for debate - Nepalese Maoist movement needs a new breakthrough

• 
  

Rishi Raj Baral
On Fagun 1, 2052 (February 13, 1996), Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) had waged the People’s War in Nepal. On Sunday, Nepalese ‘Maoists’ observed 22^nd anniversary of the great People’s War in Nepal. At that time there was only one Maoist Party. Now we have four : Nepal Communist Party (Revolutionary Maoist), led by Mohan Baidhya ‘Kiran’,  Communist Nucleus, Nepal, Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) led by Netra Bikram Chanda ‘Biplav’ and Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) led by Prachanda.
Prachanda-Baburam: traitor of the Nepalese revolution
Prachanda-Baburam, are known as the betrayer of the Nepalese revolution. Baburam has formed a new party named as ‘New Power’, and he has announced that he is no longer a Marxist—he has no faith in Marxism.  Now the chapter has closed.
Prachanda, Chairman of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) is leading the reactionary government as the Prime Minister. We all know, this is the government backed by the foreign reactionary force, particularly the Indian expansionism. Now he is a faithful servant of the Indian ruling class. Prachanda is pleading his ‘Center’ as the center of the Nepalese Maoists. But in reality, it is just opposite. Now, Nepal Communist Party (Maoist Center) is a neo-reactionary party and Prachada is leading the neo-reactionary camp.
Baidhya faction: problem to apply the theory into practice
To some extent, Nepal Communist Party (Revolutionary Maoist) led by Mohan Baidhya ‘Kiran’, seems as a revolutionary party. In their document, they have clearly mentioned the significance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, New Democratic Revolution and the need for the ”three Magical Weapons.”   It has also senior leaders like Kiran and Gourav.  But, the main problem of this Party is not to go in action. They have mentioned ‘ People’s Revolt’ as the political line of the Nepalese revolution. And we all know, this political line is not applicable for the Nepalese revolution.
Now they have formed a political front to participate in the coming election. To get more and more seats in the election, they will join hands with other parties. It will eventually lead them in a wrong direction.
Baidhya faction has some positive aspects, but in practice, they are still at the crossroads. Lack of scientific political line and strong will power, they are unable to accelerate the revolutionary movement. Just to write political issues in the document and passing the resolution will achieve nothing. That’s why, Baidhya faction is known as a party—revolutionary in words, not in action.
This is not only the problem of Nepal Communist Party (Revolutionary Maoist), it is the problem of Nepalese Maoist movement, as a whole.
Biplav faction: journey without destination
After the two year’s exercise of Bernstein type of street demonstration, Biplav faction is busy in its first National Congress. It has publicized its political document for the National Congress and it has become the issue of public debate. What they are going to do and what will be the result of their National Congress is already open.
In fact, like Prachanda, Biplav faction also has produced a lot of confusion in the Nepalese Maoist movement.  Having gone through their document, there is no any hesitation to say that, Biplav faction has deviated from the revolutionary spirit of the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Here I want to put some point below:

1. According to their document they have detached ‘Maoism’ from their Party name. But they have not given rational answer for removing Maoism. Maoism is not just a political terminology; it is the value and symbol of revolutionary enthusiasm-direction for the people’s revolution. This decision has raised a lot of question and inquisitiveness among the cadres also. In fact, it is the homework to remove Maoism from their guiding principle and practice.
2. In their document, they have mentioned China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam as the Socialist countries. This is not their new resolution; this is the recurrence of their earlier decision. There is another point to note that, in their 100 pages document, they have not mentioned even a single word about the Peoples War in India, Philippines and Turkey. They have forgotten the value of proletariat internationalism. Indeed, intentionally they have disregarded the significance of proletariat internationalism. It is open truth, that, they are not in the way to follow the line, followed by the Communist party of India (Maoist) and other countries—waging the People’s War. That’s why, the People’s War in India and Philippines is not the subject of their concern.
3. They have accepted the theory of Post-imperialism. In their opinion, the character of today’s imperialism is different from the period of Lenin and Mao. In their opinion, imperialism has changed its nature, and it is the period of post-imperialism. Yes, the character of imperialism in the 21^st century is not the same, as it was in the period of Lenin and Mao. But it is not the period of post-imperialism. Fundamentally imperialism has not changed its nature; rather than it has become more vicious. In their earlier document they had pleaded the concept of post-Maoism, now they are pleading the concept of post-imperialism. What a matter of irony!

4. There is another issue to make clear that, not only the Nepalese Medias, some Medias from abroad, related to Maoist movement, also enlightening Biplav as a revolutionary leader and his party as the follower of the People’s War. It is not true. In fact, from the very beginning, Bivlav faction has discarded the political line of the People’s War. They have mentioned their political line as: ”unified revolution”. But they have not made its meaning reasonable. They have explained it as a ”new type” of urban insurrection.
5. Here is another point to note that, Biplav faction has abandoned the line of the New Democratic Revolution. In their document, they have not mentioned even a single word on ”three magic weapons”. After removing Maoism from the Party name, they have done another vital decision—to throw away the line of the New Democratic Revolution. As they have mentioned in their document: ”now the political program of Nepal should be scientific Socialism not the New Democratic.” It means, in the Nepalese context the political line of the New Democratic Revolution is not scientific and applicable. No matter, this is the political line of Prachanda. In his Party document Prachanda has mentioned: ”In Nepal New Democratic Revolution has been accomplished and the time has come to build Socialism.” One must be clear, that Biplav faction never accepted the New Democratic Revolution and People’s War as the ideological-political line of the Nepalese revolution.

6. In fact, Biplav faction has openly discarded the significance of Mao’s political and military line in the context of the Nepalese revolution. In an article ‘development of ideology and law of science’, published in his party organ ‘Unified Voice’, Biplav has clearly mentioned that the line of Lenin and Mao tse-tung, both are not relevant in the Nepalese revolution. As he has mentioned: In Nepal, ”no possibility of revolt through the Lenin’s line, no possibility of People’s War through the Mao’s line. We have synthesized that, only through the line of ”unified revolution’, we can achieve our goal.”
7. Biplav faction also has denied the Maoist concept of two line struggle. In their opinion inner- struggle and tw0 line struggles are not same thing. It must be separated. The inner struggle should not be labeled as class struggle. It is the differences in opinion among the leaders; it is not the two line struggle. What a matter of surprise! We all know the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie within the Party will inevitably find expression in inner-Party class struggle and two-line struggle. It is only through this struggle that the Party can develop and advance. A characteristic of the capitalist-roaders is to use the power in their hands to push the revisionist line, so inner-Party class struggle finds concentrated expression in the struggle between the Marxist line and the revisionist line.

8. In a talk program organized by a local TV-Kantipur, Biplav stressed that the agenda of the People’s War was not to overthrow the Monarchy and King Gyanendra. In that talk program he also stressed to overthrow the Monarchy was a wrong decision. To support the Monarchy system means, to take the side of the feudal system and  King Gyanendra, and to deny the achievements gained during the People’s War in Nepal. We communists never support the Monarchy system. We are the follower of the  People’s Republic.

9. I don’t think that their National Congress will do any fundamental change in their document. Most of the cadres of Biplav faction are youths, who never took part in the class struggle and they have no any experience of People’sWar. This new generation has no any interest in the study of philosophical and ideological materials. This generation is known as the follower of ”face book revolution”. They are not motivated ideologically, but financially. Even the leader Biplav also is known as a leader without the study of MLM.

Birds of the same feather flock together:  
It is the truth that, Biplav faction has mentioned MLM as the guiding principal of the Party.  And it is also true that Maoist Center led by Prachanda also has mentioned MLM as the guiding principal of his party.  Just mentioning MLM as the guiding principle has no any significance. It needs the application of theory into practice. It needs dedication and devotion to the class struggle—the People’s war. No matter, Both Prachanda and Biplav have accepted MLM as the trademark.
It is crystal clear, that the document of their National Congress is a document of deviation and wrong direction. Indeed, Biplav faction has deviated from the revolutionary spirit of the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and it is rapidly heading towards the ”unknown” destination. Without hesitation, I would like to stress that Prachanda and Biplav are the two sides of the same coin. coining
The real face of Prachnda has already unmasked, but Biplav is producing a lot of confusion in the Nepalese Maoist movement. And it is a matter to note that, politically Netra Bikram chanda’Biplav’ is heading towards the Prachand camp, but personally, he has very close relation with Baburam Bhattrai— the Indian puppet.
At the end:
It is a matter to worry that, at present Nepalese Maoist Movement is facing a huge setback.  What will be the next step of Baidhya faction, it is a mater to wait and see. But at present the Maoist Movement of Nepal is at the crossroads.  We must realize this reality. And it needs a new rupture, a new step—the great leap forward.