Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

May 28: The Day Nepal’s Monarchy Ends?

Posted by Mike E on May 19, 2008

In countries, like the U.S., that have long been republics, people often don’t understand the oppressive ideologies tied up with hereditary monarchies. The idea that some individuals (and their offspring) are “born to rule” everyone is profoundly hostile to the idea that society (and the state ) should “serve the people.” The overthrow of Nepal’s Hindu monarchy (headed by the much hated Gyanendra) is now about to happen — if the Constituent Assembly convenes, as planned, on May 28. Its first act will be abolishing the old system — and its next act will be to struggle over the kind of republic that should replace the monarchy.

Nepal will soon be a republic

(Photo right: Nepal’s King Gyanendra)

12/05/2008 19:09 – (SA) Kathmandu – Nepal’s government announced on Monday that its new constitution-drafting body would meet for the first time on May 28 when it is due to formally abolish the monarchy and declare the country a republic.

The Maoists, who scored a surprise victory in landmark elections last month, vowed that the monarchy would be scrapped during the first sitting of the assembly.

The ex-rebels overturned all predictions in the April polls, winning 220 of the 601 seats in the constitutional assembly – more than twice the number of their nearest rivals and pre-election favourites, the Nepali Congress.

“The prime minister has sent letters to all the participating political parties calling for the first meeting of the constituent assembly on May 28,” Aditya Baral, adviser to Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, told AFP.

End of world’s only Hindu monarchy

King Gyanendra’s fall from power would mark the end of the world’s only Hindu monarchy, which had been on the throne for 240 years.

Gyanendra, who was seen by supporters as a reincarnation of the Hindu protector Vishnu, endured a traumatic and short reign.

He took the throne in 2001 after a drunk and drugged crown prince massacred nine members of the royal family and then killed himself, after being forbidden from marrying the woman he loved.

Already unpopular, Gyanendra’s popularity hit rock bottom when he sacked the government and took direct control of the impoverished nation in February 2005.

The move pushed Nepal’s mainstream political parties into an alliance with their former foes, the Maoist insurgents, and resulted in the 2006 peace pact that ended a civil war in which more than 13 000 people died.

Maoists ‘are excited’

The Maoists welcomed the announced date of the constitutional assembly’s first meeting.

“We have received the letter from the prime minister and we are excited about the day,” said senior Maoist leader Dinanath Sharma.

“Nepal will formally be declared a federal democratic country and we will get rid of the 240-year-old institution of monarchy.

“It will be a historic day for the country. This date will in future always be known as Republic Day.”

Possible coalition government

He added that his party was still holding meetings with other groups over the formation of a new coalition government under the Maoists’ leadership.

“This might take place before or after the first assembly meeting,” he said. Debate raged in the mainstream parties about whether to join a coalition led by the Maoists.

17 Responses to “May 28: The Day Nepal’s Monarchy Ends?”

  1. Sam said

    What is the status of the PLA right now? Are they still in the camps divorced from their weapons? When is “integration” scheduled to occur? Will it be before the 28th?

  2. Nando said

    The PLA is in cantonments (military camps) in varios places across the country. They are in control of their weapons (which are nominally stored under UN surveillance).

    Integration is not scheduled (and there has been no serious plan for it to occur).

    Prachanda has said (in a post listed on this site) that he thought the steps forward are the “professionalization” of the PLA and the subordination of the NA (former RNA) to civilian rule. He has also suggested moving PLA units into the capital.

    Personally, I believe that “integration” can only happen after the issues of power are decisively settled — it would mean the defacto integration of NA soldiers into the PLA (as happened continuously during the Chinese revolution, as KMT soldiers and officers were integrated into Mao’s PLA.)

  3. N3wDay said

    Yeah I read something by Prachanda mentioning that. He said something along the lines of integrating the “democractic” forces within the NA with the PLA after the monarchy was permanently abolished (after the new government is formed I’m assuming).

  4. Nando said

    I would not assume that anyone intends to merge forces in the short term. Does anyone seriously think the former royal army is going to allow “integration”?

    As for what Prachanda is talking about — why assume he means “after the new government is formed”? He might be talking about “after the seizure of power”?

    The main thing is to grasp that we are looking at a major turning point on May 28. The conservative forces (like Congress) are holding national conferences to prepare for whatever they have planned. There are demands for not letting the Maobadi lead the Constitutent Assembly, etc. and Prachanda has now called for people to fill the streets — to prevent a rightwing coup (or other similar events)….

    Things are not running along some routine electoral schedule: like, now there is an opening of the constituent assembly, now the new government gets sworn in, now the king steps down, now the army get integrated…

    No, this is a rev situation — the first one of your lifetime. Not some ho-hum succession, or post-election swearing in. These folks intend to overthrow the King on May 28, and he still has an army that has a high command that included people loyal to him. And meanwhile, all kinds of powerful parties (and external forces) are intriguing to prevent (by any means necessary!) the events from going the way the Maobadi want.

    Without making predictions we can’t in fact make, without running on hype, we need to grasp that big events are afoot, that could suddenly careen one way or another.

  5. N3wDay said

    I agree, I tend to look at this like it’s a “tea party”.

    But I get the feeling that from a tactical standpoint a coup without major outside help would be a rather stupid move on the part of the royalist army. My personal feeling is that if very large sections of it are still absolutely loyal to the king (and not to the direction the country is moving at this time), and the UML and Congress feel so desperate after the election results, that they will ally fully with the royalists, they may try. But at the same time the PLA has proven it’s fighting capabilities, and a staged coup would only throw popular support way in the direction of the Maoists giving them a perfect reason for full seizure. The UML and Congress obviously don’t want that.

    What is the character of the UML? Nationalist? The Congress is more reactionary and is in favor of India right? And the royalists are more in the lap of U.S. Imperialism? So where does the UML stand? Could they be a deciding factor?

  6. N3wDay said

    I’m reading up on the RNA and I see now that the Royalist forces do have more or less complete control of it…

  7. Mike E said

    The UML has been losing a lot of its support…. over time…. reflecting the ways it has been exposed over the last 15 years.

    I posted a piece on the liquidation of these parties.

    Tell us more about what you have read on the RNA… make some posts about it. quotes? links?

  8. NSPF said

    A move by the army to quash the revolution before or during the first days of the convening of the CA would be foolish but not impossible.

    What seems much more dangerous is a deliberate move to create political deadlock in the weeks and months after the first session of the assembly and then for the army to make a move along the Indonesian solution. India may not like this but could be presented with faith accompli and co opted to a secondary position by the US. All sorts of players could be used to make this possible. Latest speaches by the ex-Indian ambassador to Nepal warning against the US game plans could be about this.

    The relevant question is that what responsibility all these analyses of possible reactionary scenarios place on the shoulders of the revolutionaries and progresives around the world? What could they do to contribute toward its prevention?

  9. N3wDay said

    Mike, sure. I’m leaving for work in a minute, but when I return I’ll go over my notes. The readings I have are more just snippets from various statements the CPN has made. I’ll post them after I gather them together.

  10. Anon said

    In relation to post #8, remember that the Chinese also are closely watching what is going on in Nepal. I think things are very volatile right now (well, obviously!) ;)

  11. Lost Artemio said

    Regarding whatever relationship exists between the Chinese government and comrades in Nepal, I have a few questions and am wondering if others here could help me formulate some answers?

    In my area a few of us have started to do some support work around the revolution in Nepal. It’s a start- study of some of the CPN(M)’s documents, and information table’s. We haven’t exactly figured out the bold,daring,and creative ways to light up the sky around this question yet, but that’s ok. It hasn’t gone entirely unnoticed either.

    Interestingly enough,word of our support work got back to comrades supporting the RCP. As individuals some people in our grouping here are still involved with the WCW chapter. When our support work came into a scheduleing conflict with WCW plans-a supporter of the party was not pleased to put it mildly. Given the RCP’s long silence at this juncture of the revolution in Nepal, I was suprised to hear that an individual associated with the party spoke about Nepal in a public WCW meeting. They basically poo-pooed doing any kind of support for the revolution in Nepal, and suggested that current WCW plans are more relevent and important. It went beyond that though…

    (and the following is not a direct quote, it’s second hand, and is perhaps a vulgar characterization of political line)

    it was said that;

    …doing support work around the rev. in Nepal isn’t worthwhile, because it isn’t a real communist revolution happening. The party over there isn’t even talking about revolution or communism anymore. They are even sitting at the table and talking with the revisionist capitalist roaders in China that Mao tried to overthrow and are pandering to them! Just look at how the NCP(M) is viewing Tibet, siding with the the Deng revisionists and speaking out against the cause of the Tibetan people…

    My initial thinking is that this charecterisation of the CPN (M)’s line divides into 2, for that matter it divides into 4 and 8.

    I believe I know what they are referring to, in the current issue of The Red Star, there is a the article titled:

    Serious concern

    The anti-Chinese activity taking place under the banner of ‘Free Tibet’ on Nepalese soil is a serious problem in this transitional period. We are in the period of a great transformation. We all are in the peace process. The republican era is going to replace the feudal era. In the meantime, the activities against the neighbouring country of China in Nepal are going to create strategic problems here.

    The neighbouring countries are helping in the peace process to build a Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. The Nepalese people are in need of help. So, the foreign powers must not try to create problems for Nepal and the Nepalese people at this time. We, the Nepalese people do not want Nepal to be a play ground of foreign powers.

    The question of Tibet is the internal affair of China. The people of autonomous Tibet have a right to demand a prosperous Tibet and to fulfil the needs of Tibetan people in their own land. But to raise the question of a ‘Free Tibet’ from another country is not suitable. Nepal and the Nepalese people must pay attention to protect their nation.

    Demanding and protesting is a democratic right. Principally, the state should not suppress people who are demonstrating against the government. But we must put our attention where, when and why the protest is going on. Therefore, the government of Nepal should stop the activities against China. It is not a proper for Nepalese soil to be used against China.

    ‘No right to intervene in internal affairs’

    The Chinese ambassador Zheng Xialing has stated that no one has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign country. In a face to face programme organized by the Reporters Club in Kathmandu, he expressed this view by pointing out the American exaggeration of the anti-Chinese activities held in Nepalese soil. Addressing the Tibetan protesters as the culprit group, he added that they are backed by America. He criticised the UN Mission in Nepal for supporting such activities blindly. He said “So called Human Right’s Activists and Observers are spreading propaganda saying that China seized the human right of Tibetan people and Tibet should be free. Who gave this right to them? Why are they saying so?”

    Mr. Xialing, responding to the question of journalists, said “Every sovereign country has its own individual freedom; no one has the right to intervene in the name of NGOs and INGOs. We cannot support these tasks in any way.” He requested that the Nepali government stop these activities.

    He said that he respects the verdict of the Nepalese people in the election of the CA. Respecting the mandate of the Nepalese people, he said, “The government should be formed on the basis of a mandate.”

    http://www.krishnasenonline.org/theredstar/issues/issue8/news.htm#NC

    After reading this statement I thought that it was pretty clear that the comrades in Nepal were more or less voiceing a pro- Chinese viewpoint. By that I mean the bias is leaning more towards the Chinese government.

    The Maoists in India have criticised some of the CPN(M)’s positions concerning diplomatic relations to imperialist powers as confusing. Frankly, I have found it so at times.

    My understanding of what the Nepalese comrades have said, given their conditions being sandwiched and landlocked between 2 or the worlds major powers India and China, and within the reach of US Imperialism- it is necessary that they start to cultivate diplomatic relations with the 3 power centers, and to the maximum degree neutralize each one-in order to consolidate proletarian state power.

    The “Free Tibet” campaign is not without it’s own contradictions. I read a great series in the RW by Mike Ely almost 15 years ago that explored this. Undoubtedly, US Imperialism in competition with the emerging, growing, Chinese economy has used Tibet to villify their capitalist rivals.
    The “american exageration”, and american support for the “free tibet” campaign is very real, and for selfish purposes.

    I can see the logic in playing one power center against another in order to neutralize both at a critical moment before, during, and immediately after the consolidation of revolutionary power as a tactical move.

    Reading The Red Star, I got the impression that there was a kind of “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” element to the article. i.e. The comrades in Nepal come out and say tibet is an internal affair for china and protest in Nepal surrounding it is improper and should be stopped

    and in return

    The Chinese say they respect the peoples mandate in Nepal for CA.

    It certainly is a pickle. I see CPN(M)’s statements as a diplomatic maneauver. While I can see the logic and necessity to maneauver like this- there is something about it on the surface that doesn’t feel quite right.

    Curious as to how others view this, and are analyizing it. I wouldnt be suprised if comrades run into similar lines in other areas.

  12. Mike E said

    Lost Artemio:

    I find your post a little confusing.

    first i think we should actually quote political forces when we characterize their lines.

    If all you have from the RCP is “second hand, and… perhaps a vulgar characterization of political line” — well, why would you post it then?

    If you are going to discuss the Indian comrades criticism, why not quote them, so you are not characterizing them second hand either.

    I went and looked at the Red star article on Tibet. The quote from Red Star is:

    “The question of Tibet is the internal affair of China. The people of autonomous Tibet have a right to demand a prosperous Tibet and to fulfill the needs of Tibetan people in their own land. But to raise the question of a ‘Free Tibet’ from another country is not suitable. Nepal and the Nepalese people must pay attention to protect their nation.”

    You seem to assume this is all wrong. You seem to imply they are making unprincipled “diplomatic maneuver.” Ok. but first shouldn’t you make an analysis of their article and stance — and explain what you find wrong in it.

    well what is wrong here?

    Isn’t tibet an internal question of china? Isn’t there a problem in the world that the U.S. (and other imperialists) act like no one has any right to national sovereignty, and as if they have a right to make demands about how every place is organized and ruled?

    The Nepalese comrades are quite aware that Nepal was a staging ground for armed CIA attack on China through the 1950s (some of which involved CIA-trained tibetan contras).

    Here in their article they say (a ) that the tibetan people have a right to make demands around their needs, culture and development “in their own land.” but (b ) imperialist forces have no right to exploit this, make demands on china and use nepal as a staging area.

    Is there something you think is wrong with this stand?

    The Red star article says that \the slogan “Free Tibet” is a wrong for others to raise “from another country.” Do you assume that is wrong? If so, what is your analysis?

  13. Lost Artemio said

    Mike,

    Your right, my post is a little confusing- because I am a little bit confused.

    My main point was that we were discouraged from doing support work around the revolution in Nepal. It was actually said that us doing so was “wrong”. The reasons offered for why it was wrong, were the comrades in Nepal aren’t even talking about revolution or communism anymore, they’ve basically degenerated, and for proof of their degeneration the example of siding with the government of China, and opposing the people of Tibet’s aspirations for freedom was offered.

    Thats a summary of the argument that was made to a member of our grouping. I did not hear this argument myself, so it’s second hand and not a word for word direct quote. I trust that the individual who this argument was made to is not fabricating it.

    Having had a few days to think about it,the argument made to us is what was pretty crude. There is nothing in the CPN(M)’s position that opposes the people of Tibet’s right to protest and “demand a prosperous Tibet that fulfills the needs of the Tibeten people”. There is a an expressed position that they do not want Nepal to be a playground for foriegn powers.

    It’s not so much the CPN(M)’s position that I was confused by. It did however confuse me some that they printed the Chinese ambassadors statement, and did so uncritically.

    “The Chinese ambassador Zheng Xialing has stated that no one has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign country. In a face to face programme organized by the Reporters Club in Kathmandu, he expressed this view by pointing out the American exaggeration of the anti-Chinese activities held in Nepalese soil. Addressing the Tibetan protesters as the culprit group, he added that they are backed by America. He criticised the UN Mission in Nepal for supporting such activities blindly. He said “So called Human Right’s Activists and Observers are spreading propaganda saying that China seized the human right of Tibetan people and Tibet should be free. Who gave this right to them? Why are they saying so?”

    Frankly- people outside of Tibet or China do have a right to speak out and be critical of the current Chinese government. You have done so yourself and have even condemmed Chinese policy in Tibet post 76. Granted you are coming from a far different place than many “Free Tibet” protestors- I don’t think the Chinese government would be to fond of your (rightous) condemnations, like in part 4 of your Tibet series
    http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/tibet/tibet4.htm
    where you say.

    “Today, the masses of Tibetan peasants are suppressed and exploited by new rich classes closely allied with state functionaries. The revisionists are carrying out a Han chauvinist policy of flooding central Tibet, especially its cities, with Han immigrants. Government troops and police have shot down protesters. Tibet’s resources are being thoughtlessly exploited–serving the capitalist god of profit.(See, for example, “Revisionist Clear-Cutting.”)

    These policies have nothing to do with Maoism. They have everything to do with the restoration of capitalism in China–which has full support from the U.S. imperialists.”

    I realize that quoting you to you is a little odd, but your series on Tibet is the most well rounded piece on the subject I have read. I guess the point I am trying to make, is that the CPN(M)positon doesn’t contain condemnation of China, they give voice to a wrong position from the chinese ambassador which is basically”No one has the right to criticize us, We haven’t done anything wrong to Tibet, and anyone who says we violate human rights is just lieing”… and thats what is confusing.
    It does make some kind of sense though, as a diplomatic move.

  14. Nando said

    The framework that is missing from all of this is what the nepali maoists are facing:

    India (their powerful southern neighbor) has encouraged a secessionist movement in the Terai (Nepal’s lowland region that is its crucial breadbasket). If India moves militarily against the revolution in nepal, the intervention could come in the form of supposed “support” for the rights of people in that Terai region (against the new federal republic being created in Kathmandu.) This is linked to rightwing Hindu fundamentalism supporting the monarchy (that is about to be overthrown).

    So, in the middle of this, a representative of Nepal’s powerful northern neighbor makes a statement of THEIR principles:

    “The Chinese ambassador Zheng Xialing has stated that no one has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign country.”

    This was (obviously) not just a statement about Tibet — but a warning from China against any possible Indian plans for the Terai.

    In that situation, what does the Nepali Maoist article do?

    It upholds the right of Tibet’s people to “their land” (i.e. to autonomy), without upholding the demands for secession of Tibet (i.e. “Free Tibet”).

    This is the position of virtually everyone in the world, including most political forces in Tibet (including the Dalai Lama) — i.e. genuine autonomy, cultural rights, end to massive Han migration etc. while still functioning as part of China.

    And while the Nepali Maoist article upholds those rights of the Tibetan people (which is a clear and open criticism of the Chinese government, by the way), they print the Chinese ambassadors statement of principles (which is an implied warning to India) without criticizing it.

    Why should they criticize it? It is both correct (in principle) that countries have some right to sovereignty (meaning here from the demands of OTHER GOVERNMENTS on their internal affairs), meaning that it is wrong for powerful governments to encourage secessionist movements (as the CIA did in Tibet during the 1950s and 60s as an attack on the Chinese Maoists , and as the Indian government is doing now in the Terai as an attack on the Nepali Maoists.)

    There is a great deal of training that has gone on NOT to appreciate context and particularlity. To view things simple through “the fetish of the word.”

    Yes, the Nepalis print a statement of an ambassador without criticizing it. Let me ask you a question: Do you want newspapers under socialism where no major statement is published without the editors telling you what they thing, and what you should thing?

    Is it wrong for a newspaper to publish a statement from an ambassador (of a neighoring country) without (always?) on the spot unleashing a polemic against the class character of his government?

    And is it wrong for the Nepali Maoists to publish a Chinese government statement opposing foreign-meddling — when the major threat against their revolution at this moment is Indian meddling in their southern border regions? Isn’t it a good thing that China is making such statements, just at the moment when the Constituent Assembly is meeting? (Objectively a good thing… though obviously because of their class character they too have a very ambivalent view toward having a genuine maoist rev on their own southern border!)

  15. Nando said

    on diplomacy…

    I also think that there may be a sense here that somehow “diplomacy” is a suspect thing for a socialist force. And that if a revolutionary movement speaks of capitalist neighbors the only thing they should be doing is denouncing and exposing those neighbors for being capitalists.

    that strikes me as more-than-a-little ahistorical.

    If you have a socialist country (or are trying to carry out a socialist rev in a country) isn’t it part of your rev tasks to create a favorable objective situation (including, pretty obviously, making it as hard a possible for someone to quickly invade and crush you.) It seems like a very basic responsibility.

    India threatens Nepal. Is it wrong to have relations with China?

    Is the rev press REQUIRED to mutter after every mention of china “those counterrevolutionary bastards who we would overthrow if we could”? And similarly mutter whenever they mention India (in speach or print) “those expansionist compradors who have strangled the people of this sub continent for half a century”?

    There is uneven development. Nepal may (objectively) serve as the “fuse for the Indian revolution” — but the Indian revolution is sputtering, moving rather slowly by comparison. And the Nepali revolutoin (to be victorious) has to deal with (deal with!) the Indian government (and army!) — not just (or even mainly) with the Indian revolutionaries.

    the nepali maoist method is to have two tracks of relationships: ties to the other revs of the region (which have been rather creative and visionary in proposing common work, at times), and then growing diplomatic relationships with the governments of that region (carrying out discussions aimed at thwarting Indian invasion, blockades and other actions that would crush the revolution.)

    In that context, what does a grown-up *REV* policy look like? Is diplomacy just a ‘dirty business’ that is somehow inherently “unprincipled” — and must the revs rush (as quickly as possible) to wash their hands after such discussions and announced (as loudly as possible) that they are NOT confused about the basic class nature of their neighbors’ governments and EAGER to see these monsters in prison (rather than meeting with them)?

    Am I wrong, or is there a bit of an infantile downplaying of the necessity (and the complex history) of socialist diplomacy in a world of powerful reactionary states? Lenin’s government welcoming herbert Hoover in with relief, and major oil companies into Baku? Stalin signing a treaty with Hitler? Mao meeting Nixon and more?

  16. Lost Artemio said

    Nando,

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I posted about this because I had questions and needed some help analyzing things and formulating answers. Your comments and mike’s have been helpful placing things in context- I don’t feel so confused now, but let me think things over before I post anymore on the subject

  17. Nando said

    Lost Artemio: Thanks again for posting these issues.

    I won’t repeat what has been said in this thread. But for now:

    I think one of the ways we should view these controversies includes approaching it from the “high plane” of the controversies among communists:

    The RCP has decided that Avakian’s verdicts on socialism, communism and nationalism are cardinal questions — i.e. that they are dividing lines between marxism and revisionism. And once you reach that conclusion (and once supporters are trained in that conclusion) there is a quick cascade of logically subordinate conclusions.

    Quite clearly the CPN(M) does not agree with Avakian’s synthesis:

    They don’t think that “enriched what-is-to-be-donism” is at the core of their work (i.e. training their members to talk “from communism back” and focus their political work on bringing up the final goal at every moment). They don’t think that the solution to capitalist restoration is Avakian’s “solid core with a lot of elasticity” within a one-party state framework. On the contrary, they have a different proposal for how to “do better” during the socialist transition. They do not agree that there are only “two roads” in the world — and have announced that they are taking a hyrid role. They have announced that on their road to New Democracy and Socialism, they are carrying out a sub-stage that involves overthrowing the monarchy, and struggling within that context over what kind of anti-monarchy republic, and what kind of federal state and what kind of democratic system should be erected. They do not think that nationalism is the antithesis of internationalism — but they hold (with Mao) that in oppressed countries “patriotism is applied internationalism.” And there are more issues that appear in both theory and practice.

    So for supporters of the RCP (who are trained in the fetish of the word, and specifically in judging right and wrong by how it stands in relationship to Avakian’s latest works) all of this looks suspicious — in fact it looks counterrevolutionary.

    And, because of the training, they are actually often not aware how a revolutionary movement looks and acts as it approaches the complex struggles of seizing power, splitting their foes, and winning over intermediate forces (precisely as it tries to go from being an oppositional force to a force actually running a country.)

    They do not know that Lenin participated in the elections for Constituent Assembly. (in fact they often don’t know what a Constituent Assembly is — and just think, falsely, that the CPNM discarded armed struggle for the electoral path to power!)

    They often don’t know that U.S. officials considered Mao a nationalist “agrarian reformer” whose differences with Stalin were deep. They often don’t know that Mao engaged in the Chungking negotiations — to form a coalition with the KMT reactionaries, and continue the fusion of their armies, and that he used those conditions to win over middle forces for the civil war that eventually led to a New China.

    No, some people are trained to judge movements merely by the fine print of public statements on the world stage — as if revolutionaries can always say what their goals and intentions are on that world stage. It is a simple tidy method.

    With such training people could take an article on Tibet, and be outraged that a Chinese ambassador is quoted (without a quick and devastating denunciation).

    And with such training (in such a line) people can feel justified in such outrage — even if they have not studied what the Chinese statement means for Indian intervention in Nepal (i.e. that the Chinese are expressing principled for the region that OPPOSE Indian invasion and institgations against the Nepalese revolution.) It is a method that allows you to have opinions without having done any concrete analysis. It is an idealist method — that deduces everything from a quick textual scan.

    Of course, in the real world, revolutionaries sometimes have armies, supporters, grand plans, internal debates, and even a chance at power — sometimes, in the real world, revolutionaries are actually dealing with real contradictions (and not just in the realm of theory) — sometimes they are writing on the canvas of actual events (and aren’t sending us hourly emails explaining their intentions and calculations).

    And so what actions does this line then lead to?

    As we have a revolutionary movement navigating the approach to power… we have some revolutionaries responding silence in their public writings, and with mumbled attacks in less public venues. Some of these attacks (like the ones LA and others are reporting) are half-baked and they don’t even represent the formal line of the RCP itself. But these are views unleashed by the training in the RCP’s particular line and method. (I.e., comrades who don’t engage and appreciate the Chair must be on the wrong road, so any statement they make can be assumed to be evidence of this… again without any need for actual analysis.)

    Just so we inject some materialism and facts into all this….

    Here is a quote from a recent article by the leading Maoist Gajurel dealing with international relations. The article is posted on this site:

    “In the developed new situation CPN-M has to make diplomatic relationship with other countries. What will be the basic principle for deplomatic relationship?

    “The basic principles will be the five principles of co-existence. That is the basis of state to state international relation. Another fundamental aspect of it is we have to develop the relationship with other states or governments, with the national interest of Nepal as its first priority. Definitely, we should have to develop the relation with all the country. The basis will be in the largest interest of the Nepalese people and the nation.

    “These two things, as has been explained by the United Nations Organization, the basic five principles of co-existence and the largest interest of Nepalese people and our Nation are the fundamental criteria of the diplomatic relationship.

    “CPN-M is going to the government. [Meaning that the Maoists are now going to be leading a government.] How will you handle the controversial relationship between state to state relationship and party relationship among Communist parties and organizations of the world?

    “Definitely, when we will be in the government, we will have to handle these two types of relationship. Because we are Communists and our party is a Communist party; we have as our goal the transition from socialism to communism. We have not given up our goal. We are moving in that direction. We are Internationalists because we are Communists. So the relation with other Communist parties will be developed on the basis of Proletarian internationalism. And, without interfering in the affairs of any Communist Party, our relationship will develop on the basis of proletarian internationalism.

    “So far as state to state relationship is concerned, on the basis of five principles of peaceful co-existence, the relation will develop between state to state. To carry on both the relationship will not be a big problem because we have learnt so many lessons from the Communist parties that were previously in power. For example, the Bolshevik party was in the power The Chinese Communist Party was in power and they maintained their relationship with different states and also the relation with other communist parties. We shall not compromise or negotiate our ideology and politics- in the name of being in government; we will never negotiate our fundamental principles, our ideology and politics.”

    Perhaps we should discuss that actual position of the CPNM?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: