Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Nepal: Badal denounces “great capitalist leap” by Maoist central faction

Posted by Alastair on October 2, 2011

"We are not cowards. We have launched our struggle openly"

Ram Bahadur Thapa, i.e. Badal, is a founding leader of the Maoist movement. During the People’s War he was chief military strategist, and his open alignment with the radical forces in the party pushing for a people’s revolt is a very big deal. 

Please remember that reports, like this one, made in the daily mainstream press are often riddled with errors and false reports.

From Myrepublica

KATHMANDU, Sept 28: Maoist General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa on Sunday accused the party establishment of being “conspirators and cowards” and of deviating from the ideals of revolution.

Thapa expressed this view while speaking at a cadre orientation program at Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, held by the party hardliners.

“The cowards do their things from hiding. They signed the four-point deal and handed over the container keys secretly. But we are not cowards. We have launched our struggle openly,” a participant quoted Thapa as saying. 

Thapa told the cadres that his faction would see how the party establishment presents itself in the forthcoming central committee meeting, and chart out a course accordingly.

“We will see how they present themselves. But we must if necessary give a push to break the current course,” Thapa argued. He meant that if Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Prime Minister Baburam continued along the current path, the party would clearly deviate from its revolutionary path, and the opposition faction must then take initiatives to save the party.

Thapa argued that the new struggle launched by the hardliners was not meant to split the party. “But when we set such a goal, there will be a separate government and separate army,” a cadre quoted Thapa as saying.

According to the participants, Thapa stated that his faction had not yet broken relations with the party establishment and he would do his best for reconciliation.

Thapa argued that it is the party establishment — not the hardliners –who are for splitting the party by flouting the party´s official decisions.

He stated that the party establishment, by returning seized property and handing over the container keys, made a great “capitalistic leap” – not any leap for communism.

Meanwhile, cadres from the party hardline faction marched from Jawalakhel to Santibatika protesting against the statement of Defense Minister Sarat Singh Bhandari that the 22 districts of the Tarai may announce a separate state. Maoist leader Tilak Pariyar addressed the gathering at Santibatika.

Meanwhile also, the Maoists have postponed a Central Committee meeting scheduled for Sept 30, citing the upcoming Hindu festival of Dashain.


10 Responses to “Nepal: Badal denounces “great capitalist leap” by Maoist central faction”

  1. Roshan said

    These comments coming from Kiran faction are welcome. However, we must ask why have they left it so late? For example, it was known during the Prachanda premiership that the World Bank were paying the PLA, because it was on the front cover of Kathmandu post. Why did the Kiran faction say nothing? The steps that have been taken to get to this position were done over a long period of time with agreements that were agreed upon and known to everyone, including Kiran and his faction. Also, many people may accept that the Kiran faction has a point in its criticisms of the party headquarters, but they on the other hand have no real plan about what to do next. Even if the government collapses, this will only lead back to another coalition, such as Congress/UML again, or maybe UML/Madhesis, or who knows? Congress/Maoists. Nonetheless, it is good that at last they are speaking out against their leadership, even if it is a bit late. Bombard the party headquarters!

  2. […] Comments Roshan on Nepal: Badal denounces “…jeena on Commentary: The Next People…freelance studio on Bernard D’Mello: What […]

  3. […] is just the latest move by the Bhattarai government to be denounced and opposed by left-wing factions within the Maoist movement.  With Maoist radicals threatening to prevent his […]

  4. siva said

    It is not a question of ‘why now’.
    In any disciplined communist party, differences of opinion come out in the open only when issues cannot be resolved through internal discussion, especially when there is a breakdown in democratic centralism.

  5. SLP said

    Just to give an opinion : Kiran’s line is focusing on the risk of Terai’s secession, attempt to national unity, sliding close to chauvinism. My opinion is Terai’s secession is an Indian expansionist “muleta” to Nepal’s real maoists. The main risk is a monarchist military coup, on purpose to… “save national unity” from Bhattarai-Madhesi’s “communist-separatist” govt. This one’s disarming of PLA is, I think, just a step before the coup, in Dehli’s plans. Bhattarai is Nepal’s Allende. Be careful.

  6. siva said

    India used Sri Lankan Tamil secessionists to tighten its grip on the Sri Lankan state, which it did successfully. Then it dropped the Tamil secessionist cause like a hot brick.

    India’s potential to use Terai is similar and India will use Terai Mahdesi nationalism to its advantage. So that cannot be ignored.

    The coup has already been staged. It has put Bhattarai in place as PM. Why should India get rid of him when he can deliver more goods for India than any NC or UML prime minister can ever.

    Bhattarai is no Allende. Allende was nobody’s plant as head of government.
    I have strong criticisms of Allende’s political line.
    But Allende was an honest man, and not a traitor to his cause.

  7. ‘The coup has already been staged. It has put Bhattarai in place as PM’.-Siva

    Really? what coup?

    Siva also says:
    ‘It is not a question of ‘why now’.’

    yes it is, because it seems a bit late. when the world bank rep visited nawalparasi, what were the Kiran faction thinking? it was already too late then.

    and Siva says:

    ‘In any disciplined communist party, differences of opinion come out in the open only when issues cannot be resolved through internal discussion, especially when there is a breakdown in democratic centralism.’

    I wish this were true, but how is it that the congress/uml/un etc already knew about the differences of opinion amongst the leaders whilst the maoist cadres did not? It was not much of a secret, put it that way. also, the ‘internal discussion’ is only a discussion amongst the leaders, the cadre/PLA etc have no say in it. I dont think there has been any breakdown in democratic centralism, because it was never that democratic in the first place. Prachanda as party chairman, Prachanda as supreme commander of the PLA, the party ideology as Prachanda Path, Prachanda as the figurehead of the revolution. was this ever really democratic? I dont think so.

    ‘But Allende was an honest man, and not a traitor to his cause’.-Siva

    yes, but Allende is dead and Chile had to suffer the horrific Pinochet regime and the slaughter of thousands of leftists. This has not happened in Nepal.

    Any Nepali leader has to take India into account because there is no other choice, in effect, Nepal is already semi integrated into the Indian economy, and Nepal has no coastline and is completely dependent on India for so many things. there is a strain of Nepali nationalism amongst all the parties, from the royalists to the Maoists, which makes for a good populist rallying cry, a stick with which to beat your opponent, but means very little. in power anyone, whether royalist or maoist, have to deal with india.

  8. Kumar Sarkar said

    We should pay serious attention to the ‘pattern’ that is emerging from the problems of democratic revolution in Nepal. The experiences from China and Vietnam in the past and Nepal now have a similarity: democratic revolutions are ending up in developing capitalism rather than moving on to socialism.

    The problems of transition from feudalism or semi-feudalism to socialism, while imperialism exists, are posing unforeseen problems. Emerging bourgeois forces in these societies are either reliant on imperialism or predominantly comprador – as evidenced from their relationships with the World Bank or the IMF.

    A section of these forces, living in predominantly feudal societies, are self-styled socialists, though essentially equivalents of bourgeois democrats: ‘new democrats’ or ‘bhadraloks’, halfway between feudalism and capitalism in their ideology. Unlike their European counterparts, they never fully break away from feudal ideology.

    We need to deal with these new problems if we are to avert future failures in democratic revolutions developing on to socialism

  9. Divash Sharma said

    The question raised by Kumar Sarkar is of great importance and invites critical analysis and assessment to understand the 21st century challenges of the new democratic revolution. Why the revolutionary gains are continuously nullified by revisionists and the reactionaries are successful in decelerating the tempo of revolution? Is it their gain or more fundamental failure of revolutionaries? Let’s continue the search and continue the debate.

  10. siva said

    Kumar has raised a most valid point which has partly been answered by Mao who once said that the “bourgeoisie” are inside the party.

    Revisionism is a manifestation of bourgeois thought.

    But the difference with Nepal is that neither has there been a workers’ or worker-peasant state been established nor have steps been taken towards social control of the economy before the party leadership swung to the right.

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: