Kiran, chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist
This is from World’s People’s Resistance Movement of Britain.
This uncut-hour long audio is from the press conference organized
on June 19th by the newly formed Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist. The
question and answer session is available in Nepali.
Thanks to Comrade Pooja for taking her time to make this audio
available in English transcription. And thanks to World People’s
Resistance Movement of Britain for circulating this.
Q: How do you justify the formation of the new party?
How should people understand this?
A: – Communist party is a party for
the benefit of the proletariat and the people. In the case of Nepal,
the aim of a communist party remains to move forward, raising the issues
of safeguarding national sovereignty; people’s democracy and livelihood
then ultimately leap towards socialism and communism. This is
self-proven.In the process of attaining
this aim we went through people’s war, and did considerable amount of
work among and with the people. We built our base areas, practiced our
newly formed people’s power but then conciliation took place amidst as
we moved forward to build a new Nepal.
In the process of attaining this aim we
went through people’s war, and did considerable amount of work among and
with the people. We built our base areas, practiced our newly formed
people’s power but then conciliation took place amidst as we moved
forward to build a new Nepal.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t compromise, we should but while
compromising , the act of abandoning our entire basis (achievements)
has happened. The act of slipping down from our mission and objectives
has happened. The dream we carried was of a constitutional assembly but
where is the constitution? How did the constituent assembly function?
Talking about people’s livelihood, how has the corruption been
mounting-up. The fact is clearer. In the process of making a
constitution there was an agreement to move forward institutionalizing
the rights of the working class, indigenous people, ethnic minorities,
women & dalit; including the rights of the oppressed class, region
and gender but ditching all these primary issues of constitutional
thematic committees it is apparent that ex-chairman, Prachanda
surrendered everything to Congress & UML by forming a dispute
resolution subcommittee under the constitutional committee.
In the process of making a constitution the question of
ethnic-identity-based federalism is extremely important. Our party takes
the decision of an ethnic-identity based federalism while in process of
restructuring the state; Prachanda & Baburam joined their necks
together with Congress-UML and agreed up on eleven anonymous federal
states. The situation was that they were forced to take their decision
back, as we and all others in the constituent assembly carried-out a
signature collection campaign against their decision. They have failed
to institutionalize ethnic-identity. It is important for us to do it.
Where are the prerequisites for women and dalits? There have been
serious betrayals on these issues. That is why we want to raise all
these issues again. Not only that, we are also talking about issues of
national sovereignty. Since the bilateral investment promotion and
protection agreement (BIPPA) was signed, now the issues of water
resources agreement and extradition treaty have come to surface.
The main thing is that there has been a wrong tendency to maneuver
our party as a puppet of imperialism and expansionism; along with this
all the core concept of the party including the guiding principal has
been distorted. We are against this. We cannot let our party function as
a puppet of imperialism , expansionism and feudalism. We had to revolt
in order to safequard people’s rights, interests and benefit. This is
the main justification of the split.
Q: – In the past we have witnessed vicious confrontations
between two factions after the split of Naxalite struggle in India. How
are you cautious about bloodshed happening after the party split.? What
is your view on the questions of the government?
A: – You raised the question of
possible confrontation between two parties and the question of the
Naxalite struggle in India, we are very cautious about this. There won’t
be any such confrontation from our side. We won’t go into
confrontation. It has been proven even in the history of our two -line
struggle that we never exerted any physical force anywhere. Instead we
have heard many cases of exertion of force by the Prachanda’s group in
places. During that time we alerted the concerned party to be serious on
Therefore, firstly what I want to assure you is that we will not be
exerting any physical force anywhere from our side. Secondly, we have to
be extremely aware. There has been talk with Prachanda and other people
within his circle that we have to be very serious in these matters
after separation of the party. Therefore, how to move forward is
primarily dependent on Prachanda’s group. Not to become serious in this
matter and exert physical force is against the democratic norms, it is a
dictatorship to exert force instead of seeking a solution to the
problem through discussions and debates in a communist party. That is
fascism. No one accept dictatorship and fascism, including us. In such a
situation the masses will resist these acts.
There are two things on the issues of how to move forward with other
parties. Firstly we have to initiate talks with all the parties and
reach an agreement in any issue that can be agreed upon. If anybody
raises an issue that is in favor of the nation and the people we must
have to support that. We have been supportive so far and that will
continue. It doesn’t matter whether that be Congress-UML or a
neo-revisionist camp, if they raise similar issues as we do, we support
that but again the other important thing is that we should neither merge
in the coalition of Congress-UML nor in the coalition of
Baburam-Prachanda’s coalition of neo-revisionism. We will carry forward
an independent revolutionary line of Nepalese politics.
Q: – There are allegations that the monarchy assisted you to
split the party and you have got close tie with Gyanendra, do you have
RIM’s support or not? Who played the role from the international
community to split the party? Has the president got the right to dismiss
the prime-minister, what is your say on this?
A: – Firstly, you raised the
question of collaboration with Gyanendra, who told you this and where?
Reveal the factual basis of this, substantiate and tell me. Secondly, in
the process of a two-line struggle Baburam had accused Prachanda as
pro-king and Prachanda had accused Baburam as pro-expansionist. This was
documented in writing. Have you studied that written document or not?
Did you understand that the pro-king and the pro-expansionist forces
united together to attack us in the process of the two-line struggle?
Thirdly, each and every political party has to have a capacity. That
capacity means capacity of logical argument. When it’s not possible to
annihilate someone through the means of factual arguments and debates
then there will be malevolent attempts to label them as corrupt , to
denigrate them through the means of conspiracy and deception. Fourthly,
if look at our programs, we ask for establishment of people’s federal
republican state, emphasis on safeguarding the achievements of the ten
years of the great people’s war, let us look at things from a factual
basis; when we look from this basis those baseless allegations bear no
truth at all. This isn’t anything but only false allegations hatched by
the pro-Indian-expansionist elements.
Yes, we are in the RIM. There are many different parties in the RIM.
You may even know what sort of discussions there are. Do you raise a
question with the knowledge or without?
We used to be involved in the decision-making in the RIM. The RIM is actually not operative at this moment.
Perhaps you are trying to point to a particular party but we had
fraternal relationship with all the parties involved in RIM and that
Fraternal parties reserve some rights. Our communist party is a
proletarian internationalist party. If any party involved in such an
umbrella organization slips into the quagmire of opportunism then the
other parties oppose this and the international community has clearly
said that the Prachanda-Baburam gang has slipped into the quagmire of
revisionism. Therefore, let’s forget about the RIM, any other genuine
communist parties do not acknowledge that this gang is Marxist anymore.
So, the issue of RIM, etc. is totally nonsense.
Again, power & greed; look at the agenda – the only and one
agenda of Congress-UML is that the Baburam has to step down from the
government. Probably this is a major cause of the dissolution of the
constituent assembly without forging any political resolution. On the
other hand, the only agenda of Baburam is that he has to retain power.
So these two camps are ready to abandon, and will abandon everything for
power. Therefore, we are not in this controversy.
We are not in the row of their greed of power. As a tactic we have
forwarded the agenda of multilateral roundtable conference. The
so-called top leaders of these parties have become incapable to solve
We have put forward the agenda of the United Interim Government, and
we have said that the problem can be solved from there. Therefore, we
won’t involve in the corrupt power play of the government.
Q: – How will you make the constitution, you have claimed
that there has been massive intervention by India, how have you
scrutinized the new development? In the past you had formed COMPOSA,
will it be continued?
A: – In the process of making the constitution the issue of Indian intervention has always been there since B.S 2007 (1951).
Firstly making a people’s constitution is not possible by
collaborating and wrangling day and night-out with feudalists,
compradors and bureaucratic bourgeoisie class. Secondly, making a new
constitution involves the participation of all the oppressed people. Now
this has been clearly proven. Therefore, in such a situation the
constitution cannot be made.
So whether the agenda is of reinstating the constituent assembly or
yet again another election, this is all incorrect. Now the political
outlet has to be forged by conducting discussions and debates through a
roundtable conference in a multilateral convention. Even if this process
fails to make a new constitution then those who are in the line of
federalism should begin the process of establishing people’s government
at a local level. We have to move forward with the concept of
establishing a people’s government even at the central level. It is
completely nonsense to talk about making constitution without forming a
pro-people government. We are very clear on this issue.
We are also very clear about what we should do on the question of
Indian intervention. Basically, it won’t be wrong to say Nepal is a
neo-colony of India. The act of destroying border-pillars by the Indian
side has been taking place on a daily basis, the border has been
encroached in many places including Sustaa, Maheshpur and Kalapanee.
Forget the other governments, even Prachanda and Baburam, who led the
government from our own Maoist party could do nothing to stop it
happening but just became hopeless spectators. The intervention of
Indian expansionism in all sectors – economic, political, social and
strategic has been rapidly gearing up. Indian expansionism is
fulfilling its self-interest by providing space to Indian puppets in
Nepal. Indian expansionism has no respect for the Nepalese. We respect
Indian people but the Indian government points its evil eyes on the
Nepalese on a regular basis.
There have been many unequal treaties with India since 1950. Instead
of nullifying these unequal treaties, arrangements are being made to
sign even more unequal treaties including Upper-Karnalee and Arun-III.
Baburam’s government has signed another water resource agreement with
India. Therefore, we have been relentlessly insisting to nullify all
these unequal treaties. In an interview with The Hindu, an Indian
Newspaper, Prachanda claimed that we (Nepalese) have an exceptional
relationship with India. Those who have exceptional relationship with
India are parties like the Nepali Congress.
Now, Prachanda has also started to follow Nepali Congress. Therefore,
we rigorously oppose all these trends. What we have said is that all
the unequal treaties signed so far between India and Nepal has to be
nullified in this 21st century, and arrangements to sign new coequal
treaties that benefits Indian and the Nepalese people need to be made.
If the intervention doesn’t stop, as we have been saying – we also have
principal contradiction with Indian expansionism, we will target our
struggle of national sovereignty against bureaucratic bourgeoisie in
Nepal as well as Indian expansionism.
Finally, you asked about COMPOSA (Coordination Committee of Maoist
Parties and Organizations of South Asia), COMPOSA is not something to
fear! This is an umbrella organization to struggle in the interest of
patriotic, leftists and all other pro-people elements in the South-Asian
region. This organization has been weakened for sometime now. We think
about the ways to strengthen it again and carry on with it. The main
thing is that if the imperialists, expansionists and opportunists
conspire to weaken the people of any countries then the people and the
pro-people forces also have to unite in tactic and form a united front
Q: – In the process of forming a new party there are
allegations that the new party is reminiscent of old alcohol in a new
bottle, what do you want to say on this? And, what is the assurance that
you will also not deviate from the revolutionary line? What do you
think of a unity with Prachanda? Now, what will be your relationship
with the existing state, will you divorce with it and begin to declare
people’s governments as in the past?
A: – You indicted the new party as
an old alcohol, on this what I want to say is – please at least look at
our decisions carefully. If you examine our decisions carefully, then
you will be able to discern whether the new party is old or new alcohol.
I think the word alcohol here has been fairly tainted but it would be
better to understand the crux of the matter. We didn’t separate without
valid reasons. Many things justify the reasons for this divorce. I have
already said a lot about the issue of Indian expansionism – think
about it, can patriots and genuine republicans progress together with
those who sign treaties like the bilateral investment promotion and
protection agreement (BIPPA) and those who claim exceptional
relationship with India? Can revolutionaries progress together with
those who renounced all of the promises that were made to people in the
process of the great people’s war and with those who cremated the
constituent assembly by joining their necks together with the
reactionaries and opportunists? We have to look at things from this
Talking about unity with Prachanda – unity is not feasible in such a situation.
It is not possible at all. We have kept the door to remain open if
someone transforms themselves and comes to unite. This is the main
thing. Even under this condition we will not go to Prachanda, he has to
come to us.
On the question of separation with the old state, even a person with a
very basic knowledge of Marxism knows that communists want to smash the
old reactionary state and replace that with new people’s government.
Not just this, beyond here we aim to abolish the existence of the states
as a whole to establish a new world of humanism by creating stateless,
classless society that is completely free of all forms of exploitations
and oppressions. Our politics is fairly farsighted. We won’t stick to
the government as a leech like other rulers here do. We will continue to
struggle to establish a new state, this is our main goal.
In the current situation, we will carefully think about what can be
done for the benefit of the people and the country by limiting ourselves
within the limitation of the current state and the existing law.
Proletarians have utilized the parliament and the elections in the past.
We cannot detach ourselves entirely from the principals of Marxism. We
will decide what to do where by formulating policies through concrete
analysis of the concrete situation.
Q: – What is the decision of the National Convention on the
question of dissolution of the constituent assembly? Now that the party
has ruptured, which faction has the majority, the new party or the
establishment faction? You have mentioned about united front, who would
you unite with in united front? Will you register a party or not? Will
you still have comradeship with Prachanda & Baburam?
A: – We have already said a lot
about the dissolution of the constituent assembly. There is a direct
conspiracy of national and foreign reactionaries in dissolving the
constituent assembly. The greediness of Baburam and the Nepali Congress
to hold on to the power has also played some role here. It is well know
to all that the autocratic behavior of those who have been proclaiming
themselves as top leaders of the main four political parties has played a
vital role in dissolving the constituent assembly. The autocratic
behavior of these top leaders, which completely mismatched with the
democratic practices and also bypassed the dignity of the 601 members of
the constituent assembly, is a major cause of the dissolution of the
While talking about which party is smaller and which is bigger – the world knows who is in the majority and how.
Firstly, the issue of majority is transparent, those who came in the
party through the unification process, some of the comrades are fine, no
argument there, but the majority of them are total rubbish.
We would be in the majority in the Maoist Party – in this situation;
the fact is that there had been malevolent attempt to change the color
of the party through the absolute unification. Secondly, talking about
which party is larger – we can evidently claim that even though we are
in the minority in the central committee we have parallel party
committees throughout the nation. If necessary we can demonstrate our
strength. Thirdly, the issue of which party is bigger and which is
smaller – perhaps this issue is not very significant.
Throughout history smaller parties have become bigger and the big
ones have diminished. This is the way we have to understand the
dialecticism of party unity. We have come through a long history. UCPN
(Maoist) was also tiny in the initial phase. The issue of smaller and
bigger – the party with correct thought, politics, ideology, which can
substantiate politics in practice advancing resolutely in capacity of a
genuine revolutionary communist party, acting in the interest of the
country, people and proletariats expands. Those who betray the country
and the people, gradually evaporate.
I have already clarified with whom we need to form a united front. A
united front has to be formed. And we advance ahead forming a united
front including the patriot republicans, leftists, federalists, women,
workers and dalits. Another thing, the issue of party registration is
the issue of conditional necessity. We will think about whether we
should register the party and if we deem it is important then, we may
register. If not we may not register at all because we are resolutely
convinced that through parliamentarianism the people’s problems cannot
be put to an end. Therefore, whether to register the party depends upon
On the question of comradeship with Prachanda and Baburam, we came
throughout our life in comradeship with them. Now, we did not leave
Prachanda and Baburam but they left us. We did not separate from the
party as well but they split themselves ditching the political
ideological line of the party. Therefore, now the issue of their class
categorization is a real bizarre. An independent political line of
Prachanda and Baburam has come to an end. What should we label those who
are the puppets of foreign reactionaries and expansionism.? It is not
possible to join neck together with the puppets. We cannot join our
necks together with class capitulation-ists.
Our desire and proposal to them is that they have to break all ties
with all sorts of reactionaries, only then can we go ahead together. As
long as they have ties with those reactionaries, we don’t trust them.
Q: – As heard, you are ambiguous about whether to go for
people’s war or people’s revolt? What is your say on the question of
corruption thought have taken place in cantonments? How will you treat
A: – We are not ambiguous about whether to go for People’s War or People’s Revolt.
Firstly, we will revolt for new democracy against parliamentarianism.
We don’t acknowledge parliamentarianism. The democratic republic, the
aged-decayed parliamentarianism of which all the parties here sing the
retro song of democracy deafeningly, that democracy has completely
failed, the Constituent Assembly has also failed. Therefore, as an
alternative, in the interest of the country and the people we move ahead
to establish New Democratic Republic in Nepal against Feudalism,
Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism. This is our key agenda. To attain this
goal, if asked how we move ahead, both ways, legal and underground, a
revolutionary party can utilize every essential method. We came to he
peace negotiation honestly. When we arrived only the Maoists had to make
all the compromises but now we don’t compromise up to this excess.
So that is beyond doubt, if necessary – People’s War or People’s Revolt, anything can happen, this is the key issue.
And you talk about money and corruption in the cantonments; I’m not
here to talk about that. This is not the place to investigate
corruption. So lets not talk about these things here. People are finding
out where there has been mischief; most definitely the revolutionary
members of the people’s liberation army are investigating it. That space
is there. On your query about the role of Baburam-Prachanda while our
arrest took place in India, but these are not things that only we look
into. This can be a case of serious investigation. This is also
something that the masses and you people (journalists) can look into.
Our journalist friends are very far-sighted, introspective and detail
oriented. I am convinced that you will help us through this. We want to
respect the media on how media is being treated. We will continue to
fight for the rights of working class journalists; we will fight for the
rights of working class people.
What we are worried about is that in the veil of professional
journalism, mission journalism happens, and that is not a good thing.
Let this not be a main issue, and we will respect you. If any
shortcomings on our part we are committed to self-criticism.