Nepal Maoists: Reports of Unresolved Disunity After CC Meeting
- Details
- Category: South Asia Revolution
- Created on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 08:59
- Written by Republica
Often in the long-standing debates of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), party conferences ended by announcing a merged or compromise position.
Some initial reports from the recent Central Committee meeting suggest that this time has been different.And, in particular in this article the argument is made that the ability of party chairman Prachanda to act as a unifying center within the party has been weakened by the sharpness of differences and the urgency of acting upon one or another strategic decision.
The long-standing and intensifying political line-struggle has centered over the timing of a possible seizure of power and more radical transformation of society -- with some forces urging immediate preparations and others urging postponement. The issues include when to launch the next advance of revolution, whether a socialist Nepal can survive under current international conditions, and what would happen to the revolutionary movement if it were placed in semi-permanent holding pattern.
The following article comes from My Republica. We urge readers to remember that these reports on on the Maoist Central Committee Plenum 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 post actual texts of the various positions and speeches as soon as they become available in English.
* * * * * *
Plenum weakens Dahal
KATHMANDU, Nov 30:
"This is the first time in the party´s history that your political document has failed. What do you have to say, comrade?"
When a journalist shot this question at Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal during the news conference held at the end of the weeklong party plenum in Gorkha last Saturday, the latter looked disappointed while the face of Vice-chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai, who was sitting cross-legged nearby, lit up.
Challenged by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya and Bhattarai simultaneously, Chairman Dahal was pushed into a defensive position. Both the vice-chairmen, who represent two extreme and opposite ideological lines, not only attacked his "centrist line", but also accused him of misusing "power, authority and finances" to increase his hold on the party.
The sixth plenum turned out to be different from those in the past as both Bhattarai and Baidya abandoned their support for Dahal simultaneously, and the two-way intra-party conflict of the past turned triangular.
Without the support of Baidya or Bhattarai, the Maoist chairman appeared weak as never before. Result: the sixth plenum rejected Dahal´s synthesized political document.
Bhattarai had sharp differences with Dahal on the issue of naming the party´s principal enemy, though both leaders shared the ideological view that the party should work to institutionalize the political achievements made so far. While Dahal stated that India should be declared the party´s principal enemy, Bhattarai had argued that the party should first defeat “domestic feudalism” instead of launching struggles against India.
“We could not agree with the chairman as he prepared his synthesized document, mixing dissimilar ideas. It is an act of eclecticism,” says Maoist leader Ram Karki, who is close to Bhattarai.
The Maoist chairman had hoped that he would get the support of Baidya as he had accommodated most of the latter´s views in his synthesized document.
The meeting showed that Dahal is also losing his grip on the Maoist People´s Liberation Army (PLA), which is still indirectly headed by Dahal himself.
But Baidya appeared more aggressive than Bhattarai against Dahal. Baidya, who leads the hard-line camp in the party, attacked Dahal for not launching a "people´s revolt" to establish a "People´s Federal Democratic Republic" in Nepal, the line passed by the Kharipati national conclave. He even threatened to take over the party leadership.
“We could not agree with the chairman as we not only had sharp ideological differences, but we also saw a gap between the chairman´s words and what he has been doing in practice,” says Maoist leader Khadga Viswakarma, who is close to Baidya.
During the plenum, Baidya had the strongest hold among the cadres, while Dahal´s position weakened significantly. There was no one to speak in favor of Dahal in the party´s foreign affairs department.
The meeting further showed that Dahal is also losing his grip on the Maoist People´s Liberation Army (PLA), which is still indirectly headed by Dahal himself. Despite the chain of command, PLA commanders came out speaking openly in favor of Baidya and Bhattarai and criticize Dahal´s leadership. "It was unthinkable in the past to come forward to side with Baidya and Bhattarai and criticize Dahal," says a leader close to Baidya.
Bhattarai, who was organizationally weak, also made significant gains during the plenum and even commanded a majority in some state committees, including the Kirat and Abadh committees.
Leaders close to Baidya and Bhattarai claim that the plenum heralded an end to Dahal´s monopoly in the party. Dahal has reigned unchallenged over the party for the last 24 years.
However, those close to Dahal claim that there is still no immediate threat to his leadership, though the party is facing sharp ideological differences. “The ideological differences don´t pose a threat to his leadership. It was just a rumor,” says politburo member Shakti Basnet, who is close to Dahal.
As the plenum failed to pass Dahal´s document, the Maoists have stated that the party will hold a Central Committee (CC) meeting on December 2 to chart out the party´s common action-plan for implementation in the current peace process, while leaving the broad ideological issues to a national conclave or a general convention.
Comments (7)
-
In a comment on Revolution in South Asia, Rajesh wrote an interesting <a href="/http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/baidya-at-nepal-maoist-plenum-time-is-ripe-for-revolt/" rel="nofollow"> personal summation</a>:
<blockquote> I like to share my assessment in brief.
The UPCN (M) has been involved in a fierce two line struggle.
The political line advocated by Bhattarai revolves around radical reform agenda, primarily focusing on peaceful processes and outcomes that include PLA integration, constitution writing, rapid economic development and emphasis on social justice.
On the other side, Mohan Baidhya has been advocating for reassessment of the Chunabang decisions, which initiated the process of 12 points agreement that resulted to dissolution of people’s local governments/base areas and cantonizing PLA, etc. Moreover, he has been advocating for people’s revolt as a final means of attaining state power. He has been questioning leadership’s behaviors, which are not compatible with communist values, ethics and behaviors.
Prachanda’s line includes both the above lines and makes a hybrid version.
Now, UCPN (M) has no single dominant line. This is in a state of temporary equilibrium.
As Mao has said that equilibrium is relative and temporary, whereas disequilibrium is absolute and permanent (Ten Major Relationships), this stage of equilibrium will vanish sooner than later. ‘PLA integration’ is one of the major yard sticks to conclude which line prevails. If PLA remains intact and comes out of the cantonment, the communist revolutionary line would prevail. If PLA disappears, the radical reform agenda line would prevail. The struggle will continue at a higher level.</blockquote>0 Like -
Guest (K)
Permalinkhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/articleshow/6981414.cms
Apparently this means that "Nepal's Maoist chief Prachanda urges war on India?"0 Like -
Guest (David_D)
PermalinkI must say that I am unaware of the past political disagreements between Prachanda and Bhattarai, which were related to the latter being dismissed from his posts for a time a few years ago. Media always seem to characterize Bhattarai as "pro-India," which never made any sense to me. However, it does seem that India at least tolerated the Maoists of Nepal for extended periods, and geopolitics must have played a role in this.
From my superficial perspective, Rajesh's summation seems correct. In any case, it seems like Nepal is not in a situation of dual power, and there is a difficult road to revolutionary power ahead regardless of line adopted. Hopefully India cannot strengthen its state power and is hamstrung, and China looks kindly on a friendlier regime in Nepal, regardless of its social system.0 Like -
Guest (LiamWright)
PermalinkI'm anxious to hear what comes out of the UCPNM in the coming period. This line struggle obviously has serious stakes for the future of the revolution there and elsewhere. It is also unclear how much of this article is accurate or deliberately inflammatory, referring to Prachanda as "weak," etc. Any other news on this line struggle, please post it.
0 Like -
Guest (land)
PermalinkI would have liked to seen some summation around May Day and the General Strike being called off.
I would think many of the cadre there were in Katmandu for May day. I hope this will be coming.
About the above article. There is a fierce line struggle going but there is also an attack on the Maoists, hidden behind or maybe not so hidden, by the media using the line differences between Prachanda and Baidya and Bhattarai. Mike's intro is important.
Prachanda has said at different times (I didn't hear the statement at the plenum)that we act as a party not as individuals.
I hope we get a chance to read the speeches. I can't help but be suspicious of the media. Every single article goes after the leadership (one or the other).0 Like -
Guest (kumaraaditya)
PermalinkThe analysis of Mike E is near to correctioniss. But it will be better to use 'illusiond version' rather than ' hybrid'. The base of Bhattarais document is pluralism. He is pleading Euro- communism. He supports Indion expionism indirectly. We can find it in his document .In the name of todays Marxism, he is exercing Post-Marxism. The document of Prachand is fullof gossip.Empty vessel makes much sound. He is centrist in form and righistin essence. Only Baidhya is able to adress the revolutionary line and direction. But words are words, now the caders want in practice, in action. In this time the role of Baidhya will be decisive.
0 Like -
Guest (Green Red)
PermalinkFriend Kumaraadytia says that words are words and of course cadres want practice.
In the meantime,"Prachanda, whose leadership is under challenge, has advocated a new revolt if ‘reactionary forces’ at home and foreign intervention prevent the implementation of a new constitution by May 2011."
Having more than one line exposed actually does not hurt a party that has already stated it is not the party with the line of the individuals but rather it is a party line. So from now till May 2011 (or possible other dates) they could bring their social democrat or, radical cards step by step to see what may be gained. And whenever it did not work pull our Kiran (Baidhya)'s line and supporters while Dalal continue to be focusing on party unity and going by the laws. Therefore, they will observe and see the Indian/other imperialist forces actions and the moment they went out of their line again, party can politely say things about uselessness of Bhattari's optimism to work within the current regime, even Prachanda admit his super optimism and let Kiran lead the revolution without split in the party and so forth.
Did it not ever occur to you that having openly presented two line in public is not necessarily a step toward disunity but rather leaving time and space to have more than option open in accordance with enemies' courses of action?0 Like



Dig in.