NEPAL: The Prachanda Path Towards Urban Insurrection

Gary Leupp writes: The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) announced yesterday that its guerrilla  forces, the New People's Army, will observe a three-month ceasefire. This is particularly significant in that the move is a unilateral one. The regime might decide to respond in kind, and reign in the Royal Nepali Army, which is reportedly unhappy with the war and the king. But the Maoists, who will defend themselves in any case if attacked, seem less concerned with the government's response than with the reaction of the mainstream political parties sidelined and abused since the king's February 1 coup.

There have been two ceasefires since the People's War began in 1996 -- from June to November  2001 and January to June 2003. But these were declared by both sides, and accompanied by peace talks with the regime. This time, having bested the RNA in at least one recent major battle, the Maoists control about 80% of the country. They already operate as a government (of the People's Republic of Nepal) and from a position of strength have simply announced that they will conduct no offensive actions through November.      

In past peace talks, the Maoists' insisted on the convening of a national assembly to fashion a new constitution as their condition for ending the revolutionary war. They shelved their initial demand for the abolition of the monarchy, but talks deadlocked when the king and the parliamentary parties refused to abandon the current constitution. Persistent conflict between the legal political parties and the king, greatly exacerbated since King Gyanendra seized absolute power, has allowed the Maoists to play the two off against one another. Even before February the Maoists, noting that the parties lacked political clout, demanded direct talks with the king. But after seizing power, declaring martial law and unleashing a wave of terror against his mainstream political rivals, Gyandendra proposed  holding talks with the Maoists only to find them no longer interested. "Gyanendra has pushed the country into darkness -- there is no justification for immediate talks," stated CPN(M) leader Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal). At the same time, the Maoists offered the parties facilities in liberated zones to  conduct their own organizing efforts against the king. [READ]

Comments

[Sage Radachowsky]

Very interesting commentary.

Here is an interesting interview with Gagan Thapa, who is a well known democracy activist, in Boston on 3 October 2005. He comments on the ceasefire and his beliefs about the Maoists and whether they will ally with the political parties.

Link: http://insn.org/?p=2032

Also available at: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=14385&nav=&

[the burningman]

Sage links to his interview with a member of the Congress Party, a centrist grouping that is one of the two largest parliamentary parties.

While he promises that their capitalist, semi-feudal democracy will be "different" than the 12 years that constitutional monarchy was the system, there is no reason to believe this.

Further,Thapa's claims to "non-violence" are bullshit. He, nor his Congress Party, have ever demanded that the feudal state unilaterally disarm. Their pacifism only extends to the people.

They claim to support "democracy," but in that they insist that that feudal privileges not be dismantled and that the people have no right to arm themselves of dismantle the oppressive and despotic state ROOT AND BRANCH.

The arrogance and disembling of his position is remarkable. Frankly, Sage's softball questions don't dig into Congress's history of collaborating with the forces of repression, snitching on militants in the People's Army and the LOSS of their support throughout the country as the People's War has put fundamentally new facts on the ground.

No one is waiting for their leadership anymore. Their "recognition" that the monarchy must go is a positive first step to joining the REAL poltiical "mainstream" that is, in fact, under the leadership of the CPN(M).

[Sage]

I agree that my questions were somewhat "softball". I wanted to press Gagan further about how a new republican period would be different, but he kept evading that question with cliches and platitudes and I gave up that track.

However, I don't think he can so much be expected to speak for the Nepali Congress Party's past. He speaks strongly and consistently his own anti-monarchy position, which is not new for him though it is new for the NC party in the last couple of months.

I think that Gagan has made it clear that he's against the violence of the state, the existing feudal state or any future possible Maoist state if it rules with violence and threat of violence. Several times he speaks bitterly against the repressive structures of the state, and he also mentions the raising of arms of the democratic movements in 1950 and 1990. So he's not strictly nonviolent, but shows some exceptions. He does state that he's against the Maoists' use of violence and wishes that they would join the 'mainstream'.

I'm not voicing my own opinions here. I doubt whether the democracy movement would have the position of precarious strength without the raising of arms by the CPN(M) as another party to the conflict. I doubt whether the conflict would have come to a head as it has. I'm remaining agnostic on the raising of arms. I don't think I have the right to make that judgment upon anyone, but I do know the pain it has caused to many. Then again I know the pain many have experienced before the insurgency started.

I'll also link to an article by an observer with Crisis Group, just published in the Indian Express. I find it an astute observation of the current situation. Whether or not you come from the same perspective as Rhoderick, he's a good weatherman: he knows which way the wind is blowing.

[Sage]

Here's that link:
http://insn.org/?p=2044

[Christopher Day]

Hello.

I like Sage, but I find the agnosticism on the question of arms unconvincing. There are no neutrals on a moving train and we are all on a moving train. The revolutionaries in Nepal launched their Peoples War based on a judgement of their situation that events seem to have borne out. Refusing to "take sides" is justifiable only when you don't have the information you need and you are in the process of getting it. A principle of not taking sides, however, amounts to nothing more than siding with the status quo.

All of this is an aside however. The real reason I'm writing is to tell Burningman to get some new content up on this site. September 18? Sheesh!

[the burningman]

You pay my rent, kid.

[Friendly Maoist, not RCP]

Burningman,

Is the real reason you haven't updated this blog because you are trying to pay the rent, or because you are spending all your time talking to the RCP in their awip forum?

Really, man, it would be nice if you would clarify your position on the RCP. You launch some very righteous criticisms of them, from a materialist and Maoist standpoint, especially in your recent interchange with them about their action at Hunter College. But on the other hand, whenever me (and maybe some others) start to be inspired by you, you quickly flip and seem determined to tail their idealist asses all over the place. Do you have a worked out opinion of the RCP? Or do you just wake up on a different side of the bed each morning and decide what you think of them on that basis? I guess I would like to ask you to take a more consistent line in regard to them, one way or the other, and to act on that basis.

You have said that they are the best thing out there in the United States. Well, ok, that may be, for the time being. But, you also regularly bring up substantial and serious criticisms of them. Do you think their shortcomings are such that they should not be followed, but that a new Maoist path should be forged in this country? If you don't think they are worth joining, then why don't you try and unite with other Maoist forces to forge that path? Or, if the RCP is really the best that can be done, why don't you just join it, and raise your criticisms internally? (Heh, I'm sure you realize what a joke that is...)

Anyways, it would be nice to get some clarity from you on these points, as someone who coincides with many of your criticisms of the RCP, and in particular feels many of your recent statements on AWIP are right on the money.

[historio]

the debate refered to above is at:

http://www.awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=politix&action=display&thread=1129590965