Marxists, Trotskyites and Capitalists in Nepal
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The communist movement in Nepal has a history of 62 years. During this
six-decade-plus chequered and complex history, Nepal's communist movement
has undergone many ups and down and taken many twists and turns. The mother
party has been fragmented into many groups.
Inspired by the October Revolution in Russia, the Chinese Revolution and
rising revolutionary wave worldwide, Pushpa Lal Shrestha formed the Nepal
Communist Party along with his four comrades-in-arms, namely, Nar Bahadur
Karmacharya, Narayan Bilas Joshi, Niranjan Govinda Vaidya and Moti Devi in
1949. In the initial period, it was never thought that this force would be
so popular and powerful within a few decades.
During the last 62 years, the communist movement in Nepal has suffered
serious setbacks, committed many mistakes and experienced crises and
failures. At the same time, some great strides and achievements have also
been made in advancing the movement to a newer height. However, the
communist parties and their leaders still seem not to have learnt lessons
from the past mistakes, which is the primary contributor to the
fragmentation in the revolutionary movement in Nepal.
There are over a dozen communist groups in name, each claiming to be the
genuine revolutionary communist party capable of and committed to
transforming and bringing about radical change in the Nepali society. These
groups are engaged in accusing one another of being extremists,
left-adventurists, dogmato-sectarian, reformists and revisionists. Whatever
the accusations and counter accusations, one thing is true that the
communists command overwhelming support and popularity in Nepal.
It is a subject of debate as to which one is the real communist party and
which one is just exploiting the sentiments of the people under communist
cover. Despite the existence of many communist parties and groups in Nepal,
there are two distinct lines in Nepal's communist movement - revolutionary
and reformist or parliamentary.
The UCPN-Maoist represents the revolutionary line while the CPN-UML is the
advocate of the reformist/parliamentary line. The UCPN-Maoist, which
established itself as the largest political force through a decade-long
armed insurgency, believes in armed revolution to bring about radical change
in the society and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Maoist insurgency and its ability to challenge state power were seen as
a model of revolution in many countries. However, many questions are being
raised by revolutionary communists throughout the world on the policy
adopted by the party after entering the peace process in 2006.
Some revolutionary communist parties have dubbed the new approach of peace
and constitution adopted by the Maoists as being opportunist and
rightist/reformist deviation. Apart from international criticism, a great
debate has started within the party as well, which the Maoist leaders
describe as a two-line struggle aimed at ideologically and politically
purifying and sharpening the party. This two-line struggle is being dubbed
as a form of class struggle and an expression of the highest degree of
internal democracy within the party.
In the name of the two-line struggle, there is, in reality, a triangular
fight. There are three visible groups in the party which advocate three sets
of views, and their struggle is fierce. Party Chairman Prachanda,
Vice-chairmen duo Mohan Vaidya and Baburam Bhattarai lead the three views
and groups.
In terms of policy and ideology, Vaidya and Bhattarai exhibit two extreme
poles. Vaidya is the advocate of armed struggle or mass insurrection to
capture state power. According to him, the ongoing constitution and peace
process should not be made the ultimate goal of the party, instead it should
be a tactic to achieve the larger goal.
However, Bhattarai sees no possibility of a revolution or mass insurrection
in the immediate future. He wants to complete the constitution writing and
peace processes through which some progressive changes can be brought about.
According to him, mass insurrection can be launched only when the efforts at
peace and the constitution are foiled and failed. Earlier Prachanda, too,
had championed the line of mass insurrection, but recently he has come up
with the policy of peace and the constitution.
From an ideological standpoint, Prachanda and Bhattarai stand together as
both of them advocate peace and the constitution. But in terms of practical
politics, Vaidya and Bhattarai are together. This new alliance between
Vaidya and Bhattarai has changed the equation within the Maoist party.
Whatever the internal fight and squabble, all factions are unanimous on the
analysis of the other parties and the nation and international situation.
They do not consider any country as being friendly. But they differ on the
issue of principal contradiction of the Nepali revolution and the Nepali
people. Prachanda and Vaidya are of the view that the principal
contradiction of the Nepali revolution and Nepali people is with Indian
expansionism, which has been acting in close collaboration with domestic
reactionaries. If 'Indian expansionism' is hit back and defeated, the
domestic reactionaries would be automatically defeated and controlled.
Baburam Bhattarai considers the domestic reactionaries as the principal
enemy of the Nepali people and the target of the Nepali revolution should be
against these two forces. So far as their analysis of Nepal's political
forces is concerned, they are unanimous and dub the Nepali Congress as a
rightist and reactionary force, while the CPN-UML is a left opportunist and
revisionist party. The UCPN-Maoist believes that both of these forces are
lackeys of 'Indian expansionism'.
Neither the Congress nor the CPN-UML is prepared to accept this accusation
or analysis. In the analysis of the Nepali Congress, the Maoists are still
extremists and an anti-democratic force, which is trying to capture state
power by force. The CPN-UML, too, subscribes to the views of the Nepali
Congress on the analysis of the Maoists. The UML claims that it is the only
genuine communist party in Nepal.
The CPN-UML too had initially believed in an armed revolution and
accordingly launched the Jhapa revolt with the objective of annihilating
class enemies. As the revolt was quickly crushed by state troops, the party
changed its strategy and started strengthening its organisational base and
strength among the people nationwide. In a period of one decade, its
presence and organisation spread nationwide to become the largest communist
party in Nepal.
But the UCPN-UML (initially known as the CPN-ML) abandoned communist
ideology to become a reformist party. The People's Multi-Party Democracy,
which the UML adopted at its fifth congress, further turned it into a
parliamentary and capitalist party, while hoodwinking the people under the
false banner of communism. Now the CPN-UML does not have its own programmes
and vision for steering the country out of the crisis. It vacillates between
the agenda of the Nepali Congress and that of the UCPN-Maoist.
In this way, the communist movement has been fragmented. But an intense
debate is going on as to which path is the correct and pragmatic one in the
present national and international context. The question is on the relevance
of a revolution. If the banner of Marxism is to be upheld in its letter and
spirit, there is no alternative to a revolution. However, according to the
CPN-UML, a revolution has lost its relevance in the 21st century and it is
peaceful and competitive politics that alone can bring about changes in the
society. Whatever the logic and counter logic, both schools of thoughts are
active to justify their political and ideological standpoint.
There are Marxists, Leninists and Maoists on the one hand and there are
Trotskyites Lin Biaoists and Kruschevites on the other. In Nepal, both the
schools of thoughts are equally strong and active. In the context of Nepal,
the Maoists represent the former school of thought while the CPN-UML
advocates the latter.
Needless to say, the reformist path and capitalist road are not compatible
with Marxism and they can never lead to a revolution. If one tries to
justify the revisionist and reformist approach in the name of pragmatic
application of Marxism, as has been claimed by some leftist groups and
individuals in Nepal and also in the world, it is either a distortion of
Marxism or simply ignorance of Marxist philosophy. But the people in Nepal
are slowly coming to understand who is right and who is wrong. There must be
a distinct demarcation between the genuine revolutionaries and revisionists.
The communist movement in Nepal has a history of 62 years. During this
six-decade-plus chequered and complex history, Nepal's communist movement
has undergone many ups and down and taken many twists and turns. The mother
party has been fragmented into many groups.
Inspired by the October Revolution in Russia, the Chinese Revolution and
rising revolutionary wave worldwide, Pushpa Lal Shrestha formed the Nepal
Communist Party along with his four comrades-in-arms, namely, Nar Bahadur
Karmacharya, Narayan Bilas Joshi, Niranjan Govinda Vaidya and Moti Devi in
1949. In the initial period, it was never thought that this force would be
so popular and powerful within a few decades.
During the last 62 years, the communist movement in Nepal has suffered
serious setbacks, committed many mistakes and experienced crises and
failures. At the same time, some great strides and achievements have also
been made in advancing the movement to a newer height. However, the
communist parties and their leaders still seem not to have learnt lessons
from the past mistakes, which is the primary contributor to the
fragmentation in the revolutionary movement in Nepal.
There are over a dozen communist groups in name, each claiming to be the
genuine revolutionary communist party capable of and committed to
transforming and bringing about radical change in the Nepali society. These
groups are engaged in accusing one another of being extremists,
left-adventurists, dogmato-sectarian, reformists and revisionists. Whatever
the accusations and counter accusations, one thing is true that the
communists command overwhelming support and popularity in Nepal.
It is a subject of debate as to which one is the real communist party and
which one is just exploiting the sentiments of the people under communist
cover. Despite the existence of many communist parties and groups in Nepal,
there are two distinct lines in Nepal's communist movement - revolutionary
and reformist or parliamentary.
The UCPN-Maoist represents the revolutionary line while the CPN-UML is the
advocate of the reformist/parliamentary line. The UCPN-Maoist, which
established itself as the largest political force through a decade-long
armed insurgency, believes in armed revolution to bring about radical change
in the society and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Maoist insurgency and its ability to challenge state power were seen as
a model of revolution in many countries. However, many questions are being
raised by revolutionary communists throughout the world on the policy
adopted by the party after entering the peace process in 2006.
Some revolutionary communist parties have dubbed the new approach of peace
and constitution adopted by the Maoists as being opportunist and
rightist/reformist deviation. Apart from international criticism, a great
debate has started within the party as well, which the Maoist leaders
describe as a two-line struggle aimed at ideologically and politically
purifying and sharpening the party. This two-line struggle is being dubbed
as a form of class struggle and an expression of the highest degree of
internal democracy within the party.
In the name of the two-line struggle, there is, in reality, a triangular
fight. There are three visible groups in the party which advocate three sets
of views, and their struggle is fierce. Party Chairman Prachanda,
Vice-chairmen duo Mohan Vaidya and Baburam Bhattarai lead the three views
and groups.
In terms of policy and ideology, Vaidya and Bhattarai exhibit two extreme
poles. Vaidya is the advocate of armed struggle or mass insurrection to
capture state power. According to him, the ongoing constitution and peace
process should not be made the ultimate goal of the party, instead it should
be a tactic to achieve the larger goal.
However, Bhattarai sees no possibility of a revolution or mass insurrection
in the immediate future. He wants to complete the constitution writing and
peace processes through which some progressive changes can be brought about.
According to him, mass insurrection can be launched only when the efforts at
peace and the constitution are foiled and failed. Earlier Prachanda, too,
had championed the line of mass insurrection, but recently he has come up
with the policy of peace and the constitution.
From an ideological standpoint, Prachanda and Bhattarai stand together as
both of them advocate peace and the constitution. But in terms of practical
politics, Vaidya and Bhattarai are together. This new alliance between
Vaidya and Bhattarai has changed the equation within the Maoist party.
Whatever the internal fight and squabble, all factions are unanimous on the
analysis of the other parties and the nation and international situation.
They do not consider any country as being friendly. But they differ on the
issue of principal contradiction of the Nepali revolution and the Nepali
people. Prachanda and Vaidya are of the view that the principal
contradiction of the Nepali revolution and Nepali people is with Indian
expansionism, which has been acting in close collaboration with domestic
reactionaries. If 'Indian expansionism' is hit back and defeated, the
domestic reactionaries would be automatically defeated and controlled.
Baburam Bhattarai considers the domestic reactionaries as the principal
enemy of the Nepali people and the target of the Nepali revolution should be
against these two forces. So far as their analysis of Nepal's political
forces is concerned, they are unanimous and dub the Nepali Congress as a
rightist and reactionary force, while the CPN-UML is a left opportunist and
revisionist party. The UCPN-Maoist believes that both of these forces are
lackeys of 'Indian expansionism'.
Neither the Congress nor the CPN-UML is prepared to accept this accusation
or analysis. In the analysis of the Nepali Congress, the Maoists are still
extremists and an anti-democratic force, which is trying to capture state
power by force. The CPN-UML, too, subscribes to the views of the Nepali
Congress on the analysis of the Maoists. The UML claims that it is the only
genuine communist party in Nepal.
The CPN-UML too had initially believed in an armed revolution and
accordingly launched the Jhapa revolt with the objective of annihilating
class enemies. As the revolt was quickly crushed by state troops, the party
changed its strategy and started strengthening its organisational base and
strength among the people nationwide. In a period of one decade, its
presence and organisation spread nationwide to become the largest communist
party in Nepal.
But the UCPN-UML (initially known as the CPN-ML) abandoned communist
ideology to become a reformist party. The People's Multi-Party Democracy,
which the UML adopted at its fifth congress, further turned it into a
parliamentary and capitalist party, while hoodwinking the people under the
false banner of communism. Now the CPN-UML does not have its own programmes
and vision for steering the country out of the crisis. It vacillates between
the agenda of the Nepali Congress and that of the UCPN-Maoist.
In this way, the communist movement has been fragmented. But an intense
debate is going on as to which path is the correct and pragmatic one in the
present national and international context. The question is on the relevance
of a revolution. If the banner of Marxism is to be upheld in its letter and
spirit, there is no alternative to a revolution. However, according to the
CPN-UML, a revolution has lost its relevance in the 21st century and it is
peaceful and competitive politics that alone can bring about changes in the
society. Whatever the logic and counter logic, both schools of thoughts are
active to justify their political and ideological standpoint.
There are Marxists, Leninists and Maoists on the one hand and there are
Trotskyites Lin Biaoists and Kruschevites on the other. In Nepal, both the
schools of thoughts are equally strong and active. In the context of Nepal,
the Maoists represent the former school of thought while the CPN-UML
advocates the latter.
Needless to say, the reformist path and capitalist road are not compatible
with Marxism and they can never lead to a revolution. If one tries to
justify the revisionist and reformist approach in the name of pragmatic
application of Marxism, as has been claimed by some leftist groups and
individuals in Nepal and also in the world, it is either a distortion of
Marxism or simply ignorance of Marxist philosophy. But the people in Nepal
are slowly coming to understand who is right and who is wrong. There must be
a distinct demarcation between the genuine revolutionaries and revisionists.
Comments
Post a Comment