Kasama

Was the Maoist turn in 2006 a serious error that they have not yet recovered from?

The FIRE Collective published a pamphlet “A Revolution at the Brink: Stand With Nepal” — to build support for the revolution in Nepal. Ka Frank posted the following criticism of that pamphlet. In a separate post, Nando replies to Ka Frank’s assessments.

by Ka Frank

October 18, 2009 at 10:25 pm e

This new pamphlet is a welcome addition to the literature on the revolution in Nepal. However, it is an idealized of the current situation in Nepal and within the UCPN (Maoist), which is reflected in the title of the pamphlet–”A Revolution at the Brink.” It is more accurate to characterize the revolution in Nepal as being at a crossroads.

What is missing is a recognition of the ongoing–and decisive– debate in the leadership and ranks of the UCPN (Maoist) about the road forward for the revolution.

At the National Convention of the party in November 2008, Chairman Prachanda’s views came under public criticism from a number of senior party leaders, including Kiran (Mohan Baidya), Guarav (CP Gajurel) and Biplap (Netra Bikram Chand). The main issue of political strategy was whether the party should go for a People’s Republic, completing the new democratic revolution through the seizure of state power, or Prachanda’s revisionist position that the party should consolidate the present bourgeois republic and limit itself to a process of state restructuring. (See Bastola’s “Historic National Convention: Milestone of Revolution,” in the December 1-15, 2008 Red Star, and CP Gajurel’s “The Role of Major Tactical Line in Developing a New Constitution” in the January 16-31, 2009 Red Star.)

The Conference united around a compromise that merged the two positions. This resolution delivered a partial blow that has restrained the revisionist strategy that had been dominant, and has given more freedom of action to the revolutionary forces in the party. Since the leadership of neither side was defeated, the line struggle has not ended but has moved out of public view in recent months.

The new formulation of waging struggle from the government, the parliament and the streets points to such a shift to the Left. (The revolutionary forces in the party have been stressing the struggle from the streets.) The efforts of the Maoist-led government to sack the army chief of staff, which has brought the Maoist mass base out into the streets in a way not seen since the April 2006 uprising against the monarchy, also points in this direction. Just the fact that Basanta could publicly state that “the Nepalese oppressed class has now arrived at a very glorious but more challenging juncture of seizing central power through a process of people’s rebellion of the Nepalese specifically under the leadership of our party the Unified CPN (Maoist)” is another sign of this shift. (Red Star, March 16-31, 2009).

Without saying so explicitly, this pamphlet, and prior Kasama writings on Nepal, promote the view that a revolutionary line has been in command of the party and has been implemented since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2006, in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

In Nepal, the revolution, and the UCPN (Maoist) are at a political crossroads that will determine whether the bulk of the Maoist forces will get further submerged in administering a bourgeois/ feudal state and trying to push it to the left–which will represent a serious setback to the revolutionary process–or a new wave of Maoist-led revolutionary struggle will lead to the seizure of power and the victory of the new democratic revolution as a transition to socialism in Nepal.

For a more developed discussion of this issue, see “Revolution and State Power in Nepal” and “More on Revolution and State Power in Nepal” on the website of the MLM Revolutionary Study Group. http://www.mlmrsg.com