Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Prachanda: Nepal’s Maoists Won’t Split

Posted by D and I Consulting on March 30, 2011

Prachanda, leader of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

The following comes from ekantipur.com

UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal claimed on Monday that his party would not split as it is obvious to have minor differences inside a big party.

Speaking at a programme organised to welcome new entrants to the Maoists at the party headquarters in Parishdanda today, the Maoist chairman said that some minor differences within the party is giving the impression that the party is splitting, but that’s not going to happen.

“Minor differences are obvious in a big party,” said Dahal. “But the UCPN (Maoist) won’t split, rather, the party will become more united and ultimately the reins of nation will come in our hands.”

At a time when speculations are rife that the Maoists party is on the verge of split following ‘SMS rumor’ that ‘Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattarai is splitting the party’, Chairman Dahal dismissed it as just another rumor within a dynamic party.

He went on to say that his party has been striving to conclude the peace and constitution-drafting processes but some people are trying to foil it.

The Maoist chairman remarked any particular organised group is involved in carrying out bombings inside moving vehicles and prison in Tarai districts.

At the function, around a dozen people including Nepali Cinema director Daya Ram Dahal formally joined the Maoist party.

Posted on: 2011-03-28 06:18

6 Responses to “Prachanda: Nepal’s Maoists Won’t Split”

  1. Kumar Sarkar said

    The statements, which are coming from different party leaders, demonstrate that the differences are definitely not “minor”, contrary to the opinion of Comrade Prachanda in this news item. The views expressed by Comrade Baburam at the recent Singapore seminar obviously are diametrically opposed to the line that maintains that the ‘Nepalese Revolution is now at the final offensive stage and the party is now preparing for an insurrection to meet the eventual failure by the CA to write the People’s Democratic constitution.

    A revolutionary party should not try to fudge the issue via ambiguous statements, should hold the meeting of its highest body in order to arrive at a clear cut strategic line and implement it. Any other course at the present juncture of history would be suicidal.

  2. Mike E said

    Kumar Sarkar:

    “A revolutionary party should not try to fudge the issue via ambiguous statements, should hold the meeting of its highest body in order to arrive at a clear cut strategic line and implement it.”

    Line struggles in revolutionary parties have a process of development — they “ripen” over time, and reach crossroads of resolution.

    Your implication that such differences can (and “should”!) simply be resolved in a “clear cut” way actually doesn’t understand the material basis of line struggle or the complex class struggle involved in resolution.

    You are really arguing that there shouldn’t *be* these kinds of sharp disagreements iwthin a party and its leading body. this theory (of the so-called “monolithic party”) and its assumption (that differences are “allowed” due to the “liberalism” of the party leadership) was the main attack made by all kinds of dogmatists against Mao. It is a central assertion by the trend associated with Albania’s leader Enver Hoxha.

    In fact, the very nature of society and revolutionary work repeatedly gives rise to sharp line struggles within revolutionary parties — struggles that sometimes get concentrated in the conflict between rival headquarters, and get resolved in various ways.

    I’m always unimpressed when people declare (with the most superficial and mechanical arguments) what revolutionaries “should” do — as if all the problems of life and revolution can be solved by dogma and will.

  3. Kumar Sarkar said

    A. I said:
    “A revolutionary party should not try to fudge the issue via ambiguous statements, should hold the meeting of its highest body in order to arrive at a clear cut strategic line and implement it.”

    Your interpretation:
    “Your implication that such differences can (and “should”!) simply be resolved in a “clear cut” way actually doesn’t understand the material basis of line struggle or the complex class struggle involved in resolution.”

    So,
    I did not say “SIMPLY be resolved in a clear cut WAY”, I said the OUTCOME should be a clear cut resolution via holding the session of the highest body of the party.

    B. I said:
    “A revolutionary party should not try to fudge the issue via ambiguous statements”.

    Your interpretation:
    “You are really arguing that there shouldn’t *be* these kinds of sharp disagreements iwthin a party and its leading body.”

    Asking not to fudge the issue is not the same as not to allow disagreements. I have just returned from Kathmandu after listening to Comrades Gaurav, Dinanath Sharma and Mohan Baidya. Please ask them if they thought I was asking to stop disagreements!

    Where does my criticism re fudging come from? The party resolution from the last Plenum says that the party should prepare for the final insurrection with a view to the eventual failure of the CA to complete the peace process. The resolution thus acknowledges that the said failure is a real possibility. But, the other line interprets this resolution as ‘party would prepare for the insurrection IF the CA fails to complete the peace process’. Comrade Baburum in his latest contribution to the Singapore seminar goes as far as to opine that Nepalese revolution has no hope of succeeding due to (a)adverse international situation and (b) balance of military forces is not in favour of revolution. No doubt this cannot be decided by anybody from outside, who is not on the ground and only the Nepalese comrades can decide on this. But, the point is, that this assessment of Cde Baburam contradicts entirely what has already been decided by the party. The Nepalese revolution has reached a stage where a line struggle cannot be a ping pong game.

  4. siva said

    I am sure that the Maoist Party of Nepal is mature enough to deal with such serious differences of views, in fact political lines.
    It will be unwise to debate in public before the matter is resolved internally.
    My own view is that Bhattarai’s position is in breach of the Party’s position. That has to be dealt with internally. There are two issues involved one concerns the misrepresentation of the Party’s line and the other the promotion of the idea in public without due consultation.
    Bhattarai’s statement could be as a result of his isolation within the party which he is desperately seeking to reverse.

  5. Nobody in Particular said

    I dunno….I find Bhattarai’s moderate stance somewhat appealing-the threat of foreign intervention weighs heavily on everybody’s minds, keeping things peaceful and democratic is appealing both in terms of avoiding bloodshed and keeping the damned imperialists from intervening on some bullshit “humanitarian” event, ie, a modern Gulf of Tonkin fallacious created reason for assault after a revolution has broken out.

    But I am not at this place or of this culture. I hope, whichever side wins out or whatever synthesis is reached, that Nepal becomes a socialist nation and helps make our ideology more visible.

  6. siva said

    Imperialism needs no reason to intervene.
    If fear of imperialist intervention is used to inhibit revolutionary struggles, there will be no revolution anywhere.

    The threat of intervention by imperialism and the regional hegemonic power is not new. It was there all along, and during the 10 years of Maoist armed struggle. Was Bhattarai in a state of political coma then?

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: