EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CPI(MAOIST)SPOKESPERSON ON NEPAL DEVELOPMENTS

August 6, 2006

“There is need for caution with the present tactics”

CPN(Maoists) may be giving over-emphasis to the possibility of advancing the movement through the Constituent Assembly!

(With the latest developments in Nepal and the tactics and Strategy now being put forward by the CPN(Maoist) and the continuous appeals by Indian Marxist and revisionists to the Indian Maoists to learn from the Nepalese Maoists, People’s March has been trying to get the response of the Indian Maoists. At last we have received by e-mail a response from the spokesperson of the CPI(Maoists) which, to a large extent, gives their response. We are giving below an interview taken by our correspondent with comrade Azad, the spokesperson of the CC, CPI(Maoist) in end June 2006.)

PM: How do you look at the current developments in Nepal?

Azad: We, in India, have been watching the ongoing developments in Nepal with great interest. The militant mass agitation by the people of Nepal against the reactionary, autocratic regime of King Gyanendra in April, in the backdrop of the powerful-armed struggle, was indeed historic. The people of Nepal had inscribed a glorious chapter in the annals of Nepal by forcing the fascist King to relinquish his adamant stand and to concede power to the parliament. Particularly the one million strong mobilization in Katmandu in June and the lakhs mobilized in the districts indicates the growing influence of the Maoists in the country. Their influence to be encompassing even the urban areas. Our Party hails the historic struggle of the people of Nepal for democracy and a better society. However, the revolutionaries in India hope that the struggle in Nepal will go on until the overthrow of the King along with the so-called parliament and capture of power by the revolutionary and democratic forces. We hope that the Maoists will be able to maintain their initiative to direct the ongoing political developments. They would need to remain alert in their alliance with the seven party alliance, which wants to strike a compromise with the King and betray the aspirations of the people.

PM: How do you view the tactics of the CPN(Maoist) in joining the interim government and promising to abide by the verdict of the constituent assembly?

Azad: The situation in Nepal and the World is complex. Due to the weakness in the international communist movement we see many a people’s war bogged down in a struggle for survival for decades. In this situation it is no doubt that the Nepalese party and people have made historic advances. But we feel 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 a possibility of a peaceful transition from the CA to the NDR. One may bring some reforms from above and satisfy certain deprived sections of the people but it will never solve the basic problems of the people as you cannot smash feudalism and throw out imperialism from the soil of Nepal by utilizing the old state whatever embellishments one might do to give it a refurbished image. Nothing short of a revolutionary upheaval of the masses can achieve the above objective. No doubt given the huge mass mobilizations throughout the country and the efforts to create an even wider upsurge are positive preparations to take the revolution forward, but some of the statements in the interviews tend to give the impression that the CPN(Maoists) are giving over-emphasis to the possibility of advancing the movement through the Constituent Assembly and in alliance with the 7-parties. This can have dangerous implications.

The present emphasis of the CPN(Maoist) needs to be seen with caution particularly after they had brilliantly built up their people’s army of 25,000, their Base Areas, the UF and their new Organs of Power, and had stated that they were in the phase of the strategic offensive to seize power. In the process they effectively defeated all efforts of the police and RNA to crush them, maintaining the military and political initiative. But now there is no reference even to the strategic offensive and how it is to advance. They ofcourse do refer to this being a February revolution and that preparations must go on for the October revolution, but we are not aware this later fits into their strategic offensive plan.

PM: And what about the dissolution of the revolutionary organs of power and merging of the two armies?

Azad: These organs are the product of protracted people’s war against the old state and they stand out as shining examples of people’s democratic dictatorship at the local level brilliantly built by the CPN(Maoist) party. The immediate task and the tactics should serve to strengthen these organs and mould them into organs of uprising like the Soviets in revolutionary Russia and China. While consolidating these organs of power we need to strive to mobilize the masses in a big way into uprisings and strive to capture the cities leading to the final seizure of power at the opportune moment. In fact in the concrete situation in Nepal today the Maoists have really only two revolutionary options. Either they must intensify the mass upsurge, evolve the organizational forms of political power suitable for seizing political power at the national/all Nepal level or if that is not possible owing to an unfavorable balance of class forces the existing base areas should be consolidated and strengthened and steps taken to complete the democratic tasks and advance towards in the direction of the socialist tasks. It is possible that in this process two Nepals will emerge – a reactionary one based in Kathmandu and few cities and a revolutionary Nepal based in the countryside.

As regards merging the army within a reconstituted state army, it is even more dangerous. Mao said that without a people’s army the people have nothing. The army is one of the main instruments of class rule. How can two diametrically opposed classes have a single army? By merging the people’s army with the reactionary army of the ruling classes (until now the faithful servant of the King) the people will become defenseless in case of a reactionary armed offensive by the enemy. We have experiences of several countries where the toiling masses suffered heavily due to the wrong line of the Communist party. In Indonesia we know of the cruel massacres of communists and their sympathizers carried out by the ruling classes due to the line of hobnobbing with the reactionary ruling classes whom they considered as nationalist and democratic forces. We also have before us the examples of Chile, Nicaragua and several other countries. One cannot rule out the possibility of the reactionary ruling classes carrying out a coup and reestablishing their monopoly over political power at an opportune moment when the revolutionary forces have been effectively disarmed or weakened. This has been the experience in several countries following the 2nd World War i.e France, Greece etc. But, of course, if the Maoists do not pose a threat to the interests of imperialism and the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois (CBB) and they get accommodated and incorporated into the system then they too would be received with warmth by the ruling classes. The invitation to the UN to supervise the cease-fire and monitor the demobilization of the people’s armed forces is also dangerous. The UN is essentially an instrument of imperialism and particularly American imperialism. It is bound to work in the interests of the reactionary ruling classes of Nepal and imperialism. Overall, the decision of the CPN(Maoist) 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.

PM: The various parliamentary parties in India, not to speak of the Left parties like the CPI and CPI(M), have been hailing the line of participation in the interim government and parliamentary democracy taken by the Nepali Maoists and say that it will have a positive impact on the Maoist movement in India. How does your Party assess its impact?

Azad: It is the wishful subjective thinking of these parties in India that the develop-ments in Nepal will have a “positive” (what they mean by positive is the Maoists shun-ning armed struggle and joining the so-called mainstream of parliamentary politics) impact on the Maoist movement in our country. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Maoist movement in India, with the numerous ups and downs it had gone through in the past four decades after Naxalbari, knows how resilient our movement is. Even when confronted with great difficulties and odds against the revolutionaries, the genuine Maoists in India never vacillated or drifted from their line of new democratic revolution and achieving it through the line of protracted people’s war. They had not only rejected the parliamentary path but also fought against the parties who wanted to participate in elections in the name of utilizing it as a tactic. Of course, there are some pseudo revolutionary parties, like the CPI(ML)-Liberation which had degenerated into parliamentary parties but these stand exposed before the people as revisionist parties in the guise of MLM.

No wonder, the various ruling class parties and the so-called left parties in India are elated at the change of stance by the CPN(Maoist) 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. As bitter enemies and opponents of revolution all these parties have been in the forefront in suppressing the ongoing people’s war in India. The decision of the CPN(Maoist) to participate in the government along with the reaction-ary parties, declaring their commitment to the so-called rule of law and the future constitution, and to become actors in the ensuing game of parliamentary elections following the elections to the constituent assembly has come as a breather for the ruling class parties in Nepal and the parliamentary system of India.

In fact, in his interview with The Hindu last February, comrade Prachanda himself hinted at the “positive” impact that his line of multiparty democracy will have on the Maoist movement in India. It must have come as a great relief for the Indian ruling classes to hear comrade Prachanda speak of his Party’s commitment to multiparty democracy and the message he wants to give to the Naxalite movement in India by successfully establishing multiparty democracy in Nepal.

When asked what he would say if he were to meet the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, comrade Prachanda said:

“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 multi-party democracy in Nepal, 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.”

It is really a matter of grave concern that comrade Prachanda, instead of demanding the expansionist Indian ruling classes to stop all interference and meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs, only talked of how their tactics would bring about a change in the outlook of the Maoists in India. Needless to say, these remarks will not only be deeply resented by the revolutionary masses of our country who have seen the wretched system of parliamentary democracy in India but will also be proved totally wrong through their revolutionary practice.

PM: The CPM and one of its top leaders, Sitaram Yechuri, was focused as a messiah from India to play a role between the Maoists and SPA. After returning back to India he and his party advised the Indian Maoists to follow the line of the CPN(Maoist). How do you explain this when they seem hostile to the Maoists here? Apart from this Yechury told the press that the Indian Maoists have planned to kill him and the secret regarding this decision was informed to him by the Nepali Maoists. What is your comment please?

Azad: The CPM is a party of the Indian ruling classes, representing the interests of imperialism, feudalism and the CBB in India. Their primary task seemed to be to bring the Nepalese Maoists into the parliamentary ‘mainstream’, which they also keep preaching us in India. When we do not accede they have used the worst forms of state terror against us as in West Bengal. Their aim is the same in both countries — to pacify the Maoists in India with bullets and do the same with the Nepalese Maoists with sugarcoated bullets. Yechuri and the CPM in effect played a more affective role for the Indian ruling classes when the Congress was fumbling with the Karan Singh fiasco. But when he overdid his ‘diplomacy’ and was sidelined, he cooked up the conspiracy theory of the Maoists in India planning to kill him to regain some credibility and try and sow seeds of mistrust between the two Maoist parties. A true Chanakya!!

PM: Why are you opposed to the tactic of multiparty democracy as proposed by the CPN(Maoist)?

Azad: Firstly, we are greatly perturbed by the proposal put forth by comrade Prachanda in his various interviews that his party was committed to multiparty democracy, which will be practiced not after the revolutionary seizure of power by the proletariat but within the semi-colonial semi-feudal society. The 2003 Plenum document was quite vague regarding CPN(Maoist)’s concept of multiparty democracy or political competition, i.e., whether it is applicable after the seizure of power by the revolutionary party or prior to seizure itself. It only says it is possible to organize political competition within the constitutional limits of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist democratic state. However, the statements, interviews and documents released after the 12-point Delhi Agreement between the CPN(Maoist) and the Seven Party Alliance in November 2005 all point to the need for competition within the existing system after the Constituent Assembly is elected.

There is also confusion regarding the class character of the Parties with whom such political competition has to be conducted. While the 2003 document clearly stated that these forces will be anti-feudal and anti-imperialist in character, the post November 2005 documents and interviews of CPN(MAOIST) provide scope for such competition with the constituents of SPA who are basically comprador bourgeois-feudal in their character in spite of their role against monarchy, or, more specifically, against King Gyanendra’s autocratic rule.

In fact, in the same document entitled “Present situation and our tasks”, presented by comrade Prachanda and adopted by the Central Committee Meeting of the CPN (Maoist) in May 2003, it correctly described the nature of the parliamentary parties in Nepal in the following words—

“In form it may appear as a triangular struggle involving monarchy, parliamentary forces and revolutionary forces, but in essence and if one looks from a class point of view, the struggle involving only two forces (reactionary and democratic forces) are seen. 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 been time and again proved in Nepal that monarchy in the name of nationalism (fake) and parliamentary forces in the name of democracy (fake) want to occupy the seat of power and betray the nation and the people on identical class basis.

“What we have been saying from a class and theoretical point of view and what has become all the more exposed in the present cease-fire and negotiation process is that it is the clash of interests between different international reactionary centers which is behind the mutual recriminations and contradictions between different reactionary groups in Nepal. As the royal army and the palace elements are being manipulated and protected by western imperialism, particularly American imperialism, and the main parliamentary forces by the Indian rulers who seek special hegemony in South Asia, they are having a continuous tug of war between them. Hence the whole Party should be clear that, in the background of political development particularly after the palace massacre, the idea of seeing either the monarchical or the parliamentary forces of Nepal as more democratic or more nationalistic than the other, will be specially harmful and wrong. It has become all the more clear in the present day Nepal that we can never have any ideological and political relationship with either monarchical or parliamentary groups except to manage contradictions in a particular situation.”

While the above analysis of the class character of the parliamentary parties, their fake democracy and loyalty to various imperialist powers, is basically correct, it is indeed very unfortunate that the CPN(Maoist) has not adhered firmly to that analysis from a strategic and class perspective. It is one thing to make necessary adjustments, understandings and tactical unity with these parliamentary forces and even with a section of the imperialists against the main enemy when conditions for such alliances become ripe. But to create illusions on the character of these parties or overlook their links with imperialists and Indian expansionists will do great harm to the revolution in the long run.

Moreover, we find that comrade Prachanda and the CPN(Maoist) had turned the tactics to the level of strategy and path of the world revolution in the 21st century. Thus, in his interview to The Hindu comrade Prachanda stressed that the Maoists’ commitment to multi-party democracy is not tactical but the result of a lengthy ideological debate within the party over three years. He said: “our decision on multi-party democracy is a strategically, theoretically developed position and we are telling the parliamentary parties that we are ready to have peaceful competition with you all.”

The CPN(Maoist) leader directly assured the comprador bourgeois-feudal parliamentary parties that his Party is ready to have peaceful competition with all of them. And by describing this decision on multiparty democracy as a strategically, theoretically developed position comrade Prachanda has brought a dangerous thesis to the fore—the thesis of peaceful coexistence with the ruling class parties instead of overthrowing them through revolution; peaceful competition with all other parliamentary parties, including the ruling class parties that are stooges of imperialism or foreign reaction, in a so-called parliamentary elections; abandoning the objective of building socialism for an indefinite period; and opening the doors wide for the feudal-comprador reactionaries to come to power by utilizing the backwardness of the masses and the massive backing from domestic and foreign reactionaries or the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois and feudal and petty bourgeois forces to hijack the entire course of development of the society from the socialist direction to maintaining the existing system (even if in a new form) in the name of democracy and nationalism. Whatever may be our good intentions for building a more democratic system, the laws governing class struggle will not permit of such a system. History has proved this time and again from the days of the Paris Commune right up till the earlier revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

PM: Then are you in favour of multiparty democracy at least after the seizure of power? If not what is the form of government you envisage after the revolution?

Azad: The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist understanding regarding the form of government that will be best suited for the proletariat is the Commune or the Soviet or the Revolutionary Council that can best serve the proletariat and the vast majority of the masses as they act not as talking shops and mere legislative bodies but as both legislative and executive bodies. The representatives to these bodies are elected and are subject to recall any time the people feel they do not serve their interests. If we look at the very process of the protracted people’s war it entails the setting up democratic power in the Base Areas of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal forces UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PROLETARIAT elected democratically at gram sabhas with the right to remove them also by the gram sabha. Here there is a close interaction between the power structures and the will of the people and therefore truly democratic. Once power is seized at the all-India level, till the transformation to the socialist stage all genuinely anti-imperialist and anti-feudal parties will be part of the new power, and the transition to socialism can only take place through continuing the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This does not deny democracy for the masses at large but, as Lenin said, petty production generates a bourgeoisie daily, hourly and these elements will find their representative at all realms of state power, including the Party. Can anyone think of a better form of government and better form of exercising democracy in the real sense of the term?

“To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament—this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary- constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics”, said Lenin.

This was said by Lenin over a century back. Since then, particularly since World War II, the parliament and its related institutions have become even more corrupt and rotten to the core.

A good example of how the new power was built was the Paris Commune. The concepts practiced there were further worked out in the Soviets of the USSR, the communes in China and the experiments of the GPCR and is being sought to be practiced in the Base Areas being set up by the Maoists in different parts of the world.

Comrade Lenin also explained very lucidly how the Parliament functions even in the most democratic of the republics and, contrasting it to the Commune, showed how the Communes (or the Soviets in Russia and Revolutionary Councils in China) are the most suitable forms of government for the proletariat and the toiling masses.

“The parliamentary bourgeois republic hampers and stifles the independent political life of the masses, their direct participation in the democratic organization of the life of the state from the bottom up. The opposite is the case with the Soviets.

“The way out of parliamentarism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the elective principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from talking shops into “working” bodies. “The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.”

“The Commune substitutes for the venal and rotten parliamentarism of bourgeois society institutions in which freedom of opinion and discussion does not degenerate into deception, for the parliamentarians themselves have to work, have to execute their own laws, have themselves to test the results achieved in reality, and to account directly to their constituents. …. We cannot imagine democracy, even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions, but we can and must imagine democracy without parliamentarism, if criticism of bourgeois society is not mere words for us, if the desire to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie is our earnest and sincere desire, and not a mere “election” cry for catching workers’ votes, as it is with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries,”

PM: And how do you ensure political competition with other parties? The CPN(Maoist) claims that it is only by organizing political competition and institutionalizing the right of the masses to install an alternative revolutionary party in power that counter-revolution can be effectively checked.

Azad: It is, indeed, surprising that the CPN(Maoist) should arrive at such a conclusion even after the proletariat is equipped with rich and varied experiences on the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, after it is armed with such an appropriate form, method and weapon as the cultural revolution and is in possession of a wealth of writings by our teachers—Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao—and by several Marxist writers on the subject of checking the degeneration of the Party, Army and the State; preventing the restoration of capitalism; and building a new type of state and society. To think that continuous proletarianization and revolutionization of the Communist Party can be ensured and that counter-revolution can be effectively checked by organizing so-called political competition or by institutionalizing the right of the masses to install an alternative revolutionary party or leadership on the state means falling into the trap of bourgeois formalism and under-mining the real task of mobilizing the masses extensively to wage bitter class struggle against the old reactionary defeated classes and the new bourgeois class developing within the Party, Army and the Administration. It is difficult to grasp how alternative revolutionary parties can exist- especially since the communist parties have always understood that different political lines represented either a proletarian outlook or a bourgeois outlook.

The crucial point lies not in ensuring the right of the masses to replace one Party by another through elections, which is anyway the norm in any bourgeois republic or bureaucrat bourgeois-feudal republic, but ensuring their active and creative involvement in supervising the Party and the state, in checking the emergence of a new bureaucratic class, and themselves taking part in the administration of the state and society and in the entire process of revolutionary transformation. And it will be the foremost task of the Party to organize and lead the masses in checking counter-revolution and bringing about the revolutionary transformation in all spheres through continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. And this is the most important lesson handed down to us by the entire historical experience of the world revolution, particularly by the GPCR.

Moreover, is it possible for the Party of the proletariat to prevent the comeback of the defeated classes to power and check counter-revolution peacefully or by a coup by providing such an opportunity to them to compete in a “democratic” manner? Would the Bolshevik Party have won the elections in Russia after the revolution had it organized such political competition given its near-total absence in the vast backward countryside where the most reactionary ideas ruled the roost? In fact, the Bolshevik Party had to even dissolve the constituent assembly immediately after it captured power despite the fact that it was only a minority in it as the constituent assembly acted as an instrument of the reactionaries and became an obstacle for carrying out revolutionary reforms and for exercising proletarian dictatorship as in the Soviets. It is not just the case of Russia, in many countries, particularly in semi-colonial semi-feudal countries, where petty commodity production and peasant economy predominate, the feudal ideology, culture, customs and the force of habit among the majority of the population will make it possible for other non-proletarian and even reactionary parties under the anti-feudal anti-imperialist cloak to come to power relatively easily. Hence it will not be surprising if we find that the idealist and subjective proposal of the CPN(Maoist), though made with good intentions, ultimately becomes a convenient tool in the hands of the capitalist-roaders to seize power.

As regards political competition with other parties, we have the experience of China where several democratic parties such as the Democratic League, Peasants and Workers’ Party and others competed with the CPC and contested in elections to the various organs of power. Although these existed for almost a decade after the revolution the people rejected them when they refused to support socialism and tried to take China along the capitalist road. Political competition was encouraged in China, not in the form of participation in Western-type bourgeois parliamentary elections but in the elections to various bodies. Democratic parties and organizations belonging to the four classes that comprised the motive forces of revolution were to take part in the elections to the various bodies.

The CPC had strived to unite all the anti-feudal anti-imperialist parties and forces during the new democratic revolution and also after the seizure of power and establishment of people’s democracy or the people’s democratic dictatorship.

In his article On the correct handling of contradictions among the people, in 1957, Mao explained the policy of the CPC towards other political parties after the capture of power thus:

“It is the desire as well as the policy of the Communist Party to exist side by side with the democratic parties for a long time to come. But whether the democratic parties can long remain in existence depends not merely on the desire of the Communist Party but on how well they acquit themselves and on whether they enjoy the trust of the people. Mutual supervision among the various parties is also a long-established fact, in the sense that they have long been advising and criticizing each other. Mutual supervision is obviously not a one-sided matter; it means that the Communist Party can exercise supervision over the democratic parties, and vice versa.”

In China many methods were evolved to prevent capitalist restoration and the rise of a new bourgeoisie in the Government and Party. Mao’s let a hundred flowers blossom and let a hundred schools of thought contend; his ‘Three-thirds’ system of democratic representation which restricts the seats of Communist party members in all elected bodies to a maximum of one-third of the whole and gives two-thirds of the seats to members of other parties and non-party elements; his putting six political criteria for political parties to stand for elections; etc; are only a few of the examples adopted. Democracy is not merely a formal putting a vote but must exist in the very living process of any organization, with the leadership under the close supervision of the masses and cadre; this too is possible with only a general raising of MLM consciousness of the Party and the masses and intensifying the class struggle. In China there were many parties after the revolution sharing power, but the unity was on a principled basis, and was part of the front to deepen the class struggle against the remnants of the feudal and CBB forces. In Nepal they in effect dilute the class struggle by forming a government with feudal and CBB elements.

The most important thing is that all the revolutionary bodies in the proletarian or people’s democratic state are elected and every person so elected is subject to recall, which is not seen, in the so-called parliamentary democracies.

PM: Do you find anything wrong when the CPN(Maoist) says it will go to the new democratic stage via the bourgeois democratic or multiparty republic?

Azad: No Maoist would say it is wrong to fight for the demand of a Republic and for the overthrow of the autocratic monarchy. And likewise, none would oppose the forging of a united front of all those who are opposed to the main enemy at any given moment. Needless to say, such a united front would be purely tactical in nature and cannot, and should not, under any circumstances, determine the path and direction of the revolution itself.

The problem with the theorization by the CPN(Maoist) lies in making the fight against autocracy into a sub-stage of NDR and, a tendency to make the sub-stage overwhelm (dominate and determine) the very direction and path of the revolution. The programme and strategy of NDR drawn up by the Party prior to its launching of the armed struggle, its targets to be overthrown, and even the concrete class analysis made earlier based on which the revolution had advanced so far, are now made subordinate to the needs of the so-called sub-stage of Nepalese revolution. The sub-stage of a bourgeois democratic republic appears, from their interviews and statements, to have become the all-determining factor.

As far as we know, , we can say that the numerous types of state system in the world can be reduced to three basic kinds according to the class character of their political power: (1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship {in addition to these there are the fake republics in the backward semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries under the joint dictatorship of the CBB and feudal elements, backed by imperialism ); (2) republics under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes. In essence, the slogan of a bourgeois democratic republic given by the CPN(Maoist) cannot but come under the first type of republic in spite of the participation of the revolutionary party in the state power along with the comprador bourgeois-feudal parties.

In his interview with the BBC correspondent, comrade Prachanda gave his vision of future Nepal in the following words:

“We believe that the Nepali people will go for a republic and in a peaceful way the process of rebuilding Nepal will go forward.

“In five years’ time Nepal will move towards being a beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation.

“In five years’ time the millions of Nepalis will already be moving ahead with a mission to make a beautiful future, and Nepal will truly start becoming a heaven on earth.”

He further asserted that a democratic republic elected in such a way will solve the problems of Nepalis!!

“We believe that with the election of a constituent assembly, a democratic republic will be formed in Nepal. And this will solve the problems of Nepalis and lead the country into a more progressive path.”

Anyone reading the above lines would think that these views reflect more a nationalist sentiment than a proletarian class outlook.

How will Nepal start becoming a “heaven on earth” after becoming a bourgeois republic? How can the formation of a democratic republic “solve the problems of Nepalis”? Can it free itself from the clutches of imperialism after becoming a republic in the present imperialist era? Does the CPN(Moist), which claims to believe in MLM, really think that the “process of re-building Nepal will go forward in a peace-ful way”? And is there a single instance in world history where such peaceful process of rebuilding has taken place? Does not the history of world revolution show that bitter class struggle, bloody and violent at times, continues even after decades following the capture of power by the proletariat? Then how could comrade Prachanda think of such a peaceful process of rebuilding Nepal even at this sub-stage? Do the parties belonging to the SPA really fight imperialism, Indian expansionism and feudalism in Nepal? Is there a guarantee that the CPN(Maoist) will defeat the bourgeois-feudal parties, with which it wants to go for political competition, in the elections and ensure that Nepal does not drift into the clutches of imperialism and Indian expansionism? How could one believe that once the elections to the Constituent Assembly are over and Nepal becomes a Republic, not under the leader-ship of the working class party but may be under an alliance of a hotchpotch combination of Parties i.e., an alliance of ruling class and working class under CPN(Maoist), the country would free itself from feudalism and imperialism and become a “beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation” ?

According to comrade Prachanda’s opinion, “the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that can right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend upon the then national and international situation and state of power balance.”

This so-called transitional multiparty republic is sought to be transformed into a new democratic republic through peaceful struggle by means of political competition with reactionary class and their parties, which try to transform it into a bourgeois parliamentary republic!!

Whatever be the tactics adopted by the CPN(Maoist) 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(Maoist) are slipping into dangerous territory.

Moreover, as long as the Party wages a consistent struggle against imperialism and local reactionaries and pursues the line of redistribution of land and wealth, nationali-sation of all comprador, foreign industries, banks and foreign trade, it is certain to face opposition from the other parliamentary parties. And if it wants to be part of the parliamentary game it has to abide by its rules and cannot carry out its anti-feudal, anti-imperialist policies in a thoroughgoing way. Even the independence of the judiciary has to be recognized as part of the game of parliament and can cause obstruction to every reform which the Maoist party tries to initiate after coming to power through elections. This is already being seen with the 8-point agreement being said to be illegal. US imperialism is even strongly demanding that the Maoist should participate in the constituent assembly only after they lay down their arms. The CPN(Maoists) have rightly opposed this position of the US and also Indian expansionists. We expect that they will remain firm in this.

Then there will be several institutions like the judiciary, the election commission, the media, various artistic, cultural and even religious bodies, non-government organizations, and also human rights organizations some of which are floated by the ruling classes, and so on. If one slips into the quagmire of the so-called multiparty democratic republic, one cannot escape from upholding these so-called independent institutions. Many of these can become hideouts of the reactionary forces and work for counter-revolution in diverse subtle ways. One cannot forget the subtle manner in which the western agencies infiltrated and subverted the societies in East European countries and even in the former Soviet Union.

PM: Comrade Prachanda says that the tactics adopted by his party are based on the specificities of the political and military balance in the world as well as particular class, political and power balance in Nepal besides the experiences of the 20th century. What is your Party’s opinion on this?

Azad: It is true that comrade Prachanda in his interview to The Hindu last February cited the above three factors for his party coming to the decision on multiparty democracy. In fact, this understanding could be seen in the CPN(Maoist) even before the said interview. For instance, in the CC meeting in August 2004, it began to be skeptical about the prospects of victory in a small country like Nepal when it is confronted by imperialism and there is no advancement of any strong revolutionary movement.

“In the present context, when along with the restoration of capitalism in China there is no other socialist state existing, when despite objective condition 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? This is the most significant question being put before the Party today. The answer to this question can only be found in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and on this depends the future of the Nepalese revolution.”

The same Plenum had also pointed out why the series of tactical steps like cease-fire, negotiation, political way out etc., were taken up.

“There is no doubt that the imperialist forces are now in preparation for even more vicious assault as the Nepalese People’s War is in preparation for strategic offensive from its current position of strategic equilibrium. The entire complexities, opportunities and challenges of Nepalese revolution are the manifestations of this objective condition…but, in Nepal, the development of revolution has reached a very sensitive stage of preparation for strategic offensive. It is essential to understand that the series of tactical steps undertaken by the Party such as cease-fire, negotiation, political way out etc. are based on this strategically favorable and tactically unfavorable world situation and the condition of strategic equilibrium inside the country.”

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 are weak. World imperialism has unleashed a massive offensive on the revolutionary forces, national liberation movements and on the people’s movements everywhere. 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. Particularly when we are a sizable force such flexibility can more effectively be wielded for the achievement of our goals. But while doing so there is always a danger to lose sight of our strategic tasks of the seizure of power by armed force. From the statements being made by the CPN(Maoist) leadership it appears that that danger is there. Many statements being made and the interviews being given tend to negate some of the basic Marxist understandings regarding state and revolution. It may be said to have been made in the context of diplomacy; but its end result is to mis-educate the revolutionary and progressive camp. It is not expected from a Marxist statesman.

In the interview com Prachanda had gone to the extent of saying:” We are ready to accept the people’s verdict, if they chose constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy.” It is indeed a great tragedy to see the Maoist party finally ending up in these political positions in spite of having de facto power in most of the countryside.

PM: Comrade Prachanda says that the line of multiparty democracy applies to the Maoist movement in India too. How does your party see this?

Azad: We saw his comments on this point in his interview with The Hindu correspondent. It says:

“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 question of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition I believe 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, they will not go anywhere.”

Such advice has been coming forth from the various ruling class parliamentary parties in India since long. The revisionist CPI and CPI(M), who swear by Marx and Lenin, regularly sermonize through their magazines, documents and statements, regarding the futility of armed struggle for seizing state power and achieving revolutionary social transformation. They desperately try to show how parliamentary multiparty democracy is the best instrument for achieving this transformation as witnessed in West Bengal and Kerala. The CPI(ML)-Liberation, in the name of MLM, preaches the virtues of multi-party democracy and calls all those who do not wish to be tied to the parliamentary pig-sty as anarchists and adventurists.

It is good that the CPN(Maoist) wants to debate with the Maoists in India on the question of leadership and multiparty democracy. There have been interesting discussions and exchange of opinions and experiences between the leaderships of our two parties on the concept of leadership, on the question of personality cult and concentration of all power in the hands of one individual, etc. Our opinion has always been that it is necessary for a good section of the Party leadership to work among the masses and concentrate on building class struggle even after the seizure of power in order to prevent the degeneration in the Party functionaries, officials in the various state departments, particularly the armed forces, in the various units in the production sphere, and so on. We must encourage the masses to criticize the mistakes committed by the party and the party leaders even in the course of the revolutionary movement prior to the seizure of power. We must develop collective leadership rather than focusing on any one individual or delegating revolutionary authority. Dependency on one or few individuals instead of developing collective leadership and involving the entire Party membership and the masses in decision-making has been one of the causes that led to great reversals in Russia and China where, after the demise of outstanding proletarian leaders like Stalin and Mao, the CPSU and the CPC turned revisionist so easily.

We agree with comrade Prachanda when he says that “from the lessons of the 20th Century communist states – we want to move to a new plane in terms of leadership – where one person doesn’t remain the party leader or the head of state.”

In fact, this had also been one of the major points of debate during the inner-party struggle in the CPN(Maoist) during 2004-05 when comrade Bhattarai (Laldhoj), in his Basic Questions for Inner-Party Discussion, raised questions such as: Is proletarian leadership a centralized expression of collectivity, or is it a person centered? Does the principal law of dialectics, viz. one divides into two, apply to the main leadership or not? How does the system of a single person occupying the top Party, army and the state posts, and that too for life, solve the question of generating revolutionary successors and of continuous revolution? Our party, the CPI(Maoist) wish to conduct a serious debate on these questions and also on the question of Prachanda Path and on the concept of path, thought and ism.

PM: What would you say with regard to the concept of 21st century democracy as proposed by the CPN(Maoist) led by comrade Prachanda?

Azad: What is new in the concept of 21st century democracy raised by the CPN(Maoist) and how is it qualitatively different from the democracy of the 20th century? The CPN(Maoist) had also claimed that its “decision on multi-party democracy is a strategically, theoretically developed position” which is even applicable to conditions in India. One knows about bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy, that democracy too has a class character, which in a class-divided society democracy will serve the ruling class while exercising dictatorship over the rest of the people. In bourgeois republics the nature of democracy is bourgeois. It is meant to serve the bourgeoisie while oppressing the vast majority of the people. Its essence is bourgeois dictatorship. Likewise, in people’s democratic republics, the democracy is meant for all the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist classes while dictatorship is exercised over the enemies of the people and their agents. The qualitative difference between different types of democracies lies in their class character. But when the CPN(Maoist) says that there is a qualitative difference between the democracy of the 20th and 21st centuries without any reference to the class character, it is not only unconvincing but also seems to be highly subjective.

One reason given is that in the 21st century there has “been unprecedented development in science and technology, particu-larly in electronic communication techno-logy, in the world.” How this unprecedented development has a bearing on the strategy of the revolutions in the 21st century or on the nature of democracy in the 21st century is not clear.

It says that “in the field of ideology, the central committee has attempted to draw a strategic outline of the world revolution based on the analysis of today’s world situation and mainly the new analysis of globalized imperialism and proletarian movement and has succeeded to present a totally new concept in relation to leadership and accomplishing revolution and preventing counter-revolution” and “in the field of politics” it says, it has made a “qualitative leap in the concept regarding political and military strategy and tactic established in the 20th century.”

We are still not clear what is this new concept and qualitative leap claimed by CPN(Maoist) except for their line of multiparty democracy and political competition which boils down to competing peacefully with the various reactionary and revisionist parties for power in a so-called transitional multiparty democratic republic.

PM: Finally, where do you see the Nepalese revolution heading?

Azad: We also do see reports that the PLA still maintains its firepower and alertness. Also there is reference to the recent upsurge being the February revolution and the preparations going on for the October revolution. There are also reports of huge mass mobilization to win over new forces to the side of the revolution, including in the urban areas. Also the US imperialists and Indian expansionists (including their stooge, Yechuri) are openly trying to sabotage the alliance demanding as a prerequisite the laying down of arms by the Maoists. Besides, the Maoists have stated that they will not give up their arms and will maintain their own camps. All these are positive trends indicating the readiness of the Maoists to advance towards the New Democratic Revolution. There is need to beware from two situations: falling into any traps laid by the ruling classes and their imperialist and expansionist masters; second to beware of a sudden coup and massacre of communists as witnessed in Greece, Indonesia, Chile and a number of other countries. Even a huge mass base in these countries did not stop such massacres. But we will expect that the CPN(Maoists) will steer the Party forward and advance the revolution for the seizure of power countrywide.

PM: One last question. What is the message you would like to give to the revolutionary ranks of Nepal, India and the rest of the world?

Azad: First we would seriously request the CPN(Maoist) and its leadership to reconsider some of its recent positions and learn from the history of past mistakes. The Nepalese party and people have a great history of struggle and sacrifice. Over 10,000 have lost their lives in the course of the present people’s war. We salute these heroic martyrs of the Nepalese and world revolution. We are confident that the great Nepalese people will advance the revolution forward facing the numerous twists and turns in the movement. There is no doubt that revolution today is no simple task; the path will be zig-zag.

We also call on the people of India to lend full support to the Nepalese revolution. But while doing so it is also the duty of the Indian and world proletariat to render friendly suggestions to their comrades in Nepal. After all, the interests of the Nepalese revolution are very much in the interests of world revolution, and more particularly of its neighbor, the Indian revolution. The revolutionary people of India are ready for any sacrifice in support of the Nepalese revolution. We are confident that we will march forward, together, against the obnoxious system of world imperialism and its local semi-feudal base.

PM: We, on behalf of the People’s March wish to thank you for the interview on this so crucial issue in a neighboring country.

Azad: Thank You

Advertisements

31 Responses to “EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CPI(MAOIST)SPOKESPERSON ON NEPAL DEVELOPMENTS”

  1. Prabhat Says:

    Dear Sir,

    I am willing to sacrifice my life for the poor people,Adivasi Tribals of Chhatisgarh and adjoining States.

    How long will be slaves in our own land ?Fistful of outsiders are ruling our land.Is this fair?

    Regards.

    Prabhat

  2. Stalingam Says:

    Red Greetings

    Good to see you that you have started
    a blog.Hope to see vibrant discussion here.

    Regards

    Stalingam

  3. Joseph Says:

    On August 27, 2006, in the naxalrevolution.blogspot.Com.I saw comments of Com. Bahadur regarding Nepal. Those comments were sent from Peoples March and I was expecting to see them either here or in the current issue. Due to some reasons they are not. However, I do believe that there must be a violent theoretical struggle against revisionism and non-proletariat trends in every sphere to put forward the revolutionary struggle. The interview of Com. Azad and the comments of Com. Bahadur have immense importance in that respect. Since the comments of Com. Bahadur are not available in here, I am also adding them as Appendix.

    In the interview, Com. Azad, mainly dealt with political line line of CPN(M); showed their fallacy, their anti-Marxist perspective on the question of state, their ‘class-independent’ point of view. But, philosophical perspective was not explained in detail that was done in these comments.

    Com. Bahadur has correctly pointed out that the cause of development is internal. “Self movement of matter” is the fundamental Marxist conception we must keep in our mind. They are the revisionists who don’t care the internal contradictions, but rely upon only external influences.

    With almost full agreement with the point of view expressed in the interview and the comments, I would like to add couple of more points. And this is regarding the theoretical conception of CPN(M). When they directly advocate the parliamentary line instead of class struggle any student of Marxism can understand that they are following the teachings of Khrushchev, not Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao. But, the point is, according to the teachings of our great teachers, there must be a course of development of any process. Nothing comes all of a sudden. So there must be a development in their line that finally leads to clear revisionism today. It is the duty of any real Marxist to understand that process; otherwise the fight against revisionism (which in essence against imperialism-big comprador bourgeoisie and feudalism) will not succeed.

    I do believe that the whole issue should be considered along with theoretical conception of RIM. In the political line of RIM, there are couples of points, from where revisionist thinking is being enriched. We must expose those.

    First of all Stalin question. From the very beginning they have been denouncing Com.Stalin. Under the leadership of Com.Stalin CPSU(B) constructed socialism with proletarian dictatorship in USSR. That is the one of greatest advancement in the whole history of class-struggle. It was possible in one country, although encircled by capitalism. Com.Stalin fought against Trotskyite line that held up the external factors and argued that in one country socialism building was not possible because of surrounding capitalism (now, we hear essentially the same argument from the followers of ‘Prachanda-Path’). This is Com. Stalin, who taught us proletarian dictatorship in practical. And in great debate, we know, how Com. Mao up held the teachings of Com. Stalin. The revisionists, who don’t rely on proletarian dictatorship, can only deny the teachings of Com. Stalin. RIM and their followers did the same. They even shamelessly dared to place Com. Mao against Com. Stalin.
    When the followers of ‘Prachanda-Path’ are scared of U S intervention and stress over the idea of external influence and abandon proletarian dictatorship, is there any fundamental difference with the line proposed by Trotsky?

    Prachanda-Path. This is the most ridiculous and stupid theoretical fashion in RIM. Before ‘Prachanda-Path’, in Peru we have seen ‘Gonzalo thought’. That means RIM believes for each and every country there could be different ideological line. Our teachers, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao on the other hand taught us that ideology of proletariat must be a whole. Being in connection with everything, each particular thing in essence just as infinite in its many sidedness as the world as a whole. Therefore, the general guiding ideology must be the same for the proletariat of the whole world at a given period with some particular features at a specific situation. If there are different guiding ideologies for proletariats of different countries, then it will no longer be Marxism, rather bourgeois nationalism. If we remember the Yugoslavia question in Comminform, we can see this was exactly what Tito proposed. According to Tito, “socialism” of Yogoslavia would be different. And again Com. Stalin exposed the inner reactionary character of it and finally Yugoslavia was expelled from Comminform. Therefore, the tendency of proposing different ‘Thought’ or ‘Path’ for different countries is completely anti-Marxist.
    And now, the non-proletarian orientation of ‘Prachanda Path” is crystal clear, as Com. Bahadur correctly commented “In the stead of People’s War they have proposed since June 2003, reaching the victory of New Democratic Revolution through bourgeois democracy…. And these people have named this as a sub-stage of the New Democratic Revolution.”
    At this point it could be mentioned that following Khrushchev, RIM criticizes Com. Stalin and Comminform for expelling Yugoslavia. On the other hand, we know, in Great Debate, CPC exposed the character of Yugoslavia and firmly supported the standpoint of Com. Stalin. So we can see, whom RIM follows, Com. Mao or Tito-Khruschev?

    Their guiding ideology. Com.Lenin taught us “His (Marx’s)-doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism. (The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism.)”. That means guiding ideology of proletariat is not just the idea of any individual (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao or whoever he is). Rather, Com.Lenin wrote “Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation (The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism.)”. Therefore, there is a close connection between the economic structure and the world outlook of proletariat. During the stage of development of capitalism the proletarian strategy and tactics was Marxism. When capitalism reached imperialism, the moribund and the highest stage of capitalism, the Marxism has developed into Marxism-Leninism. Com. Stalin said, “Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution”. After second world war, the crisis of imperialism deepens and imperialism enters the phase of “total collapse”, a phase in the era of imperialism that ensures the possibility of victory of Neo Democratic Revolution in the semi feudal-semi colonial countries of Asia-Africa-Latin America, the neo colonies of today’s imperialism. Taking these changes (which are quantitative, not qualitative) into account the guiding ideology of world proletariat has further developed into Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought. But, the era of imperialism has not been changed. The Leninist strategy and tactics are still valid.

    Although RIM says that “The fundamental principles of Leninism are not outdated, they remain the theoretical basis guiding our thinking today”, they actually propose a qualitatively different era when say “The Declaration correctly stresses-Mao Tsetung-s qualitative development of the science of Marxism-Leninism- and affirms that he raised it to -a new stage.” But, what is the basis of this qualitative development? Their answer will be for sure “contribution of Com. Mao”. But, is it in agreement with Marxist-Leninist epistemology? We have seen, how Com. Lenin stressed on the economic structure in relation to human knowledge. It is the economic structure, which determines our socio-political consciousness. Therefore, when RIM formulates the ‘qualitative development of the science of Marxism-Leninism’, they are just proposing a new era without any materialistic basis. And without materialistic basis, any conception must be nothing but the idealism. This idealism is being reflected in their view as they have concluded “On top of it the development of science and technology in the 21st century has qualitatively enhanced the international situation in determining the success of the revolution of any country.” Now it is quite clear that they define current period as qualitatively different form the era that Com. Lenin defined as imperialism. Starting from this theoretical proposition they step forward to advocate the sub-stage of bourgeois revolution and obviously negate the Leninist strategy and tactics. And it is the direct outcome of their theoretical line, “qualitative development of the science of Marxism-Leninism”. Com. Bahadur has already noticed that negation and correctly remarked, “The era of independent bourgeois republics have long gone since 1917.”

    The whole theoretical conception of RIM is full of non-proletarian trends. Their basic conception is significantly different from the teachings of our great leaders. The old Trotskyite and Tito-like tendencies in their conception have now been developed into clear revisionism.
    To understand this revisionism, it is better to keep in mind that these people have called themselves as “Maoists”, not in the sense that they are the followers of teachings of Com.Mao, rather claming a qualitative difference between ‘Mao-thought’ and ‘Maoism’.

    In the present context, when objective condition is in great favor of proletariat and oppressed people of the whole world, we cannot achieve victory because of our shortcomings in subjective preparations. Unfortunately there is no socialist country in the present world to give international leadership. Under the circumstances, any little revisionist deviation will only give advantage to the reactionary camp. As Com.Mao stressed on the correctness of political line, we should be very cautious for any new theoretical formulation. The international political line established through Great Debate, 9th and 10th Congress of CPC was under the leadership and guidance of Com.Mao. It is our duty to grasp and follow that international line.

    Best regards,
    Joseph

    Note:
    1. RIM wrote in its declaration:
    “Stalin had a fair amount of metaphysics in him and he taught many people to follow metaphysics”, “Stalin failed to see the connection between the struggle of opposites and the unity of opposites.” Stalin’s most fundamental error was to fail to thoroughly apply dialectics in all spheres and thus draw serious wrong conclusions concerning the nature of the class struggle under socialism and the means to prevent capitalist restoration. While waging a fierce struggle against the old exploiting classes, Stalin denied in theory the emergence of a new bourgeoisie from within the socialist society itself, reflected and concentrated by the revisionists within the ruling communist party, hence his erroneous claim that “antagonistic class contradictions” had been eliminated in the Soviet Union as a result of the basic establishment of socialist ownership in industry and agriculture. Similarly a failure to thoroughly apply dialectics to the analysis of socialist society led the Soviet leadership to conclude that there was no longer a contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production under socialism and to neglect to pay adequate attention to carrying out the revolution in the superstructure and continuing to revolutionise the relations of production even after the establishment, in the main, of the socialist ownership system.

    This incorrect understanding of the nature of socialist society also contributed to Stalin’s failure to adequately distinguish the contradictions between the people and the enemy and the contradictions among the people themselves. This in turn contributed to a marked tendency to resort to bureaucratic methods of handling these contradictions and gave more openings to the enemy (Declaration of RIM).

    3. The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism. V. I. Lenin

    Appendix:

    Nepal : Changes in society are chiefly due to the development of Internal contradictions
    Got this in my email today from peoplesmarch
    ——————————-

    From P.Govindan Kutty, Editor of People’s March
    Website – Peoplesmarch

    NEPAL: CHANGES IN SOCIETY ARE CHIEFLY DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS

    (Comment on January 1996 document and June 2003 Document)

    What caused the development of society? Internal contradictions.

    Chairman Mao Zedong has said that, “Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradictions between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new.” Note 1

    This analysis of society is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, it is universally true for every country, for Germany as well as Nepal.

    As regards Germany, it is an imperialist country, the third most powerful in the world and the most powerful in Europe. The development of German society has been, is, and will be, due to the development of its internal contradictions in the main and not to anything else.

    In Nepalese society, the development of this society during the last seven to ten years has also been due to the development of the internal contradictions and this development has been very rapid. Why has it been very rapid?

    This is due to the correct leadership of the CPN(M), the waging of People’s War, and the formation of the united front in Nepal during the past seven years from 1966 to 2003. The objective conditions for People’s War existed and with the subjective reaction on these objective conditions, the revolution made rapid progress.

    This is due to the correct ideological and political line in launching People’s War and not indulging in any monarchical parliamentarianism. The CPN(M) has also implemented a correct military line in establishing base areas and surrounding the cities from the countryside and seizing political power by armed force. What kind of ideological line and political line is this? It is the ideological and political line of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is the military line of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

    As early as January 1996, Chairman Prachanda in his “War Policy of Nepalese New Democratic Revolution in the Context of Historical Development” wrote clearly and firmly, ” It is necessary on the part of the people to use force to accomplish New Democratic Revolution by destroying the existing semi-feudal and semi-colonial state system to liberate from acute problems of economic subjection, cultural perversion and political stagnation the Nepalese society is facing. In the present situation our Party has firm belief that a new system can be established only by applying the method of protracted People’s War according to the objective situation of Nepal and that under the leadership of the Communist Party based on the strategy of encircling cities from countryside.”

    He further concluded, “We have Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the invincible ideological weapon that the international proletarian class has developed as a highest synthesis of knowledge of the human being. We have a universal proletarian military theory of People’s War which being developed amidst intense storms of class struggles have proved the best. Our Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party is the one which has developed amidst long and intense ideological struggle against different forms of opportunist and mainly right revisionism seen in the Nepalese communist movement.

    “Apart from this, what can we say from the experience of the
    history is that the tactics of encircling the cities from the countryside
    goes well not only with the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of
    protracted People’s War but also with the historical development
    process of Nepal. There can be no talk of a new type of Party and a
    new society in the countries like ours without the protraccted process
    of People’ War.

    The experience of class struggle has elucidated the
    fact that the People’s War does not have any alternative in today’s
    world. Shattering the opportunist illusions that deceive people by
    saying that the mass movement and parliamentary struggle is
    principal, now it has become a historical necessity to enter into the
    course of People’ War.

    People are the creators of history. To provide
    leadership to the Nepalese people that (who) have a glorious
    history of heroism is the duty of the communists today” Note 2

    From a position of having not even one soldier, guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism the CPN(M) through the courageous pursuit of People’s War and struggle on many fronts under the aegis of People’s War, is now having a People’s Liberation army of tens of thousands (thirty thousand) and a militia of much more, and a liberated area of eighty percent of the country, that is the greater part of Nepal, other than some of the big cities and towns, in trust for the people of NepaL.

    The United Front of the party has been very closely and widely knit, encompassing even some of the servers of the monarchical regime, (while the main leaders of the parliamentary parties retain their reactionary class character). This is a shining example of the efficacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist social science. This is the greatest victory so far in the history of the Nepalese people and a great contribution to the proletarian world revolution regardless of what may happen next.

    Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is universally true and invincible against all odds. The New Democratic Revolution is the common path that will be traversed by all semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America however much the reactionaries may try to hold back the wheel of history, the New Democratic Revolution will break out and will inevitably triumph!

    What about external causes affecting the development of internal contradictions?

    Materialist dialectics “holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken because each has a different basis. There is constant interaction between the people of different countries. In the era of capitalism and, especially in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the interaction and mutual impact of different countries in the political, economic and cultural spheres are extremely great. The October Revolution ushered in a new epoch in world history as well as in Russian history. It exerted influence on the internal changes in other countries in the world and similarly and in a profound way, on internal changes in China. These changes were effected through the inner laws of development of these countries, China included. ” Note 3.

    The external causes do affect the development of the internal contradictions. But the effect is not decisive or determinative as the development of the internal contradictions. These external factors affect; but not as internal contradictions; and only through internal factors do external factors affect the development of internal contradictions.

    For instance in Germany, the internal principle contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat of Germany. It is the development of the class contradiction between the two classes that pushes German society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old German society — the imperialist-capitalist society, by the new socialist society.

    External influence may affect the development of the internal

    contradictions but these will play only a minor and secondary role.

    For instance, when the German proletariat with its class allies

    rise in insurrection against the German imperialists, whatever

    external help that the U S may give to their class allies in Germany

    cannot and would not be the decisive factor in the determination of

    the struggle between the German imperialists and the German

    proletariat.

    Of course, the U S imperialists may intervene directly, send its

    own soldiers into Germany and take over the fight from the German imperialists, for them and with them, when the fight is going badly for he German imperialists. Then the U S imperialists become the invaders and their contradiction with the people of Germany become the principal contradiction and the fight will be between all the people of Germany against the U S invaders!

    As it is in Nepal, up to the 2003, the U S imperialists have sent military advisors and military and economic aid to the reactionaries in Nepal. The Indian expansionists have also aided the reactionaries in Nepal. But so far these aid and assistance has been externally given to the reactionaries.

    All the roar of the U S imperialist tigers and all the manteras of the Indian expansionists wishing Maoism’s death and CPN(M)’s failure and all their personnel and material aid have not stopped the People’s War in Nepal. In fact People’s War in Nepal has grown and is growing. The progress of history go against their intentions, no matter what they do. Their aid and assistance have caused difficulties to the people, but these difficulties are difficulties on the road of progress.

    Is it not evident the that thus far, up to 2003 it is the development of the internal contradictions, the fight led by the CPN(M) that has produced the revolutionary situation in Nepal despite the aid and assistance given by the U S Imperialists and the Indian expansionists to the reactionaries? Can there be any doubt that the further development of the internal contradictions will lead the Nepalese people through to the stage of strategic offensive in the People’s War and to final victory in the New Democratic Revolution?

    A document entitled Present Situation and Our Historic Task, adopted by the Central Committee of the CPN(M) in June 2003 has the following basis for its thinking. We quote: “Today the great Nepalese People’s War (PW) is in a specific stage of strategic equilibrium and in preparation for strategic offensive. Theoretically, this stage is very complex and sensitive by itself. In imperialist era, whenever any country’s people’s revolution advances up to this stage of development then it becomes obvious that it starts clashing with world imperialism” Note 5

    On what ideology is this thinking based?

    We wish to say that objectively, the Initiation of the People’s War in Nepal in 1996 (February 13) must have shocked the reactionaries and their retained masters, the imperialists and the expansionists to the marrow of their bones! Similarly, in imperialist era and proletarian revolutionary era, the Naxalbari Uprising jumbled the innards of the Indian reactionary classes. Likewise when the flag of Uprising was raised over Chingkangshan, the Guomindang was dumb struck! The initiations were the start of the end of the paradise of the reactionaries on earth! How can they fail to feel first shock and then anger.

    Thus the clash with the internal enemies is also at the same time with their retained masters. It begins from the beginning to the end of the fight, that is, until final victory because the help given by the retained master to the reactionaries is hostile and antagonistic to the people. It does not begin only to matter only from the stage of strategic offensive to final victory.

    Of course from the initiation, the fight to strategic equilibrium and also to strategic offensive and final victory is with the internal enemy (supported by their retained masters). The victory of the New Democratic Revolution in China is the principal case in point.

    But the imperialists, especially, the U S imperialists and Indian expansionists may intervene directly in the on-going war in Nepal on the side of the reactionaries. This is possible. Why?

    Imperialism, especially US imperialism is the enemy of the people of the world. It has led the imperialist powers of Europe in dismembering Yugoslavia and attacking and occupying Afghanistan and also invaded and occupied Iraq with its coalition of the willing. It threatens a number of countries of the world. It has military bases in many places of the world. To use a phrase from a country that has fought the U S and other imperialists to a standstill, it is an evil empire. Thus, it is possible that the U S imperialists may intervene in Nepal.

    Why is it that U S imperialism will have the capacity to intervene?

    Because it is the sole super power. Though it is still occupying Afghanistan and Iraq; and threatens many other countries, it will have the military might and men to intervene in Nepal.

    On the question of whether or not the U S imperialists and the Indian expansionists will intervene, it is better to prepare for their intervention. On the question of whether they will intervene singly or jointly, it is better to prepare for their intervention jointly. On the question of whether or not that they will intervene on a small scale or a large scale, it is better to make provisions for them to intervene on a large scale. Timely and adequate preparation is the basis for carrying on the fight against the invaders without let up.

    At the start of the intervention, the invaders will as a whole be tactically superior in arms and attack many parts of the country. But as they spread out their finger to grapple with the people’s war in the whole country, their forces would be gradually tied down and thinned out. The Nepalese people’s forces would be able to attack the U S imperialists’ or Indian expansionists’ weakest parts first and then go on to cut off their fingers one by one, or in other words to eat up the other stronger parts mouthful by mouthful. It is imperative that the effective people’s forces at the start of the invasion by the U S Imperialists and Indian expansionists be moved out harm’s way, out of their frontal attack and let the land of Nepal take the brunt of the attack. U S tomahawk missiles and the bombs and aerial and artillery attack look terrifying but would only create a number of holes in the mountains of Nepal! The hills and mountains of Sagarmartha fame can withstand the onslaught of U S imperialists’ weapons. The tens of millions of sons and daughters of Nepal who have fought the reactionaries of Nepal to strategic equilibrium can go on to overwhelm any invading force that the U S imperialists and/or Indian expansionists may send. In the final analysis, the people will be proven to be stronger than any invading force that the imperialists and expansionists may send for the following reasons:

    a. Nepal is in the era of progress, of ascendancy, it is moving toward New Democracy and then Socialism for the people, It is a movement which cannot be stopped. While on the other hand, U S imperialism is in her dying days, like the sun setting in the west. It is old and decaying, moribund and beset with a thousand crises which cannot be overcome. This is also a movement which cannot be stopped,

    b. The aid and assistance given by the U S imperialists and other imperialist powers and the aid and assistance given by the Indian expansionists to the reactionaries of Nepal are unjust and any invasion of the country by them either singly or jointly would be unjust and condemned by the world. On the other hand, the Nepalese people fighting for their freedom up to now is just and fighting against invasion would be doubly just. Fighting a just cause merit the help and assistance of the revolutionary people of the world including the revolutionary people of the U S. It is certain that the people and the Maoists of India in the various states of India would not stand by with folded arms while U S imperialists and/or Indian expansionists ravage the land and kill the people of Nepal.

    c. The people Nepal have experience in carrying out the strategy and tactics in waging People’s War against the reactionaries, they will be able to apply the strategy and tactics of People’s War against the invaders.

    d. Though the invaders at the start have a preponderance of weapons, fire power and men; as the war expanded over the whole country and they occupy cities and towns and have to garrison them, their men would be thinned out and tied down; and their weapons and fire power, used.

    Through perseverance in the protracted war against the invaders, the tide would turn in favour of the people and against the invaders until they are driven out. The Korean War, 1950 to 1953, and the Vietnam War in the Sixties and Seventies are instances in point.

    The U S would be fighting simultaneous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Nepal and may be more. Can they really fight many wars all at the same time?

    Chairman Mao has said, “In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is only temporary and relative while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined by the principal aspect of the contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.

    “But this situation is not static; the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction transform themselves into each other and the nature of a thing changes accordingly..” Note 3

    In the contradiction between U S imperialists and the people of the world, because of its present strength, imperialism, especially U S Imperialism constitute the principal aspect of the contradiction and the people form the secondary aspect. The world is known by the principle aspect—an imperialist world; simultaneously the subsidiary aspect is the proletariat and people of the world — the era of proletarian revolution.

    These aspects do not stay unchanged over time. Through struggle by the proletariat and the people of the world, the presently secondary aspect of the contradiction can and will transform itself into the principal aspect and the presently principal aspect will be transposed, to be relegated to the secondary aspect.

    Through the struggle of the people of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries of the world and the proletariat of the imperialist countries, the day will dawn when the imperialists will be relegated to the secondary aspect to make its downward slide into oblivion.

    At the moment, the U S imperialism call the shots and run riot all over the world. The CPN(M) in its Document “The Present Situation and Our Historical Task” state the following:

    A “Because of the development of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the favourable and unfavourable international situation will be playing a strategic role in determining the success of specific country’s democratic revolution.” Note 5

    Is this ccorrect?

    The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist basis of thinking is that favourable and unfavourable international situation can only playing an influencing role in the New Democratic Revolution of a country and the influence can only be through internal causes. However, the document states that these will play a strategic role. It implies that no matter how well you fight in a semi-feudal and semi feudal country you are bound not to win in that country. So why fight? This is even so when the people of Nepal have won over 80% of the country? It this not telling the people not to fight any more.? Is there an iota of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in this? It is pure capitulationism.

    B “On top of it the development of science and technology in the 21st century has qualitatively enhanced the international situation in determining the success of the revolution of any country.”

    The development of science and technology is an enhancement in the development of material production. It intensifies the class struggle between the producers and the appropriators of the product of labour and brings the day nearer when the appropriators will be done away with. There have been improvements in science and technology throughout the centuries, not only the 21st century. It would be ludicrous just to mention only the 21st century. The reactionaries make use of the development in science and technology to make more powerful and destructive weapons against the people. That is true, But the revolutionary people who refused to be cowed and enslaved will give them tit for tat struggle.

    The contradictions between the people and the reactionaries is a class struggle. The improvements in science and technology cannot do away with the nature of class struggle. Class struggle will go on in spite of the improvements in science and technology. The outcome, victory in the New Democratic Revolution will still be decided by the internal class contradictions in each and every country in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial world. The international situation cannot be the determining factor in the success of the revolution in any country. Conversely, it is also true that a revolutionary international situation may not prevent a socialist country from being restored into capitalism as in the case of China in 1976.

    There may be a case though in the future when many of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries have become New Democratic societies and some imperialist countries have become Socialist, that the overwhelming revolutionary strength of the people of the world swamp the might of the remaining reactionary countries and revolutions in these countries will be less arduous as it is now. But this is class struggle on a world scale and has got nothing to do with development of science and technology enhancing the international situation in determining the success of the revolution in a country. Is this an opportunity for giving an excuse for not going on with People’s War to achieve total victory. What logic is this?

    C “In today’s conditions, any ups and downs in the revolution of in any country are related with the ups and downs that occur in the world situation. The development of revolution in the last seven years amply explains this reality” Is this correct?

    The ups and downs in the revolution in any country are chiefly due to the development of the internal contradictions in that country. The international ups and downs will influence the development of the internal causes but are not determinative of them. Even though influenced by international causes, the revolution in a country has its own causes of development and may yet push society forward into New Democratic society even though internationally, overall, the world situation is not favourable to the revolution in that country. It is guidancce by this Marxist-Leninist-Maoist philosophy that the revolutionaries in each country carry on the struggle against the reactionaries and their retained masters in each country. Otherwise, following the line laid down in the document above, each one will be playing a waiting game. Let us wait until the international situation is favourable and then and only then go into action! Is this not tantamount to saying that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is good, efficacious, invincible; But let us wait until to-morrow to adopt it? Is this not saying that People’s War is good; but only to-morrow? Is this not saying that strategic offensive is marvellous; but only to-morrow?

    D “However, at present there is no revolutionary wave under the leadership of the proletariat”

    Is this the talk of revolutionaries, and Maoist revolutionaries at that? Revolutionary wave under the leadership of the proletariat does not exist all at once for the taking. Neither does it drop from the skies. It has to be fostered, nurtured, created. It has to be created from many parts of the world, from a number of countries before the isolated ripples can form a wave. Is it not a requirement before the formation of a revolutionary wave that the revolutionaries of each country do their part?

    Though in Germany, we are reminded of a poem by Robert Burns entitled “Bruce of Bannockburn”\;

    “…

    Lay the proud usurpers low,

    Tyrants fall in every foe.

    Liberty’s in every blow.

    Let us do or die.”

    With imperialism and U S imperialism especially, running riot all over the Middle East and the world, the day cannot be too far away when the people will rise in revolt. The revolutionary people of Iraq is giving the U S invaders and occupiers a hard time in Iraq; The awakened fighters in Afghanistan is gradually taking on the U S and other imperialists. There are other theatres of war.

    It is up to the revolutionaries to organise the people and create the revolutionary wave.

    E “In the present context, when along with the restoration of capitalism in China there is no other socialist state existing when despite objective condition turning favourable, 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 specific geo-political compulsion like Nepal to gain victory at the point of capturing central state through the revolution? This is the most significant question being put to the Party today”

    There has been Lenin and the Bolsheviks who were mountain eagles deplete with revolutionary vigour and vitality who ushered in the victory of the October Revolution in the Land of Russia.

    Other than Leninist and Bolshevik mountain eagles there must be Himalayan eagles with equal revolutionary strength and stamina who will usher in the victory of the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal.

    Geography is an important factor in war; but not the decisive factor. Mountainous and land locked country has both advantages and disadvantages in war and struggle. Advantages and disadvantages exist as one. We must look not only at the disadvantages but also at the advantages as well. How has the People’s War been prosecuted from Initiation up to the stage of Strategic Equilibrium? By the own efforts of the Nepalese people and their fighters. By self reliance.

    It is true from the stories of some of the people of Nepal that to get salt and kerosene they have to travel many kilometres. It is difficult. But these are difficulties waiting to be overcome. The decisive factor in victory in the People’s War is the political consciousness of the people. Conscious people are a gigantic force. Conscious people get their things other than from their enemies in war; also from the earth, from the mountains, in peace times.

    As regards the issue of being a small country, we say that there are big countries and small countries. The people of all countries, big and small, want revolution, that is, the New Democratic revolution and the Socialist Revolution.

    Can a revolutionary say that those in a small country must wait for those in a big country to be victorious before they will fight? Is this not playing the waiting game?

    The victory in the New Democratic Revolution in any country, whether big or small, decisively depend on the unity of its United Front, on the solidity of the People’s Liberation Army and the quality of the leadership of the Maoist Communist Party. In a word, it depends chiefly on people not the size of the land.

    As regards the injured tiger pouncing on the people, what must the people do? Simple. Put it to sleep.

    As regards there being not even one socialist country, a revolutionary and a good Maoist revolutionary should take a look at the world and see for himself. We are reminded by a description in a recent poem by Abdullah Iraq entitled “Onward Leap To Marxian Science” that New Ideas world wide retained.

    “…

    Form was crushed, ideas remained.

    Old ideas turn scales again.

    Change of colour base domains;

    New ideas world-wide retained!”

    At first there were only two – Marx and Engels.

    There was no socialist state.

    Then there was Lenin and no socialist state, no USSR prior to October 1917. But it came to fruition in the victory in October 1917 in Russia. We lost that in 1956â€_

    Then there was the People’s Republic of China in 1949. We again lost it in 1976.

    It has been 30 years since we lost it. The reactionaries all over the world say we have lost everything, there is not even one socialist state. Are you not repeating what they have said? Why this repetition? Why do you cry over spilt milk and ever so often? If you had tears, you should have shed them in 1976.

    The poem above remind us that new ideas, ideas of New Democracy and Socialism are world wide retained. This is the progress. This is the diamond.

    Bahadur

    160806

    Note 1 “On Contradictions” August 1937, Selected Works Vol. 1 p314.

    Note 2 “War Policy of Nepalese New Democratic Revolution In the Context of Historical Development P&P OTRIN pp193 to 203

    Note 3 “On Contradictions” August 1937, SROW from MZD p89

    Note 4 “On Contradicctions” August 1937, SROW from MZD

    P112

    Note 5 “The Present Situation and Our historical Task” SIDOT CPN(M) pp129 to 149

    DEVIATIONISTS IN MAOIST CLOTHING

    (Comment No 1 on the Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party Of Nepal (Maoist))

    Erstwhile Maoists having reached the stage of Strategic Equilibrium in the People’s War in Nepal, that is having fought the reactionaries in Nepal who were aided and assisted both by the imperialists, especially the U S imperialists and the Indian expansionists, to a standstill have been having second thoughts about the Strategic Offensive, that is going ahead with the People’s War to capture total state power. Since June 2003, from the adoption of the Document ” The Present Situation and Our Historical Task”, they have passed one resolution after another up to the present resolution in justification of their present day actions. As documented in “The Present Situation …” in 2003, they are stating in the recent resolution that, “Today, any national liberation, democratic or socialist movement is not possible to succeed in any country of the world unless it does not (if it does not) advance as an inseparable part of the world people’s resistance movement…”

    What are the second thoughts that these people have? The people of Nepal face the possibility of direct intervention of U S imperialism and Indian expansionism. These people looking at the U S imperialists conquest of Iraq together with the British imperialists and the imperialist conquest of Afghanistan and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, are scared stiff, like the chick seeing the rattle snake, any moment to be cobbled up by it!

    These people have used the argument that now at the stage of Strategic Offensive, the People’s War will clash with imperialism and by implication will invite the direct intervention of the U S imperialists and the Indian expansionists.

    Whether the U S imperialists and Indian expansionists directly intervene or not does not depend on the Nepalese people. The Nepal people are after all not their general staff and cannot decide for them. But these people state that the revolution will clash now with imperialism and expansionism but does not say whether or not they are prepared for the clash. In fact if and when the revolution moves forward it more likely than not that the U S imperialists and expansionist will intervene directly as they have done so indirectly. These people are keeping quiet about this. Is this the mark of revolutionaries or Maoist revolutionaries at that? Why do they act in this manner?

    In the stead of People’s War they have proposed since June 2003, reaching the victory of New Democratic Revolution through bourgeois democracy:

    An Interim Government with the Parliamentary Parties

    Election to a Constituent Assembly and

    A New People’s Constitution

    And these people have named this as a sub-stage of the New Democratic Revolution.

    In fact, this is, as Comrade Azad of the Communist Party Of India (Maoist) (CPI M) says in his email to the People’s March, ” is hobnobbing with all the reactionaries.” These people regard revisionists like Yechari of CPM of India as friends. This is in essence, trying to establish a bourgeois republic in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country which the imperialists and expansionists are loathe to allow for they want semi-colonies and colonies and not independent countries. The era of independent bourgeois republics have long gone since 1917.

    The nature of the semi-feudal and semi colonial state and that of the New Democratic State is diametrically opposite. It has to be one or the other. The semi-feudal and semi colonial state cannot peacefully evolve into the New Democratic State. Hence they deviate from MLM guidance by saying that the sub-stage will evolve into the New Democratic State. They are deviationists in MLM clothing.

    In proposing that there is a sub-stage before the New Democratic State, these people say that they are strategically firm and tactically very flexible.

    Any fool can say that. What is the real situation?

    These people are very fond of stating the concrete analysis of the concrete situation and one thousand quotations from MLM. What is the concrete situation?

    No Interim Government (as agreed in the 12-Point Agreement). Hence these people cannot participate in it.

    The Seven Parliamentary Parties are the so-called Government. They have called upon these people to negotiate. They are more equal than these people. This is the reality as regards the Interim Government.

    As regards the Constituent Assembly elections. That is in abeyance.

    As regards the New Constitution, if it ever come to pass it must be a constitution of the various existing classes the servers of the king and the representatives of the comprador and bureaucrat classes and perhaps some concessions to these people.

    This is the reality on the ground. This is the concrete situation.

    And this is the model that these people recommend to the Indian Maoist revolutionaries and all the Maoist revolutionaries in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries in the 21st century. This is the road to “paradise on earth”? The path to hell is paved with good intentions!

    Bahadur

    260806

    REVOLUTION WILL SUCCEED IN ONE COUNTRY AFTER ANOTHER

    (Comment No 2 On the Resolution of the Central Committee of the

    Communist Party Of Nepal (Maoist))

    Revolution occurs as a development of the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production, the contradictions between classes in each country and not to any other cause. There is no doing away with the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production in imperialist-capitalist societies and the contradictions in semi-feudal and semi colonial countries. Hence revolutions will take place and will inevitably triumph, no matter how long it takes. A hundred or even a thousand years!

    Proletarian revolution is a cause of a hundred or even a thousand years. Those who expect quick victory in the cause or who are impatient or want the fruits victory before the fruition or are fearful of the enemy had better look elsewhere. Revolution is no place for these people.

    In the confines of one country, in a semi-feudal and semi-feudal country, victory occurs through the establishment of base areas in the countryside, in waging people’s war on the basis of a united front of revolutionary classes under the leadership of the vanguard of the proletariat, the Communist Party. It occurs through the process of winning in one base area after another in different parts of the country and then linking up all the base areas as a whole in launching the assault on the main cities and towns, thus smashing the semi-feudal and semi-colonial state and establishing the New Democratic State for the revolutionary classes. The victory is achieved in one base area after another, This is due to the initially overwhelming strength of the enemy and the weak position of the revolutionary forces. By the exertion of the revolutionary forces led by the Communist Party, the people gradually acquire strength and turn the scales on the reactionary classes. Hence, victory does not happen all at once all over the country.

    Sometimes, there is a ding-dong battle in base areas and also cities and towns. A base area is established. However, the enemy concentrating their forces may counter-attack it. It may be more prudent to go away from that base area or town and preserve the effective forces than defending it with great losses. Thus the base area or town may be lost but the effective forces of the people are preserved. It does not mean that the revolution is lost when one base area or town is lost.

    In an imperialist-capitalist country, the model is first the insurrection in the towns and then spreading to the countryside. It still goes through a process.

    And there could be also direct external intervention which would delay total victory. But total victory there will be.

    Hence, victory will occur in one semi-feudal and semi-colonial country after another or a number of semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries after others. And victory will occur first in one or several countries in the imperialist-capitalist countries.

    Taking the world as a whole, the successful revolutions of each country form a base area of the world revolution. Linking up the base areas together and launching the final assault on the remaining enemies in the remaining non liberated countries is the task of the proletariat of every country led by their Chief of Staff in cooperation with all the other Chiefs of Staff of all the other countries. Our mission is the liberation of all mankind from the scourges of exploitation and oppression.

    However, the resolution states that “Today, any national liberation, democratic or socialist movement is not possible to succeed in any country of the world unless it does not (if it does not) advance as an inseparable part of the world people’s resistance movement…” It states that it is not possible to succeed in any country unless the worlds’ people resistance movement is there and it advances with it.

    This all at once negates Marxism-Leninism-Maoism which says that internal causes are the chief reasons for revolution in each country, that external cause only play an influencing and minor part. But the resolution has interposed it by stating the external cause will from now on, in the 21st century be the cause of internal development of each country.

    These people have given so many interviews and passed so many resolutions to try to peddle their perfidious theory world revolution in the 21st century to try to cover up their putting a brake on the People’s War in Nepal.

    Are not the reactionaries also trying to stop the People’s War in Nepal? They do. They say stop. But we know who they are. And they do not say it with much fanfare and swagger and do not wear the mantle of MLM.

    But history will proceed according to Marxist-Lenisnist-Maoist theory and will refute the deviationists thoroughly.

    Bahadur

    280806
    posted by Stalingam @ 8/27/2006 08:39:00 PM PERMANENT LINK

  4. V.J.B. singh Says:

    Dear Comrade,
    There are somany fact in this interview of comrade-Leaders. I would like to inform you, till now the imperilist stooge and the monarch are continued concyperency for the breckdown of communist movement in Nepal.Allince with the monarch is a old tactis of Nepali congress accordingly sugetion and direction of Pentagon and CIA before 30 years. now day US Ambassador to Nepal has been always adviced to NP Leader and Indian Regim, so i things you know very well about this Imperiolist tactis.

    with best Regards

    comrade V.J.B.Singh

    President
    Workers Party of Nepal

  5. pankaj sharma Says:

    dear com.
    good
    we are with u
    we asre the revolutionary students in inda
    NATIONAL STUDENTS FEDERATION
    lets join hands we are with u

    thanks

    pankaj sharma
    spokes man
    NSF

    journalistpankaj@hotmail.com

  6. hajooor Says:

    Dear comrade !
    When the interview came in my knowldge, I have distribute it at a large scale in Nepal. It becomes a hot issue and Comrade mohan bikaram singh,the general secretary of cpn masal has written a long article about the devastation of Maoist ideology. After then one of the notabel magazine translate the interview in Nepali and there comes earthquake among maoist and their supporter.

    Thousands of people has been died in the bloody revolution. But maoist are celebreting the victory with reactionary Congress party.

    THey has protect the king in the name of constitutional assembly

    They forgot all their commitment.

    now they are going to fall on what LULA or other reactionary does..

    I have taken an interview of baburam bhattari. what he say , I am amazing. WE cant escape from WTO>…….
    oh ! comrade….
    i cant tell more…….
    bye

  7. T KUTTY Says:

    thanks to comrades Azad and Bahadur.
    please give a link at the end of this blog to download the CPN(M) plenum docs that you probed deeply.

  8. Anil Dasgupta Says:

    I am very much surprised as well as delighted to have found such a website- today. We, here in Dhaka, ardent supporters of the Nepal revolution, are keenly watching the recent devolopements of the revolutionary struggle in that country. Already the interview of com. Azad has been translated here in Bengali & widely read. We are broadly in agreement with you that the Nepal revolution,with so much glorious achivements, has of late taken a rightward turn. This has made our task of ‘Learning from the living experience of the nepal revolution’ much more important & urgent. In this respect we think this site can really play a big role. So all of us shoud contribute to make it successful.
    With regards
    Anil Dasgupta
    Dhaka
    Agrahayan 12, 1413 BS/ 26 Nov 2006

  9. Krishna Kumar Says:

    Thanks a lot to comrades Bahadur and Azad.
    These two need to be compiled and published by you in rint.
    Will you please send me the CPN(M) Plenum document(s) that you probed so deeply.
    Not getting that/those from other sources.

  10. Krishna Kumar Says:

    Thanks a lot to Comrades Bahadur and Azad.
    These two articles need to be compiled and published in print.
    Can you please send me the CPN(Maoist) Plenum Document(s) that you probed so deeply. Not getting that/those from other sources.

  11. Prabhat Says:

    I sincerely hope that the People’s Struggle in India is intensified by looking at Nepal.It has to happen soon since the American Imperialism and Indian Government Expansionism has already displaced millions of Indigenous people from their homeland of hundreds of years in the name of development.
    Regards

  12. Milind Wani Says:

    How can one join the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement? Please let me know the process.

  13. Sexyguy aka Tim Says:

    Azad: “No Maoist would say it is wrong to fight for the demand of a Republic and for the overthrow of the autocratic monarchy. And likewise, none would oppose the forging of a united front of all those who are opposed to the main enemy at any given moment. Needless to say, such a united front would be purely tactical in nature and cannot, and should not, under any circumstances, determine the path and direction of the revolution itself. …”
    “…The sub-stage of a bourgeois democratic republic appears, from their interviews and statements, to have become the all-determining factor. …“

    Why? Reaction must be planning a counter-attack against the revolutions in Nepal and India which are an example to all the world’s oppressed people. Why do the CPN appear not see this?

  14. Padam Bishwakarma "Lekali" Says:

    Dalit Liberation Front of Nepal Unified.

    Central office Kathmandu


  15. hell com.

    u are on right path

    one day we will be will
    also red flag will be on red fort in india

    lets join hands for revolution

    thanks

    pankaj sharma”pankaj”
    journalist

    journalistpankaj@hotmail.com

    pankaj_dj2000@yahoo.com


  16. dear com.
    lal slam
    we are will u
    pl carry on
    one day we will win

    truly

    pankaj sharma”pankaj”

    journalistpankaj@hotmail.com
    pankaj_dj2000@yahoo.com
    journalistpank@gmail.com

  17. kvnprasda Says:

    fine

  18. purpledawn Says:

    it is heartening to see that our comrades in india are paying close attention to the nepalese struggle through active criticism and sharing them to all of us. i believe that in this critical point in the nepalese struggle, as well as in many other parts of our embattled world, this is one of the keenest form of solidarity. long live the international!

  19. shijuk Says:

    if maoist aim was to removal of king, then why are they still continuing the killing? india is a democratic country why this guys are killing people in india.
    maoist and communist are history blind people who never learn from what is happening around, in theory no communist govt exist in this world, china is no more communist country, only the group of people controlling the country calls them as communist, can any one call their action as communist? if maoist is against it why are you guys not active in china? it is very simple to understand easier to work on soft soil like india and nepal then hard soil like china.
    maoist existence is only till people of india and Nepal take hard steps to wipe them out of this world.


  20. […] It is important to remember the ABC of Marxism.       We encourage people to read the full Azad interview. Also see IRTR’s old polemic on Nepal, Interview with Ganapathy, General Secretary, CPI(Maoist) […]


  21. […] and the reactionary ruling classes. That was their reaction to the Nepal peace process of 2006. In an interview, a couple of months after the maoists joined the government there, spokesperson of CPI(maoist) Com. […]

  22. Vijay Simha Says:

    Hi, My name is Vijay Simha and I work with Tehelka magazine in New Delhi. I am looking to talk with the CPI(Maoist) spokesperson Azad urgently on the Kandhamal killing of the VHP priest. Please get back to me with the coordinates of Azad, so I can talk to him right now.

    Thank you.

  23. ramakrishna Says:

    when will succeed thenewdemocracy revalution in india.

  24. vinu Says:

    I have lived my entire life in mumbai.I am from a fairly upper class family.But I am extremly disillusioned when I see so much poverty in the rural India.
    In urban cities young boys n girls,parents spend thousands of rupees everynite in parties.I hate all this.
    Equality & equal distribution of income & wealth should be there.
    I wish to join n participate in the movement in whatever manner I can
    Please let me know whom I shld contact.

  25. siddharth Says:

    I think there has to be a forum to share the ideas and the good impacts of the communism. all these people who say they are educated oppose communism in the name of democracy and finally land in the tyranny of the psuedo democracy and the so called peoples rule of the ruling classes.

    These people are blind, and cannot think in the way of making money, making money, but to what use ?


  26. […] People’s March: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CPI(MAOIST)SPOKESPERSON ON NEPAL DEVELOPMENTS (6.8.20… […]

  27. Edna Sneed Says:

    Super awesome read! Really!

  28. comradelenin Says:

    Why this much Muslims in Prison -Queries SDPI
    18/09/2012 23:30:11

    BAIL IS THE LAW – SDPI’s FLEX BOARD WAR!

    One could see huge flex posters in and around the strongholds of SDPI, especially in Koll am district, with a caption `Bail is the Law’ (the flex boards are in Malayalam and the caption reads `Jaamyam Aanu Niyamam’). Under the caption they have tabulated the list of Muslim under trial prisoners in various states in India and then shown their percentage at the last column. Through these posters they have been trying to show the general public that the numbers of Muslim prisoners are more than other communities. Interestingly, the wording used for the caption gives the impression about their faith in Indian judiciary which they wish to uphold.

    But, in a country where no government agency has so far publicized even the cast wise population, a notorious party like SDPI has dared to exhibit such flex boards with the figures of Muslim prisoners with ulterior motives and there have been no action against them. Undoubtedly, the high percentage of Muslim prisoners in different states demonstrates the reality that compared to other caste people; more criminals are among the Muslims.

    What surprises the common man who find such posters and flex boards in recent times only raise the doubt as to why the concerned citizens who took the trouble of collating the figures of Muslim prisoners did not spend some time to tabulate the cast of persons involved in counterfeit currency trafficking, arrests related to contraband deals, motor vehicle thefts, hooliganism, moral policing, Jihadi outrages, fictitious land deals, security personnel who die in Kashmir and elsewhere in the hands of terrorists, soldiers who die in Kashmir alone every year and such other national services.Surely the figures would answer their quest to know the reason for finding more Muslims in jails as under trials who seldom figure in other lists.

    Muslim organizations like NDF and SDPI continuously brings out such flex boards and posters with very provocative content and do organize road shows where their leaders deliver speeches aimed at spreading communal hatred. Inaction from concerned authorities to interfere in such occurrences helps them to indulge in more and more unlawful covert and avert actions.


  29. I know this isn’t a new technology, but it good to see it more mainstream. Good alternative to wi-fi. Hopefully they use this for the rural communites Click https://twitter.com/moooker1

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