If February may be a major month in the revolution in Nepal, with tests of strength, and a chance that the spring we may see an historic attempt at power, we should focus our time to take up our internationalists responsibility. Some ideas as to what that might be is worth discussing.

I think this means its really is a time to gather people who have a sense of the importance of this, and start to make plans to mobilize and deploy, politically.

We should urge people to study, and do so ourselves, to prepare our minds. Then work with other sympathetic people to prepare outreach, for speaking events, teach-ins, etc. We should be ready hold demonstrations in support of the Rev. should it break out, on campuses, etc, and hopefully get some media attention from a pro point of view.

If there was ever an event that needed broad education, it's this one. Even the left media is largely absent of information. We Kasama supporters can get together and hold our own study groups, maybe, to prepare to be able to do teach in, and answer questions among a broader audience.

One important pamphlet that needs to be promoted is: http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kasama_pamphlet_maobadi_crisis_in_nepal.pdf It can be ordered in printed form online too.

It would be nice of there was some positive documentary made about the Revolution in Nepal, similar to the one Ch.4 made about Peru, The People of the Shining Path.

I hope others are inspired to do their part to stand with our comrades in raising the Red Flag high, at the top of the world that is Nepal. So much for the myth that "communism is dead,' eh?

-G

I am making one such documentary for school and for online. It will be short (10-20min) as I am a student but if any one is interested in helping hit me up in the Kasama threads.

Recent events in Nepal do not bear out Mike's prediction of a "decisive military/political confrontation with the reactionary government and army." On Friday the Maoist leadership called off its 4th phase of protests:

"Hours after the High Level Political Mechanism (HLPM) asked the UCPN (Maoist) on Friday to withdraw its protests, the main opposition announced it had called off the entire protest programme, including the indefinite strike scheduled to begin from Sunday.

A meeting of Maoist party office bearers on Friday decided to put off its indefinite general strike for now, Maoist Vice Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha said. “We decided to suspend the agitation as efforts are being made to forge consensus,” he said.

Earlier, at the HLPM meeting, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML leaders had urged Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to call off the planned general strike to prepare a conducive environment to address Maoist demands. The meeting also agreed to give top priority to the current political deadlock. It also accorded priority to constitution drafting and the peace process.

“The HLPM has made the current political deadlock its prime agenda, so the party hopes that the current political deadlock will end soon. In this regard we have decided to call off the planned protest,” Dahal’s statement said. However, other nationwide programmes with national sovereignty and civilian supremacy as agendas will remain intact, said Dahal. He also warned that if efforts to reach consensus fail due to conspiracies against the peace and constitution drafting processes and national sovereignty is endangered, his party would be compelled to go for protest again." (see Revolution in South Asia for the entire article)

This is not a sign that the UCPNM is planning to capture state power in the period ahead. Their mass base is being told to stand down to await more fruitless political maneuvering with the NC and UML-–not to step up for decisive revolutionary battle.

And what signal (lowering one's credibility considerably) is being sent to supporters of the Nepal people’s revolution by issuing ringing alarm bells about a coming uprising?

Those talks could be tactical in nature, and Mike might know something that we do not. In any case, an ultimate show down is inevitable, so we should still be prepared.

I agree that we need to be preparing ourselves for a coming confrontation in Nepal. But to be honest, I don't think the Maoists will move in the next month or two. I think that the earliest we could expect any kind of revolt in Nepal would be in over four months, after the deadline for a new constitution passes. The deadline is on May 28th, and a 2/3 majority is required. The Maoists hold over a third of the CA, and thus not a single word in the constitution can be approved without their support, and when the various proposals were put forward recently almost everything the Maoists raised was voted down. Senior party leaders, everyone from Prachanda to Gajurel, have consistently stated that if the constitution is not passed, and if the peace process is not taken to it's 'logical conclusion' (i.e. wholesale army integration), they will launch a people's revolt. You may choose to believe or not to believe these statements, but they have been extremely consistent.

Prachanda reportedly stated in a speech on January the 9th that "in case the constitution drafting got delayed no force on earth can stop another peoples’ revolt."

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6956 />
And again on January the 25th, he reportedly stated that "“The Maoists have been waiting patiently for the peace process and the timely drafting of the constitution even at this critical juncture. We have the right to launch a people’s revolt if the peace process is obstructed."

http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/24/most-popular/Big-media-against-UCPN-Maoist-Dahal/4384/

Gajurel recently reportedly stated that "In the likelihood that the CA fails to draft the constitution on time, our party is ready to declare peoples’ constitution on our own".

I don't feel the need to dig out the scores of quotes over the past few years mirroring these, but what limited and of course unreliable evidence we have seems to point towards the Maoists basing their strategy on the constitution. They have been arguing that the other parties don't want a new constitution written and instead want to revive the 1990 one (the current PM of Nepal was involved in writing that constitution). If the deadline passes, the other parties will be discredited. And furthermore, the current Constituent Assembly was formed for the specific purpose of writing a new constitution by the assigned deadline. If this deadline passes without a constitution, the CA will lose legitimacy. Everything will be up in the air. There is talk of a Presidential coup backed up by the military, and the Maoists have also been clear that any attempts to dissolve the CA and impose President rule will be met with a popular revolt.

They've waited this long. I don't see why they would choose not to wait another few months until they have a perfect opportunity to forcefully present their vision of a New Nepal in a situation where all opportunities to do it through consensus with the other parties has been clearly discredited.

I also don't think we should dismiss the idea that the Maoists won't wait until new elections are called. There have been comments recently by various reactionary sources, including a senior NC leader, that the Maoists could easily win a 2/3 majority in the next elections, especially in light of the current campaign against Indian expansionism, which strikes a great chord with the people of Nepal. If they did win such a majority, or even just a simple majority, it would allow them a great deal of legitimacy to push through their programme even to the point of a very sharp confrontation. And in a world without any socialist bloc, and without (yet) any power that can rival that of US imperialism, it seems to me that democratic legitimacy is actually quite important. There is no force that can really prevent US imperialism intervening if it so desires, and the only way revolutionary movements can make it harder is to seek democratic legitimacy for their actions, to make such an action harder to justify and to increase opposition to such an intervention in the West, where most people unfortunately would not be quick to support an armed seizure of power by a communist group 'crushing democracy' or some shit. Bhattarai has made comments about how a reason the UCPN (M) abandoned the armed struggle was to prevent Nepal becoming 'another Afghanistan', destroyed by foreign intervention. Winning a sizeable majority in the elections could give them a solid justification for moving towards a total seizure of state power. The Bolsheviks relied heavily on their majority in the congress of Soviets to justify their toppling of the Provisional Government. We should not assume that their revolt will take the form we expect it to, and we certainly shouldn't dogmatically assume that a revolt that does not proceed in a similar way to revolts in the past is not a real revolt!

There have also been reports, which should be taken with a mountain of salt, that there has been a second 'secret speech' similar to Prachanda's earlier speech to the cantonments where the allegations about decieving the UN originated. An excerpt from the MyRepublica article on this;

"Phrases like “main issue”, party’s “real line” and “people’s revolt” are part of the one central theme that the party chairman has tried to emphasize yet gain: to employ all means, including causing more deaths, to realize a “nirnayak kranti” (decisive revolution).

Forming a government, writing the constitution, getting a two-thirds majority in the elections and only then launching a revolt is not a party line as is being suggested by some comrades, Dahal says at one point. “That is not the party’s line, not at all, and it cannot be the party line now.”

Equally ominous is the assertion that whether in the government or outside, “people’s revolt” is the only and unwavering goal.

The real and only line, Dahal clarifies, is employing the fronts of the street (protests), parliament and the government to move ahead for a decisive revolution."

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=13709 />
Ka Frank: //"This is not a sign that the UCPNM is planning to capture state power in the period ahead. Their mass base is being told to stand down to await more fruitless political maneuvering with the NC and UML-–not to step up for decisive revolutionary battle."//

I think this is a major misconception. For one thing, the Maoists have postponed protest programmes several times in the past, including some of the most recent waves. Negotiations necessarily involve maneuvering and a certain degree of give and take, push and pull. It is simply and demonstrably false to claim that these 'political maneuverings' have been 'fruitless' - the Maoists have quite clearly strengthened their base in the urban areas. Their trade unions, their student unions, the YCL, the size of the recent protests, the last election results - all of these things point towards a massive support base for the UCPN (M) in the cities, and what that means is that since 2006, *the Maoists have succeeded in achieving their goals*. Their tactical shift into the cities was taken for the purpose of strengthening their support base there, which they felt was insufficient for a succesful seizure of power. Their political maneuverings have been extremely fruitful.

In the end, none of us are psychics. None of us have crystal balls to see the future. We do not know and cannot know when and how the Maoists will launch their decisive revolt. But I have yet to see a single exposition of the view that the Maoists are on a revisionist path that is not either based heavily on misconceptions and misunderstandings of the situation, on dogmatism and a somewhat arrogant assumption that the Maoists should lay all their plans out in the open for the benefit of the Western left, or some combination of the two.

The deadline for a new constitution is fast approaching. There is no indication whatsoever that a new constitution will be passed. Everything will be up in the air, and whatever happens it will be a major turning point in the Nepali political situation. All we can do until then is keep our eyes open and try our best to open the eyes of others.

The Gajurel quote comes from here:

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=7057

how about this: http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/nepal-maoists-call-off-protest-programme/

"Hours after the High Level Political Mechanism (HLPM) asked the UCPN (Maoist) on Friday to withdraw its protests, the main opposition announced it had called off the entire protest programme, including the indefinite strike scheduled to begin from Sunday.

A meeting of Maoist party office bearers on Friday decided to put off its indefinite general strike for now, Maoist Vice Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha said. “We decided to suspend the agitation as efforts are being made to forge consensus,” he said.

Earlier, at the HLPM meeting, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML leaders had urged Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to call off the planned general strike to prepare a conducive environment to address Maoist demands. The meeting also agreed to give top priority to the current political deadlock. It also accorded priority to constitution drafting and the peace process."

The Maoists declare their intention to organise a wave of protests. These protests are linked to a set of demands. The Maoists call on the govt to negotiate, which it refuses, then finally agrees to as the protests draw near. The govt and the Maoists negotiate, and the Maoists call off the scheduled protests for a time. No agreement is reached and the govt does not meet the Maoist's demands. Protests go ahead. It's happened before and chances are it'll happen again. Why are people so suspicious of the UCPN (M)? How much more does it have to do to win us over?

How do we know here whether calling off a protest means anything more than simply calling off a protest. Things get called off all the time. We don't know the reasoning.

In terms of the CA question. I will have to think more on this but my first reaction was how much does this really mean to the people in Nepal. It is significant. But how much and what does it mean in the context of other possibilities and contradictions.

But it still does not bury the necessity to NOT wait and see.

I don't think we would ever want to remember that we didn't go all out at this time because we didn't know for sure what their next move would be.

Talked briefly to some of my contacts in Katmandu who said the bandha was called off:
a) to see where the HLPM goes,
b) continue to prepare for the bandha. An indefinite general strike is not something you can go into underprepared.

In Comment 9, Red Flags states that "the UCPNM has released recent documents... affirming the Maoist commitment to general insurrection." If you have seen these documents, please post them so we can make an assessment.

RF also says "Every observer in the world except dogmatic (and frankly older) Marxist-Leninists has been clear.... this is moving towards a decisive showdown." Whether you realize it or not, you are dismissing the principled criticisms of the CPI (Maoist) as old and dogmatic. I have more confidence in their judgment than that of Marxist-Leninists who think that "dogmatism" is a more serious problem that revisionism in the world today (and in Nepal particularly), and believe that the Nepal Maoists under Prachanda's leadership are charting a new and creative path to liberation.

Let's look at some facts, which someone famous once said are stubborn things. Over the past month, the UCPN has:

1- Announced a new political line of "defending national independence," replacing the demand for civilian supremacy over the army

2- Announced that the PLA is preparing to fight against foreign powers (not the NA)

3- Called off the 4th phase of protests to intensify negotiations with the Congress and UML over the terms of army integration and the makeup of a national unity government

Of course, if these negotiations break down, the 4th phase may continue with its focus at the Indian border, not Kathmandu where the decisive battle is supposed to take place. And a 5th and a 6th phase may be launched.

All this points to the unfortunate reality that the UCPNM is centering its efforts, including turning the street actions on and off as needed, to reach a political accommodation with the NC-UML and the Nepal Army.

There is not one piece of evidence that the UCPNM is actually preparing its mass base and the party for a "decisive showdown" with the Congress-UML government and the Nepal Army and other security forces.

I'm in favor of building a campaign against Indian and U.S. intervention in Nepal, and against any moves against the Maoists by the Nepal Army, but the imperialists and reactionaries are not being forced to move in this direction due to the compromising political direction that is being taken by the Maoist leadership.

If you look at the "bigger picture" as advocated by Mike, since it signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006, the UCPNM has doggedly pursued a reformist path of attempting to push its way into government and wield it to restructure the bourgeois state--including the army--by periodically flexing its muscular mass base in the streets of Kathmandu.

There have been occasional statements by party leaders, including Prachanda and Bhattarai, about preparing for insurrection. While such statements coming from the Kiran-Gajurel-Biplap camp may have been attempts to send a revolutionary message to the party and its mass base , on the whole these statements have turned out to be a verbal form of pressure tactics--"If you block the peace process, there will be a new people's revolt" is Prachanda's mantra.

Because the UCPNM's reformist political strategy and work is dressed up as Marxist-Leninist, it is correct to call it a revisionist political line that must be reversed if the Nepali people's revolution is to advance to victory. It is our internationalist duty to oppose this line while we support the people's continuing struggles, including seizures of land and factories, against the reactionaries and foreign intervention.

Ka Frank says:

<blockquote>Let’s look at some facts, which someone famous once said are stubborn things. Over the past month, the UCPN has:

1- Announced a new political line of “defending national independence,” replacing the demand for civilian supremacy over the army.</blockquote>

But is it indeed a stubborn "fact" that this "replaces the demand for civilian supremacy"? Is that how it's being read on the streets?

From afar, it looks to me as though there is a continuum from the argument that the UCPN-M's partners post-2006 have caved in to the military (giving rise to the slogan about "civilian supremacy" which under the circumstances has real revolutionary content) and the argument that national independence is under threat.

I can't put it better than Mike:

<blockquote>"In their moves to isolate and then defeat that National Army, the Maoists (and their Peoples Liberation Army) are politically claiming that national banner (AWAY from the monarchists’ army) in order to expose, divide and defeat that National army as Indian puppets and collaborators (which they are)."

"The Maoist discussion of Nepali national indpendence is is not some diversion from the preparations for power — It is one important way the Nepali Maoists are dividing their enemies and winning over intermediate forces (including in and around that Army itself), precisely as the Maoists work to sum up a series of dress rehearsals for power."</blockquote>

Regarding what Ka Frank says, I do think it should be clear to all that revisionism is a far greater danger than dogmatism or ultra-leftism to the communist movement. Some people in the name of "new thinking" will even reject the dichotomy between revisionism and dogmatism presented in such a statement, but I disagree.

Time and time again, the people's hopes in revolution have been destroyed by revisionist leadership capitulating to imperialism and reactionary class ideology. It is not dogmatism to be extremely vigilant and keenly aware of this danger at all times.

That said, I see no problem at all with the UCPNM claiming the banner of national defense as their own. Indeed, it is in the great spirit of the CP of China under Mao to do so. The Congress/CPNUML and their various flunkeys cannot claim to defend Nepal from its enemies. And let all be clear that imperialism is the principal enemy of the people of Nepal. The "three mountains" are not of equal weight for a country like Nepal. By defeating imperialism, the other two "mountains" will be swept away as well.

It is interesting that the argument to look at the bigger picture, and to not get enmeshed in the daily news, comes from the same people who have completely ignored the substantial polemic over the Big Picture, issued by the CPI (Maoist). Those who are interested in the Big Picture, and who wonder if critical and anti-revisionist perspectives have been mischaracterized by the advocates of the "creative" line of Prachanda and Bhattarai, would undoubtedly gain much from reading the substantial CPI (Maoist) polemic. It is available at: http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Nepal/OpenLetterToCPNM-090720.pdf (.pdf version) and http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Nepal/OpenLetterToCPNM-090720.doc (word or .doc version)

Mike,

Has the CPI (Maoist) polemic against the post-2006 line and practice of the CPN(M) aka UCPN(M) has been examined, considered, and debated by the proponents of the Nepal party on Kasama? Or has the posting of the polemic been more like grudgingly admitting--and ignoring--the contrary uncle to the family gathering? I'll leave this to the Kasama participants and observers to decide.

In any event, given the way events have gone, many will find a reading of the polemic to have even greater relevance to understanding the situation today.

Again: it is available at: http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Nepal/OpenLetterToCPNM-090720.pdf (.pdf version) and http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Nepal/OpenLetterToCPNM-090720.doc (word or .doc version)

The CPI (Maoist) party speaks, and polemicizes, its viewpoint quite well, and doesn't need me to restate it for them. There have been various brief charactizations by apparent opponents of the line of the polemic. But the polemic has never been addressed or debated substantially, in whole or in part, in Kasama. If it has, please correct me, and point to the URL where the response may be found. If it has not been, it is there to be addressed, and should not need me to restate the arguments found there to bring forth a reply.

When the CPI (Maoist) makes their arguments--strongly, substantially, and vigorously--they deserve a serious response. One hopes that it will still happen.

I do think the discussion of the content of the Open Letter has been largely nonexistent. The thread you mentioned with 22 comments, had only one comment which actually quoted from the CPI (Maoist) document. The many points raised in the document, from the principles gleaned from 150 years of communism, to the tracing of relative universality, to the elaboration of the history of the line struggle in South Asia, are remarkably detailed and very challenging. Those who delve into them as a serious concentration of revolutionary experience, will find their exploration rewarding. The main point I'm making is simply this: at this point--very much a key juncture for the struggles in South Asia--the CPI (Maoist) has become an even more useful guide to the questions involved. Many will learn much from such exploration, and the large questions for which answers have yet to be found will also be sharpened.

I think those who take the time and effort for this study, should get together and discuss it, debate it, and learn from it, so that our internationalist work will be built on a firm foundation.

New document posted in South Asia section:


http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/nepal-ucpnmaoist-tactical-summation-and-tasks-ahead/

main thing that struck me is how it upholds social democracies in south america.

Andre:

This is a complex and fascinating document -- dealing with literally dozens of important questions of revolution in Nepal and internationally. It touches on their challenges and their successes.

It is a bit odd (to me) to say that the few passing comments on latin america are the main thing that struck you. I mean, WTF?

What it says is that anti-American forces have won some electoral victories in Latin America, and that reflects some important shifts. If you were planning to build a socialist state (in a poor and isolated ocuntry) you too might note (in a positive way) the emergence of anti-American currents in its own back yard. And (again) this is such a minor, passing mention -- in such a complex and rich document, that it is just a bit odd to focus on it at all.

I think we should post this document here on Kasama and discuss its main points (and work together to sort out what it is saying, especially about the intensifying revolutionary situation in Nepal).

New York Times is headlining Nepal news lately, key issue being the integration of the 2 armies. There's some basis here (seems to me) to point out (with UN support even) that the govt in Nepal is in violation of the 2006 agreement given its deference to a military opposed to integrating the PLA (which is to say, against the 2006 agreement) and forcing the hand of the principled UCPN-M to use firm measures to ensure fulfillment of the accord.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/world/asia/04nepal.html?emc=eta1

Thanks Gary for alerting us to this article in NY Times. It would seem like this might be the beginning of more coverage on developments in Nepal.