Nepal in Transition:
Part 2 - The Present Phase: The Change in the Line of the Maoist & Its Significance
This is the translation of the second part of the two-part article on Nepal already published in Dec 06 and May 07 issues of SANDIKSHAN (Bengali). Readers are requested to read the first part which deals with the background of the present transformation in Nepal before reading this second part ? without taking into account that background, discussed in the first part, it is impossible to understand the depth of the peoples aspiration for a radical change, condition of struggle there, etc and moreover, to form an opinion regarding the political line of the revolutionary party leading a substantial section of the toiling masses there ? the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). - The Editorial Board, For A Proletarian Party
We have previously discussed the rapid and sweeping changes occurring on the political stage of Nepal since April 06, or, more precisely, since the seven-party alliance made a pact with the Maoists. In that essay, we briefly described the happenings of Nepal, and tried to trace the history of the anti-monarchist movement there. Presently, Nepal is undergoing a process for arriving at a democratic republic. And, to follow it, one must understand the course of development led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) there. For, it should not be an overstatement that it was the peasants' struggle led by the Maoists, which was the main driving force behind the spectacular changes in Nepal. Naturally, the development of such revolutionary peasant struggle under the leadership of a Communist party has generated great interest among the Communist-Revolutionaries (henceforth C-R). More so, because it happens after the defeat of the first expedition of the Socialist movement of the international proletariat, when no true Communist Party exists in almost any of the world's countries, and the working people, including the proletariat, lie disorganized and dispersed. But at the same time, the decision of the CPN(M) to join in the interim govt. along with the seven-party alliance, their support to a multi-party democracy, the sending of their armed fighters to the barracks in view of the coming elections for a constituent assembly, and their proposal to form an united army by amalgamating the People's Liberation Army (PLA) with the present Nepali Army, etc. All these give rise to a number of questions among the C-R camp. The various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in India, including the CPIM, and the bourgeois media are spreading a jubilant campaign that the Maoists are partaking in parliamentary democracy by abandoning the path of revolution. It is no wonder that the parties who are themselves entrenched in the Indian parliamentary system and thereby serve the Indian ruling classes obediently would interpret the happenings of Nepal in their own way. The revolutionary proletariat therefore bothers little about what they say about the Nepal Maoists. However, we cannot deny that a number of questions and confusion about the present tactics of the CPN(M) lies even within the Communist camp. In this essay, we will try to discuss about the change in tactics of the Nepal Maoists and its effect on the revolutionary movement.
The Change in Tactics of the Maoists - What Actually Happened
The people's war (henceforth PW) in Nepal led by the CPN(M) started in 1996. In our previous discussion, we have showed that contrary to the popular notion that the Maoists started the PW out of a sudden in 1996 (the CPN(M) and their international collaborators had a part to play in building this notion), the fact is that this PW was in continuation of the foregoing struggles in Nepal, especially, of the armed peasant struggle which broke out in the districts of Rolpa, Rukum, etc. after the bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois parties betrayed the anti-monarchy movement in 1990. That period was marked by a surge in the anti-feudal movement of the peasants on the one hand, and by the struggle against the reformist and compromising trend within the Communist camp in Nepal on the other. The majority of the present CPN(M) leadership were at that time fighting to champion a line that proposed establishment of a new-democratic republic by overthrowing the feudal and imperialist yoke over Nepal through armed struggle as against the line of keeping the anti-feudal movement within the bounds of parliamentary politics. This process led them to found an organization named "Unity Centre". The name was changed to Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) in the third plenum of Unity Centre in 1995, and a document titled "Strategy and tactics of armed struggle in Nepal" was passed in that same plenum. Explaining the tactics of armed struggle in this document, its authors wrote, "Our Party has formulated a political strategy of completing New Democratic revolution with a people's democratic dictatorship under the leadership of proletariat based on the unity of workers & peasants against feudalism & imperialism. The long term aim of the Party is to move towards socialist revolution after the successful completion of New Democratic revolution as an integral part of the world proletarian socialist revolution and to achieve communism by waging cultural revolutions based upon the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of proletariat." [1] [Emphasis ours].
The target of the armed struggle is thus explained in the document: "the target of armed struggle will be confiscating the lands of feudals and landlords & distributing them amongst the landless & poor peasants on the basis of land-to-the-tiller theory and to attack them for the purpose, and in order to cut the roots of imperialist exploitation the projects such as industries, banks etc. in the hands of comprador and bureaucratic capitalists and projects run by government & non-government organisations and to attack them for the same" [2].
With these aims in mind, the CPN(M) launched their PW on 13th February, 1996 by organizing armed offensive on administrative departments, police stations, etc. in 6 of Nepal's districts. From the very beginning, the Maoists compartmentalized the advancement of the PW in three separate stages, namely, period of strategic defence, period of strategic balance, and, lastly, period of strategic offence. (See Note-1 at the end of this article). Soon after its onset, the PW spread rapidly to wider parts of Nepal. Already in 2004, the Maoists were claiming to have captured tree-fourths of Nepal's land area, and the enemy was compelled to admit it too.
During early 2001, the demands for formation of an interim govt., election for a constituent assembly, and thereby establishment of a democratic republic were first formulated in the second national conference of the party. What they did mean by this "democratic republic" was explained later on by them on various occasions. Thus, the political-organizational resolution passed in the meeting of their central committee in September-October of 2005 runs: "the then slogan of republic was neither a slogan of new democratic republic nor that of bourgeois parliamentarian one. In fact and in essence, that slogan was the one of multiparty republic that by means of constituent assembly could bring about an extensive change in the state structure by addressing the problems related with class, nation, region and sex prevailing in the country. ......It is clear that the same slogan of republic was later spelled as democratic republic by adding a popular terminology - 'democratic'." [3] [Emphasis ours].
The idea was later explained in more detail in that same document: "Remaining clear on the principle that the tactic must serve strategy, our party has viewed the democratic republic neither as the bourgeois parliamentarian republic nor directly as the new democratic one. This republic with an extensive reorganization of the state power as to resolve the problems related with class, nationality, region and sex prevailing in the country, would play a role of transitional multiparty republic. Certainly, the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as, our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that can right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend on the then national and international situation and state of power balance." [4].
In this connection, it is necessary to mention that, in 2001, the Maoists themselves were not very clear about the idea that the democratic republic, the demand for which was upheld by them since then, would be a multi-party system. In 2003, they adopted a document, which summed up the experiences of the revolutions of the 20th century, and decided that competition between a number of parties is necessary even during the dictatorship of the proletariat. And, thereafter they made it clear that the Republic which would replace monarchy in Nepal would be a multi-party system.
The same document opted in Sept.-Oct., 2005, then set the target of building up the movement, which will put an end to an end to monarchy and establish the Republic, by uniting all the anti-monarchist and pro-republic forces. Accordingly, in November that year, the Maoists signed a 12-point agreement with seven parliamentary parties, like the Nepali Congress, the CPN(UML), etc., for organizing an united struggle. In fact, the feasibility of such a united platform was already objectively present then. After they betrayed in 1990, these parliamentary parties were never found to be serious about abolishing monarchy. Instead, they were content with the installing of trivial democracy meted out to them under the monarchical system. Far from coming to an understanding with the Maoists, these parties at that time tried to repress the revolutionary struggle by exercising governmental powers. The situation began to change when King Gyanendra ascended the throne after the murder of King Birendra and his family. When Gyanenedra concentrated all power in his own hands by dismissing the elected parliament on 1st February 2005, these parties had no way but to stand up against the Monarch. The Indian ruling class too played an important role to bring the Maoists and these parties together. We will discuss this point later. However, we already know the history that unfolded following this agreement.
The clear change in the tactics of the Maoists lies in their opting for a multi-party system instead of a new-democratic republic, which was set as a direct goal previously. And, they have applied the line expounded in the said document, in reality. They have already proceeded a great deal towards abolishing monarchy, and have also joined the interim Govt. Can we conclude that they have abandoned the path of revolution and have stepped into the confines of parliamentary politics, as the Indian parliamentary Communists would have us believe, from the mere fact that are taking part in the interim Govt.? We have seen, that in the resolution passed by the central committee of the CPN(M) in September-October of 2005, they did not project this Republic as their ultimate aim, but as a step in the struggle for a new-democratic republic. The would-be republic of Nepal is seen by the Maoists as a transitional phase where the bourgeoisie would try to veer it into a bourgeois parliamentary republic on the one hand, and the struggle for passing on to a new-democratic republic would continue on the other. Without a comprehensive analysis of this tactics as a whole, it will not be judicious to conclude that they have renounced the path of revolution to go into parliamentary politics like any other revisionist-reformist party. On the contrary, during this period, they have taken some steps, which go against such a proposition. Firstly, they have not yet dismantled their army. According to their agreement with the seven-party alliance, their army, i.e. the People's Liberation Army, will stay in the barracks until the completion of the election to the constituent assembly and establishment of the Republic. This process has started after the old Parliament or the House of Representatives and the Interim Parliament was constituted. But the process was not easily under way. Though the previous agreements contained very clear statements in this regard, there was much row during its application. It is well known that the U.S. imperialists had openly announced their stand that the Maoists would not be allowed to join the Interim Govt. unless and until they surrender all their arms, and this was the reason, why the seven-party alliance also put such a condition before the Maoists. But, in spite of such pressure from the imperialists and their lackeys, the Maoists were firm on their stand and joined the interim Govt. without disbanding their army as conditioned in the treaty previously. It must be mentioned though, that whether the whole of the PLA or its part have gone to the barracks, is not clear yet. Probably, their organized presence is still supported by armed people's contingents or militia apart from the PLA. ( See Note 2 at the end of this article). Hence, we cannot conclude that they have forsaken revolution for bourgeois parliamentarianism.
Reason behind the Maoists change of tactics
To adjudge the present tactics of the CPN(M), one must clearly follow the exact changes brought about in it, and the reasons behind them. We have described the changes at the very beginning. Instead of directly aiming to establish a new democratic republic though PW, their present aim is to establish a "democratic republic". From what is quoted previously, it is apparent that this change began since the 2nd National Conference of the party in 2001. The conference decided that the demands for an interim govt. and election to a constituent assembly would be taken up at all the conferences and the meetings of the Party. In June, 2001, King Birendra and his family was murdered and Gyanendra ascended the throne. The Govt. at that time held a few rounds of talks with the Maoists. After this, the CPN(M) leaders began to make it clear in their articles and interviews that their immediate goal was to achieve a democratic republic. In an interview given to the Washington Times on 14 December, 2002, CPN(M) leader Baburam Bhattarai said, "Our Party, our party Chairman, comrade Prachanda, and our various publications have time and again stressed that our immediate political agenda is is to consummate a democratic republic in the country. Please note that we are not pressing for a "communist republic", but a bourgeois democratic republic. For that we have advanced the immediate slogans of a round-table conference of all the political forces, an interim government and elections to a constituent assembly, which have been increasingly endorsed by an overwhelming majority of population." [5]. In an interview with the BBC on 13th February, 2006, the CPN(M) Chairman Prachanda said, "We have said that there should be a democratic republic in Nepal. Our struggle is for a democratic republic." [6]
It may be mentioned here that, in the interview of Baburam Bhattarai quoted above, the term was "bourgeois-democratic republic", which was not consistent with the content of document opted by the Party in September-October, 2005, as discussed above. Since the interview was given to a bourgeois press, it may not reflect the line of the Party correctly. Hence, we take the term "democratic republic" as a transitional phase between bourgeois-democratic republic and a new-democratic republic as expounded by their Party.
The question now arises as to why they are projecting such a democratic republic as the immediate goal of their struggle. In the aforesaid resolution of the central committee of the CPN(M), it was stated that the decision of 2001 was taken "Evaluating objectively the international balance of power and experience of the five years of people's war" [7]. Explaining why they decided to participate in a multi-party system at present, Prachanda said in an interview given to The Hindu in February 2006, "Here again there is not only one question. There is a specificity to the political and military balance in today's world. This has to be seen. The second thing to be seen is the experience of the 20th century. Third, there is the particular situation in the country - the class, political and power balance. It is by taking these three together that we came to our conclusion. We are talking of multiparty democracy in a specific sense, within a specific constitutional framework."[8]. It may be noted here that by "experiences of the 20th century", he clearly meant the experiences of the revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century. By summing up this experience, the CPN(M) adopted a document in 2003. In it, they upheld the necessity of a multi-party democracy after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat & the peasantry through new-democratic revolution, and, even during the dictatorship of the proletariat after the Socialist revolution.
If we put aside the point just mentioned for the time being, we will find two reasons behind their conclusion - the balance of powers in the present international situation, and that within the country as well. A more detailed explanation of the first reason may be found in an interview of Baburam Bhattarai. Discussing the interference of the imperialists in Nepal's PW, he said, "We are fighting a very low intensity war. Their high technology won't make much impact on us. I think we can fight them. But, we don't want the situation to arise, because it will bring untold suffering to the masses of people. Our country being sandwiched between India and China, again India will be tempted to intervene, again China will feel threatened, and that will be very dangerous. Nepal being caught in an international conflict, which will create an unfortunate situation, like Afghanistan, Cambodia or elsewhere. That is why we want a peaceful solution to the problem without external influences."[9]
The content of the deliberation of the CPN(M) leaders is very important. This content may be understood thus, that given the balance of powers between the classes in the world, it is nearly impossible for the people of a small country like Nepal, especially where the proletariat has a negligible presence ? to capture power by ousting the imperialists and the regionally dominant forces, and to hold out against them. We must go deeper to consider this opinion of the CPN(M) leaders. Today, nobody can deny due to the defeat of the first expedition of the Socialist movement of the international working class, the Socialist movement at present is going on in a very disorganized and scattered way. There is no true working class' party in any of the world's developed countries. The working class struggle is yet to stand up overcoming the effect of defeat. As a result, imperialism, especially the U.S. imperialism, in their vile greed to capture the world, has pounced upon the people of the third world countries. In such a situation, it is only natural that the proletariat and the working people of a country will have to confront the stupendous might of imperialism if they aim to proceed towards the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry by ousting the ruling classes of that country. It may be possible for the people of a small country like Nepal to defeat its own ruling class. But, no doubt it is an immense task to achieve and sustain a victorious revolution by prevailing over the imperialists and a powerful enemy like the Indian ruling class. It is true that the people of a tiny country like Vietnam were able to make a victorious revolution by confronting direct aggression of the U.S. imperialists. But that was a time when the balance of power between the oppressed people of the world, led by the international proletariat, and the imperialists, aided by their stooges, was completely different. Though the proletariat of soviet Russia had already lost their grip over the state-power, the USSR was still present as a formidable opposition to U.S. imperialism at that time. And, there was Socialist China, the leader and champion of all revolutionary movements. The revolutionary struggles of the working class and the people were much strong in many a countries of the world. In view of the present unfavourable international situation, the above analysis of the CPN(M) is very much correct. Undoubtedly, the success of a people's democratic revolution in a small and surrounded (by powerful countries on all sides) country like Nepal depends, to a large extent, on the development of revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the people in other countries, especially in big neighbouring countries like India.
So, what is the task of the revolutionary elements of Nepal in such an unequally balanced international situation? Should they conduct the movement just the same way towards capturing power notwithstanding this situation, which will inevitably throw the movement in front of the attacks of the imperialists and their lackeys, the Indian ruling class, and which may ruin the whole movement? Or, should they proceed that far that is attainable today, not taking the movement to its utter destruction, and conserve the revolutionary forces as much as possible? Should they not wait for the favourable situation of the future, when, being united with the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and people of the big neighbouring countries like India, and as an integral part of the resurrected international Socialist movement, they could free Nepal of the oppressions of feudalism and imperialism by establishing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, ushering in Socialism? It is amply clear that though the first path appears to be more revolutionary, it cannot be a desired option for the revolutionary movement of Nepal, or, even for that of the neighbouring countries. Keeping in mind the balance of power of the revolutionary movements of the international proletariat and the oppressed people on one hand and that of imperialism on the other, we find that there is no other way the revolutionary elements of Nepal can take but the second path. Judging from this angle, one must admit that the decision of the Nepal Maoists to set the establishment of a republic as their immediate aim is correct.
It is irrefutable that the CPN(M) leadership has tried to determine their tactics by following the actual development of the class struggle in Nepal. True, they did not take into account the effect of the defeat of the international socialist movement on the balance of power between the imperialist and the proletariat when they decided the strategy and tactics of the revolution in Nepal, in the plenum of 1995. To say more accurately, their documents at that contained no admission of the fact that the international Socialist movement of the proletariat has undergone a great defeat. But as the people's movement in Nepal developed, the interference of the imperialists and the Indian big bourgeoisie in Nepal increased, the probability of their direct attack grew, and the Maoists had to face the question of confronting these international forces in the event of capturing power. It was then when they were compelled to bring into consideration the factor of balance between the international powers. They did not turn a blind eye to the reality of defeat of the international proletariat like the other Maoist parties. In 2003, they adopted a document titled "The experience of history and development of democracy in the 21st century", which analysed the experience of defeat of the international proletarian movement. In spite of the incompleteness of their thought or deliberation in this regard, it is obvious that, while taking stands on various important issues, they are considering this international defeat and trying to learn from it. There is also the attempt to base the tactics in Nepal's internal situation on this experience.
In the interview of the CPN(M) Chairman Prachanda given to The Hindu, quoted above, we find that they also took the question of balance of power between the internal forces of the country into account when they changed their tactics. But they did not discuss it anywhere explicitly. But, from their various writings and following the development of the PW in Nepal, it becomes apparent that though the PW spread rapidly to the countryside, especially in the hilly districts, the old state could maintain their hold on the towns on the whole. From their literatures etc., it may be reckoned that the CPN(M) started the attempt to draw the petty-bourgeoisie, especially the urban petty-bourgeoisie, on to their side from after 2001. One of the reasons behind holding talks with the monarchy that started in 2001 was to belie the assumption of the urban petty-bourgeoisie that the contradiction could be solved through talks. In an interview given to the "A world to Win", organ of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, or RIM, in May, 2001, Prachanda said, "Due to their own crisis, the ruling classes have from the very beginning clamoured about being in favour of negotiations and conspired to attract the urban middle strata to their side. In this situation, with a view to isolate the main enemy and to educate the middle strata, we clarified that we were not against negotiation per se and were ready to fight at the negotiation table if definite conditions were fulfilled. This created another serious debate in national politics. Ultimately the conspiracy behind the negotiations hullabaloo was unmasked and a large section of the masses were won over to the side of the People's War". [10]. It is clear from their literature that though the revolutionary movement in Nepal advanced after 2001, in 2005, the old state was still controlling the Kathmandu valley and the towns. Probably it was hard to capture central power in Nepal by depending solely on the peasantry's struggle in the countryside. It appears that one of the reasons behind the change in their tactics, though it be secondary, was their target to rally the urban petty-bourgeoisie behind the anti-monarchist struggle.
Some Questions Regarding Transition from a Democratic Republic to a New Democratic Republic
We have already mentioned that the Nepal Maoists have declared the establishment of a democratic republic after abolishing monarchy only as their immediate aim, and not an ultimate one. According to their tactics, "This republic with an extensive reorganization of the state power as to resolve the problems related with class, nationality, region and sex prevailing in the country, would play a role of transitional multiparty republic." [11]. Explaining this transition period further, they said, "Certainly, the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as, our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that can right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend on the then national and international situation and state of power balance." [12].
There can be little doubt that the democratic republic, to be established through the coming election to the constituent assembly, cannot be transferred to a new-democratic republic, free from feudal and imperialist oppression, and based on the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, in a peaceful way. Though, the document of the CPN(M) or their other writings does not rule out such a possibility. We will go into that later. There is no reason to believe that feudalism in Nepal will be extinct once the direct rule of the king is put to an end (a feat already achieved to a considerable extent) through the establishment of a republic after the polls. Though the decade-long PW could curb the exploitation and oppression of the feudal lords a deal, feudalism is not yet eradicated. It is amply clear from their previous role and from what they did during the last one year, that the bourgeois parties of Nepal are not at all interested to extirpate feudalism from the country. It follows that the incomplete job of rooting out feudalism must be completed after the constitution of the republic. But the most important point is that the establishment of a new-democratic republic implies that the imperialists and the regionally dominant powers and their agent bourgeoisie must be evicted first. These cannot be achieved through peaceful ways. Nepal will have to go through a transition period when there will be a tow-row between two forces. The revolutionary guard of the working people will try to take Nepal towards new-democracy by ousting the imperialists and the regionally dominant powers after abolishing feudalism. While, on the other hand, the henchmen of the above powers and their representatives, the bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois parties of Nepal, will try to mitigate the influence of feudalism by coming to a compromise with the feudal lords and their chief, the King, and go for a path to develop capitalism in Nepal, remaining dependant on the imperialists and the Indian big bourgeoisie and keeping their exploitation and oppression over the people of Nepal intact. Judging from this angle, the participation of the Communist Party in the Govt., and the presence of the PLA within the Nepalese army after the merger of the PLA with it, could have only one significance. That is, to use this power from above in helping to maintain the continuity and development of the revolutionary movement of the people. The question here naturally arises as to why should the imperialists, the Indian rulers and the Nepali bourgeoisie permit such a kind of unity.
It is very tough for the Nepal Maoists to capture State-power and to keep it in their own strength (it is for this reason that they were compelled to come into an agreement with the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties for ousting the king). But the other side of the truth is that the others also realized the fact, that the revolutionary struggle of the people, led by the Maoists, could not be dispersed by suppression only, and came to terms with the Maoists. It is now known fact that the Indian bourgeoisie had an important role to play behind this agreement between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance. In an interview given to the Kantipur Daily, the CPN(M) Chairman stated clearly that the first initiative for the agreement was taken by India [13]. What was the interest of the Indian rulers behind this move? In spite of their occasional conflicts with the monarchy in Nepal, the Indian big bourgeoisie never desired its abolition. Instead, they dispatched numerous contingents of military help to the king for suppressing the Maoists, and, at one time, even threatened a direct offensive. But as, during the later period, instead of being able to contain the Maoist-led movement, Gyanenedra aggravated the discontent against the monarchy by concentrating all powers in his own hands, and people began to participate in anti-monarchist agitations in increasingly greater numbers, the Indian rulers panicked that the situation would go out of their control. They therefore, endeavoured to keep their dominance over Nepal intact by projecting a semblance of a multi-party democracy. If the monarchy were abolished through the struggle of the masses alone, it would naturally thwart the control and dominance of India. Probably, the Indian rulers had another apprehension that the advancing revolutionary movement of Nepal, led by the Maoists, would augment the influence of the Maoists in India. While these are the reasons that played behind the initiative of the Indian rulers for the compromise with the Maoists, the King left no other option open for the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties either. Since the inception of parliamentary democracy in Nepal in 1990, these parties took active role to repress the movement of the people led by the CPN(M), or previously by its father organization(s), whenever they were in power. But when Gyanendra snatched all the power in February 2005, they had no alternative but to affront Gyanendra. It is clear that both the Maoists and the opposite camp had compulsions to make this agreement. The bourgeoisie therefore were obliged to keep the contradiction within certain limits. We have seen, that after the ouster of Gyanenedra, the imperialists, the Indian rulers, and with their support, the Govt. of the seven-party alliance have repeatedly pressurized the Maoists to surrender all arms and took various measures in this respect. But the Maoists did not comply. They are firm on their stand of keeping the PLA in the barracks till the polls without surrendering arms, and the others have no way but to accept it.
But the question is, whether the path taken by the Maoists ? of participating in the Govt. with the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties and establishing a multi-party republic after the removal of the king ? may at all lead to their ulterior aim of arriving in a new-democratic republic? The task of the new-democratic revolution is to put a complete end to the exploitation and oppression of feudalism, imperialism and the regional hegemonic powers. Though the power of the King in Nepal has already been curbed a lot, monarchy is still not abolished. The name of the Royal Nepal Army has been changed, monarchist influence continues to rule over it. As the trend reveals, monarchy will probably come to an end with the constitution of the Republic through the coming polls. But, needless to explain, such termination of monarchy does not imply abolition of feudalism. Abolition of feudalism and its ultimate representation, monarchy, mean cessation of all feudal relations of production and eradication of feudal influence from all institutions. It is only natural that the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements of Nepal would depend on reforms from above to go from feudalism to capitalism. The pressure of the anti-feudal movements of the peasant masses, led by the Maoists, from below may also expedite their performance. Again, the imperialists and the Indian rulers may support them in the job.
But, though the principal enemy of the ongoing revolutionary struggle of the people of Nepal is feudalism (thereby the monarchist system), it has to fight imperialism and the regional hegemony of India. To establish a new-democratic system in Nepal, to proceed towards a classless society free from all exploitation, the revolution must confront imperialism and Indian dominance and oust them from Nepal. This task is feasible only when the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry is established upon the development of their revolutionary struggle. But the problem is that the present international situation, when the international working class is still going through the state of defeat, it is nearly impossible for the people of a small, backward country, surrounded by mighty neighbours, and where the presence of the proletariat is almost negligible, to seize state-power by combating the imperialists and the Indian rulers solely by themselves. The chance of victory for the revolutionary movement in Nepal is thoroughly interlinked with the development of the revolutionary struggle of the international working class, especially with that of the proletariat and the peasantry of Nepal's big neighbours. We have already discussed that this is the reason why the Maoists of Nepal changed their tactics to participate in a multi-party republic. To evict the imperialists and the regional powers, the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggles are to be taken forward. Yet, the likelihood that the present unfavourable international situation will be ended soon is remote. Hence, the revolutionary movement of Nepal faces the threat of attack from the imperialist powers and India. This very possibility has led the Maoists to change their tactics. Now the trouble is that the very moment efforts are started to convert the Republic, the republic to be established after the coming polls ? into a new-democratic one, the movement will face the offensive from the imperialists and the Indian rulers. Stating plainly, this may urge the Maoist leaders to maintain the status quo over the present arrangements. At least there remains the objective possibility for this. And if the tendency to stabilize the present system grows among the Maoist leadership, then their movement, and obviously that of the people, will consequently be stuck within the bounds of the bourgeois politics.
Whenever the struggle against the enemy crosses the phase of direct clashes, and that of temporary compromise begins with the promise of progressing in future, there remains the danger of the fighting elements being influenced and the ?temporary' period tending towards stability. That risk exists in this case also, and what concerns us more, here a Communist party is involved in governing such a system. Any tendency towards stabilizing this system would imply the propensity to develop, sustain and strengthen capitalism in Nepal under the hegemony of imperialism and under the control and dominance of Indian bourgeoisie. Not only will that degenerate the leadership, but will also demoralize the revolutionary spirit of the people and will distance the leadership from the fighting masses. In short, it will dissipate the consolidated and organized revolutionary army of the people. Therefore, though the tactics of establishing a democratic system for the time being, instead of capturing power right now, is correct in view of the international balance of power, it must be kept in the mind that such a step, especially participation in the Govt. within the present system, may have a pitfall of being stuck inside the capitalist system. And that would block the road to progress in future.
We do sincerely hope that the CPN(M) leadership will be able to keep the revolutionary army intact in this adverse situation and continue with their struggle for a exploitation-free society by being conscious of these dangers and will again prove the sagacity and prudence, which they have shown in building up the revolutionary movement in Nepal in the past. No doubt, this is a hard task, considering the present international situation after the defeat of the first expedition of the Socialist movement of the proletariat, when there is no revolutionary struggle in any country that can help that of Nepal, and when imperialism reigns supreme over a disorganized proletariat. But at the same time, we may remind that though apparently imperialism looks impregnable and irresistible today, the imperialists themselves are not at ease at all. They have razed Iraq to the ground and have conquered it, but are yet to be successful in suppressing the revolt of its residents against them. Instead, the losses suffered by them in Iraq makes the demand to withdraw from Iraq stronger every day in their own country. The anti-U.S. movements in several countries of Latin America are gaining ground. The imperialists have failed in their repeated attempts to remove Hugo Chavez from Venezuela. If the Maoists can continue with the revolutionary struggle and proceed towards seizure of power by the proletariat and the peasantry in such an international situation, it will not only augur well for Nepal, but will boost the struggle to end exploitation worldwide.
A Peaceful Solution to a Civil War!
During our discussion until now, we assumed that the decade-long revolutionary movement, led by the CPN(M), will not end with the constitution of a republic through the coming polls. The strife between the revolutionary and bourgeois elements will continue not only within the parliament and the Government, but on the fields also. But, some of the stands of the CPN(M) raises some questions in this regard. Elaborating on the call of elections for a constituent assembly and establishment of a democratic republic, the afore-mentioned resolution passed by the central committee of the Party in September-October, 2005, runs: "this slogan can play a role of forward-looking political way out for the peaceful resolution of civil war. This slogan addresses correctly the people's aspiration of change and peace for it can open up a door of peaceful resolution of civil war, and as a consequence can play a positive role for the preparation of insurrection too."[14] Actually, the CPN(M) leadership, in their various deliberations and documents (including the one mentioned above), have repeatedly evoked such phrases as, "people's aspiration for peace", "peaceful solution to the civil war", "forward-looking peaceful way out" etc. to explain the reasons behind their tactics. The establishment of a democratic republic through a constituent assembly is termed by them as a "forward-looking political way out". Probably, this is because, though the ulterior aim of the civil war: the establishment of a new-democratic republic heralding in Socialism, is not fulfilled by the current process, it will open the way to progress forward by ending the rule of the monarch. No doubt, this will provide an apparent solution to the civil war. Secondly, it is very natural for the common people, especially for the urban middle class, and even for the revolutionary army, who is fighting a decade-long PW, to aspire for peace. But it will be wrong to assume that this immediate solution to the civil war will be peaceful one. And, we believe that the CPN(M) leadership is not under such perception. It is amply clear that there can be no peaceful way for achieving the ultimate goal of the civil war, i.e., to free Nepal from the exploitation and oppression of feudalism and imperialism, and to establish a new-democratic republic with a view to a classless society. We have already explained that to provide stability to the republic established through a constituent assembly would only imply giving oxygen to capitalism. As long as revolutionary leadership continues to participate in the govt. under such a system, the revolutionary brigade, and, the leadership itself, will get stuck within the bounds of the system, will slip towards degeneration, and the revolutionary movement will get dissipated. When a Communist Party remains a partner in a ruling coalition under an exploitative system, only a continuation of the revolutionary movement can save the revolution. However, the situation, which compels such a tactics, has an inherent contradiction with the continuation of revolutionary struggle. In such a situation, the thought that a peaceful way to the establishment of a new-democratic republic will open up once a democratic republic is constituted through the coming poles, will only aggravate the tendency of the degeneration among the revolutionary elements. We may hope that those who have conducted a heroic arms struggle through serious adversities during the last ten years do not have such confusions. But, at the same time, it should be kept in the mind that whereas after a decade-long civil war in this tough situation, the aspiration for peace is very natural not only for the people, but for the revolutionary army also, a tendency to make this period of peace, especially when monarchy dies out, as permanent will inevitably arise. The CPN(M) leadership will have to be alert about this danger while progressing in future.
After the defeat of the first expedition of the Socialist movement of the international proletariat, we are faced with a tough and totally new situation. The Maoist leadership of Nepal is trying to proceed by negotiating the twists and turns of the movement and are confronting the various questions that face the international Communist movement. As the representatives of a small section of the revolutionary proletariat in India, we bid red salute to them. We have tried to analyse the vicissitudes of their struggle as comrades of the international proletarian movement. We are away from Nepal and have no direct communication with them. Hence, our analysis may certainly be incomplete. And, being conscious of our limitations, we have commented on the steps taken by the Nepal Maoists keeping in view the interest of the revolution there.
Notes: -
1. By "the period of strategic defence", they meant the first phase of PW, when the enemy is stronger than the revolutionary forces. Even if they go for occasional attacks, the revolutionary army remains defensive in the main. "Period of strategic balance" denotes the period when neither of the warring sides is capable of defeating the other. And, lastly, "period of strategic offence" implies the stage when the revolutionary forces are much stronger than the enemy and the PW advances towards ultimate victory. The Maoists had identified the five years from 13 February 1996,the date of inception of the PW, to November 2001 as the period of strategic defence. After the first ceasefire with the State in November 2001, the Royal Nepal Army started direct attack. Prior to that, the Army had not participated in battles against the Maoists. It was the Police who were engaged in encounters with them. After the Army got involved in the offensives against them, the CPN(M) in announced that the period of strategic balance was in. During early 2004, autonomous Revolutionary govt. of the People was constituted in different districts. After this, it was announced that the period of strategic offence had started in 31st August 2004. [15].
2. The PLA is the principal army of the Maoists. But there are armed militias of the people, in addition. According to a source, the PLA has 10,000-armed guerrillas in 9 of their brigades. Apart from this, there are 5,000 trained and 20,000-armed militia personnel. [16].
Sources:
1. The tactics and strategy of armed struggle in Nepal ? Document adopted at the 3rd plenum of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), March 1995. Obtained from Maoist Movement in Nepal, Samakalin Tisri Dunia, New Delhi
2. Ibid
3. Resolution of the Central Committee of CPN(M); Political and Organizational Resolution, September-October, 2005, published in the CPN(M) organ, The Worker (Number 10, May, 2006)
4. Ibid
5. Monarchy vs. Democracy: The Epic Struggle of Nepal, Collection of Essays by Baburam Bhattarai, Samakalin Tisri Dunia, New Delhi. (2005, Page-140)
6. Interview of Prachanda, as given to BBC journalist, Charles Havilland. Published in the website of BBC on 13 February 2006. Website: http;/news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13-02-06-prachanda.pdf
7. Same as 3
8. Interview given to Siddharth Baradarajan of The Hindu. It was taken in the first week of February 2006. It was published on 8th, 9th and 10th February, 2006 in The Hindu. Obtained from the website of The Hindu: www.hindu.com
9. Interview of Baburam Bhattarai given to Indymedia on 19 May 2003. Monarchy vs. Democracy: The Epic Struggle Of Nepal
10. Interview given to A World To Win on 28 March 2001. Source: http//www.humanrights.de/doc-en/archiv/n/nepal/politics/170202-interview-pra.htm
11. Same as 3
12. Ibid
13. Interview given to the Kantipur Daily on 20June, 2006. Website: http//www.kantipuronline.com/interview.php?&nid=77214
14. Same as 3
15. Nepal's Maoists: Their aims, Structure and Strategy, International Crisis Group, Asia Report, 27 October 2005
16. Ibid
Comments:
No Comments for View