parisar …………………………………………….परिसर

a forum of progressive students……………………………………………………………..प्रगतिशील छात्रों का मंच

CPI(Maoist) on Nepal Agreement


Communist Party of India (Maoist)
Central Committee

Press Release:

A New Nepal can emerge only by smashing the
reactionary state!
Depositing arms of the PLA under UN supervision would lead to
the disarming of the masses!!

On 5th November the CPN(Maoist) had entered into an agreement with the government of Nepal which stipulated that the PLA would deposit its arms in seven designated cantonments while the government’s armed forces too would deposit an equal number of arms. These would be placed under the supervision of a UN monitoring team while the
keys of the lockers of PLA arms would be with the Maoist party. It was also agreed by both sides to dissolve the present Parliament and form a new interim Parliament with a share of the seats for the Maoists, to form an interim government with some portfolios for the Maoists, and to elect a Constituent Assembly by next summer which is supposed to decide the fate of the monarchy and the future of Nepal.The agreement received the final official stamp when prime minister Koirala and chairman of CPN(M) comrade Prachanda signed the agreement and declared it publicly. The CC, CPI(Maoist) has been perturbed by
this agreement concluded by the fraternal Maoist party in Nepal with the government of the seven party alliance led by the Indian protégé Koirala.The agreement to deposit the arms of the people’s army in designated cantonments is fraught with dangerous implications. This act could lead to the disarming of the oppressed masses of Nepal and
to a reversal of the gains made by the people of Nepal in the decade-long people’s war at the cost of immense sacrifices. The clause in the agreement to deposit an equal number of arms by both sides will obviously work in favour of the Koirala-led government as the latter will have the option to use the huge stock of arms still at the disposal of the army anytime and to further strengthen the reactionary army of the government. The decision taken by CPN(Maoist) ………….
. on arms management, even if it thinks it is a tactical step to achieve its immediate goal of setting up a constituent assembly, is harmful to the interests of the revolution.

Entire experiences of the world revolution had demonstrated
time and again that without the people’s army it is impossible for
the people to exercise their power. Nothing is more dreadful to
imperialism and the reactionaries than armed masses and hence they
would gladly enter into any agreement to disarm them. In fact,
disarming the masses has been the constant refrain of all the
reactionary ruling classes ever since the emergence of class-divided
society. Unarmed masses are easy prey for the reactionary classes and
imperialists who even enact massacres as proved by history. The CC,
CPI(Maoist), as one of the detachments of world proletariat, warns
the CPN(Maoist) and the people of Nepal of the grave danger inherent
in the agreement to deposit the arms and calls upon them to
reconsider their tactics in the light of bitter historical
experiences.

The agreement by the Maoists to become part of the interim
government in Nepal cannot transform the reactionary character of the
state machinery that serves the exploiting ruling classes and
imperialists. The state can be the instrument in the hands of either
the exploiting classes or the proletariat but it cannot serve the
interests of both these bitterly contending classes. It is the
fundamental tenet of Marxism that no basic change in the social
system can be brought about without smashing the state machine.
Reforms from above cannot bring any qualitative change in the
exploitative social system however democratic the new Constitution
might seem to be, and even if the Maoists become an important
component of the government. It is sheer illusion to think that a new
Nepal can be built without smashing the existing state.

Another illusion that the agreement creates is regarding the
so-called impartial or neutral role of the UN. The UN is in reality
an instrument in the hands of the imperialists, particularly US
imperialists, to dominate, bully and interfere in the affairs of the
Third World countries for the benefit of the imperialists. It is used
as a guise to provide legitimacy to the brazen acts of the
imperialists to oppress and suppress the people of the Third World.
Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent instances of UN’s direct
role in legitimizing imperialist aggression and occupation of these
countries. It is the duty of the revolutionaries to expose, oppose
and fight this imperialist role of the UN. Giving it any role in arms
management, election supervision, and peace process in Nepal, would
only mean inviting imperialist interference, in particular that of US
imperialism.

Another disturbing factor is the illusion harboured by the
Maoists in Nepal regarding the role of the Indian expansionists.
Indian ruling classes are the biggest threat to the people of the
entire sub-continent and it is the duty of the people of the various
countries of South Asia to unitedly fight Indian expansionism. The
Indian state, with the backing of US imperialism, has been
continuously interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal; it had
backed the monarchy while encouraging its stooges among the
parliamentary forces in the name of two-pillar theory; trained and
extended all forms of aid to the Royal Nepal Army in their military
offensive against the Maoists; has secret deals with the Nepali
Congress led by Koirala and with other reactionary parties; and is
bent upon disarming the PLA and the masses of Nepal and isolating the
Maoists. Its aim is to grab the natural wealth of Nepal particularly
its huge hydel potential and to make it a safe haven for the
imperialists and Indian comprador capitalists. Comrade Prachanda’s
repeated praise for India’s role in bringing about the agreement
between the Maoists and the SPA in Nepal creates illusions among the
masses about India rather than preparing them for fighting the Indian
expansionists who are keen on Skirmishing Nepal in future.

Even more surprising is the assertion by the CPN(Maoist) that
their current “tactics” in Nepal would be an example to other Maoist
parties in South Asia. Comrade Prachanda had also given a call to
other Maoist parties to reconsider their revolutionary strategies and
to practice multiparty democracy in the name of 21st century
democracy. Our CC makes it crystal-clear to CPN(M) and the people at
large that there can be no genuine democracy in any country without
the capture of state power by the proletariat and that the so-called
multiparty democracy cannot bring any basic change in the lives of
the people. It calls upon the Maoist parties and people of South Asia
to persist in the path of protracted people’s war as shown by comrade
Mao. We also appeal to the CPN(Maoist) once again to rethink about
their current tactics which are actually changing the very strategic
direction of the revolution in Nepal and to withdraw from their
agreement with the government of Nepal on depositing arms of PLA as
this would make the people defenseless in face of attacks by the
reactionaries.

Azad,

Spokesperson,

Central Committee,

Communist Party Of India (Maoist)

December 15, 2006 - Posted by | marxism-leninism-maoism, news, statements

6 Comments »

  1. There’s much debate and discussion on what the current agreements in Nepal mean on the RedFlags blog in New York.

    http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2006/12/concern_among_m.html

    It is a “free” discussion, and with many of us still not understanding how this will play out, a lot of information sharing of what is publically available.

    All revolutionary-minded people are welcome to share their thinking.

    Comment by the burningman | December 15, 2006

  2. Here it is for the french translation of the document :

    http://etoilerouge.chez-alice.fr/docrevinter4/inde26.html

    Comment by frenchman | December 17, 2006

  3. Assessing Recent Developments in Nepal:

    A Bibliography on the State, a Peaceful Transition to Solution, Democracy and Dictatorship, Negotiations and Their Relevance to the International Communist Movement in the 21st Century

    by the Maoist Study Group in the US

    A. V.I. Lenin

    All articles are on http://www.marx2mao. com

    (1) The State and Revolution, August 1917 (1st ed.) Foundational work

    (2) The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power, September 1917

    (3) Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power, October 1917

    (4) The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, November 1918

    See “Bourgeois and Proletarian Democracy”

    (5) First Congress of the Communist International, March 1919

    See “Theses and Report on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”

    (6) The State, July 1919

    (7) The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Dec 1919

    (8) On the History of the Question of the Unfortunate Peace, January 1918

    On the negotiations at Brest-Litovsk. At this time the German army was

    approaching Petrograd , and the recently constituted Red Army was disintegrating.

    Lenin argued that an annexionist peace had to be accepted to save proletarian rule.

    (9) Extraordinary 4th All-Russia Congress of Soviets, March 1918

    On the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

    B. J.V. Stalin

    Articles are on http://www.marx2mao. com

    (1) Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism, 1924. See pp. 118-121 on democracy and

    Marx’s view of the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in certain countries.

    (2) Concerning Questions of Leninism, 1926. See pp. 25-26 on peaceful transition,

    pp. 31-33 on features of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and pp. 64-79 on socialism in one country.

    C. Mao Zedong

    All articles but #12 are on http://www.marx2mao. com

    (1) On New Democracy, 1940, Vol. 2, Selected Works. Foundational work

    (2) On Coalition Government (Report to the CPC ‘s 7th National Congress), April 1945

    This is an important work to study, since the CPN (M) is basing its strategy on certain statements within this work. First, Mao demanded recognition of the government in the liberated areas and advanced the concept of a new democratic state under the leadership of the proletariat after the abolition of the Guomindang (GMD) one-party dictatorship (pp. 228-232); he also stated that the new democratic coalition government would include the GMD and that it would convene a national assembly after free elections in both liberated and enemy-held areas (pp. 240-242). Second, Mao writes that without a people’s army the people have nothing (pp. 231, 245-247); he also stated that once the new democratic coalition government came into existence, the CPC would “hand their armed forces over to it.” (p. 246). See our comments below on Mao’s negotiating strategy in 1945-1946.

    (3) On the Danger of the Hurley Policy, July 1945 On the machinations of US

    imperialism towards the end of WW2

    (4) The Situation and our Policy after the Victory in the War of Resistance against Japan ,

    August 1945. Mao stated that though the atom bomb was powerful, it was not the decisive factor in Japan ‘s surrender.

    (5) On Peace Negotiations with the Kuomintang, August 1945

    (6) On the Chungking Negotiations, October 1945.

    In the course of more than a month of negotiations with Chiang Kai-shek, during which fighting continued, Mao offered to “nationalize” the army in stages, reduce the size of the Red armies, and give up some of the liberated areas in central China in order to form an elected democratic coalition government that would replace Chiang’s one-party dictatorship. Chiang would be required to withdraw his forces surrounding the liberated areas, reduce the size of the GMD armies, release all political prisoners and give legal status to the CPC .

    Mao believed this negotiating posture was necessary in order to expose Chiang’s preparations for civil war and to unite with the strong desire of the Chinese people for peace after a decade of fighting against Japanese aggression. An additional difficulty was that Stalin had signed a friendship treaty with Chiang and advocated a negotiated settlement between the GMD and the CPC .

    In this article Mao wrote that the GMD and CPC were “sure to fail in their negotiations, ” and that “the arms of the people, every gun and every bullet, must all be kept, must not be handed over.” These last two statements are the most important by Mao and reflect his strategic view of the situation even while he was engaging in negotiations with the enemy.

    Further investigation is needed on several questions: (a) How the CPC was actually

    preparing for an intensification of the civil war in 1945 by stepping up its mobilization of, and educational work with, the peasantry; (b) the role of Wang Ming and Stalin in pushing the CPC to form a coalition government with the GMD; and (c) the CPC ‘s goals in its contacts with U.S. envoys from 1944-1946, both before and after the war against Japan.

    (7) Some Points in Appraisal of the Present International Situation, April 1946.

    This article was written to counter a pessimistic view of the international situation by party members who overestimated the strength of imperialism and underestimated the strength of the people. With massive US aid, Chiang launched an all-out offensive against the liberated areas in the spring of 1946.

    (8) Smash Chiang Kai-shek’s Offensive by a War of Self-Defense, July 1946

    On the results of the Political Consultative Conference held in January 1946, which established a brief ceasefire.

    (9) On Some Important Problems of the Party’s Present Policy, January 1948

    See pp. 181-182 on overestimation of the enemy’s strength

    (10) Carry the Revolution Through to the End, December 1948

    (11) All Reactionaries are Paper Tigers, November 1957

    (12) People of the World, Unite and Defeat the US Aggressors and All Their Running

    Dogs, May 1970, Vol. 9 http://www.marxists. org (Click on “Select Author”)

    D. The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement

    All articles are on http://www.marx2mao. com (Click on “Other Texts and Documents”)

    (1) A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement,

    June 4, 19 63 (The Letter of the CC of the CPC in Reply to the Letter of the CC of the CPSU of March 30, 19 63). See pp. 19-24 on the peaceful transition to socialism

    (2) Apologists of Neo-Colonialism, October 22, 19 63 . This includes comments on the

    role of the United Nations, pp. 190, 196-197

    (3) The Proletarian Revolution and Khrushchev’s Revisionism, March 21, 19 64 . This

    includes “Violent Revolution is a Universal Law of Proletarian Revolution” and “Refutation of the Parliamentary Road ”

    (4) The Letter of the CC of the CPSU to the CC of the CPC , March 30, 19 63 .

    See pp. 510-511 on peaceful transition

    E. Analysis of the 1965 Massacre in Indonesia and the Line of the PKI

    (1) Self-Criticism by the Indonesian Communist Party, 1966

    On the PKI ‘s revisionist view of the “two aspects” of the Indonesian state and a peaceful road to socialism. This was written in the wake of the US-backed military coup that led to the massacre of more than one million members and supporters of the PKI in October-November 1965. (Google—Self- Criticism by the PKI –without quote marks—click on third item for the best formatted version)

    (2) The Indonesian Massacre of 1965, the PKI and Their Relevance Today, forthcoming

    paper by the Maoist Study Group in the U.S.

    F. Statements of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) 2001-2004

    All articles except #1 are on http://www.cpnm.org (Click on “English” and “The Worker”)

    (1) Interview with Comrade Prachanda, May 28, 2001 , in Issue #27 of A World to Win

    magazine. See p. 40 “Our guiding principles on the question of negotiations are the experiences and summation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty under Lenin’s leadership and the Chunking negotiations under Mao’s leadership.” , and on p. 41, in which he contrasts the CPN (M)’s negotiation posture with the capitulationism of the Right Opportunist Line in the CP of Peru.

    Not currently available on http://www.awtw.org. Reprinted in The People’s War in Nepal: Left Perspectives, ed. Karki and Seddon, 2003, pp. 260-278. Distributed by Akhil Books, New Delhi akhilbooks@yahoo. com

    (2) The Great Leap Forward: An Inevitable Need of History, document prepared by

    Prachanda and adopted by the Second National Conference of the CPN (M) in February 2001, pp. 26-63 in The Worker, Issue #7, February 2002.

    See p. 34 “Today the fusion of the strategies of armed insurrection and protracted people’s war into one another has been essential. Without doing so, a genuine revolution seems almost impossible in any country.” pp. 55-56 on the relationship between protracted people’s war and general armed insurrection, p. 58 “To seize the state power by revolutionary violence has become the main objective of people’s work set by the Party today.”, and p. 60 ” The Party will render its special effort in advancing the workers’ front, like that of the students, too, by joining it with the preparation of future general insurrection. ”

    (3) Interview with Chairman Prachanda with The Times of India , December 3, 2001 ,

    pp. 4-5 in The Worker #7. He states that: “If the government of India sends troops in aid of the tottering rule of the feudal reactionary and corrupt bureaucratic forces in Nepal we will be forced to wage a resistance struggle against it as well till the end. We hope friendly Indian people will put pressure on their government not to interfere in the internal affairs of Nepal .”

    (4) Exclusive Interview with Chairman Prachanda, in The Worker #8, January 2003.

    “In the present new situation there is a direct danger of Indian military intervention

    under the leadership of American imperialism… It is clear that at any time a direct military intervention is on the offing. The moment such intervention takes place Nepalese People’s War will be transformed into a national war. Using contradictions between foreign reactionary forces, the Party will give firm leadership to the national liberation war. From that negative situation, a positive result will come with the creation of a new wave of struggle in India and South Asia against the military intervention. Not only that, it will give new opportunity to communist revolutionaries to mobilize the masses of the world against such imperialist intervention. Certainly, in that process Nepalese masses will have to provide their utmost commitment, devotion and sacrifice. But at the end, victory will be won by the Nepalese masses and the People’s War. That victory, which will have co-operation and support of people of South Asia and the world, will play great historical role of advancing world revolution.”

    (5) Baburam Bhattarai, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Nepal , in The Worker #8.

    “We have been hammering on a round-table conference of all democratic forces, an interim government, election to a Constituent Assembly and formation of a National Army in place of the Royal Army.”

    (6) Time to Push the Wheel Forward, editorial in The Worker #8.

    This quotes Rosa Luxemberg: “The `golden mean’ cannot be maintained in any

    revolution. The law of its nature demands a quick decision; either the locomotive drives forward full steam ahead to the most extreme point of the historical ascent, or it rolls back of its own weight again to the starting point at the bottom; and those who would kept it with their weak powers halfway up the hill, it but drags down with it irredeemably into the abyss.” It goes on to say, “As long as ours is a just war and the masses are with us, we will definitely win the war; but the most important point, as Lenin and Mao used to hammer again and again, is, we must `dare to win.'”

    (7) Prachanda, Present Situation and Our Historical Task, adopted at CC meeting in

    May 2003, in The Worker #9, February 2004, pp. 51-63. (Written 2 months after US invasion of Iraq .)

    On the World Situation, p. 55 “In the present context, when along with the

    restoration of capitalism in China there is no other socialist state existing, when despite objective conditions turning favorable currently there is no advancement in any strong revolutionary movement under the leadership of the proletariat, and when world imperialism is pouncing on people everywhere like an injured tiger, is it possible for a small country with a specific geo-political compulsion like Nepal to gain victory to the point of capturing central state through revolution?…The answer to this question can only be found in Marxism-Leninism- Maoism and on this depends the future of the Nepalese revolution.” ) and p. 54 ( US imperialism is intensifying its intervention in Nepal “by assessing the possible success of Maoist movement as a spark of new world revolution against world imperialism could ignite a prairie fire…”

    On the Situation in the Party, see p. 56 “It is imperative for the Party to be clear that in the present day revolutionary movement the first and the main danger is the rightist capitulationist deviation that overestimates the strength of the enemy and underestimates the strength of the people.”

    On the Domestic Situation, p. 57 “our minimum and consensual agenda …seeks to provide a forward-looking political solution through round table conferences, interim government and constituent assembly…”

    On the Parliamentary Parties, p. 57 “It has been practically proved that the differences between the autocratic monarchical and parliamentary groups are nothing other than that of share of power within the old state….It has become all the more clear in the present day Nepal that we can never have an ideological and political relationship with either monarchical or parliamentary groups except to manage contradictions in a particular situation.”

    (8) Prachanda, On the State and Democracy, in The Worker #9, pp. 10-13. See p. 11 “Marxism…presented a very new and a historic task of shattering the state power forcefully, not of seizing the old one and consolidating it, and establishing a transitional one … to smash the resistance of the bourgeoisie. “) and p. 12 (“In today’s capitalist imperialist era, there cannot be any bigger dishonesty and hypocrisy than to speak of `adult franchise’, `independent and impartial election’, and `democracy for all’, on the part of the bourgeois class, before the standing army and bureaucracy, the main organ of state power.”

    (9) Prachanda, A Brief Introduction to the Policies of the CPN (Maoist), in The Worker

    #9, pp. 14-16. In the section titled “Political Tactics or Immediate Policy,” see “In the light of the particularity of the total international situation and the prevailing balance of power within the country, the Party has been pursuing a very flexible political tactics. A round table conference, an interim government and election to a Constituent Assembly are the minimum political tactics proposed by the Party in this context. Only a new constitution made by a Constituent Assembly can in reality institutionalize the sovereign rights of the Nepalese people.”

    (10) Bhattarai, The Question of Building a New Type of State, in The Worker #9,

    pp. 17-37. Page 23 “the CPN (M) has since its inception formulated a minimum programme of establishing a New Democratic state based on the people’s democratic dictatorship and set the goal of attaining socialism and communism through carrying out continuous revolution.” , p. 25 “One basic precondition for building a new type of state is the complete smashing of the old state. The more completely and deeply the old state is smashed, the better would be the probability of building a more stable and complete new state. This is the objective law verified by historical experience and facts,”

    Page 26 “Standing army, bureaucracy, judiciary, etc. are the principal and decisive organs of the state, which have to be mandatorily smashed to build the new state. Along with this the ideological and cultural organs of the old state need to be systematically dismantled to lay the ideological and cultural foundation of the new state. In this context all genuine proletarian revolutionaries should firmly grasp that to reject all revisionist and reformist illusions of `peaceful transition’ from the old state to the new one is not just a question of tactical expediency, but a question of strategic and theoretical importance.” , and p. 34 (“we should strive to maintain diplomatic relations with the two big neighbours on the basis of non-alignment and mutual benefits, and to march forward to establish South Asian Soviet Federation after completing revolution in whole of South Asia as envisioned by our Party’s Second National Conference held in 2001.”

    (11) Internal Debate within the CPN(M), 2005 issue of Monthly Review, contains links to major papers from Prachanda and Bhattarai. One of the issues in this 2004-2005 debate was the question of centralization of leadership in one person. http://monthlyrevie w.org/0705cpndeb ate.htm

    G. Statements of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) from 2005-2006

    Articles #1-7 can be found in The Worker #10, May 2006 at http://www.cpnm.org

    This issue of The Worker is largely devoted to explaining the resolutions adopted by

    the CPN (M) at its CC Plenum in September-October 2005.

    (1) Resolution of Central Committee, October 2005, in The Worker, #10, pp. 5-18. See

    p. 5 on Imperialism as “a single globalized state” and the “fascist form of US imperialism. “; p. 8 “the then slogan of republic was neither a slogan of new democratic republic nor that of bourgeois parliamentarian one. In fact and in essence, that slogan was the one of multiparty republic that by means of constituent assembly could bring about an extensive change in the state structure…”; p. 9 “After the collapse of monarchy dominant in the old state, this slogan can play a role of forward-looking political way out for the peaceful resolution of civil war.”; but see p. 10 “In the history, no republic has been established ever without dissolving and defeating the army subservient to monarchy and Nepal cannot be an exception to it….the backbone of royal army [must be] broken by raising people’s war to a new height….”. See

    p. 15-18 on several military defeats and “negative incidents and tendencies” in the party, which are part of the “internal situation” cited by the CPN (M) as one of the rationales for its current strategy.

    (2) Prachanda, Hoist the Revolutionary Flag on Mount Everest in the 21st Century, The

    Worker #10, pp. 19-40. Page 23 “The revolutionary Maoist movement, in the name of defending the basic principles of MLM against right revisionism, happened to fall prey to sectarian dogmato-revisionism that repeats old things only and overlooks the analysis of the development of an object.”; p. 24 on a “People’s New World Federation”;

    On Relations with India, p. 25 “The question of our relation with the Indian State is a question of indispensable diplomatic relation that enriches mutual relation between the people of two countries based on Panchsheel….Our relation with the revolutionaries in South Asia, established through CCOMPOSA, is mainly ideological relation and it should be taken and handled in the context of the freedom to follow any ideology and belief… the question of maintaining this balance is very sensitive, given Indian monopoly capitalist expansionist character has been the main barricade for the revolutionary movement in Nepal and South Asia.”

    On Military Strategy, p. 34 “The Party’s policy of symbolically `hitting the enemy on the head by riding on the back’ is also part of the new military strategy of the 21st century…This question [of military strategy] also represents the acts of revitalizing the spirit of doing concrete analysis of concrete conditions by fighting against the traditional, orthodox and stereotypical tendencies developing within the communist movement.”; p. 40 “The people’s liberation army will have no problem in getting organized in the new national army in compliance with the mandate that the constituent assembly election provides.”; p. 54 “Synthesizing the scientific teachings of Marxism-Leninism- Maoism on the universal character of revolutionary violence, armed struggle, protracted people’s war and the formation of army in a class-oriented society, the discussions on them, in the Nepalese society and empirical evidence, the Party has been developing the formation of People’s Army and Nepalese military line.”

    (3) Bhattarai, Epochal Ten Years of Application and Development of Revolutionary

    Ideas, The Worker #10, pp. 51-60. Page 52 “The proclaimed revisionists… abandon the basic tenets of MLM , like class concept of the state, inevitability of use of force in revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, continuous revolution, etc., and commit the crime of converting MLM into a bourgeois trade-mark just to hoodwink the working class.”; p. 58 “the key question of revolution is the question of state power. Moreover the central task of revolution is to forcibly destroy the old state with the means of new type of Party organized as the real vanguard of the proletariat and an army and a broad revolutionary united front under its leadership, and to create a new state as the joint dictatorship of all the progressive classes under the leadership of the proletariat. ”

    On People’s War: Page 55, referring the Sept-Oct 2005 CC Plenum: “Fourthly, an assessment of the causes of setbacks met by almost all the revolutionary PWs since Mao’s death particularly after their reaching the stage of strategic equilibrium was made, and it was resolved not only to fuse the military strategies of protracted PW and general insurrection but also to attempt to develop a new military strategy in keeping with the new situation. It has also been agreed to launch a great debate within and outside the Party over all these new proposals before a final decision is made in the forthcoming Congress of the Party.”; p. 58, The 2005 CC Plenum “resolved that the very strategy of protracted PW needs to be further developed to cater to the necessities of the 21st century. In particular, several decades on it is seen that the protracted PWs launched in different countries have faced obstacles or got liquidated after reaching the state of strategic offensive, an imperialism has attempted to refine its interventionist counter-insurgency war strategy as a `long war.’ In this context, if the revolutionaries do mechanistically cling to the `protracted’ aspect of the PW at any cost, it would in essence play into the hands of imperialism and reaction. Hence the latest proposition of `Prachanda Path’ that the proletarian military also needs to be further developed is quite serious and of long-term significance. It may be noted that this proposition is firmly based on the concrete experiences of the successfully advancing PW now at the stage of strategic offensive and is aimed at further advancing and defending it.”

    (4) Ashok, Our Experiences of Ten Tumultuous Years of People’s War, The Worker

    #10, pp. 68-73.

    On Lenin and Mao, p. 71 “Since MLM is a progressive science, the people’s war calls for ideology and leadership that is capable to complete a new People’s War in the 21st century. Our Party’s CC Extended Meeting last September held that the ideologies of Lenin and Mao have become old and inadequate to lead the present international revolution. The political and organizational report passed by the meeting says, `The proletariat revolutionaries of the 21st century need to pay their serious attention towards that fact that in today’s ground reality, Lenin and Mao’s analysis of imperialism and various notions relation to proletariat strategies based on it have lagged behind.’ As Marxism was born in an age of competitive capitalism, the strategies and working policy formulated during the times of Marx had become old when they arrived at Lenin’s times of imperialism and proletariat revolution. Similarly, the ideologies developed by Lenin and Mao at the initial phase of international imperialism and proletariat revolution have become inadequate and lagged behind at the present imperialistic phase. Therefore, `the main issue is to develop MLM in the 21st century and to determine a new proletariat strategy.”

    (5) Basanta, International Dimension of Prachanda Path, The Worker #10, pp. 82-90.

    On Imperialism: Page 83, from the 2005 CC meeting written by Prachanda: ” `The main specificity of today’s imperialism has been to exploit and oppress the broad masses of people of the earth economically, politically, culturally and militarily in the form of a single globalized state.’ This is definitely a new and creative opening that PP has put forward on the analysis of imperialism in the beginning of the 21st century.” Page 84: “Our Party, under the leadership of Chairman Comrade Prachanda, believes that the analysis of imperialism made by Lenin and Mao in the 20th century cannot scientifically guide the Maoist revolutionaries to develop correct strategy and tactics to fight in the 21st century.”

    On Problems in the ICM : “The second [wrong trend] …is not to concentrate on how revolutionary struggle can be developed in one’s country by developing correct strategy and tactics, but to talk more of world revolution, enjoy classical debate, eulogize strategy and tactic of the past successful revolutions, teach other fraternal parties as if they know everything about the concrete situation in that country and stick to what Lenin and Mao had said before. This trend represents dogmatism.”

    On Models: Page 87 (“what we think is that situation has undergone a considerable

    change, so the communist revolutionaries must not stick to what Lenin had said about insurrection and what Mao had said on Protracted People’s War.”; p. 88 “Prachanda Path has put forward a new concept of fusion of two strategies—the protracted People’s War and insurrection. But this fusion does not mean a mechanical amalgamation of two kinds of strategies…but to flexibly apply the one that does well with the given condition. The essence of fusion is not to abide by specific model but to remain ideologically unrestrained to apply any suitable tactic to confront the pressing challenge in the given concrete condition. We believe that this new concept of ours is applicable everywhere in the world regardless of the politico-economic conditions of country under question.”

    (6) Prachanda, Press Communique of CC of November 30, 2005, The Worker #10, pp.

    141-143. This is a brief summary of the Sept-October 2005 CC Plenum resolutions.

    (7) Memorandum of Understanding between the Seven-Party Alliance and the CPN(M),

    November 22, 2005 (the “12-Point Agreement), The Worker #10, pp. 143-145.

    This “historic” document includes calls for the ending the monarchy, an end to the civil war, UN supervision of both armies, elections to the constituent assembly, and promises by both sides not to repeat “mistakes of the past.”

    (8) “Summit Talks Conclude,” June 16, 2006 Nepal News article. On the signing of the

    “8 Point Agreement,” Prachanda said “his party was ready to dissolve its `people’s governments formed at local level if the SPA agreed to dissolve the reinstated House of Representatives. ” http://www.nepalnews. com/archive

    (9) Exclusive interview with Prachanda, Maoist leader. Excerpts from interview with
    Siddharth Varadarajan of The Hindu, conducted in the first week of February 2006.

    http://www.hinduonnet. com/thehindu/ nic/maoist. htm

    Varadarajan: Is this decision a recognition by you of the impossibility of seizing power through armed struggle? That because of the strength of the RNA and the opposition of the international community, a new form of struggle is needed in order to overthrow the monarchy?

    Prachanda: Here again there is not only one question. There is a specificity to the political and military balance in today’s world. This has to be seen. The second thing to be seen is the experience of the 20th century. Third, there is the particular situation in the country – the class, political and power balance. It is by taking these three together that we came to our conclusion.

    Varadarajan: You mentioned the RNA and I would like your assessment: Does the king control the RNA or does the RNA control the king?

    Prachanda: This is a very interesting question. Right now, in fact, this is precisely what we are discussing within our party and outside. Until now, it seemed the balance was 50-50. Sometimes the RNA runs the king, and sometimes the king runs the RNA. But it seems as if we are now going towards a situation where the RNA is in the driving seat. It seems as if power in the hands of Gyanendra is decreasing and he is doing what the RNA dictates.

    Varadarajan: To what extent do you think the logic of your line on multiparty democracy applies also to the Maoist movements in India?

    Prachanda: We believe it applies to them too. We want to debate this. They have to understand this and go down this route. Both on the questions of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition, those who call themselves revolutionaries in India need to think about these issues. And there is a need to go in the direction of that practice. We wish to debate with them on this. If revolutionaries are not going to look at the need for ideological development, then they will not go anywhere.

    Varadarajan: The Indian police agencies say you are providing weapons and training to the Indian Maoists but here you are saying they should go in for multiparty competition.

    Prachanda: There is no question of us giving anything. They blame us for Madhubani, Jehanabad, but we have no relationship of this kind with them.

    (10) Interview by Kishor Nepal with Prachanda, undated, excerpts run in Maoist_ Revolution digest in June 2006

    Q. Had any international power pushed you or the seven parties towards each other?

    Prachanda: It’s both. If you talk negatively, Gyanendra pushed us towards each other. His negative actions pushed us towards each other. I doubt if this change would have come, hadn’t some international powers, mainly India, urged us (Maoists and parties) to “do something” jointly. Had the seven parties somebody who could think independently, the country would have been different right after the royal palace massacre. The country would not have suffered this much, had there been leaders who could think for themselves. This time, India helped the 12-point understanding in a positive way.

    Q. How can the talks move forward in such an artificial environment?

    Prachanda: This thing is very important. We will stick to the dialogue process till the end. It is our objective that a peaceful outlet is found. But the seven-party leaders are creating an artificial environment. They are doing the opposite. Not respecting the people’s feelings. We want to keep the pressure on from the ground… If the talks fail, there will definitely be an October Revolution of its own kind in Nepal. We are ready to lead that revolution.

    Q. This means you are ready to wait till October?

    Prachanda: What I mean, in clear words, is that if the seven parties do not understand by October, then the situation will move towards an October Revolu

    Q. You have envisioned a people’s republic, no?

    Prachanda: Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic cannot fulfill the needs of today’s world. It cannot address today’s political awareness appropriately. Mao said cooperative party theory; we called it competitive party theory. We have said let’s move ahead from the conventional People’s Republic and develop it as per the specialties of the 21st century.

    Q. You do not follow the old concept of communism?

    Prachanda: Definitely not. What happened without competition? In the USSR, Stalin gave no place to competition and went ahead in a monolithic way. What was the result?

    Q. You just mentioned about decommissioning the army. What will happen to your army?

    Prachanda: The same for the Liberation Army. I have also been training them now. There is no use of increasing the number of our army, either. We don’t have the status to beat the Indian or the Chinese army even with our 30 thousand and the 90 thousand-strong royal army. We don’t have the status to beat anyone. You go through history; the only thing the Nepali Army has done after the Sugauli Treaty is to kill the people. We can ensure security by forming the people into a militia. If all citizens are made to undergo a five-year military training, there will be 250 million soldiers ready. Once that army is ready, even if India or China attacks, we can save the country. But even if we make a 500 thousand-strong army and keep it in barracks, it cannot fight anyone. What’s the use of it?

    Q. You just mentioned about decommissioning the army. What will happen to your army?

    Prachanda: The same for the Liberation Army. I have also been training them now. There is no use of increasing the number of our army, either. We don’t have the status to beat the Indian or the Chinese army even with our 30 thousand and the 90 thousand-strong royal army. We don’t have the status to beat anyone. You go through history; the only thing the Nepali Army has done after the Sugauli Treaty is to kill the people. We can ensure security by forming the people into a militia. If all citizens are made to undergo a five-year military training, there will be 250 million soldiers ready. Once that army is ready, even if India or China attacks, we can save the country. But even if we make a 500 thousand-strong army and keep it in barracks, it cannot fight anyone. What’s the use of it?

    (11) Interview with Dev Gurung on Maoist economic policy, June 24, 2006

    http://66.116. 151.85/?p= 3602 (International Nepal Solidarity Network for a Democratic Peace)

    Excerpts: “The only way to economic transformation of society is through an

    industrialised economy. The industry sector was not allowed to grow in the past,” Gurung said in an interview with Aajako Abhiyan weekly,

    Further elaborating the Maoist economic policy, Gurung said his party was in favour of internal competition between national capital, major industries and cottage industries as domestic capital cannot compete with foreign capital and domestic industries cannot compete with multinationals and same goes with small industries and big national

    industries in terms of competition should there be no control. He said small industries need protection.

    “We are not saying we don’t want multinational companies or to prevent them from investing here. We have to see where they want to invest and under what conditions. If it is in the national interest only then we should allow them in,”

    Gurung explained that the revolutionary land reform would be focused on Terai where most of the cultivable land is owned by Shahs and Ranas. He said the land would go to the tillers but the landlords will be allowed to keep up to 10 bighas of land for their upkeep, as “they are also Nepali citizens.”

    (12) Has a Secret Deal Been Made in Nepal? Chairman Prachanda and the Corporate Convergence in Kathmandu, OnmyNews International, November 9, 2006. On investment opportunities in Nepal’s hydropower resources.

    http://english. ohmynews. com/articleview/ article_view. asp?no=327444&rel_no=1

    (13) Mahara: Let the Alliance Work for at Least a Decade, The Himalayan Times Online, Pokhara, November 11, 2006

    Maoist spokesperson Krishna Bahadur Mahara on Friday said the pact between the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists should continue until the end of feudalism in the country. Addressing a victory meet organised here by the CPN (Maoist), Kaski, after the historic agreement between the SPA and Maoists, Mahara said the eight-party alliance should continue for at least next 10 years.

    (14) Prachanda: Our Revolution Won, early November 2006. Prachanda talks to Alessandro Gilioli of Italian newspaper L’espresso. Below are excerpts from the interview.

    President Prachanda, let’s start with the current situation…. It seems to me that you’ve already won the war. Is that true?

    P: Our revolution has not been completely victorious as yet. Changing the social economic structure and empowering the masses, in this sense, we have done an enormous amount and at the moment we are the main political force in the country. I think that we have achieved almost 60 percent of our goals, the remaining 40 per cent will be achieved with the election of the Constituent Assembly.

    How many votes, in percentage, will the Maoist party get in the elections for the Constituent Assembly?

    P: I think the majority of the population will vote for us. More than 50 percent should be for our party. In rural areas, according to our estimates, more than 80 per cent of the masses support our party. In urban areas and in the Terai there is a mixed situation. So now we are trying our best to win over population in urban areas and on the Terai’s plains. Anyway, I think that Maoist party will be supported by more than 50 percent of

    the country. Overall the democratic, republican, radical and left forces will gain more than 75 per cent of the vote.

    Do you think that US government will accept the new government of Nepal if the communists party, Maoist included, win the elections? Aren’t you scared of a coup d’état like Chile in the Seventies?

    P: This is a very serious issue. The representatives of the US in Asia also tried to sabotage the peace process in Nepal, they have always supported the king and opposed democracy. The US Ambassador James Moriarty is still traveling to many regions telling everybody not to believe the Maoists, that the Maoists are bad… So, the CIA may conspire against our movement, we are serious and we are prepared for anything. They will not be able to stop the march to a republic and democracy.

    If the Maoist party gains more than 50 percent of the vote, will you form a government on your own?

    P: No. We will try to unite other left and radical democratic forces and move forward together, we need a coalition, in order to develop the country in a prosperously. But if we Maoists win the elections, we will naturally claim the presidency of the Republic.

    Does Communism make sense today?

    P: It’s a big question, starting with Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, who wanted to apply the Marxist teachings in semicolonial countries. Now, we still need Marxism, but in accordance to the needs of the 21st century. We have to apply Marxist science in a very new context, understanding social, economic and also technological changes, without dogmatism and without sectarianism. We are trying to develop a completely new concept, different from what happened in the past century. When we are in the government, our experiment will surprise everybody.

    Why do you still call yourself Maoists, while China is turning to capitalism? Why don’t you change your name, like the Italian Communists did 16 years ago?

    P: We changed our name several times in the past, before the People’s War. We can change name according to the situation, there is no dogmatism about it. But we think that Mao developed a very important philosophy. Even though China has changed its colours and no longer follows Maoism any more, there are some ideological points in Maoism

    that even today hold good against repression. So, at the moment we are not going to change names. Maybe in the future.

    How do you image Nepal in 10- 20 years from now?

    P: Our country and our people have lots of opportunities for prosperity….In ten years we’ll change the whole scenario, rebuilding this country to prosperity. In 20 years we could be similar to Switzerland. This is my goal for Nepal.

    This will happen only if foreign investors trust a communist government…

    P: Yes, I know. We cannot ignore the whole process of liberalization in the world. So, we will apply mixed economics to this country. Right now, we are not saying that we plan a total socialist economy, though we will not blindly follow western liberalism. We have some national priorities and we will welcome foreign investors, using capital from abroad for the well being of Nepal .

    (15) Prachanda’s speech at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi, November 18, 2006. “Democracy: The Forbidden Fruit or Nectar for Progress?” “Though Mao made some bold experiments to revive and develop socialist democracy, his efforts did not result in any qualitative advance. Why did socialist democracy ultimately fail? Why did it have to bear the stigma of `totalitarianism’ from its adversaries? If the revolutionary communists of the 21st century have `to win the battle for democracy’, as Marx and Engels had declared in the famous Communist Manifesto, we must dare to question the past practice in socialist democracy and take some bold initiatives. ” http://www.nepalmon itor.com

    (16) Full text of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement held between Government of Nepal and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), November 22, 2006 . See Sections 4-6 on the management of armies and arms, and Section 10 on dissolving “parallel governments. ” http://bloggingnepa l.blogspot. com/2006/ 11/full-text- of-comprehensive -peace.html G.

    H. Statement of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), end of June 2006

    Exclusive Interview with CPI (Maoist) Spokesperson on Nepal Developments, posted on People’s March website, August 6, 2006 http://peoplesmarch .googlepages. com Below are excerpts from this interview.

    “There is need for caution with the present tactics. We think that Maoists forming a government jointly with the comprador bourgeois-feudal parties such as the reactionary Nepali Congress, revisionist CPN -UML and the other parties of the ruling classes will not really work out as they represent two diametrically opposed class interests. It is a wrong interpretation on the question of the state in Nepal to expect the possibility of a peaceful transition from the CA [Constituent Assembly] to the NDR…
    “Overall, the decision of the CPN(M) to dissolve the revolutionary people’s governments in the countryside and to merge the PLA with the reactionary army will unfold an irreversible process of losing all the revolutionary gains achieved till now….

    “The various ruling class parties and the so-called left parties in India are elated at the change of stance by the CPN (M) led by comrade Prachanda. They are naturally hailing the line taken by the CPN (Maoist) and are calling upon the Maoists in India to realize the futility of armed struggle and to follow the Maoists of Nepal by participating in the parliamentary pig-sty in India …

    “It is true that the revolutions everywhere are confronting a tough situation especially after the setback of China . Tactically speaking, in the present-day world, the enemy forces are quite strong while our subjective forces our weak…But this is only one side of the coin. At the same time, the objective conditions are quite favorable: imperialism, particularly US imperialism, is hated by the people everywhere and massive people’s movements are breaking out against imperialism, particularly US imperialism, throughout the world. Any revolution in today’s world has to inevitably face the attacks by the imperialists. To face an enemy much bigger than the revolutionary forces there are no question that it may and will require a great flexibility in tactics. …But while doing so there is always a danger to lose sight of our strategic tasks of the seizure of power by armed force….

    “Whatever be the tactics adopted by the CPN (M) the most objectionable part in the entire matter is its projection of these tactics as a theoretically developed position which it thinks should be the model for the revolutions in the 21st century. In the name of fighting against dogmatism our comrades of CPN (M) are slipping into dangerous territory.”

    Since the People’s March website has been attacked by the Indian state, current news of the revolutionary struggle in India can be found at http://naxalrevolut ion.blogspot. com/

    Comment by Maoist Study Group | December 17, 2006

  4. i want to present some excerpts from the interview of chairman com. prachanda appeared in the 10th issue of worker.i find them very relevant in the ongoing debate

    The Peruvian movement, which was some time before a center of hope for the revolutionaries in the world, seems to have fallen into a serious crisis now. What is the Party’s viewpoint on this? What lessons has the Party drawn from this?

    The experience of the Peruvian revolutionary movement, which had to go through intensive development and extensive setback between the last two decades of twentieth century, is very important for those who are leading revolution in the twenty-first century. In the context of preparation and initiation of People’s War in Nepal, the Peruvian movement had played a major role in inspiring us, and in this sense, it is of special significance for our Party to the lessons from the positive and negative experiences of this movement. It is our understanding that it will be a big mistake to devalue the contributions made by the Peruvian People’s War for world revolution, which, fighting back the ideological attack made by right revisionism after the restoration of capitalism in China, was initiated on the basis of MLM. However, in no case, can it and must it be taken lightly that the People’s War, which was developing rapidly for 12 years, is now in a crisis of existence because of the setback following the capture of the leadership. Sufficient indications that Chairman Gonzalo himself is the main spokesperson of the two-line struggle developed within the Party after his arrest, as well as of the right opportunist line that argues for peaceful conciliation with the enemy by abandoning war, reveal the seriousness of the situation.

    MLM demands correct application of dialectical materialism to continue relentless struggle against all kinds of mechanical, subjective and one-sided thinking. It is necessary to be cautious of drifting towards another extreme while struggling against one. Following the counterrevolution in China, the communist movement, on the one hand, happened to fall prey to right extremism that mainly sides with class collaboration and, on the other, to left extremism that seeks to go straightforward without looking left or right, forward or backward. Following Mao’s death, the Nicaraguan Sandinista movement that waged guerrilla war happened to fall prey to the former, i.e. right extremism, and the great revolutionary movement in Peru ideologically happened to fall prey to the second i.e. left sectarianism. It is our understanding and evaluation that, as a result of the mechanical and one-sided thinking, like for example of negating completely the question of building necessary adjustment, compromise or front with the secondary reactionary or middle class against the main enemy, of being unable to maintain proper balance between strategic firmness and tactical flexibility based on the equation of enemy’s central power, of understanding the protracted People’s War mechanically rather than developing military strategy according to today’s world situation, of idealizing Comrade Gonzalo as a supernatural leader who never makes a mistake and of placing him above the whole Party and the Central Committee by asserting his leadership as Jefetura, of being unable or unprepared to learn in the real sense from the metaphysical mistakes of Comrade Stalin etc.- the Party has reached a ‘Stage of crisis of existence in such a short time despite the sacrifice of more than 60 thousand people. Although one is revolutionary in spirit, the result can nevertheless be fatal if, from the viewpoint of applying the science of dialectical materialism, one gets caught in mechanical and metaphysical weaknesses this is the lesson taken by our Party from the great Peruvian People’s War and the blood of thousands of revolutionaries flown there. All the programs which our Party has been adhering to, such as our concepts regarding the ‘development of democracy in the twenty-first century’, military line of ‘fusion’, series of tactics adopted against the enemy, etc., incorporate the lessons from all positive and negative experiences of Peru.

    On the one hand, Party has maintained close ideological- political relations with revolutionaries in India and South Asia through CCOMPOSA, while on the other hand, in the particular geo-political situation of Nepal, it seems there is also a compulsion to maintain diplomatic relationship with the Indian State. How will the Party be able to maintain proper balance between the two?

    In the particular gee-political situation of Nepal, there are certainly special and essential aspects of relationship with two giant neighbours, India and China. The question of our relation with the Indian State is a question of indispensable diplomatic relation that enriches mutual relation between the people of two countries based on Panchsheel. This relation should be understood and dealt in the form of diplomatic relation of mutual benefit, not in the form of relation based on ideology and belief. Our relation with the revolutionaries in South Asia, established through CCOMPOSA, is mainly ideological relation and it should be taken and handled in the context of the freedom to follow any ideology and belief. It will not be so difficult to handle this relation because ideology and belief remain at their own place and the diplomatic relation with the two• countries remains at its own place. Nevertheless, the question of maintaining this balance is very sensitive, given that Indian monopoly capitalist expansionist character has been the main barricade for the revolutionary movement in Nepal and South Asia. However sensitive it may be, they can be propelled forward without crossing the limits of ideological relation and diplomatic relation.

    Politics: Strategy and Tactics

    It is said that the secret of the development of People’s War lies in the proper coordination between political and military lines. There have reportedly been some problems in maintaining their balance sometimes. What is the reality? How was the experience of peace talks for two times?

    All those who have seriously studied our movement right from the days of our Party formation to preparation, initiation and hitherto development of the People’s War, will see that it is different from many of the prevalent and conventional norms of the past communist movements. Our uniqueness, after having fundamentally set the Marxist-Leninist- Maoist ideological and political working direction, can be seen in the fact that we have taken our ideological and political struggle to a new height and established them among the people by forging Party unity even with rightists. We have prepared for People’s War using even the parliament, given emphasis on striking a balance and coordination between political and military interventions, and we have used peace talks and ceasefire against the enemy in a new way. But in this context, one thing is continuous, which is, placing revolutionary political line at the centre, making concrete analysis of concrete condition and adopting mass line. In the context of preparation, initiation and development of People’s War, it is being developed as a right coordination between political and military lines. That balance and coordination can be clearly seen in our process of taking initiatives for People’s War by founding a political base and presenting the basic problems of the country and the people in the form of 40-point demands from an open front. The first and the second peace talks can be considered as a new development of that coordination. The Party has already analyzed that the two talks have played an important role in establishing the Party’s political line among the people in a more extensive way and in clarifying the Party’s commitment to establishing peace with a forward-looking political solution reflecting people’s need and aspiration as well as justifying the development and significance of the military line.

    The Party seems to be successfully handling the question of strategic firmness and tactical flexibility. Don’t you think that the Party runs the risk of getting deviated if it goes on stressing on tactical flexibility?

    Even our hardcore enemies are compelled to accept our Party’s capability of handling strategic firmness and tactical flexibility. We think that while tactical flexibility without strategic firmness leads to a quagmire of reformism and revisionism and while strategic firmness without tactical flexibility leads to a marsh of mechanical tendency and dogmatism, only a proper implementation of dialectical interrelationship between strategic firmness and tactical flexibility can propel revolutionary movement in a proper and dynamic way. This conclusion has already been very well substantiated by our Party and the development of People’s War. Had there been only tactical flexibility, our Party would have sunk into the process of uniting with rightist reformists, it would have become pro-parliamentary in the process of making special use of the parliament, and would have never returned to war after the pea talks with the enemies. From these and many other examples, it has already been clear that all the tactical plans and visions of the Party are inseparably linked with strategic plans and visions. Likewise, had we shown only strategic firmness, the Party would have turned into a parochial group isolated from the people, which would have only drained the people’s unlimited energy and initiatives in the revolution. Today our practical behaviors have already clarified that our strategic firmness comes into effective implementation by means of our tactical flexibility. In fact, the revolutionary movement is being damaged on the one hand by conservatives who only talk of strategy and on the other hand by the reformists who only talk of tactics. The fast development of People’s War became possible because our Party, while fighting against the deviation, understood and mobilized the interrelation between strategy and tactic. In order to keep the revolution in motion, it is necessary to give continuity to strategic firmness and tactical flexibility. We have to be clear here that those who see through reformist spectacles consider our strategy as dangerous and always protest against it while those who see it through the spectacles of ‘left’ parochialism consider our tactical flexibility as dangerous and always protest against it. But having proved them unscientific, our Party, as the correct practitioner of dialectical materialism, has been moving and will continue to move in future in the direction of revolution.

    During the initiation of People’s War, the Party attacked parliamentary forces more than they did the monarchy, but now it is just the opposite. What is the meaning and relevance of this? Are the questions of nationality and people’s democracy linked with it?

    It is appropriate to understand new people’s democracy, constituent assembly and democratic republic basically in terms of the interrelation between strategic firmness and tactical flexibility. Whenever a proletarian Party becomes weak in terms of ideology, politics, organization and physical power, it stresses, and should do so, on the establishment of its ideology and power accumulation by means of multidimensional political exposure through its strategic slogans. When the Party is strong and is nearing its strategic goal, it takes up, and should rightly do so, the role of responsible leadership to ensure political outlet by taking together as many forces as possible and putting stress on political slogans. One has to be clear about one thing, that our Party is talking about the development of people’s democracy in the 21st century after having learnt from the experiences of the revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th century, and accordingly has accepted multi-Party competition within an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist constitutional frame. But here, the issues of constituent assembly and democratic republic should be understood in terms of strategic firmness and tactical flexibility. To demand a makeup like that of the initial phase of the struggle when one has come to a stage of running a regime or to demand a character like that of the stage of running a regime when one is in the initial phase of struggle, both don’t represent materialist dialectics.

    Many are heard saying that the UML’s multi-Party people’s democracy and the Maoist’s multi-Party democratic republic are similar. What is the reality?

    UML’s multi-party people’s democracy expresses class coordination and a reformist line of bourgeois parliamentarianism while our slogan of democratic republic expresses transitional revolutionary slogan that helps propel class struggle in a special condition of power balance. In this sense, there is a huge difference in essence between the UML’s multi-Party people’s democracy and our democratic republic. Recently, the UML has also talked about moving towards democratic republic and we have been holding discussions on the essential commonalities between us. We hope that through the slogan of democratic republic, the UML too will move from reformist line of class coordination to revolutionary line of class struggle.

    What is the essence and relevance of the 12-point understanding with the parliamentary parties? Is it just an agreement of convenience for both sides or does it have a long-term significance?

    Our Party has taken the 12-point understanding with the parliamentary political parties very seriously. We consider it not as a game plan or an agreement of convenience but as a historically essential and practical understanding required to fulfill people’s aspiration for peace and democracy against feudal and tyrannical monarchy. The ensuing protests against tyranny has not only justified its significance but has also approved of it. As a first milestone of the process of achieving complete democracy (i.e. ‘democratic republic in our understanding) through a constituent assembly election, the 12-point understanding has a long-term importance.

    After Lenin’s time, CPN (Maoist) is perhaps the first Party to have successfully caught the path of revolutionary war even after having represented in the parliament. Can you shed some light on this experience?

    One will be in position to make concrete analysis of concrete condition only after one has adopted Marxist science by keeping it away from left or right dogma while being determined to take the revolution ahead. Our Party, during the early phase of its initiation, moved ahead by struggling against rightist revisionism externally and Mohan Bikram’s dogmatic revisionism internally. This struggle encouraged us to adopt Marxism as a science by keeping ourselves away from the traditional deviation of Nepali communist movement that understands Marxist science in terms of formulas. This understanding enabled us, by taking decision to use the parliament, to teach the Nepalese society about the futility of the parliament and the necessity of People’s War. The ‘left’ conservatives who perceived Marxism and revolution in terms of fixed models saw us as sinking into the rightist quagmire while the rightists saw us as dogmatist, as we were exposing the parliament. In fact, we were neither rightist nor dogmatists, we were just Marxist-Leninist- Maoist, which history has already shown. In fact, whatever we are trying to do is not new but an attempt to scientifically fix and give momentum to the intensity of the international communist movement which was broken due to Stalin’s weakness after the demise of Lenin and which Mao tried to take ahead.

    We are not saying that since we went to the People’s War after having used the parliament, everyone in the world has to do the same. We know it very well that in today’s world the usefulness of the tactics to use parliament has almost come to an end. But continuous boycotting of a system without considering the situation of a country and its people is not Marxism. Ignoring concrete analysis of concrete condition and also mass line would just mean to make Marxism, Leninism and Maoism meaningless by reducing it to the level of a religious sect. Our experience of the use of parliament is less important in terms of the utility of parliament and-more in terms of understanding Marxism as a science.

    What are the ideological and practical aspects of Prachanda Path?

    All the processes of development of nature, society and human thought are mobilized and limited by absolute struggle and relative unity of the opposites. Mao has explained it as sovereignty of internal contradiction, distinctiveness of contradiction, primary contradiction and secondary contradiction. In the course of taking the Party and the revolution forward, there can be numerous contradictions that have to be settled. In other words, the Party always faces mountains of works to be done. In such a situation, if we sort out the aspects of opinions, plans and programs that need to be given immediate emphasis and those that need constant attention even in a secondary form, then we will be able to accomplish our goal in a scientific way.

    On the basis of this principle to mobilize internal differences in a scientific way, the third historical extensive meeting of the Central Committee of our Party has presented a series of strategies and tactics that the Party has to emphasize and pay attention to in the entire development process of People’s War. Also, the Party always follows this scientific principle while deciding on every new policy, plan and program.

    ………………………………………………..
    The Party’s proposal on the development of people’s democracy in the 21st century has forwarded the concept of having multi-Party competition even in socialist society. What is the essence and significance of this? Is it possible this way to achieve the socialist goal of dissolving all classes, parties and states?

    The Party’s proposal on the development of people’s democracy in the 21st century was forwarded on the basis of the positive and negative experiences of the 20th century. Accordingly, the Party believes that within the anti-feudal and anti-imperialistic constitutional framework, only through multi-Party competition even in a socialist society can counter-revolution be prevented and proletariat’ s rule be strengthened by making effective the people’s control, monitoring and intervention in the governance. Only such a rule of the proletariat strengthened on the basis of people’s democracy can prepare the necessary infrastructure for the ultimate dissolution of class, Party and the state. This process that increases political awareness among the people through multi-Party competition will make socialist competition lively. The foundation of state dissolution will be prepared as extensively and rapidly as we organize socialist competition. The main essence of our proposal is to make proletariat’ s democracy lively by preventing it from being mechanical and formal.

    According to Marxist concept, Party or ideology is inseparable from army and the state. Party is an ideology, according to which the army is formulated and the state is maintained with the power of the army. If multi-Party competition is accepted in tomorrow’s people’s democratic republic or in socialism, it appears to be very complicated as to whether or not to allow every Party to form an army on the basis of their own respective ideologies. What is your view on this?

    The main thing that needs to be clear here is the class structure of the state. Going by the experiences of history and conclusions of Marxism, to imagine a classless state is just a bourgeois idealistic hypocrisy. The people’s democratic state that we have envisaged is a state under the leadership of the proletariat with collective dictatorship of various classes of anti-feudal and anti-imperialist people. Such a state cannot be established without first dismantling the state that works in the interests of feudalism and imperialism. When an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist state is formed, in such a situation, the political parties that represent various classes and ideological beliefs will not need to set up separate armies because there interests will not be antagonistic. Instead, there begins a people’s democratic competition under people’s dictatorship, which only further strengthens people’s state. The issue of forming an army might arise only in two completely different situations. The first situation is, if the Party that leads the people’s democratic state turns counter-revolutiona ry and starts exploiting, suppressing and torturing people, any of the competing political forces using people’s right to revolt can and should form an army. The other situation is, if a political Party competing in the name of people stoops to the level of advocating feudalism and imperialism and starts armed activities under their support and instigation, in such a situation the people’s state will certainly impose dictatorship on them and solve the problem. No one should forget the limit of people’s democratic and socialist constitutional system.

    Some critics say that People’s War in Peru was declared to have reached a stage of strategic equilibrium when it was still in the defensive phase. Can you clarify on some of the solid grounds to justify that in Nepal there hasn’t been a mistake in estimating the phase of war by way of getting excited to achieve quick victory?

    In our opinion, the main reason for the failure of the People’s War in Peru is not the imbalance in the declaration of defense and equilibrium. The main reason is the imbalance in the use of strategic firmness and tactical flexibility (unilateral emphasis on strategy), in the question of developing ideas through concrete analysis of concrete condition in the changed context of today’s world as well as idealistic thought of glorifying the leadership. This is the principal thing. So far as the Nepali People’s War is concerned, the new ideological, political and military strategic concepts developed since the preparation and initiation periods till the present time are themselves reliable grounds to assert that it will not meet Peru’s fate, rather it will emerge victorious.

    Comment by pramod | December 19, 2006

  5. English translations of CPMLM (france) about Nepal are here :
    http://www.lescommunistes.net/~infos/languesetrangeres/langues.html

    List of the documents :

    October / November 2005—————————
    The Nepalese Revolution at a turning point :
    dare the new or “reform” the country?

    February 2006———————————————–
    Prachanda, follower of modern revisionism

    April 2006————————————————-
    The “republican” strategy in Nepal has collapsed, as it was predictable and announced – now the erroneus principles must be crushed !

    August 2006———————————————–
    How to judge Prachanda as part of the confrontation between revolution and counterrevolution?

    Comment by frenchman | December 21, 2006

  6. i think we should take not of the response of prachanda when he was asked that what is the difference between multi party republic of maoists and multi party republic of CPN(UML). He replied that multiparty
    republic of maoist is an expression of the current balance of forces.(Worker, 10 issue, may 2006)
    let us examine the balance of forces.in nepal equation of class forces is triangular : reactionary forces representing feudal and comprador capitalist class.middle starta representing petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie class who believes in bourgeoisie democracy. and the revolutionary forces of proliteriat and poor peasants fighting for new democratic republic under the leadership of CPN(Maoist).for the success of new democratic revolution the support of middle strata is very crucial and deciding for revolutionary forces. but this middle starta do not believe in new democracy but believe in bourgeoisie democracy.we maoists know it very well that bourgeoisie democratic revolution is impossible in this era of imperialism.but this is a proleterian approach and petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie does not believe in this approach.so these classes can fight only for bourgeoisie democratic revolution.maoist forces have to prove that bourgeoisie democratic revolution can not be successful in the era of imperialism by the practice only. merely stating the fact can not convince the middle classes. so maoists are presenting a general program of peace and democracy(as mao presented in the talks with Guomingdang in 1945,and in the so called 10 october peace pact)which is bound to fail.historical experience of chinese revolution makes it clear that reactionary state and imperialists are not going to allow even the bourgeoisie democratic republic and they will conspire against the ongoing democratic process.and then it will become necessary for the revolutionary forces to smash the old state and army.and through this way new democratic revolution will accomplished.revolutionary forces in nepal are taking this path because the middle classes in nepal were not prepared to complete overthrough of old state by the armed insurrection. and we know in the urban centers this class is in majority.but revolutionary forces can only be victorious if and only if they remain very alert against any conspiracy during the time of negotiations.as chenes party was in 1946.
    one thing i want to add is this. we can not say that the SPA is representing only reactionary classes.in fact there character is not unified and SPA IS AN AMALGAM OF rectionary classes and middle classes.so we will sea a split in SPA in the time of conspiracy.and that time the polarization of the forces will change and the democratic fraction of seven parties will come with maoists and the reactionary fraction will go with the reaction and conspiracy.

    Comment by pramod | December 21, 2006


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: