Long
Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Prachanda Path!
Occasional Bulletin of Communist Party of
|
No. |
|
PUBLISHER'S NOTE |
Nepalese people under the leadership of Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) have been waging a just war against the semi-feudal
semi-colonial reactionary state for last one decade and to establish a
democratic republic by overthrowing the present dispensation. For the first
time in the history of
The Nepalese people have been struggling for democracy
for last fifty years. They have been deceived time and again by their
leadership, which betrayed the people for their vested interest. Despite all
these, the people have been tirelessly struggling for their emancipation. After
the formation of CPN (Maoist), the oppressed Nepalese people are no more a
hapless, but have been turned into a valiant people taking a correct path and
armed with invincible ideology: MLM and Prachanda Path. The people's war has
wiped out feudal oppression from the countryside. The war has developed in leap
and bound and as prairie fire, covered almost all the country. It has been like
a nightmare for the capitalism, which was in very jubilant mood on the demise
of Marxism of Khrushchev varieties. The ghost of revolution has been haunting
even in
Under these circumstances domestic and international
reactionary class instigated the royal coup and brought Gynendra on the throne who
represents the most reactionary and conservative elements of the ruling class.
As this clique considers repression is the only way to prolong their
exploitative rule the murderer Gynendra clique is trying to crush the people's
movement by military force. For this they have been covertly and overtly backed
by US imperialism. The white terrors unleashed upon the people by reactionary
army under Gynendra have surpassed all limits. They have been defeated by PLA
in every important battle. After seeking humiliated defeat in the hand of PLA
they exterminate the unarmed and innocent people including children. They
bombard village to village through the choppers provided by "democratic
countries". These brutal campaigns have been aptly protested by the people
through armed rebellion.
After the 12 points understanding between CPN (Maoist)
and seven parliamentary parties the movement that has been launched by those
parties has got a new momentum and height. The armed movement and this urban
agitation are going hand in hand. The fusion of town and country side has made
Gynendra and his henchmen so desperate that they have started exercising the
same method of repression upon the parliamentary parties and their movement
which were very common in the country side. So, it is the demand of history
every party that wants to make the Nepalese people a sovereign should come
together to overthrow the monarchy and to usher into the new era of democracy.
It is obvious that the different classes which are to join hands to overthrow
the monarchy have different outlook and different class interest and will try
to march towards their goal once the monarchy is gone. We as a representative
of proletariat will march towards socialism and communism from where the
history of independent mankind will begin. For that as we have learned from the
science of Marxism that we have to pass several labyrinthine path.
We are bringing out this issue of our bulletin on the
occasion of 10th anniversary of people's war. Here are two
interviews given by Comrade Chairman Prachanda they will help the readers to
understand the corresponding class relation in Nepal and the strategy and
tactic adopted by our party to meet the challenges ahead. One interview given
by Comrade Baburam Bhattarai is also included in this issue. Suggestions and
reactions are welcome.
|
INTERVIEW |
(Here are two most
exclusive interviews with Chairman Comrade Prachanda, on the occasion of
glorious 10th year's anniversary of people's war in
- For Kantipur Publication
THE SUCCESS OF REVOLUTION
WILL HAVE IMPACT ON
BILLION OF PEOPLE
Question: What is your bottom line for restoring
peace in the country?
Answer The understanding we have reached with the seven political parties is the bottom line at the moment. The 12-point understanding is the minimum base that democratic powers all over the world can accept and the country's crises can have an exit. After reaching the understanding, we extended the cease-fire by a month. Taking the people's verdict is the best democratic process. Once all are committed to move forward with the outcomes of the people's verdict, a political solution won't be distant. The events and history are testimony to the fact that the king and the palace don't want this.
Question: What about your goals?
Answer: Since we belong to a communist party, our maximum goals are socialism and communism. Those are the maximum goals of all those accepting Marxism, Leninism and Maoism as philosophical and ideological targets. Given the international power balance and the overall economic, political and social realities of the country, we can't attain those goals at the moment. We must accept this ground reality. We have mentioned democratic republic and constituent assembly, with the understanding that we should be flexible given the balance in the class struggle and international situation. This is a policy, not tactics. This is a necessary process for the bourgeoisie and the national capitalists alike, let alone the middle-class.
Question: Constituent assembly?
Answer: Yes. Constituent assembly is not a demand of the communists. It's a democratic process established by the capitalists a long time back.
We are not saying this as a tactic. We have adopted this policy due to today's balance in class powers and today's world situation so that the Nepali people won't have to endure any more troubles. On the one hand, those aristocrats in the feudal palace, despite knowing it, call our policy just a tactic.
On the other, the Maoist movement has become the main fear of foreign powers - especially American imperialism. [They] have termed us a "momentary challenge". They have been looking at us strategically, saying that a "Maoist movement is flaring up in a land between giant countries
Question: What is the process?
Answer: We are even ready to accept restoration of the dissolved House of Representatives if the seven parties say so. The only condition is: don't try to restore the authoritarian power. There are also shadows in the Supreme Court, so don't turn to that either. Restore the House by coming to the people, and we are ready to change the People's Army in a jiffy.
Question: Changing the army?
Answer: We have told the seven parties; let's form a common army by including your people. One of the bases of confusion about us is that we have an army, we have guns. There are confusions about to what extent we are committed to democracy. Let's sit together with all including the seven parties; let's decide together who should be commanders, commissars, chief of the army; let's make a common army. Let's make a national army. We have made this proposal to both Girija and Madhav, saying that this will make clear our understanding on democracy and constituent assembly. Maybe, on the one hand, we haven't been able to clarify the depth and meaning of the issue; and on the other hand, the imperialists and palace elements have spread propaganda against us, thereby creating confusions.
Question: Isn't this proposal of making a common
army a ploy to push the parties into the "People's War"?
Answer: The parties always continued to be hopeful of the palace right
since 2007 B.S. [1951], they kept on making compromises with the palace. They
should have more trust in the people, more trust in the people's power, should
have led a people's decisive movement against feudal elements. We say, let's
make a common army for constituent assembly and a democratic republic. Let's
form a parallel government of the parties and the Maoists. You restore the
House, we will support you; invite us for dialogue, we will come; let's make
the army common by including all; that will make for an official and legitimate
government. That will represent the majority people - the government of the
[seven] parties and a party that rebelled. After forming such a government, we
can approach the United Nations and the international community,
saying 'this is the legitimate government of
Question: How will you manage your arms?
Answer: If all are ready to go for a constituent assembly, an interim government will be formed; the country will head towards elections for the constituent assembly; a ceasefire is undoubtedly attached to this; and it will create a climate for political debate. With the process of holding election by the interim government under way, there will be interaction with the parties and all the political forces in the country including the monarchists. As the election looms, let's maintain reliable international vigil on the Royal Army and the People's Liberation Army. The country will get a direction after the results of the election are out. Once it is clear, let's change the army and the weapons into a national army and national weapons respectively. The weapons of both sides should be put together and both the armies should be transformed into one under the supervision of the United Nations or another reliable agency. That will result in the national army.
Question: Is it your proposal to keep both the
armies under international supervision until the election to the constituent
assembly and formation later of a common army?
Answer: The army will be formed according to the results of the election. This is what you should be clear about. We will accept it if the constituent assembly says we want monarchy. We are flexible even that far. We will accept it even if the people say we want an active monarch. If the people say 'republic', all should accept that. If the people go for, as has been said, a constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy, we are ready for that. We value people's votes, nobody else's. The army will be reformed as per the people's decision.
Question: So, you want to keep the conflict on to
force the king to compromise?
Answer: Flexible words are not enough to pressure the king. If it is thought that the king would agree to revive the House, it is a thought of seeking the king's mercy. What we want to tell the parties is let's directly go for republic. A section of middle-class intellectuals still wants the king to remain in a ceremonial capacity. Even if you want the king to remain in such a capacity, only the call for a republic will create enough pressure for that. The king must come to that point.
Question: Have you received any conditional proposal
for a constituent assembly from the government?
Answer: Since February 1 last, we have had no contact whatsoever with the palace or the palace people, hence we haven't received any proposal. We have gotten an indication, through the UN people or other international agencies that they [government] are trying to propose in a roundabout way a conditional constituent assembly. We reject it outright because "conditional" means "compromise", which is not a constituent assembly. A constituent assembly is without any conditions. Before February 1, we had said we would talk to the king, not the parties. We had said we wanted to talk [with him] for progress. After he started to go towards regression with all the powers, there was no room for holding talks with him.
Question: Isn't it self-contradictory to say 'we
will talk only with the real power, not with the parties and their government',
and later to say 'we won't talk with the king after he announced taking over
power'?
Answer: The power of the old regime rested in the king because the main organ of the regime, the army, was under him. He termed us "deviated" and "terrorists" when he staged the February 1 coup. It was proven that he didn't want to solve the problems even after taking absolute powers, by telling the parties off. The doors for talks were closed.
(Com. Bhattarai: He should have said 'okay I have come, let's solve the problems
together'! He started saying 'I won't give you the rights you enjoyed till
yesterday'. )
Answer: That's the logic. The situation would have altered had he said 'Nobody did really work out, now the Maoists also come for dialogue, I want to give a try for a way out'.
Question: But, don't you think you have been aiding
the king's "war against terror" in the name of "entering the
city"?
Answer:
Question: Isn't there an ideological crisis within
your party?
Answer: We are investigating what mistakes our classes have made in the 20th
century. We reviewed three years ago that the mechanism of running the state
was not that democratic, was more mechanical, the people started to become
monotonous in the 20th century communist movement, especially after the
demise of Lenin. We passed a decision that we will go for a new people's
democracy consistent with the 21st century. We aren't just saying democratic
republic. The think tanks of American imperialism have well understood, though
Question: Do you mean to say
Answer: We think so. Facts substantiate that. Even the parties are in confusion about whether we will prevail. Sometimes, we feel sad. We have told the parties, you take the leadership role, we don't need it. The only thing is that the country should find a way out. We have said that the party leaders can lead the democracy. We are not in a hurry to lead the nation.
Question: You want international mediation. Don't
you think
Answer: On the one hand, the political forces within the country are not
able to convince one another. Secondly, it is the geopolitics between two
giant countries -
Question: Will you go for talks if the government
declares a unilateral cease-fire now?
Answer: We can't go for talks only with a ceasefire. We should look into the intention behind the truce. If the ceasefire comes as a card with the intention of defusing the movement, we won't accept it.
Question: Then, what should happen?
Answer: We are open to holding unconditional discussions on all issues including constituent assembly. We will reciprocate positively if the ceasefire seems to be leading to meaningful dialogue. But, we don't see that possibility.
Question: When will this series of violence end?
Answer: I can't answer this question like an astrologer. If things go as we have said, it should end in two to three months. We want to see things crystal clear by April 6. We have been trying to see the civil war has an outlet.
Question: Your armed insurgency is close to
reaching 10 years. Have you spotted your mistakes in this period?
Answer: The base of feudalism has been uprooted in the villages. The people are in the forefront of the world population when it comes to political consciousness. When we started the movement, there were not more than 70 full-time members in the party. Our movement grew in multiples wherever there was suppression. Within five years, it became a big power at the national level. So many people came to join us that it became like a people's movement.
Question: Lack of discipline was also a big issue?
Answer: Yes, that's absolutely true. People of all kinds came to join us. A
little bit of freedom, anarchy and conservativeness started to become visible.
Militarily, after we successfully carried out big operations in Dang, Gam,
Achham, Arghakhanchi, Jumla, Satbariya, we had thought the army would lose
faster than the police, maybe within a year or two. There was increase in
multiples in the military prowess in preparation for capturing
Question: Internal rift within your party surfaced
around the time February One happened?
Answer: Yes, along with February One, which was the irony?
Question: Have you seen any policy shift by
Answer: We have thought there are certain changes post-February 1. But,
(Comrade Chairman was flanked by Comrade Baburam
Bhattarai)
2. For The Hindu Daily
WE SHOULD END NOT ONLY
THE AUTOCRATIC MONARCHY BUT MONARCHY ITSELF
Question: Your party has waged a
"people's war" in
Answer: For 250 years, our peoples have been
exploited under the oppression of feudal lords. The people's war has helped
crush the feudal structure in the rural areas. We think this is the main achievement.
Also, in the overall sense we feel that in
Question: In your party plenum last
August in Rolpa, you took a momentous decision - to strive for and participate
in multiparty democracy. If you were going to accept multiparty democracy after
10 years of war, why go about this in a roundabout way?
Answer: I want to answer your
question in two parts. There is the whole theoretical and ideological question
that we are trying to develop, because we want to analyse the experience of
revolution and counter-revolution in the 20th century on a new basis. Three
years ago we took a decision in which we said how are we going to develop
democracy is the key question in the 21st century. This meant the negative and
positive lessons of the 20th century have to be synthesised in order for us to
move ahead. And three years ago we decided we must go in for political
competition. Without political competition, a mechanical or metaphysical
attitude will be there. So this time, what we decided is not so new. In August,
we took serious decisions on how practically to build unity with the
parliamentary political parties. We don't believe that the people's war we
initiated was against, or mainly against, multiparty democracy. It was mainly
against feudal autocracy, against the feudal structure.
Question: How difficult was it for your
party to come to this decision? How difficult was it to build consensus on the
need for multiparty democracy within the leadership and cadres?
Answer: An agenda was first
presented to the Central Committee on democracy. Then there was an internal
debate within the party rank and file for a whole year. After that, the CC
plenum unanimously decided that within a definite constitutional framework we
have to go in for competition. Without competition, we will not be able to go
forward. This was a unanimous decision.
Question: Is this decision 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?
Answer: Here again there is not
only one question. There is 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. We are talking of multiparty democracy
in a specific sense, within a specific constitutional framework. We are not
talking about bourgeois parliamentary democracy. This multiparty democracy will
be anti-imperialist and anti-feudal. In other words, only within an
anti-feudal, anti-imperialist constitutional framework is multiparty democracy
possible. That is why armed struggle is also necessary, and unity in action
with the other political parties against the monarchy is also a necessity. The
socio-economic change we are fighting for is against feudalism and imperialism
and it is within the context of that struggle that we are talking of multiparty
democracy.
Question: So if the king announces
tomorrow that the steps he took last year were wrong and allows free and fair
elections under the present Constitution, the Maoists will not take part? Is a
new constitutional framework a pre-condition for taking part in elections?
Answer: Yes, you can put it
that way. If the king says that I was wrong to have done what I did last year,
now come on, let us sit across the table, and then he talks of a free and fair
election to a constituent assembly, then we will be ready. Our minimum, bottom
line is the election of a constituent assembly, that too under international supervision,
either by the United Nations or some other international mediation acceptable
to all. Under those circumstances, we will go in for elections and accept
whatever the peoples' verdict is. This is our bottom line. But if the king
says, come on, make an interim government and hold elections, we will not come
forward.
Question: But will you oppose the parties
doing that? If the parties agree to go ahead on this interim basis, what will
happen to your alliance or agreement with the parties?
Answer: If the king asks them
to form a government and the parties go in for parliamentary elections without
looking at the demands we have been making for the past 10 years, it would be
difficult for us to go along with the parties. Because this is what you had before.
The king and the parties were together for 7-8 years. That was the situation.
And still there was struggle, because the demand for a constituent assembly is
a longstanding one. It is not a demand that came up only today.
Question: How crucial was the August
plenum decision on multiparty democracy to paving the way for the 12-point
agreement with the parties?
Answer: After the
The 1990 movement produced limited gains. We
could have taken more but got less from the palace because of a compromise. At
the time we said the Nepali peoples have been cheated. We said this compromise
was bad and that there was a danger of the palace grabbing power again, as had
happened in Mahendra's time. We said this from the rostrum of Parliament but
the other parties did not have the courage even to act against those elements
from the Panchayat system that the Malik commission had identified as
criminals. And gradually a situation arose where those elements were able to
enter the parties, the government.
After the palace massacre, we said that what we
had predicted in 1990 had come to pass, that diehard elements have hatched a
conspiracy and come forward. And we appealed to the parties to unite together
as we had done in 1990. The parties were in government so it was not possible
for them to understand our appeal. But slowly, the king's designs became
clearer: he dissolved Parliament, dismissed the government and took direct
power. This is when I think the parties realised they had been taken for a ride
all this time. This is also when our plenum took concrete steps on the question
of multiparty democracy. And our statement stressed that the time had come for
all the parliamentary parties to join hands with our movement and civil society
to fight against autocracy and monarchy.
At the plenum, we decided we needed to show more
flexibility, that it was our duty to do this. So we took concrete steps and
declared to the parties, 'You lead, we will support you.' This so-called king -
he is not a traditional king and the Nepali people do not accept him as king.
He and his group are well-known goons and people see them as a regicidal-fratricidal
clique. He is not even a person who is capable of thinking politically. So we
told the parties, come on, we want to help you. Before the plenum, we contacted
the Nepali Congress and UML leaders and tried to bring them to Rolpa. But this was
not possible.
Question: Nowadays, we hear the phrase
'The Maoists will sit on the shoulders and hit on the head.' Does this mean
your alliance with the parties is tactical rather than strategic, that when the
head - the monarchy - is weakened or defeated, you might then start hitting the
shoulder?
Answer: It is not like this.
Our decision on multiparty democracy is a strategically, theoretically
developed position, that in a communist state, democracy is a necessity. This
is one part. Second, our decision within the situation today is not tactical.
It is a serious policy. We are telling the parties that we should end not only
the autocratic monarchy but monarchy itself. This is not even a monarchy in the
traditional way it was in Birendra's time, so we have to finish it. After that,
in the multiparty democracy which comes - interim government, constitutional
assembly and democratic republic - we are ready to have peaceful competition
with you all. Of course, people still have a doubt about us because we have an
army. And they ask whether after the constitutional assembly we will abandon
our arms. This is a question. We have said we are ready to reorganise our army
and we are ready to make a new
Question: The 12-point agreement suggests
you and the political parties have met each other half-way. They have agreed to
a constitutional assembly and you have dropped your insistence on a republic.
Answer: We have not dropped our
demand for a democratic republic. But to achieve that minimum political slogan,
we have said we are prepared to go through free and fair elections to a
constituent assembly. There shouldn't be any confusion that we have now agreed
to a ceremonial monarchy. Some people have tried to draw this conclusion from
the 12-point agreement but even at the time we explained to the parties that
our slogan is a democratic republic. Earlier, we were saying people's
democratic republic but this does not mean we have dropped that goal either.
It's just that according to today's power balance, seeing the whole situation
and the expectation of the masses, and that there [should] not be bloodshed, we
also responsibly believe that to get there too we will do so through peaceful
means.
Question: So the struggle for
"people's democracy" will also be peaceful?
Answer: We will go for the goal
of the people's democracy through peaceful means. Today, we are talking of a
democratic republic and our understanding with the parties is that the way to
realise this is the constituent assembly. At that time, any other party would
be free to call for a ceremonial monarchy, some may be for constitutional
monarchy - such a thing is possible with the seven parties.
Question: But whatever the outcome, you
are ready to accept it.
Answer: We are ready to accept
whatever is the outcome. This we are saying in clear-cut language.
Question: Your three-month ceasefire, and
then the one month extension, did a lot to improve the profile and image of the
Maoists, which had been damaged by certain incidents like the Madi bus blast.
What was the logic behind that ceasefire and what are the roadblocks in the way
of declaring another ceasefire in the near future?
Answer: When we called our ceasefire,
there was no 12-point agreement with the parties nor was there any particular
political or moral pressure on us from them or civil society. But we acted
based on the whole political situation, because on our side too, some mistakes
were increasing, from below, in the implementation of our policy and plan. At
the lower level, some mistakes were happening such as the Madi bomb blast. So
with the middle class our relationship was getting worse. Earlier, there was an
upward trend in that relationship but we felt there was a danger of the graph
falling. We were saying things from the top but still this was not being
implemented. So we wanted the middle classes to be with us, and put out our
political message to the broad masses in a new way. We also wanted to tell the
international community that Gyanendra is not a monarch; these are autocratic,
fascist elements that are keener on bloodshed and violence than anybody else.
We wanted to demonstrate this, and rehabilitate our image with the masses. So
for these reasons we decided to go for a ceasefire.
As for the specific timing, there were two
factors. The UN General Assembly was going to be held and the so-called king
was going to go there. There he would have said he was for peace and democracy.
Such a notorious element was going to go and create confusion over there. This
possibility also needed to be crushed. This was a question. So we thought of a
ceasefire as one way politically to hit out at him.
It was only after the ceasefire that the
dialogue with the political parties began. And then a conducive atmosphere got
created for the 12-point agreement. We also wanted to send a message to the
international community that we were different from the way we were being
projected ideologically. For example, right now we are having discussions with
the European Union and with others, but among all the international forces,
U.S. imperialism is the most dogmatic and sectarian element. The
Right from the outset, we knew the monarch
wanted us to abandon the ceasefire immediately. He was under so much pressure;
he had to cancel his programme of going to the U.N. He was so politically
isolated that he was desperate to provoke us to break the ceasefire. We knew
that we had to sacrifice and ensure that for three months at least it was
upheld because there were festivals, and we wanted to develop our psychological
relations, spiritual relations with the masses. When we extended the ceasefire
by a month, it became clearly established that this so-called monarch does not
want a political solution, does not want peace. He is a bloodthirsty element, a
fascist and autocrat. And when we finally ended the ceasefire, we clearly
stated that if a forward-looking atmosphere for a political solution emerges,
and all the political forces are ready for peace and democracy, then in that
situation at any time we can again announce a ceasefire, and sit down for
negotiations. But now, that situation does not obtain.
Question: As a first step, are you
prepared to join together with the parliamentary parties, with Mr. Koirala and
Madhav
Answer: Immediately after the
12-point agreement, I had clearly said that if there is a unanimous
understanding with the parties that we should go and talk to the king, then we
will go. We are not prepared to meet the king alone, and we are also requesting
the parties that they should also not go alone. Nothing will come of it. Only
if we act collectively can we achieve anything. The alliance has to be
strengthened and taken forward. For example, right now we have this huge drama
of municipal elections. More than two-thirds of the seats will be vacant, and
still he is trying to stage a drama.
Question: But rather than the Maoists
calling a seven-day bandh, wouldn't it have been better as a tactic for you and
the parties to have given a united call for the political boycott of the
elections. That way, the king would not get the opportunity to claim the
elections were a farce because of Maoist threats.
Answer: Yes. I agree with what
you are saying. That would have been better. When the 12-point agreement was
reached, there was a second understanding that within a week or two, we eight parties
- the seven party alliance and the Maoists - would issue a joint statement
appealing to the masses to boycott elections and stage mass demonstrations. But
that has not proved possible.
Question: Why?
Answer: Because the parties'
leadership is a little hesitant. They are perhaps a little afraid that if they
join with the Maoists and issue a joint statement for boycott, there could be
greater repression on them. I think this could be a factor, though we have not
had face-to-face discussions on this with them.
Question: Some feel that the Maoists'
military actions are reducing the political space for the parties. For example,
a few days before the parties were planning a big demonstration in
Answer: I agree a way has to be
found. This is a serious and complicated question. When the 12-point agreement
was reached, there was a need for continuous interaction between us and them.
There was need for several meetings. Only then could we establish some
synchronicity between their movement and ours. This did not happen. Despite
this, we told the parties through other mediums that whether we stage actions
or not, the king is still going to move against you. This is the same king, the
same goons - he is also a very big smuggler - who made sure we couldn't
peacefully demonstrate. When we went for negotiations in
Question: You mentioned the RNA and I
would like your assessment: Does the king control the RNA or does the RNA
control the king?
Answer: 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. This seems to be the emerging situation but
we cannot say this with facts. But looking at the overall situation, it seems
that Gyanendra is going down the path laid out by the RNA. One thing is clear.
He became king after the royal massacre - and it is clear that without the RNA,
that massacre could never have happened, the Army core team was in the Narayanhiti
palace and they are the ones who engineered the massacre. So he was made king
in the same way as before, during the Rana days, when Tribhuvan fled and came
to
Question: I too was in
Answer: This is impossible. Of
course, the clique has managed to establish the story amongst its own circles,
among people who may be neutral as you say. They have established it in their
class but that is not the reality. You know how different stories were put out
immediately. First that the guns went off automatically, then another story was
made. There was even an effort to suggest the Maoists had made a surprise
attack. In the end, they pinned it on Dipendra. So the question arises, if it
was so clear-cut, why didn't this story come out in the beginning? But my main
logic is not this. If you look at the whole history of [crown prince] Paras -
he was there at the time - now the whole history of Paras is well-known second,
the role of Gyanendra in the 1990 movement. He had a big role then - he wanted
to shoot down 2,000 people in Kathmandu and control the movement through force,
he was a die-hard element. Even Surya Bahadur Thapa used to call them the
bhoomigat giroh, an underground clique, and their leader was Gyanendra.What
kind of goon Paras was - this is also known. For more than a month, the
massacre was planned and Gyanendra based himself outside. So I don't think for
even a moment that it was Dipendra. And in any case, the Nepali people simply
refuse to believe this story.
Question: Let us say a situation is
created for a constituent assembly. In the run-up to that, the People's
Liberation Army is not going to lay down its arms. Is it not possible that the
parliamentary parties will feel themselves threatened by your dependence on
arms? What kind of guarantees can you give in the run-up to any election that
there will be no obstacle placed by you or the PLA in the political
mobilisation by the parties?
Answer: When we had discussions
and had an agreement last year - and we hope to meet again and take things
forward after these municipal elections - we said we understand you have doubts
and reservations about us and our army. We want a political solution to Nepal's
problems, a democratic solution. So we made a proposal that you rehabilitate
Parliament, we will support you. A two-thirds majority of MPs is with the
Nepali Congress, UML and smaller parties. Call a meeting and declare that
Parliament has been reinstated, that this is the legitimate parliament and that
what Gyanendra is doing is illegitimate and illegal. Do this and then set up a
multiparty government. We will not be part of it but will support it. And then
you invite us for negotiations and we will come forward. After that, there will
be a move to set up an interim government, and the main aim of that government will
be to have elections for a constituent assembly.
In this rehabilitation and restoration of
Parliament, there is no need to have anything to do with the king. He would
have become illegal anyway. He has violated the constitution and also people's
expectations for peace and democracy. So he would be illegal, your parliament
would be legal and we would fully accept the legality of your parliament. We
will come for negotiations with your leadership. Under your leadership, we will
be in the interim government.
As for the RNA, you should appeal to the
democratic elements within it by saying the king has violated the constitution,
and the expectations of the masses, you come over to this side, this is the
legal government and it is your responsibility to support it. And then the king
should be given an ultimatum of a week or two weeks - that he should move back
to the status quo ante before February 1, 2005 and agree to elections for a
constituent assembly. If he doesn't agree, we would then abolish the monarchy.
And we would tell the international community, this is the legitimate
government; please stop recognising or supporting him. Ours is a legitimate
government and this should be under the leadership of Girija Prasad Koirala. We
are ready to support this.
Under such a situation, the democratic elements
of RNA will be there, and so will the PLA, so we will organise the army as a
new Nepal army. At that point, the problem will not be our weapons. The problem
of arms and weapons is with the RNA which for 250 years has been loyal to the
feudal lords. That is the problem. Our army has only been around for 10 years.
This is not a problem. If there is a political solution, we are prepared to
change that too. This is the first proposal that we have put forward. We will
abolish the monarchy, there will be an insurrection (bidroh), the kingship will
be over and then we will have the peaceful reorganisation of the army.
This is one way to deal with this problem and we
are seriously putting it forward. It is revolutionary, it is viable, it is
possible. It is precisely in this way that it is necessary to end the monarchy
in Nepal. This is our first proposal and I feel the parties are not ready for
this.
Question: What you are proposing is that
the parliamentary parties stage a revolution!
Answer: Yes, but we feel their
role can be a historic one. But they are not ready. The second way is also what
we have been discussing, that the U.N. or some other credible body will
supervise things. The RNA will be in the barracks and the PLA will also be
under supervision. Both armies and arms will be under international supervision
and will not enter the fray. Then there will be elections for a constitutional
assembly. Our army will not interfere in the process.
Question: But what form will this
international supervision take? Will it include foreign troops?
Answer: No troops. There can be
a militia or police, which we create only for election purposes.
Question: Who will be part of this
militia?
Answer: We have not gone into
such details - there can be the cadres of the different parties, but all
without firearms, to manage security for the elections. So there will be
elections for the assembly and whatever verdict of the masses comes, it is on
that basis that the army has to be reorganised. If the republic result comes,
then the RNA's generals and commanders will have to go and the interim
government would appoint as generals officers who are loyal to democratic
values. If a constitutional monarchy wins, then there is the danger that the
old generals will remain. So my point is that the army can be changed. This is
the underlying idea behind the 12-point agreement and the parties also agree
with this.
Question: So you are saying the problem
of the PLA and its arms is not a big problem.
Answer: It is certainly not a
problem the way people outside believe. If there is political will on our side
and the parties, it can be solved.
Question: But you concede there is a
history, which is why the parties are suspicious.
Answer: Yes there is, but we
are talking about this too. There have been attacks by us on them, and we had
seized property. Whatever had been taken from the Congress leadership has been
returned - land and property - UML leadership too. So we are trying to build an
understanding. If the parties' leaders say that in the past the Maoists
attacked us, then we can also say that the RNA army was deployed against us
when you were in government and so many of our comrades were killed. Whatever
we may have done, the other side did so much more and this also has to be
accounted for. But if we start talking like this, we will not be able to solve
the major problem. If we have to make a breakthrough, then we should both
review our history. We have to review our mistakes but you have to as well,
because we have a common enemy - feudal aristocracy. We have to defeat this
enemy and in consonance with democratic values we have to reorganise the army
and state.
Question: How do you see the role of
India today? Last year, when the King seized power, India took a tough stand
against him which surprised many. Today, this policy has its critics but the
bottom line is that the Indian Government does not seem to regard the Nepal
Maoists as illegitimate in the way that the king and the U.S. regard them.
Answer: In the past, India's
role was not good. It was a policy of total alignment with the king. Last year,
after February 1, when the situation changed in a big way, the role of the
Indian authorities strikes us as positive. There is now a tough stand against
autocracy. Still, the two-pillar theory [that Nepal's stability rests equally
on constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy] persists and the Indian
authorities have not officially abandoned this theory. They haven't said there
is need for only one pillar. So officially, India is still sticking to the
two-pillar theory and we want the Indian authorities to change this theory.
They are right to support the democratic movement, but sticking to the
two-pillar theory causes confusion.
Question: But if India abandons it,
wouldn't the King accuse the Indians of interfering in Nepal's affairs, and
then he will accuse the Maoists of being agents of India.
Answer: We do not think such a
thing is possible. During the 1990 movement, when Rajiv Gandhi imposed a
blockade on Nepal, the Nepali people did not oppose the blockade because it was
in the context of the blockade that the democratic movement picked up speed and
advanced very fast. If India is in favour of the democratic movement and a
forward-looking political solution, then it will not be considered
intervention. But if India supports regressive forces, this would be called
intervention. Exertion of external pressure in favour of the masses is never
regarded as interference. This is how it seems to us. The people of Nepal will
not see this as intervention.
For example, some political leaders came from
India recently to show solidarity with the movement. Gyanendra tried illegally
to detain them at the airport, calling it intervention. But more than 99 per
cent of Nepali people did not regard that as intervention. They saw it as
fraternal assistance. Of course, when a Hindu fundamentalist like this Singhal
comes to Nepal, the King welcomes him. When they crown him 'King of the
Hindus', he doesn't call it interference, but when political leaders come and
say there should be democracy, he says this is interference. So the anger of
people has grown against the King, not India. This is why we feel it is time
for India to abandon the two-pillar theory.
Question: If tomorrow you were to meet
Manmohan Singh, what would you ask him to do?
Answer: First, change this
two-pillar theory. The Nepali people are trying to end the monarchy and you
should end your relationship with it. Second, release all our comrades who are
in prison in India. We are fighting for genuine multiparty democracy but they
are imprisoned there, in Patna, Siliguri, Chennai. If you release them all, a
message will go out. And if you feel the Naxalite movement in India is a
problem for you, we feel we are trying to deal with the problems in Nepal in a
new way, so if you release our comrades and we are successful in establishing
multiparty democracy in Nepal, then this will be a very big message for the
Naxalite movement in India. In other words, the ground will be readied for them
to think in a new political way. Words are not enough; we need to validate what
we are saying by establishing that democracy. Third, once a democratic republic
is established in Nepal, then the historical doubts that have existed in the
relations between Nepal and India can be ended once and for all. So for all
these reasons, you should strongly support the movement for democracy.
Question: In many ways, the United States
has emerged as the king's strongest backer. How do you evaluate Washington's
role?
Answer: Their role has not been
good. After February 1, India's role has been positive - for example the
agreement we were able to reach with the political parties, I do not think it
is likely that the Indian authorities knew nothing about this. But the U.S.
role from the beginning has been negative and they are still trying to affect a
compromise between the monarch and the political parties against the Maoists.
Despite the fact that we are talking of pushing multiparty democracy, the U.S.
has decided our movement and alliance has to be crushed. So they have a
negative role.
Question: What is the American interest
in being soft on the king?
Answer: It is not that they are
afraid of what might happen in Nepal. Rather, their strategy is against the
Indian and Chinese masses and also, I think, against the Indian and Chinese
authorities. The U.S. has a grand strategy, and Bush is talking of China and
India as big economic powers and even as threats. Perhaps they see Nepal as a
country that is between these two countries and believe that if the situation
here does not give rise to forces which are in step with themselves, then there
could be a problem. So the U.S. is looking at Nepal from the strategic point of
view. It is not that they have any economic interest here. Political control is
the key, so they want to strengthen the king.
Question: What about the attitude of
China? Some people in India argue that if India continues to take a tough stand
against the king, he will turn to China for help and Beijing will benefit.
Answer: Earlier, we had a
doubt, that perhaps China might be behind the king, that China would try and
take advantage. But then we analysed the situation and came to the conclusion
that China would not play this role. China's relations with India are improving
and China will not want to jeopardise such a big interest by backing the Nepal
king. And in the end, I think our analysis has been proved correct. Recently,
when the Indian Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, went to Beijing, he had talks,
and a few days later, for the first time, the Chinese authorities issued a
statement that they are worried about the situation inside Nepal and that it
needs a careful resolution. Until then, Beijing had always maintained that what
was happening inside Nepal was an internal problem. Today, China has no
interest in antagonising India to build a relationship with the king. This is
our analysis. And it looks like India and China could have a common approach
towards Nepal. Certainly, a common approach is needed. If China and India do
not work together, there will be a big problem not only for now but the future.
So they need to have an understanding in favour of democracy, in favour of the
people of Nepal. As far as U.S. interests are concerned, they are neither in
favour of Indian or Chinese masses. So at the political level, all of us must
come together to counter them, we should not fall under their trap.
Question: How do you explain for the
contradictory nature of some of U.S. Ambassador Moriarty's statements? Last
year, he did use tough language against the king in his speech to the Institute
of Foreign Affairs.
Answer: The U.S. from the start
believes the Maoists are a more immediate threat than the king. Even in the
most recent statement from the State Department, they said the king should
immediately open talks with the parties to deal with the Maoists. And this is
the product of their vested interest. If the Bush administration's intentions
were good, there is no reason to regard us as a threat. If its intention is in
favour of democracy and solving Nepal's political problems, then there is no
reason to see us as a threat especially when we are saying we are for
multiparty democracy and are willing to accept the verdict of a constituent
assembly.
We are glad with the new situation that is emerging after Shyam Saran went to
China; it seems the situation can change. Our movement is also going forward
and I think in 2-3 months, if the struggle continues, then there is a real
chance of ending the kingship once and for all and making a democratic republic
in Nepal. This is the best outcome for China and India, and everyone else. The
U.S. does not want this. They want to maintain the monarchy at all costs.
Moriarty consistently has been speaking against the Maoists. He is connected to
the Asia-Pacific military command of the U.S. He is not a political man. And we
know that although his views are different from some in the U.S. establishment
like, say, Senator Leahy, but overall, the position of the U.S. authorities is
not in favour of democracy and Nepal people.
Question: Has your party put behind it
the differences which emerged last year between yourself and Baburam Bhattarai?
Answer: There was a problem and
we solved it so well that the unity in our party is stronger than ever before.
Our problems were not of the kind the media wrote about. We had an ideological debate
about how to evaluate the 20th century. Why did the communist movement suffer
such an enormous setback? Why did the Russian revolution get overcome by
counter-revolution? Why did China also go down that path? This was a debate
within the central committee for many years. There were other problems linked
to shades of opinion within the party - like the Madi blast - but the purpose
was to sort out our future plan. This was the purpose of the debate. But the
timing was such that these things happened after February 1. If the timing had
not been so bad, there wouldn't have been that much propaganda. But the time
the king took over was also the time the debate in our party sharpened.
Question: The question was raised of a
cult of personality in the party. As you know, any objective evaluation of the
experience of the 20th century communist movement has to consider the cult of
personality as certainly one of the factors in the reversals.
Answer: That is correct. But I
want to clarify one thing. Between Dr. Bhattarai and me, there was never any
debate on the issue of leadership. He has never challenged my leadership. On
the issue of leadership personally, there has never been a difference. There
were differences on ideological questions, about what we should do now, and
there was a debate. And this debate we solved in the Rolpa plenum in August. We
took it to a higher level and our unity has become stronger.
On the issue of leadership I want to say that our party will be the first
communist party in the 21st century which has picked up on a clue from the 20th
century - where it had got stuck - and we are going to open it. At our plenum,
we placed a resolution on the question of political power and leadership. That
when we go for state power and are in power, then we will not do what Stalin or
Mao did. Lenin did not have time to deal with issues of power. Although Stalin
was a revolutionary, his approach, was not as scientific as it should have
been, it was a little metaphysical, and then problems came. We also evaluated
Mao in the plenum. If you look at his leadership from 1935 to 1976 - from when
he was young to when he was old and even speaking was difficult - must he
remain Chairman and handle everything? What is this? So we decided that when we
are in power, the whole team of our leadership will not be part of day-to-day
power. Not just me but our team. Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, Badal, Mahara, others,
we have a leadership team which arose from the midst of the struggle. When we
go to Kathmandu, we will not be involved in power struggles or day-to-day
power. That will be for the new generation, and we will train that generation.
This is a more scientific approach to the question of leadership. If we don't
do this, then we will have a situation where as long as Stalin is alive,
revolution is alive, as long as Mao is alive, revolution is alive.
This will be a big sacrifice for our leadership. Of course it does not mean we
will be inactive or retire from politics. Our leadership team will go into
statesmanship. We are hoping that by doing this we will solve a very big
ideological problem of the communist movement. This is not only a technical
question but a big ideological question. There can be no question of
concentrating power in the hands of any individual or group. When we placed
this resolution before the plenum, then our entire leadership team gained
confidence in themselves, the movement and the line. Our unity has become much
stronger. Now we are in an offensive mood.
We feel we have contributed to the ideological development of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Traditionally, in the international communist movement
there are two types of revisionism - right revisionism of class collaboration,
and the other, dogmato-revisionism, of turning certain ideas into a dogma and
getting stuck to them. This is more among the Maoists. Those who call
themselves Maoists are more prone to dogmato-revisionism, and we have to fight
against this too.
Question: To what extent do you think the
logic of your line on multiparty democracy applies also to the Maoist movements
in India?
Answer: 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.
Question: 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.
Answer: There is no question of
us giving anything. They blame us for Madhubani, Jehanabad, but we have no
relationship of this kind with them.