Kiran: We are still against Indian expansionism, for revolution
Posted by redpines on December 26, 2011
The line struggle in Nepal continues. One wing of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has formally dissolved the Nepalese People’s Liberation Army, authored a dubious trade agreement with India and has forced peasants to return land confiscated during the People’s War. In contrast, revolutionaries within the party maintain a commitment to taking state power and sweeping away the current oppressive apparatus.
In the following interview, Mohan Baidya ‘Kiran’, Vice Chairman of the UCPN(M), discusses some of the complexities of making revolution in Nepal. One of these is the country’s geographical position. Locked between two major powers, India and China, Nepal would face a precarious situation if a revolutionary government was forced to cut off trade with those countries. At the same time, for Nepal to build socialism, it must free itself from the economic and political power India wields over the country. The term ‘expansionism’ is used to describe this unequal relationship between the two countries, without regarding India as an imperialist power like the US. This situation requires a new revolutionary approaches, like the ‘fusion’ between people’s war and urban insurrection Kiran mentions.
The timing of this interview is noteworthy, as it comes in response to a recent document by Prachanda, which argues that the party should continue in a non-revolutionary direction.
The piece appeared in The Red Star, an English-language publication of the revolutionary wing of the UCPN(M).
We want to maintain a good neighbourly relation and go ahead by honouring each other’s national integrity and reverence with both of these countries.
25 December 2011
Q. Your experience with the formulation of national constitution in the last two years and the resistance by the reactionary parliamentary right wingers like Nepali congress. How do you sum it up in retrospect?
A. Our experience of Constituent Assembly for the last two years and our co-work with parliamentarian parties, including Nepali Congress, has been very complicated and bitter. In this whole process, intense ideological struggle is going on between two mutually contradictory trends: whether to build a new national army by integrating PLA in a dignified manner or make them surrender by disarming them and whether to attempt writing people’s constitution with anti-feudal and anti-imperialist content or write a parliamentarian constitution based on status quo. In this struggle our party is becoming weaker day by day.
In this course, a serious two-line struggle is taking place on the evaluation of different compromises and agreements reached from the past to now.
Q. Indian Maoists, your counterpart from India, were skeptical over your participation in the parliamentary path without the overthrow of the then existent state structures. Your party chose to restructure the state apparatus by participating in the bourgeoisie state legislature. How do you see it in retrospect?
A. Our party had initiated and conducted the great people’s war to establish new democratic state power by destroying the old one. However, without accomplishing this task we took a course of compromise and adopted a policy of restructuring the state. We take it as our limitation and obligation. It is natural for the Indian Maoists to be skeptical of our party. Our party’s practice in the days to come will provide correct answer to the doubt that the Indian comrades have expressed or will justify its irrelevance or relevance.
Q. Your nation is sandwiched between two giant powers of the south Asia, i.e. India and china. Your party saw India as more harmful than China against your revolutionary tide. Later, Prachanda, your party chairman was becoming more friendly to India shirking anti Indian stance. How do you explain this duality?
A. Yes, our country is sandwiched between two giant powerful countries of the south Asia, like India and china. We want to maintain a good neighbourly relation and go ahead by honouring each other’s national integrity and reverence with both of these countries. There are various unequal treaties, including the treaty of 1950, between Nepal and India. But, there are no such unequal treaties with China. In this sense, we oppose the expansionist attitude of the Indian ruling classes. However, we are not opposed to Indian people. We want to abrogate unequal treaties and sign up the new ones that are based on common interest and mutual equality of both the countries.
I don’t think it will be appropriate to look at chairman comrade Prachanda’s view and practice upon India as dualist. Because, it may be perhaps a question in which he showed his limitation or shortcoming in properly paying attention to the dialectical relation between diplomacy and politics.
Q. Does your party still view India as expansionist state in south Asia endangering the national aspirations of the regional entities?
A. Yes, we still think so. This position of ours is pointed only towards the Indian ruling classes, which are in minority. We look at the entire Indian people from the viewpoint of equality and think that they are our friends for Nepalese revolution.
Q. At the time of participation in election process, the armed overthrow was given a goby suggesting peaceful transition to power. You were putting forward the fusion theory to mobilize the urban upsurge.
A. Yes, we chose this way or that way a path of peaceful electoral process by diverting our attention from the path of destroying the old state power in an armed manner. Here, we have a number of shortcomings, limitations and obligations, we summing up all this mercilessly want to go ahead.
So far as the concept of fusion adopted to organise urban insurrection is concerned, it is correct and needs further explanation. In view of the development of information technology and imperialist globalisation we are trying to develop a concept of fusion in which some of the tactics of armed insurrection are incorporated into the protracted people’s war, which is principal. It is necessary to pay attention to both of its aspects: further study and practical implementation. A danger of the party being dipped in the swamp of right revisionism is growing and we are careful on it. Thanks.
From : New Democratic People’s Front (www.ndpfront.net/)
Interview by: Suthagar & Peter