Nepal: Prachanda in New York -- A Maoist vision for a new Nepal

Nepal Revolution: Great Victory or Great Danger!

Haghighat #40 — May 30, 2008

Recent victory of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the Constituent Assembly election and announcement of the ending of the 240 year old Monarchy and the beginning of the "Federal Republic of Nepal", in its first Constituent Assembly sitting (May 28th 2008), once again have turned eyes to developments in this country. Euphoria has taken over many revolutionaries and progressive forces of the world and many Left parties from around the world have sent messages of congratulations to the CPNM for this electoral victory.

At first glance, this euphoria is understandable. Many are happy that the name communism has been brought up once again in the new century as a power. They feel this victory of Maoists in Nepal, has once again, brought to minds Communism as an alternative. But the question is, how justified this euphoria is and what is its objective basis? And whether the future of the revolution in Nepal on this path, can be said to be bright?

Of course the fall of Monarchy in Nepal and its abolition as the seat of Hinduism through the struggle of the workers and peasants of Nepal under leadership of Maoists, is a victory and a happy event. But Nepal's becoming a "Republic" does not resolve the fundamental class contradictions that the peoples war had aimed to resolve.

Our party has not declared joy over this electoral success. This approach has raised a lot of questions in the minds of people, given the fact that our party, along with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and all its participating parties and organisations, has been a strong supporter of the people's war in Nepal. This is so especially because in the aftermath of the great April movement in Nepal (2006) and development in the strength of peoples war, going from the countryside to the cities, the editorial of Haghighat (No 30—Oct 2006) predicted eventual victory of Nepal's revolution and prospect of establishment of a socialist state there. Although that issue of Haghighat correctly pointed to the objective problems that were in the way of this revolution and existence of some confusion in the strategic thinking of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) concerning features of the dictatorship of proletariat – considering the positive and negative lessons of two great experiences of the 20th century in China and Russia – the editorial (and its title in particular) promoted the illusion that Nepalese Maoists were going to seize country wide power soon. The course of events exposed this to be a premature and one-sided prediction. In practice, the Nepalese revolution faced very severe and complex problems and the process of seizure of state power came to a halt.

It has to be emphasized that the revolution in Nepal belongs to proletarians and peoples of the world. The International communist movement, particularly the Maoist Parties are obliged to, while learning from that revolution and taking joy in its victories, open their eyes and see dangerous political and ideological bends in its road and play their due role in this regard. Our party has done its share of this task up to now and will do more. Any sort of indifference and lack of getting into it under leftist cover (but with deep rightist nature) like calling for "another revolution" or by wishful thinking and naively emphasize the "Communist Party of Nepal's tactical expertise in making concrete analysis of concrete conditions" is equal to deserting one's internationalist tasks, taking an irresponsible attitude toward defending the achievements of the most important revolution at the beginning of 21st century, and an inability to face the real problems that the proletarian revolutions of our time are facing.

* * * * *

It is obvious that the victory of Maoists in the Constituent Assembly and their turning into the ruling party in the government is not equal to their seizing of political power. Entrance of the Nepalese Communists in the regime is not birth of a new revolutionary state. Their entrance into a feudal comprador state does not turn that state into a revolutionary state under the leadership of proletariat. The difference between state and government is one of the most basic elements of the theory of State and Revolution in revolutionary science of Marxism. State is an instrument of political, economical and social domination of one class over the other. Government is a form that any state can take in the context of different historical political conditions. For example, the governments of the bourgeois ruling class can take the forms such as bourgeois republic, monarchy, or fascistic theocratic regimes (like in Iran.) Proletarian states also can take the forms of People's Democratic Republic or Soviet Socialist Republic or Federal forms. Changing the form of a regime from one to the other does not means change of the state system. Historically we have seen numerous times when regimes (or governments) have changed without the class character of the state changing at all. In Iran's 1979 revolution the Shah's regime fell without destruction of the rule of capitalist and big land owning classes. Shah's regime was overthrown without a state of the working class in alliance with all other oppressed and toilers, being established. Only by having this kind of state was it possible to reorganize the society on a completely new economic, social and cultural foundation. The state system that the Shah's regime had relied on (concretely the Army, Security system and its organs, prisons, justice, international relations, etc.) not only was not destroyed, but was only reorganized as part of the process of consolidating a reactionary theocracy regime. The new regime not only was not a New political power, but in fact, having its religious label, it became even more reactionary and was more efficient than before in suppressing the majority of the oppressed peoples of Iran and women in particular. Not only the economic-social foundation of the state was left untouched, but also due to people's hopes about "revolution", it was save from their angry attacks and in this way gained time to reconstruct and consolidate itself. Its deep dependency to imperialist capitalism that had shaped the Iranian state not only remained intact but was hidden from the eyes of the masses with a cover of "independence". The reason of our emphasizing on that experience is to point out that changing of a government should not be mistaken with the change of nature and character of the states. That is why the communists have always defined victory of a revolution with "complete smashing of the state". In Nepal, a new revolutionary state has not yet been born out of smashing the old state.

In 2006 the Communist Party of Nepal signed an agreement called "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" with parliamentarian parties of that country. The aim of this agreement was establishment of peace and beginning of a peaceful process of establishing the Constituent Assembly and forming a bourgeois republic based one multi party elections including among them the Maoist party. Maoists declared that people's war had ended and People's Liberation Army was put into camps under the observation of the United Nations.

At the time, the Central Committee of our party wrote a private letter to CPNM seriously criticizing and warning against this policy while pointing out the truths which has been born out of bitter and bloody experiences of the struggles of the proletariat and people's of the world, including the experience of the 1979 revolution in Iran. (2) In opposition to the tactics of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) based on "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" our leadership warned about the danger that:

"… this tactic of your party can give a new life to the enemies of the revolution and help them to come up with a clever strategy for building a viable and efficient state. Don't forget that one of the main reasons the people's war was able to spread very quickly was due to this state's instability and incoherence."

"…the anti people and reactionary class alliances that had taken place in Nepal since 1990 in the form of parliamentarian democracy, could not consolidate the state due to inherent contradictions of those alliance and more so due to people's war. Now, they are trying to carry out this consolidation process through, on the one hand, pushing out the King and pushing out the people's war, on the other hand. And if they achieve this the result will be a feudal comprador republic state. his process could go through a lot of ups and downs, since they have to convince the king and; should satisfy trends such as the UML (the revisionist party that is in the regime) or, kick it out.etc. But, the main thing in making the whole deal successful is to pull the Maoists into this and enlist their help in implementing it." (2)

That letter also warned about the aims that the ruling parties in Nepal and India are seeking through signing this Agreement:

"Their aim is to push out both the King and the revolutionary people's power which has been formed through 10 years of people's war in the base areas; and reorganize the old state as a comprador-feudal Republic around the axis of the Congress Party (pro-India ruling party) and the Maoists—of course if the Maoists transform from a party waging people's war into a political party within the system.""(2)

The Central Committee's letter asks the CPNM's leadership:

"Is it impossible for them (for the ruling classes of Nepal and India and US imperialism) to achieve this? No! Of course it is possible that the king and a part of the feudal compradors who are the base of the King as well as the Nepali military generals might resist this plan. But, even in the example of Iran in 1979 we saw that the American generals convinced the Iranian Army generals to let the Shah go and take the side of Khomeini. In Nepal also it is possible that the Nepalese generals might let the King go and take the side of the Congress Party." (2)

Then the letter brings out another question:

"Is it impossible for them to allow the Maoists into a new state structure which has a form of Republic but the content of dictatorship of the comprador bourgeois class?"

"We are aware that the Indian state and part of the feudal comprador class of Nepal represented by the Congress Party think that there is a good chance for this. We know that the ruling classes of India has done this before in India and are aware of magical force of co-opting the ex communists in the state structure and by doing so they can give a new life to the old state. Through the history of their rule, the ruling classes of India have been able to reorganize and renew their state through co-opting the ex communists and part of representatives of the movements of the oppressed into their existing state. And by doing so, they have managed to turn from an inefficient and unstable dictatorship into a more efficient reactionary dictatorship against the masses. The suffocating role of various "communist" parties in India in mitigating the rebellious impulse of the masses has been no less than destructive role of religion and other ideological elements of the reactionary classes. Reactionary classes of India are old hands in turning communists from old foes into present partners. And right now they are trying to do the same in Nepal."

The Letter, after analyzing the strategic plan of enemy in signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the Maoists, says:

"This strategic plan is dependent on the working of two tactical wings. First, turn this provisional feudal comprador regime into a permanent one after the Constituent Assembly elections. Second, detach the Maoists of Nepal from revolutionaries in India and around the world."

The Letter clearly states that, "Use of such strategy by the reactionary ruling classes is nothing new. Lenin had named it `Constitutional Solution' by the old state to solve its dead ends and crisis of legitimacy." (2)

Participation of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the interim government of Nepal does not change the feudal comprador class nature of that state. With legal abolition of the Royal regime and declaration of republic, the class nature of that state will not change. A change in the form of government is not same as smashing the state of the feudal comprador classes and breaking away from imperialist domination. This is a fact that normally the leadership of Maoist Party should know and it has to inform the rank and file of party and revolutionary and oppressed masses of Nepal of this fact.

Even if the Constituent Assembly passes some political, social and economical "rights" for the workers, peasants, women and oppressed nationalities and designated them as masters of society, up until the heart of the reactionary state – i.e. reactionary army – has remained intact, the real meaning of these laws will be to spread illusion among the masses and take away the real rights that they have gained through the people's war. As long as the army is in the hands of the exploiting classes and the main means of production under their ownership and control, Constitutional promises about safeguarding people's interest is unfounded. The role of Constitution in bourgeois republics is exactly to guarantee and serve the foundations of economic exploitation. Even in most democratic bourgeois republics the people's rights are confined in this frame. If the rights which are promised to people come into contradiction with this basic aim they would easily be trampled upon.

Clearly, the communists of Nepal launched the people's war with the task that is universal to all proletarian revolutions i.e. "smashing the machinery of the state" and seizing power. And they applied this line for 10 years. But today, considering the difficulties that have come up on the way, they think they can pursue the aim of establishing a revolutionary state through a peaceful road. But this is impossible! No class in history has seized political power peacefully. This much of power also have been gained in the course of 10 years of people's war waged by the workers and peasants of Nepal under the leadership of Maoists. This much of power is not expressed through the seats gained in the Constituent Assembly but basically through the revolutionary political and economical transformations which was achieved in the course of ten years of armed struggle. But this power, without taking over the whole country, is unstable and in danger of being lost for ever. The central question is, whether participating in the state and trying to change it from within will strengthen the political and economical power of the workers and peasants of Nepal, or will it lead to its complete annihilation? Will ten years of people's war be used to perfect the reactionary state or for its destruction? If the outcome is establishment of a bourgeois republic, then the sacrifices of the masses will serve the perfection and modernization of the means of oppressing the masses, not the establishment of a new society with new political power, new economy, new social relations and new culture.

If the comrades of Nepal continue on the path they have taken up, that much of political and economic power gained by the workers and peasants of Nepal will not only not be consolidated but will be lost. And instead there will be a feudal bourgeois republic dependent on India, China or both of them.

* * * * *

To prove this, it will suffice to Point to the dominant balance of forces. The Royal army has remained basically intact and enjoys the support of India, the US and big ruling parties. The people's war came to a halt before smashing the backbone of the old state. If we look at the economic situation of the country, how this small country is in the fangs of Indian state and international economic centers, then the real dimensions of this unfavorable balance of forces will come to. Is it possible to cut off these fangs just by being in the government, and without a proletarian state?

What is political power and the state of dictatorship/democracy of the proletariat necessary for? It is necessary for destroying feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism and dependence to imperialism, and transforming Nepal into a proletarian revolutionary red base area in the world. That's why destruction of the existing state machinery can not be limited to and reduced to overthrowing the monarchy. The target of New Democratic Revolution is the whole bureaucrat– comprador and feudal classes and their foreign and imperialist supporters, not just the Monarchial part of it. The slogan of abolition of Monarch was and is correct but this has to be done as a part of a New Democratic Revolution and establishment of a New State.

One can not reduce feudalism in Nepal to the institution of Monarchy. Feudalism is the land ownership relations and the pre-capitalistic mode of exploitation. For the peasants to be emancipated, this ownership relations ought to be definitely destroyed. Simultaneously the politico-economic domination of the Indian state on Nepal which is in behalf of world capitalism must be ended. It is impossible to carry out this process without relying on the broad masses and their conscious and organized struggle.

In the imperialist era it is not possible to uproot feudalism without simultaneous expropriation of the bureaucrat capitalism. This capitalism also ought to be confiscated; its nature be altered and turned into the interest of development of a self sufficient economy that has the goal of meeting the needs of the masses.

Which class and with what economic plan will take hold of bank holdings and other wealth of the country? Will the World Bank and IMF, wielding strings of "financial aid" and "foreign investment" continue running the Nepal economy? If these financial institutions call the shots and India continue to keep hands on the throat of the country, then even feudalism cannot be abolished, because, in the era of imperialism, feudalism does not have a life independent and separate from workings of capitalism. The bureaucrat capitalism (dependent on the world capitalist system) and the capitalist system overall (be it through Indian or Chinese capitals or, through "aid" from the World Bank) have transformed and subsumed feudal mode of exploitation in its service. Whatever is left of feudal mode of exploitation (including its social relations) is turned to serve profitability of bureaucrat capitalism. Today, uprooting of feudalism in Nepal requires revolutionary distribution of land in Terai (the area which is a main source for Nepalese people's nutrition.) People's War has done whatever possible in the mountains and hills. But to prevent feudalism's resurrection in reformed shapes or capitalist exploitation taking place of the pre capitalist exploitation, the power should be in the hands of the state of proletarian dictatorship/ democracy in order to carry out a movement of socialist ownership in areas where the land revolution has occurred.

No coalition government with participation of parts of the bourgeoisie (or participation of part of remnants of the previous regime) will implement such a plan, because private property plays a central role in capitalist system and the bourgeoisie of a country like Nepal has deep links with land ownership. Moreover, the exploiting classes, due to their general fear of the poor of the countryside, will never support a revolutionary land reform. It is true that revolutionary land reform program is still within limits of bourgeois democracy. But its implementation in a revolutionary manner is only possible by the proletariat. Only in this way can the small working class of Nepal lay the basis for independent and rapid development of the country. Only land revolution can become the basis for rapid development, voluntary cooperation and collectivization, which has a central role in uplifting the stage of revolution to that of socialist stage.

If there is to be a victory, one can not short circuit this program or invent a "transitional period" for implementing it. It is not possible to make "transition" to New Democratic Revolution by relying on bourgeois republic. As the letter of our leadership to CPNM puts it:

"What you will achieve by restructuring of the state through this "provisional" step will not even be a bourgeois republic. It will be a feudal comprador republic. This republic will weaken the new Nepal that has been born out of old Nepal by the force of revolutionary violence but has not yet been able to completely destroy the old one. The provisional government will open the way for the new Nepal being swallowed by the old Nepal."(2)

Establishment of a "transitional" bourgeois republic is not a tactic that can serve to propel the strategy of New Democratic Revolution. But it is a tactic that serves the strategy of reforming feudal comprador state. This tactic is very fatal and destructive and could destroy all the hopes and achievements of the Nepalese people. Confining the People's Army and calling for a single new army through integration of the two is the most damaging aspects of this tactic. (3).

* * * * * *

Congratulations and compliments sent by the communist parties, Left and progressive organizations and individuals to CPNM for this electoral victory only covers up the above mentioned fundamental issues. Without deep and all around understanding of the objective obstacles in the way of the revolution in Nepal, one can not help the comrades of Nepal.

Making revolution in a poor, small, and economically backward country such as Nepal which is sandwiched by two big powers such as China and India, and is in danger of invasion by India at any moment, has a lot of complexities. Moreover, the revolution in Nepal is alone in the world and the balance of the forces internationally is not favorable to it. The combination of these factors has placed numerous constraints on its advance and developments. (4) In any revolution, different lines raise their heads when revolutions faces difficulties and complexities and in response to those. What is most disturbing for communist forces internationally is the line that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has adopted regarding how to advance the revolution in that country. Historical experience has shown that revolutions can be defeated even if the revolutionaries did not make mistakes. In this case the cause of their failure would be unfavorable balance of forces. But when the party which is leading the revolution commits errors and errs in distinguishing the friends and foes, then the revolution will definitely fail. This is the main danger! Wrong political line and policy will enforce the unfavorable factors even more and will make the balance of forces even more unfavorable. Strategic orientation influences the balance of forces positively or negatively, because sooner or later it becomes a material force. When a strategic orientation and its corresponding tactics are wrong, not only it sets into motion the downward spiral of a revolutionary process but in the long run this regression influences the communists negatively—if sows seeds of confusion and enforces revisionism among them.

Revolution in Nepal is in great danger. It is internationalist duty of all communists of the world to pay attention to this. Struggling to face the dangers threatening the revolution in Nepal from inside and outside, undoubtedly will raise the understanding of all communists in the world of the complexities and difficulties of making revolution in today's world.

But the end of the revolution in Nepal has not been written yet. This revolution has gone through many twists and turns and without wanting to predict its future, by looking at the bigger picture, i.e. changes in the world situation which provides the context for Nepal revolution– we can still see a storm building up. This revolution can, and must continue.

The bourgeois parties in Nepal have accepted to let Maoists to take over the helms of their regime at a time when scarcity and hunger due to workings of capitalist system is on the way. Nepalese reactionaries have organized fascist paramilitaries to carry out the plan of assassinating revolutionary Maoists. The Indian state has stopped export of rice to Nepal under the guise of preventing hunger in India. They, along with the Us Imperialists would like to shift the burden of social problems to the Maoists and channel the anger of the masses towards CPNM. Simultaneously, by ways of conspiracies they try to use existing divisions among the people (such as division among nationalities) in order to fan flames of discord among them and through different ways and means enforce insecurity and instability in the country. It is possible that such crises could change the "peaceful evolution of revolution" into a "non peaceful" one. Hard realities of class struggle may help the CPNM to rupture from the present path as soon as possible. To rectify a trajectory always requires waging a conscious and all around ideological and political struggle.

In Nepal and among the ranks of CPNM it is not a secret that there are differences and line struggles among the Maoists of the world over the trajectory that the CPNM have taken up. The leaders and spokespersons of CPNM have pointed to these differences in their open publications several times. For example Prachanda (the chairman of CPNM) made an interview in 2007 and talked about opposition of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and Communist Party of India (Maoist) with the current line of CPNM. Or another Maoist leader in Nepal, in an interview with Red Star said:

"For us criticisms by Bob Avakian (Chair of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) and Ghanapaty (Chair of the Communist Party of India – Maoist) is more pleasant and productive than the compliments coming from George Bush and the Indian Government."

It is noteworthy that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has usually revealed the line struggles within the international communist movement and among the party leaders, for the party supporters, and has been a good example in this regard. But informing and sharing matters with the masses is one thing and launching and spreading a serious theoretical debate and discussions among them around these line differences which have life and death importance for the ICM, is another thing.

Today, the main duty of the international communist movement regarding the revolution in Nepal is not praising partial and temporary victories. Even when the masses (and leaders of revolution) become fascinated by such "victories" and close their eyes to the long term interests, one must draw attention to fundamental truths and the laws governing class struggle. Especially because this "victor" is a poisonous honey that can have disastrous consequences for this revolution and naturally for the whole international proletariat. As it was said in the A World to Win News Service article titled: "On 12th Anniversary of the People's War in Nepal and its Unknown Result" (February 11-2008):

"At any time, there is no guarantee for victory of revolution in Nepal or any other country. But it could be said that however difficult and horrible the road to complete victory of the revolution may be, still, that is the only real and possible way for changing Nepal. It is necessary for the communists persevere on this orientation and lead the masses in materializing it."

Haghighat 40- CPIMLM- May 30th 2008

Notes:

1 – It is interesting to note that most of the congratulating parties had not supported the 10 years of people's war under the leadership of the Maoists in Nepal as much. Some of them have happily praised this electoral victory so much that had never done a fraction of it for past victories of Maoists in Nepal! Are these kind of parties happy that one can be simultaneously a "communist" and join the typical bourgeois political games? That one can dream of bringing about a radically new society but at the same time put a limit on the long and arduous class struggle? One can see dangerous illusions in these congratulatory messages (especially in those issued by the Communist parties): the illusion that as though struggle for revolutionary change of the society can go through participation in mainstream bourgeois politicking. And even worse, as if the goal of revolutionary struggle is to get accepted into the circles of mainstream politics and get recognition from the system. But these roads have been tested many times before in history and have proved to be failure. This same road was taken by the Communist Party of Indonesia. As a result the Indonesian party experienced such a tremendous defeat that it could not raise its head again. Moreover, the impact of that disastrous defeat did not stay within the confines of Indonesia but was grave for the whole communist movement in the world and even was a big blow to socialist China. A victory in Indonesia could positively influence the balance of forces in favor of the communists but its defeat turn the situation around and made a plus for the imperialists.

2 – This letter was sent from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in November 2006. Its full text will be published when the time is right.

3 – One of the articles of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006 was to confine the People's Liberation Army and have their weapons under the surveillance of the United Nations. This more than anything gave legitimacy to the army of enemy. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) also wanted to dissolve both armies and form a single one. But this was not do-able and did not happen. In January 2008 the chief of the reactionary Military Forces openly opposed this suggestion. This shows that reactionaries never get confused about what is their most pivotal means of exercising power.

4 – For further discussions on this question you can refer to previous articles in Haghighat:
- Different articles in Haghighat No. 30 – October-2006
- Nepal Revolution: complex problems; facile answers! Haghighat 31
- Complexities of a revolution becomes a justification to attack the Maoists. Haghighat 32
- 12th anniversary of the people's war in Nepal and its unsettled outcome; 11 February 2008. A World to Win News Service.
- Nepal, the People's Expectation Horizon Getting Wider. April 14th 2008, A World to Win News Service

These articles are available in the site of Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)

This is a good begining. Rejection of the Stalinism is a preliminary condition for any communist organization to do something praiseworthy. It is evident now that the Nepal maoists are not the same as "khmeres rouges", and Nepal is not going to become another Campuchea. Let us see what will be later, bur there are already two big victories - (1) the Nepal maoists won the war and (2) they freed themselves from the Stalinism.

In any healthy revolutionary organisation there is necessarily a strong culture of debate and discussion. But also any healthy party organisation has to have a firm commitment to democratic centralism.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is no exception to this rule. In the corporate press there is all sorts of talk about deep and even ireconcilable differences within the Maoist camp as to the direction of the party in the new post CA election context. Any rumours of bidding splits, I believe are false.

The CPN(M) has gone through some very momentus and incredibly intense ideological struggles and challenges over its life. The creation of the idea of "Prachanda Path" was not a simple process, but involved a similar intense debate and struggle within the Maoist party. Internal struggles have even got to the point where Baburam Bhattarai the defacto number 2 of the CPN(M) was even breifly expelled from the CPN(M) in 2005.

Importantly while the CPN(M) has had very intense internal politics, even since before the peoples war began, the intensity of the internal struggles have been matched by a passionate commitment to the party and democratic socialism, and all factions have been able to come behind the party line when all is said and done. The current debate and disscussion needs to be understood in the context of the situation in Nepal.

The CPN(M) finds itself in a very precarious position at present. While they have form and control government it would be false to say that the Maoists have completely captured state power at this stage. The Maoists have found themselves leading what is left of a feudal/bourgeois state. Nepal is a country with 2 armies, the Nepalese Army, which despite dropping Royal from its name is very much still a bastion of the old state, and and the Peoples Liberation Army of the Maoists.

Nepal is still crippled by underdevelopment, which simply must be allieviated. Due to a lack of resources and capital any development will have to be tied to foriegn investment, which with the lack of any "Soviet bloc" means that this new (potentially) socialist government could need to be open and relatively cooperative with forces such as the IMF or the World Bank. It is this context that the debate within the Maoist Party is happening.

The current strategy of the Maoists goes back to when they were still in the jungles during the Peoples war. The peoples war, the co-operation with the other parties and the truly massive Peoples movement of 2006 have brought this strategy to its logical conclusion. The monarchy has been defeated, the constituent assembly is sitting and the Maoists lead the government. Their stragegy was the right one, and they have the success to prove it, and so now they are in the middle of forging the new blueprint for the next stage of the struggle.

Within the party their has emerged two lines and factions within this debate. The first which I will term the "Orthodox" faction from my understanding hold a more traditional Maoist viewpoint and are led by Mohan Baidya, CP Gajurel, Ram Bahdur Thapa and Matrika Yadav. The second, the "21st century Maoists" are more flexible and have been more open to creating a new and dynamic party line, is lead by Babburam Bhattarai and his wife Hasila Yami (and Prachanda has recently shown inclinations to this side of debate).

The Orthodox faction is calling for a "Peoples Republic" in the more traditional sense. They are calling for the immediate controll of the economy and political life. They think that the revolutionary events of the 2006 peoples movement are in danger unless there is an immeadiate and intense puch forward for socialism. They would like to immediately try and build a state simmilar to a Cuba or (apparently) North Korea and do away with the constituent assembley (ala Bolsheviks in 1917).

Interestingly both sides of the debate maintain that they are for multi-party democracy, however the orthodox faction would only allow other parties to function within the political space allocated by the state. The "21st century Maoists" are less ambitious but just as revolutionary. This faction recognises that Nepal is impoverished and needs to be able to interact with the rest of the capitalist world in order to obtain capital to develope the country. They are for creating a "people-oriented constituion" through the constiuent assembly (similar to a Venezeula) and consolidating their own control and the gains of the 2006 peoples movement, before trying to push to a more obviously socialist system. They are for a multi-party democracy, but want to change the context of that democracy (e.g. they argue that in a capitalist context, the political parties all advcated the same ruling class ideology just different means to that end, but in the context of a socialist revolution, the parties would all be for socialist revolution, but with different means to that end).

In my honest and humble opinion, both these lines have some serious strengths and weaknesses. The 'Orthodox' faction will always be correct in saying that the quickest road to socialism is the best road to socialism, I mean if a socialist party isnt striving for socialism, then it isnt a socialist party is it? But to put your party, and now the nation of Nepal on such a public crash course with the might of international imperialism, especially while the country is so underdeveloped, international solidarity still in its infancy, and your trading partners so limited seems risky, if not suicidal.

While it would be nice to have a south-asia Cuba, there is no USSR to take the heat off while the New Nepal is being born, and whats more Cuba is struggling under a blockade that makes it difficult for socialism to breathe there, Nepal being landlocked, at this stage could easily be smothered by India closing the border.

That being said the "21st Century Maoists" can be cutting a fine line in the race to develop the countryside. They only need to look across the border to West Bengal to see that a "communist" government means shit if they are just communist in name, and not in actions. In particular,  the bending over backwards to get money off the WTO and the IMF can naturally lead to the seeping in of some less than revolutionary ideas. However if you can keep the outside corrupting influences out and develop the country, then the working classes of Nepal will be in an infinately better posistion to spread the revolution as time goes on.

These two lines are currently being debated out, allong with many other issues, in the lead up to a National Cadre Conference in November, to decide on Maoist stratgy going forward. There are two important things to remember more than anything else however. For one, which ever line gets up and what ever happens at the conference, the fundamental thing about the revolution in Nepal will not change, and that is there are millions of oppressed peoples who are actively involved in the changes of that country, who know the power of their class and are already far better off for the relativly small changes so far. The monarchy gone, the caste system, largely gone, development seriously being challenged, sexism seriously being challenged, feudal land relations seriously being challenged or already gone.

On top of this the Young Communist League with half a million members is not going to be any less active against corruption, the revolutionary women are not going to stop uplifting women.

At this stage the machine has enough juice to keep it ticking over. Secondly, nothing i can say is of any consequence, and i would like to stress that this are my own ramblings from my analysis with only a few limited contacts in Nepal and then jsut what I read on a few email lists and websites.

Take note that this party is a party that since its creation has consistently read the political lay of the land and found the best way to go forward with truly amazing results. If anyone is going to find the best possible way to enhance the revolution in Nepal and spread it to the world, the CPN(M) are the people to do it. At every twist and turn they have made the most of every situation based on the very best concrete analysis of the concrete situation.

There is no reason to start doubting them now, and im sure that the exciting developements in Nepal are going to continue for the forseable future.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ23Df02.html

Oct 23, 2008

Prachanda's multiparty pickle
By Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon's visit to Nepal, scheduled for the end of the month, might give Prime Minister Prachanda an enhanced sense of the international acceptability of the interim coalition government he has been heading since mid-August.

Ban's arrival, however, comes amid widespread skepticism within the country about Maoists' sincerity to remain committed to multiparty democracy. Such doubts have presented a formidable challenge to Prachanda's leadership.

While this challenge does not pose any immediate threat to the Prachanda-led government, conflicting ideas and arguments

emanating from some of his senior comrades have made even the credulous public suspicious of the true intentions of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

A strong case is being made through media debate that a revolutionary party cannot be expected to be satisfied until the country becomes a "people's republic". Abolishing the monarchy and replacing it with a republican democracy is definitely a step forward, says senior Maoist leader Mohan Baidya, also known as "Kiran" and widely considered to be Prachanda's mentor.

"Our objective is to establish a people's republic which is yet to be accomplished," a newspaper quoted him as saying. Kiran is said to belong to a group that is opposed to softening the position held throughout the insurgency years. Meanwhile, Baburam Bhattarai, number two in the party hierarchy, is said to be emerging as the leader of a faction in favor of political flexibility.

Prachanda appears to be in the middle, and there is speculation that he intends to give communism a Nepali look suitable to the 21st century. "It can't be the photocopy of Mao's Maoism," he told Janadisha newspaper on Friday, in reference to China's Mao Zedong.

"We have walked into the era of competitive politics and have embarked on the project of federal structure," Prachanda added. "Mao's scheme was based on a unitary structure".

The main reason behind recent public outcry is that the Maoists could impose one-party rule, drawing inspiration from countries like China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea or Zimbabwe. Prachanda believes his visits to India and the United States (at the UN in New York) have helped to dispel doubts in the West that because of their background of violence, the Maoists would try to place Nepal under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Prachanda has emphasized that all the Maoists are opposed to is the parliamentary form of democracy. His contention is that since the parliamentary format has failed to address people's woes in countries like India and Britain, it is not worthwhile to retain in Nepal. He once praised the French model in which the executive branch - or presidency - conducts the show. He has not mentioned the American model, perhaps because it would amount to appeasing the world's imperialist power.

It is unclear whether Prachanda's initiatives have actually helped remove persisting fears about Maoist intentions. On the domestic front, the party leadership seems to have mobilized intellectual support to convince the public that the system the Maoists want to establish will not be one-party rule.

One such intellectual, Professor Manik Lal Shrestha, argued in an article printed in the official Gorakhapatra newspaper on Sunday that "people's democracies" prevalent in countries like China, Korea, Laos and Vietnam are not actually single-party dispensations. In other words, Shrestha does not see any harm in the Maoists taking Nepal in that direction.

Quoting from Maoist literature, Shrestha has advanced a contention that, like China, Nepal's new people's democracy would have to be based on cooperation rather than having opposition parties.

Similarly, the federal structure Prachanda has been advocating has been a controversial issue from the beginning. And the point of contention is centered around a scheme to create federal units on the basis of ethnicity. Since the country is known for its mixed population and diversity, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to relocate particular ethnic groups from one region to another.

As rebels in the past decade, Maoists followed the slogan of making the residents of the southern Terai plains free from the alleged exploitation of hill-dwellers. The Maoist leadership realizes that it can't backtrack from its public pledge - but others see this whole idea as a suicide mission.

Narayanman Bijukchhe, president of a party of workers and peasants, has described a Maoist plan to create a province for the Newar ethnic and linguist group within the Kathmandu valley as "fatal". (The valley has three of the 75 administrative districts in Nepal.)

Jhalanath Khanal, general secretary of the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) party, a rival of the Maoists, accuses the Maoist leadership of promoting a "devastating concept", namely that of transforming the entire southern Terai flatlands into one federal unit. Terai shares borders with some Indian states including West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

And the demand from Terai has already encouraged Nepal's northern Himalayan belt, bordering China's Tibet, to seek autonomy. Analysts say excessive zeal for self-determination might lead to the breakup of the country.

Which among the nine communist parties currently in existence is the real party of communists? Answers differ, depending on a variety of claims. Except the party of workers and peasants, others have their names qualified with additional tags in parenthesis, such as Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), Communist Party of Nepal ( Unity Center ) and Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist).

Some of the Maoist leaders claim that since they are the largest party among the communists they can afford to give up the "Maoist" tag.

Senior leader "Kiran", however, is against this proposition. "It is our identity, not a tail or a tag," he told Nayaa Patrikaa newspaper on Tuesday. He is more concerned about the possible negative influence of greater flexibility, replacing revolutionary determination. Rightist opportunism, he fears, can dilute the entire process Maoists faithfully launched in 1996.

The other major challenge confronting the Maoist leadership is the issue of integrating Maoist soldiers, numbering nearly 20,000, into the national Nepal Army.

The army leadership initially resisted the idea of inducting politically indoctrinated cadre into the national military, but with the formation of the Maoist government the army's voice has lost its sting. The new defense minister, Rambahadur Thapa or "Badal", seems conspicuously determined to create a "national army" through the combination of the two existing armies.

But he faced a direct confrontation on Monday, when two of the ministers from the coalition publicly opposed the idea of integration, saying that if the Maoist forces joined the national army, Nepal would lose its entire territory in the southern flatlands of Terai. Interestingly, this voice of dissent from Terai became much louder after Rambahadur Thapa returned from an official visit of China.

Ian Martin, who heads the UN's special mission in Nepal, also believes that the ongoing peace process cannot be complete as long as two separate armies exist. The government's plan to set up a special committee to sort out the thorny question has yet to be implemented.

Prachanda appears to be in a dilemma: he knows he cannot ignore the plight of soldiers who have been sheltered in UN-monitored camps for months. Media reports from various cantonment sites indicate growing resentment against the political leadership. One report referred to preparations for an open revolt against Prachanda.

He is under pressure to act fast and decisively. He can persuade the Nepal army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal, and some senior officers to agree for integration without any pre-conditions. But will the junior officers, who have fought Maoists in the field, obey their commanders without question?

In an emerging scenario, disgruntled army officers may create a totally different situation, the Drishti newspaper reported on Tuesday quoting an unnamed senior army officer.

If an interim constitution can be defied by political parties, it can also be ignored by non-political actors.

Dhruba Adhikary, a former head of the Nepal Press Institute, is a Kathmandu-based journalist.

(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue17/sonam.htm

Red Star, Vol - I, 17, October 24-Nov 07, 2008

- Kul Prasad KC ‘Sonam’

Nepal is still in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal state. No drastic change has occurred; there can be no change in contradiction in the political situation until there is a fundamental change in the mode of production. Therefore, in this type of political situation, there are still the same solutions; national and sovereign independence against semi-colonial domination. So, this is the situation of the Democratic People’s Movement.

Only the monarchy, the leader of feudalism, has ceased to exist. However, the feudalistic mechanism still exists under a different color. In some places, it exists organizationally, institutionally and in some places through the ownership of land and capital. This is why there is not a change in its essence and in the character of the contradiction. Internationally, the world proletarian revolution is in the defensive position. It is natural. Now there is global hegemony in the world. The hegemony prevails in every sector of society.

Although they have put out the slogan of ‘liberalization’ and ‘privatization’, everything is taking place under the global programme of imperialism. Therefore, we should make an effort to build an anti-imperialist front by bringing all the struggles and the movements against imperialism from every part of the world. . We should expand and strengthen the concept of Coordinating Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) in the context of South Asia to control the bullying of Indian expansionism.

We must polarize the parties, organizations and the struggle by analyzing the situation existing in South Asia. All the people of the countries bordering India and the exploited people of India can struggle jointly against the expansionist bullying of the Indian rulers. Now, it has been compulsory to build a front in South Asia against Indian intervention and for a comprehensive front against American Imperialism in the world. Only after that can we have freedom, independence and guarantee the fundamental rights of the exploited people.

In the developing countries and even in the ‘developed’ countries, struggles for national liberation are going on. We should respect their spirit, aspiration and the fight for freedom; and should form joint fronts as far as possible. This is the responsibility of the proletariat class today. The Nepalese proletarian class should fulfill this responsibility and develop the concept of struggle for national liberation

The present crisis in the economy of global imperialism should be analyzed in a new way. It shows that the creation of united front should not only be from the point of view of building a united front, but also from the point of view of an ideological and political united front. The crisis in the economy of global imperialism has matured the objective conditions for the world revolution. It is a favorable condition for proletarian revolution. However, this matured and favorable situation should be addressed by the ideology and leadership of the proletarian class. It is not only the continuation of a decade crisis in a global economy of imperialism; this crisis in global economy helps us to solve the contradiction through the solution- Revolution.

In Nepal, a type of reform has been done, but it is not a drastic change. In our political analysis, we have established the Federal Republic of Nepal. However, it is not clear whom the republic serves? Does it serve the bourgeoisie or the proletarian class? Now the debate is on which class does this republic serve? The increasing role of foreign powers and the high demands of people in the nation show that the contradictions are not being solved; rather they are sharpening.

The favorable objective situation has demanded a matured subjective force. It means that the debate conducted ideologically and politically as the two line struggle in the party and its expression in class struggle will play an important strategic influence in the history of class struggle. Mainly, the centre of the debate in our party is over the leadership of the proletarian class. We have to evaluate whether we are able to maintain the leadership of proletarian class or not, and how we can maintain the leadership of the proletarian class. We have already reached the theoretical decision that the proletarian class cannot be victorious until and unless it develops the best military and ideological tactics.

The debate is on ideology. The debate is over Marxism or reformism. Have we only one alternative to make agreements or have we any other alternatives of struggle and revolt? We are in a debate about ideology, politics, policy, programs and the forms of tactics because the previous movements of the proletarian class have slipped away, collapsed or weakened when they have obtained power. Therefore we consider that the importance of the debate to analyze and synthesize it from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Basically, does it fit with Marxism and has our method of work and style of work served the interests of revolution or has it served reformism. This is the major principle debate.

We can say that the debate is the continuation of the great debate between China and the USSR after the death of Stalin. Because the debate is on similar issues; how to accomplish the revolution in a country in the world and how to protect the achievements gained from the revolution. The debate is between a pragmatic eclecticism and revolutionary Marxism. We are debating over revolution or reformism.

In this debate, because it is a great debate, we welcome those comrades who take part in the proletarian spirit. They should be allowed to react and complain. We should appreciate and analyze their reactions. If there are illusions, we should clarify them and if there are principle issues, we should finalize those through ideological debate. This is because the proletarian debate has been created on the foundation of a decade long proletarian class struggle. They have their own share in the Nepalese revolution. So, they will welcome the chance to take part in the debate in the proletarian spirit. We are expecting helping hands to bring maturity to the revolution of Nepal, along with the world proletarian revolution.

Criticism for criticism and creativity for creativity is not dialectics. This type of tradition that has developed within the communist parties of the world should be rejected and the dialectical process and method should be applied. We are sharing and ready to share the experiences and suggestions of comrades internationally; and give a new experience for the birth of a new proletarian world.

Rajesh Tyagi

Statements made by Prachanda, Bhattarai and other Maoist leaders, have made it more and more clear that Maoists intend to take power in Nepal in direct and open collaboration with capitalists, and not in their opposition. The theory and practice of Maoism on the soil of Nepal, has exposed to the hilt, the essence of the programme bundled under the slogan of ‘New Democracy’, as the bare blueprint for a Capitalist democracy.

The recent article by Laxman Pant, the Chief of foreign Affairs of CPN (Maoist), appearing on September 21, under the title-‘Fall of Koirala Dynasty’ is yet another curtain raiser of the Maoist platform in Nepal and precipitates the essence of the deceptive cocktail of ‘New Democracy’.

The article states in no ambiguous terms that the present political regime in Nepal is the dictatorship of two classes- ‘Bourgeois and Proletariat’. This programme of collaboration between the hostile classes, which is being advanced under the banner of ‘New Democracy’ in Nepal, is through and through reactionary and is open betrayal of the aspiration of the people. On the pretext of national peculiarities of Nepal, a roadmap for unbridled capitalist development has been prepared in the name of the ‘Prachanda Path’, with express approval of local and world capitalists. The Maoist party is revealing itself before the eyes of all as the agency of these capitalist interests, equipped with an agenda of class conciliation to ensure development of Nepal on capitalistic path.

The misfortune for Maoists is that they are too late in history to have stakes upon the national bourgeois, which is nothing but a national agency of world capitalist system. The national revolution in Nepal, being unfolded in the world scenario of 21st century, cannot step further, even an inch in conjunction with the bourgeois; instead, can advance only in direct opposition to it. The bogus and unrealizable slogan of combined dictatorship of ‘bourgeois and proletariat’, is nothing but the proclamation of domination of bourgeois, the outright betrayal of the revolution.

The Bourgeois in Nepal, sandwiched between Imperialism on the one side and local reaction on the other, finds itself in a position which does not permit it to move against any of them. In this condition of political paralysis, which had continued for more than half century, the Nepali bourgeois cannot but aspire to take the power at the most as an agency of world capitalism, while adapting to local reaction at the same time. After it surrendered the struggle-the armed struggle- it had taken up under the leadership of Nepali Congress, more than half a century before, this bourgeois has no alternative left before it. More and more integration of Nepal into the world capitalism and its total and complete dependence upon it for its existence and survival, has weakened the national bourgeois to the core.

As the history shows, the greatest ‘achievements’ of local bourgeois, the fruits of its half-hearted struggles- the introduction of a Constitution and a Parliament- remained of no real importance, as were soon put to eternal subjugation under the yoke of the Monarchy, which retained the real power at its disposal- the Royal Nepal Army. Nepali bourgeois continued as mere parliamentary opposition to the regime of Monarchy, imbued with the historic task to hold back the people from rising against the now constitutional regime of Monarchy. The Parliament remained a ‘talking shop’, hanging at the mercy of Monarch.

During this entire epoch, passing through more than half a century, Stalinist parties, ever since the days of united communist party, continued their strife to constitute themselves into the democratic left wing of this bourgeois democracy. Failing to make a headway, through parliamentary means, they resorted to arms in the name of Maoist path, only to return to take their positions in Bourgeois democracy a decade later.

The history, especially on world arena, however continued to take the strife forward. The economy of Nepal, as a whole had become predominantly capitalist long before, being well integrated into the world market. The pre-capitalist forms of production which though still remained widespread especially in rural Nepal, were subordinated by the Capitalist economy. The adaptation between capitalism and the regime of Monarchy was perfected during decades, net result of which was the monopoly of Royal Families over all significant capitalist enterprise in Nepal. The political regime however, day by day, was becoming obsolete, incompatible and outmode in context of world scenario, in which modern Nepal existed. However, in the perception of our Maoists, Nepal remained a feudal economy, where Monarchy could be fought against in collaboration with National bourgeois, and the only way out for them- the ‘Prachanda Path’- was the way to ‘New Democracy’- i.e. combined dictatorship of ‘proletariat and capitalists’! For Maoists, bourgeois in Nepal is the revolutionary force, while working class is a non-entity!

Bourgeois not in a position to dislodge Monarchy, the task to carry out the democratic revolution essentially fell to the working class, very small in numbers and concentrated mainly in and around Kathmandu. But the deceptive existence of Stalinist and Maoist parties, deriving their false legitimacy form Russian and Chinese power, played a significant role in preventing the working class from realizing the need to form a Party of its own, with a socialist orientation towards the proletarian revolution. Such party was the desperate need of the time to politically consolidate the small working class, get it to the leadership of democratic revolution through mustering the support of huge poor peasantry, lead it against both the Monarchy and Bourgeois, and cross over to socialist tasks. Stalinists prevented the organization of such a party on the false pretext that the proletariat in Nepal is not capable to impose its hegemony upon the democratic revolution and take power as its leader, being very small in numbers. They falsely assumed that the agrarian revolution as the core of democratic overturn in Nepal, cannot be led by proletariat. The communists of all shades and banners in Nepal, either Stalinists or Maoists, thus never oriented themselves towards working class. Like Narodniks, they remained oriented towards the rural peasantry and the communist parties in Nepal had naturally emerged out from rural peasantry having a peasant perspective.

However, the decisive failure of the bourgeois to carry out a successful revolutionary struggle, proved to be a boon in disguise for the Stalinist and Maoist parties in Nepal. Given the absence of a party of working class, they could successfully occupy the political spectrum, vacated by the bourgeois for its impotence, as its left democratic wing. These Communist parties secured an opportunity to successfully present them as the harbinger of popular aspirations, chiefly that of peasantry. They took to themselves to accomplish the project of bourgeois democracy in Nepal. In the name of ‘Prachanda Path’ they evolved a programme for taking Nepal to Capitalist road- what they termed as ‘new democracy’. As all recent developments show, this programme is nothing but the platform for the regime of capitalism in Nepal. This platform is political manifestation of collaboration with class enemies of working class.

Prachanda Path has its peculiarity in the fact that its practice has laid bare the bogus doctrines advanced by Stalin and Mao based upon combined dictatorship of several classes. Though history has more than once repudiated these doctrines and has shown that the ‘dictatorship’ can be asserted by only one class- either bourgeois or the proletariat, that too against each other and not in unison, while the intermediary classes are doomed to follow this or that class. But Stalinists and later Maoists, have used this historically repudiated formula of combined dictatorship of several classes as an apology to sit in the lap of their national bourgeois and their parties. This Menshevik formula, of collaboration with the liberal bourgeois in democratic revolution, thrown to the trash of history by the revolutionary events of first quarter of 20th century, was later redressed by Mao in the name of ‘New Democracy’. Lenin, severely rebuked the old Bolsheviks- Bukharin, Kamenev & Co., who in the name of two class dictatorship rendered support to the provisional government and through his famous ‘April Thesis’ called upon the Bolsheviks to take power in opposition to bourgeois and establish the dictatorship of proletariat. Lenin clearly abandoned the old slogan of two class dictatorship- the ‘democratic dictatorship of Proletariat and Peasantry’. As we all know, the October Revolution in Russia, a predominantly peasant country- had won, but only as the dictatorship of proletariat. It was Stalin, who after the demise of Lenin once again picked up this formula, not from archives, but from the dustbin of history and applied it to China, Spain and elsewhere. Defeat of proletarian revolution of 1925-27 in China and victory of Franco in Spain, were the offshoots of this bogus formula. Mao further diluted this alliance, and made the Chinese bourgeois partner in the ‘bloc of four classes’. The rule of this ‘bloc of four classes’ proved to be the regime of bourgeois in disguise and within no time grew over into local agency of Imperialism, protected by the ruthless regime of red bureaucracy. The Maoist bureaucracy which took power in 1949 under the red banner, revealed itself in no time as the defender of this bourgeois regime. Neither the ‘Great Leap Forward’ nor the ‘Great Cultural Revolution’ could afford a respite and ultimately the massacre at ‘Tiennanmen’ was the final and clear answer of this bureaucracy to the people.

The Stalinist-Maoist parties had thereafter remained in universal collaboration with bourgeois classes. If Stalin disbanded the Comintern to appease the Imperialists and Mao entered into friendly agreement with Nixon at the peak of Vietnam War, the parties who followed their path have gone down in history everywhere as tutelage of bourgeois.

Prachanda Path in Nepal is the replica of Chinese Path, where the forced capitulation of working class to Chinese bourgeois in Kuomintang, led into total crushing of proletariat in 1927, and a resultant victory for the bureaucracy in 1949. In Nepal, Prachanda & Co. has risen to power in collaboration with bourgeois through peaceful means on the back of the April 2006 uprising. Maoists, who eventually held the peasantry under their control as illegitimate bearer of Proletarian red flag, as there existed no party of working class, held back the peasantry from coming to the aid of proletariat and aiding it to take the power through assault on Palace during April 2006 uprising. The April uprising had rendered the Monarchy completely powerless and the perplexed King restored the Parliament and the bourgeois order. Betraying the April uprising of 2006, and on the back of it, the Maoists struck a separate deal of their own with the Koirala Government on 16th June, and entered into the interim government. The upheaval, thus failed to overturn Monarchy and overthrow the bourgeois, only because the working class did not have a party of its own and thus could not muster the force of peasantry behind it. Peasantry remained under the control of Maoists who deliberately held it back from aiding the revolutionary assault, only to take power later on through parliamentary means in collaboration with bourgeois. Electoral victory of Prachanda in April 2008, which Laxman Pant terms as historic, is but only a meek echo of the thunderous upheaval of April 2006.

The Article of Laxman Pant is not a deviation from, but confirmation of the well orchestrated adaptation between the red bureaucracy and National bourgeois in the name of Prachanda Path. Peculiarities of Nepal, as distinct from other countries, are for them the justification for this collaboration, a universal argument of Stalinists-Maoists to justify their deviation from revolution and to oppose the slogan of dictatorship of Proletariat. Nepal is not mature for the dictatorship of proletariat, say the Maoists, therefore join hands with bourgeois! Same was the rhetoric of Mensheviks, who said that Russia was not mature for a proletarian dictatorship and thus bourgeois was to take power. Russian Mensheviks ended taking power in conjunction with bourgeois in provisional government and Maoists ended taking to power in partnership with bourgeois in Nepal. This is exactly what Laxman Pant terms as the ‘joint dictatorship of bourgeois and proletariat’.

As we now know, through clear historic experience, there cannot be a dictatorship which is not based upon a single and definite class. There cannot be a political power, which is not a class dictatorship in essence, though it may assume different and varied forms. Then what is the real essence of power in Nepal? This power, which pretends to be a revolutionary power based upon collaboration of hostile classes, in fact is the bourgeois power in black and white, consolidating itself inside the shell of deceptive ‘Joint dictatorship’. The backwardness of Nepal and the impotence of bourgeois, prevented it from taking power on its own. The Maoist party has thus come forward as its reliable ally to hold the power for it, under the red banner.

Maoists in Nepal are now making out a clear case for – a democratic republic i.e. a bourgeois democracy and from the roof-top are proclaiming a capitalist heaven in Nepal, based upon co-existence of all social classes in harmony. This is what they call Prachanda Path and the way of New Democracy. The rhetoric against intangible Imperialism, becomes a real fiction, in the background of their cherished alliance with its local agency- the national bourgeois in Nepal. As far as local reaction goes, the new mantra is to keep the hands off. Is legal proclamation of end of Monarchy not sufficient? Crown is sent to archives and Narayanhiti is vacated, Nepal is proclaimed to be republic! What else is required?

But the problem of Maoists is -how to sell the new agenda to the masses- the workers and the peasants? How to prevent them from advancing onto the road to revolution and for that from encroaching upon the bourgeois rights? To do this, Maoists will have to stand between the workers and bourgeois property to guard it against the advance of working class. In reply to a question in a meeting organized by Chamber of Commerce and Industry on his visit to India, Prachanda has already made his intentions clear. He was asked as to the guarantee for security of investment in Nepal against the possible onslaught of rebel mass, to which Prachanda had replied, without hesitation, that his Government itself would stand surety to foreign capitalist investment in Nepal. Look how the guerilla rebels of yesterday have taken somersault into a ‘Party of Order’! Normalcy is to be restored at all costs- ‘New-Democracy’ is to be consolidated, and for that revolution stands deleted from the agenda, i.e. the path of Prachanda.

Nepal remains in the peculiar state of political animation where Maoists are though the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly, but without sufficient majority to act on their own, while the real power continues to be vested in the old power centres, prime among them- the Army. This is what Laxman Pant tells us the unprecedented historic victory of Prachanda Path, in Nepal!

Revolutionary advance aside, petty reforms are slipping out of agenda of Maoists. Peaceful economic growth, i.e. the capitalist advance of economy is becoming the only objective. They are striving to attract the investments of world capital in Nepal and are assuring that they are not those old Marxists to worry about, but the pragmatic Marxists of 21st Century. Maoists are issuing cynical warnings against any attempt to thwart this national progress, which according to them is the common agenda of all classes in Nepal. What more bourgeois may relish? Bourgeois is interested in political power to advance its class interests, to suppress the working people, to prevent the working class from riding to power, and ultimately in its use as an instrument to protect and reassert its economic power. If all this can be done through red bureaucracy, specifically in the period when bourgeois finds itself unable to woo the masses or incapable to subjugate them, what else is required? What, if masses have become disillusioned with bourgeois parties, Stalinists-Maoists are there with red flags in their hands! If Stalinist-Maoist parties can be pressed to this political service, the bourgeois cannot crave for anything more! However, the misfortune of our Maoists is that they are placing reliance upon the national bourgeois in Nepal when the bourgeois has no national tasks on its agenda, when world capitalism as a whole has no national tasks before it and has completely burnt out its revolutionary energy, long before in history. Maoists, thus would share nothing, but only the crisis in which bourgeois finds itself engulfed in all countries, today. Their alliance with bourgeois is too belated in the history of Nepal, to be able to embark upon the path of peaceful capitalist development.

Anyway, Maoist Party in Nepal is not ready to cross over the bourgeois interests, rather is doubly assuring the world capitalism that it stands a guarantor to the bourgeois investments and property in Nepal. Guarantor against whom? Against Proletariat! By its selfsame logic, the Maoist power would stand between the poor toiling mass and the bourgeois property. It would hold back the working people from taking the revolution further, using deception of red flag, as far as possible, and would take to guns as soon as people become disillusioned from its ‘joint dictatorship’.

22.10.2008

-RAJESH TYAGI

Each passing day and event in Nepal adduces more and more evidence of the fact that the Maoist power in Nepal is only a sham for the real bourgeois power lurking behind it and asserting itself at each step of the political life in the country. Capitulation of Maoists to assume power through parliament, hobnobbing with Monarchy and then with Nepali Congress, abandonment of Madhesi movement under pressure of bourgeois parties in Seven Party Alliance, coalition with bourgeois parties like Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, assumption of power in collusion with bourgeois parties, declaration of their power as ‘joint dictatorship of bourgeois and proletariat’, assurances to local and foreign capitalists for securing investments, declaration of Nepal as federal republic instead of a proletarian democracy, pushing the peasant war into blind alley of constitutional democracy, repeated proclamations for protection of private property and now the recent one – forced ejectment of landless dalits from the land seized by them, are the consecutive links in this chain.

The incident of Mirchaiya in Siraha district of Nepal, is the one of such incidents, where the proclamations and programme of Maoists had come for a test on the ground, in all its seriousness. Though on a limited local scale, but the national project of ‘New Democracy’ of Maoists, which they claim to uphold in conjunction with ‘national bourgeois’, was put to verification in practice, incidentally.

The artificial limitation set out by the Maoists upon their ‘first stage’ revolution, i.e. not to cross over the limits of bourgeois rights and property, came in direct conflict with radical aspirations of proletariat, whose class interests placed the demand for seizure of all lands belonging to the landlords, on the order of the day. While the workers and peasants were expecting the new government to become an instrument for land reforms, of which seizure is the most radical tool, the government under Maoists stealthily prepared the plan for return of even the lands seized from landlords during armed struggle. Maoist party entered into an agreement with bourgeois-landlord parties to return all the lands seized through armed struggle.

One of such landed Estates, seized during the armed struggle, belonged to Mohan Shahi, a member of former royalty, but was then returned back to the landlord by the ‘democratic’ government of Prachanda. Landless dalits who were dispossessed form the land with a promise for alternative lands, recaptured the same after the government failed to provide them any shelter and erected their hutments upon it.

The radical action of the proletariat, created a furore among bourgeois and its allies. The move was peculiar in the sense that it was probably the first shot- a real and direct one- triggered by the proletariat to carry forward the revolution. The attitude of Maoists towards this incident was to demonstrate what their avowed enterprise of ‘New Democracy’ was to look like in the broad daylight! Needless to mention, that the land seizure was perfectly in line with the programme and proclamations of the party and government under Maoists. Poor innocent people thought that the new government if not support them, also would not repress them. Acting under the deception of revolutionary rhetoric of these false revolutionaries, proletariat had advanced forward, but only to be beaten back at the hands of the same ‘radicals’!

With consent of Prachanda and his Party, the armed police reached the spot, brutally beat up the ‘illegal squatters’, threw them on the road, took possession of the land and the government returned it back to Mohan Shahi, with sincere apology.

Prachanda personally endorsed the police action, on his return to Nepal. Matrika Yadav, the Minister for Land Reforms and Management in Nepal, and Member of Central Committee of CPN (Maoist), who supported the workers’ action was asked to tender apology. Matrika resigned instead, endorsing in ‘open letter’ that revolution stands betrayed by its leadership. This fanned a wild debate among the rank and file in the Maoist Party and among the workers and peasants, about the real face, meaning and role of the Maoist programme. This letter is an eye opener for those who still retain faith in false politics of Maoists in Nepal or elsewhere.

This dispute over land seizure, however, opened a new chapter in the ongoing debate inside and outside the Maoist Party, centered around - ‘What Next’. While Prachanda & Co. are for consolidation of bourgeois democracy in Nepal under the red banner and the false slogan of ‘New democracy’, the popular masses, the workers and peasants and also the rank and file inside the party, are becoming desperate to move forward on the road of revolution. While the Maoist leadership is assuring the foreign and local capitalists of preservation of private capitalist enterprise and property in general, the masses have started to move, instinctively on the path of ‘permanent revolution’. Symptoms of popular unrest and dissatisfaction, emanating from the status-quo being deliberately perpetuated by the Maoists in Nepal, are becoming clear with every passing moment. The dubious Maoist project of ‘New Democracy’ centered around the Stalinist ‘two stage theory’ – Capitalism for now, Socialism in the next’ – on the one hand and the legitimate expectations of working masses and peasantry on the other, have started to collide with each other. Maoist leadership under Prachanda is clear in its perspective and programme of a smooth advance on the capitalist road. Dilemma is, however, presenting itself for those thousands of young revolutionaries, who had deposed sincere faith in the false rhetoric of Maoists in Nepal.

After betraying the great popular uprising of April 2006, by holding back the forces at their disposal, from coming to the aid of the proletariat at the peak of the uprising when overturn was imminent, and after preventing the proletariat from carrying out a revolutionary overturn, Maoists, openly joined hands in Nepal with their national bourgeois. They proudly declared that the power in their hands is a ‘joint dictatorship of proletariat and bourgeois’. As the reality then started to reveal and continues to do so, this ‘joint dictatorship’ is unfolding itself more and more as the bare ‘dictatorship of bourgeois’, supported by the local and foreign exploiters, and directed against the workers and peasants.

This fanciful and unrealizable ‘joint dictatorship’-the coalition of Maoists with bourgeois parties- when passes through the prism of real world, makes a refraction of ‘bourgeois dictatorship’ in black and white, and it is in this way that fantasy of ‘joint dictatorship’ reconciles itself with the real world. The refraction shows that the Maoists who entered the government as a majority, are kept there as hostage to their bourgeois allies. Unable to explain this shameful contradiction, Maoists take the shelter under the limitations of a coalition. But who compelled them to enter into this ‘joint dictatorship’? They themselves! Formation of coalition government (the joint dictatorship!), say our Maoists, “is the victory of unparalleled and historic importance ever achieved in 160 years of Marxism”, ‘but’ alas, this coalition does not permit us to advance! This presents the correct picture of Maoists politics in Nepal.

In the backward countries of the world, from India to Nepal, the revolution, with bourgeois-democratic tasks as its immediate agenda, can succeed only as a proletarian revolution, as the national bourgeois in these countries, is politically too weak and insignificant to address these tasks. In its turn, the proletarian revolution, can succeed only if working class, however tiny in size, succeeds in mobilizing the peasantry, the multimillion reserve of real force, behind it. The peasantry, due to its dual and inconsistent character and historic limitations, is not able to consolidate itself on a nationwide scale, in order to be able to carry out a social revolution, is destined to follow the lead of the working class of its country, to liberate itself from the clutches of exploitation. Vice versa, the working cannot succeed in its mission of establishing its dictatorship and triggering a social revolution, except with the aid and support of the peasant mass.

The fate of proletarian revolution, in backward countries of the world, thus chiefly counts upon the prospects of a close political alliance, between proletariat and peasantry. If bourgeois becomes successful to hold back the peasantry from throwing its support behind the proletariat, the tiny proletariat in these countries cannot take to a revolution. Similarly, if the peasantry is deprived of the leadership of the proletariat, its all efforts, however heroic they may be, drain into nothing. Thus, the core of all political struggle, in backward countries, where overwhelming proportion of the population is comprised of peasantry, is the struggle between the basic classes-the proletariat and the bourgeois- to win over the peasantry to their side.

The success of bourgeois regime, hinges on its capability to prevent the working class from consolidating itself to take the leadership of peasantry in its hands.

In ordinary times, when peasantry, with its heads down remains engaged in back-breaking toil and follows the dictates of old regime, there remains an abyss between the workers and peasants. But the toiling masses, being pushed more and more into the whirlpool of poverty and deprivation, become gradually disillusioned with the old regime, and start to move against it. In backward countries, this discontent is expressed through the sporadic peasant uprisings. But till these rural uprisings remain in motion independently, they pose no real threat to the old regime. At the most they are capable to bring about local revolts in the form of peasant wars, which, the old regime, operating on national scale, tackles at ease. The peasantry, on its own, cannot consolidate itself on national scale, which is condition precedent for a revolution. Unless and until the working class, through its political party, consciously attempts the political fusion between itself and the revolting peasantry, the revolutionary potential of peasantry continues to drain for nothing.

The chief political striving of the old, decaying regimes in backward countries, is thus to prevent this fusion by all means at their disposal. As all these means- from force to deception- fail, and this political fusion becomes imminent threat, the ‘pink’ forces- i.e. the Stalinist and the more recent incarnation Maoist Parties- prepare themselves to take the power in their hands, to prevent the working class from taking power, through a revolution.

Having constituted itself under the false banner of ‘Communist parties’, as they exist in all countries, which enables them to falsely claim some legitimacy through the great struggles of world proletariat, this ‘red bureaucracy’ substitutes itself in place of the working class, by placing itself directly at the head of peasant wars, bye-passing the working class. The red bureaucracy, thus consciously pushing aside the working class to margins, like in India and Nepal, or aiding in its complete annihilation, like in China of 1925-27, forms itself into a bureaucratic crust over the peasantry. Its role then becomes to hold back the peasantry from following the lead of proletariat and thereby prevent the proletarian revolution. This is done by sowing illusions in the role of red bureaucracy as the liberator of peasantry. In the worst situation when it becomes impossible for the old regime to continue in face of mass discontent, and a revolutionary upsurge is threatened, the red bureaucracy advances to take power in its own hands and holds it for the class which itself is not able to hold the same. Under the fiction of ‘new democracy’, ‘peoples democracy’, ‘popular democracy’, ‘peoples’ republic’ and so on, proclaiming the sanctity of private enterprise and property in general, the power in the hands of red bureaucracy remains a bourgeois power in disguise, continuing to integrate more and more closely with the world capital. Under the red banner it perpetuates the rule of capital against labour, and with passing of time, the regime in its hands grows over to an open and naked bourgeois rule, protected by an iron bureaucracy. It succeeds in causing deception to the toiling mass in backward countries by holding red banner over its head and red scarf around its neck. In net result, the bureaucracy ‘wins’, but the revolution is defeated. Rather, more precisely, bureaucracy wins on the back of defeats of revolution and exactly on the yeast of reaction. The party and other political institutions in the hands of bureaucracy, are turned into auxiliary of capitalist development, after its victory.

This is what they did in China and repeated elsewhere in the last century and this is what they are doing in Nepal today!

The political machine in the hands of Maoists is turning into a tool for pushing down the initiative of toiling masses. While the real power, still remains in the hands of bourgeois, the elected government has become its democratic and popular face to push forward the rule of bourgeois, flanked by local reaction on one side and world capital on the other. Koirala or Prachanda, this is one and the same thing in the game!.

The advance of events itself is but making it impossible for Maoists to stand on two stools at a time. Forced to say goodbye to the Monarch, they are waving to Microsoft with a red carpet welcome. Their guns are turning towards the poor people in Nepal- the workers and peasants.

While the Maoist project of ‘New Democracy’ based on the Stalinist ‘two stage theory’ unveils itself as a pure and simple bourgeois venture, the Maoists of the world who till yesterday hailed Comrade Prachanda as great revolutionary, have started to accuse him personally for misdirecting the project of ‘New democracy’. The fact, though remains, that Prachanda is a mere executor of this bogus programme, stemmed in the historic miscarriage of revolutions in China, Spain and elsewhere. It is not Prachanda but Mao-tse-tung himself who in his famous pamphlet ‘On New Democracy’ preaches for preservation of private capitalist enterprise in cities and the rich peasant economy in villages, in the first stage of revolution, which Maoist term as ‘New democratic’ stage. Maoists, evading to address the core dispute, present fictitious analysis of apparent debacle in Nepal, putting entire blame on Prachanda & Co, the sincere disciples of Mao. The truth is that Prachanda, is not deviating from the Maoist venture of ‘New Democracy’, rather is striving hard to implement the same in letter and spirit. It is though, different matter that the world we live in, is no more structured to accommodate the dynamics of this fiction of ‘pink revolution’.

Nepal of 2008 is not China of 1949, where red bureaucracy may take to camouflage under the red banner for long. It would come into direct conflict of the working classes, sooner than later, and would be exposed extensively after caught red handed here and there. Its destiny would go hand in hand with that of the world capitalism and local reaction. The incident of Mirchaiya is the beginning of the end of Maoist journey in Nepal.

28.10.2008