Nepal’s Autonomous Zones: How Could This Serve Revolution?
Posted by Mike E on December 19, 2009
Newa people in Nepal
By Mike Ely
We have been reporting for many days the efforts by Nepal’s Maoists to declare autonomous zones for the most significant minority nationalities in Nepal. This is taking place at the same time as reports suggest that the Maoists are intensifying the peasant seizure of land from feudalists.
Ka Frank raised an important question about the recent declaration of autonomous zones:
“Since the Maoists do not control the government, I wonder what the actual effect is of declaring 14 new states.”
Fair enough. Let’s dig into it.
I want to examine two different aspects of this:
First, I think many of us don’t have a sense of why it is so very hotly revolutionary to demand (and carry out) the “federating” of Nepal. Why is a federated Nepal such a radical vision? How does it help end long-standing oppression — and strengthen conditions and alliances for a communist revolution.
Second, I want to dig into the tactical and strategic aspects of declaring autonomous nationality zones — even when the Maoists don’t actually hold central state power.
How Radical is Demanding a Federation? And Communist Republicanism?
Posted nearby is an article about the Nepali Maoists declaring Kathmandu (the country’s capital) to be an autonomous zone of the minority Newa people. This is a major step in many ways — including in the political struggle over the support of people in this highly strategic city.
I want to talk for a moment about the long standing Maoist demands for “republicanism” and “federation.” Nepal’s revolutionary movement has been fighting for a “federal republic” for decades. And, it is often hard for people in other countries to really understand the profoundly radical content of such demands. After all, the U.S. is a federal republic, and so is Germany. And neither of those countries seems so liberated or progressive.
But the fact is that, first, that Nepal has been an absolute monarchy for much of the last century, where the kings were seen as divine. A republic is the negation of monarchy — the removal of kings from power. In other words, demanding a republic was (literally) a demand for an overthrow of a specific entrenched and unjust political system, and its replacement with a new political system based on radically different concepts (popular rule, secular government, civilian control of the military, etc.)
Further: Nepal formed as a specifically Hindu kingdom, where the Nepali nationality was seen as the dominant one, and where the language and religion of that nationality were the “official” language and religion of the country as a whole.
This represented a whole structure of oppression, marginalization and neglect for all the other nationalities, ethnicities and religious groups in the country. There are over 40 different groupings within Nepal, often concentrated in their own valleys or regions. In addition, the existing caste system consigns sections of the people to subordinate castes (limiting their rights, status, access to education, their right to marry higher caste partners and more). And, in that context, the demand for a federated Nepal (with autonomous regions) is a highly radical, in fact revolutionary, solution to a whole ugly history of oppression. It is the equivalent of demands for autonomy for Native people in the U.S., or community control in African American communities, or equal language rights for Spanish speaking people.
Because the demands for federation and republic are so radical they have been sharply opposed by reactionary, feudal forces — who scream at each point that these demands represent the destruction of Nepal and its heritage. But that is what you would expect from political proposals that represent solutions (and steps toward liberation) for large, oppressed sections of the population.
Then, on the basis of the popular movements for a Nepali federation and republic, there is (and will be) ongoing struggle over what KIND of federation and what KIND of republic — i.e. will this new society walk the socialist road or the capitalist road. (And in particular, the Maoists are agitating hard that the new republic needs to be a PEOPLES republic — i.e. a society on the socialist road.) That struggle takes place at all levels — among the people, within the constitutional debates, and within the revolutionary party itself. But in many ways that are important to understand, these demands for a republic, for civilian control of military forces, and for a federation of equal nationalities are cutting edge revolutionary demands in Nepal. They are the equivalent of the Bolshevik “three whales” — demands that included land to the peasants and the overthrow of the Tsar by republican forces.
This means that it is very significant — it is an important maneuver in the larger class struggle — for the Nepali Maoists to declare that the realization of federation (for the oppressed nationalities) is an immediate question. Time is up, they are saying. The hour has come to end the domination by one nationality, one religion and one language — and to structurally create the forms for radical change and liberation.
Declaring Autonomous Zones When You Aren’t Yet in Power?
Now back to Ka Frank’s original question:
“Since the Maoists do not control the government, I wonder what the actual effect is of declaring 14 new states.”
I think we need to draw out over what such moves actually REPRESENT — what impact they have, what their intended goals are, and how they fit into the complex struggle over power that is taking place.
Addressing the national oppression of peoples in a radical way is potentially far more than “pressuring the UML” — it is a major manifesto that includes an ongoing and aggressive fight with other parties over hearts-and-minds and also over program.
Let me give you an analogy: We are fighting for power in the U.S., in a period where we have millions of supporters but the opposing parties are still very strong and even dominant in some key areas. I think we can appreciate the potential power of declaring: In the future WAshington DC will be an African American autonomous zone, where a degree of political autonomy and local self-determination will help (finally! finally!) shift power in ways that can actually uproot century old inequality. The local people (overwhelmingly Black) will have national rights to determine curriculum in schools, have local funds for financing cultural works, etc. etc.
Or that, in the process of maneuvering to organize an insurrection in LA, we can imagine the power and importance of a key revolutionary party announcing that it had organized an underground agreement between Mexican, Guatamalan, Salvadoran, Korean, Chinese and African American community groups over how to radically restructure power in a future liberated LA. And if the army then moves to suppress us, it will be even more obvious that it is acting to restore and preserve the previous white supremacist structure in LA (and in the U.S. as a whole).
In a world where communists are debating Badiou’s concept of “at a distance from the state” — it is also interesting to consider what happens when a revolutionary party declares “We are not going to wait until our final showdown with your army, we are going to start organizing liberated governments for oppressed nationalities and simply start exercising new power. What are YOU going to do about it? And on what basis will you attempt your suppression?”
In other words, the manifesto of autonomous zones, and any steps taken to create them in reality (as dual power) — helps set the conditions under which the Nepali National Army would now be forced to act. (Against land seizures, against the national rights of minority peoples, against the beginnings of anti-feudal education and marriage norms etc.)
These are creative ways of forcing new polarizations — in a transitional period where the Maoists MUST forge NEW polarizations.
Let’s be clear: sometimes the objective situation gives us a polarization that is good, but not good enough. (Go read the history of the 1930s KPD.) And you have to wrench and tear at the existing polarizations — to shake loose new allies, to expose your main opponents, to give the people a taste of victory and its potential.
Just one aspect of things: If you want to take Kathmandu, making a public manifesto on the national rights of the Newa people obviously is part of building a powerful revolutionary base, for that seizure of power. And forcing your opponents to come out AGAINST Newa national rights is a way of weakening them.
It seems somewhat mechanical thinking to say if you aren’t running the government, what significance can there be to declaring autonomous zones.
Are things really so binary? Either we have the power of legal declaration backed by state power, or else we are engaged in impotent gum-flapping? Isn’t it possible to be carrying out creative tactics for FORGING the condition of advance?
The assumption that this is mere posturing is also related to the (false) idea that the Maoists dismantled their own parallel power apparatus after 2006. In fact there are many elements of dual power in Nepal.
In addition, these moves are a way to fight for new alliances with nationality-based parties. It is analagous to the ways that the Bolsheviks supported the seizure of land in Russia (even before they had state power to back up their support.) And it is analagous to the agitation the Bolsheviks did around the self-determination of oppressed peoples (who were debating independence from Moscow, even before there were Bolsheviks seized power.)
This is clearly not a declaration by a government in power. It is a manifesto of a party resting on forms of dual power and fighting for its shot at overall power. And the clarification of its program, the differentiation with the programs of more conservative parties, and the reaching for new allies on a radical basis — these are all part of how a living revolution advances.
Carl Davidson said
These guys are very smart. Let’s do what we can to disrupt any external intervention from the US, India or both.
Tell No Lies said
I find these declarations exhilerating. The Maobadi deserve our support and Carl is correct that we have a particular responsibility to prevent or disrupt any US or US-Indian intervention. I also think it is important that we appreciate the significance of these sorts of actions in a larger revolutionary process. The declaration of autonomous areas was a very important move on the part of the Zapatistas and proabably accounts for their political survival under very adverse conditions. The situation is quite different from the one facing the Maobadi, but I think it is instructive nonetheless.
In the fall of 1994, the Zapatistas confronted a highly complex situation. They were committed to maintaining a cease-fire with the government, but their strategy of mobilizing mass civil resistance to anticipated electoral fraud in the national elections had fizzled when the PRI clearly won the presidential elections. The situation in Chiapas, however, was much different. Fraud was widespread and the officially defeated PRD candidate for governor was a pro-Zapatista newspaper publisher prepared to declared his own government “in rebellion.” To support his declaration the Zapatistas and their allies announced the formation of nine Autonomous Pluriethnic Regions (RAPs) — essentially autonomous muncipal or county-level governments composed mainly of members of Chiapas’s several indigenous ethnicities. Two months later when the PRI candidate was inaugurated, the EZLN declared this a violation of the cease fire, announced that their troops had broken through government lines, and proclaimed the creation of thirty more autonomous municipalities.
This action helped precipitate the collapse of the Mexican peso and a short-lived military offensive against the EZLN in 1995, but the autonomous municipalities, which were really little more than words on paper in 1994, would over time develop into rather robust structures each gathering together around a dozen or so Indian villages. The autonomous municipalities, and after 2004 the five larger regional Juntas de Buen Gobierno, became the main expression of Zapatista counter-power in Chiapas. In addition to symbolizing their commitment to indigenous autonomy, they have become laboratories in methods of self- governance through which the Zapatistas campesino base have painstakingly acquired the capacity to administer their own affairs and coordinate their actions over an extensive territory.
I don’t really have any tidy lessons to draw from these experiences. Reading about the events in Nepal just brought back for me the headiness of those days in the aftermath of the Zapatista uprising.
Ka Frank said
Mike: I agree that the demands of the oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups in Nepal is a central part of the revolutionary struggle, and that these demands should be raised by a party that is not in power. However, you write as if the Maoists’ declaration of these new autonomous zones/states is equivalent to starting to run them as zones of dual power. That would be an exciting development and would hold the potential for confronting the police and NA more directly, but it remains to be seen what the UCPN (M) will actually do after these announcements have run their course.
Alastair Reith said
Prachanda: “We can go to the extent of forming a parallel government if hindrances are created by the incumbent government in the process of drafting the constitution and towards the logical conclusion of peace process.”
http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6831
*************************************************
Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has warned that the party´s newly announced autonomous provinces will work as parallel governments if the ruling parties play frivolity on constitution writing and peace process.
“The announced autonomous federal provinces may go to the extent of working as parallel governments,” said Dahal while speaking at a rally in Kathmandu to declare Newa autonomous province on Wednesday. He argued that his party began declaring federal provinces as a move to warn those who are busy “conspiring against Nepali people, democracy and federalism from the dark chambers”.
(from an article on MyRepublica entitled “Dahal warns of parallel government”)
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=12954
**************************************************
UCPN-Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ on Wednesday warned that the party could develop the recently-declared autonomous states to parallel government if rival parties continued protest against the declaration.
Prachanda made this statement while declaring the “Newa autonomous state” at a function organised by the United National People’s Movement of the Maoists at Basantapur this afternoon.
He declared the Kathmandu Valley as the Newa autonomous state amidst a grand function which included various cultural procession and shows of native Newar community of all three districts.
The latest declaration follows similar state carving out at various parts of the country by the former rebels, which has been strongly condemned by other political parties and people of various quarters. “This is just a political declaration of the party therefore there is no need to panic,” he said, adding, “However, if the parties have ill-intention not to lead the country towards federalism, this declaration will hit hard right on their head.”
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Parallel+status+for+states+if++parties+protest%3A+Prachanda+&NewsID=214661
Alastair Reith said
As well as Prachanda’s statement, there’s the concrete formation of local bodies by the Maobadi in the Tharuwan Autonomous Region.
*Maoists form local bodies*
GAJENDRA BOHARA
DANG, Dec 19: Following the declaration of 13 autonomous provinces, the UCPN (Maoist) has also decided to form local bodies in Tharuwan State Committee – one of the provinces that it declared unilaterally.
The Maoists on Saturday nominated officials in the municipalities, VDCs and ward committees in all the five districts, including Dang, Banke, Kailali, Bardiya and Kanchanpur. The party has also nominated chairmen and other members of the local bodies.
Local Maoist leaders said they announced formation of local bodies to pile pressure on the government to hold local elections.
Parshu Narayan Shrestha was nominated chairman of Dang District Committee amid a function organized in Ghorahi on Saturday. Representatives from the party´s various sister organizations have been nominated for the 29-member district committee. Addressing the function, UCPN (Maoist) district in-charge Nirmal Acharya claimed the Maoists would run the committees as local bodies if the government fails to hold local elections.
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=13041
Alastair Reith said
Prachanda: “We can go to the extent of forming a parallel government if hindrances are created by the incumbent government in the process of drafting the constitution and towards the logical conclusion of peace process.”
http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6831
*************************************************
Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has warned that the party´s newly announced autonomous provinces will work as parallel governments if the ruling parties play frivolity on constitution writing and peace process.
“The announced autonomous federal provinces may go to the extent of working as parallel governments,” said Dahal while speaking at a rally in Kathmandu to declare Newa autonomous province on Wednesday. He argued that his party began declaring federal provinces as a move to warn those who are busy “conspiring against Nepali people, democracy and federalism from the dark chambers”.
(from an article on MyRepublica entitled “Dahal warns of parallel government”)
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=12954
**************************************************
UCPN-Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ on Wednesday warned that the party could develop the recently-declared autonomous states to parallel government if rival parties continued protest against the declaration.
Prachanda made this statement while declaring the “Newa autonomous state” at a function organised by the United National People’s Movement of the Maoists at Basantapur this afternoon.
He declared the Kathmandu Valley as the Newa autonomous state amidst a grand function which included various cultural procession and shows of native Newar community of all three districts.
The latest declaration follows similar state carving out at various parts of the country by the former rebels, which has been strongly condemned by other political parties and people of various quarters. “This is just a political declaration of the party therefore there is no need to panic,” he said, adding, “However, if the parties have ill-intention not to lead the country towards federalism, this declaration will hit hard right on their head.”
http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Parallel+status+for+states+if++parties+protest%3A+Prachanda+&NewsID=214661
Mike E said
ka frank writes:
Thanks for helping me clarify what I’m saying, Frank.
I am not saying that their declaration is the equivalent of creating them as zones of dual power. (Words are not deeds, plans are not institutions, manifestos are not power itself.)
But as mao says ideas grasped by large numbers of people become a material force. THAT concept (representing an important part of “the mass line”) is what we are discussing here.
I am saying that to understand the meaning and impact of such declarations you have to understand the transition period they are in — where the Maobadi are clarifying their program to the people in living ways, contrasting their program to their opponents, struggling for sufficient allies and support to seize overall power and where the overall situation has elements of dual power (i.e. the Maobadi have their own army and they have zones where they lead parallel government).
I’m not saying that the declaration of autonomous zones makes them dual power, but that in the current situation such declarations are more than “just words” — they are manifestos, they have real potential (in ways that ordinary people can see). And (as I tried to say) they clarify some things: Now (if the military tries a Pinochet moment) significant sectoins of the minority nationalities can see (more clearly) that the military will be attacking an attempt to establish their rights, and reestablish a Nepal with a dominant nationality and language.
Ka Frank writes:
On one hand, it is true that “it remains to be seen…” That is always true in life. And it is true in this situation. The outcome of great events “remains to be seen.” And we are far enough from these events that we have only a vague sense of what they might mean….
Yes, the outcome of all this is shrouded by the mists of the future. But what is the point of saying that over and over? What is the point of ending every assessment of the Nepali revolution with a cranky withholding of support?
I feel like there is an implication here: It is an assumption that IF they were on the “correct path” to revolution, that things would (somehow) be much more clear and obvious. That there is some “other” path they could be on where we would NOT be forced to say “it remains to be seen” because the actions and statements of the revolutionaries would (in this alternate imagined situation) be much more familiar, unambiguous etc.
That assumption is, i believe, false. I think any real revolution (if it is led by visionary and serious people) is INHERENTLY crammed with tactics, statements, moves, and maneuvers that are UN-familiar, creative, surprising. The Maobadi have a base, and are trying to CARVE OUT a sufficient set of allies to both seize power and then wield that power without having to point their guns at half the population. And that carving doesn’t happen in familiar or formulaic ways — it requires real politics (investigation, mass line, analysis of particular, nimble adjustment over time, experiment, summation, even compromise).
This skill set (of conceiving and conducting actual political alliances and preparations) is remarkably missing among communists in the U.S. (who have rarely led more than their own tiny cohort, and whose relationship to “the masses” has in some cases been reduced to projecting their own words “out there.”)
To use an analogy: Lots of people talk about deer hunting at this time of year. People sit over meals and drinks discussing how they might go on that big deer hunt, and where they might go,and what they might find. And it is as if, after all that, they pass someone on the street who is actually going deer hunting, actually covered with scents and camo, and all they can say is “Ew, you smell like doe urine.” Well, no shit. That’s what actual deer hunters smell like.
Adrienne said
I’m with Carl and TNL: I think what they’ve been doing is brilliant, and reading and watching video of what has been taking place is absolutely exhilarating!
Here’s a video clip from a rally from last evening (these took place in many locations all over the country last night):
Maoist torch rally
What a beautiful sight!
Maybe I’m being far too hopeful, and maybe it is totally off the mark for me to draw this parallel, but what is unfolding in Nepal seems in many ways similar to what I have read about November of 1917. Has this thought occurred to anyone else here?
Mike:
Agree 100%. And I think it likely that the military will head toward a Pinochet moment at some point.
Ka Frank said
Mike, in comment 3, I wrote: “That [setting up dual power in the new autonomous areas] would be an exciting development and would hold the potential for confronting the police and NA more directly, but it remains to be seen what the UCPN (M) will actually do after these announcements have run their course.”
This was not done to withhold support but just the opposite. I think it would be an excellent thing if the UCPN (Maoist) moved in the direction of setting up dual power in major parts of the countryside. This would be the start of a struggle to re-establish the liberated areas of the people’s war, and would probably force the hand of the Nepalese Army. In that case, we would see the results of the party’s work in the YCL and the militias to prepare for such an armed confrontation. The PLA might be able to break out of the cantonments in such a situation.
If the UCPN (M) moves in this direction, it will represent a shift away from the previous reformist line, championed by Prachanda, of centering party work on the re-institution of a Maoist-led government and writing a new Constitution from the Constituent Assembly. Biplab’s report on the recent Central Committee meeting provides a glimpse of the ongoing discussions within the party leadership over the road forward. See Revolution in South Asia for the report.
rajesh said
1. Nepal is a country of minorities. No single nationality is in majority. The social composition is quite complex.
2. The high caste hill Hindus, particularly Bahun and Chhetries control socio-economic and political power. Prachnda, Baburam, Kiran, Biplab, all belong to this group. Only Badal is an exception. Similarly, GP Koirala, MK Nepal, JN Khanal all powerful chiefs belong to this group. Collectively, this social group has been called Bahun-Chhetry by some, Khas by some and CHHEM by some. They are around 30%. Rest 70% belong to several other social groups, among them Madhesi is one and they are 31%. So, in Nepal the largest nationality – Madhesi is also an oppressed nationality. So, the nationality question in Nepal is unique.
3. There is a great need of federalism in Nepal to harmonize social relationships by ending oppressions of several nationalities and hence, establishing the autonomous states of nationalities is the best way to empower people.
Now, let’s talk about Unified Maoist’s declaration.
1. This is oversimplification that these declarations will contribute significantly to establish a peoples’ democratic government in Nepal. When the Maoists move away from armed class struggle to peaceful protests, the nature of their endeavours is evolutionary and reformist. So, a reformist and evolutionary movement producing revolutionary and transformational change is an unrealistic expectation.
2. Keeping the Indian-US intervention away with the arrangement of such declarations doesn’t make good sense. It would be dangerous to conclude that reformist arrangements could counter aggression.
3. Many Maoist committees at local levels are still Maoists and have not been converted to Unified Maoists. Therefore, the incidences of land seizure (class struggle) are happening. Some of these reformists arrangements if come under the strong influence of such committees, there is chance that they could exercise parallel power. But, that too could be a temporary phenomenon.
Therefore, establishing autonomus states of nationalities is the right step but declaring to estblishing such states may not be the same.
NSPF said
I wrote this yesterday but decided not to post for various reasons. it is partially redundant now given the publication of the article by the Ambassador.
Carl is of course correct to point out the necessity of doing “what we can to disrupt any external intervention from the US, India or both.”
What is not clear to me, however, is whether he and others mean this only as a duty to oppose and interrupt any possible millitary intervention. I suspect that we have, rightly so, taken it for granted that the US and others are routinly engaged in interfering in internal affairs of other countries, to the point of becoming numb and confused about the difference between interference and intervention and see the latter as only military intervention.
Let me first briefly explain my understanding and use of the terms interferrence and intervention:
By interference I understand and mean those utterances and acts, covert and overt, that are designed not to defeat your enemy in the short term, but to hinder their course of action sufficiently enough to contribute, one way or another, to the more distant possibility of their strategic defeat. These could be a series of tactical moves that are designed to change the unfavourable terrain/balance of forces.
Intervention, on the other hand, is more of an strategic nature though it is usually aimed at changing the conflagration in a more immediate sense and usually carried out as an immediate act of bringing about a turning point.
It is this feature that makes us not fully realise the extent of intervention until its final phase of military action which is usually seen as a possibility of occupation.
Returning back to the question of Nepal, is it not correct to conclude that what the US, India and others have been doing there since five years ago has been blatant intervention?
If I were to give an analogy(which does not mean an exact repetition) to what the US is doing in Nepal right now, it would be Iran in 1950-53 or Chili 73 or Indonesia.
And if that is so, should we not, as part of our internationalist duty do everything possible to expose and oppose this intervention in the US and elsewhere?
Have we paid enough attention to this? Do we even know who is the us ambassador in nepal and what he is up to?
Have we ever scrutinised the role/strategy of the us or india in nepal in the same way as we have at least tried to do in Iraq and afghanistan?
I suspect not. This criticism is in no way meant to belittle the overall positive role of the RSA site. It is a critical contribution rather than a derision.
We are very fond of repeating “concrete analysis of the concrete situation” and accuse others of not acting according to this even while we have managed to ignore the fact that the enemy is an active and integral part of the concrete situation.
How can we for example go on a lenghty investigative tour and write a detailed report without even once asking about/mentioning/taking into account the strategy and tactics of the local and international enemy? Are the ucpnm leaders carrying a controlled experiment in a laboratory called nepal? I think the ucpnm leadership is partly responsible for this since they at least for a time aquesed to the prevalent notion that imperialists and expansionists are legitimate stakeholders in Nepal.
And without going into details, is this really a correct method of investigation of a process that involves more than one ingredient/factor/player? Could anyone learn anything from indirectly portraying the dispute, perhaps unintentionaly, as revolving around the intent of the ucpnm leadership?
In a thread on this site I read an amusing semi hostile comment by a journalist residing in Nepal who made a point of mentioning his/her five year residency there as if that in itself made their arguments authoritative and correct. It reminded me of the usual trick of the mainstream tv reporters who are filmed outside the ministry of defence to read a statement issued by them. As if their mere geographic coordinates lent legitimacy to the issued statement or had anything to do with investigative journalism.
Silence, of course, is not an option. Withdrawing support from the people of Nepal and not defending them in a timely manner against imperialism, expansionism and reaction with the excuse that the line in command of the leading party is wrong is intolerable and does not square up with our support for the Palestinian people or the Iranians.
I also want to point out that it is unfair and incorrect to equate any and all disagreements with the line in command of the ucpnm, with withdrawing support for the revolution as Mike has recently formulated. It certainly shouldn’t be accepted as a logical position. In this, Mike’s position is not fundamentaly different from that he criticises.