Nepal: The Mass March in Kathmandu & the Revolution to Follow
Posted by Mike E on November 16, 2009
This piece first appeared on CounterPunch.
“I Want to Dance With the Real Hero of My Country”
The Andolan in Kathmandu and the Revolution to Follow
By GARY LEUPP
“So far,” notes Peter Lee of the Asia Times, “Western media have reported remotely and somewhat uncomprehendingly on the massive demonstrations in Kathmandu led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), with a marked lack of interest. This perhaps reflects the shared desire of the Indian, Chinese and Western governments not to inflame the situation with excessive attention and rhetoric.” He refers to the two-day action in the Nepali capital Thursday and Friday.
But those demonstrations should be of enormous interest. According to AsiaNews, “The second phase of the so-called ‘people’s movement-III’ saw more than 150,000 participants, including former Maoist guerrillas and United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPM-M) members of parliament and militants, gathered around the Singha Durbar, Nepal’s official seat of government.”
The Maoists virtually paralyzed the government in a stunning display of power. All the top Maoist leaders marched through the city, some meeting the police at the barricades and breaking through to assume positions around Singha Durbar where they addressed the huge crowd.
It was overwhelming a peaceful, even festive andolan or mass demonstration, although there were some clashes with police. A senior Maoist leader, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, was among those wounded. He told Agence France-Presse, “We are now giving the government and other parties an opportunity to look into our demands. The ball is in the government’s court.” The most powerful Maoist figure, former prime minister Prachanda, issued a sharper warning to the regime, giving it a seven-day ultimatum (to November 20) to restore “civilian supremacy” or face a general strike and other strong protests.
When you watch video of Baburam Bhattarai, the brilliant academic who became the number two figure in the Maoist movement and served as finance minister under the administration of Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Pranchanda), leading the marchers confronting the helmeted police, successfully pressing through, you get a sense of genuine historical momentum gathering here.
Rekha Thapa, one of Nepal’s most popular young actresses, arrived as one of many who sang and danced for the huge crowd. She told those assembled, “I’ve always danced with film heroes. Now I want to dance with the real hero of my country.” A rather embarrassed looking Prachanda briefly accommodated her, the images captured on national television and on newspaper covers.
It was brilliant political theater.
According to S.D. Muni, a professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies in Singapore and authority on the Nepali Maoist movement, “The numbers they were able to mobilise and the fact they were able to keep control and maintain the peace indicate the protest was a success. It also showed the government is incapable of dealing with this kind of challenge.”
I’ve followed the Maoist movement in Nepal since the inception of the People’s War in 1996. I’m always struck by the creativity of the Nepali Maoists’strategy and tactics. From 1996 to 2006 the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (now the United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist)—originally a parliamentary party, the leadership of which had determined that armed struggle was the only way towards liberation—waged a guerrilla war against the monarchy. Its success was breathtaking. It controlled 80% of the country by 2005 when the very unpopular King Gyandendra seized absolute power sidelining the seven main political parties.
It then, having surrounded Kathmandu Valley with its People’s Liberation Army, agreed to the 2006 Comprehensive Agreement with the political parties whereby they would all jointly work to bring down the king, restoring parliamentary democracy, while the Maoists would lay down their arms under UN supervision, ending the war. A key provision of the Agreement was that the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army be integrated into the Nepali Army (formerly the Royal Nepali Army).
The Maoists also demanded the convening of a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution, and the proclamation of a republic. They won these demands, and in the April 2008 elections for the assembly, won 38% of the vote, twice the number of the next party. In August Prachanda became Prime Minister. So much for the “End of History” thesis. A Maoist having established his credentials by the barrel of a gun was having them further validated by the ballet box. Jimmy Carter was there to confirm that yes, indeed, it was a fair election.
But this was not yet revolution. This was not state power. This was communists who had control of the countryside, who did not want to bludgeon their way into Kathmandu Valley (or were not sure that they could do it, not necessarily confident that they had enough urban support), savvily working out a strategy to gain a presence in this zone where over a million of Nepal’s 28 million people live so that they could develop their political base here prior to a real seizure of power. The strategy seems to have worked out very well.
First the Maoists, playing by the parliamentary rules, swept the polls. Then they exposed the shamof the system to which they were being asked to conform. So many had praised them, for laying down their arms, for agreeing to participate in normal electoral politics! But they for their part had pointed out that their army needed to be merged with the Nepali Army as part of the Comprehensive Agreement.
And the Nepali Army, still ridden with pro-Royalist sentiment, had refused to implement the provisions in the agreement pertaining to PLA integration and instead sought to recruit new troops. This was really the crux of the problem.
I’m quite sure at least some of the Maoists had anticipated this scenario all along. That is, they had foreseen that the old state power reliant ultimately on armed force would not submit to the terms of the agreement or to the will of the people as expressed in elections.
The real issue is of course state power, and you can’t obtain state power when you don’t control the army. In May Prime Minister Prachanda asked the head of the Army, Gen. Rukmangad Katwal, to step down and appointed a new army chief. The President, Ram Baran Yadav, a member of the Nepal Congress Party, countermanded the order keeping Katwal at his post. It is widely thought that he enjoyed India’s support in this action. At that point Prachanda did something quite unexpected: in a televised address he denounced the president’s move as “illegal and unconstitutional” and resigned.
The Maoists not only quit the government, but pronounced the selection of a new one by the parliament as an unconstitutional process. They boycotted the election of Prachanda’s successor, party leader Narayan Kaji Shrestha declaring, “Without restoring civilian supremacy and correcting the president’s move, the new government will be unconstitutional. This government has wrong political ground as it is being formed as a ploy to sabotage the peace and constitution-making process and restore military supremacy. I want to give you a benefit of doubt, if you are nationalist, you will come back to the path drawn by the people’s movement.”
In the six months since the Maoists have made it impossible for the 22-party coalition government to function, accusing it of being unwilling to enforce the Comprehensive Agreement integrating the two armies. They have focused on this issue of “civilian supremacy,” which is really a matter of focusing upon the fact that there remain two headquarters of real power in the country.
There’s the status quo in the Singha Durbar complex, where the Maoists have tried to negotiate their way as parliamentary politicians but where power is ultimately guaranteed by the old state’s army backed up by India and U.S., the army that the Maoists confronted and humiliated big-time. And there’s the new order being built elsewhere.
Last week, Maoists in the state of Kirat declared the autonomy of that state. This was in accordance with the “first phase” plans for the People’s Movement III prior to the mass show of strength in the capital. But the announcement of ethnic-based states in a federal system had been postponed after some discussion and it’s not clear whether local party leader and politburo member, coordinator of Kirat State Uprising Committee, Gopal Kirati actually had Central Committee permission. The plan to shut down the international airport was cancelled after ambassadors’ protests but the plan to cut off all roads to Kathmandu was executed efficiently after November 1.
Ambulances and other essential vehicles were allowed egress and ingress; the Maoists having acquired much valley support are not looking to lose it.
But they are making the point to their political colleagues, with whom they’ve worked through the Comprehensive Agreement but who they see as for the most part only temporary allies at best, that just because they’ve put down their arms doesn’t mean they can’t use their mass organizational skills to scare the hell out of them. The next step is a general strike.
In the meantime, the plan is for a no-confidence vote in the parliament. Meanwhile, the Maoists control access to the valley and it’s quite likely that activists are pouring in for the next round of andolan. The “Prachanda Path” as articulated since 2001 has involved a fusion of the Chinese People’s War model and the October Revolution. Which of course means: urban insurrection.
Meanwhile UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, noting the obvious—that the PLA demobilization under UN certification, which was supposed to result in the integration of the two armies under the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement, wasn’t happening—in late October criticized the current Nepali government for proceeding “with a fresh round of recruitment into the Nepal Army” and resuming “the import of lethal military equipment.”
“In the assessment of UNMIN [United Nations Mission in Nepal], either step would violate the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Agreement on Monitoring the Management of Arms and Armies. UNMIN has continued to consistently convey this position to the Government and the public. The Minister of Defence, Bidhya Bhandari, has called for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to be revised, claiming that restrictions it places on recruitment, arms purchases and training had been detrimental to the effective functioning of the Nepal Army. UCPN-M has strongly protested her statement.”
Prachanda cited this report at the andolan last week. And I believe he cited this passage in Ban’s report:
“In my meeting with the Prime Minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, at Sharm el-Sheikh in July, I conveyed the strong concern of the international community at the lack of progress in the peace process and stressed the need for a time-bound effort to resolve the impediments hampering the process. My Representative in Nepal and other senior officials have consistently encouraged consensus and dialogue between the parties, recommending the establishment of a more formal dialogue mechanism to streamline negotiations and find creative solutions to overcome the current impasse. At the same time, my Representative has also underlined the need to avoid provocative statements or actions in order to maintain a positive climate for dialogue.”
That is to say, Ban’s urging the reintegration of the Maoists into government, realizing they’re organizing outside government from a position of strength. And the Maoists naturally use this report to strengthen their case at this time.
The South Korean diplomat has absolutely no personal interest in facilitating the consummation of the twenty-first century’s first revolution led by a self-pronounced Maoist party. But he apparently thinks it’s best to recognize the reality of Maoist political strength and to stick to the 2006 agreement.
Given this statement, the Maoists who now boast they have all Kathmandu behind them can say much of the world as represented by the UN secretary general agrees with their goal of “civilian supremacy,” and that the 22-party coalition with the UML and Congress at its head, linked to the Army, India and ultimately U.S. imperialism is the isolated, marginalized force.
There are so many logical and moral arguments to assemble as Nepal’s October approaches. It’s the mix of models, and ever-shifting tactics, and adaptability and revolutionary competence of these communists that never ceases to impress me. I truly think they may pull it off.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
Tell No Lies said
This is an excellent overview and introduction to the current situation. It should be very actively promoted and linked to.
Gary said
Some video of the festival of the oppressed
David_D said
Best of luck to the people of Nepal in pushing forward the national democratic revolution. I hope that they can forge a broad alliance to this effect; if not, it will have to the party alone. Can they have a united front like we saw in China, or will it be a single party like we saw in Russia? We will see…
Ka Frank said
The most glaring problem with this analysis is the lack of any evidence that the current andolan is leading, or even building up politically, to a new October revolution. The re-institution of a Maoist-led government in a bourgeois state, and the achievement–at least in principle–of civilian supremacy over the army is far different from the seizure of power and the completion of the new democratic revolution. The Maoist mass base in Kathmandu is being called out for this new round of demonstrations, but for what purpose?
Nepal’s October revolution can be achieved only by defeating and dissolving the Nepalese Army–”from inside and outside,” as UCPN (Maoist ) Secretariat Member Binod states in his article
“The Differences of Opinion Within Our Party,” Red Star #18, November 16-30, 2009. (Available on http://www.bannedthought.net)
Leupp instead argues that the Maoists will gain control over the NA by means of integrating the 19,000 PLA into the 95,000 NA. Integration, which Prachanda continues to press as part of completing the peace process outlined in the 2006 CPA, will instead make it impossible for the PLA to play an important military and political role in the “revolution to follow.”
Ka Frank said
The comments on the Nepalese Army in the previous post were made by Secretariat Member Biplap (Netra Bikram Chand), not Binod.
Gary said
Actually, Ka Frank, I am NOT arguing “the Maoists will gain control over the NA by means of integrating the 19,000 PLA into the 95,000 NA.” I didn’t write that and don’t think that.
I don’t think that’s what this is about, any more than I think it’s about “civilian supremacy” in a narrow sense.
This is about using contradictions carefully to obtain political ends. Those of us watching from a distance (myself, surely) have a hard time following all the details. But it looks to me as though the Nepali party has its hand on the pulse of the Nepali people and is proceeding accordingly.
Gary said
And if that is “the most glaring problem” in the analysis in this hastily written article (one of the few supportive pieces out there in this period when erstwhile supporters hold their tongues completely) what are the others? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Tell No Lies said
What was the available evidence of the October Revolution BEFORE the October Revolution?
Ka Frank said
Gary: I’m glad that you’re writing about events in the streets of Kathmandu for publications like Counterpunch. Still, I question the title of the article, The Andolan in Kathmandu and the Revolution to Follow, when there is no evidence that these protests are building towards a revolutionary seizure of power, and the UCPN (Maoist) leadership is continuing to struggle over this very critical question.
You’re right that you didn’t argue that the Maoists can achieve control over the army by merging the PLA into the NA. Actually it is Prachanda who has consistently advocated this strategy as part of carrying the peace progress to its “logical end.” Again, without achieving a united position around how to defeat and dissolve the Nepalese Army, the UCPN (Maoist) will not be able to build toward Nepal’s October.
Tell No Lies: I agree that the experience of the Bolsheviks in 1917 is worthy of serious study. It would be great to open up such a thread.
Gary said
“there is no evidence” Ka Frank? Let me refer you to the above. These things do not necessarily announce themselves.
Dirgha Raj Prasai said
Dear friends,
Mikeely.wordpress.com > Groups !
I read your very good report about Nepalese Maoist. But, reality is another thing, the Nepalese Maoist leaders Prachanda & Dr.Baburam Bhattarai haven lossing their credibility. Due to their confusion in politics, they are getting fizzle out. It is my question, why Maoist are going to met the culprit and corrupt leader-Giriga in Singapur. S.D.Muni (Professor of J.N.U and the policymaker of south block) also has gone Singapur.Girija, Prachanda and SD Mini will jointly decide the future of Nepal. RAW is trying to gobble up Nepal by using the leaders, who have put themselves ‘for sale’, and putting an ambush of the constituent assembly elections. From the very beginning, Indians had been disparaging Nepal to become a failed state by not allowing the industries to operate here. You know, Girija, Madhab nepal are traitors, then, why the Maoist leader Prachanda is joining his hands. So, it is clear, the Maoist leader Prachanda may be one of the agent of RAW.
So, if we want to save Nepal, I hope,there should unity between the nationalist-Maoist and monarchist-nationalist.
Thank you.
Dirgha Raj Prasai
n3wday said
“Again, without achieving a united position around how to defeat and dissolve the Nepalese Army, the UCPN (Maoist) will not be able to build toward Nepal’s October.”
This sentence strikes me as a little off. I’m not so sure that in moments like these there exist “united positions”. There is unity of action, but that’s a little different. Will the struggle propelled forward through contradiction and often in response to contingency, or not? I believe so… i don’t think important decisions like insurrection can be dated and stamped ahead of time for approval by a party.
I think when a decisive moment emerges where decisions must be made we will see unity of action (or a split), whether this will propel the revolution toward a seizure of power or not can’t be known now.
I have serious doubts that the bolsheviks or the maoists of china held united views when tough decisions had to be made. In China’s case people’s war lead to a particular conclusion, but the UCPN is dealing with a different set of theoretical premises rooted in a summation that experience—a whole new set of contradictions leading to a new paradigm in political thinking.
I think we’re seeing something different here, where line struggle is taking a much more public form. i don’t think this is by accident, i think there is a real contending for hearts and minds within the party itself over what road to take forward. at times i’m surprised there has been no significant split (I don’t think yadav leaving and forming the CPN-Maoist was significant). bhattarai has advocated that struggle take place behind closed doors. I think these things have largely been done that way in the past… so, i think we’re seeing something different here, perhaps challenging to an inherited view of democratic centralism. as TNL and later others have pointed out, Mao’s own writings were edited after being published to reflect changes of line—talk about a jarring revelation!
anways, i don’t think we will see such unity in thought unless a new form of party discipline emerges and is instituted. in many ways right now, i hope such things don’t occur. i think this has relevance for mass participation and has facilitated the vibrant party democracy we have seen so far. and i hope it continues to do so and the parties base and the masses generally are further included in this process.
David_D said
Why isn’t this thread the place for a discussion of the October Revolution? It pertains to the situation in Nepal, and the debate over this article.
Prior to the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks were indeed working toward a constituent assembly. They were not proclaiming that the framework would be superseded any time soon. They decided at a particular moment to launch an insurrection. They had no Red Army sitting in cantonments or in the countryside. They had something very similar to the Nepal YCL, Red Guards.
Doma said
I find the saddest part of this article is that as usual, mentions that clashes occurred but did not mention that the Maoists began to push their way past the designated protest line. That is what started the problem – so can you really say this was a peaceful demonstration? I was there.
Next, the contradictory statements from Maoists continue to baffle me. They want a logical conclusion but have disrupted the CA for months – they QUIT the government of their own choice NOT because of what the president did but because the PM Dahal did not follow the process to remove the Army Chief by having the required number of ministers at the vote.
Finally – here we are months later and the violence is increasing, what were political groups like YCL are now armed thugs and gangs in the terai, no movement except some of the children being removed, has been done to merge the PLA INDIVIDUALS into the “community” of Nepal – and the fight to move them all to the army OR we stay in opposition is absurd in a country that can’t pay for the army they have
- I wonder – has anyone done an independent survey to ask each individual in the PLA if they even want to be in the ARMY? Where the pay is horrible, the possibility to be promoted is even that much more diluted, and one is stationed in a place far from family and home?
Let’s face it – for those of us who LIVE here??? Who have to run a business here??? The maoist party is not winning the hearts and minds of the people – because they did nothing when they had the chance for 8 months for the people of Nepal and they are doing everything in their power to inhibit any forward movement on any path…
Green Red said
Thanks a lot once again professor Leupp, as always, your presentation is a comprehensive summary of the existing condition.
the part saying:
- – — ————–
But this was not yet revolution. This was not state power. This was communists who had control of the countryside, who did not want to bludgeon their way into Kathmandu Valley (or were not sure that they could do it, not necessarily confident that they had enough urban support), savvily working out a strategy to gain a presence in this zone where over a million of Nepal’s 28 million people live so that they could develop their political base here prior to a real seizure of power. The strategy seems to have worked out very well.
- – ————– —————-
is the most important part that says the whole story. they did not want to bludgeon their way for many reasons including, when through correct popular struggle and showing their benefitial essence to the oppressed residing in the city, whose lives are different than the countryside to relatively solve proglem with a piece of land confiscation – and showing them who already konw that the mainstreat parties are all bourgiose natured and not for their interest how to organize and creat popular power, all these attitude taken has made the majority of people of the city supporting them. Therefore, unlike the times when revolutions were occurring in the 20th century – AND THEY WERE ALL WAR RELATED – and the support and security from other socialist countries, by 2006 action and keeping their side of promises unlike the other parties, they have taken all cards off of the capitalist world’s hands since, even the UN secretary is willing to in fact have Prachanda back since, the parallel governing is the part that the capitalists fear more and, considering its being a “fourth world” country, i.e. lesser than third world country, the changes coming in that country were inevitable. And of course, when gaining the power, due to limits of the resource and technology of the country, new Maoist state will have to deal with the rest of the world but, since it is gaining it with the least bloody ending, however exploitive the deals from outside with them may be, how to use those arrived industry,etc., it will be tried best to make them suitable for the interest of all the people, not a marginal capitalist layer of people
jj said
Does anyone know of a full-length documentary about the Maoists in Nepal?
David_D said
Doma – The agreement was to move the PLA out of the cantonments in accordance with an agreement on merger between the PLA and NA. That is the agreement, and until then the PLA are to remain in their camps and the NA are to remain in their bases. You must know that.
PLA members don’t need to be polled any more than NA members do. But I suspect that if you polled NA members, they would agree with integration, unlike the upper crust of officers who are sabotaging it.
And if the NA cannot affort integration with PLA, then why is it subverting the agreement of the peace process by recruiting new members? In any case, PLA are now drawing salaries, so why not integrate them? We will surely see the day when the general staff is composed of patriots and revolutionaries instead of feudal nation-sellers.
Doma said
First, yes I know that (your first paragraph) although the PLA is regularly out of their cantonement (which YOU must know if you have traveled to any terai location such as biratnigar – so much for following the agreement)
And the payments came from a pressured agreement brokered by the UN to pay the Maoists – and it is only $46 US equivalent per month “Nepal’s Cabinet decided Monday to give a monthly allowance, equal to $46, for each Maoist fighter in the camps, which are also known as cantonments.” VOA correspondent Liam Cochrane reported from Kathmandu on 21-05-2007. The reason for the query is because today this is not enough for a family to live on – it is just slightly above the poverty line. As for ‘who’ pays – it is the donor community who pays with a 50% budget in Nepal being supported by donor activities.
So no, Nepal cannot afford to increase its army by 20%. And while I agree it is more appropriate for the army to fill vacancies from individuals in the cantonements in the spirit of the agreement – the Maoists are an all or nothing mentality party. They have never said ‘take 30 or 40 to fill vacancies’ – they hold out for all which continues to hurt everyone.
Jonathan Mitchell said
I think your article is interesting, though it contains many errors and takes a slightly naive view of the issue of military integration. The Nepalese Army has solid professional reasons not to and the “integration” is simply the Maoists gambit to take Nepal by force, where they failed in government.
If you go along with this as an “issue” then it is really missing the mark of what they are actually doing. They stepped down their protests and have threatened civil war again.
Please try to write with more balance than the old “evil king, good poor Maoists” as it does not move the debate on much and is bordering on disinformation.
I have been based here as a journalist for five years and a lot of your stated facts are inaccurate. Please try to check more in the future and you would have a far more interesting blog…
prianikoff said
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_koirala-prachanda-agree-to-end-political-impasse_1313270
Gary said
Citing the report referenced in post 18:
“According to sources, Koirala asked Prachanda to back a solution without humiliating the President, to which Prachanda had given a positive nod.”
The 86 year old head of the Congress Party apparently wants to protect the President, Congress member Ram Baram Yadav, who countermanded Prachanda’s order firing the Army head in May, from public humiliation. This may mean Prachanda resuming the prime ministership with Yadav still as president, with the understanding he will need to observe the constitution and respect civilian supremacy as a new administration forces the integration of the PLA and Army as required by the Comprehensive Agreement of 2006—something the UNMIN (UN Mission in Nepal) and Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon are in fact urging.
Johan Petter Andresen said
Hi
One person asked if there exists a full length documentary on Nepal.
We made a 30 minute documentary about the political developments in Nepal after our visit to Nepal/Rolpa in 2007. If you check our site:
http://trulsnagell.wordpress.com/ you will se a union jack on the right hand column. You can order a dvd. We have English subtitles on the film. The film is made by young people and aimed at those that do not have any knowledge of Nepal on beforehand.
Johan Petter Andresen
Cashier in Healthteam for Nepal, Norway.
Gary said
Obviously a different scenario:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQADr_64zecpi69YYXXczm-0KeAQ
rajesh said
I read Professor Gary Leupp’s article and the comments by several contributors.
The fundamental question here is that what this Andolan is for? Is it for socio-economic transformation? Is it for changing the nature of Nepali state power? Is it for expanding the scope of a new democratic revolution?
This Andolan is not for building up tempo for radical societal change, rather it is organized to create scope for the former revolutionary leadership of the UCP (Maoist) in the administrative mechanism of the existing state apparatus.
The leadership which is busy saying “bye, bye” to revolutionary masses, revolutionary organizations including CPI (Maoist) and revolutionary internationalist movements and is trying its best to forge alliances with rightist political forces such as Nepali Congress and UML and their foreign masters is no more after radical change.
During the Naxalite movement of 1970s in eastern Nepal, there was one person whose name was B. G. He was an active cadre of the movement and was even underground for sometimes. After experiencing the difficulties of underground cadres, he asked for permission to work being over ground. He got the permission and started to help in the movement also by working as a contractor in the construction business. He earned quite a lot of money but he was supporting the movement financially. One fine morning, he told a comrade who had gone to collect money from him that he now is no more a petty bourgeoisie, rather he has become a bourgeoisie and has been even moving up very fast. He is no more a friend of revolution and he is not going to contribute anything as the revolution if succeeds will harm him. He severed contact.
Strange coincidence was that the Naxalites of that time became CPN (ML) and now became CPN (UML). This UML changed as that person. Now, they became bourgeoisie or above organization.
When that UML formed its government in 1990s, they appointed this B. G. in the position of CEO in a government enterprise. Ultimately, both came together but in a different platform.
The UCPN (Maoist) has been following the path of UML. They have already started the process of decelerating the tempo of revolution and have already entered into the business of bringing ‘revolution’ through the barrel of tactful negotiations; class compromises and overhauling of old state machinery.
Instead of class confrontation, they have adopted the path of class cohabitation. Therefore, looking at demonstrations and concluding that this may prepare for revolution is not matching to each other. It looks as going up, but in essence, it is coming down.
Nepali revolution is experiencing serious setback and may get acceleration after a surgical process that will result to re-alignment of revolutionary political initiatives, organizations and forces. History is being repeated once again, but at a higher spiral.
Radical-Eyes said
For Jonathan Mitchell [#18]: You claim that Gary’s article misstates facts. Could you please identify which facts you take issue with? Or, even better, provide evidence that shows these stated facts to be untrue or unreliable? Otherwise your post merely makes rather strong allegations against the piece–bordering on “misiniformation”?–not an argument. Which is to say that it does not itself “move the discussion” forward in a productive way.
Radical-Eyes said
Similarly, for Rajesh [in comment #23]:
What evidence can you point to to substantiate your claims about the Maobadi leadership saying “bye bye to the revolutionary masses,” as you put it?
Certainly, you raise serious concerns about the direction that the maoist leadership is heading in Nepal. And I agree that it is important not to assume that a mass campaign of action in itself demonstrates a committment to revolutionary insurrection and social transformation.
But I would like to see you susbtantiate, if you can, your concern that:
“This Andolan is not for building up tempo for radical societal change, rather it is organized to create scope for the former revolutionary leadership of the UCP (Maoist) in the administrative mechanism of the existing state apparatus.”
How can you be so sure? What is your basis for these claims?
rajesh said
I would like to add the following points:
1. The core demand of the ongoing Andolan/movement is to establish some abstract ‘civilian supremacy’. This could be interpreted/defined according to the interest of a particular group/party/leadership. The Maoist leadership has several other initiatives. And, negotiation with rightist political parties is quite high on their priority. So, Comrade Prachanda himself reached Singapore to offer the office of the President to ailing G. P. Koirala so as to make himself the Prime Minister. When he becomes Prime Minister they may say that ‘Civilian Supremacy’, has been established. Contrary to his anticipation, that move further marginalized him and also Koirala. Moreover, their Comrade at the UML help, J. N. Khanal also loose more ground within his party. But, these Big Three have not abandoned their course. This course has nothing to do with contributing to further radical change in the society.
2. Two line struggles have been sharpened within all major parties including the UCPN (Maoist). Therefore, there are acts and actions which remind us that staying at the revolutionary course is very much being tried by the grassroots cadres and a few among their leaders. The struggle within UCPN (Maoist) is also fierce. The declaration of Kirat autonomous region is one among several small but remarkable evidences.
3. Keeping the PLA fighters under UN supervision in the cantonments for such a long time, abandoning de facto people’s governments at local levels, making moves to integrate PLA fighters as part of Nepali regular army and effectively demobilizing the PLA command and keeping the mass movements within the broad range of ‘peaceful acts’ instead of launching militant movements tell that these are core features of a new political line that puts shift from protracted people’s war/mass rebellion to peaceful parliamentary tactics/strategies.