WikiLeaks Nepal: Maoists Deny Funding from India
Posted by Mike E on December 6, 2010
“Refuting the report, C.P. Gajurel, senior Unified Maoists’ Party leader told journalists in Kathmandu that his party has never accepted financial support from any source.”
The following appeared on Telegraph Nepal. As always we urge readers to remember that these reports are at this point still coming to us through the bourgeois press – who have their own motives and worldview. No one should assume that these are accurate, and we will analyze and quote actual texts as they become available.
Gajurel rebukes WikiLeaks disclosure of Indian financial support to Nepal Maoists
Much ahead of the WikiLeaks disclosure, there was widespread belief in Nepal that Indian establishment had extended its full-fledged support to the Maoists rebellion from providing trainings to the Maoists’ Militias to arming them as well, food and shelter included.
The rebellion came to an unexpected end only after the death of some 15,000 innocent men and women.
Why the Indian regime wanted the Nepalese to be killed by the Nepalese is yet a mystery. Perhaps soon this mystery will be made public thanks WikiLeaks.
In the US government’s secret document, the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao is quoted as accepting that India had provided monetary incentive to the Maoists but the strategy did not work as per the Indian expectations to gain their favor.
Support for mal intentions usually fail.
Refuting the report, C.P. Gajurel, senior Unified Maoists’ Party leader told journalists in Kathmandu that his party has never accepted financial support from any source. If we are proven guilty we are ready to face any action, he also claimed.
Poor Gajurel did not reveal as to who will do what sort of investigation into the issue and who will be proven guilty?
In the course of his speech, Mr. Gajurel who is taken as a hardliner in the party said that with the departure of United Nations’ Political Mission (UNMIN) from Nepal, the UN agencies will continue to support peace process.
As if he were the spokesperson of the UN Mission said Gajurel, “The UN will not leave anything in tatters.”
As is the normal practice of majority of Maoists’ leaders, Gajurel also threatened revolt if the peace process and constitution drafting process did not come to positive end in six months remaining period.
WikiLeaks terror appears to have already rocked the Maoist paraphernalia.
david said
I think the above article is a reply to this earlier one:
http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=8568
bikram said
Why the Indian regime wanted the Nepalese to be killed by the Nepalese is yet a mystery.
Whats up India what do you want?
You are the main character in Nepalese politics.
Fritz said
I think this is an important thing to note. If nothing else, it highlights the complexities of the situation in Nepal, and the question of whether or not it is right to take funding from your second main enemy to defeat your main enemy. I don’t mean to say that the Maoists are agents of India. But, when the Maoists were first getting started, it would make sense for India to fund them, thinking that it might help them weaken the King, and get even more concessions from him.
Mike E said
Fritz: you seem to miss that the Maoists say they did not take such funds, and that no evidence of such fundtaking have emerged. (I am not aware that the text of the supposed cable has emerged yet, or that anyone yet knows what the cable claims, or what it claims to be based on.)
david said
check this out!! maoist union demands 117 per cent pay increase!
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/12/07/top-story/maoist-union-demands-117-pc-hike-in-wages/215740/
David_D said
I think it’s a possibility that India didn’t target the Maoists of Nepal. As for funding, who knows? But there would have been nothing at all wrong with taking such funds. Geopolitical fractures should be exploited when possible.
todd said
When I was living in India I saw arguments between the Indian Maoists and the Nepalis. India everyone suspected struck a deal with the Maoists to try and contain the threat. The king was not really a good neighbor anyway, and the prospect of coopting the Maoists would drive a wedge between the maoist guerillas in India and those in Nepal. This worked as far as I can tell. Nepal went the path of social democracy or maoist capitalism, and urged at one point the Indian maoists to take up the ballot. From India’s perspective Maoist social democracy is in line with their tradition of electoralist social democratic communism which is integral to their form of capitalism. Despite the rhetoric and red flags coming from that part of the world, it should be increasingly clear how little threat they pose to the capitalist social relation.
Fritz said
Mike: I don’t think the Maoist government’s official denial is any more relevant than the US government’s denials of everything they do all day every day.
Todd: Maoist social democracy and capitalism is, in theory, only a step towards establishing a proletariat, so that that proletariat can later establish their dictatorship after another revolution. This is certainly a threat to capitalism, as is clear from India’s present anti-Maoist actions. India may’ve funded the Nepali Maoists during the early stages of the war, but are clearly not doing so now.
The reason why I said, “in theory,” earlier, is that this model does tend to lead to the capitalist class reorganizing themselves inside the communist party itself, and whether or not the Nepalis can stop that from happening is of utmost importance. I think they are doing this in interesting ways. When I was in Nepal I helped edit the English documents of CAHURAST (The Campaign For Human Rights and Social Transformation). CAHURAST is a human rights organization started by former and current Maoists, operating on the idea that the government (whether feudal, bourgeois, or Maoist) will always be the greatest violator of human rights, and that, because of the dialectic of forces that play upon Nepali politics, there needs to be non-state, working class organizations that pressure the Maoist government from below, to counteract the pressure they’re getting from above, and from India and the US.
So I think what Nepal needs most is not blind support for the Maoist party, but rather support for the working class organizations of Nepal, and support for the party insofar as they are advancing the agenda of the working classes, all the while recognizing that, if this first revolution succeeds, the second revolution (the proletarian revolution) may not come from the upper echelons of the party, but may come from a popular, yet unsanctioned fissure in the party itself.
Mike E said
The Maoists are not the government in Nepal — they are the revolutionary opposition.
Why are denials not “relevant’? Accusations of many kinds are made in life, and people are eager to know what the accused have to say in response.
Are you implying that the responses of all governments are automatically lies — and that this is equally true for reactionaries and revolutionaries in government?
So even when revolutionary governments organize (say) radical land reform, or the end to sex trade, or an end to foreign domination, you are nonetheless able to predict (ahead of time? with certainty? based on what?) that they will always (always!) be “the greatest violators of human rights,” and obviously not capable of carrying out liberation?
What kind of a theory and politics is that?
Which “working class organizations” are you talking about in Nepal, and why would you speak as if this Maoist party is not (in fact) the main organization to emerge from (and represent) the working classes?
Fritz said
I used the term “government” partly to refer to the Maoists’ role in the Nepali government, but mostly to refer to their role as the de facto government in their liberated zones.
I think posting their denial, without posting the claims, which I will do here, is just as misleading as CNN giving airtime to Hillary Clinton to deny what was revealed by Wikileaks without showing the actual leaked documents.
https://ramkshrestha.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/wikileaks-india-accepts-funding-nepal-maoists-to-gain-favor/
It would be one thing if the denial gave evidence, but it didn’t. I think this contributes to a tendency to have blind faith in the people one supports. One reason I think the claim that they did accept the funding is relevant is that there seems to be no reason as to why Rao would lie to Holbrooke about doing something which was extremely controversial, and which she admitted was a mistake. Another reason I think it is relevant is, if true, it affirms, as Dave said, that geopolitical fractures should be exposed whenever possible. I also think it is extremely relevant that Rao realizes funding the Maoists backfired.
As for the working class organizations, there are hundreds of such in Nepal: trade unions, waiters unions, trekking unions, porters unions, etc. Likewise, there are dozens of Maoist sister-organizations (like CAHURAST) and front organizations, and hundreds of proxies. None of these organizations would be nearly as powerful as they are today were it not for the Maoist revolution. If the Maoists were to be defeated, in the coming struggles, by the feudalists or the bourgeoisie, all of these working class organizations would suffer as well. So you (Mike) are right in saying that the Maoists are the main representatives of the working class, but they are just that: representatives. That is why I said that the Maoists should be supported “insofar as they are advancing the agenda of the working classes.” I’m sorry I left this out, but the same must be said for all organizations which “represent” the interests of the working class. Unions have just as much of a tendency to sell out as do political parties, and this will continue to be the case until the working class gets past this bourgeois idea of “representation,” and advances to the level of “participation,” which can only be done, on a mass scale, with universal access to the internet, which sadly does not exist anywhere, least of all Nepal. But until we can move out of the epoch of “representation,” all tendencies towards faith must be vigilantly struggled against, or else we’ll end up with another Soviet Union or China.
Fritz said
In response to the whole “human rights” issue… I think the entire idea of “human rights” is pretty bourgeois. Rights mean nothing unless the are materially fulfilled.
Nonetheless, I brought it up to point out what one small Maoist sister organization is doing in Nepal, and to highlight their dialectical relationship with the UCPN (M). I thought the concept of human rights was bullshit, but when I met with Bishnu Pukar Shrestha, the Chairman of CAHURAST, he told me that he fought in the war because, at the time, the people had no voice in the government; but when the war was over, the people who were not in the government still needed to organize to ensure that their new voice stayed a voice of the people.
As for the “human rights:” right to food, clothing, shelter, running water, transportation, communication, etc. Lets pretend, for a second, that they do exist (and enough people in the world think they do that it should be addressed on their terms). You (Mike) are right again that the foreign imperialists are the dominant force in the dialectic. And even when they are vanquished from a particular place (a liberated zone) they continue to be a major force, through their threats and subversion. But the new dominant force, even if it is a revolutionary state, continues to be a repressive apparatus. It continues to tax people, which doesn’t necessarily violate human rights, and often helps fulfill them; but when spent on Prachanda’s Rs. 1.25 lakh bed, it is a violation of human rights. The revolutionary government usually becomes the most corrupt force around, not because they are evil, but because they are in a position where they are most able to be corrupt.
Lastly, one basic, recognized human right is the right to consent to what you do with your labor power. Therefore, it was a giant violation of human rights when the Maoists drafted one male from every family in Rolpa and Rukkum to either join the army or build the Martyr’s road (I choose to not cite any of the dozens of articles about this, because I don’t want to give the impression that, just because it’s in print, it’s true. I cite only the fact that, out in Nepal, this is common knowledge. I heard it from pro- and anti-maoists, and know people who know people who were drafted). But this is where the whole “human rights” ideal falls short of describing reality, which is much more complex. Because every family, whether they liked it or not, eventually benefitted from the increased commerce that came with the road; and they all also benefitted from not having to deal with a successful invasion and occupation. So, even though this was a violation of human rights, in the short term, it was just one tactic in the overall strategy of one day actually realizing the material basis by which human rights can be fulfilled. Whether or not it worked remains to be seen.
todd said
I think the sequence people are laying out above is wrong. I was in India in 2005-2006. In the various newspapers there, communist and non-communist, there was reporting on talks and speculation about the collaboration between India and the CPN-M. That was at the high point of the guerilla war and near the end of the armed struggle. It was also at that time that elements in the CPIMLM in India condemned the CPN-M’s call for them to join the electoral front. I could probably find those articles if need be. I think it’s easy to dodge the real issues that arise by abstracting the ideological content of these situations from their objective underpinnings, but it’s not difficult to imagine why the CPN-M would seek out an alliance with a capitalist government, and short change their former comrades. Integrating into the ruling class over-seeing a mixed capitalist-feudalist economy requires the maintenance and reproduction of capitalist social relationships both throughout society and within the state. Despite having a stageist rhetoric about antagonism, similarly to the Soviet Union the maoists are playing the role of laying the groundwork for a strengthening of capitalism in Nepal. The path of the former soviet block, china, vietnam, and now cuba should make clear why this state capitalist move is far from clearly oppositional to capitalism. In fact one should see the various state capitalist projects as alternative paths to the domination of the oppressed classes in transitions into world capitalist economies. If that transition is viewed as revolutionary, it really begs the question what we mean by revolution when the product is the further subordination of the dominated classes to wage labor and the world capitalist system.
Fritz said
Todd: can you dig anything up? Or just elaborate? Because I was under the impression that there was quite a bit of blatant collaboration between India and the Nepali Maoists from 2005-6, being that this was when the peace agreements were being worked out. Do you mean collaboration in that sense? Or in the sense that the CPN (M) is a stooge of India? Or in the sense that India has conceded to the fact that the Maoists are a force that can’t be denied, and they are trying to make them their stooge, while still mainly supporting the Congress party and the UML?
Also (and this doesn’t necessarily need to go on this thread, you can email me at bbjoobap@gmail.com if you’d like) what do you think Cuba could’ve done differently (not ideally, but practically) that would’ve been “oppositional to capitalism?” As a communist, Cuba holds a very special place in my heart, though I realize I need to know more about it with my head.
todd said
yeah during that period it was super open, that’s why i’m confused why people would deny those links. I don’t think CPNM was the tool of the indian government, both governments were involved in typical real politik sorta stuff, far from revolutionary but easily understandable as part of capitalist nation state relations. there’s a good progressive weekly in India friendly to the indian maoists that reported on it all, but i can’t remember the name so i just dug up something little. I met with a member of CPI-M who was underground at the time, and he told me about some of the tensions between the CPN-M and CPI-M surrounding people’s war and elections and things. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Nepals-top-Maoist-leaders-are-in-India/articleshow/1888110.cms
With cuba- it should be clear now that they’re going down a rightwards path. Laying off hundreds of thousands of workers, slashing social benefits, exporting more MDs for cash, etc. Within the communist party there are some who are arguing for a move towards socialism (i.e. abolishing capitalist social relations), but these arguments (while tolerated) have been rejected. Here’s one such criticism from a member of the CPC’s left opposition
http://miamiautonomyandsolidarity.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/252/
Shyam Pandey from Nuwakot said
This is a proud to know a secret which reveals that at least one of the party (Maoist)which deny to act as per the direction of India despite of financial incentive.The country which has accepted the UN charter and signed in Money loundering propasal passed by UN where India has commited for.The praposal will intended to stop the payment by the people or institution to the trroist activities.So UN has to form a commision to find the reality if it is true they country has to punished.And also the people in Indidan deplomacy has to punished by CIA who has not maintain the tranperncy in goverment.
The maoist are great for the nation and people who deny to act.This is lesson to Indian regime who presume money can buy the nationality .Now they might learned the lesson.thanks to maoist who at least maintain the prestige of Gorkha….how much indirect invesment will favour india?Indian dirty role in politics should stop immediately otherwise they has to face a great anger in the people in Nepal,this will cause a tension in people to see indian in future that would not accept indian people and official representation in Nepal.