Nepali Maoists' India policy
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The Palungtar plenum of the UCPN-Maoist is over. Much has been written about the plenum. Some issues were overblown, some exaggerated and some under reported. Still there are issues that have not been reported in the media at all.
On the coverage of the Palungtar conclave, the Nepali media clearly stood on two sides. Accordingly, they had two different and distinct views on the Maoist plenum. The media did not stand in between but appeared divided between the pro-Maoist and anti-Maoist camps. This conclusion could be made from the angle of their coverage.
Divided camps
The pro-Maoist media reported that the Palungtar plenum was an example of grand unity and success. Viewed on the basis of organisation and management, the mega event was definitely a success. The meeting of more than 7,000 people was organised in a flawless manner. It was, no doubt, a Herculean job to manage such a big conference that includes logistics like food and accommodation.
Palungtar is a small village in the hilly district of Gorkha with a population far less than the number of people - delegates, observers, volunteers and journalists - who had gathered in Palungtar for the conclave. Almost 7, 000 of those present were delegates. If the security personnel from the government side and the UCPN-Maoist, volunteers and journalists were to be added, the total number would exceed 8, 000.
The event was perhaps the biggest political event of its kind in Nepal’s political history. No other party has the capability to organise such a mega event with such grandeur.
Organising such a mega event on a small rural plateau was definitely a difficult job. But the event was successfully held without any complaints. From another point of view as well, the Palungtar conclave was successful and historic. In the plenum, the debate, discussion, criticism and self-criticism were so lively that they generated genuine intra-party democracy in the party.
The participants, based on media reports, put forth their views and ideas candidly and openly, which is rare in the other parties of Nepal. Some participants made scathing remarks against the leadership, which can hardly be imagined in the other parties. This is a high-level exercise at promoting internal democracy in the party, which dismisses the claims and criticism by the other parties that dissent is never tolerated in a communist party. In fact, the Palungtar plenum of the Maoist has proved that communists alone practice genuine democracy within their party.
This aspect was not raised and reported by the media in a positive tone. Instead, the debate, discussion, criticism and counter-criticism were seen by the media as an exercise at splitting the party. In fact, any political party that is formed on ideological basis can be consolidated only when debates and discussions are allowed in a free, frank and constructive manner. That is what happens in a communist party.
There is another side of the story. Some media outlets have dubbed the Maoist plenum as a big fiasco. A section of the media has even described this exercise as a prelude to a formal split in the UCPN-Maoist. This section of the media sees everything wrong in the Maoist party and its plenum. But the media have not been objective enough in analysing the Maoist plenum and its outcome.
It was neither a grand success in terms of concrete outcome nor a fiasco. If analysed objectively and impartially, the Maoist plenum had messages and lessons to be learnt by the other parties, too.
Three different sets of ideas had surfaced in the plenum. But this was part of a two-line struggle that always takes place in a genuine revolutionary communist party. The two-line struggle is the ideological life of a communist party. This is not a new phenomenon in Nepal. There was a fierce struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia prior to the October Revolution, and it continued even after the revolution and establishment of the Soviet socialist regime. The live and vibrant two-line struggle ideologically sharpened the Russian Communist Party and made it capable of launching the successful proletariat revolution. Similar was the case with Mao’s Chinese Communist Party.
The two-line struggle is an ideological battle between the revolutionary and revisionist policies. In the absence of a two-line struggle, the party slowly becomes ideologically inept and ultimately degenerates into a revisionist and rightist party, which is the case with several of Nepal’s communist parties.
Those who take the two-line struggle as an exercise at breaking up the party have not understood communist ideology. The three sets of idea that surfaced in the Maoist party are not three opinions.
Three senior leaders put forward three different documents. But in essence, they can be divided into two sets. They have differences mainly on three issues. One is concerned with the definition of principal contradiction, second is with the evaluation of history and the third is related with the party’s tactical policy.
On the issue of principal contradiction, Prachanda and Mohan Vaidya stand together, while Baburam Bhattarai has an opposing view. Prachanda and Vaidya are of the view that external forces, mainly India, and domestic ‘comprador and bureaucratic’ forces have mingled to stop the progressive and revolutionary force in Nepal. According to them, the domestic forces are not acting independently but on the advice and instruction of the external forces.
Although they have not spared the ‘US-led imperialist force’, they do not see America as the immediate threat in the present context, perhaps, because of its distant location and its own internal crisis and engagement in other parts of the world. Their fury against India was reinforced by their inability to go to power even after being the largest political force in Nepal, which the Maoists attribute to India’s manipulation.
However, Bhattarai is of the opinion that India is not the principal enemy at present but the domestic comprador and bureaucratic elements protected and patronised by India. He proposed directing the attack on the domestic forces and not on India.
On the issue concerning the party’s tactical policy, Prachanda and Baburam are closer whereas Vaidya is far apart. Prachanda and Baburam have defended the party’s tactics since the Chunbang meeting that adopted the policy of establishing a democratic republic. Based on it, the party reached a 12-point agreement with the other parties and joined peaceful politics. The duo defend this policy and want to move ahead peacefully to draft the new constitution and complete the peace process.
They are of the view that the party should go for nationwide revolt only when the other parties block the process of drafting a progressive constitution. However, Vaidya sees fault in the party’s tactical policy of democratic republic. He wants revolt and peaceful politics simultaneously to establish a ‘people’s federal republic’. Here lies the fundamental difference.
On the question of the party’s working style, Vaidya and Baburam are together as they have criticised Prachanda for his ‘arbitrary style of functioning’. They have proposed a system of collective leadership.
Transformation
These are the fundamental differences. On every issue, there are two opposing views not three, although three leaders presented documents. This is an example of two-line struggle being practiced all over the world. The participants put forth their views on the documents and the proposition of the three leaders. There was one voice among the participants that there is no alternative to transformation, unity and revolt. The participants warned the leaders to act in line with the sentiments of the people who want transformation in the leaders’ thinking and way of life. This alone would create the ground for practical and emotional unity in the party, which is necessary for a decisive revolt.
Having assessed the sentiments and views of the participants, the leaders vowed to transform and act accordingly. This was the outcome of the Palungtar plenum of the Maoists. This can be dubbed as the victory of the participants and not any particular leader or faction.
The Palungtar plenum of the UCPN-Maoist is over. Much has been written about the plenum. Some issues were overblown, some exaggerated and some under reported. Still there are issues that have not been reported in the media at all.
On the coverage of the Palungtar conclave, the Nepali media clearly stood on two sides. Accordingly, they had two different and distinct views on the Maoist plenum. The media did not stand in between but appeared divided between the pro-Maoist and anti-Maoist camps. This conclusion could be made from the angle of their coverage.
Divided camps
The pro-Maoist media reported that the Palungtar plenum was an example of grand unity and success. Viewed on the basis of organisation and management, the mega event was definitely a success. The meeting of more than 7,000 people was organised in a flawless manner. It was, no doubt, a Herculean job to manage such a big conference that includes logistics like food and accommodation.
Palungtar is a small village in the hilly district of Gorkha with a population far less than the number of people - delegates, observers, volunteers and journalists - who had gathered in Palungtar for the conclave. Almost 7, 000 of those present were delegates. If the security personnel from the government side and the UCPN-Maoist, volunteers and journalists were to be added, the total number would exceed 8, 000.
The event was perhaps the biggest political event of its kind in Nepal’s political history. No other party has the capability to organise such a mega event with such grandeur.
Organising such a mega event on a small rural plateau was definitely a difficult job. But the event was successfully held without any complaints. From another point of view as well, the Palungtar conclave was successful and historic. In the plenum, the debate, discussion, criticism and self-criticism were so lively that they generated genuine intra-party democracy in the party.
The participants, based on media reports, put forth their views and ideas candidly and openly, which is rare in the other parties of Nepal. Some participants made scathing remarks against the leadership, which can hardly be imagined in the other parties. This is a high-level exercise at promoting internal democracy in the party, which dismisses the claims and criticism by the other parties that dissent is never tolerated in a communist party. In fact, the Palungtar plenum of the Maoist has proved that communists alone practice genuine democracy within their party.
This aspect was not raised and reported by the media in a positive tone. Instead, the debate, discussion, criticism and counter-criticism were seen by the media as an exercise at splitting the party. In fact, any political party that is formed on ideological basis can be consolidated only when debates and discussions are allowed in a free, frank and constructive manner. That is what happens in a communist party.
There is another side of the story. Some media outlets have dubbed the Maoist plenum as a big fiasco. A section of the media has even described this exercise as a prelude to a formal split in the UCPN-Maoist. This section of the media sees everything wrong in the Maoist party and its plenum. But the media have not been objective enough in analysing the Maoist plenum and its outcome.
It was neither a grand success in terms of concrete outcome nor a fiasco. If analysed objectively and impartially, the Maoist plenum had messages and lessons to be learnt by the other parties, too.
Three different sets of ideas had surfaced in the plenum. But this was part of a two-line struggle that always takes place in a genuine revolutionary communist party. The two-line struggle is the ideological life of a communist party. This is not a new phenomenon in Nepal. There was a fierce struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia prior to the October Revolution, and it continued even after the revolution and establishment of the Soviet socialist regime. The live and vibrant two-line struggle ideologically sharpened the Russian Communist Party and made it capable of launching the successful proletariat revolution. Similar was the case with Mao’s Chinese Communist Party.
The two-line struggle is an ideological battle between the revolutionary and revisionist policies. In the absence of a two-line struggle, the party slowly becomes ideologically inept and ultimately degenerates into a revisionist and rightist party, which is the case with several of Nepal’s communist parties.
Those who take the two-line struggle as an exercise at breaking up the party have not understood communist ideology. The three sets of idea that surfaced in the Maoist party are not three opinions.
Three senior leaders put forward three different documents. But in essence, they can be divided into two sets. They have differences mainly on three issues. One is concerned with the definition of principal contradiction, second is with the evaluation of history and the third is related with the party’s tactical policy.
On the issue of principal contradiction, Prachanda and Mohan Vaidya stand together, while Baburam Bhattarai has an opposing view. Prachanda and Vaidya are of the view that external forces, mainly India, and domestic ‘comprador and bureaucratic’ forces have mingled to stop the progressive and revolutionary force in Nepal. According to them, the domestic forces are not acting independently but on the advice and instruction of the external forces.
Although they have not spared the ‘US-led imperialist force’, they do not see America as the immediate threat in the present context, perhaps, because of its distant location and its own internal crisis and engagement in other parts of the world. Their fury against India was reinforced by their inability to go to power even after being the largest political force in Nepal, which the Maoists attribute to India’s manipulation.
However, Bhattarai is of the opinion that India is not the principal enemy at present but the domestic comprador and bureaucratic elements protected and patronised by India. He proposed directing the attack on the domestic forces and not on India.
On the issue concerning the party’s tactical policy, Prachanda and Baburam are closer whereas Vaidya is far apart. Prachanda and Baburam have defended the party’s tactics since the Chunbang meeting that adopted the policy of establishing a democratic republic. Based on it, the party reached a 12-point agreement with the other parties and joined peaceful politics. The duo defend this policy and want to move ahead peacefully to draft the new constitution and complete the peace process.
They are of the view that the party should go for nationwide revolt only when the other parties block the process of drafting a progressive constitution. However, Vaidya sees fault in the party’s tactical policy of democratic republic. He wants revolt and peaceful politics simultaneously to establish a ‘people’s federal republic’. Here lies the fundamental difference.
On the question of the party’s working style, Vaidya and Baburam are together as they have criticised Prachanda for his ‘arbitrary style of functioning’. They have proposed a system of collective leadership.
Transformation
These are the fundamental differences. On every issue, there are two opposing views not three, although three leaders presented documents. This is an example of two-line struggle being practiced all over the world. The participants put forth their views on the documents and the proposition of the three leaders. There was one voice among the participants that there is no alternative to transformation, unity and revolt. The participants warned the leaders to act in line with the sentiments of the people who want transformation in the leaders’ thinking and way of life. This alone would create the ground for practical and emotional unity in the party, which is necessary for a decisive revolt.
Having assessed the sentiments and views of the participants, the leaders vowed to transform and act accordingly. This was the outcome of the Palungtar plenum of the Maoists. This can be dubbed as the victory of the participants and not any particular leader or faction.
Comments
Post a Comment