Economic and Political Weekly (India) on “Nepal’s Maoist’s” lost compass, derailed

[Note from Frontlines: The author of the article below appears to assume that integration of the PLA would have “neutralized”
the Nepal Army, which was not even plausible.  The reverse was the case, and this is exactly what has happened with the integrated section (about 6,000) of the PLA that did not slowly leave the cantonments over the years or accept cash/retraining payments, who have been or are preparing to be consumed and digested by the NA.  Unfortunately, the unclarity on this issue led even Kiran and his allies in the newly-formed Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist to upheld integration until relatively recently.]
Vol – XLVII No. 38, September 22, 2012

With so many unfulfilled aspirations, the recent divide in the Maoist party in Nepal is depressing.

Tremendous hope coupled with so many unfulfilled aspirations had drawn the Nepali people to the Maoists, but their dreams now seem to be in the process of being prematurely shattered. Washington’s decision on 6 September to remove the Maoist party from its list of “terrorist organisations” had been on the anvil for the last two years, and it came just when the party seems no longer in a position to upset the status quo any further. The “two-line struggle”, underway within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [UCPN(M)], reached a point earlier this year when the party’s central committee reconciled itself to the reality of “one party with two lines” and it was only a matter of time when the faction led by the party’s erstwhile vice-chairperson Mohan Baidya “Kiran” would form a new party, which it did on 19 June. The new Maoist party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN(M)], hopes to rekindle the aspiration of a people’s democracy – a democracy that takes into account the interests of the workers, the poor peasants, the oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups, women and dalits.

Expectations had run high ever since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of November 2006 and when the Maoist party emerged as the largest constituent in the April 2008 Constituent Assembly elections – mainly about integration of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with the Nepal Army (NA) and the making of a people’s democratic, federal, republican constitution. Regarding the former, the prospect was of the integration of the PLA combatants with the chain of command intact, thus leading to “democratisation” in the leadership and structure of the NA. The combatants of the PLA had, after all, significantly contributed to the creation of the secular democratic republic that Nepal is today. The commanders should therefore have been treated on par with their counterparts in the NA, so also the soldiers; they should have been automatically absorbed into the NA without any process of selection. Was not integration supposed to have been a merger of the two armies? What has actually transpired is an insult to the dignity of the PLA’s commanders and other combatants. Indeed, it should not have surprised anyone that the 12 April 2012 military takeover of the PLA cantonments along with their weapons was the last straw for the veterans of people’s war period (1996-2006).

What of the promise of a people’s democratic, federal, republican constitution? To deal with this question politically, one needs to go back to the 2005 Chunbang meeting of the central committee of the Maoist party where a decision was taken to strive for a “democratic republic” in the immediate term. This was a significant tactical shift, a turning point as it soon became evident, but at that time it was merely seen as a transitional tactic in the path towards a people’s democratic republic. The 12-point agreement of 22 November 2005 with the seven parliamentary parties followed from this. From thereon to the 8-point agreement of 16 June 2006, the CPA, and the 18 June 2008 deal, all of which, taken together obliged the Maoist party to conclude the armed struggle and ultimately disarm. Its logic made them join the bandwagon of competitive multiparty politics, dissolve the people’s governments and the people’s courts that had been formed in the countryside and integrate the combatants of the PLA with the NA. From this followed the return of property, including land, of the landlords that had been confiscated as part of the radical land reform programme. In effect, the Maoists gave up the people’s war and the struggle for new democracy.

The UCPN(M) has thus become no more than a reformist left party. The tactical shift made at Chunbang in 2005, it was argued by its proponents in the Maoist party, would enable the creation of a strong revolutionary base in the cities, which would then make possible mass insurrection to seize political power at the centre. But without the PLA, the base areas, the people’s governments in the countryside, that is only a daydream now. Continue reading

Biplap on the Revolution in Nepal: Can We Go Ahead?

[This is an important article by Biplap, a member of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the UCPN(Maoist), and is most likely a disguised polemic against rightist forces in the party.  He stresses the issue of  the internal and international situations for the advance of the revolution–though he underestimates the danger of an Indian economic blockade and military intervention in the event of a Maoist victory or major Maoist advances through re-establishing the People’s War.

Biplap also discusses the key role of the reactionary, ex-royalist Nepal Army.  However he puts forth two different positions on the army.  First, he writes that “we will have to fight with army if we want to complete revolution” and speaks of the need to foster splits in the army. On the other hand, he writes that the army is a nationalist force and  that a “front between Maoist and Nepal Army is possible for national independence”–a position which leads away from the necessity to re-estabish the People’s War in order to complete the new democratic revolution.–ed.]

Can We Go Ahead?

by Netra Bikram Chanda “Biplap”

The Red Star Vol 3 issue 16

The debate in Nepal is on whether revolution is possible or not. The debate is not only ideological and general assumption; rather, it is centered on the question whether there is possibility to increase intervention in the central power state or not. Two sharp analyses have emerged on the issue. They are for and against.

The analytical perspective that sees revolution as impossible:

One of the analytical perspectives is that the revolt is impossible. Yes, it seems so from that side of perspective. This analysis has emerged mainly from the side of some leftist intellectual politicians and analysts. They have given the following reasons to justify this logic.

Unfavorable international situation-

Favorable international situation is needed for the completion of revolution. For that, there should be a crisis in the centre of capitalism and unfavorable situation should have created against them. Moreover, there should be crisis in India, America and China for the completion of revolution in a small and poor country like Nepal. Otherwise, these power centres interfere over Nepal and revolution can not succeed. Continue reading