By Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplap’
We should say honestly that there is
a difference of opinion on how to accomplish the Nepalese Revolution.
Mainly, the difference of opinion is about the party line, political
program and tactics in our party. This clearly justifies that a serious
u-turn has occurred before the Nepalese Revolution. The responsibility
of carrying the revolution ahead successfully has fallen upon the
shoulders of the revolutionary communists of Nepal and the revolutionary communists of the world. We all
should direct our attention to it.
1) The difference of opinion on political program
main bone of contention is whether the party should advance ahead for a
People’s Republic or stay in the stage of democratic republic. In our
central committee meeting held from 4 to 6 October 2008, Party
Chairman, Comrade Prachanda put forward a program to remain in the
Democratic Republic. His spoken proposal pointed out the necessity of
the tactics of democratic republic; there is no favorable situation to
advance into the People’s Republic.
the contrary, he pointed out the need to synthesize the ideology based
on the achievements gained up until democratic republic. After the
proposal of Com. Prachanda, Com. Kiran disagreed with the program of
democratic republic, and put forward a written proposal for a People’s
Republic. Com. Kiran proposed that the appropriateness of the
democratic republic is over and the party should advance ahead towards
the People’s Republic.
must understand some of the aspects that the declared and authentic
political program of our party was from the beginning a new People’s
Democracy. According to the validity of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the
central question of the People’s War is to achieve people’s state power
and that is the new people’s power. This objective has not changed
aspect is that the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Unified Marxist and
Leninist (UML) are more active in the operation of the state than
during the period of the monarchy, when the PW began. The
Parliamentarians carried out barbaric repressions against us. Viewed
from this aspect, the People’s War was against even the multiparty
parliamentary system. Our slogan was, “Let’s not remain under the
illusion of parliamentary system! Let’s prepare for a new people’s
the PW was advancing ahead to its climax, King Gyanendra took power in
his hands through a ‘coup’ over the parliamentary parties. Let us
remember that this was a fascist step to reverse the defeat of
parliamentarians and the victory of the people through PW. The ‘coup’
of Gyanendra polarized the situation. The Democratic republic was the
outcome of this polarization. At that time, we had a clear conception
that the democratic republic will only be a transitional tactic for a
united front with parliamentary parties against the monarchy.
transitional tactics show that the tactics for the democratic republic
are not the tactics to replace the new People’s Republic; rather it was
the tactics for the new People’s Republic that has ended along with the
abolition of monarchy and the establishment of republic in the country.
class character of the democratic republic is of a bourgeois class
character. After the constituent assembly, the monarchy has been
abolished and the republic has been established, however, there is no
change in its class character. The party has reached up to the super
structure of the state power, the constituent assembly government; but
all of the bases belong to the old class power. The economy, military
organization, administrative structure and the laws are of the old
power. There is no possibility to hand those bases over to the people
by a simple process or by peaceful means.
this, a new political program is necessary to be taken among the
people. It is clear that remaining in the democratic republic instead
of advancing forward to the People’s Republic is to distance the goal
of building the people’s power according to the basic programs related
to Marxism under the leadership of the proletarian class; and stumbling
and being stuck into the parliamentary morass under the bourgeois class
state power. These are the main differences between democratic republic
and the People’s Republic.
2. The strategic difference
second difference is on how to accomplish the Nepalese revolution; by
insurrection or by peaceful struggle. Although our party has reached to
this stage through the line of the people’s War, armed struggle and the
strategy of insurrection, we had said that there was a little
possibility of a peaceful development of revolution as we had entered
into the peaceful process two years ago.
though we accepted that type of possibility in a specific time,
however, it is impossible in such a country like ours. However, some of
our comrades in the leadership are in favour of peaceful transition
through the democratic republic. This tendency is talking about
insurrection while at the same time it is breaking down the bases of
the insurrection (the fusion of PLA, sending the professional
revolutionaries back to their homes, sending them to hold jobs, giving
emphasis only in the economic reform and the economic willfulness
within party clearly show it). It has brought the peaceful transition
before in practice. We have our opinion that the specialty of the
Nepalese revolution is necessarily armed and, in this way, the
revolution will succeed.
that, the PLA should be consolidated instead of fusing them, and the
full-timer cadres should be given political work instead of sending
them back home.
the strategic issue, Chairman Comrade Prachanda and some other comrades
say that the revolution is possible from the top-level through the
government and the legislative-parliament. However, in our opinion, it
is only the minor aspect, and the main aspect is a People’s revolt; and
it should be so. The government and the legislative-parliament should
change what they can, but it is not possible to shatter the old state
power, which has army, administration, law and capitalism. There is
possibility of a simple reform; however, the birth of a new power is
impossible just through simple reform. Therefore, the strategy of
top-level intervention is connected with peaceful strategy and it is
not a matter over simple tactics. This is the second difference of
3. The tactical difference
third difference of opinion is on whether we should apply the tactics
of class struggle or the tactics of reform. Chairman Comrade Prachanda
has presented the tactics into four points:
1) the writing of a new constitution,
2) building new army by fusing the two armies,
3) extension of the publicity of the budget,
4) development and construction.
He argues that the insurrection will be in the struggle of writing constitution or in the fusion of the army etc.
opinion is that these afore mentioned points are the points to be used
in tactics, however, these points are not revolutionary but reformist
in essence. These points can be the points of reform and compromise;
but these are not the points to ensure the insurrection. These points
have governmental specialty, but they are not unique to the party.
with it, it is necessary for a strong People’s Liberation Army, a large
scale of the devoted cadres and a clear plan for the struggle. In our
opinion, these points can be used only to show, but the party should
fix the revolutionary tactics. Mainly, the tactics should be to hit
strongly upon the bases and the bodies of the comprador capitalist
power and shatter them. To do so, the struggle should be oriented to
shatter the old economic base, the arenas of the comprador capitalist
and the old cultural structure. Simultaneously, the tactics should be
to raise the peasant movement, dissolution of the old army from inside
and outside; to hand over the power to the people.
the tactics should be applied to make united front among patriots and
communists and run the struggle by giving top priority to nationalism.
These points will fulfill the role of revolutionary tactics. Recently,
we have our opinion that some of the tactical-points can be implemented
through the government’s side by putting the revolutionary tactics at
the front. Otherwise, the implementation of the tactics, separated from
the revolutionary tactics, will necessarily be trapped in reformism and
will be dissolved into negotiationism.
totality, we have our own opinion that the political program, strategy
and tactics proposed by the Chairman Com. Prachanda represent
reformism. If we advance ahead through these tactics, it is clear that
our party will be drowned into the swamp of reformism up over its head.
The only solution is that the party should advance ahead through the
political program of the People’s Republic, the strategy of
insurrection and the tactics of class struggle. It will accomplish the
Nepalese people’s revolution, although it is risky.
[Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplap’ is a member of the central committee of the CPN (M). This article first appeared in Red Star, November 16-30, 2008.]