Biplap: Revolution is Possible in Nepal
Posted by Rosa Harris on June 29, 2010
“If we pay our attention towards the history, there was a hot debate on it in course of justifying the bases of revolution before initiation of People’s War (PW). The debate was about national and international situation at that time. In course of debate, the aspect to consider international situation more decisive than the national was defeated and PW was initiated. The success of PW justifies the factual reality that the internal aspect- that is people, politics, struggle,ideology and leadership- can have more important and decisive role than external aspect. The same debate has come into existence due to the prolonging peace process.”
Can We Go Ahead?
by Netra Bikram Chanda “Biplap”
The debate in Nepal is on whether revolution is possible or not. The debate is not only ideological and general assumption; rather, it is centered on the question whether there is possibility to increase intervention in the central power state or not. The two sharp analyses have emerged on the issue. They are on for and against.
The analytical perspective that sees revolution impossible:
One of the analytical perspectives is that the revolt is impossible. Yes, it seems so from that side of perspective. Th is analysis has been emerged mainly from the side of some leftist intellectual politicians and analysts. They have given the following reasons to justify this logic.
Unfavorable international situation-
Favorable international situation is needed for the completion of revolution. For that, there should be a crisis in the centre of capitalism and unfavorable situation should have created against them. Moreover, there should be crisis in India, America and China for the completion of revolution like small and poor country Nepal. Otherwise, these power centres interfere over Nepal and revolution can not be succeeded.
No support of India
Indian ruling class is in favor of bourgeois class of Nepal. The role of Indian ruling class is important for the revolution of Nepal; however, the favor of India ruling has always been on the side of Nepali Congress and UML. Therefore, the revolution is inconvenient due to oppose of Indian ruling class.
Nepali Army supports bourgeois class
The role of army is important for the success of revolution. In the situation of incomplete revolution and existence of strong old army that side gets victory towards which army pays support. Therefore, if army supports revolution, it gets its completion and if it does not, revolution becomes failure. In Nepal, army is in the side of Nepali Congress and UML. In this situation, we will have to fight with army if we want to complete revolution.
Maoist lacks the proper military efficiency
For the completion of revolution either the army should be brought in favor of revolution or should make them split or win them over. At present, neither we can bring Nepal Army in favor of revolution nor can we split them nor get victorious over them. Th ere is not a favourable situation where we can be victorious. Th erefore, there is no
possibility.
The politics of consensus needs
The political of consensus came on the foundation of People’s War. Th is can not be broken at once and should not be broken too. It is impossible because it makes revolution impossible. As the going on politics of consensus is broken that brings destruction and the achievements till now lose.
The Analytic Perspective that Sees Revolution Possible
The second perspective is that the revolution is possible in Nepal. This analysis is run and made by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionary intellectuals and some of the political analysts. The analysts have given the reasons to justify the possibility of revolution. Those reasons are as follows:
a) Internal aspect is decisive in revolution:
Revolution has both internal and external aspects. Both are necessary in the success of revolution; however, the two aspects do not have equal importance at a time. One has more or less importance than the other. International or external aspect, sometimes, is very important and it can have decisive role in some certain extent too. But, internal or national aspect remains always important and decisive in the completion of any revolution.
If we pay our attention towards the history, there was a hot debate on it in course of justifying the bases of revolution before initiation of People’s War (PW). The debate was about national and international situation at that time. In course of debate, the aspect to consider international situation more decisive than the national was defeated and PW was initiated.
Th e success of PW justifies the factual reality that the internal aspect- that is people, politics, struggle, ideology and leadership- can have more important and decisive role than external aspect. The same debate has come into existence due to the prolonging peace process. But, it is a ground reality that the Nepalese revolution has reached to more successive and favorable height in comparison to the past.
Even today, the role of India, America, Europe and China is important. However, it is not decisive factor for the success and un-success of Nepalese revolution and we should not make wrong idea about it. The ideology, leadership and the struggle of Nepal are decisive in itself. Revolution is possible if Nepalese people want revolution. The situation is in favour of people, it is in favour of revolution. There is efficient leadership with correct ideology and the workers and the militant and conscious people are gathered around it. Nepal has all these things with favorable situation. Therefore, revolution is possible.
b) Nepalese People have Consolidated International Relationship:
Nepalese people have been able to make a good and harmonious relationship with revolutionary parties, organizations, institutions and idividuals along with the most of oppressed people of the world. This consolidated international relationship denies the logic which says that the revolution in Nepal is impossible.
Some people have wrong ideas due to the relationship of Indian ruling class with Nepalese bourgeois and the coalition of the puppet government on its base. The Nepalese political movement and struggle is far more above than the reach and intervention of foreign powers.
Likewise, the situation of the nation is not so favourable for the foreign powers, which can not neglect the aspiration and the opinion of the people in a direct way. Rather, majority of the Indian people, liberalists along with the revolutionaries have a good relationship with Maoist of Nepal because they have true understanding about the opinion of the Nepalese people.
Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that the revolution of Nepal can not be aff ected by the external intervention; rather, it may be accomplish with its own specialties.
c) UCPN-Maoist has its political leadership in the country:
The success or the failure of any revolution depends on the correlation between political policy and its leadership. Nepal is only nation, in the contemporary world, where there is political leadership of the revolutionaries and the entire nation is in the hands of the proletarian class. The leadership of the revolutionaries is not only from the point of view of number; rather, it is because of political, ideological agendas. Constituent Assembly (CA), people’s new constitution, federalism, land-reform, special rights, national independence and new national army are the agendas and the conceptions put developed and fore warded by UCPN Maoist. Nepalese people have their active participation and a strong support on them. The intellectuals, traders and businessmen and even the security forces have their support on it.
Lobbies of UML and NC along with the small parties in the nation have their support to the agendas of Maoist party. This shows the possibility of people’s revolt.
d) Front between Maoist and Nepal Army is possible for national Independence:
In general interpretation, it is said that Nepal army is in favor of NC and UML, the parliamentary parties. However, this assumption is not true even in the complexity of the contemporary politics and it should not be. Nepal is in the multifaceted situation.
The complex situation created in Nepal is due to the oppressive, hegemonic and interference tendency of the Delhi and the capitalist and puppet tendency of the parliamentary parties like UML and NC. Nepalese people are very sensitive, conscious and cautious about the problem of national capitulationism and national independence.
Nepalese Army and other nationalist force belong to that category. Th e sense of patriotism and love for the nation is in the heart of Nepal army since its history. The concept of CCPN Maoist about nationality is crystal clear up to the level of principle. But the parliamentary parties have no sense of patriotism and nationality.
The parliamentary parties are in a particular mission to be owner of the Nepalese people by making agreement with Delhi by handing over all the natural resources of the nation to it. Th is has been clearly understood by the Nepal army. If we analyze it objectively, the nation sense of the support of Nepal army towards NC and UML is wrong. In the period under the direct reign of king, army was with king.
But after the election of Constituent Assembly (CA) and declaration on of republic of Nepal, army has supported the parties. The condition for Nepal army not to support the king, when it was declared to be abolished through the meeting of CA, was peace and change.However, the condition or objectives for peace and change have not been achieved yet even after the abandonment of the king.NC and UML are hatching conspiracy to push the country into conflict. Nepal army and all the other patriotic forces clearly know about it. Th is shows possibility to form a united front between the Army and Maoist.
e) Assistance and Participation of big population:
Assistance and participation of the people is one of the important conditions for the completion of revolution of any country. In Nepal the majority of the population is with UCPN-Maoist and not with parliamentary parties. Maoist has its 4 million voters. The quantity of vote keeps influence over one and a half crore people out of 2 and a half crore of total population. It is the majority of the population. If we involve patriots, progressive and true republican forces together, the revolution is possible.
f) Efficient & Capable Revolutionary Party:
The first and foremost condition for the fulfillment of the revolution is consolidated and capable revolutionary party. And, UCPN-Maoist is its representative. Th e party has hundred thousands of trained cadres who have faced many problems and suffering. The chain of leadership is form the local level to the decision making central level. Th e number will be increased along with the creation of favourable environment of revolution.
g). People’s Liberation Army and Youth:
Military force is other important factor for People’s Revolution. Any of the people’s revolution is not success without the army of the people. Nepalese people have this efficiency available with them at this time. People have 19,000 registered PLA in the cantonments and hundred thousands trained YCL with them. This force can be used for the liberation of people, prosperity of the nation and national independency.
Conclusion:
If we study the debate- ‘is revolution possible or not in Nepal’- seriously, we come to the conclusion that these debate are not un-objective, false and untruth. Rather, they are true, objective and natural in some extent. The analysis that accepts the impossibility of revolution is also true from that perspective. Along with it, the logics and the analytical expression from the side that accepts the possibility of the revolution is truer from that point of view. However, we should and must be aware that which one is more objective and truthful. We should find out the truth which one is more possible and correct.
The logic and the perspective that sees revolution impossible is obviously weaker, confined and shortsighted. This type of analysis has become unable to include the entire area of Nepalese politics and its objective, subjective, ideological and the practical aspects along with its possibility. This type of analysis only can see the middle class, foreign ruling class, some handful anti people intellectuals and the diplomats. It can not submit the contradictions, the subjective forces of the revolutionary people. Therefore, it has a possibility to leave the strong aspects of the revolution by putting the weaker aspects ahead.
The other aspect that sees the possibility of the revolution is leading the stronger aspects of the revolution though there are some weaknesses. This point of view sees the revolution from its basic foundation. In totality, the revolution is being possible if we adapt the same way of thinking from decision making place to the local party and the people and even in the international area. This type of analysis has involved the issues of revolutionary ideology, a revolutionary party, revolutionary leadership, revolutionary people, people’s army and the united front that are the internal aspects of the revolution. It can unify the progressive class, caste, gender and the oppressed people. It is objective and important. This perspective is very important from the point of view of revolution.
Revolution in South Asia 
Ka Frank said
This is an important article by Biplap, who is a member of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the UCPN(Maoist), and is most likely a disguised polemic against rightist forces in the party.
He gives great attention to the relative importance of the internal and international situations for the advance of the revolution, though I think that he underplays the danger of an Indian economic blockade and possible military intervention in the event of a Maoist victory or important Maoist advances through re-establishment of the People’s War.
Biplap also notes the key role of the Nepal Army. However he puts forth two different positions on this reactionary, ex-royalist army. First, he writes that “we will have to fight with army if we want to complete revolution” and speaks of the need to foster splits in the army. On the other hand, he writes that the army is a nationalist force and that a “front between Maoist and Nepal Army is possible for national independence”–a position which leads away from the necessity to re-estabish the People’s War in order to complete the new democratic revolution.
Dave Pugh said
Here’s a noteworthy article on the recent resignation of the UML prime minister and the secret deal he reached with Prachanda.
7/5/2010 11:10:00 AM
Kathmandu, Jul 5 (ANI): Nepalese Prime Minister Madhav Kumar struck a secret agreement with Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) chairman Prachanda on the basic principles of the new constitution and the peace process, before his resignation.
According to Nepali Congress party’s former lawmaker Amresh Kumar Singh, who has been involved in numerous informal talks with the Maoists since the peace process began, the Nepalese PM resigned three days after he struck a verbal deal with Prachanda on June 27.
In his interview with myrepublica.com after his resignation on June 30, Madhav Kumar Nepal had stated that he talked to Prachanda three days ago, but did not disclose anything about the deal.
According to Singh, it was agreed that Prachanda would welcome the Prime Minister’s resignation within 30 minutes of its coming and both parties would immediately begin works on peace process and the new democratic constitution. After this, they had agreed to form a Maoist-led national consensus government, Xinhua reports.
In the secret talks, both leaders had agreed to integrate 5,000 UCPN-M combatants into the national security forces-Nepal Army, Civilian Police and Armed Police Forces-and give a golden handshake with attractive economic packages to the rest.
Singh said Nepal and Prachanda also agreed to adopt press freedom, independence of the judiciary (not under the direct control of parliament) and competitive multi-party democracy to ensure a democratic constitution.
Under my own initiatives, it was also agreed that six provinces-four in the hills and two in the Terai-would be created while restructuring the state, Singh added.
He also revealed that both agreed to complete the process of integration and rehabilitation in four months, within the current tenure of United Nations Mission in Nepal, and promulgate the new constitution before February.
Singh said there was no fourth person present when the deal was struck at a private house and both Nepal and Prachanda were there without their security guards and official drivers. (ANI)
tony said
theres not really any revolution in nepal is there?
Rajesh said
“Tony said
July 10, 2010 at 9:35 am
theres not really any revolution in nepal is there?”
In my opinion, it may take a few months to answer you with some degree of certainty. The revolution in Nepal is in a state of hibernation. When the issue of PLA integration will have any kind of concrete outcome, it would be clear if revolution is on. The PLA is in cantonments. It is inactive. If they will be ‘integrated’, that would be, in practicle term, demobilization of the PLA. And, if they will start swimming in the sea of people, once again, then they will be active. This is the core issue at this moment.
tony said
thanks rajesh. the pla integration is confusing because the Maoist leaders seem to really be in favour of it, and the bourgeois parties to be against it. but you are right it will take a few months,but i suppose the longer the PLA stay in the camps, the less they are a Peoples Army, as they are not with the people but in UN monitored cantonments getting paid by ‘donor countries’. i dont think the core issue is just PLA integration, but the line of Prachanda/Bhattarai, who are really in command and seem very serious about joining the political ‘mainstream’. what are your thoughts on this?
Rajesh said
Yes Tony, I agree with you that keeping the PLA inside cantonments for long will destroy them, both politically and militarily. The capitalist donors know it very well and are supporting this process. But, the revolutionary awakening at the grassroots has created the base for an appropriate superstructure that will lead the process of transformation of the Nepalese state and society. Now, there is critically aware and class-conscious mass, spread all over Nepal. A large majority of the local committees of the UCPN (M) are still on the revolutionary political course. Several middle level committees and cadres/leaders are on the same boat. Strangely, it sounds that a few central leaders including Comrade Kiran are in a state of bewilderment. Partly, they are with the revolutionaries and partly, they are with the core reformist leadership. Hence, they have no clear-cut opinion. Presently, the reformist leadership has been in command at the top. The two-line struggle between the reformist leadership and revolutionary cadre force has been continuing since the time of signing the 12-points Delhi agreement. Several acts of ‘insubordination’ are a few examples of such struggle. Certainly, when the reformist political line of the core leadership catches speed to get hold over the seat of power together with other bourgeois parties, the revolutionary base also will act more rebelliously and decisively. As a result, the process of revolutionary reorganization within the UCPN (M) will get momentum. The synergy generated through this process will vitally influence the party, PLA and mass organizations and shall rectify them. Hence, I believe that the revolution will continue with renewed clarity, course, organization, strategy and speed though with much less strength, initially.
tony said
lets hope so, but i doubt it somehow. in your opinion, what are the chances of Nepali army doing a coup?
Alastair Reith said
The concept of a revolutionary base with reformist leadership is Trotskyist. Class struggle is always present in the party, and always represented in the top party leadership. That’s part of what causes two line struggle. Whatever your disagreements with the current strategy of the UCPN (M), to talk about a party with a revolutionary mass base but an entirely reformist leadership is pure Trotskyism… similar to the way they used to talk about forces like the Labour Party and the reformist pro-Moscow CPs.
We do not have nearly as much information about the situation as do the people who are actually on the ground in Nepal. They have decided, after decades of revolutionary struggle, that the way to move forward is through the current tactics. And it is undeniable that the tactics since 2005 have weakened the enemy and strengthened the UCPN (M). The monarchy is knocked down, the UCPN (M) and it’s YCL army has spread throughout the country – dual power is now a reality in the cities as well as in the countryside. The revolutionary situation in Nepal has never been as highly developed and there is plenty yet to come. In 2005 the Maoists could never have flooded Kathmandu with half a million supporters – now they can.
The only thing that stands between the Maoists and state power is the existence of the reactionary, 90,000 strong Nepal Army. They analysed the situation after a decade of war and came to the conclusion that they could not militarily defeat the (then Royal) army without destrying the country and inviting foreign intervention… and even then it would be difficult. Most of the major battles the PLA fought against the RNA resulted in defeats for the PLA, and the PLA was unable to attack and destroy the well protected RNA bases protecting the cities. The Maoist leaders, who had succesfully led a People’s War for over a decade, came to this conclusion after serious analysis of the situation using all the information available… information we simply do not have. So why do arrogant, white Western revolutionaries think they know better than the ignorant brown people in Nepal? Why do white communists in the West think they have the right to tell the Nepalis what they should and shouldn’t be doing? There has not been any kind of major betrayal yet. The revolution is ongoing, and our duty is to do what we can to support it.
Pardon me for asking, but which succesful armed struggle have any of you ultra-critics led? Where did you learn military tactics? Where did you learn how to defeat a 90,000 strong reactionary army? Because maybe once you’ve answered those questions for me, you can explain why you somehow know better than Prachanda and his comrades how to pull of an incredibly difficult and dangerous revolution.
The Maoists are currently working to defeat the Nepal Army. They are trying to figure out a way to move the struggle forward and achieve state power, and they are debating how to do this within and without their party. Frankly I’m more inclined to trust their judgement on the matter than the judgement of a bunch of Western communists who want to lead the Nepali struggle through their computer screens.
I think a problem throughout the Western left is that people are used to learning about revolutions from history books, rather than by watching a living process unfold. When you read about a revolution that happened decades ago, you already know how it’s going to end. You know what each tactic truly meant as part of a greater strategy. You know when the leadership masked their true intentions to hide their greater plans, and you know how those plans worked out. Everything is very clear and easy to understand.
A living revolution is not like that. It is confusing, veiled, messy and difficult to understand. We should appreciate that and not pretend that we can know more about it from our computer chairs in the West than the people who are actually risking their lives.
Ka Frank said
How does the substantial polemic written by the CPI(Maoist) in July 2009 against the revisionist line of Prachanda and his allies since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006 fit into the pat view you express above? “So why do arrogant, white Western revolutionaries think they know better than the ignorant brown people in Nepal?”
The polemic is reprinted as a Kasama pamphlet if readers want to reference it.
Alastair Reith said
Criticisms like that can and should be taken seriously. But why should we take seriously the criticisms of white leftists in the First World when it comes to the military and political tactics that should be taken by the UCPN (M) at this point in the revolutionary struggle?
tony said
alistair reith? why should anyone take you seriously? kasama has largely invented a revolution and claims for the nepali maoists what they are not claiming for themselves. this is the issue. if anyone says- look kasama, what you are saying does not fit with other facts that are coming out’. are we not allowed to ask this question without being abused? you say there is a ‘living revolution’ but only you are saying this. the UN, US, EU, etc obviously do not think so.
Alastair Reith said
Tony, what are you even talking about?
The Nepali Maoists write all the time about the revolution they are leading. There is plenty of evidence about that available within a two minute search on this site alone.
I’m not asking anyone to take my opinion seriously. I’m pointing out that we should take the UCPN (M) seriously. Why don’t you respond to the points I made, rather than just posting the same crap over and over again and never concretely engaging in discussion.
tony said
alistair, you must be reading different things. the maoists talk about the peace process, and their commitment to it. i think you have invented a revolution through words. most of the articles in kathmandu post etc do not talk at all about revolution. but rajesh was probably right, lets wait and see. i think kasama’s credibility is already quite damaged by the non existence of a nepali revolution and kasama will look even more stupid as time goes on. you are like an ostrich, stick your head in the sand when you hear news you dont like. face the facts, there is no revolution in nepal at all.
Alastair Reith said
Tony, have you even read the article you’re currently commenting on?
Rajesh said
Response # 7 (To Tony)
Let us see the history of Nepal Army (former RNA), briefly. Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha principality in central Nepal primarily formed the army. They annexed neighboring principality by using superior war techniques and unified Nepal came in existence in 1768. Loyal to the Shah Dynasty, the army was like a private army of the Shah Kings. However, when prime minister Bhimsen Thapa took de facto control of the army and mobilized them against the British during 1814-1816 war, the army accepted his command and briefly functioned as a national army. A few years after the conclusion of the war, Jung Bahadur Rana snatched power, became prime minister and appointed his brothers as generals of the army. From his time, the army functioned as a private army of the Rana Dynasty. In 1950, the anti-Rana popular movement combined with armed rebellion overthrew Rana rule and again the Shah Kings took control of the army. The army silently changed its loyalty to Shah Dynasty. In 2006, the popular movement supported by People’s War acts succeeded to suspend and eventually to abolish the monarchy. The army accepted the command of ‘mainstream’ political parties. It did not do much when UCPN (M) led government was in power except disobeying the order of ousting the then army chief. Even that event was camouflaged as President’s order. Now, if a government (including a UCPN (M) led government) comes to power, that government too will be no different from the previous governments in regards to the governance mechanism and the class character of the state will remain the same. Therefore, I do not think there will be a coup. Yes, there could be some discomfort, unhappiness and some signs of disobedience, but there may not be a coup as such, as long as their civilian masters allow them to function as a sovereign entity. Moreover, they will be okay to carry on when their masters are from the same class as they belong to and their civilian rulers defend the same class interests as that of theirs. Only, when the revolution peaks up and the contradictions heighten among the reactionary ruling structures including their parties, army and intelligentsia, there is chance of a coup. At this moment, that is not the situation. Moreover, India is functioning as a power broker (de facto ruler behind the curtain?) and the army as well as the ‘mainstream’ political leadership has connections with the Indian rulers. Hence, this may prevent such happenings, if any, for now.
Green Red said
The history has shown that the quicker, through sharp thinking and, well planning and so forth, the revolution can win and take the power…
But also, the history has shown the dark side of those revolutions too. Be it the Kronstadt 1921 incident (already can be found inside past Kasama pages) or, mistakes – great mistakes during the great leap forward (this one has not been studied as far as i know… about kill the birds so they don’t eat the seeds and its anti thesis, nor, mix whatever metallic thing you have, mix them all! And, with the exception of a few ideal successful villages that had commune agricultural relations, it did not manage to spread as it was desired. I am not doubting the goodwill of the chair Mao then but, sometimes, you don’t ask the ship of revolution’s helmsman give a chance to be the cook of the ship too since, if there was not enough cooking oil, he might end up saying let’s use the engine oil for cooking.
But that was the past.
Lenin is dead and, so is Chair Mao. Our shiny stars of today are people who want to do their cultural revolution within the army by finally getting People’s Liberation Army fighters inside of the reactionary royal army.
Ten Years. That was a long time of armed struggle. We are not in the year 1016 yet to say that ten years of political struggle, to let the masses of urban area digest and understand what revolution stands for. What is to be re distributed within the society, what wrong incoming materials need to be blocked and, what would be welcome; how can we have even 24 hours of electricity in this most remote corner of the world…
The quicker you gain the thing, the less you value it. The deeper the people see what revolution may really lead them too; the stronger it shall last, in my hopeful and positive thinking opinion.
Comrade Alastair Reith, thanks for saying it so boldly but, let our other comrades have their negative perception. Future will show who was right. The MLM Study Group fellows have written sharp and convincing essays that are worth reading and, they have the right to be dogmatic like the pain in the butt. Nevertheless, how do we know that this guy or that guy is white at all? How do we know? have you ever met them personally? They might be intellectual African American as well or…..
what i am trying to say is, true, we have our differences but, even when fighting, let’s look at what we are fighting for itself. And beside that all, wherever you are in the world, i invite you and EVERYBODY, to, with all values there is to the new generation revolution in Nepal to, put some focus – a lot of focus on condemning the GREEN HUNT operation of the India’s reactionary state that if it occurs, lots and lots of innocent people will be killed who are fighting for their right to live where they and their ancestors as far as time will ever say had resided. Why? since there is something under their ground that under the table memorandums of agreements to the foreign corporations makes them an unwanted element in the forest and the countryside. Check http://www.icawpi.org/ and get signatures from people to protest.
So let’s do something further than only condemning reactionaries blocking the blossom of Nepalese revolutionary seed by, through exposing Salwa Judum’s last activities and other military and paramilitaries in India, be next to the largest revolution in history that is in process.
Lal salam to all, the ones who agree and, even ones who love to disagree.
tony said
alistair,
yeah, i’ve read it. it is rather typical of kasama to pick the one thing that talks of ‘revolution’ and ignore the many articles that do not, and suggest something else. kasama has been very quiet about nepal recently, even though there is a ‘revolution’ going on. why? is it because things do not fit your scheme?
green red- nice words, but without much meaning.
tony said
check out this article on Prachanda from the Nepali times, a centre right paper it is true. but an interesting article.
http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/2010/07/21/Nepalipan/17263
Green Red said
correction:
Ten Years. That was a long time of armed struggle. We are not in the year 1016 yet to say that ten years of political struggle, to let the masses of urban area digest and understand what revolution stands for. What is to be re distributed within the society, what wrong incoming materials need to be blocked and, what would be welcome; how can we have even 24 hours of electricity in this most remote corner of the worl
I meant the year 2016
Rosa said
To discuss over Nepal’s situation has become immediate task of all the revolutionaries of the world! but here in kasama I see only pro and against not due to the reality of Nepal’s situation but influenced with other hidden reason. like Alastair points out White and brown skin, it has nothing to do, Marx was white western can any body deny his science? He reached the truth,but it could also be the brown skin individual. Kasama project is also made by white ones so why don’t we accuse to say they are supporting the wrong line to sabotage the revolution of Nepal, as they don’t allow Brown ones to accoplish the revolution.
tony said
Rosa- what the hell are you talking about? what i really want to know is this” is there a revolution in nepal at all? most of the news coming from nepal would suggest there is not, it is only kasama who are saying that there is a ‘living revolution’. i gather from the fact that kasama are not putting articles about nepal on its main site that they have also realised there is not a revolution, and want to drop the issue quietly…
tony said
rajesh- you give very detailed and well argued comments and answers. do you think it is possible that the Nepali Maoist leaders were ‘bought off’. i ask this because there were some articles a year or so ago that seemed to suggest this, and also because this has happened many times before in the history of communist struggles around the world ( latin america etc).
Rajesh said
Tony – I too have heard stories related to ‘bought off’. However, I am not sure, if it had actually happened, as there are no credible evidences or even trustworthy story lines. On the other hand, the lifestyles of some of the ‘Maoist’ leaders speak a lot. Their lust for power, luxury, wealth, foreign trips and comfort are some of the most talked about topics. ‘Nepal’s Mao’ is currently busy in an electoral race for the vacant post of prime minister and is having pilgrimage to several places of political worship including the party office of a staunch royalist (Kamal Thapa). If we analyze their such behaviors and practices objectively, we could conclude that their petty-bourgeoisie class character dominantly influenced their thinking and actions, generally after the Chunabang meeting of the CC in 2005 and particularly after the party joined the political ‘mainstream’ in 2006. Thus, their thinking and actions affected highly negatively to the cause of revolution in Nepal.
Green Red said
Hi Rajesh,
lust for power, luxury, wealth, foreign trips and comfort
Lust for power for what? To liberate people from archaic feudal system or what? When did Dahal ask for Wealth? What are foreign trips for? aren’t they meant to eventually be able to make deals to bring energy and minerals to this absolutely remote corner of the world?
If you have evidence about Prachanda’s looking for personal wealth, that is worthy to be exposed and i and the rest would be grateful but,
if without evidence there are such allegations, if it is pure slander and so forth, i do not believe you would need to look further than a mirror or, tip of your personal nose to know what you may be doing and, what class you might be serving.
What money and wealth Prachanda has sought up till now? Let us be honest friends.
Thank you
pradipsingh said
hi sir how r u? with aii minister. why now also no reach. how to devlop country. any time use people only for u not for country how long finish u and all poltical people cannot do any thing. u can’t give data to how many take lone with other country. who devlop all poltican give policment. why? when all young genrasan know all poltican finish. all old poltican.
Alastair Reith said
//yeah, i’ve read it. it is rather typical of kasama to pick the one thing that talks of ‘revolution’ and ignore the many articles that do not, and suggest something else. //
Before we begin this, it’d be nice to get an answer to this question – are you a communist tony? Are you a member of a communist organisation? What actual work do you do to build revolutionary projects, away from your computer chairs? I’m asking out of genuine curiosity.
I ask this because it seems to me that onlyu someone who doesn’t have revolutionary politics would continue to post the kind of questions you post, and in the way you post them. A revolutionary would not look at the bourgeois media reportage of what’s happening in Nepal, the mainstream corporate media articles, and say “because there are a lot of bourgeois media articles that don’t ay a revolution is happening in Nepal, there cannot be a revolution in Nepal”. You ignore the fact that millions of people are organised and concsiously involved in a movement for radical social chyange which is currently struggling for state power. You ignore the fact that there is a people’s army in Nepal facing off with the reactionary army. You ingore the fact that dual power exists in Nepal – the fact that the Maoists run a parallel state and have equal power, and in many areas greater power, to the reactionary state.
You ignore the millions of people in the streets, the slums and the fields who are raising the red flag and the clenched fist and calling for revolution, and instead base your analysis entirely on mainstream media reportage. To you, every article which doesn’t say “OMG REVOLUTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW OMG” is proof that there is no revolution at all.
This isn’t how communists think. I have never encountered a communist who thought like this – even if they denounce the Maoists as evil Stalinists or cowardly sellouts etc, actual communists don’t base their analysis entirely on bourgeois media reportage.
So I’m asking you – are you a communist?
Once that’s clarified I think the discussion can proceed a lot more smoothly and with a lot more mutual understanding.
//kasama has been very quiet about nepal recently, even though there is a ‘revolution’ going on. why? is it because things do not fit your scheme?//
Kasama is not, never has been and never will be “quiet” about Nepal. It posts relevant information as the information becomes available and as new developments emerge. For weeks now Nepal has been locked in a political deadlock – the UML government has stepped down, and the Congress and the Maoists are struggling with each other to form a government.
Kasama has done a better job of reporting what’s happening in Nepal than any other organisation/publication in the English speaking world. I find your comments utterly bizarre.