Published On: Wed, Dec 28th, 2011

“The current internal conflict in essence is the conflict between Marxists and opportunists”

Where has the class struggle approached in Nepal now? Please explain it.

Internally, Nepalese class struggle is reaching to the climax to the struggle against feudalism, imperialism and externally this is centred in the point to lift the movement of national sovereignty to a new height. Therefore, we are to give completion to democratic movement against feudalists and imperialists. It would not be exaggeration to say that Nepalese class struggle is moving ahead to the climax of it.

The party is blamed for dismissing the spirit of the class struggle, strategy and implementation against the 7-point theoretical commitment stated in the first plan of great people’s war. What is the reality? Where do today’s class struggle and those commitments agree?

I had made the proposal while preparing for the people’s war and building first plan and submitted in the central committee. I had submitted the 7-point commitments in the central committee so that the direction of the movements would not derail in the days to come. The central committee had passed as it was. To say that the party has deviated from the 7-point commitment is totally wrong because the rule of the development of class struggle, the rule of the development of movement is never in a straight line, there are ups and downs, there are turnings, and this goes ahead in curved line. We have to decide contemporary strategy on the basis of Nepal’s whole class struggle and international class struggle. The commitments stated there are theoretical commitments and of strategic nature of long-term importance. The party is equally clear and determined with those commitments but with the ups and downs of class struggle, we have been saying from the fourth comprehensive meeting to second national convention or in the proposal for the development of communalism in 21st century and strategies related to peace talks and constituent assembly that it is necessary to adjust the strategies. In the present context of our class struggle, we have prepared the series of appropriate strategies with evaluating the national and international class struggles. We are in peace process and in constituent assembly and it will be hypothetical, mechanical and dogmatic to think that we have deviated from those theoretical or long-term commitments of policy. All movements led by the communist parties in the world go crossing many turnings and the eye to find it deviated after entering into the turning can’t be the Marxist eyes.

Any communist revolutionary movements of the world are seen to have got success only through continued armed struggles. We are covering the journey of peace process and constitution writing process in the name of peaceful evolution of the revolution. What are theoretical bases of this process?

That is not that much true.  It is true that all the revolutionary movements of the world have completed successfully without stoppage in some context, but not in all. The Russian revolution which became successful with armed rebellious policy was tried to be fused with armed guerilla warfare in 1905. But new condition of the class struggle arose to adopt new strategy. And, a new situation arose for adopting peaceful and parliamentary strategy. Lenin and Bolshevik party adopted that strategy. Armed rebellion was prepared again in 1917 and especially in the context of world war and Russian class struggle, and the socialist revolution became successful. Therefore, it is not proper to say that the armed rebellion became successful continuously after its initiation there. The same is true with the Chinese revolution. Because Chinese revolution went forward crossing many stages and phases. The form and process of the long term people’s war in the beginning got changed when it entered into the war against Japan because they allied with those against whom they had fought for ten years to fight against foreigners. Therefore, it is wrong to say the forms of that armed struggle and former armed struggle were the same, they are different things. After the completion of World War II and victory of China over Japan, talks were held to form coalition government, to carry peace dialogue, to leave base areas, to reduce the number of People’s Army. Dialogue was held and agreement was also reached in the dialogue. As I understand, Mao and Chinese communist party would go for the government peacefully and complete the revolution if Chang Kai Shek had not broken that agreement. What was the use of 45 days of Chhungking dialogue and signature of the agreement by Mao Tse Tung and Chag Kai Shek? Was it only a drama or right strategy based on the then class struggle? All true communists of the world have understood that it was the right decision. The situation arose to carry out armed rebellion again because Chang Kai Shek was not ready to form coalition government even after showing flexibility in land reformation, by reducing armies, by leaving base areas. This thing should not be forgotten. Some low capitalists and extremists think that people’s war goes continuously after its beginning, which is not reality-agreeing.

The party has been reiterating to go for people’s revolt if the constitution is not built. But how much possibility is there to be built (Maoist agreeing) constitution? How does the remaining process of Nepalese revolution move ahead if the constitution is built (in consent)? Could you clarify?

Perhaps I have already told Kramabhanga regarding this previously. There are three apparent trends in Nepal regarding the peace process and constitution writing process. The tendency of leading the peace process to conclusion and draft the constitution by hook or by crook or even by kneeling down in front of the imperialists and the reactionists is prevalent in Nepalese society and political circle. Another narrow-minded and mechanical tendency to create obstacle in every steps in order to stop peace and constitution writing processes from concluding is also there in Nepalese society and political circle. The third tendency is that some are trying to show themselves as the originator of the constitution whereas it is the result of communist movement especially, Maoist war and mass movement.  The peace process should be tried to be taken ahead with respectful manner as per the spirit of the comprehensive peace agreement and constitution also should be tried to be made having the essence of anti-feudalism and anti-imperialism (though the exact form is not possible as we have wanted but having that essence) with utmost attempts. These three trends are prevalent in our Nepalese society, in Nepal’s politics, in Nepalese communist movement and even in our party. The third of them is the official line of our party. We are not to procure peace and constitution by kneeling down, or also we do not want to run away from peace and constitution, but to strife for the peace and the constitution till last and make it successful is our line. Secondly, you have asked how much possible is it in making constitution and if made what will happen later. It is good to make the constitution, conclude peace process. We must try for that. We are dishonest to what we have done yesterday if we fear the constitution and it is betrayal to the people if done so. We fought for concluding peace process and drafting the constitution from the Constituent Assembly. We have expressed our commitment to the people during the poll accordingly. Therefore, it will be good if the constitution is made. A great discussion is underway in the communist movement to determine what will happen after the constitution is made. This subject is probably broad here. There is necessity to prove it theoretically in broad way. The subject is linked with the point from which we see that Nepalese revolution isn’t possible with conventional method of thinking in the current point of international communist movement, Nepalese communist movement, international class struggle and Nepalese class struggle and in the current level of economic, scientific and technological development. The thinking of carrying out new people’s revolution as Mao did or the revolt as Lenin did doesn’t conform to the reality. Therefore we need to take the revolution to the conclusion with regular synthesis. The influence of Maoist party will broaden in people if constitution of anti-feudalism and anti-imperialism is made and peace process is lead to logical conclusion and party needs then to organize people, strengthen the party from new corner, and the condition will come for us to go for minimum of seven years or ten years of plan. Revolution can’t take place by fixing the date or time of revolution. Now, people’s revolt is what we will carry out, not others. Long term people’s war or guerilla war may be backward movement now. This has been made clear already. We need to hold millions of people around the party and win their belief for the people’s revolution. The conclusion of peace process and making of the constitution will create faith in people toward the Maoist party and leadership, and it will be necessary to move forward by organizing it. Then residue of feudalistic imperialistic strength will stand against the popularity of Maoist or social and economic transformation of people (after the constitution is made or in next election). Therefore, we need to keep the people prepared to counterattack them. Four foundations and four preparations: we need to go from there by preparing. The answer for your question is this but I am trying to say more than that. We talked about long term people’s war, new populist movement based on labourers-farmers unity previously. We said that in one condition or Mao said such and it was experimented in countries including Vietnam. That was primarily successful in that condition but we can’t find the type of labourers or farmers Mao thought of in that time.  Poor sons and daughters of poor farmers from poor villages of Nepal are in countries like Arab, Malaysia or Qatar due to the globalization and liberalization and due to the development of science and technology. Youths of middle class or low middle class are in Europe, America or Australia. They have reached in touch of the most developed productive powers. Class struggle has been defined from the principle of productive power and production. Nepal is a country with subsistence economy using conventional and backward production force. In that condition, long term people’s war would be a meaning, but now thousands of Nepalese farmers’ sons and daughters are in touch with advanced productive force. Firstly, how has Nepalese economy sustained? Foreign earning (remittance) has occupied a major portion of Nepalese economy. If we try to analyze as Mao did, we have no such economy in our country. How we look at it is the second thing. Third thing is the conscience. When a person goes abroad, he surely sees something, psychologically receives the civilization and culture. He returns back by carrying those culturally.  It will be impossible to develop right policy and strategies if it is analyzed without calculating what he has carried back (by thinking in traditional way that backward countries have such culture). Fourthly, if armed activities are carried out or political activities took place in the past, it took the rest of the world months and years to know what is happening and in which base areas. During the guerilla warfare in China, it took long time know what is happening and in which base areas while carrying long-term war or making policy for the populist revolution whereas now people from any corner of the world remain updated due to the development of information technology. To try to carry out the revolution in traditional way without calculating the rapid development of information technology would be self-destructive. I tried only to raise this topic. Revolution in any country is not possible to lead to successful completion without theorizing, analyzing, and proper synthesizing of it. The question remains here. Some people think the revolution is possible through old method. This is only narcissism. Revolution is not possible from that. This is not what they can do. This is what they have held. They have given their heed to these key issues of global importance but it is necessary to consider it. This shows that the gap between the new populist revolution and social revolution is greatly being erased. Intellectuals and cultural activists should hold discussion on it. This doesn’t mean the gap is already erased, it has its some angles, but we have approached the place where we call republic, federalism, secularism with the end of monarch through people’s war and frequent mass movement. The remaining workload of the populist revolution (some we have completed) and the policy of completing socialist revolution have centred in one point due the condition in which leadership by the rebel is acceptable for common Nepalese people or aforementioned causes. Instead of completing the new populist movement, remaining duties of the mass revolution and socialist movement by armed rebel centres in one point. The communist movement can be given new direction and vision only by new way of policy and strategies. This leads that way, this is only for discussion. Nepalese revolution can gain certain shape if all intellectuals study and enter into this subject. People have confusion at one level now, some are disappointed. Others held it as the result of detour and ready to go back to BS 2052 or 2028, in all these thinking ideological confusions are seen. It is necessary to determine policy and strategies of the revolution by calculating those characteristics of present class struggle, development of science and technology and progressive change of our society in order to break that confusion.

Does it not maintain that technology is ahead of conscience?

It does not maintain that technology is ahead of conscience. What the Marxist analysis about the relationship between matter and mind is that matter is always ahead of mind. Marx-Engels did one this analysis.  Conscience is the reflection of matter in man; it is not other than that in its final meaning. This does not mean conscience does not have any responsibility. In some special moments, conscience too does intervene and affects the matter; this is the essence of dialectical materialism. What I mean from this is that we have to reflect the current circumstances, events or matter to our mind as it is. If our mind goes many years back while the events or matter is there, then contradiction is created. Therefore, I mean to say that revolution cannot be successful if we cannot manipulate the effects of the current economic, cultural, political development and development in science and technology in order to conform the interrelation between matter and mind.

People of one kind are telling that middle class is the decisive force of the revolution. Is that so?

That is not so. I raised the topic only for discussion. Middle class cannot lead the revolution due to its own condition. Capitalists and the proletariat are opposite classes and those two represent two types of ideology, system. They should lead and they do too. This does not violate the truth that proletariats are the decisive force of the revolution and I did not mean to say that. What I want to say is that the circumstances during Mao envisioned the revolution is different from today’s world or Nepal.

To prepare for revolt in case people’s constitution is not built or to depose the capitalist class after the making of the constitution! Out of those two alternatives of Nepalese revolution, which one does your honoured self see more possible?

People’s revolt is primary for the achievement of the revolution in my view as well as in our party’s official view; there is not confusion in it. But, what small mistake we did in the past is that we talked much of revolt. We did less in the necessary strategies with needed seriousness, responsibility, speed and plan for the institutionalization of revolt. If said people’s revolt or propagated it, it won’t take place; that is my next understanding. If attempted to conclude peace and constitution by hook or by crook, that will create people’s revolution or first measure as you mentioned or if created obstacle in it people will understand clearly that the largest party of the Constituent Assembly Maoist took major steps to lead peace process to conclusion with more responsibility and more seriousness. But if they realize that it did not became successful due to this or that cause that will be the major point of movement. That movement can develop into people’s revolt, which is first thing. Secondly, if peace and constitution is established, that peace and constitution will reduce the privileges of capitalist class and brokers and institutionalize the people’s privileges. And in one point there can be completion of revolution with less and less bloodshed. Both of those measures are possible. What I mean to say is that people’s revolution does not take place if more is spoken about it. This is the present circumstance. We can train the people by saying only peace and constitution and that peace and constitution is not for carrying out the people’s revolution either. Only the procedures of peace and constitution prepared for the making of peace and constitution can lead the revolution to completion. Lenin and others had understood this very well.  Various discussions were held about the path of revolution regarding people’s revolution, socialist revolution in theoretical discussion or while taking about those two tactics or one step ahead or two steps back. But the revolution is centred in the slogan that people easily can accept when it is near to its completion. If we only talk much of revolution while it is time to give decisive push to it, people won’t support in that point. Only the leaders of rational proletariat group should be clear in that theoretical discussion, should participate the discussion, hone that topic. It is only to instruct people as per it. It is wrong to think that common people can hone knowhow of such subject as leadership. Ordinary people see which slogan brings positive result in their life with the evolution of class struggle. In the time Lenin said, ‘peace, bread and land,’ people were tired of war. All wished war had ended. Therefore, he cried the slogan of peace. Famine was about to fall, and he gave the slogan of bread. Everywhere there were scarcities of food. [He uttered] the slogan of land for farmers. It is very simple slogan. Second World War was on progress, people were dying, and those big slogans they had cried previously went aside. Peace, bread and land. Bolshevik became successful when they took the leadership to organize people for that. I specially reiterate that we communists should also take the importance of this matter seriously.

What are the subjects of two line conflicts being operated in the party these days? Some comrades are saying that party leadership wanted to be limited in bourgeois democracy and struggle became necessary?

What some comrades are saying, are they honest to what they have said or not, this is one subject. However, what I feel is that the struggles being operated between two lines in our [Maoist] party or in other parties are the reflections of real class struggles of Nepalese society. There are patriotic and transformations loving people in all parties, some have less and some have more. There are also people who want status-quo in the country. This is the first thing. The second thing is that the centre of discussion in our party lies in the topic whether revolution is to be taken as the repetition, mechanical copy or blindfolded follow of another country’s revolution or to take theory in the sense of matter or revolution in the sense of development, not in the sense of repetition but in the sense of development, to strengthen theory with the development of circumstances and to take in the sense of development and how to accept the changes occurring around us. In simple language, whether to follow the traditional activities and forms of revolution which we had adopted or to move ahead seeking new forms of revolutionary struggles, class struggle in the changed circumstances. The matter to take organization ahead as it was forcefully or to develop new pattern according to new situation, all these episodes come under this. But this is not so much clear as it is heard me saying now. The struggle taking place in the party is also not clear in that way because our party has one tendency inclined toward the progress of low capitalist class, another tendency inclined to high middle class, and another tendency inclined to bourgeois ideology intending to be closer to them, or trusting the bourgeois a little more. Low capitalist class is narrow-minded, extremely mechanical and a little close to proletariat and extremely anarchic. That is not prevalent in any system. The struggle of present time is against the more mechanical and closer to low capitalist class. Both of those tendencies cannot be relied over. Some time they try to cultivate confusion by crying ultra revolutionary slogans, sometime they do not hesitate to make alliance astonishingly with rightist, bourgeois, or farther than that with old plutocrats. Therefore, it is trend theoretically, but the people or representatives I have seen who claim themselves more revolutionary are closer to autocrats. I have found that they had alliance with the past kings and their close aides.  They are selfish because of their addicted tendency. We have also seen that they do not hesitate to kneel down in front of so-called bourgeois reformist if they thought necessary. Therefore, it would be hypothetical to think that some tendencies are fighting for an ideology. Low capitalists class has rightist and leftist tendencies. They are seen sometime as if they are fighting, sometime they are seen conceding but at last they agree with each other. They think uniformly to harm the revolution, revolutionary ideology and leadership. In this way, they are found to be in accord two months ago, and after two months, they are seen in alliance in another place. Sometime they go to ally with autocrats, sometime with bourgeois, and sometime they dream of some miracles by two three day’s sharp slogans or foolish activities. In fact, that is not so. Everything is in rule. That is not with accordance with this rule. Therefore, what I feel while talking about the present conflict of two lines is the conflict between Marxism and opportunism. I don’t feel it is other than that.

The party centre had prepared five-point procedures to manage the two line conflict. In the name of those procedures, activities from the formation of parallel committee to national convention are taking place in the party. Conflict of two lines has reached in the status of established ideology. Has the five point procedure become insufficient? Case of established ideological group is or isn’t in conflict between two lines?

Five points were not adhered to. It is seen that the five- point is more than enough, let alone insufficient. Five points are more than required. Therefore, it is seen necessary to remove five points and replace with people centred single point. The left and right of low capitalist class don’t accept the discipline and system of proletariat rather break them. They [low capitalist class] don’t follow any principles and system and they are philosophically defective, that’s why it is nothing for them to do so. Therefore, he himself builds five-point deal, and starts breaking it the following day. Makes an agreement and breaks it the next day. The opportunists seen inside our party do not follow any system. They go on creating chaos till it is dissolved. We have talked to move ahead after serious discussion, evaluation and transformation in the Central Committee meeting. Let’s hope, all realize their mistakes from their places and come again to Marxist proletariat system; we should labour away over creating conducive environment for it.

Ideology group should not be permanent. Party should go ahead. Party should be united and centred. This is what Marxist and communist movement have clarified, but Nepalese politics which is in special and critical condition can be corrected by making a clear purpose or by criticism and self-criticism. But if that does not happen, the party divides due to the established ideology group or those tendencies are swept away.

How far is the current struggle in our party intellectual or political and how far is it factional, individual or technical?

There has appeared anarchy or factions against the party central or leadership in our party which has not been seen in any communist movements of the world. I feel this is little more factional, more inspired by individual selfishness even if intellectual covering or banner is shown. Because, what is said outside, what banner has been shown, that is not reality. Reality is just against it. Therefore I don’t see it appropriate to call it intellectual at that level. This is purely factional, individual and based on the selfishness of low capitalist class.

The struggle inside the party is being expressed beyond limit. People of one kind have not only been blaming but also demonstrating road strike and flame procession. How will this type of struggle affect the movement?

This type of struggle will surely affect negatively in the movement. This is not good matter. This has created a great concern in mass people, revolutionary cadres, and supporters. This has not given any positive message. This is good matter but I have seen some good things in bad. Those comrades who demonstrated flame procession or blocked roads have been much weakened. Many people became clear. Great portion of state committee, central committee and district committee felt that they had done mistake by following the comrades who blocked road. That negative activities has helped many leader, cadres in favour of correct line and leadership in the past and now. Similar is seen in the east, middle, and west or everywhere. I have seen this tendency in Madhes most. Despite being negative, this has helped all to understand the reality.

What are the special turning points of two line conflicts in the history of our party? In those stages, how did our party conquer and against what types of trends?

In short, the internal struggle in the communist movement from the time of party establishment to BS 2019 can be called a stage. Party remained united during that time, despite much internal conflicts. The series of division started from 2019 and our internal conflict also began with the great debate of China-Russia. That can be called one stage. Then after BS 2025-026, two trends appeared during the process of party reorganization and re-unification; especially two streams appeared in Maoist movement (the streams of Jhapa insurgency of 2038 BS and central nucleus). This can be called second. Thirdly, mutual transformation seems to have taken place in around 2038 BS. The then Marxist-Lenin (ML) which had appeared into revolutionary identity from the central coordination through Jhapa insurgency went for the reformation and amendment of Marxism after ten years of internal struggle and class struggle. On the other side, during the fourth convention, the revolutionary stream went ahead after the protest in Mohan Bikram’s stream. Therefore, the year 2038 BS also can be taken a turning point. The process of polarization appeared in the new communist movement in around the mass movement of BS 2046. One centred to reformation and another to revolutionary. The reformist centralization appeared in the form of United Marxist-Leninist party and centralization of revolutionary formed United Centre and later Maoist party. Therefore, BS 2046 can be taken as another turning point. Then the beginning of people’s war in the year 2052 gave birth to a new discussion in intellectual and political field in the Nepalese politics and communist movement, and new process of change was initiated. That should be regarded another stage. Then after entering the peace process, the polarization which is seen now can be regarded another stage. These are the main stages of Nepalese communist movement.

If we look only inside Maoist party, we should go back in the year 2038 when one struggle between Mohan Bikram and Nirmal Lama took place in the fourth convention and a struggle took place against Lama in 2040. In 2041, a struggle took place against Mohan Bikram and in 5042 that ended.  All those ended in division. After then, a new process began with revolutionary stream until 2045. In 2046, after leadership in the then Mashal party changed and Prachanda became its general secretary, the struggle did not remain traditionally pompous, it became totally new. The change of leadership in communist movement in 2046 also changed the traditional system and tried to unite all Maoists. Second, the faction divided in the past were not theoretical, personal quarrels were also mingled with it and revolutionists divided in all sides and opportunists also divided in all sides. Therefore, a process started in 2046 in order to make all revolutionists united and to let the opportunists go in one way. The act of bringing the then proletariat labour organization Mashal, Mashal and the fourth convention into one place was initiated after the group was reorganized under the leadership of Prachanda. The negative tendency of criticizing, damaging others instead of doing something oneself was the old system. After the change in leadership in 2046, it started going for unification and revolution. United centre was also formed. There again discussion was held. Everything was done for the revolution. It was thought that they will be revisionists after taking part in election. Not that way, the danger of being revisionists is there after taking part in the election, but there was no certainty of it. Deep discussion was held. We held discussion so deeply that we were expelled by the RIM, charging us revisionists. Mohan Bikarm alone became known to the world left as revolutionary because he had said not to take part in the election. RIM continued saying only that but we ignored. This is not right, this is not Marxist favouring, policy of limited use is right for the current context of Nepal, we said so. Our party had already prepared for people’s war; we intended to collect arms ammunition with training of guerilla warfare, the said to take part in the election in that moment. Internal conflict was prevalent also then. A tendency not to form united centre and not to take part in the election could not be so bold and could not take big form, but it was there. It is not the time to tell what type of struggle had taken place then and who had taken lead of what tendencies. Election was utilized after the formation of united centre. That was passed from among the struggle. It was practiced for four, five years.  In that course, rural clash struggle in the villages and building of central plan for armed struggle at national and international level took place. What we proved is that it is not true that taking part in the election makes rightists. It is also not true that the party becomes rightists after including different groups in it. We showed that the party can enter into people’s war even after doing that. That should be understood as an important event. The situation in which so called Maoist in communist movement before that in Nepal are narrow-minded and mechanical and opposed Mao and Maoism received a hard blow for that system of thinking (traditional, mechanical). Great exercise was done there. The fight that occurred than was not less than of now bur we were victorious in that and at last people’s war began in BS 2052. People thought people’s war would not start. Those who say people’s war was carried out had said people’s war was not possible at that time. It is very odd here. Those people who said people’s war wouldn’t happen are saying the leadership has left the people’s war now. They were opponents then and are even now. The party struggled against a mechanical and emotional trend immediately after the beginning of people’s war. That was a great conflict; nearly conflict of life or death. After then, a discussion started in the comprehensive convention whether centralize or decentralize the leadership. It was discussed whether to lead the revolution by united and centralized leadership or keep parallel or decentralized leadership. In that hot discussion, different trend was seen from outside, internal conflict was against another trend. The dialectics of this is odd. Strong conflict with reformists was seen from outside. All understood in that way but internal real battle was against the conservationists. It was that way in the fourth comprehensive meeting. After crossing that, the power and authority in base area became stronger. Then it was talked about fusion of long term people’s war and armed mass revolution thinking that Nepalese revolution wouldn’t be successful through old system. A conclusion was reached that success wouldn’t be achieved through the traditional way of revolution. It is heard now from some comrades that mistake was done from the second national convention, nobody spoken in front of me. It is heard that somebody say it confusion but we have started adopting Marxism as science. Before that, Marxism was taken as theology, or matter. From there the process to go ahead in the form of science, from zigzag started. Constituent assembly was talked about from there; it was talked about peace process. That was passed unanimously, but there were different trends there. From there assembly poll comes. Before the poll, Phuntiwang, Lawang, Maisur meetings were held. The details of that are not possible now.

Are there any extra ideology or methods that we have added for [the revolution of] Nepal besides adopted by Lenin, Mao in the management of two lines conflict?

In Nepal, whatever positive or negative things we have in our communist movement, Maoist war has developed it in a new place with the view of two line conflict or development of ideology. What we have tried to say in the proposal regarding the development of populism in 21st century, and we have named it Prachandapath, the ideology has been developed. This has to be called a new experiment in the system of two line conflict and in the development of communist ideology. I remember now and then, in the present horrible situation that has reached into its climax, those who are incredibly trying to abate the importance of the leadership, to oppose the centralization, to disgrace the leadership used to say incredibly that it was very good in the past. After meditating why two line conflicts became so, what I feel is that after coming to peace process, unification was done with the different groups, personalities and the process of polarization continued and to make that polarization more stark, to lift the synthesis of ideology to a new height, I proposed to postpone the idea of Prachandapath, to keep this issue outside in order to make it internal issue. I never saw such thing happening in the world. Later, I tried to find out whether the chief leaders in other places had done such earlier: however, Mao ideology was removed from the eights convention but it was removed through the Mao’s recommendation. Liu Sao Chi, Teng Sao Ping made Mao remain as chairman after failing to take the charge of the party by outnumbering but stopped the Mao ideology. Or, I did not see taking risk by the chief leadership to centralize the leadership, to centralize the ideology and procedures. But such happened in ours. All our intellectual comrades should have to calculate it. Sometime I feel we have done mistake. If Prachandapath was kept, people would feel it uncomfortable. To remove it became like erecting ladder for monkey. Sometime I feel Prachandapath would keep it controlled. Now all became like Prachanda, this isn’t the present conclusion. Foundation was laid to lead the revolutionary party by a new way by uniting Maoist party and by polarizing the large communist strength. Prachandapath was removed not because it was wrong, but because it was decided to settle it by internal discussion others’ opinion. It was said to be settled from the convention. I don’t feel it was done wrong theoretically but technically and practically I have seen it necessary to analyze the period from the initiation of Prachandapath to its postponement.

How should it be synthesized the conflicts of two lines in the communist movements of Nepal so far?

As I know, during the Cultural Revolution Mao and Chinese communist party had named the conflict of two lines ebbs and tides of the Ocean. Sometimes, these ebbs and tides are seen on the surface, sometime inside the water, but still it is being operated. While trying to synthesize, unity, struggle and transformation are not enough, primarily transformation is important. Conflict of two lines can be taken ahead rightly and revolutionary can be made dominant by going into transformation. Unity, struggle, transformation chiefly transformation: this is our synthesis.

Chairman Comrade, you are the famous and popular leader not only of communist movement but also of whole country. However, you have been taking regular exams in your own party. How have you felt from the experience of two -decade long leadership?

I have mentioned some things already. I don’t feel it necessary to describe Marxist, Leninist, and Maoist assumption regarding the leadership. I have experienced extreme two trends so far. I felt deeply what it would be if the leadership is glorified. Just opposite of it, I have also felt what it would be to try to destroy the leadership completely. I suffered both of that two in one time. Incredibly, the characters are the same; the characters who divinized in the past are seen in the act of destruction of it. From this, I saw the necessity of theoretical synthesis. Did we do enough to struggle with those who made it divine? Did that trend go for demonization of it in different situation due to that? To be seen the tendencies of divinization and demonization in the same character makes one thing clear. This shows that low capitalistic tendency expresses themselves in those two extreme forms. If the characters were different, it would be thought that somebody others came, but the characters are the same.  This is the one issue to be synthesized. Another issue of the synthesis is to see if there are wrong doings by the leadership itself or the dialectical materialists. I have seen it necessary to synthesize that the trend of demonization appeared for not carrying out acute struggle with the trend of divinization in the past. So that coming generation can learn that struggle is necessary with the trends of divinization and as well as with the demonization in the days to come and go ahead in a balanced way in dialectical materialism.

In the history of the communist movement of Nepal, leaders are found to have been shown as principle problems and banned. Now, your leadership is also seen as the new similar problems. Where, in fact, does the problem lie?

That is the case. Both the trends of praying and scolding the leaders are seen in one place where backward productive force and production have links in the backward society.  If somebody scolds the leaders much, we should understand that a slavery trend is inside him. Due to slave mentality, he is loyal to the leaders and also opposes them. He does so due to anti science mentality. Lu Sun had said in regards of satirizing the trends of scolding the leaders in China that leader are not bad but the people are bad. People are to make leaders. Not vice versa. If people were good, rational and farsighted, the leaders would be so. Lu Sun had said that people keep scolding leaders bred by them. This is one aspect. This is not so by only criticizing the leaders. Leaders have more responsibility but at last leaders should be made by people in movement. Leaders are not to make leaders, not people either. Therefore, it is totally wrong to try to ban. Yet, leadership is not easily made in communist movement. Group of leaders are created after the practice of bourgeois for thousands of years. They learnt greed, cheating in such way as one appeared not less than others but it is not such easy to make leader in proletariat group or communists. Leaders are formed only after much sacrifice, passing several exams and they are to sit for regular exams. It is odd because leaders are in struggle till last and they are in exams. They should also go on passing tests. Communist leaders should go on passing exams. Leaderships become matured through that struggle and that is established at national and international level. It is not possible without opposition. A simple farmer’s sons say as if nothing has been done from their place despite much deed. I had asked an intellectual in the past, why other prime ministers are disregarded whatever they did in abroad, and when I go abroad they question why I went abroad, they question why I wore certain clothes, why ate certain foods, why I cried, why I laughed. They questioned for acknowledging leadership. They would ignore if they had not acknowledge the leadership. Those who have opposed, they think that he is the leader, others are not. This was what he had answered. I liked the answer. They opposed you because they thought that their leader is the chairman of Maoist. May be they opponents or from own party. They are scared of you. They criticized you thinking that you are the leaders and it will be good to correct you. This is the science of the development of leadership, this is the struggle. Leadership develops in course of defending the criticisms. This is the science. Therefore, we have to look at both dimensions of this. [Leader's] weaknesses also should be considered, because he is man. Nobody is without mistakes. All have limit whatever is said. There are still debates of Marx, Lenin and Mao. They have not stopped scolding Lenin till now. The report of DNA test was made public last year or previous to prove that Lenin was immoral. Films are being made on Mao to show how corrupt he had been. This is a rule. We should try to pass the tests. I used to get scared of it, but I am used to it now. I learnt a little. I knew how it is included in heavy class struggle and political struggle. I went straight previously. I had not any strategies in the beginning. I thought I should speak out I had in my mind. A large portion of population liked it but counter revolutionist and opportunists tried to take great advantage of it. That, I have understood a little now. It is the process of the development of the leadership.

It is propagated that there is conflict among the ideology, the leadership and the organization in Maoist party. Could you please tell us the reality regarding this?

No communist movements, parties and revolutionary process can develop without the least relative uniformity and consistency in the ideology, the organization and the leadership. Therefore, to say that there is no consistency in ideology, organization, and leadership in Maoist party is totally anti-Marxist and wrong if we call the development of the party, may be it ten years of people’s war, an epoch making. The party could develop because of the consistency among them. The internal conflict among the ideology, leadership, and organization in one communist party can’t go for many days. Party can develop only with the uniformity among them, but the uniformity cannot be absolute. Sometime, ideology side goes further. The organization lags behind. Sometime, the organization goes ahead and ideology lags behind. Sometime, the leadership is ahead others. This should not be understood in absolute and mechanical way.

Chairman Comrade, the whole country is looking at Maoist party and you as its leader with eagerness.  In one hand, the people who desire peace and constitution are worried seriously that they might not be acquired and on the other hand, those who desire revolutionary great change have become worried, inactive and plan less due to the unmanaged situation in the party. How can you [Chairman Comrade] address those both types of people’s mass in such condition?

People are worried as you have said but the question is not of worriness. The question is again of forwarding right policy through the right synthesis of present circumstance and the science. That only can address the mass people, revolutionary and middle class people.  The line brought forth by our party can address all true communist revolutionists and all people concerning the revolution. We have decided to fight for peace and constitution till last and we have also decided to give people the right to choose the verdict if the reactionists would hesitate in giving the desired constitution to them. We have chosen this line and it is the right line. This line has only included the people’s right to rebel if peace and constitution is not built as per their desire. This work procedure or line can unite all people. No other line can unite all people. Our emphasis is for taking peace and constitution to the conclusion. As I have seen, the peace and constitution will reach into conclusion soon. Peace process will be settled with a little discussion. After the completion of peace process, constitution will be also written outright. In my view, discussions are underway in parties for peace process, and army integration will be carried out with due respect. Not like surrender as somebody has thought it; the constitution will also be built anti-autocrat, anti-imperialism. The constitution will be made with the place for revolution to go ahead for conclusion. That can address all people. There will be place to move ahead.

One group of the party was seriously agitated by issue of keys. How did the situation of taking decision by tricking own colleagues appear? Was there mistake in method and subjects?

That was absolutely not so. Some comrades were seen agitated and tried to blame the leadership regarding the keys issue but the reality is not what was seen. They got agitated not by the keys but by the ministry. This is the reality. If somebody wants to know the key fact regarding the keys, the reality is about ministry, not about the key. I can state this with proof. Special committee decided to hand over the PLAs, arms and arms-container the next day on Bhadra 14. That evening, it was propagated that keys were to be handed over because it was written in the minutes of the special committee to hand over the combatants, container and arms but the media, congress and UML parties understood only keys. That was propagated. Those comrades who said so had gathered in Baluwatar that evening. That gathering was the last meeting of Dhobighat coalition. No discussions were made regarding the keys there. However, propagation of this was already done. Those who talked much about the keys did not talk about the keys in that gathering, they talked only about minister. The standing committee had given the responsibility to select minister to me, Kiran and Baburam. The next day at two pm, there was meeting in my residence. They wanted to pressurize the chairman for their decision they had taken in Dhobighat, but the matter remained unsettled, neither it was possible. Because, it was not possible for Baburam to do so. So-called Kiran-sided group asked for deputy prime minister, foreign minister, finance minister. There was dispute after I said it was not proper to ask for all major ministry. Nobody bothered about the keys till that meeting, all were thinking of the minister. The banner headlines of major dailies next day mentioned the handover of the keys the same day, still no issues were raised in that meeting. Kiran or others did not ask me about matter. At 2 pm, Kiran, Baburam and I sat together and clarified the commanders about the keys. Kiran was there while I was telling the commanders such and such and no tensions should be taken. They did not oppose there. Keys of two cantonments had already been handed over in the morning. Nobody asked why it had been done. Kiran did not like the list of minister I presented in front of all including the commanders. He said, it’s ok, I will discuss with the friends and he left. After one hour, he phoned me and asked me whether the decision to hand over the keys was taken. I felt strange. I replied it was done yesterday; we have discussed so much about it. He said that he was not satisfied. I told him to do anything he liked if he was not satisfied. Therefore, this is not the matter of keys, true matter is of minister.

It is said that four-point agreement was signed for the sovereignty of the country with Madhesi front and party authorities were not informed about it. What is the reality regarding this?

The four point agreement is also like the aforementioned issue of the keys. It is true that we all couldn’t attend while the signing of the agreement took place. Because the signing took place at around 1 am during night. The office decided to held talks with the Madhesi front. All agreed to form government by forging consensus with Madhesi, nobody opposed it. That day, Baburam and I talked with five of the Madhesi leaders. We both did not know we would sign on the agreement on the same day. We went only for discussion; we were not sure whether we would reach an agreement. In course of holding talks, we reached an agreement and talked for signing. We thought if not signed the matter might detour by the next day. We thought basic matters are ok and signed. It was already quarter to 2 when had reached my residence. I called a meeting of the party officials. We seven sat for the meeting in this room. I distributed the copies of the agreement. I explained them what had happened. I read out the agreement to them. They said it was ok after the discussion of two hours. Nobody opposed it. It was signed at one, presented in the office for approval at seven o’clock. Party approved but meeting of all lawmakers from both of our parties was held to approve it by all. In that gathering, Gurung was announcer and J P Gupta was the presenter of the agreement paper. Dev Gurung announced historical agreement had been done.  All lawmakers passed it. Therefore, the four-point is also like the keys. The four-point is right if ministerial post is acquired, it is anti-nationalistic for not getting ministerial posts. The comrades have failed morally and politically.

The four-point has, off course, abstract language. It was not possible to form the government without making something non-concrete. It is not to say that ten thousand will be recruited in group, the initiation of recruiting will be done with certain numbers regarding the demand of ten thousand [to be recruited]. Our party held that Madhesis have been done injustice and they should be recruited in the army. What was the matter of objection there? The left issues in both countries means left in our side. In our explanation, the left issues of removing 1950′s treaty. Such is not the meaning when others say; they can also say treaty of border extradition was signed. It is not clear this is this. Republic democracy is mentioned there. Inclusive republic democracy, right to self-decision, autonomous: potpourri of all is there. There is inclusiveness of the people too. Comrades are telling it republic democracy whereas it was the exact language from the agreement made among Jhalanath, Upendra Yadav and me five months before. No word have been added or removed. After two days, Kiran showed me the agreement as if he did not know anything. Nothing had happened the day before yesterday, what change came in his mind. He did not see anything earlier, saw later. That was the agreement with Jalanath and others. It was not with Madhesi front, the language was only kept as it was. He told he had done mistake that moment then. This is the matter.

Lately, it is heard that political parties are said to have reached close to agreement regarding peace process and constitution writing process from the top level discussion. What is the reality of this?

That is the reality. We have approached close to the agreement. We have said that agreement should be forged in army integration and rehabilitation of peace process and in the commissions for disappeared and truth and reconciliation. Our concern is Truth and Reconciliation Commission in case war time old cases are dug out and are nationalized and internationalized. It is Reconciliation Commission, not Truth Reconciliation and Punishment Commission. There should be the language of reconciliation. It is almost agreed to forward all the process once by forming experts’ panel for restructuring of the state in the constitution. An agreement will be singed regarding this in a few days. Army integration will take place with respectful manner. It means the number we have fixed will not be lowered. The modality will be of General Directorate. Agreement has been made to be flexible regarding education, age and marital status of the combatants. There is a little dispute regarding the rehabilitation package; we are telling from 6 hundred thousand to 1 million for it. They are telling maximum of 6 hundred thousand. This is not so tough to tackle. There is a little difficulty in posts. To make the basis of where an army section officer or cadet recruited in BS 2052 possibly promoted in BS 2068 is the general principle, another basis is the political consensus, political decisions to be taken for the commanders and other general armies to be regarded with equal status with Nepal army.

BIPPA issue is being raised in the talks. What is the perspective with which we have to look at it?

This topic will be raised. There will be disputes too. There is no difference. There was a little discussion about it in our standing committee meeting.  There was clear decision not to sign any treaties of extradition, sky marshal or other border related issues. This is not that BIPPA should not be signed, similar agreements are being signed with other countries, and we wanted to sign with India including our concerns. How far the matter has been settled, I have not understood well. I have talked with Baburam but I will understand in detail when they will return back. (Courtesy from intellectual bimonthly “Kramabhanga”)

Published On 842 days ago

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

advertisement advertisement advertisement advertisement advertisement advertisement advertisement advertisement advertisement