Biplap: The Nepalese Revolution Can Achieve Victory

Kasama has produced the following interview, and hopes you will help us circulate it widely. This interview took place in June of 2010, as the Nepali Maoist leader Biplap spoke with a revolutionary journalist .

A revolutionary movement, especially in a poor and isolated country, faces intense challenges: Can we defeat the reactionary internal powers? Can we take the socialist road alone in a hostile world?

There has been an intense and public debate over this within the Maoist party of Nepal -- precisely because their movement has reached the point where a stalemate has emerged in negotiating efforts and a new revolutionary impatience has spread

In this interview, Biplap argues that it is possible to press ahead on the revolutionary road: both seizing power by overthrowing the Nepali government and carrying through radical changes in the world today. Biplap is a member of the Standing Committee member of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). 

Part 1

Part 2

 

Dig in.

0 Character restriction
Your text should be more than 10 characters

People in this conversation

  • Guest (Spartacus)

    Ach die Liebe! The CHE t-shirt is a dead giveaway that revisionism lies at the center of this guy's talk.
    On the other hand, I might do well to listen to the guy! :) Let us just SEE!

  • Spartacus, perhaps you should elaborate on the point you are making for those who are less familiar with the debates you are referencing? And for those who do not understand your humor?

    The legacy of Che Guevara has been a very controversial one in the Maoist movement.. with some arguing that Che is a symbol of a Soviet revisionist strategy. My own view is that focoism was indeed a profoundly problematic strategy (and, to the extent that it was able to successfully mobilize the people, it was very historically specific to Cuba's particularities.

    But Che, to many, is a symbol of revolutionary and anti-imperialist struggle. And in Nepal's context, it is fascinating to see that those who are calling for the completion of Nepal's revolution raise Che Guevara as a symbol of that.

    *****
    <strong>EDIT: Upon giving this thread a more thorough read, I am struck by the fact that Spartacus is not at all being sarcastic in his claim that this "Biplap is a revisionist" based upon his t-shirt. In fact, Spartacus seems to be an RCPUSA supporter, and it really is revealing of the pathetic dogmato-sectarian line that party follows. I think it is truly outrageous to respond to a video like this one with a declaration of "revisionist" based upon a fucking t-shirt... without even engaging the substance of what is being discussed here.</strong>

  • Guest (Stiofan)

    Eric wrote:
    <cite>..Che, to many, is a symbol of revolutionary and anti-imperialist struggle. And in Nepal’s context, it is fascinating to see that those who are calling for the completion of Nepal’s revolution raise Che Guevara as a symbol of that.<cite>

    The same is true in Yemen as seen in this photo:

  • Guest (Stiofan)

  • Guest (Labor Shall Rule)

    There's something interesting going on within the party apparently. It reminds me of how Biplap mentioned how the reformists are trying to take a certain path. This is from the bourgeois press but it mentions a real document released by a central committee member.

    http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/04/23/dahal-volte-face-has-maoists-livid/

    I would say that the first paragraph is a good summation of what is said in the article.



    <blockquote>"KATHMANDU: Lodging strong disapproval over Party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s stand to adopt “peace and statute” as the party’s interim strategy, Maoist hardliner and Vice Chairman Mohan Baidya warned him not to compromise the combatant integration issue. Presenting a five-page long separate “political proposal” in protest against Dahal’s political document at party’s Central Committee meet on Friday, Baidya opposed Dahal’s proposal to start the regrouping process of combatants. He said the regrouping process ought not to take place without finalizing the content of the new constitution and that the much-talked about “separate directorate” within Nepal Army for integration of PLA could come to fruition only if it is led by PLA. In his proposal, Baidya blamed Dahal for breaching the party’s official line on “people’s revolt”, being reformist, deviating from revolutionary path and embracing parliamentary system."</blockquote>

  • Guest (kumaraaditya)

    To much comments on Biplap's T–Shirt. It is not the main thing . The main thing is his ideology, his saying, his commitment on MLM and revolution. Biplap is known as a leader revolutionary spirit. He is a mass leader, a leader of young generation. He was the commander and commissar of many battles during the people's war. He is from the main base area of Maoist movement of Nepal, that is Rolpa. And you know Prachad the chairman of this party has damaged the all achievements in the name of Peace and constitution. The above paragraph cited by Labor Shall Rule reflects the real picture of UCPN–Maoist.If you want more about current situation of UCPN and how the revolutionaries of UCPN are fighting against the centrist and revisionists within the UNCP–Maoist, you please visit regularly thenextfront.com

  • Kumaraaditya wrote:

    <blockquote>To much comments on Biplap’s T–Shirt. It is not the main thing . The main thing is his ideology, his saying, his commitment on MLM and revolution. Biplap is known as a leader revolutionary spirit. He is a mass leader, a leader of young generation.</blockquote>

    I agree, and I know that it can be especially frustrating when international comrades see their debates interpreted through the idiosyncratic debates of the Maoist movement in America. I'd like to step back and sketch a few things that I found so profound about Biplap's discussion, and perhaps open these points up for discussion.

    Biplap is polemicizing over very profound (but particular) questions facing the revolution of Nepal. But he chooses to do so on what Mao called "the lofty plane of two line struggle." There is much to learn from the way the he centers some of the debates in the realm of philosophy.

    Biplap is specifically NOT making an adventurist or simplistic argument claiming that revolution is a matter of "will" or "strategic nerve," and that this only a matter of pushing ahead (this was the argument of a handful of dogmatists in the USA and other places).

    Instead, Biplap is posing certain philosophical questions, and grounding his analysis in the concrete conditions. He is drawing from Mao's "On Contradiction," and pointing out that things are driven by their internal contradictions (not external, which interacts with the internal). This has profound implications in-terms of how one views the international and national situations for revolution in different societies. If the international situation is unfavorable, that does not mean that the national situation is unfavorable for revolution, and in fact, it is precisely the national situation that will determine the conditions of revolutionaries in a society's ability to go ahead.

    I was always inspired by the early debates of the Maoist movement of Nepal. This was a movement that saw an unfavorable international situation, and launched a people's war SPECIFICALLY because it was so unfavorable that there was a need to make revolution and transform it. It was viewed as a contribution to the world revolution, and it truly was.

  • Upon giving this thread a more thorough read, I am struck by the fact that Spartacus is not at all being sarcastic in his claim that this “Biplap is a revisionist” based upon his t-shirt. I had originally thought this was a poor attempt at humor.. but, in fact, Spartacus seems to be an RCPUSA supporter (based on his other posts on this site), and it really is revealing of the pathetic dogmato-sectarian line that party follows.

    I think it is truly outrageous to respond to a video like this one with a declaration of “revisionist” based upon a fucking t-shirt… without even engaging the substance of what is being discussed here.

  • Guest (Green Red)

    Hi Eric,

    There is more reasons to that. Among them, Che is defined as a disappointing character in Cuba for beginners. Why? He had suggested attempts to wipe away neo-colonial or whatever named it might be single production nature of Cuba and, try to produce all sorts of productions instead of relying on other words... meaning that sugar to east Germany in exchange of other foods is not right.

    another thing is, didn't you see that Cuba, a tiny country survived even intervention of the US in the pigs bay and other attempts for people's nationalism? They see themselves the same. Che is not standing for focoism. Che is standing for more anti imperialist and anti US stand of Cuba to echo anti Indian expansionist sentiment of the people this brother is talking about. And didn't Cuba after revolution before siding with the Soviets try to simply act nationalist and it was US continuation that persuaded Fidel to go to the right and hug soviet imperialist or whatever you call them?

    here a note. in fact Che was abused since he was the one promised a nuke but, Soviets played chess saying Uncle Sam, you take away Nukes from NATO/Turkey and we ain't gonna place any under your butt. And Che's passion for people's liberation caused his further mistakes that, in many other countries created unsuccessful and, not having too much of communist essence (see Nicaragua, even before Contras effect they acted somewhat social democrat)now add that to red brigades of all sorts in Italy, Germany up to Japan.

    see people's opinions on the Dahal's saying about if May 1st
    http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/nepal-prachanda-says-may-1st-is-the-deadline/

    Yes and no. i am not really in Dahal Prachanda's head but, they are not all there is in the party. Biplap is not Kiran but pretty much he is hoping for the same thing and says that one third of the people are not all revolutionary peasants and proletarians. they include upset patriotic middle class (is there any not comprador bourgeoisie in the Nepal) and nationalist (within the army too although army is largely under Indian almost influence)

    The funniest part of all was talking about some wanting to wait for revolution in first worlders first and, great to know how much they appreciate say Kasama and, others who faithfully have followed up the situation. To make it simple, country is ready to erupt but, world situation seems unfavorable. But if India attacks Nepal what would happen within India you think? Wouldn't it act like sixties in the US and a service for Naxalites?

    Re Che, last words, best words were said by Chairman Sison, the founder of Communist party of Philippine and what he said in seventies interview. read that and you'll get the fairest observation of Che's Humanist value rather than guerrilla errors.

    I believe that