Nepal: On the eve of the republic — Interview with CPN (Maoist) leader Prachanda

An exclusive interview with CPN (Maoist) leader Prachanda by MRZine
By Mary Des Chene and Stephen Mikesell

It is 14th Jeth, 2065, [Tuesday May 27, 2008] in Nepal, the day before the constituent assembly is to convene and declare Nepal a full republic. The king remains in his palace. The form of the new government, who will lead it, whether the old parliamentary parties will join in a Maoist-led government or, as they have indicated so far, will boycott and try to isolate it — these and other basic questions remain to be resolved.

The following is an early morning interview with CPN (Maoist) leader Prachanda, before he embarked on a last intensive round of negotiations to try to bring the parliamentary parties into a coalition government under Maoist leadership.

Kathmandu, May 27, 2008.

You may become Nepal’s new head of state within a few days, but the parliamentary parties are putting up a lot of blockades. Yesterday your party put forth a 9-point proposal to address the current political impasse. What are the main barriers to formation of a CPN (Maoist)-led government at this point? What are the challenges and what are the proposals you’ve made to the parliamentary parties?

Intensive debate, discussion and struggle is going on, on the question of formation of the government, and mainly on the questions of the head of the state and the head of the government. These questions raise so many ideological and political issues, involving the class interests of the parties.

Yesterday we had a very serious discussion. The parliamentary parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML), want to have their own person be the head of state. They want to check, they want to block our party from forming the government and filling the position of head of state. Therefore intensive struggle is going on right now. As we discuss these issues with the leaders of the other parties, it seems to me that intensive and serious class struggle is going on, on the level of ideology and political line. Because we have the status of the largest party through the constituent assembly election, the initiative is in our hands, but nevertheless intensive struggle continues. I think that by tomorrow we’ll not be able to have consensus about the questions of the head of state and the formation of the government. Therefore right now we are thinking that we’ll make an agreement only for the declaration of the republican system. And on that there will be consensus — there should be consensus.

Your party has a clear mandate from the election to form the next government. The transitional government of the past two years has functioned on the basis of political consensus governed by the Seven Party Alliance accords and other formal agreements. From election day onward you’ve stressed the CPN (Maoist) commitment to continue with coalition government under those accords. The major parliamentary parties have set a number of conditions for participating in a Maoist-led coalition government, several of which you’ve stated directly contravene signed accords. At this point, if a coalition government under your party’s leadership cannot be formed, what will be the main reasons?

I think that before the elections the parliamentary parties, especially the largest parliamentary party, the Nepali Congress, never expected that we would become the largest party through the election. Therefore they made so many agreements and compromises with our party, like those concerning the questions of a two-thirds majority and a simple majority [to change the government]. At that time they were in the leadership. Therefore they thought that a two-thirds majority requirement for changing the government would be just fine. But later on, when they saw that the Maoists had become the largest party and were going to lead the government and be head of the state, then they changed their position. Now they hold that a simple majority should be the means to change the government. Previously, up until the election, they didn’t expect that they would lose through the election, and they thought that they could easily disintegrate our organisational structure and exert control over the PLA [People's Liberation Army] cadres and so on. But now, after the election, they think that it is going to be a very serious question. Therefore now they are making a proposal that our arms should be destroyed, and the PLA cadres should be disbanded or they should join vocational training or something like that. They’re trying to raise those kinds of ridiculous things. This is against the peace agreement. This is against the spirit of the interim constitution.

The major parliamentary party, the Nepali Congress, has changed their positions after the election and are showing themselves to be against peace. It is going to be proved — I think within some days, maybe within one or two weeks — it will be crystal clear that the major political parliamentary parties are against peace, against any kind of change, against forming a coalition government under the leadership of the Maoists. They are against the people’s mandate, you know. It will be clear. If they will not move ahead in keeping with the spirit of the interim constitution, if they will not follow the peace agreement we have already made and all the other agreements and accords, ultimately it seems to me that it is a question of class outlook. The opposing classes are struggling in a very new contest. And one thing that is quite clear is that the proletariat and our revolutionary party have taken the initiative in our own hands. They [Nepali Congress and UML] are the losers. Right now, in this battle, in this electoral battle, they are the losers and we are the winners. Therefore a big debate and discussion and struggle is going on.

If they were successful in disbanding your army, how would that affect the possibility of creating the republic?

It would be very difficult. But I think they have already agreed to implement the republican system from the first meeting of the constituent assembly.

Right. But if your army was not there, then what force would you have against the king [who] remains in the background?

We will not disband our army. How could we agree to disband our army or destroy our arms? It has been formally agreed that both the armies should be integrated and a new national army should be established and organised. And we have never agreed to go with DDR, you know, this DDR formula [Disarmament, Demobilisation, Reintegration]. What we said is that, here in Nepal it is quite necessary that both armies should be integrated to form a new army. It is the essence of our agreement. Now, when they see that the Maoists have won the election, they want to change the previous agreement. Therefore at the moment we do not want to focus our discussion with the parliamentary parties on the questions of integration and so on. We want to focus our discussions on the questions of implementation of the republic and the republican system.

It is quite clear, and the masses know it very well, the masses are clear that the first sitting of the constituent assembly will implement the republican system and even all the parliamentary parties have already agreed to go with the republican system. In this phase of the struggle, we Maoists want to focus our whole effort to implement that previous agreement. I think that they cannot reject or retreat from the previous agreement on the question of the republic. If they hesitate to implement this republican system tomorrow then … It is going to happen you know. This is the historical turning point against the feudal system. If they will hesitate, I think that they will be crossed by the masses. The masses will not tolerate them. Because they have already lost through the election. If they hesitate to implement the republican system, then they will lose yet more, you see.

Tomorrow. on the day when the constituent assembly sits to declare the republic, the Kathmandu District Administration has declared restrictions on marches, rallies and assembling on the streets surrounding the convention centre, the palace and other places in the capital. But many marches and cultural programs have already been announced, and the people seem sure to come out, whether to ensure that their will is carried out or just to celebrate. How are you viewing that move to restrict the people’s movement?

We have already decided to hold rallies all over the country. There will be mass rallies in all seventy-five district headquarters. And here in Kathmandu there will also be a victory rally, a republican rally. It will be a great day for us, for the people of this country. But they will not go to encircle the palace, or go near the Birendra International Convention Centre hall where the first meeting of the constituent assembly is going to be held. But they will be in the streets, near Singhadarbar [the usual parliamentary venue] and in other places. They’ll be chanting slogans in favor of the republic and so on. But there will not be — we are trying our best not to be in a confrontation tomorrow. It would not be good, it would not be proper to have any kinds of confrontation tomorrow. We want to show the masses who are in favor of the republican line. There will be a festive atmosphere. It will be like a people’s festival, a republican festival. It will be very big, and a great thing for our people. But some reactionary people, mainly those who are loyal to the monarchy, they are trying to carry out some sorts of sabotage and some sorts of terrorist activities. Yesterday they exploded some small socket bombs near the convention center hall, and in the houses of civil society figures. But I don’t think they will be able to create some big sabotage or anything.

If you have to form a sole government without the cooperation of the other parties are you ready to do that?

Yes. If they are not ready, and if they want it so, then we’ll form our own government without their cooperation. They may think that within three months or a hundred days — there’s the saying that 100 days is the honeymoon — that after the honeymoon they can encircle us and dismantle our government. They think like that. But we believe that once we are in the government we’ll take so many decisions, important decisions, in favour of the masses of the people and in favor of our nation, and that those kinds of decisions will allow us to have a broader mass base and broader organisation and will ultimately help us to move ahead.

You’ve used the term “economic revolution” and said that after forming the government the task is economic revolution. Tell us a bit about your first steps; the economy is in very bad shape.

Yes, I think that economic development and sustainable peace have a very compact relation. Without having development it is very difficult to have a sustainable peace. And here in our country there are huge natural resources: for example, we have a huge hydro potential, tourism can be a big industry in this country, this beautiful country. There are so many things we can do.

For the time being what we are seeing is that we should have to follow a mixed economic system. I also want to qualify that it is not exactly a mixed economic system; we are trying to develop some new approaches in our transitional economic policy. We have not completed the democratic revolution, you know. We are in the process of the completion of the democratic revolution. But after 10 years of peoples war we have achieved some political and some socioeconomic change, which is already in process. Because that revolution is in the transitional phase we are trying to develop some new tactics and new policy according to the overall economic situation and national situation of the first decades of the 21st century. Therefore we shall have to follow a transitional economic policy. Not exactly the economic policy of the New Democracy, not exactly the economic policy of the bourgeois system, but something in-between. We are saying that this is a transitional economic policy, and we want to decide our own priority by ourselves.

And we want to encourage the national capitalist, or “national bourgeois” as we say, we want to encourage them to invest and to generate employment, and to invest in the industrial sector, which will create some new possibilities. And through them we want to attract the foreign investment, but according to our decision, according to our priority. Until now, all the decisions have been taken not by the Nepali people and the Nepali government, but by the foreigners and international institutions, like the World Bank. But this time we want to change that pattern. We want to decide our own priorities, we want to encourage our national bourgeois to have a conducive atmosphere for investment and generation of employment, and through them we want to attract the foreign investors according to our decision, according to our priority. In the rural area and in the hydro sector we want to have small hydro projects, medium-level hydro projects, and big hydro projects. Not just the large ones.

One problem is that you are being handed over a practically bankrupt state, one heavily in debt, and that won’t leave you much leeway, at least if you work in the old terms, so how are you going to address that?

I think it is a challenge, and we are taking it as a positive challenge. The first question is to mobilise the millions of the masses to rebuild this country. Until and unless we mobilise the masses, nothing can be done. We will transparently divulge everything to the mass of the people: this is the situation here in the country, the world government and world state has led this country to this bankruptcy. Now, if everyone of this country, every citizen of this country will not make a commitment to go ahead to build the country themselves, it will be very difficult for us sustain and undertake development. Therefore our first priority will be to educate the masses of people about the real situation of the government and all these things that have happened in the past.

The second point is that we will try our best to mobilise the national bourgeois, the national capitalists. There are so many people who can contribute. If we draw up a scientific plan, an economic plan, according to our situation, we can mobilise those industrialists and those national capitalists or national bourgeois to invest in a more productive way. And I also think that, because we are in between China and India, both of which have very fast growing economies, we can benefit from their growing economies. I myself have tried my best to have serious discussions with China’s Communist Party and China’s government. How can they help to rebuild this country? How much will they be able to contribute, and how far can they mobilise their peoples to invest here in our country? And we were also talking with the Indian parties and Indian government officials: how can they contribute to our efforts in rebuilding this country? So I think that from both these countries, according to our plan and according to our priorities, we can mobilise positive economic input.This is something challenging, we know it, but this is something beneficial for this country.

What about the role of the youth of this country in all of these plans? The thousands who are migrant labourers outside the country, now the thousands and thousands who are unemployed here, and the Young Communist League, your own youth organisation?

Yes, we are working on drawing up a plan to mobilise the youth in rebuilding this country. Our YCL has already been mobilised: thousands and thousands of youth were mobilised before the election in a political mobilisation. Now we are going to mobilise them in the constructive work, in economic development. And we are also trying to make a connection with all the people working outside the country. Non-resident Nepalis are there, and the organisation of non-resident Nepalis; those people can contribute more in rebuilding this country, and we want to invite them to invest here in Nepal. We have already developed a plan for how we can mobilise thousands of peoples who are outside the country, who are doing business elsewhere. Some of them have done a very good job, they have earned substantial amounts of money, they can invest here, and we can contact them.

And also I think that we can bring back youth who are in Arab countries and all over the world, if we have a plan for building this country. I have already discussed some hydro power, medium-level hydro projects. And if there will be five, six or seven of such kinds of project all over the country, we can mobilise thousands and thousands of youth in that kind of project. And when they see that there are jobs in our own country, they will come back and we can mobilise that kind of youth.

And what about bringing young people back into agriculture, which is the base of the economy here?

Yes, we have already agreed to carry out scientific land reform. Here in Nepal there is a different situation in the Tarai [lowland plains], in mountainous areas and in the hilly regions. We have to make a complete plan of land reform for the hilly region, for the Himalayan region and for the Tarai. But the main focus of this scientific land reform will be the Tarai because the bulk of the agricultural land is there. There should be land ceilings and the land of absentee landlords should be redistributed among the peasants. But our main focus will be commercialising the farming. Without commercialised farming we can’t develop agriculture. And we want to establish agro-based industries. We can’t mobilise the youth in the agricultural sector with only the traditional ways of farming. We have to create something new by creating jobs in agro-based industry. And that will ultimately commercialise the overall farming, and it will be a revolutionary step to raise the living standards of the people.

An Interview with Dr. Baburam Bhattarai of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

by Stephen Mikesell and Mary Des Chene

Q. On May Day what was the message that the party was putting to the workers?

On the historic May Day our message to the working class was, we are making revolution in Nepal in a very indigenous way, but we have a lot of challenges to face. The reactionaries won’t leave the stage of history very easily. They’ll put up a very strong resistance, so we have to take this challenge very seriously, we have to prepare for a strong resistance from the overthrown feudal and reactionary classes. This is one message we gave to the working class. And the second message was, if we have to build a new Nepal, then we’ll have to concentrate on making a new national unity. We need peace, stability, and progress, and for that the working class will take the lead to do away with all remnants of feudalism — feudal production relations — and develop industrial relations oriented towards socialism, which will solve the long term demands of the working class. Those are the two messages we conveyed during the May Day programmes.

Q. What’s the practical approach that you’re going to use to work in that direction?

The first step is, though we have won the election, the reactionary classes are hatching various conspiracies, especially the imperialists. They’re trying to instigate the monarchist forces and the bureaucratic bourgeois class, which is strongly aligned with the imperialists. They’re instigating them not to hand over power to the Maoists. So for that we may have to go through a process of struggle, for which the working class and all the oppressed masses should be prepared. If need be, we’ll have to go to the street to resist this reactionary backlash. Practically, we appealed to them to get prepared. And secondly, after we form the government under our leadership, then we’ll have to provide some immediate relief to the working class and the poor people, those who have suffered all along, they’re suffering from poverty, unemployment, and also discrimination. Families of those martyred. They’re poor people. Their sons and daughters were martyred so they will need immediate relief. And there are others who were disappeared, and those who were injured. That’s one aspect. The other aspect is the real basic poor people, working classes, who need economic relief, immediately. So we are thinking of providing a public distribution system, a network of cooperative stores whereby we can provide basic goods to the working class and the poor people. We want to provide some fund for that. And then, for education and health. Our position has been that education and health and employment should be — and also shelter and food security — these should be the fundamental right of the masses of the people. This we have already promised in our manifesto. And partially it has been written in the interim constitution also. So we’ll try to put it into practice. And for that, we’ll have to prepare a new budget, and appropriate new policy of the new government. The working class and the mass of the poor people should contribute to this process. They should advise our party and the future government, and they should be very vigilant to keep the government in line. If the public and the working class and the poor masses don’t put pressure, then the government may not be able to move in the right direction. There are very bad historical experiences in this regard, you see. So until and unless the working class is very vigilant and exercises its power to control the government from below, there are chances of the government deviating, not implementing what it has promised during the elections.

Q. What steps are you taking to give people the means to exert that pressure from below?

Firstly, our party recognizes that even when we participate in the government, this government is not a fully revolutionary government, it is a transitional government. So we’ll have to compromise with the other classes. But we would like to take the lead. We would like to transform the state from within. For that we have to create pressure from outside. For that our party’s position is that the whole leadership of the party won’t join the government. One section of the leadership will join the government, and the other section of the party leadership will remain outside and continue organizing and mobilizing the masses. So the party will take that route. Many of us will be [in the government]. The main form of struggle will be from within the government, to make the new constitution. But another section will remain outside the government. That’s why all of our central leaders didn’t participate in the elections. We want to organize and mobilize the masses so that they can put pressure on the government. So this is one aspect. And we want to develop certain institutions. Though we haven’t found the concrete form for them yet, we have made some policy decisions. When we put forth the concept of development of democracy in the 21st century, our slogan was that the government and the party should be constantly supervised by the masses, and the masses should intervene at times if need be. This is our policy. But we have not been able to find the concrete form. What will be the way of intervening in case the government deviates? What will be the form of putting pressure, apart from public demonstrations? How will they intervene in the state system? That mechanism we are trying to work out.

Q. What about means for the masses to supervise the constituent assembly?

The immediate task will be to make the new constitution with the full participation of the real masses of the people in making their constitution.

Q. But there are very practical issues of organization. All the forms of relation between the people and the constituent assembly have yet to be determined, and there’s no assurance that effective mechanisms will be established.

We can formulate rules and regulations. The interim constitution is quite open on that issue. We can develop some modalities whereby the committees being formed within the constituent assembly will be required to go to different places and organize mass meetings, collect the opinion of the masses. That type of mechanism will have to be developed. At least our party will propose that. . . . If need be there could even be a referendum on certain articles. We’ll try to develop a consensus even within the political parties and then, if not, we’ll go for a two thirds majority, and in case needed, for certain issues, we could go to a referendum. Our approach will be to involve the maximum number of the mass of the people in the decision making process.

Q. How are you dealing with the challenge of bringing in international capital and retaining domestic capital within the country, in a way that is in keeping with your own economic policy?

Our main emphasis will be mobilizing internal resources. Until and unless we can mobilize internal resources, at least for basic needs, then we’ll always be blackmailed by the international capital. So our first priority would be to mobilize our internal resources. But even then, in the immediate sense, we’ll need some foreign capital. At least for long term economic development we have to make investment in basic infrastructure, and so on, using international capital. For that we’re trying to re-negotiate with the international agencies. Of course they will try to put pressure. But we are already in contact with some of them. And they also have their own compulsions, you see. If they don’t cooperate, they will also face the resistance of the people. They all have their strategic interests. Nepal being located in a very strategic place between China and India, and these forces, I think they have their eyes on the big markets of India and China, and if there is not a favorable situation in Nepal, they will be hurt, you see — not immediately, but in the long term strategic sense. In that way they also have their certain interest in Nepal. So that, if we negotiate very carefully, though they will try to bring pressure — we know it, this is the nature of international capital, to twist the arms of the poor countries and poor people — even then, I think if we move very carefully, we can take some liberties out of that.

Q. Moving back to labor issues again, how are you involving the working class and in particular your unions in the economic policy of the country?

Our unions are the strongest in Nepal. We came into this [peace] process two years ago. In almost all the factories and workplaces, we have organized the workers, and our trade union is the strongest in the country. Wherever there have been [union] elections, we have won almost all of them. It may sound anachronistic, but just to give you an example, in the 5 star hotels where there were elections, we won all of them. Our trade unions got strong because they bargained with the management for the rights of the workers. To increase pay and provide benefits and facilities according to law. They were not paid earlier, and they were not provided with facilities. So the management were forced to pay. And there was a lot of attraction of workers to our trade unions. But on the other side, the reactionaries are instigating the management, saying that the Maoist trade unions are putting undue pressure, so there is no conducive environment for investment, and in this way they’re encouraging capital flight. Some capital has fled also, so we have to make that [. . .]. Just the other day we were at a gathering of nationalist [capitalists] and traders and we tried to show them that our main focus right now is to do away with feudalism and do away with the feudal relations of production, and the very dependent capitalism, not national and international capitalism. So we try to distinguish between these. Firstly, we want to do away with feudalism. Then we want to develop our productive investment capital, not the very parasitic capital we have right now. This is what we call comprador and bureaucratic capitalism which doesn’t promote production, and doesn’t promote employment. It is only that type of distorted, dependent capitalism, which is developing in the country, that we are against. We are not against productive and industrial capitalism, you know, which provides goods, provides jobs, creates value within the country, and at least resists the imperialist interventions within the country. That type of national capitalism we promote. We tried to convince the nationalists and traders that we’ll create a favorable environment.

Q. What’s your position on Nepal’s WTO membership in this context? There are a lot of conditions within the WTO membership that preclude some of the things you’re saying.

Yes. That problem is there. It’s very difficult to totally come out of the WTO. You can’t be within the WTO, you can’t come out of it. That dilemma is there.

Q. So the CPN(Maoist) doesn’t have a formal position on this issue?

We haven’t made a formal position on this so far.

Q. Following up on the role of the trade unions, theoretically in communism and socialism the working class are the rulers. So how do the trade unions insert themselves into the party policy and your state policy?

So far, our trade unions are highly politicized. Our workers have very good political consciousness. When they put demands, for the most part they know they are fighting for political and state power. We have tried to inculcate in the working class that unless and until you have state power in your hands, whatever economic gains you get, you won’t be able to defend. It is the first thing we try to inculcate in the working class. So the trade unions are highly politically conscious. But apart from that we have to make a balance also, because if we don’t make economic demands then a large section of the working class wouldn’t attain a very high level of political consciousness — they won’t be organized. So that balance we have to make, between political and economic demands. We are trying to create a balance. And within the factories we try to create — though we haven’t called the system a soviet formally — but in general since most of the workers, the majority of the workers are organized in our trade unions, they’ve been able to assert their position within the factories, so the management is forced to take the working class into confidence while making big policy decisions. So that has been achieved. Not formally in the sense of a soviet — we haven’t been able to organize as a political power in the factories. But because of their strong presence, they have been quite successful in exerting pressure and influencing the decision making within the factories.

Q. Most of Nepal’s workers are not within the industrial or formal sector. Most of them are in the, you could say, peasantry. So what’s the position of the party on the peasantry and its role in the party and in the state?

Mostly ours is a peasant-based economy, because two thirds of the workforce is engaged in agriculture. So in that sense our most important sector is the agronomic sector. And most of them are poor peasants. You see the pattern of landholding. It’s called owner peasant. Those who own less than 0.5 hectares of land, around 70% of the peasants own less than 1 hectare, and around 50% own less than 0.5 hectare. So there’s a very small land ownership. The totally landless peasants are about 10-15% of the total. We are trying to organize the peasants into peasant associations, and within the peasant associations we try to organize the poor peasants and landless peasants separately. Also, there have been some movements, the seizing of land from the feudal landlords and the redistribution among the peasants. That has happened.

Q. At the same time , now there are pressures and promises about returning property seized during the armed struggle, and your party has also made some [post-election] statements about carrying through with land reform.

Yes, this is one of the sticking points in the peace process, because the landlord’s lands were seized by the peasants during the People’s War. In the peace accord, there was quite an ambiguous provision. The land which was seized unjustifiably, that will be returned. This is the word — ‘unjustifiable’, ‘unjustifiably’. It is very ambiguous. That is why it has not been resolved. This has been the sticking point. Our peasants are not returning the land because they think it is rightful seizure, because the landlord had in fact always seized it from the peasants, you see. So they have seized it back. This is the argument of the peasants. And on the landlord side, they would say it is the right to private property, so that is the encouragement of the democratic [bourgeois] sides. So that type of struggle is going on. But in the interim constitution we put a provision for making scientific land reform. Though we wanted to put the word ‘radical’ or ‘revolutionary’, we had to compromise on the term ’scientific’ land reform. So there is again an ambiguity there — what do we mean by ’scientific land reform’? Our interpretation is revolutionary land reform based on the principle of land to the tiller. Those who are actually tilling the land should own the land. This has been our interpretation. The other side is trying to interpret it differently. So there is also contention going on over this issue.

Q. In Volume 3 of Capital, Marx made the point that if you just have straight redistribution into small plots it actually becomes a process of even more land consolidation because the small plots are facing a very concentrated capital, and it’s very hard for them to survive.

That’s why we’re trying to promote cooperatives. You see, one of our slogans has been that the small peasants should organize in cooperatives and the state should provide certain specific facilities and rights to the cooperatives. If they’re working and organized in cooperatives, then they can compete, or they can at least defend themselves from the encroachment of capital, and big capital.

Q. That’s an example of something that could be included in the interim constitution in some form, that could have significant progressive consequences. But as the numbers have turned out, even if all the left forces unite, there is not quite the required two-thirds majority to pass a constitutional provision, there’s about sixty percent only. So there’ s a real dilemma about how the assembly can proceed in a way that will produce, even if it’s a compromise, a constitution that’s genuinely progressive.

You are very right. In fact the path won’t be easy, it will be a big struggle that we’ll have to face for making the new constitution. That we know. But one good thing is, since we have got 37% of the seats in the constituent assembly, which is more than one-third, we have the veto power you see. They don’t have two thirds without us. At least we can resist a very reactionary constitution. If they won’t allow us to form a very progressive constitution, still we can prevent them from creating a very reactionary constitution. So that will be a big stalemate. It will be difficult for us to win, but we won’t lose, you see. We can’t lose. But they won’t want to let us win either. That’s the thing.

Q. Because you have veto power, maybe they’ll also be forced to give in a bit too. Though they can also play the dynamic that’s been played with this past government, where stalemates and therefore continuing lack of change may then get blamed on you — I’m not saying fairly so — because you’re the force that’s preventing a decision from being made. And those kinds of politics were played quite effectively by the king, for example, over a few years, even with these Congress governments and so on.

That’s the thing you see, with this triangular contention in Nepal, between feudalism and monarchy, the parliamentary bourgeois forces, and the proletarian left forces. First we want to do away with feudalism and monarchy. Then the contention between the bourgeois forces and the proletarian left forces will be sharpened in the days to come. In fact we have prepared ourselves for that. In case they don’t allow us to assume the leadership and implement progressive measures, then we’ll resist. Our main weapon will be to mobilize the masses. As I said earlier, one section of the party will constantly engage in mobilizing the masses. This has been our strategy. In the central committee meeting we have decided that. We’ll follow a two-pronged approach. We’ll try to intervene maximally from within the state. We’ll try to lead the state. We’ll try to implement progressive programmes. But we know there’ll be a lot of resistance. To counter that, we have to mobilize and organize the masses. We have already given instructions to the party, to the lower levels, that they should organize themselves and instruct the masses. At any time they may have to come to the street and resist.

Q. How are you thinking now about the role for YCL (Young Communist League), both in that kind of mobilizing you’re talking about and the kind of immediate relief you were talking about earlier in the interview, the need for really immediate relief. Do you see a role for YCL there as well?

The YCL will play a very important role. The reactionaries are very frightened of the YCL. They are right in that sense, because, though it is not true that they are using any force illegally or otherwise, it is a very dedicated political force. During the election and earlier they played a very important role in organizing the masses and resisting the intimidating tactics of the reactionary classes. All these years, the reactionary classes have been intimidating the poor masses of the people, not letting them vote, you see. It has happened earlier, but this time the YCL resisted that. And then the reactionaries made a big hue and cry: “The YCL intimidated!” The YCL didn’t intimidate, but, in fact, the YCL prevented the intimidation practiced by the reactionary classes all these years, throughout history. This is known to all. So in the days to come one of the functions of the YCL will to be to resist any reactionary onslaught of the feudal, and monarchist, and the reactionary classes and to defend the masses of the people. The second part will be to mobilize and engage themselves in production activities and providing relief to the masses of the people.

Q. When they are involved in production activities they could also be involved in teaching circles and teaching about the constitutional assembly.

Yes, yes, that is the way of thinking: we will train our YCL cadres to organize the masses, to engage in education and health service, and in construction and production activities.

Q. Is it the Congress or CPN(UML), one of the two, is setting as a condition for being part of a coalition government that the YCL be dissolved.

That shows their reactionary character, you see. Because all these years they have practiced rigging and [. . .]. The YCL prevented that, they know it, so that’s why they are asking for that. So there is no chance of considering such a stupid and reactionary line. The YCL will defend the masses of the people. If they don’t want to, then let them not join. We say, if you want to join the government, then join. We will lead the government as part of a coalition. If they are not ready for that, being the single largest party we will form the government. If they don’t allow that, then we’ll go to the masses of the people and bring out another movement. Those are the three choices we have. But we won’t compromise on basic issues. No. Because people want change, they have given us a mandate for change. If the reactionary forces don’t allow us to put this mandate into practice, then we will go to the masses of the people, rather than succumbing to the pressure of the reactionaries.

Q: And this mandate for change has been taking the form of the slogan of a “New Nepal”. What exactly is meant by that and how is it expected to come about?

Yes, “New Nepal” has been a very effective slogan given by our party during the election. “New thought and new leadership for a new Nepal,” that was our basic slogan. And I think that people took it very well, and that is why they voted for us. So by New Nepal, what we mean is, first, politically, we want to dismantle all the feudal political, economic, social and cultural relations. That will be one aspect of New Nepal. The other aspect of New Nepal will be making drastic socioeconomic transformation in a progressive way. The one is destruction of the old, the other will be construction of the new. There will be two aspects. And our basic focus will be on economic activities: the transforming of the agriculture sector, and then developing productive forces, industrial relations, so that the workers and the youth will be provided employment. And that will create a basis for going toward socialism. Our economic slogan that we gave was: “New transitional economic policy.” That means industrial capitalism — development of industrial capitalism — oriented towards socialism. This has been our work for the interim period.

Q: Going back to the topic of agriculture for a moment — in your dissertation, the indicators you used for measuring development seem to be kind of mainstream indicators of fertilizer, application of machines and land-holding concentration. Do you think that this is actually something that fits in Nepal?

No, I understand. I was forced to do this because of lack of statistical data, you see. I couldn’t manufacture my own data, I had to rely on the given data and the given framework in which it was available. Because of that constraint, I had to use those indicators. That’s why I was only able to give an approximation, not real averages, but just approximations. That I mentioned in my dissertation.

Q. So now in thinking about transforming agriculture, which is one base of the economy, what kinds of things would you be concentrating on now? Say you can take power in the government and set agricultural policy, what are your top three moves?

Well firstly, in the agricultural sector, we are going to change the production relations, and land-holding patterns we want to change. Especially in the plain areas; landlordism is there. The absentee landlords who own land, thousands of hectares of land they would own: they live in cities, they don’t invest, they don’t manage the production, so that way they exploit the poor peasants who till the land. The peasants are exploited and the productivity is also very low. So we want to abolish that type of absentee landlordism and enforce the principle of land to the tiller. That land which is tilled will be redistributed. So we will put a ceiling, say of some four or five hectares and above that land will be confiscated and redistributed to the peasants. So this is one aspect of land reform. The other will be that we are going to organize the poor peasants, because many of them will be very small landholders. I’ve already told you, less that 0.5 hectares. And they engage very much in subsistence farming. So with that individual cultivation and farming, they can never improve their economic lot. We want to organize these poor peasants into cooperatives. That is the second aspect. And thirdly, we want to modernize agriculture — mechanization, modern irrigation, and so on.

Q. And on the question of agriculture that is focused on food security within the country versus export economy agriculture, what’s your view?

Our emphasis will be different from the economic policy determined by the World Bank and FAO, which has been export oriented, and peasants are not encouraged to produce food crops, they have been encouraged to produce cash crops for export. The dependency has been increased, the food security has decreased, so you see the food crisis increasing. This is one of the consequences of the World Bank policy — wrong policy. So we wouldn’t like to just blindly follow that policy. Firstly, the peasants’ food security will be given high priority. They should produce food and cater to the needs of the internal market. And then secondly only, they can produce for export. So that will be our priority.

Q. We know that you have to go. Is there anything you want to say to the Left in North America?

You see the crisis is international in scale: there is a direct fight between the proletarian ideology and imperialist ideology. This is in the whole of this so-called globalization. Globalization has given this sharp class contradiction, of two classes. So North America being the center of imperialism, the working class and Left forces there, I think they should organize themselves and the stronger the movement against imperialism there, that will be helpful for the Left and proletarian movement in the Third World countries, because the Third World countries are the most oppressed by imperialism. If there is a strong working class movement and Left movement in the imperialist countries, that will directly help the revolutionary movement in the Third World countries. That way we appeal to our friends in North America. They should sharpen their struggle against imperialism. That will help our movement in our countries.

Q. The workers there see themselves as being forced into competition with workers in Third World countries because all their jobs, that is, capital, is moving to the Third World and leaving them unemployed.

That is because of the nature of imperialism, you see. It is not the fault of the Third World countries. They want to exploit the Third World countries more.

Q. Exactly. They want to use these countries to weaken the workers in the. . . .

They want to use the workers of the poor countries against the workers of the rich countries. Instead of that, I think that we should have international working class solidarity, and we have to coordinate the policy against imperialism. When you don’t have this political sharpness and political consciousness, the working class in the imperialist countries will think workers of the dependent countries or Third World countries are their enemy, you see. Workers are not their enemy; imperialism is their enemy. So I think this consciousness should be developed among the workers of the imperialist countries.
Stephen Mikesell and Mary Des Chene are anthropologists who study Nepal’s economy and politics. This interview was originally conducted in Nepal for WORT-FM community radio, Madison, Wisconsin. Portions of it were broadcast on 4 May 2008. It appears also in the 10-16 issue of the Economic and Political Weekly.

पिता की रिहाई के लिए एक बेटी की अपील

अगर आप तारे जमीन पर देखते हुए दर्शील सफारी के अभिनय पर अपने को रोने से नहीं रोक पाये थे, तो उस अभिनय में और फिल्म के हर फ्रेम में जिस टीम की कला और कौशल दिखता है, उसमें से एक हैं शिखा राही. वे तारे जमीन पर की असिस्टेंट डायरेक्टर हैं. लेकिन जिस दिन तारे जमीन पर पूरे देश में रिलीज हो रही थी, उस दिन इस फिल्म की असिस्टेंट डायरेक्टर के पिता-प्रशांत राही-अपनी बेहोशी में तीन दिनों की अवैध हिरासत और उन यातनाओं को, जो उन्हें इस दौरान दी गयीं को बरदाश्त करने की कोशिश कर रहे थे. जैसा कि इस विवरण में हम देखेंगे, उन्हें इसके दो दिनों के बाद (मतलब पांच दिनों की अवैध हिरासत के बाद) ही मजिस्ट्रेट के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया गया. वे अब भी झूठे आरोपों में जेल में बंद हैं. एक पत्रकार. एक सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता. उनकी रिहाई की अपील के साथ, उनकी बेटी शिखा राही की यह टिप्पणी, जो कॉबैट लॉ में प्रकाशित हुई है. अनुवाद : रेयाज-उल-हक

एक बेटी की अपील

शिखा राही

उत्तराखंड में प्रधानमंत्री की अध्यक्षता में मुख्यमंत्री के आंतरिक सुरक्षा को लेकर 20 दिसंबर, 2007 को हुए अधिवेशन तक राज्य में किसी भी तरह की नक्सली गतिविधि की एक भी खबर के बारे में मुझे याद नहीं. मुख्यमंत्री को संबोधित करते हुए प्रधानमंत्री ने कहा-मैं पहले कह चुका हूं कि वाम चरमपंथ संभवतः भारतीय राज्य के लिए अकेली सबसे बडी चुनौती है. यह निरंतर बढ रहा है और हम चैन से तब तक नहीं रह सकते जब तक कि इस विषाणु का उन्मूलन न कर दें.’ राज्य को आंतरिक सुरक्षा बेहतर करने के लिए मदद देने का आश्वासन देते हुए उन्होंने कहा-अपने सभी माध्यमों के जरिये हमें नक्सली शक्तियों की पकड को छिन्न-भिन्न कर देने की जरूरत है.’

इस अधिवेशन से मुझे यह जानकारी मिली कि उत्तराखंड भी अब उन राज्यों में से एक है, जो लाल आतंक का सामना कर रहे हैं, जैसा कि राज्य के मुख्यमंत्री बीसी खंडूरी ने उन सशस्त्र व्यक्तियों के बारे में कहा-जिन पर माओवादी होने का संदेह था-जो उत्तराखंड के कुमाऊं क्षेत्र में देखे गये थे. खंडूरी के अनुसार, चूंकि उत्तराखंड नेपाल सीमा पर पडता है, यह सीमा पार कर आ रहे माओवादियों की ओर से बडे खतरे का सामना कर रहा है. आंतरिक सुरक्षा को मजबूत करने के क्रम में और ‘माओवादी शैतानों’ की धमकियों से बचाव के लिए खंडूरी ने केंद्र से 208 करोड रुपयों की मांग की.

दिलचस्प है कि 21 दिसंबर, 2007 को अमर उजाला अखबार में छपी एक खबर ने खंडूरी की इस सूचना की पुष्टि की. इसने सूचना दी कि एक दर्जन सशस्त्र व्यक्ति-जिन पर माओवादी होने का संदेह है-उत्तराखंड के कुमाऊं क्षेत्र के हंसपुर खट्टा, सेनापानी और चोरगलिया में देखे गये हैं. इस खबर के बाद खबर सीपीआइ (माओवादी) के तथाकथित जोनल कमांडर प्रशांत राही की हंसपुर खट्टा के जंगल में गिरफ्तारी की खबरें आयीं, जो नैनीताल जिले के स्थानीय अखबारों में छपीं, और जिन्होंने आंतरिक सुरक्षा के लिए फंड की जरूरत को न्यायोचित ठहराया. अखबार की खबर के अनुसार, 22 दिसंबर, 2007 को राही पांच दूसरे लोगों के साथ एक नदी के किनारे बैठे हुए थे, जब उन्हें गिरफ्तार किया गया. जबकि दूसरे लोग भागने में सफल रहे. कोई राज्य और इसकी पुलिस को इस तरह की उच्च स्तरीय योजना और समन्वय-जो उन्होंने हासिल किया-के लिए श्रेय जरूर दे सकता है. जिस गति से ये सारी घटनाएं एक के बाद एक सामने आयीं, उस पर विश्वास करना कठिन है. पहली बार जब उत्तराखंड में संदिग्ध माओवादी देखे गये और उस दिन में जब उनका जोनल कमांडर गिरफ्तार किया गया, मुश्किल से सिर्फ दो दिनों का फर्क है. इससे भी अधिक, जिस क्रम में ये घटनाएं आंतरिक सुरक्षा पर अधिवेशन के तत्काल बाद सामने आयीं, वह सुनियोजित दिखती है.

जबकि, असली कहानी, जो प्रशांत राही, मेरे पिता ने मेरे सामने रखी, जब मैं उनसे 25 दिसंबर, 2007 को ऊधम सिंह नगर जिले के नानकमत्ता पुलिस स्टेशन में मिली, वह उससे बिल्कुल अलग थी, जो प्रेस में आयी थी. जब मैं उनसे मिली, मैंने रोने का फैसला नहीं किया, इसलिए मैं उनसे लिपट गयी और कहा-’हरेक चीज ठीक है. चिंता मत करो.’ हालांकि मैं उनकी आंखों में थकान देख सकती थी, मेरे पिता ने मुझे एक चौडी मुस्कान दी. जब मैं बातें करने के लिए उनके साथ बैठी, उन्होंने अपनी गिरफ्तारी का एकदम अलग ब्योरा दिया- देहरादून में 17दिसंबर, 2007 की नौ बजे सुबह मैं अपने एक दोस्त के घर पैदल जा रहा था, जब मुझ पर अचानक चार या पांच लोगों ने (जो वरदी में नहीं थे) हमला कर दिया. उन्होंने मुझे एक कार में धकेला, आंखों पर पट्टी बांध दी और पूरे रास्ते मुझे पीटते रहे. लगभग डेढ घंटे लंबी यात्रा के बाद एक जंगली इलाके में वे मुझे कार से बाहर खींच लाये, जहां उन्होंने मुझे फिर से पीटना शुरू किया. उन्होंने मुझे हर जगह चोट पहुंचायी’-मेरे पिता ने कहा.

मैं धैर्यपूर्वक उन्हें सुन रही थी, बिना उस नृशंसता से खुद को प्रभावित किये, जिससे वे गुजरे थे. मेरे पिता ने कहना जारी रखा-’18 दिसंबर, 2007 की शाम वे लोग मुझे हरिद्वार लाये, जहां प्रोविंसियल आर्म्ड कॉन्स्टेबुलरी (पैक) का अधिवेशन हो रहा था. यहां, उन्होंने मुझे टॉर्चर करना जारी रखा. उन्होंने निर्दयतापूर्वक मेरे शरीर के प्रत्येक हिस्से पर, गुप्तांगों सहित, मारा. अधिकारियों ने भी मुझे मेरे गुदा मार्ग में केरोसिन डालने और बर्फ की सिल्ली से बांध देने की धमकी दी.’ इससे बदतर क्या हो सकता है कि पुलिस ने मुझे मुंबई से बुलाने और (जहां मैं रह रही थी और काम कर रही थी) अपनी मौजदूगी में मेरे पिता को मुझसे बलात्कार करने पर मजबूर करने की धमकी दी.

20 दिसंबर, 2007 अधिकारी मेरे पिता को ऊधमसिंह नगर के नानकमत्ता पुलिस थाना लाये. उन्हें शुरू के तीन दिनों तक लगातार पिटाई और और पूछताछ के कारण दर्द और निश्चेतना थी. हालांकि पूछताछ जारी रही, पुलिस ने उन्हें फिर से थोडा ठीक होने का इंतजार किया और तब दो दिनों के बाद 22 दिसंबर, 2007 को उन्होंने उनकी गिरफ्तारी दर्ज की, जो कि पूरी तरह निराधार और मनगढंत है. मेरे पिता के अनुसार, अधिकारियों ने, जिन्होंने उन्हें टॉर्चर किया, अपनी पहचान उन्हें नहीं बतायी और न ही वे पांच दिनों की उस अवैध हिरासत के बाद फिर कभी दिखे.

प्रशांत राही गिरफ्तारी के 24 घंटों के भीतर मजिस्ट्रेट के सामने प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये, संवैधानिक प्रावधानों के उल्लंघन. वे मजिस्ट्रेट के सामने 23 दिसंबर को ही प्रस्तुत किये गये. उन्हें वकील, संबंधी या किसी दोस्त से गिरफ्तारी के बाद संपर्क करने की अनुमति नहीं दी गयी. पांच दिनों तक मानसिक और शारीरिक तौर पर यातना देने के बाद वे भारतीय दंड संहिता की धाराओं 120बी, 121, 121 ए, 124 ए और 153 बी तथा गैरकानूनी गतिविधि (निषेध) अधिनियम की धाराओं 10 और 20 के तहत झूठे तौर पर फंसाये गये.

महाराष्ट्र मूल के मेरे पिता ने बनारस हिंदू विवि से एम टेक किया, लेकिन उन्होंने एक पत्रकार बनना चुना. पहले द स्टेट्समेन (दिल्ली) के संवाददाता रह चुके मेरे पिता अब उत्तराखंड में पिछले कई वर्षों से एक पत्रकार और सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता के रूप में काम कर रहे थे. पुलिस ने प्रशांत राही के मामले में जिन मौलिक अधिकारों और संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का ऐसे खुलेआम उल्लंघन किया है, उनकी भारत के सभी नागरिकों को गारंटी की गयी है, इसमें अंतर किये बगैर कि वे कैसी राजनीतिक या विचारधारात्मक दृष्टि रखते हैं और उन पर किस तरह के अपराध करने का आरोप लगाया गया है. पुलिस द्वारा अधिकारों का इस तरह का भारी उल्लंघन माफ नहीं किया जा सकता. यदि एसी घटना प्रशांत राही के साथ घट सकती है, जो उच्च शिक्षित हैं और यथोचित तौर पर संपर्क में रहनेवाले व्यक्ति हैं, तब पुलिस के हाथों में पडे थोडे कमनसीब व्यक्ति की नियति के बारे में सोचते हुए सोचते हुए रोंगटे खडे हो जाते हैं.