Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Interview with Bhattarai: View of One Wing of Nepal’s Maoists

Posted by D and I Consulting on December 13, 2010

Correctly evaluating the international situation and its impact on Nepal's revolutionary options -- this is one of the key controversies today

This  interview appeared in Nepal’s press REPUBLICA.

In this newspaper, the interview was given a strange title “I am not a revisionist: Dr Bhattarai.” In fact Bhattarai does not say this when asked about revisionism in this the interview. Such “framing” of an otherwise informative interview reflects the approach of much of the press coverage — which seeks to play on the line struggles of the UCPN(Maoist) in particular ways.

However setting aside the distortions of certain press, there are major issues in dispute among the Maoists, and there are even potentially issues of “revisionism” (i.e. non-revolutionary politics contending within a historically revolutionary party).

As various positions are articulated, we hope to provide the materials here.

* * * * * * * *

Intro by Republica

Maoist Vice-Chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai is an ideologue and one of the brains behind the 10-year-long Maoist insurgency in Nepal. The Maoist party is currently undergoing sharp ideological differences among Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Senior Vice-Chairman Mohan Baidya and Bhattarai.

The party is having a tough time forging a common “action-plan” for implementation in the peace process as the top three leaders are at loggerheads over the party’s future course of action. Republica journalist Post B Basnet caught with him on Saturday and talked about the role of his party in the peace process.

What is your party currently engaged in?

Right now our party is engaged in institutionalizing the progressive changes in society while passing through a historical transitional phase of evolution of autocracy, feudalism and institutionalization of modern industrial state based on multi-party democratic polity. This transition has its complications.

But, as a responsible political party, we are still trying to find a way out amidst the presence of bourgeois democratic forces who believe in parliamentary democracy and us, communist revolutionaries, who believe in people’s democracy.

We are trying to find a common meeting ground where we can institutionalize a democratic system in which the oppressed masses will have their participation in the state in a new socio-economic and federal structure.

There are sharp ideological differences between you, Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Mohan Baidya. Are you facing an ideological dilemma?

In every political party, there are political debates.

If there is no debate, you can’t have a vibrant political party, and especially in a communist party debate on ideological political questions are always there. We believe in dialectical materialism and unity of opposites. Unity, struggle, and transformation give impetus to the development process. So, accordingly, our party is also a vibrant entity and there is a constant struggle between various opinions. But, ultimately, we are united on one issue: That we need overall restructuring of the Nepali state and society.

To achieve that objective, we launched people’s war and we have already seen the results in the form of republicanism, federalism and secularism. These are positive gains. These gains need to be preserved. We still have to struggle to institutionalize a democratic system whereby the oppressed classes of people, nationalities, regions, gender, oppressed caste will also have their say. We are trying to figure out the correct path within the party to achieve them.

There is also the question of doing away with the remnants of feudalism and autocracy in different spheres of state and society. Since the days of Sugauli Treaty, our economy, state and society have been subjugated.

So we want to do away with such domination and reassert total sovereignty and national independence. We need to settle the dispute on whether we want to give priority to democracy or nationalism.

Let’s talk about the party. The Palungtar plenum failed to take any political line. What do you have to say?

No, this is not a question of failing.

We had a real good democratic exercise; 7,000 people gathered for seven days and engaged in constructive political debates and that itself was a big achievement. It has created a basis for achieving a higher unity within the party and clarifying the political lines.

In that sense, the Palungtar plenum was very useful and historical and we have taken a unified view that the current path of peace, constitution-making and democracy should be pursued and to make it a success we need to mobilize the masses from the streets as well. Reactionary and status quo-ist forces don’t want progressive changes in the society. So, to exert pressure on them, we need to mobilize the masses.

On this issue, the party is unified.

What’s the difference between people’s revolt floated by you, Dahal and Baidya?

We have every right to revolt against injustice; Mahatma Gandhi called it civil disobedience, some call it a revolt, while others call it a revolution. They are the same thing. We want change in society. So, if this process of change is blocked, people have the right to revolt against that, this is the general political philosophy. In that sense, we want to pursue the path of peace and democracy. But if that path is blocked, people have the right to resist and revolt. This is a general formulation and so we have no fundamental dispute on this.

This is your view. But there are fundamental differences between you and Baidya on this issue?

No, I don’t think there are fundamental differences. The only question is whether the objectives, political goals we accept and our party accepts could be achieved through peaceful and democratic means, and whether the reactionary forces will allow it. On the question of evaluation, there are some differences. Even then we all agreed on principles that we should pursue.

What’s the difference?

The difference is whether we should pursue this process (the current peaceful path) till the end. And if it is blocked, people should realize that we will have to take another path. Only when the general masses realize, a “people’s movement” becomes successful. If the people don’t realize, the current path is no longer viable and possible. They won’t come out onto the streets in protest.

But Baidya is calling for an end to the ongoing process?

Nobody is saying that indeed. The difference lies only in assessments.

What I am stressing is that on our part we should make sincere efforts till the end. We should patiently pursue and try our best till the end to make a new constitution and complete the peace process. But, side by side, we need to empower the masses. We have to mobilize the masses again, in case this path fails. Then the people will rise in a “people’s movement” and give impetus to this development process. I have been stressing this aspect. Some of the comrades are saying this path has already morally exhausted by now. The way the peace process has developed in the last two years has given an impression that there is no chance of this path moving ahead in a positive direction. So, maybe, now this is high time we really prepared for the other path. There are differences only on what we have stressed. Otherwise, on the fundamental path to be followed for change in society, there is no difference at all.

Do you think Chunwang line is still prevalent in the party?

Of course!

There is no contradiction between “people’s war” we pursued for 10 years and the political line followed after Chunwang and they are complimentary to each other because our basic goal was the transformation of society. For 10 years, we waged people’s war mostly in the countryside to empower the masses and to break down the feudal stronghold existing for thousands of years. So, we more or less achieved that goal. And after Chunwang and to complete this process we had to mobilize the masses in urban areas and we had to gain support of the international community. That’s why we pursued this path and now we want to complete this process whereby Nepali society is totally democratized and oppressed class, gender, nationalities are fully empowered; we will create a fully new democratic state whereby all these people enjoy real democracy, not only formal democracy in which people can participate in the political process. We want to achieve this goal through the Constituent Assembly (CA) and a new constitution. Hence, there is no fundamental contradiction between people’s war we waged earlier and the peaceful path we are pursuing right now.

But the Kharipati national conclave meeting, which decided to launch a people’s revolt for a “People’s Federal Democratic Republic,” superseded the Chunwang line of a federal democratic republic?

No. You can see the Chunwang document in which we have clearly stated that after establishing a democratic republic, there will be two tendencies.

The status quo-ists (the bourgeois forces) will try to stop the forward march of society; they will just be happy with the Westminster model of democracy. But in the context of Nepal, the old style of democracy won’t be enough because our society is very complicated; ours is a multi-class and multi-ethnic society. There are gender and class discriminations and to do away with them and to achieve real democracy, we should have a new model of democracy to suit all these forces. So, we had already predicted in the Chunwang meeting that there would be political struggles between these two tendencies. That’s what happening right now.

What’s the difference between federal democratic republic and people’s federal democratic republic?

“People’s” mean oppressed class of people: Peasants, workers, Dalits, women, nationalities. They are called “people”.

Why should you add “people” to the Chunwang line?

We want such a democratic system where these people will have a say in the state system. In general democracy, as practiced in some of the more developed countries, only the few rich people are elected; they are in the state and the majority of the poor working class don’t have their say in the state system. That’s the formal democratic system.

But you had not put the word people in the Chunwang document?

No. Listen, our goal is to have democracy, though we can choose the word. But the real thrust is we want a model of democracy in which the oppressed mass of people will have their say; this is the essence. You can give it any name. We are not talking about the old system of democracy practiced in Eastern Europe or China. These are just one-party system. We have already passed the resolution of “Democracy in 21st Century” where we have already accepted multiparty committed politics even in future socialism. So, our “people’s democracy” is not one-party communist party system, it is a competitive multi-party system in which all voices will be represented. In that sense, we have gone ahead of the whole model of one-party system as practiced in Eastern Europe or other socialist countries.

There are people in your own party who always say you are a revisionist?

No, nobody says that. It is just a rumor; nobody and no formal document or any resolution has branded me as such.

Why are you opposed to declaring India the principal enemy?

We are not in a position to fight India directly.

What is happening right now in the party?

We are having our central committee (CC) meeting, which will chalk out political programs to end this political deadlock. We will try to find a way out and make this peace process and constitution-making process a success. We have decided that we should mobilize the masses side by side. If the masses are not empowered and mobilized, the reactionary forces inside and outside will try to scuttle this political gains we have achieved so far and there is a danger of dissolution of CA and opting for military or some other form of dictatorship in the country.

There are sharp differences between you, Dahal and Baidya. You postponed your CC meeting twice and cancelled your personal visit to Sweden?

That’s just a rumor. Our party is a democratic party and before taking any decision we have democratic debates within the party and for that we are taking some more time. There are no other differences within the party.

There is also a taskforce that has been formed to settle all these disputes. What’s that?

No, it’s not for settling such disputes. It is just to work out our plan, and do some homework. We always do such things. Some comrades have been assigned these tasks so that they can prepare the proposal to put forward in the meeting.

What happens to the peace process after UNMIN leaves?

We wanted to complete the peace process, especially the question of integration of armies before UNMIN’s departure. But unfortunately there has not been any substantial progress on that front. So, as we go by the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the peace process including the integration of armies, formation of various commissions including the Commission on Disappearances, Truth and Reconciliation, Land Reforms Commission, etc should have been completed, but that did not happen. Basically, peace process, constitution-making process and power-sharing arrangements are interlinked. But, unfortunately, the Maoist party which is a 50 percent stakeholder in the peace process has been totally sidelined. So, that way, we have had no say in this process and that has been delaying the matter. Our party is saying that the integration and other parts of the CPA, including peace process, constitution-making process and power-sharing arrangement should be added to a package and dealt with. This current political deadlock can only be ended after that. Unfortunately, other parties are not acting responsibly; they are only bent on isolating the Maoists.

How do you see post-UNMIN Nepal?

If UNMIN leaves before the peace process completes, we’ll have to make some other arrangement. We have not discussed that so far.

What’s wrong with Nepal’s peace process?

The problems started after we emerged as the largest political party in the CA election. The principle of consensus was abandoned in favor of majority-based system. That was a major mistake. In every peace process, the ex-rebels are made a part of the power-sharing arrangement but when we emerged as the largest party after the election, we were thrown out. Unless this is corrected, the peace process cannot be completed.

As an observer, not as a politician, do you think consensus can be achieved and the integration process completed before May 28?

We have to complete the task of constitution-writing and take the peace process to an end before May 28. Otherwise, there is a great danger of the country again plunging into a serious conflict. If the country again reverts to armed conflict, international actors could get involved and that may make complicate the situation. So, we should do everything to avoid that and try to complete the task of constitution-writing and logically conclude the peace process by May 28.

Is there any possibility of yet another term extension of CA?

I don’t think so.

What will be the role of the president in post May-28 Nepal?

He doesn’t have any role. If he takes one, that will be unconstitutional. If the constitutional process breaks down, it will lead to a situation “might is right” situation.

7 Responses to “Interview with Bhattarai: View of One Wing of Nepal’s Maoists”

  1. Revolution in South Asia always hilights Prachand and Bhattrai,not the revolutionary comrade Baidhya . It is not my question , but the question, raised by the revolutionary caders of Uncp -Maoist . The caders of Uncp -Maoist know these two leaders are not in the position to push the vehicle of revoluton . Please click on http://www.Samabaddhaya,org

  2. NSPF said

    Dear Comrade Rishi Raj Baral,

    I just wanted to double check with you that the following piece from Republica is an authentic article, written by you.

    Palungtar is just the beginning
    DR RISHI RAJ BARAL

    The sixth plenum of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has formally concluded but the ideological debate continues. In fact, it has just started. There were many questions to be resolved at the plenum and this meeting has raised some new questions as well.

    Debates and discussions are not new things. There used to be sharp debates even when the ‘People’s War’ was on. After the Second National Conference of Party of 2002, the issue of debate was ´Prachanda Path´ and ´Democracy in the 21st Century´.

    The article by Baburam Bhattarai The Question of Building a New Type of State – originally published in The Worker, a Maoist mouthpiece, in February 2004 – was the subject of heavy criticism. It was necessary to criticize the article because it was pleading for a revisionist line. The party decision taken during the Chunwang Meeting gave birth to many confusions and illusions. Reevaluation of Mao’s and Lenin´s views on state and revolution and imperialism was the main issue of debate. Besides this, the ´12-Point Understanding´ was also an issue of debate as it raised many questions about the People’s War and the continuation of revolution. There is no confusion and illusion that the decisions taken at the Chunwang Meeting and the 12-Point Understanding is the root cause of the present problem, contradictions, debates and deadlock in the revolution. Then, revolutionary comrades had many questions and curiosities. After the release of Comrade Kiran (Mohan Baidya) and Gaurav (C P Gajurel), it took theoretical and ideological dimension.

    In fact, the decision of Chunwang Meeting raised many questions both inside and outside the party. After the Peace Agreement of Nov 21, 2006, the scenario was clear. All the achievements which we had gained during the People’s War collapsed. People’s War was abandoned formally. Now, there were no people’s court, no base areas and liberated areas. The People’s Liberation Army was kept in cantonments. All the achievements gained during the 10 years of People’s War collapsed and we had nothing in hand. It was a serious ideological and political mistake. In fact, it was a gross political deviation. Gradually, that led to two lines of struggle inside the party and it was natural too. On one side, there were Kiran, Gaurav and other revolutionaries. On the other side, there were Prachanda and Bhattarai and their followers. It was not a question of dissatisfaction; rather it was a question of world outlook. It was the struggle between two lines and two different class outlooks. It was the struggle for the safeguard of values and achievements gained during the People’s War. It was not a simple issue. It was not a personality clash. It was a struggle between reformists and revolutionaries.

    At the Chunwang Meeting, Bhattarai declared that without Prachanda he did not have any existence. He declared his fusion with Prachanda. From the 12-Point Understanding to Kharipati Meeting, Prachanda and Bhattarai were in the same boat with the same mission. Both declared that political revolution had ended and what remained was just economic revolution. In the name of party unity and to make a big organization, they put Maoism in the backburner. It was a serious question. They didn’t have any plan and policy to take the revolution forward, to safeguard the achievements made during the 10 years of People’s War. They abandoned Bolshevik Party policy and spirit. They wanted to make a mass organization to gain more seats in parliament and to form a majority government. It was their idea of a revolution. It was their revolutionary path—the path of Euro-communism. Their joint document submitted at the Kharipati Meeting is a proof of this. The movement led by Prachanda and Bhattarai, to transform a revolutionary party into a mass organization party, the party of bourgeois, was challenged by the document of Comrade Kiran and its followers. It was a great blockade in their mission. In the leadership of Comrade Kiran, the revolutionary cadres stopped the Maoist party from being a revisionist party. They succeeded in compelling them to uphold the revolutionary line. Prachanda was compelled to support the revolutionary line projected by Comrade Kiran.
    After Palungtar Meeting, the revisionists – the rightist block of the party – look very excited. It looks very optimistic also. But it is not a good sign for Nepali revolution. And everybody from our party knows the consequences of following Prachanda´s ideology. He himself is responsible for this.
    After this, Prachanda had a great opportunity to unite the party and make plans and policies for a great people’s revolt. But unity, struggle and transformation were only limited to words; they did not translate into action. There was no honesty in this aspect. We did not find him translating his promises into actions. Instead of preparing for a revolution, he was engaged in different tricky activities. He chose the path of revenge and conspiracy. He said one thing but did the opposite. He talked about revolution but opted for parliamentary politics. There was lack of communist spirit, value and ideal in his behavior. He continued to march ahead deviating from the original ideology of the party. He forgot the people. Power—power by any means—was his motto and mission. It made all of us very anxious. The 10 years of People’s War was not a joke. We had travelled the bloody path of revolution.

    There was no confusion and illusion in the line opted by Bhattarai. There was no confusion regarding his reformist and opportunistic line. It was clear through his actions and ideology. From long, he was pleading for pluralism, bourgeois democracy and multiparty system in the name phase-wise revolution. After all, he was a follower of loktantrik ganatantra. His closeness to India was also clear to the party cadres. Later, he openly declared ´this is the age of Trotsky’. He declared himself as a Trotskyist. He was pleading, and pleading until now, not only for Trotskyism but also for Liu Shaoqi theory of ´Productive Forces´.

    There were some problems and confusions on the part of Prachanda´s behavior. When he talked with revolutionaries, he used to project himself as a revolutionary leader, and when he talked with foreign powers, he projected himself as a ´moderate communist´. No doubt, Bhattarai is the follower of Neo-Marxism but Prachanda maintained double-standards. But this technique could not succeed. Then he started talking about party unity and started to control the party by majority. Now, those who were against People’s War and who used to dub us ´social fascists´ have come to be our leaders. The entry of poisonous weeds and evil elements has polluted the party. It is a matter of deep sorrow. The divide between the two lines further intensified within the party. Things went from bad to worse while there was no sign of transformation in the behavior of Prachanda. This compelled the revolutionaries to think about taking a new step.

    Both blocks associated with Prachanda and Bhattarai were dissatisfied with Prachanda after the Kharipati Meeting. The group led by Bhattarai wanted Prachanda as a leader of loktantrik ganatantra so that they could exercise bourgeois democracy and enjoy more facilities and lead a luxurious life. Before and after Palungtar meeting, this group tried and is trying to make its own identity. In the Palungtar Meeting, this group stood in favor of Bhattarai´s document, the document which pleads for a reformist and pro-Indian line. The document of Comrade Kiran was full of revolutionary spirit, which was based on 10 years People´s War and its legacy. The focal point of this document was the line of people’s revolt. A huge number of cadres, the revolutionary cadres, stood in favor of Comrade Kiran´s document.

    The document of Prachanda was not clear in line and ideology. The speech delivered by Prachanda also raised many questions. In fact, Prachanda was not able to address the cadres. He appeared as a confused leader. The supporters of Prachanda blamed Comrade Kiran for many things. But Comrade Kiran made it clear that it was not a personality clash but a question of revolution; it was the question of people´s revolt to safeguard the achievements gained by the 10 years People´s War. Not only this, he also declared that it is right to rebel.

    After this meeting, the revisionists – the rightist block of the party – look very excited. It looks very optimistic also. But it is not a good sign for Nepali revolution. And everybody from our party knows the consequences of following Prachanda´s ideology. He himself is responsible for this. But there is another bright side also. The revolutionary leaders and cadres are very enthusiastic too. They are full of revolutionary spirit. They are united from top to bottom in one mission. They know there are many challenges in the way ahead. They want to make the party unified in their revolutionary line.

    The meeting could not succeed in approving any document and to solve the contradictions. But one thing was clear: That the right opportunist block had come with dangerous plans and policies.

    Though the Palungtar meeting has concluded, as mentioned before, the debate has just started. Which side are you in? Now, the verdict, the decision between revolution and counter-revolution is coming soon. There are now a lot of responsibilities on the shoulders of the revolutionaries. Unity, struggle and transformation are our main motto and mission. But we are not getting any positive and pleasant signs on this front. And it is a universal truth that without making a breakthrough with opportunists, there has not been any revolution and there cannot be one. Now, the time has come to take correct and bold decisions. It needs strong willpower. It needs strong and conscious efforts. That it is the right to rebel has been clearly stated by Marx, Lenin and Mao. This is the only way to move ahead. Time has come to push the wheel forward.

  3. Rishi Raj Baral said

    Yes, this article is written by me . I request you to click http://www.samayabaddha.org also .

  4. NSPF said

    Thanks for confirming it and for the link RRB.

    Please could you explain for those of us who do not speak Nepali the exact meaning of “loktantrik ganatantra” in the context you are using? I am told it is a somewhat fluid term that means different in different contexts. I would be grateful if you shed some light on this, even though the article is very lucid and easily understood.

    “Which side are you on”, you ask elsewhere on the site. Indeed a very relevant question that is hard to escape. I think everyone has answered this question and acting on it, even if they say otherwise. I hardly find anyone or anything neutral on this site and other places. But people can change.

  5. Thanks Comrade NSPF . “loktantrik ganatantra” means parliamentry system . We all know, it is bourgeois democtacy . We faught ten yrar people’s war . But now there is sharp two line struggle in our party .

  6. NSPF said

    I posted the following comment on Kasamasite earlier.
    ______

    “There have been sharp struggles over how to assess these reintegration plans. Some people have argued that it was wrong for the Maoists to participate in such negotiations, ceasefires and compromises — that whole thing was a slippery slope and that merely by agreeing on paper to reintegration the Maoists had already abandoned revolutionary armed struggle.”[Mike Ely]

    Let us assume for a second we are living in a parallel universe or in a Cloud Cuckoo Land where everyone apart from Kasama Project and Baburam Bhattari and some really unsavoury forces like Yechury Citaram, had “argued that it was wrong for the Maoists to participate in such negotiations, ceasefires and compromises — that whole thing was a slippery slope and that merely by agreeing on paper to reintegration the Maoists had already abandoned revolutionary armed struggle.” ie- that “negotiations, ceasefires and compromises” per se and in any context and situation and regardless of strategic line guiding it was wrong. Let us also pretend to be really naive and think there was not enough information, specially in the past year or two, to take an open stand for one line or the other. Let us also pretend that we were blind and couldn’t see most of the achievements of PW was dismantled and let us pretend that concoct some fancy theories about how comparing and promising a future Nepal on par with Switzerland was not self deception if not outright deception of the people and it was about comparing geographies of the two and possibilities for militarily sustaining a small “independent” country as if ten years of PW was not any living indication of that possibility. Lets assume loads of other nonsense that was put forward for four years.

    What about now. Is Kasama going to come out of closet and openly support the line of Baburam Bhattari or they are still thinking its too soon to let the cat out of the bag?

    Are they going to carry on underhandedly supporting that strategic line through subtle introductions to articles printed on this site and SAR?

    Or is this all about “the enemy of my ‘enemy’ is my friend” kinda’ thing.

    I think it’s untenable to continue as before without looking increasingly ridiculous. You have to take a clear position; one way or the other.

  7. Mike E said

    [moderator note: Please don’t post the same comment twice on two different threads. Your remarks are part of a discussion on Kasama — do you want to force others to x-post here as well? It is redundant.]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: