organization as the unity of the opposites. It is important for the party to have debates and discussions. On top of that the peace, integration and constitution drafting processes are reaching their culmination. All these issues should be looked at in their entirety and the peace process and constitution drafting should go hand by hand.

Your chairman has been saying that those who are against peace and constitution would quit the party and would be reduced to ashes. What do you have to say?

It would be wrong for the party to take a wrong path. We would not present ourselves that way. I would say whoever deviates from the party´s norms and values and tactical line would be reduced to ashes.

Why are you called a hardliner?

It is a very strange thing. After I was released from the jail, someone wrote that I was a hardliner. I did not know why. There was no dispute in the party then. There are some who give the name hardliners or softliners. Sushiliji (NC President Sushil Koirala) told me the other day that they call him NC hardliner and me a Maoist hardliner. Just let them say so.

Nepal Maoist hardliner panel form a new security force

Differences between senior vice chairman Mohan Baidya Panel and the panel for the time being led jointly by Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and another vice chairman Babu Ram Bhattarai has taken a new height to the extent that the Baidya panel has independently constituted a ‘security force’ comprising of three hundred youth in  district of Kalikot, reports have it.

To recall, Mohan Baidya and Dr. Bhattarai were a single soul for some months in order to cut down the size of their own party Chairman Prachanda. However, Bhattarai suddenly joined his “necks” with Prachanda thus left his Dhobighat ally in the deep blue ocean to swim.

A remote control phenomenon?

Must have some dangerous political meaning.

The formation of the security force which is led by Bir Bahadur Malla is intended to fight against societal ills and to train the local youths, it is also reported. The program wherein the formation of the unit was declared, the central leaders representing Baidya panel, the hardliners perhaps, were present.

“We will expose those people who are against drafting the peoples’ constitution and bring peace to its positive end, we will fight against societal evils”, said district in charge Atom Bum of the Baidya Panel.

This is the second time in two weeks that the Baidya panel had organized military training to the local youths. Some five hundred local youths had participated in the training conducted two weeks ago, reveal report.

Now the Indian establishment has one “extra” card under its sleeve by default.But will Mohan Baidya seek the Indian assistance as Prachanda-Bhattarai did in the not so distant past? Yet, the Indian regime may approach Mohan Baidya, analysts opine.

Another people’s war?

Much Ado About Nothing?

Since the handover of keys to 6 PLA cantonments and the public uprising of a section of the Party and their supporters, led by Mohan Vaidya “Kiran”, against the decision there has been a flurry of activity on the the part of Chairman Dahal and Prime Minister and Vice-President of the UCPN(Maoist), Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, to choose a new ministerial team and to calm fears regarding the possible threat of the Kiran faction on the peace process. Because of the entire issue the Kiran faction had decided not to enter into the government and thus CP Gajurel “Gaurav” did not get the Finance Ministry post that he had originally asked for, although it is also notable that Deputy Prime Minister Narayan Karki Shrestha did not receive the post either. Furthermore, after the initial public outcry against the decision the issues seems to have gone ahead with little change. Even the Kiran faction has agreed that they recognize that the decision will not be reversed and simply want Chairman Dahal to apologize for the violation of inner-party process in the decision-making procedure regarding that vital decision. Once again there rumours and counter-rumours regarding the possibility of an “imminent split” are flying with great speed, however, it does not seem like that a split is likely (yet once again). Interestingly, public comments that Chairman Dahal has been making, flanked by Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, suggests that the Bhattarai-Dahal faction are so confident about their current position in the Party that they feel like they can marginalize the Kiran camp and the two-line struggle within the organization, and that the inner-party struggle cannot and will not effect the “peace process” that they have re-initiated. Chairman Dahal has made it clear in recent statements that the peace process has now reached an irreversible stage and thus one could I believe that the decay within the Party may have also reached an irreversible stage as one can definitely point to a close correlation between the state of political affairs in general and the state of affairs within the Party itself. Indeed, if one sees, as Kiran faction member  Netra Bikram Chanda (Biplab) that the Party should return to the path of the people’s war and complete the revolutionary process, although it must be noted that both Chairman Dahal and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai both see the revolution as being furthered by their procedure and that the desired/professed outcomes of the PPW have been achieved, then it is difficult to see how a Party leadership that is so heavily enmeshed in the peace process could ever be “rectified” and be brought back to the armed path which he espouses. Indeed, it seems that only through the process of split/scission could there be the necessary traumatic rupture by which the Party could re-commit itself to a distinctly different revolutionary process albeit the movement continues to lack the necessary theoretical tools, I believe, to explain the conditions that lead them to this current conjuncture or a means by which to overcome those very conditions.

I have also decided to post below different statements that have been produced by the main leaders in the UCPN(Maoist) during the latest row (this is largely for a historical record of the twists and turns of the Nepalese revolution, rather than any specific special political content that these documents contain). The first two statements represent the position represented by Vice-President Mohan Baidya which have been reproduced by The Next Front, a revolutionary intellectual-cultural activist front that is deeply sympathetic to the Kiran faction, a statement by Chairman Dahal of the UCPN(Maoist) that was published in Nepal Everest News, a newspaper sympathetic to the Dahal faction, and finally an interview by Prime Minister and Vice-President, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, that he gave to The Hindu.

Keys handover row won’t obstruct peace: Dahal

KATHMANDU, Sept 6: Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal said on Tuesday that the internal conflict within his party would not pose any threat to the peace process which he claimed has already reached an irreversible stage.

“Inner struggles and debates are not unnatural in a political party. So, the current row over the keys handover would not create any problems for the peace process,” he said.

The Maoist chairman told this to media persons while paying a visit to office of the Naya Patrika Daily that was vandalized by a group of students.

Dahal expressed confidence that the peace process would reach a logical conclusion.

The hardliners within the UCPN (Maoist) have cried foul over the handing over of the keys of the arms containers to the Special Committee. They have demanded a meeting of the party central committee (CC), accusing the party leadership of capitulating to the “regressive forces”.

Dahal, however, claimed that his party would move ahead united despite the rumor that the party is facing an imminent split.

The Maoists are holding a meeting of the party CC on Sept 18 to discuss the keys handover.

 

Party ready to sacrifice for peace: Dahal

SURESH YADAV

JANAKPUR, Sept 6: Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal said on Tuesday that his party is ready to adopt maximum flexibility and make sacrifices for the sake of peace and constitution.

Calling on all the stakeholders to cooperate with the government for safe-landing of the peace process, the Maoist chairman, flanked by Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, also said that the people would not spare anyone who plans to dismantle the process.

Dahal was speaking at a function held to pay respect to slain party leaders Sherman Kunwar and Mohan Chandra Gautam. He argued that the intra-party disputes over the keys handover would not disrupt the peace process. “We hold very intense debates. There is history that those who could not stand the heat left the party altogether,” he said.

He claimed that the Maoists have a magic wand to intensify the “struggle” and take the “revolution” to a new high.

While talking about the keys handover, he said, “The revolution would not move ahead without taking further risks.”

The Maoist chairman also pointed out the need for cooperation between the political parties to materialize the people´s aspiration for peace. He expressed dismay that the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML did not join the government, but added that he has got positive indications from both the parties to conclude the peace process.

The Maoist chairman also said that he would not criticize others in public as the peace process is at a critical juncture.

Speaking at the same program, Prime Minister Bhattarai argued that the goals of the People´s War and the historic mass movement have been partly accomplished.

He said his government doesn´t have any magic to change the country overnight, but added that he would move ahead prioritizing the people´s demands.

“The Maoist-led government is making preparations to bring out relief packages as per the people´s wish,” he said.

Also speaking at the function, party Secretary CP Gajurel, who is close to Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, who leads the hard-line camp, argued that the party should retain its revolutionary character as the country is yet to see “New Democracy”.

He argued that the party cannot digress leaving the revolutionary process half-way. “There is a two-line struggle within the party. I call on the leaders and cadres not to resort to violence to influence the ideological struggle in the party,” he said.

Handover hots up Maoist Standing Committee

KIRAN PUN

KATHMANDU, Sept 4: Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has conceded that there were some procedural shortcomings while handing over the keys of the weapons containers to the Special Committee, but justified his action saying the party Standing Committee had already endorsed the decision unanimously.

“We should have informed party colleagues about the move. But it is also true that the party Standing Committee had already formally endorsed it,” a party leader quoted Dahal as saying during the Standing Committee meeting that saw a heated debate between party hardliners and moderates.

The hardliners, justifying their protest against the handover, insisted that the party had decided not to hand over the keys before finalizing the modality for integration and the rehabilitation packages.

“It is a deception against the party. We had clearly decided at the last meeting not to hand over the keys,” one leader quoted hardliner Netra Bikram Chand as saying. Party leaders said the hardliners were aggressive at the meeting.

Party leaders Mohan Baidya and CP Gajurel defended their protest against the keys handover.

Similarly, General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa also argued that the party made a mistake in handing over the keys to the Special Committee, but said the party should correct its mistake and choose the path of reconciliation.

Party Vice-chairman Narayankaji Shrestha and Girirajmani Pokharel likewise sided with the hardliners.

The party is holding a meeting of top office bearers Sunday morning and a Standing Committee meeting in the afternoon. Also Sunday, the party is likely to finalize the name-list of ministers to be sent into the government.

Press statement by Comrade Kiran and Comrade Badal 

Let us oppose the decision of handing over the keys!

Let us implement the decision of dignified army integration!

The abrupt step taken at 5 pm on September 1 to hand over the keys of containers of the weapons in the cantonments to the special committee under the Council of Ministers is against the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Interim Constitution and the decisions of the party’s central committee and standing committee. We, therefore, strongly demand that the concerned sectors immediately abrogate this decision.

So far as the responsibility of concluding the peace process is concerned, we are committed to accomplishing the part of our party’s responsibility. Army integration is an important aspect of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).  In connection with accomplishing this responsibility, party central committee and standing committee have adopted the policy of integration of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with weapons and in group even if a mixed structure is to be created and developing this structure as an armed force. The issue concerning its chain of command is also under discussion. The party’s decision is clear that task of integration and regrouping for rehabilitation should be done only after the issue concerning the modality of integration was settled. The handing over the keys of containers of weapons is a step under the concept of disarming the PLA. The ‘Army Integration’ has been clearly incorporated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution.  Both the CPA and the Interim Constitution have not stated anywhere the concept of individual recruitment of the PLA members as civilian citizens by disarming them. The handing over the keys of weapon containers is a process of disarming the PLA members. We can never agree on this issue on ideological ground.

In this connection, the party chairman had put forth the proposal in the meeting of the standing committee held a few days ago regarding the handing over the keys. This proposal had been discussed thoroughly and rejected unanimously by the standing committee meeting as the standing committee reached a conclusion that such a proposal was against the principle and spirit of the Interim Constitution and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. After that an amended proposal was adopted by deleting and removing the words and phrase concerning the handing over the key. But the way the proposal concerning the handing over the keys of weapon containers, which was rejected by the standing committee, was implemented through the special committee under the government has seriously violated the minimum political honesty and morality. Even in the process taking such a step and decision, comrade Chairman had not only consulted with the office bearers of the party but has also not informed general secretary ‘Badal’, who is the in charge of the Security Department of the party. Thus, the decision has been taken in a mysterious way.

In addition to this, the step of disarming the PLA members is not only against the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, Interim Constitution and decision of the party. The disarming of the patriotic People’s Liberation Army is also not correct on the perspective of national independence as this is an indication of the act of national capitulation.

We, therefore, humbly call upon the government and party chairman to annul the decision of handing over the keys of weapon containers and implement the dignified process of army integration.

In this connection, we express our gratitude to the patriotic and revolutionary people of Nepal who demonstrated their solidarity with us by symbolically protesting nationwide in the form of transport halt and torch processions. We also appeal to the distinguished people to carry this act of solidarity to a newer height.  In connection with the protest in Biratangar, more than 25 comrades including Kochila State Committee member and Morang district co-in charge of the party Comrade Hem Karki, Comrade Saugat, Comrade Sundas and Morang district secretary of the party Comrade Kushal and members comrade Mahabir and comrade Lochan have been arrested. Similarly, in Nuwakot, five comrades including comrade Laxmi Mudwari sustained injuries in a police baton charge in connection with torch procession. We condemn this kind of suppression and arrest being perpetrated by the government and demand immediate release of all the arrested comrades.

Mohan Vaidya ‘ Kiran’ 

Vice-chairman - UCPN (Maoist)

Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘ Badal’

General Secretary - UCPN (Maoist)

(September 2, 2011)

 

Full Statement by Com. Mohan Baidya

(The design and mission of Prachanda and Baburam, who had long been planning to disarm, dissolve and liquidate the People’s Army under various pretexts, have finally come to fruition. They have handed over the keys of the containers, in which weapons of the People’s Liberation Army have been locked, to the Army Integration Special Committee without the consent of party’s vice chairman Mohan Baidhya’Kiran’ and even without consultation with general secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’ who is the in-charge of the party’s army department. The keys of the containers have been handed over to the government against the spirit of the party’s official decision. This decision is a kind of design to liquidate the PLA. We, therefore, condemn this kind of capitulationism. Following is the statement issued on behalf of revolutionaries on this issue.)

Our party has been committed to carrying the tasks of constitution writing and army integration to a meaningful conclusion in accordance with the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). We have made it clear that both of these responsibilities have to be accomplished simultaneously. There can be no divided opinion about the fact that army integration is an important part of the peace process.  It is known to all that we have been advancing the issue of army integration with consensus.

It is also clear that the meetings of our party held at different levels and on different occasions have taken the decision to integrate the army in a dignified manner. Despite the formal decision of the party to agree on the regrouping of the PLA members only after settling the issues concerning the modality of integration and rehabilitation package, the sudden and surprise decision to hand over the keys of the containers and weapons is against the decision of the party’s standing committee and central committee. This decision is a ploy to dissolve and liquidate the People’s Liberation Army by disarming it.  We strongly condemn this type of decision and also appeal to all concerned people and sectors to immediately terminate this suicidal decision.

Mohan Baidhya ‘ Kiran’

Vice Chairman

Unified Communist party of Nepal (Maoist)

Maoist Appealed Not to be Stimulated by Baidya’s Anti-Move Towards Party

Kathmandu, Sept. 2: Maoist has expressed its deep concern towards the statement intentionally expressed with dissatisfaction on the issue of handing over the weapons and containers to special committee that was released by Baidhy panelled. Maoist has made further clearance on the ill statement of Baidhy panelled that was circulated as stating that it was the decision of majority in its party’s standing committee for handing over the People’s Liberation Army and the weapons to the special committee.

Press release:

It is well known that our party UCPN Maoist has been determined to peace process, statute and the progressive transfermation of the country.

There is an clear image of our party and its proper performances on the dignified army integration, constitution drafting including the comprehensive peace talk, interim constitution and other understandings and agreemos. According to the central committee meeting held in July 24th 2011 to July. 25, 2011 to forward the peace process and constitution drafting the standing committee of our party has passed five points concept and commitment in 25 Aug. with the periferi of the eintire majority decision. The decision has been carried on handing over the weapons and the containers to the special committee by entire majority in the point ‘Army Integration of Maoist’s Combatats’ and rehabilitation’ immediately after formation of the Maoist lead government.

It’s a duty of a responsible party to dignify the commitments that were put in front of the people. The decision carried on by the special committee held in Aug. 31 to handover the PLA, weapons and the containers to the follow up committee under by special committee and to implement that decision by Sept. 1 is therefore, clear for all and it is not negative towards the party’s decision too.

In this regard, the party has expressed its deep concern to the statement released by our party’s Chairman Comrade Kiran’s dissatisfaction to the decision carried on by the special committee stating it as being against to the party’s decision. Therefore, we appeal to all the party members, PLA and even to all Nepalese not to be eggerative towards the statement issuing by Comarade Kiran and to unite being patien and well determined for the official decision.

Prachanda

Chairman - UCPN(Maoist)

Sept. 2, 2011-09-02

‘Nepal won’t jeopardise any genuine Indian interest’

 Prashant Jha

Interview with newly-elected Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai.

In the middle of negotiations over cabinet formation and the future of Maoist combatants, Nepal’s new Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai took time out for an exclusive interview with Prashant Jha on Friday afternoon at his office. Excerpts:

You had consistently argued for a consensus government, but are now heading a majority government. Why did efforts at forging a national consensus fail?

I am still for a consensus form of government because according to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and the Interim Constitution, we need to take major decisions through consensus. The Special Committee (SC) responsible for the integration and rehabilitation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cadres has to function through consensus and the Constitution has to be adopted through a two-thirds majority. If we have a consensus government of major parties, it would facilitate those two processes. But unfortunately, since that could not happen, the second choice was to start with a majoritarian and work for a consensus government.

Immediately after my election, I reached out to the Nepali Congress, the UML and other parties. I need their support on the peace process. We have already chalked out a time frame of 45 days for integration and rehabilitation. If we reach broad consensus, we can stick to the deadline. By that time, the NC and the UML will also join the government, and it can then take the shape of a national consensus government.

What is the basis for the Maoist-Madhesi alliance, which many have called ‘unnatural’?

Maoists and Madhes based parties are natural allies because on many cardinal principles and political line, there is common ground. The agenda of the Maoists is restructuring of the state and society. And Madhes based parties came forward with the agenda of the federal restructuring of the state. These are basic issues which the traditional NC and UML could not address. This natural alliance has brought a new dawn in Nepalese politics.

Given the tensions in the past, are you confident of the support of your party chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’?

I have the full support of my chairman, comrade Prachanda. Though we have gone through series of ideological and political struggles, we have been in the same party committee at the leadership level for the last twenty years. We know each other. Despite our differences, there are a lot of commonalities. Our personal capacity is also more complementary, rather than competitive. We need each other. I need the chairman and the chairman needs me. Ideologically, politically and personally, continuity between the two of us has been prevailing and will prevail in the future.

What about the third component of the party, senior vice-chairman Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’? He has already opposed your decision to hand over keys of the arms containers.

There was some confusion about this so called handover issue. This is a part of the integration process. It is implied in the CPA, and the earlier schedule worked out by the Special Committee. Formally, it had already been decided that the PLA and cantonments would be looked after by the Special Committee but in practice, there were some difficulties. After formation of my government, I took the initiative and practically handed over the PLA, cantonments, cadres and weapons to the SC. In that SC, both the PLA and the Nepal Army are there. It is not a question of surrendering to the state, but handing over to the SC which is a joint committee. The party chairman has already issued a statement fully supporting the decision of the SC.

But there seems to be a school within your party opposed to the whole process. Do you think they can obstruct it, or potentially cause a split?

There has been a consistent two-line struggle in the party over the political line followed since 2005. A section has had some reservations, but the overwhelming majority of the leadership and cadre are firmly behind this political line which has charted out a unique path of political transformation. Even if some leaders and cadre may oppose or some splinter groups may move out, it won’t make much impact on the party’s political line.

What is the meeting point on the contentious issues regarding the future of Maoist combatants?

First, for modality, we have more or less agreed that a separate directorate will be created under the Nepal Army. Second, international norms of security forces will be obeyed by all members to be integrated. But there will be certain concessions on age, education, marital status etc. Third, on ranks, our senior commanders will be brought back for political work and junior commanders can be adjusted. The fourth issue is package for those opting for rehabilitation or voluntary retirement or golden handshake. We are working out an honourable settlement. And on numbers, we proposed a figure between 8,000 and 10,000. With Madhesi parties, there was an agreement of around 7,000. Other parties have come to about 6,000. We will finally settle around 7,000; that should be the compromise number of those to be integrated. We can then immediately start regrouping, which can be completed in one month. And within two weeks after that, we should be able to complete the process of integration.

One of the points in the agreement with Madhesi parties is withdrawal of cases against those accused during the war and movements. Isn’t this a travesty of justice?

There is already an agreement in the CPA for withdrawal of cases against political cadres stamped by the old state during the insurgency and People’s Movement. We only said we will implement that agreement. The Maoists and the Madhesi parties have come through struggle. So, naturally pending cases should be withdrawn. It happens everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights issues. We are fully committed to obey human rights.

Is the three-month extension of the CA enough?

Three months is not enough. If you go by the CA’s schedule, we need at least six to nine months. We will need another extension. But let us try our best to take this process forward in the next three months and then, if need be, we can extend it again.

Your party has often criticised India’s role in domestic Nepali politics. What was its stance during the government formation process this time around?

Nepal is sandwiched between the two huge states of India and China. Historically, our sovereignty and independence has been maintained by having well-balanced relations with these two big neighbours. Practically, we are more closely integrated with India, with an open border and closer economic ties. So we have more interaction with India and more problems also, which sometimes creates misunderstanding. The Maoist party and I am personally convinced we need to work more closely and do more business with the government and people of India. Despite certain misgivings in the past, I am confident we will have a very good working relationship in the future.

I don’t think there is any role for any outside power in making and breaking governments in a sovereign country. But at times, certain misgivings arise. The political process in Nepal should be decided by the people and political parties of Nepal. But we need the goodwill of neighbours like India.

How would you respond to India’s security concerns in Nepal?

There are security concerns of both India and China in Nepal. We are sensitive to those genuine concerns and we will address those concerns of both sides. I am confident I can win the goodwill of both our neighbours.

Indian investors in Nepal have often complained of harassment by Maoists. What is your position on foreign, especially Indian, investors?

Our party’s position is that we need foreign direct investment in Nepal, though the priorities will be decided by the Nepal government. Unfortunately, during this transition period, certain unfortunate incidents have taken place. That is not in consonance with the official party position. I would like to assure all the foreign investors, both in India and elsewhere, that you are most welcome to invest in Nepal and the government will provide full security.

What is your expectation from policymakers in New Delhi?

I would like to appeal to our friends in India that Nepal is not anti-Indian. We want to have good, friendly relations with India. I myself studied and spent 12-13 years in India. There is a lot of room for cooperation between the two countries. I would like to assure that Nepal won’t jeopardise any genuine interest of India in Nepal, security or economic or otherwise. We need cooperation to stabilise peace, democracy and development. Being a sovereign, independent country, we would like to maintain balanced relations with all our neighbours. And that should not be seen as being anti-Indian.