Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Kiran resigns from Constitutent Assembly

Posted by n3wday on October 25, 2008

This article appeared on Nepal News.
Mohan Vaidya resigns as CA member

A senior leader of the CPN (Maoist) Mohan Vaidya, who heads the organisational department in the party, has resigned as member of constituent assembly Tuesday.

According to Naya Patrika daily, Vaidya consulted Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who is also the chairman of the party Monday before filing resignation. Vaidya advocates that one person must hold only one post.

Vaidya said resignation was submitted according to party suggestions and has already been discussed in central committee and secretariat. He further said resignation would make him freer to devote on party affairs.

Vaidya has been vying the post of party chairman and is seen as hardliner in the party supporting armed rebellion to complete political transformation. Vaidya represents party in the CA under proportional representation quota. ia Oct 22 08

3 Responses to “Kiran resigns from Constitutent Assembly”

  1. redundant said

    It seems that Mohan Vaidya is also known as Mohan Baidya, and as Kiran. Having a post announcing the resignation of Kiran from the CA, and then announcing the resignation of Mohan Vaidya from the CA, may give the incorrect impression that two different people have resigned.

  2. Mike E said

    Thanks. We changed the headline to make it clear that Vaidya and Kiran are the same person (i.e. one is his given name, the other his nom de guerre). It is not really redundant. These are simply different accounts of the same event.

  3. arthur said

    The following from interview with Baburam Bhatterai back in May sheds a lot more light on such resignations than the speculations of the Telegraph (in the other post with account of same “event”).

    If the public and the working class and the poor masses don’t put pressure, then the government may not be able to move in the right direction. There are very bad historical experiences in this regard, you see. So until and unless the working class is very vigilant and exercises its power to control the government from below, there are chances of the government deviating, not implementing what it has promised during the elections.

    Q. What steps are you taking to give people the means to exert that pressure from below?

    Firstly, our party recognizes that even when we participate in the government, this government is not a fully revolutionary government, it is a transitional government. So we’ll have to compromise with the other classes. But we would like to take the lead. We would like to transform the state from within. For that we have to create pressure from outside. For that our party’s position is that the whole leadership of the party won’t join the government. One section of the leadership will join the government, and the other section of the party leadership will remain outside and continue organizing and mobilizing the masses. So the party will take that route. Many of us will be [in the government]. The main form of struggle will be from within the government, to make the new constitution. But another section will remain outside the government. That’s why all of our central leaders didn’t participate in the elections. We want to organize and mobilize the masses so that they can put pressure on the government. So this is one aspect. And we want to develop certain institutions. Though we haven’t found the concrete form for them yet, we have made some policy decisions. When we put forth the concept of development of democracy in the 21st century, our slogan was that the government and the party should be constantly supervised by the masses, and the masses should intervene at times if need be. This is our policy. But we have not been able to find the concrete form. What will be the way of intervening in case the government deviates? What will be the form of putting pressure, apart from public demonstrations? How will they intervene in the state system? That mechanism we are trying to work out.

    This is difficult to reconcile with speculations here as to the nature of line differences within the CPN(Maoist) and in particular the position taken by Bhatterai (together with Prachanda and the CC).

    BTW I suspect the comment added to that interview advocating more Foreign Direct Investment and wage labor corporate agribusiness instead of middle peasant coops sheds a lot more light on the sort of policy differences actually relevant in Nepal than speculations here.

    Certainly nobody except the feudalists wants to retard modern industry including big hydro development and nobody who fought on the people’s side in the People’s War wants to delay integration of the two armies. There is no hint of those ideas in anything said by Kiran, Basanta or any other Maoist. They are purely and simply a direct reflection of enemy ideas that sound “left” only because people are so used to domination by a pseudo-left that they have forgotton the difference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: