At one point the Nepalese Maoist movement declared that their approach to politics was encapsulated in an evolving synthesis they called Prachanda Path — after their founding leader Prachanda.

In subsequent years, Prachanda became part of a political move to the right, abandoning and then disbanding the essential gainst of the revolution — the base areas, the peoples courts, the Peoples Liberation Army, and essentially the hopes of revolution itself.

As radical forces within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) regrouped, they have had to reevaluate their party’s previous decisions.

Here is one that deals with ideas and synthesis. Basanta is the political name of Indra Mohan Sigdel. He was previously a member of the  Politburo of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). His earlier 2006 article on Prachanda Path was widely read within the international communist movement. Now he is discussing the way he believes things now stand.

International Dimensions of Prachanda’s Neo-revisionism

by Basanta

I had authored an article about 6 years before. It was entitled: “International Dimensions of Prachanda Path”.

The article, published in the 10th issue of The Worker, Party organ in English, had created debate in the international communist movement. Is Prachanda Path really a creative development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or merely a deviation from it was the question under debate at that time. Given the development of people’s war in leaps, one after another, it was also not an easy task for them to take position against it. But, most of the revolutionary parties did not assimilate it rather they opined that it resulted from the ideological deviation on the part of CPN (Maoist).

The wave of Prachanda Path, which was said to be the synthesis of the experiences of 5 year’s long stormy people’s war, had stretched all across the world. It was not unnatural too. Party had defined Prachanda Path as a series of particular ideas generated by the Nepalese revolution. I had prepared that article as our party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), comprehended it at that time. Unsurprisingly, Prachanda was happy with the article.

After 6 years now, I am writing again a short article centring on Prachanda. It is titled: “International Dimensions of Prachanda’s Neo-revisionism.” Some readers may think that Basanta is correct because Prachanda has taken a U-turn from his earlier Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position. Someone may say that to think of Prachanda, who considers Marxism as a vibrant science and applies in practice accordingly, a revisionist is the result of mechanical and dogmatic thinking on the part of Basanta and his team-mates.

Again someone may say why did Basanta and his teammates fail to identify Prachanda’s neo-revisionism in the past rather eulogized it as Prachanda path? This debate will obviously surface in the days to come. The revolutionaries will regard that Basanta is correct; but the revisionists and liquidationists will do its opposite. Naturally, this article will not make Prachanda happy this time.

Everyone is aware that an intensive and extensive two-line struggle was on between Marxism and right revisionism inside the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) mainly for the last four years. But, in the recent days, there has been a turn in this process and the revolutionaries, dissociating from the party led by Prachanda, have built up a new party. As a member of this new party, the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist, I am here with this article. We have not yet synthesized the entire experiences acquired during the tumultuous period of people’s war and the period that followed. The forthcoming Party Congress will do it. For now, we have taken only a preliminary position according to which the people’s war had definitely amassed new experiences but it was not correct at that time to synthesise them in the form of Prachanda Path. The national convention organized on June 15, 2012 summed up the strength and weakness of the revolutionaries also. It concluded that there were three kinds of ideological mistakes namely fideism, liberalism and metaphysics with them. These weaknesses were manifested mainly on the question of ideological synthesis i.e. Prachanda Path and the centralisation of leadership. On the other, the convention unanimously concluded that the appropriate terminology to denote Prachanda’s ideological and political degeneration is neo-revisionism.

The neo-revisionism noticed in Prachanda has been manifested in different form than it had in the past revisionists, who used to attack upon the basic principles of Marxism in a direct and straightforward way. Like for example, Proudhon and Lassalle opposed the scientific socialism with the arguments that the process of continued reforms and strict discipline in the bourgeois society can pave the way for capitalism to reach communism. Bernstein concluded the basic principles of Marxism like class struggle and the theory of surplus value have been outdated. Khrushchev took position against the role of violence in revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialist society. Liu Shao Chi and Teng Hsiao Ping stood against the theory of continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat put forth by Mao Tsetung. They one-sidedly emphasized upon the development of productive forces as opposed to the Maoist principle of grasp revolution and promote production. In our context, Prachanda has not made him stand yet in open against the basic concepts of Marxism as the aforesaid leaders did in the past. He has been doing it in the name of creative development of MLM.

When the situation develops to a new level, the old logics are not sufficient for the political parties to support their new position. It is true not only for the Marxists but also for the revisionists and other parties as well. Mao has said that revisionists are the reactionaries who mislead people in the guise of Marxism. So in the new situation the revisionists need to find new logics to misguide the revolutionaries. Prachanda understands it well. So he has been steadily sowing seeds of revisionism since long in the guise of creative application and development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. He has not yet directly opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat as Khrushchev did. But, the development of Marxism which he has claimed is in fact the development of revisionism. In this way, revisionism has been replacing Marxism in the party led by him. The classical and modern revisionism openly oppose the basic tenets of Marxism including the dialectical and historical materialism, theory of class struggle, role of violence in revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat etc. etc.

But, the neo-revisionism does the same in essence but in the pretext of opposing dogmatism, creative application of Marxism and the originality of revolution. To arrest the essence of Marxism in the name of its creative application and development has been the main characteristics of neo-revisionism. In this way, the features in points of Prachanda’s neo-revisionism can be cited as follows.

Prachanda has been slowly attacking upon the universality of Mao’s contributions. In the wake of party unity that took place with the Unity Centre – Masal, the UCPN (Maoist) had adopted Marxism-Leninism-Maoism/Mao Tsetung thought as its guiding principle. He argues that there is no difference as such in using two terminologies, Maoism or Mao thought, so long as they are done to mean the universality of Mao’s contributions. It is indeed his artful deceit to blur the difference between Maoism and Mao thought which respectively refer to universality and particularity of Mao’s contributions. By so doing he has been weakening the grasp of Maoism in the party and the revolutionary movement as well.

Mao has said that the struggle for production, class struggle and scientific experiment are the three sources of knowledge. In addition, he has stressed Marxism goes on developing through an infinite spiral of practice to theory and theory to practice. But quite the opposite, Prachanda claims that Marxism has become a matter of common knowledge for him. He had said in a CC meeting held about five years before. By so saying he has stood against Maoist theory of knowledge and of course Maoism itself.

Marxism believes that an entity is the unity and struggle of opposites and the struggle between them helps one transform into another. However, Prachanda has brought about a conciliatory concept of Fusion of two opposites which stands against Marxist principal. It is merely a different form of expression of ‘two combine into one’, not ‘one divides into two’. In the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Mao had strongly criticised ‘two combine into one’ as a reactionary philosophy serving bourgeois interest. Mao said ‘one divides into two’ is the law of dialectics.

Prachanda says that the world situation has undergone considerable changes and these changes necessitate the development of MLM. It is absolutely correct. But a strange, in the pretext of the development of Marxism, he has been attacking upon the basic principles of Marxism itself and in this course he has been developing revisionism. On the one hand, he presents the Federal Democratic Republic as a synonym of New Democratic Republic, and on the other, he says that in order to prevent counter-revolution in the 21st century it is necessary to develop democracy. While arriving here, it has been crystal clear that these logics were brought about to pave the way for assimilating bourgeois parliament by the party and consequently reversing revolution in the name of preventing counter-revolution. In fact, the development of democracy in the 21st century has been a tool to replace the democratic or proletarian dictatorship by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Prachanda had put forward a concept of non-class nature of State Power and the possibility of peaceful development of revolution in Nepal in the Balaju Expanded Meeting held in 2007. He tried to justify his arguments by the fact that Nepal Army and the PLA were kept inactive in their respective barracks. Prachanda stopped saying this again after the delegates in the convention strongly opposed it. In fact, it was merely a polished form of the ‘state of the entire people’ and ‘peaceful transition’ propounded by Khrushchev. But now all these things have been transcribed in their documents in a disguised form.

Insurrection and revolution in decision and parliamentary exercise in implementation i.e. revolution in word and reform in practice has been his characteristics. In all of the meetings from Chunwang to Palungtar via Kharipati, he has been raising the question of people’s insurrection and the need to build up four bases to achieve it. However, except for misleading the revolutionaries he never put stress on building four bases to prepare for insurrection. His speciality has been not to take on preparation seriously till there is time and plead for reform at the last in the excuse that necessary preparation is not complete.

Communist revolutionaries are the followers of proletarian internationalism. At the time of preparation, initiation and continuation of the great people’s war in Nepal he used to lay much emphasis on party’s international task. But for now proletarian internationalism has become a big bone stuck at his throat. He sometimes talks of RIM and CPI (Maoist) to mislead the revolutionaries inside his party. In the document that he placed before the last expanded meeting, organised by the neo-revisionist group led by Prachanda, he has written a phrase reading, “For the development of international communist movement … … it is necessary to go ahead by maintaining relation with the revolutionary parties and groups in and outside of RIM in a planned way”. On the contrary, he has been working hard to make both imperialism and expansionism happy by rudely criticising RIM and the CPI (Maoist).

Not only that, he had sent a condolence letter along with a central committee representative to please his masters in India when Jyoti Basu, a leader of revisionist CPI (Marxist) and the ex-chief minister of West Bengal, had died. On the other, Prachanda did not dare to issue even a statement when the Indian ruling class killed comrade Azad, the spokesperson and comrade Kishenji, the politburo member, of the CPI (Maoist). In this way, not comrade Azad and comrade Kishenji, but Jyoti Basu and Manmohan Singh have become international fraternal comrades for Prachanda.

Prachanda-Baburam group has now appeared in a little different form in the context of maintaining relationship between the line and organisation. The revisionists in the past used to firstly build, in general, a reformist line and then transform the whole party organisation to fit into it. But, the speciality of this group has been to continue saying people’s insurrection as the path of revolution to mislead the masses but create such a situation in the party that there can be no insurrection at all. One of the ways they have done to serve this purpose has been to make party organisation a crowd of yes-men, anarchists and wrong elements that cannot lead revolution.

Prachanda has deviated from the basic theory of new democratic revolution. He has defined new democratic revolution in such a way that it is completed in two stages – once against feudalism and next against imperialism. In fact, it does not go along with the characteristics of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. In the course of the new democratic revolution, sometimes there is major threat upon democracy and sometimes upon national sovereignty and the form of struggle is sorted out to respond to the given threat. But it does not mean that there are two stages of revolution: one against feudalism and another against imperialism. The feudalism and imperialism are inseparably interconnected with each other and the state power in such a country simultaneously represents the interests of both of them. It is the characteristics of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Therefore, to destroy the reactionary state power that represents the interest of both feudalism and imperialism and build a new one in its place is the first step towards making the new democratic revolution in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country. Prachanda and his clique have gone too far from this reality.

In one context he has said that the end of monarchy is a kind of completion of the new democratic revolution in Nepal. It is utterly wrong. In an interview he says, “Now it leads to a conclusion that the remaining task of new democracy (a part of which has been completed) and the strategy of socialist revolution have converged into one. The remaining task of new democracy and task of completing the socialist revolution by way of people’s insurrection and armed insurrection have converged into one strategy rather than completing new democratic revolution at one stage and socialist revolution at the other.” (Krambhanga, year 1, Vol. 2, November 2011, page 11)

Aforesaid quotation means that the new democratic revolution has been accomplished in Nepal. It does not agree with what Marxism-Leninism-Maoism says about the new democratic revolution, which is accomplished only after feudalism and imperialism both are brought to an end. Monarchy has been abolished in Nepal but it has not brought about any basic change in feudalism and the feudal mode of production as well. The agents of Indian expansionism are dominant in the state power. The national independence is in grave danger. Country is going towards Sikkimisation. Then, in such a situation, how did the new democratic revolution complete in Nepal? Does the new democratic revolution mean republic, federalism and secularism only? Has the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist people’s power been established in Nepal? Certainly not. His position that the new democratic revolution has been almost completed and the socialist revolution is the next task in hand is nothing other than a neo-revisionist fraud brought forward to confuse the people and get stuck in the bourgeois democratic republic with the blessing of imperialism and Indian expansionism. It is in fact an ugly example of betrayal against the Nepalese people and the nation on the part of Prachanda.

Mao has said that party, army and the united front are three magical weapons of revolution. He says, “A well-disciplined Party armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of the people, an army under the leadership of such a Party; a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a Party — these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy.” Mao has pointed out here at the crux of the problem by identifying the urgency of party, army and the united front to make revolution a success.
Did the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) resemble with the one that Mao has referred to in this quotation? No, not at all. How did Prachanda work ideologically and politically to loosen the grasp of revolution in the party has been mentioned before. In addition, he opened the door to bourgeoisify party by gathering a crowd of bureaucrats in the higher committees and that of the anarchists and yes-men in the lower ones. Party committees became so bulky and clumsy that neither there was an encouraging environment for discussion, criticism and self-criticism nor for practicing collectivity. It created such a situation in which the system of collective decision and individual responsibility got replaced by that of individual decision and collective responsibility.

Now, none must be confused with the fact that it was a plan designed to gradually disorient cadres from the communist system and conduct and by so doing transform the communist party into a bourgeois one. It is Prachanda’s neo-revisionist characteristic that weakened ideological grasp and bourgeoisified party by way of wrong organizational methods. Prachanda, in this manner, liquidated party’s revolutionary character from all the aspects of ideology, politics and organization.

Prachanda has made the People’s Liberation Army, Nepal that was built with the concept of “People have nothing without people’s army” surrender before the Nepal Army. He said it is integration. The people’s Liberation Army, Nepal that was organised to accomplish new democratic revolution in Nepal, exercise democratic dictatorship upon the class enemies after new democratic revolution has been accomplished and prevent counter-revolution in the whole course of building socialism has been dissolved in the name of integration. It is a counter-revolutionary step taken to please the imperialism and expansionism and heartily open the way for reconciliation with their agents. He said it was a daring step aimed at building peace in Nepal. What a ridiculous argument is this? Lying also has a limit. One can hardly find such examples of class and national capitulation and shameless treason in the history of the world communist movement.

Another important weapon for revolution is a united front formed under the leadership of a revolutionary party. What kind of forces shall be involved in the united front is decided by the principal contradiction of the then society and it is built under the leadership of a party of the proletariat by incorporating entire forces that have contradiction with the principal enemy. The party led by Prachanda had analyzed that the contradiction formed of the comprador, bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the feudal and their master Indian expansionism at one pole and the entire Nepalese people at the other is the principal contradiction in the Nepalese society. But he did not take any initiative to build a united front among the entire patriotic, republican, progressive, leftist and revolutionary forces under the leadership of the party of the proletariat against the aforesaid reactionary alliance. Contrary to it, he kneeled down before the reactions and surrendered the remaining achievement of revolution to them. What can this act be said other than naked submission to the domestic and foreign reactions?

In the beginning of the 21st century, the world proletariat had had a high regard for Prachanda as their emancipator and imperialist marauders had disdained him as their grave-diggers. It was a matter of pride and glory for the world proletariat. Now he is in a quick race to become just its opposite. It is a matter of grief for the oppressed people of Nepal and the world as well. Nevertheless, it is not the sentiment but ideological and political line and the vanguard of the proletariat that lead the toiling masses to revolution. Therefore, sooner the Prachanda’s neo-revisionism is unmasked and defeated the faster can the world proletariat re-establish MLM in the world communist movement and liberate the oppressed people from the yoke of imperialism.

The revolutionaries have no alternative to it. To weaken the ideological and political struggle against neo-revisionism is in fact to nurture it. Therefore, the urgent need of the day has been to intensify the ideological and political struggle against all shades of revisionism in general and Prachabda’s neo-revisionism in particular. And it is the supreme task of the revolutionaries now in Nepal and the world as well. Let all of us strive for this.

August 10, 2012

Kiran, chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist

This uncut-hour long audio is from the press conference organized on June 19th by the newly formed Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist. The question and answer session is available in Nepali. Thanks to Comrade Pooja for taking her time to make this audio available in English transcription. And thanks to World People’s Resistance Movement of Britain for circulating this.

Q: How do you justify the formation of the new party?

How should people understand this?

A: – Communist party is a party for the benefit of the proletariat and the people. In the case of Nepal, the aim of a communist party remains to move forward, raising the issues of safeguarding national sovereignty; people’s democracy and livelihood then ultimately leap towards socialism and communism. This is self-proven.In the process of attaining this aim we went through people’s war, and did considerable amount of work among and with the people. We built our base areas, practiced our newly formed people’s power but then conciliation took place amidst as we moved forward to build a new Nepal.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t compromise, we should but while compromising , the act of abandoning  our entire  basis (achievements) has happened. The act of slipping down from our mission and objectives has happened. The dream we carried was of a constitutional assembly but where is the constitution? How did the constituent assembly function? Talking about people’s livelihood, how has the corruption been mounting-up. The fact is clearer. In the process of making a constitution there was an agreement to move forward institutionalizing the rights of the working class, indigenous people, ethnic minorities, women & dalit; including the rights of the oppressed class, region and gender but ditching all these primary issues of constitutional  thematic committees it is apparent that ex-chairman, Prachanda  surrendered everything to Congress & UML by forming a dispute resolution subcommittee under the constitutional committee.

In the process of making a constitution the question of ethnic-identity-based federalism is extremely important. Our party takes the decision of an ethnic-identity based federalism while in process of restructuring the state; Prachanda & Baburam joined their necks together with Congress-UML and agreed up on eleven anonymous federal states. The situation was that they were forced to take their decision back, as we and all others in the constituent assembly carried-out a signature collection campaign against their decision. They have failed to institutionalize ethnic-identity. It is important for us to do it.

Where are the prerequisites for women and dalits? There have been serious betrayals on these issues. That is why we want to raise all these issues again. Not only that, we are also talking about issues of national sovereignty. Since the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement (BIPPA) was signed, now the issues of water resources agreement and extradition treaty have come to surface.

The main thing is that there has been a wrong tendency to maneuver our party as a puppet of imperialism and expansionism; along with this all the core concept of the party including the guiding principal has been distorted. We are against this. We cannot let our party function as a puppet of imperialism , expansionism and feudalism. We had to revolt in order to safequard people’s rights, interests and benefit. This is the main justification of the split.

Q: – In the past we have witnessed vicious confrontations between two factions after the split of Naxalite struggle in India. How are you cautious about bloodshed happening after the party split.? What is your view on the questions of the government?

A: – You raised the question of possible confrontation between two parties and the question of the Naxalite struggle in India, we are very cautious about this. There won’t be any such confrontation from our side. We won’t go into confrontation. It has been proven even in the history of our two -line struggle that we never exerted any physical force anywhere. Instead we have heard many cases of exertion of force by the Prachanda’s group in places. During that time we alerted the concerned party to be serious on the matter.

Therefore, firstly what I want to assure you is that we will not be exerting any physical force anywhere from our side. Secondly, we have to be extremely aware. There has been talk with Prachanda and other people within his circle that we have to be very serious  in these matters after separation of the party. Therefore, how to move forward is primarily dependent on Prachanda’s group. Not to become serious in this matter and exert physical force is against the democratic norms, it is a dictatorship to exert force instead of seeking a solution to the problem through discussions and debates in a communist party. That is fascism. No one accept dictatorship and fascism, including us. In such a situation the masses will resist these acts.

There are two things on the issues of how to move forward with other parties. Firstly we have to initiate talks with all the parties and reach an agreement in any issue that can be agreed upon. If anybody raises an issue that is in favor of the nation and the people we must have to support that. We have been supportive so far and that will continue. It doesn’t matter whether that be Congress-UML or a neo-revisionist camp, if they raise similar issues as we do, we support that but again the other important thing is that we should neither merge in the coalition of Congress-UML nor in the coalition of Baburam-Prachanda’s coalition of neo-revisionism. We will carry forward an independent revolutionary line of Nepalese politics.

Q: – There are allegations that the monarchy assisted you to split the party and you have got close tie with Gyanendra, do you have RIM’s support or not? Who played the role from the international community to split the party? Has the president got the right to dismiss the prime-minister, what is your say on this?

A: – Firstly, you raised the question of collaboration with Gyanendra, who told you this and where? Reveal the factual basis of this, substantiate and tell me. Secondly, in the process of a two-line struggle Baburam had accused Prachanda as pro-king and Prachanda had accused Baburam as pro-expansionist. This was documented in writing. Have you studied that written document or not? Did you understand that the pro-king and the pro-expansionist forces united together to attack us in the process of the two-line struggle? Thirdly, each and every political party has to have a capacity. That capacity means capacity of logical argument. When it’s not possible to annihilate someone through the means of factual arguments and debates then there will be malevolent attempts to label them as corrupt , to denigrate them through the means of conspiracy and deception. Fourthly, if  look at our programs, we ask for establishment of people’s federal republican state, emphasis on safeguarding the achievements of the ten years of the great people’s war, let us look at things from a factual basis; when we look from this basis those baseless allegations bear no truth at all. This isn’t anything but only false allegations hatched by the pro-Indian-expansionist elements.

Yes, we are in the RIM. There are many different parties in the RIM. You may even know what sort of discussions there are. Do you raise a question with the knowledge or without?

We used to be involved in the decision-making in the RIM. The RIM is actually not operative at this moment.

Perhaps you are trying to point to a particular party but we had fraternal relationship with all the parties involved in RIM and that continues.

Fraternal parties reserve some rights. Our communist party is a proletarian internationalist party. If any party involved in such an umbrella organization  slips into the quagmire of opportunism then the other parties oppose this and the international community  has clearly said that the Prachanda-Baburam gang has slipped into the quagmire of revisionism. Therefore, let’s forget about the RIM, any other genuine communist parties do not acknowledge that this gang is Marxist anymore. So, the issue of RIM, etc. is totally nonsense.

Again, power & greed; look at the agenda – the only and one agenda of Congress-UML is that the Baburam has to step down from the government. Probably this is a major cause of the dissolution of the constituent assembly  without forging any political resolution. On the other hand, the only agenda of Baburam is that he has to retain power. So these two camps are ready to abandon, and will abandon everything for power. Therefore, we are not in this controversy.

We are not in the row of their greed of power. As a tactic we have forwarded the agenda of multilateral roundtable conference. The so-called top leaders of these parties have become incapable to solve people’s problems.

We have put forward the agenda of the United Interim Government, and we have said that the problem can be solved from there. Therefore, we won’t involve in the corrupt power play of the government.

Q: – How will you make the constitution, you have claimed that there has been massive intervention by India, how have you scrutinized the new development? In the past you had formed COMPOSA, will it be continued?

A: – In the process of making the constitution the issue of Indian intervention has always been there since B.S 2007 (1951).

Firstly making a people’s constitution is not possible by collaborating and wrangling day and night-out with feudalists, compradors and bureaucratic bourgeoisie class. Secondly, making a new constitution involves the participation of all the oppressed people. Now this has been clearly proven.  Therefore, in such a situation the constitution cannot be made.

So whether the agenda is of reinstating the constituent assembly  or yet again another election, this is all incorrect. Now the political outlet has to be forged by conducting discussions and debates through a roundtable conference in a multilateral convention. Even if this process fails to make a new constitution then those who are in the line of federalism should begin the process of establishing people’s government at a local level. We have to move forward with the concept of establishing a people’s government even at the central level. It is completely nonsense to talk about making constitution without forming a pro-people government. We are  very clear on this issue.

We are also very clear about what we should do on the question of Indian intervention. Basically, it won’t  be wrong to say Nepal is a neo-colony of India. The act of destroying border-pillars by the Indian side  has been taking place on a daily basis, the border has been encroached in many places including Sustaa, Maheshpur and Kalapanee. Forget the other governments, even Prachanda and Baburam, who led the government from our own Maoist party could do  nothing to stop it happening but just became hopeless spectators. The intervention of Indian expansionism in all sectors – economic, political, social and strategic has been rapidly  gearing up. Indian expansionism is fulfilling its self-interest by providing space to Indian puppets in Nepal. Indian expansionism has no respect for the Nepalese. We respect Indian people but the Indian government points its evil eyes on the Nepalese on a regular basis.

There have been many unequal treaties with India since 1950. Instead of nullifying these unequal treaties, arrangements are being made to sign even more unequal treaties including Upper-Karnalee and Arun-III.  Baburam’s government has signed another water resource agreement with India. Therefore, we have been relentlessly insisting to nullify all these unequal treaties. In an interview with The Hindu, an Indian Newspaper, Prachanda claimed that we (Nepalese) have an exceptional relationship with India. Those who have exceptional relationship with India are parties like the Nepali Congress.

Now, Prachanda has also started to follow Nepali Congress. Therefore, we rigorously oppose all these trends. What we have said is that all the unequal treaties signed so far between India and Nepal has to be nullified in this 21st century, and arrangements to sign new coequal treaties that benefits Indian and the Nepalese people need to be made. If the intervention doesn’t stop, as we have been saying – we also have principal contradiction  with Indian expansionism, we will target our struggle of national sovereignty against bureaucratic bourgeoisie in Nepal as well as Indian expansionism.

Finally, you asked about COMPOSA (Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia), COMPOSA is not something to fear! This is an umbrella organization to struggle in the interest of patriotic, leftists and all other pro-people elements in the South-Asian region. This organization has been weakened for sometime now. We think about the ways to strengthen it again and carry on with it. The main thing is that if the imperialists, expansionists and opportunists conspire to weaken the people of any countries then the people and the pro-people forces also have to unite in tactic and form a united front to struggle.

Q: – In the process of forming a new party there are allegations that the new party is reminiscent of old alcohol in a new bottle, what do you want to say on this? And, what is the assurance that you will also not deviate from the revolutionary line? What do you think of a unity with Prachanda? Now, what will be your relationship with the existing state, will you divorce with it and begin to declare people’s governments as in the past?

A: – You indicted the new party as an old alcohol, on this what I want to say is – please at least look at our decisions carefully. If you examine our decisions carefully, then you will be able to discern whether the new party is old or new alcohol.

I think the word alcohol here has been fairly tainted but it would be better to understand the crux of the matter. We didn’t separate without valid reasons. Many things justify the reasons for this divorce. I have already said a lot about the issue of Indian expansionism – think about  it, can patriots and genuine republicans progress together with those who sign treaties like the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement (BIPPA) and those who claim exceptional relationship with India? Can revolutionaries progress together with those who renounced all of the promises that were made to people in the process of the great people’s war and with those who cremated the constituent assembly by joining their necks together with the reactionaries and opportunists? We have to look at things from this perspective.

Talking about unity with Prachanda – unity is not feasible in such a situation.

It is not possible at all. We have kept the door to remain open if someone transforms themselves and comes to unite. This is the main thing. Even under this condition we will not go to Prachanda, he has to come to us.

On the question of separation with the old state, even a person with a very basic knowledge of Marxism knows that communists want to smash the old reactionary state and replace that with new people’s government. Not just this, beyond here we aim to abolish the existence of the states as a whole to establish a new world of humanism by creating stateless, classless society that is completely free of all forms of exploitations and oppressions. Our politics is fairly farsighted. We won’t  stick to the government as a leech like other rulers here do. We will continue to struggle to establish a new state, this is our main goal.

In the current situation, we will carefully think about what can be done for the benefit of the people and the country by limiting ourselves within the limitation of the current state and the existing law. Proletarians have utilized the parliament and the elections in the past. We cannot detach ourselves entirely from the principals of Marxism. We will decide what to do where by formulating policies through concrete analysis of the concrete situation.

Q: – What is the decision of the National Convention on the question of dissolution of the constituent assembly? Now that the party has ruptured, which faction has the majority, the new party or the establishment faction? You have mentioned about united front, who would you unite with in united front? Will you register a party or not? Will you still have comradeship with Prachanda & Baburam?

A: – We have already said a lot about the dissolution of the constituent assembly. There is a direct conspiracy of national and foreign reactionaries in dissolving the constituent assembly. The greediness of Baburam and the Nepali Congress to hold on to the power has also played some role here. It is well know to all that the autocratic behavior of those who have been proclaiming themselves as top leaders of the main four political parties has played a vital role in dissolving the constituent assembly. The autocratic behavior of these top leaders, which completely mismatched with the democratic practices and also bypassed the dignity of the 601 members of the constituent assembly, is a major cause of the dissolution of the constituent assembly.

While talking about which party is smaller and which is bigger – the world knows who is in the majority and how.

Firstly, the issue of majority is transparent, those who came in the party through the unification process, some of the comrades are fine, no argument there, but the majority of them are total rubbish.

We would be in the majority in the Maoist Party – in this situation; the fact is that there had been malevolent attempt to change the color of the party through the absolute unification. Secondly, talking about which party is larger – we can evidently claim that even though we are in the minority in the central committee  we have parallel party committees throughout the nation. If necessary we can demonstrate our strength. Thirdly, the issue of which party is bigger and which is smaller – perhaps this issue is not very significant.

Throughout history smaller parties have become bigger and the big ones have diminished. This is the way we have to understand the dialecticism of party unity. We have come through a long history. UCPN (Maoist) was also tiny in the initial phase. The issue of smaller and bigger – the party with correct thought, politics, ideology, which can substantiate politics in practice advancing resolutely in capacity of a genuine revolutionary communist party, acting in the interest of the country, people and proletariats expands. Those who betray the country and the people, gradually evaporate.

I have already clarified with whom we need to form a united front. A united front has to be formed. And we advance ahead forming a united front including the patriot republicans, leftists, federalists, women, workers and dalits. Another thing, the issue of party registration is the issue of conditional necessity. We will think about whether we should register the party and if we deem it is important then, we may register. If not we may not register at all because we are resolutely convinced that through parliamentarianism the people’s problems cannot be put to an end. Therefore, whether to register the party depends upon the situation.

On the question of comradeship with Prachanda and Baburam, we came throughout our life in comradeship with them. Now, we did not leave Prachanda and Baburam but they left us. We did not separate from the party as well but they split themselves ditching the political ideological line of the party. Therefore, now the issue of their class categorization is a real bizarre. An independent political line of Prachanda and Baburam has come to an end. What should we label those who are the puppets of foreign reactionaries and expansionism.? It is not possible to join neck together with the puppets. We cannot join our necks together with class capitulation-ists.

Our desire and proposal to them is that they have to break all ties with all sorts of reactionaries, only then can we go ahead together. As long as they have ties with those reactionaries, we don’t trust them.

Q: – As heard, you are ambiguous about whether to go for people’s war or people’s revolt? What is your say on the question of corruption thought have taken place in cantonments? How will you treat the journalists?

A: – We are not ambiguous about whether to go for People’s War or People’s Revolt.

Firstly, we will revolt for new democracy against parliamentarianism. We don’t acknowledge parliamentarianism. The democratic republic, the aged-decayed parliamentarianism of which all the parties here sing the retro song of democracy deafeningly, that democracy has completely failed, the Constituent Assembly has also failed. Therefore, as an alternative, in the interest of the country and the people we move ahead to establish New Democratic Republic in Nepal against Feudalism, Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism. This is our key agenda. To attain this goal, if asked how we move ahead, both ways, legal and underground, a revolutionary party can utilize every essential method. We came to he peace negotiation honestly. When we arrived only the Maoists had to make all the compromises but now we don’t compromise up to this excess.

So that is beyond doubt, if necessary – People’s War or People’s Revolt, anything can happen, this is the key issue.

And you talk about money and corruption in the cantonments; I’m not here to talk about that. This is not the place to investigate corruption. So lets not talk about these things here. People are finding out where there has been mischief; most definitely the revolutionary members of the people’s liberation army are investigating it. That space is there. On your query about the role of Baburam-Prachanda while our arrest took place in India, but these are not things that only we look into. This can be a case of serious investigation. This is also something that the masses and you people (journalists) can look into. Our journalist friends are very far-sighted, introspective and detail oriented. I am convinced that you will help us through this. We want to respect the media on how media is being treated. We will continue to fight for the rights of working class journalists; we will fight for the rights of working class people.

What we are worried about is that in the veil of professional journalism, mission journalism happens, and that is not a good thing. Let this not be a main issue, and we will respect you. If any shortcomings on our part we are committed to self-criticism.

Jayapuri Gharti Magar–leader of All Nepal Women’s Association (Revolutionary)

Two thirds of the leaders of groupings under the old UCPN(M) have joined the new revolutionary Maoist party in Nepal, led by Mohan ‘Baidya’ Kiran. These groups (also called ‘sister wings’) include leaders of the Maoist women’s organization and  most of the national liberation fronts.

“The sister wings represented suppressed communities that the Baidya faction has always stood for while Pushpa Kamal Dahal had said that he had dug his own grave by forming ethnic fronts in the party. So it is natural for the chiefs of sister wings to spurn Dahal,” said Santosh Budha Magar, chief of the Magar National Liberation Front.

The article originally appeared at MyRepublica.

20-odd chiefs of sister wings join Baidya’s party

by KIRAN PUN

KATHMANDU, June 21: With only one-third of the UCPN (Maoist) central committee members joining the newly-formed CPN-Maoist led by Mohan Baidya, one would have speculated that only a few lower rung leaders would follow suit. But, this has been proven wrong.

Almost all the chiefs of around three dozen sister wings — considered the backbone of the mother party — of the UCPN (Maoist) have joined the new party. They had sided with Baidya ever since the beginning of the rift in the UCPN (Maoist). This has left only around a dozen chiefs of sister wings in the mother party.

“The sister wings represented suppressed communities that the Baidya faction has always stood for while Pushpa Kamal Dahal had said that he had dug his own grave by forming ethnic fronts in the party. So it is natural for the chiefs of sister wings to spurn Dahal,” said Santosh Budha Magar, chief of the Magar National Liberation Front.

YCL has remained inactive after the formation of the People´s Volunteers (PV) led by Netra Bikram Chand. Its chief Ganesh Man Pun has supported Dahal. Similarly, of the three regional organizations — Madhesi Liberation Front (MLF), Bheri-Karnali Liberation Front (BKLF) and Seti-Mahakali Liberation Front (SMLF) — only SMLF chief Lekhraj Bhatta remains with the mother party. BKLF chief Khadga Bahadur Bishwakarma and MLF chief Krishna Dev Singh Danuwar have joined forces with Baidya.

Similarly, chiefs of almost all the professional organizations have also joined the new party. Of them, Chitra Bahadur Shrestha, chief of All Nepal Peasant Federation (Revolutionary), Shalikram Jamakattel, chief of All Nepal Trade Union Federation, Himal Sharma, chief of All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Revolutionary), Amar Tamu, chief of Tamu National Liberation Front, Ram Charan Tharu, chief of Tharu National Liberation Front, Suryaman Dong, chief of Tamang National Liberation Front, Hitaraj Pande, chief of Sahid Pariwar Samaj, Deependra Pun, chief of Ghaite Yoddha Pariwar, Khim Lal Devkota, chief of All Nepal Intellectual Association, Gyandera Kumal, chief of Kumal National Liberation Front, Shree Jabegu, chief of Limbuwan National Liberation Front and Mukti Pradhan, National Human Rights Concern Center, have stayed with the mother party. Of them, Kumal, Jabegu, Pradhan and Devkota are close to the faction led by party Vice-chairman Baburam Bhattarai.

The chiefs of sister wings joining Baidya´s party are Jayapuri Gharti Magar of All Nepal Women´s Association (Revolutionary), Gunaraj Lohani of All Nepal Teachers Association, Tilak Pariyar of Nepal National Dalit Liberation Front, Ishwar Chandra Gyawali of United All Nepal People´s Cultural Federation, Suresh Ale Magar of Indigenous Nationalities Federation, Maheshwar Dahal of Revolutionary Journalists Association, Mangal Bishwakarma of All Nepal People´s Health Workers Association, Ekaraj Bhandari of Association of Fighters Disappeared by State, Shiva Kattel of National Industries and Commerce Federation and Jayandra Bahadur Chand of Republican Sports Federation.

Likewise, Rukma Lamichhane of Nepal National Employees´ Organization, Santosh Budha Magar of Magar National Liberation Front, Takma KC of Nepal National Professors´ Organization, Padam Rai of Kirat National Liberation Front, Bharat Chepang of Chepang National Liberation Front, Chun Bahadur Thami of Thami National Liberation Front and Bartaman Rai of Rai-Danuwar National Liberation Front have also joined the new party.

Similarly, Raman Shrestha of National Lawyers Council, Bishnu Pukar Shrestha of Campaign for Human Rights and Social Transformation Nepal, Laxman Pant of All India Nepal People´s Rights Forum, Deependra Kumar Chhantyal of Chhantyal National Liberation Front, Nagendra Dhimal of Dhimal National Liberation Front and Pawanman Shrestha of Newa National Liberation Front are the other chiefs of sister wings joining CPN-Maoist.

“We had a type of peace and constitution before people’s war but in our analysis it was not pro-people

The following is a significant statement from revolutionary forces previously within the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Increasingly they are separating themselves organizationally from the old party, and seeking to chart a new course, for themselves and the people, toward a more decisive revolutionary break in Nepalese society.

This article originally appeared in Red Front and then on Democracy and Class Struggle.  It was published two days ago on Kasama.

The Challenge for the Nepalese Revolution

by Netra Bikram Chand (party name: Biplab)

The leadership of Baburam Bhatterai and Prachanda in the Nepalese revolution has disintegrated. It has shown that rightist reactionary politics emerged again in Nepal’s history.

The situation has become difficult because their leadership abandoned the goal of the People’s Federal Republic.

But because the proletarian current within the Party is strong the Party has not been damaged and even if we face temporary problems our revolution is safe.

Now the principal task of the revolutionary is to take the movement forward to victory.

We need to evaluate how Prachanda and Bhatterai diluted and corrupted our politics and reach a clear solution based on the points below.

1. Programme of the Constitution Assembly

The objective of the People’s War (PW) was a People’s Republic. After the sixth year of People’s War the Party held its second congress and Prachanda declared that the call for a Constitutional Assembly was a tactic towards achieving the strategic goal of a republic. At the same meeting the debate started a to how the former could mesh with the latter. Prachanda said further that the establishment of a Constituent Assembly (CA) would validate PW. But now the CA is not the instrument for enacting our programme but a weapon against it. It proves that the capitulationist policies of Prachanda and Bhatterai were cultivated under the call for a CA and that the PW was used as a mechanism for entering parliamentary institutions in an opportunist and reformist way.

There are two interesting facts regarding the Second Congress of the Party; firstly Bhatterai agreed to the Prachanda Path and secondly the meeting of Prachanda and Bhatterai with Delhi beforehand led to the call for a CA.

All leaders and cadre knew that Bhatterai was opposed to centralized leadership at the Fourth Plenum of the Party which was held in 1998 , saying it would lead to autocracy and counterrevolution.

Those close to Prachanda said this was against the communist principle of democratic centralism and that he was a rightist. Our Second Congress  ended this debate within the Party with centralized leadership  entering the Party’s ideology in the same way as Prachanda Path which after a three month dialogue became the ideology and policy of the party.

It is ironic that Bhatterai accepted this and became its leading spokesman. Our fraternal parties’ world-wide did not agree with this. If we go through these events we can see that Prachanda persuaded Bhatterai to accept Prachanda Path in return for him accepting the parliamentary road.

Another interesting point is that the demand for a CA, round-table conference and joint government appeared so suddenly at the Second Congress.  If we asked why it had happened in this way Prachanda answered cleverly that it was to give legitimacy to the PW.

We now know that the call for a CA was agreed by the Indian government and Bhatterai six months prior to the Second Congress.

2. Stage and sub-stage within the revolution

When the Party agreed about the CA at the time Bhatterai proposed stage and sub-stage theory which was opposed initially by comrades but gradually took root. Prachanda never officially criticized it but used to say in Party meetings that it was ‘bourgeois and rightist’. Bhatterai himself never used the term ‘bourgeois democracy’ until King Gyanendra’s seizure of power and dissolution of parliament in 2004.

But now it is proved that the stages of revolution proposed by Bhatterai was to fuse PW with bourgeois democracy.

3. Institutional development of republican democracy

The Chunwang Plenum in 2005 of the Party declared the tactic of republican democracy by making an alliance with the reactionary parties. It was intended as an interim move to pave the way for a People’ Republic (PR).

Prachanda clearly stated in a Party document that the communist party will  convert this stage into a PR; that the status quo parties will try to establish bourgeois capitalism and that at this same point the revolution will be focused. The whole party agreed with this but after the 2006 Andolan (uprising) and the overthrow of Gyanendra, Bhatterai then began to use the term ‘republican democracy’

. For our part cadres never discussed in detail the implications of the institutional development of this project. This term clearly implied that it was a pro-people’s state but that it was never the strategy of the Party. It was not conducive for a semi-feudal, neo-colonial country like Nepal where the social structures remained the same.

It was always accepted within the Party that republican democracy was a transitional tactic towards a People’s Republic and no more. Out strategy remained for the latter but Bhatterai’s concept of institutional development had the effect of freezing that transition and worse entrenching bourgeois capitalist democracy. This is not the eventual aim of a communist party and is capitulationist to abandon the revolution to change the social and economic structure and the general  capitalist characteristics of the state.

4. Peace and Constitution

Now Prachanda  and Bhatterai are focused on peace and constitution as if all else is illusion.

They want a bourgeois constitution spelt out and are criticizing those who want a revolutionary settlement for peace and constitution.

The fact is that we do not want a constitution with bourgeois characteristics but instead one that will secure the rights of peasants, workers, janjatis, Dalits, women and Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). None of this is mentioned in the proposals that have put forth.

Yes we need peace and constitution but one that is clearly defined. What we have today asks the question as to how we can bring real peace. And what did we struggle for in PW.

These are the questions we need to concentrate on. We had a type of peace and constitution before PW but in our analysis it was not pro-people – to the contrary. It was a system that did not reflect their interests but only those of the entrenched bourgeois-feudal classes. Therefore, the great PW was launched and a pro-people peace and constitution came to the forefront. But now they are trying to rebuild the system as it was before and this is unacceptable.  It will be designed to function for those who were the ruling class in the past. This creates the necessity of struggle for a pro-people settlement.

5. Republican Democracy

The political line of Prachanda and Bhatterai has trapped them within the confines of bourgeois republican democracy. The reasons they give for accepting it is because of the difficulties for revolutionaries given the national and international balance of forces. This is not true; the fact is that this has led them to a rightist and opportunist position.

These are the same people who declared the previous bourgeois democratic system as reactionary and were leaders in PW to end it. It is clear that bourgeois democrats favour capitalism and we would be mistaken  if we believed that this system benefits our people.

These are the same people who use to say that we have to complete our revolution and establish a People’s Republic but who now say it is an ‘ultra-leftist’ and ‘dogmatic’ aspiration which is against a lasting peace. Now their activities in collecting the names of the revolutionary leaders from the districts and villages shows they are not only rightist and capitulationist but fascist. We know that the eventual outcome of capitalist democracy in an age of imperialism  is fascism and it appears that Prachanda and Bhatterai by advocating and implementing this system are working towards this outcome.

Summary

The Maoist party that started the PW that organized and administered the liberated zones and the PLA became the centre of international revolution but Prqachanda and Bhatterai have surrendered this to Delhi, Nepali Congress, UML, and the forces of reaction by announcing the end of the PW, the dismantlement of dual-power institutions of People’s Courts, communes and the PLA. Under their leadership the revolution is collapsing. Why has this happened?

To answer this question we must go to the point during PW when they introduced the CA and round-table conferences as two stages of struggle and it was the logical outcome of their plan of establishing bourgeois republican democracy. In short we can say that their agenda became consolidated when Prachanda assimilated Bhatterai’s ideology and politics.

Revolutionary Responsibilities

Their betrayal of the Nepalese reolution has created a crisis but is not fatal to the revolution, we can rise to the challenge and we should. Therefore we have duties and should not delay in fulfilling our responsibilities by concentrating on the four points below.

1)Protecting Our Revolutionary Ideology

Now they are attacking Marxist-Leninist-Maoism by using it to argue that Nepal’s specific objective conditions require the revolution to acquire bourgeois-capitalist characteristics and cannot be used as a model for world revolution. Communists, in short, should  accept multi-party democracy in a bourgeois capitalist state. Because of this all our dual-power structures were dismantled, dissolved and disrupted. We have to take a stand against this dilution of our revolutionary praxis. We have to counter-attack this ideology which blocks the revolution by establishing bourgeois democracy and entrenching capitalism. There is no doubt that presently social-democracy reflects the crisis in capitalism.

2) Formation of Revolutionary Centres

Dismantling the leadership of Prachanda and Bhatterai wil leave a vacuum that revolutionaries must fill. They are already rightist revisionists whatever form of ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric they use and this has become a major problem facing our revolution.

The Two-Line struggle within the Party formed the foundation of revolutionary leadership but formally Prachanda is the leader of the Party so it made it easier for them to implement a rightist/revisionist programme and more difficult to implement a revolutionary one. If we want to solve this problem we have to address the question of revolutionary leadership. We know very well that the leadership  should match our ideology otherwise we cannot complete the revolution. If we have the appropriate ideology and plan without the complementary leadership nothing will advance.

It is agreed inside the Party that up to now the situation has been favourable for the revolution in Nepal, especially as there is a burning desire among the many marginalized for fundamental change. But Prachanda and Bhatterai have shown themselves not prepared to represent and to organize for such an eventuality.

They are not ready to take the revolutionary risk. Therefore, to be practical it is not that difficult for us to break with this timorous approach and move forward boldly.

3) Alternative People’s State

Only a People’s state can provide the alternative for their rights and liberation. Parliamentary capitalism cannot fulfill such tasks, but presently Prachanda and Bhatterai are the spokespersons for this policy. They are saying there is no other route than bourgeois democracy and represents how rightist and capitulationist their thinking has become. It creates difficulties for the people and we should protest against it.

Dual-power structures established to serve the people during PW have been cleverly, gradually and wrongly destroyed by Prachanda.  To serve this aim Prachanda rhetorically raised the slogan for urban revolution and many sincere revolutionaries believed him although the real agenda was to drag the Party towards reformist parliamentarism.

In fact, in the final analysis it became counter-productive for Prachanda.

Now there are fresh opportunities to re-unify the movement and People’s Democracy. Inside the drama of the CA the attitudes of strengthening parliamentary became prevalent. People’s rights are to be terminated and genuflection made to the international power-brokers of imperialism which has inspired a strong people’s resistance against this trend.

4) Revolutionary struggle

Without struggle the old will not die and the new cannot be born and while the parliamentary system is here we must direct our energies against it After the election for last CA we did not try to reorganize our revolution. The most extreme slogans of Prachanda were must made to confuse revolutionaries.

There are the problems for farmers and peasants with Prachanda returning the expropriated lands to the feudal zamindars (landlords). There are problems for workers but Prachanda and Bhatterai are considering denying them the right to strike. While we talk about problems  for our national sovereignty they sign yet more unequal treaties. They are not taking responsibility for the day-to-day problems faced by ordinary people. Yet they criticize  revolutionaries as ‘ultra-left’ for addressing these issues. These examples prove that they are preparing to ban further struggles but the revolutionary current is strong in the country and the people support it. There is no alternative but for us to re-organize the revolutionary forces in the coming days and months.

Conclusion:

The Prachanda and Bhatterai axis is already discredited within the Nepalese revolution. It is the reality as they have proved over the last six years  that they are agents of capitalist parliamentary democracy. This is reflected in the dismemberment of People’s dual-power structures and their personal financial corruption. This is further proof that Bhatterai’s agenda of a revolutionary sub-stage and Prachanda’s adoption of that stratagem , which has resulted in their abandonment of revolutionary communism for bourgeois capitalist democracy.

The rightist alignment within the Party should be the target for revolutionaries and carried out according to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles. It should be transformed and re-integrated into the revolutionary forces or eliminated. After the identifying the rightist/reformist trend within the Party it will not remain long.

Logically there is an alternative to the capitalist parliamentary system and that is the People’s Republic which will address and solve the problems of the people. This will be achieved by communists and democratic- patriotic giving leadership in respect of permanent peace and the development and prosperity of the country.

There is no other way and it is the necessity for the revolutionary centre to establish a People’s Republic. We have to accept this truth and implement this strategy.  This is the prime responsibility for revolutionaries and one which will raise the Nepalese revolution to new heights.

This article is from my republica.

Dang-based Ex-combatants Form People’s Volunteer Bureau

Gajendra Bohara

Dang, May 9: Dang-based Maoist ex-combatants who opted for voluntary retirement and youths aligned with Mohan Baidya faction of the Maoist Party on Wednesday threatened to launch revolution against the UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal  and his supporters and also formed the people’s liberation army (PLA)“The PLA has been dissolved but we will launch another revolution yet again,” said Tilak Pun, the Coordinator of People’s Volunteer Bureau (PVB) Dang District Committee. He urged youths and the ex-combatants to join the PVB to fight against Dahal  and his supporters, accusing them of surrendering the PLA in the name of peace process.

Speaking to the same function central member of the PVB and ex-combatant Nep Babadur Kunwar said they were forced to surrender. “In fact, it was dissolution of revolution so we should be prepared to launch a revolution,” said Kunwar.

The gathering decided to form a PVB district committee headed by Pun. The participants said they formed district committee for people’s mobilization to create environment for revolution.”Whatever you name this group, in fact this is a base on which PLA would be formed in coming days,” said a participant.

The All Nepal Landless Squatters Association has issued a call for protest  in response to thousands of landless squatters being bulldozed  from their homes on the Bagmati river May 8.

This article is from http://onlinekhabar.com

Kathmandu: May 9th: The All Nepal Landless Squatters Association has warned of stern protest against police suppression in the settlements of landless squatters living at the bank of Bagmati River in Thapathali.
Issuing a press statement today, the Association warned of organizing protests and demanded proper alternative to the management of the landless squatters.

Issuing the statement General Secretary of the Association, Puskar BK, has urged the landless squatters living across the country to express solidarity in the protests.

The constituent assembly process has again failed to draft a constitution that would benefit the people of Nepal. The numerous  nationalities of the country have been left in the lurch, as the CA could not decide on a proper federal system to guarantee their rights. In response, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai is calling for new elections in November, while nearly every other political force in the country–including the revolutionary faction of the UCPN(M) is calling for him to step down.

The situation in Nepal is unstable again, and as the article below suggests, security forces, no doubt with blessings from India and the US, are installing measures to curtail any rebellion of the people. It seems clear now, that if there is a road to revolution in Nepal, it will not be through the Constituent Assembly process.

[Intro by Redpines] This article is from Nepalnews.com

New Security Strategy to be Enforced in Kim Valley for May 27

A new security strategy has been prepared to obviate possible risks during the period around the promulgation of the new constitution and also to maintain peace and security, RSS reports.

Organizing a press meet in the capital  on Tuesday, Metropolitan Police Commissioners Office said the strategy would be implemented in three phases.The implementation status of the new strategy would be reviewed every 15 days and strengthened as per the need said Spokesperson of the Office, Rabiraj Shrestha.

As per the security plan, 4677 security persons would be mobilized every day in the three districts of the Valley maintaining coordination among Nepali Police, Armed Police Force and other security bodies, he added.

The first phase of plan will come under operation from April 12 to 28th.

For the security in and around the Constituent Assembly building, three layers of security would be built up, Shrestha said, adding that security check at every entry point of Valley would be  beefed up.

Moreover, important locations across the Valley would be used, regular patrol arranged and campaigns launched in hotels, crime-prone areas and possible hideouts.Nepalnews.com