Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Nepal: Members of UCPN (Maoist) Inducted Into Cabinet

Posted by n3wday on March 5, 2011

This article was published on Nepal News.

Khanal inducts four Maoist ministers in cabinet; ministers sworn in

Ending the month-long uncertainty over the expansion of the cabinet, Prime Minister Khanal inducted four ministers from the UCPN (Maoist) on Friday.

Maoist standing committee member Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who leads the party’s team to the government, has been appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Information and Communication, Top Bahadur Rayamajhi as Minister for Physical Planning and Works, Barshaman Pun as Minister for Peace and Reconstruction and Khadaga Bahadur Biswokarma as Minister for Tourism.

With today’s expansion, Khanal now heads a cabinet of seven ministers, three from his party, CPN-UML.

Meanwhile, the four ministers were sworn in by the PM in the presence of President Dr Ram Baran Yadav amid a ceremony held at the President’s office, Shital Niwas, in the evening. Vice President Paramananda Jha and Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal were also present in the swearing in ceremony.

None of the Maoist ministers wore official national dress, Daura-Suruwal.

A meeting of the Maoist standing committee nominated the four leaders as ministers Friday morning. The party has said the remaining seven ministers and state ministers would be picked after further internal deliberations.

Sources said the Maoist top brass remains divided over the names of leaders to be sent to the government. Nearly 100 central leaders are known to be vying for ministerial berths and that party chairman Dahal is under tremendous pressure to come up with a balanced list of ministerial candidates. nepalnews.com

 

About these ads

10 Responses to “Nepal: Members of UCPN (Maoist) Inducted Into Cabinet”

  1. Sheitan Uldoleh said

    Explain one thing somebody, if Red Nepal Commies do something radical and, kick out Congress mo fo s and all that and the youth with guns take over with the support of unions, etc. and they officially anounce their people’s democratic federal republic thing, beside military what is the things can enemy do? Can they make them starve or energy less? block gasoline or whatever? do they have sources of their own? beside the way your Jed guy has written Kathmandu is full of smog and dark clouds. aren’t they better out with cleaner energy sources and can they figure that out and make it if they are like a blockade like Cuba but, in that particular place they’re at?

  2. Nobody in Particular said

    Alright, a good sign. Hopefully this government can stabilize, be inclusive, and we can see socialism begin a long period of healthy growth in Nepal, a lotus as pure as spring rain, growing off the surface of a clouded bog.

  3. peter said

    So much for the “people’s revolt”. How many times have we heard this over the past three years. Let’s face it, as many of my comrades in Nepal relate to me (completely demoralized) “the revolution is over”. Or to put it in Avakian’s terms, another case of Maoism turning into its oposite.

  4. siva said

    Let us not pass hasty judgments.
    Even Mao had on several occasions proposed collaboration with the Guomintang but, for better or worse, it was the Guomintang who rejected the offer.
    The debate within the party is far from over.

    Revolution is not instant soup. Let us wait and see.

  5. maitri said

    I think Peter has a point. it is getting more and more unbelievable that there is any revolution in nepal at all. but let us hope, but there is not much more than that.

  6. Siva said

    Having a point is fine. But stretching it too far is something else.
    There is a debate going on.
    Let us be careful observers and constructive critics.

    Besides, Avakian has not been the best of Maoist political analysts that we know.

  7. maitri said

    Siva-quite agree. also avakian has done nothing and is just a bigmouth. but there is a difference between constructive criticism and blind faith that the nepali maoists are doing revolution ‘in secret’. this is getting a bit unbelievable. its interesting that the bourgeois leaders are calling the Maoist bluff, they do not seem the least bit scared of the ‘peoples revolt’

  8. Rajesh said

    I agree with Maitri that revolution ‘in secret’ is impossible. Similarly, the phrase ‘people’s revolt’ has already lost its meaning as it is understood by nearly all sections of the society as a bluff. The Unified Maoist leadership has over used this phrase, not primarily to terrorize its opponents but to confuse its own cadres. Now, the leadership has joined the government headed by the rank opportunist – UML. This is some sort of a ‘miracle’ conceived by the leadership of the UCPN (M). Siva could be still hopeful as optimists sometimes fail to read the writings on the wall. The darkness is mostly gone and we could see with a certain degree of certainty that in Nepal the revolution has been going through a phase of severe setback, the party leadership that led the revolution till 2006 has been captured by the petty bourgeois/ bourgeois class, the revolutionary section has been in a state of confusion/dilemma and there is the need of regrouping of communist revolutionaries to carry on the revolution.

  9. Mike E said

    maitri said

    “but there is a difference between constructive criticism and blind faith that the nepali maoists are doing revolution ‘in secret’. this is getting a bit unbelievable.”

    Rajesh writes:

    “I agree with Maitri that revolution ‘in secret’ is impossible.”

    I imagine that everyone agrees that revolution is not possible in secret. (And implying that someone promotes “blind faith” is a bit of a strawman, i suspect).

    Why is it not possible “in secret”? Well, because the materials of a seizure of power do not appear out of nowhere. You need an army, a revolutionary people, a section of the people willing to fight, an organized political force with deep roots among the people and a revolutionary crisis. And those things (one way or another) are visible.

    And (it should be noted” all of these elements of a potential seizure of power are (in fact) visible in Nepal.

    What is not necessarily visible (from afar, or even from the streets of Nepal itself) are the preparations for a insurrection (including the terms of debate over whether to launch one).

    The specific preparations for a specific series of acts (by contrast) are not necessarily visible. Though, even here, the struggle among revolutionaries sometimes breaks into view and suggests the terms of internal and high level debate. And even here, a party is either preparing its supporters to take the field or it is not.

    Often political actions that are not themselves an insurrection serve as preparation for an insurrection. Is the PLA continuing military training? Do its cadre conduct political preparations for taking and holding power? Are the militant wings of the party (its grassroots organs of class power, its YCL) being preserved or abolished? Are broad sections of the people being trained for command and control?

    In those ways, it was worth seeing last May’s events as both something short of an attempt at power (they were after all unarmed!), yet also something that can prepare people for a revolt sweeping over the city. It was both an unarmed demonstration of political power and demand — and also (potentially) a dress rehearsal.

    In other words, though a revolution cannot be waged in secret…. there are quite visible signs in Nepal of the ingredients of a possible uprising.

    There are I believe three questions:

    1) Can a revolt of the people (with an armed component) win against the Nepali Army, and if not, how can the revolutionary movement get itself into position to win?

    2) Do the advanced among the people support such a new revolt (i.e. have they understood the bankrupcy of the current stalemate, do they have specific demands they are willing to fight and die for, are they willing in large numbers to be led from current non-violent means of struggle to openly violent ones?)

    3) Do the people have a political leadership that believe such a revolution can win, and that is willing to prepare and carry out the specific?

    It may be that some of you writing here knows the answers to those questions. I do not — because those answers can’t be assessed with the information available to me.

    I do believe that it is not true that the only question is a matter of political will. Insurrection is an art. It requires standing on the shoulders of a great crisis and a mood of great indignation among the people.

    Clearly there are powerful advanced sections who want to “go for it” — and who are frustrated that they have not yet been led to “go for it.” how powerful they are? Whether they would prove strong enough to reach victory is a different matter that only an engaged political party (on the scene) can actually estimate.

    I also agree with Rajesh that the phrase “people’s revolt” has probably lost some impact. Revolution (and the passions of the advanced) are not something to toy with — and the coiled energy of the oppressed can’t be put through a stop-and-go procedure forever (as if politics is some kind of bumper to bumper traffic jam). Just as advanced revolutionary forces are gathered by specific processes, they can be squanders and dispersed by specific processes.

    I don’t tend to have a binary view of events. Peter looks at the entrance into a specific government and says “So much for the “people’s revolt”. ” But is it so simple — is it either or?

    For those who insist the game has been lost, and the hopes of the people have been betrayed… If that is the case, what then is the deep well from which the current party line struggles emerges? If they are not fighting over whether to “go for it” — then why are they fighting?

    That is not a rhetorical question — for me, the intensifying line struggle is a visible and non-secret sign that the possibility of revolution is not gone. (I.e. the revolution is not being prepared “in secret” but through some rather visible conflicts.) If that isn’t true, what then is this line struggle over?

  10. maitri said

    good point mike. let us wait and see what happens. but some of the struggle in the maoist party seems not to be about revolution but about which faction gets what posts. to me, and i guess a lot of other people, it seems unlikely if not impossible, that there is going to be a revolution in nepal. but i dont think the game is lost. there could be an interesting and progressive kind of politics from the government a la chavez. but let us wait and see.

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers

%d bloggers like this: