Saturday, 1 November 2008

The April Uprising and the Constituent Assembly

-Rajesh Tyagi

The newly elected Constituent Assembly in Nepal, a fallout of the April uprising of 2006, is now in motion. It has made formal declaration of an end to Monarchy, with a ‘graceful’ exit to it.

As a system of governance, Monarchy has already lost all its steam since the great peoples’ uprising of April 2006, while the forces of medieval reaction, hitherto protected under the wings of Monarchy in Nepal, are already in adaptation with Nepali bourgeois. This way, the abolition of Monarchy in Nepal as a system of state, and the emergence of a republic, has, but a limited significance. This goes in sharp contrast to the bourgeois overturns in 19th Century Europe, where the emergence of bourgeois republics, had introduced a turn in world history. In 21st Century Nepal, such republic would be of no meaning and of no use for the people of Nepal, unless and until it puts the power directly in the hands of working class and through it, the peasantry. The power would be meaningless until the same is directed against the bourgeois.

Unfortunately, in Nepal, the Communist leadership, mis-educated in the schools of Stalinism and Maoism, neither has any perspective nor is ready to lead the proletariat to take to power. It instead, seeks the power in collaboration with bourgeois-landlords. Its failure to comprehend the true mechanics of revolution in Nepal has resulted in missing the great opportunities to accomplish the revolution, which had presented themselves, again and again.

The great tide of revolutionary onslaught of April 2006, against the old bourgeois-Monarchist regime in Nepal drained down after the leadership failed to take the historic upsurge to its logical conclusion-the destruction of Monarchy and seizure of power by the proletariat. Revolution had to return from the threshold of victory, with meagre concessions offered by the Monarchy. Failing to lead the rebellious people to a successful revolution and consolidate the power for proletariat, the disoriented leadership, instead, presented the concessions as big achievement for revolution. This passive and reformist policy of the Communist leadership, resulted in quick receding of the revolutionary mood of people in Nepal. Instead of realising its error and preparing for a new wave, the leadership has since taken an about-turn, more and more, towards legalism and class-collaboration, adapting itself to the ebb in revolution.

However the April upsurge has left its imprint in the history of Nepal. The importance of the upsurge lies not in the concessions it succeeded in wresting from the hands of Monarchy, as bourgeois and Maoists both perceive in common, but virtually in that it illuminated a new path through action of proletariat in key cities, once again endorsing the bankruptcy of Stalinism-Maoism. What could not be achieved in more than ten years of armed struggle was achieved as if by magic vend in 10 days of general strike of proletariat. This uprising had virtually shaken the regime of Monarchy from its roots. There lies now, a whole gulf between the new Nepal as it emerged after April 2006, and the old one as it existed before the uprising.

The high tide of revolution during upsurge of April 2006, forced a radical rupture between the old and new Nepal. Monarchy lost all its strength and legitimacy, after its armed forces tried their best to drown the uprising in blood, but were paralysed before the might of rebellious people, leaving Monarchy in the lurch. During the uprising, for the first time, urban proletariat marked its entry on the political scene as a class, turning the seat of Monarchist-bourgeois power- the city of Kathmandu -into the centre stage of revolutionary drama. This put various hypothesis of revolution in Nepal to test, prime among them the formulations of Maoism and its slogan of ‘Chinese path’, and refuted them through live revolutionary practice. It refuted the myth spread by Maoists about weakness of the working class in the backward countries, where peasantry constitutes a majority. It showed beyond all doubt that despite its small numeric strength, proletariat is all capable to take the leadership of revolution by organising itself into a vanguard detachment of the peasant mass, independent of the bourgeois and in opposition to it.

All the forces of old Nepal -The Monarchy, the forces of medievalism led by it and the bourgeois as well- trembled at this upsurge. Though the upsurge was spontaneous, demonstrating the political immaturity of working class, yet it brought forward the immense political energy latent in the proletariat, which on its own had embarked upon the threshold of a political overturn, and if it had to turnabout, it was only due to absence of a true leadership.
What stood between Monarchy and the people? What prevented the Communists from taking power through working class, aided by the peasantry? Practically nothing! But the Communist leadership in Nepal, mis-educated in the school of Maoism-Stalinism, refused to take the power through working class and in opposition to bourgeois, as it was prepared to take power only in alliance with bourgeois and not against it. They had planned to execute a bourgeois-democratic revolution, through a ‘bloc of all classes’, with bourgeois as a partner. Neither they were willing, nor ready to lead the revolution against the bourgeois. The bourgeois, in its turn was not ready to wipe out the Monarchy. The false leadership of Maoist-Stalinist parties, thus found itself in a dilemma and a virtual political crisis during the upsurge of 2006. All of these Communist Parties and groups in Nepal at that time were closely collaborating with bourgeois parties in one way or the other. The upsurge suddenly confronted them with the question of taking power by wiping out the Monarchy, for which stage was all set in history. But firstly the bourgeois parties like Nepali Congress, having one of their heads towards Monarchy, did not at all wish its destruction, specially at the height of revolution. Moreover, the destruction of Monarchy in a radical onslaught of masses would have immediately posed the question of power, with hostile classes facing each other- bourgeois-landlords on one side and proletariat-peasantry on the other. In any case, the bourgeois had to be confronted in a direct and decisive struggle for power, if upsurge was to culminate in a successful revolution. The Communist parties rubbing their shoulders till the previous evening with the bourgeois parties, were not ready for this eventuality and thus found themselves in a dilemma. They could not have turned the tables overnight against the bourgeois, calling upon for its destruction. They voluntarily let the historic opportunity pass and missed the shot. The line of collaboration with the bourgeois in ‘bloc of all classes’, the ‘two stage theory of revolution’ and the slogan of ‘Chinese path’ proved fatal for the revolution. The false perspective of Maoists, thus resulted in political paralysis of the revolution. Proletariat had to return from threshold of power, which it could have taken in a revolutionary way.

Due to their incorrect perspective, regarding the role and correlation of social classes and consequently the nature and dynamics of revolution in Nepal, the Maoists neither could feel the pulse in April 2006 nor could catch it in their own electoral victory in April 2008.The election victory, only but a meek and belated echo of the revolutionary thunder of April 2006, has come as a surprise to Maoists themselves, in the same way as the upsurge of April 2006 has taken them by surprise. The irony is that the Maoists are still demonstrating their political bankruptcy, while failing to understand the true meaning and spirit of the electoral mandate of 2008.

Maoists, like their failure in estimating the nature and depth of the uprising of April 2006, have also failed to assess the nature and meaning of the mandate given to them by the workers and toilers of Nepal. Maoists pose this verdict as a vindication of their incorrect politics, which in fact is a mandate to wipe out not only Monarchy and feudalism, but also to crossover to more real and fundamental tasks which are socialist in nature and thus fall beyond the domain of democratic revolution. But Maoists are beforehand standing guarantee against this ‘crossover’, which is real essence of Maoism at work in Nepal.

Maoists are translating the mandate in a spirit opposite to and abrogative of the mandate itself. They refuse to accept this mandate for revolutionary stride forward and to consolidate the power in the hands of proletariat with support of peasantry. Instead, they are interpreting this mandate, in the first place as a ‘fractured mandate’, thereby proposing a broad front of all political forces in the country to carry out the mandate- i.e. to build and consolidate a bourgeois democratic Republic. Instead of taking the mandate for a complete overturn, not only of Monarchy, but the bourgeois as well, the Maoists are seeking to perfect their alliance with bourgeois and are planning a peaceful capitalist development in Nepal, in conjunction with it, for at least a decade to come. Refusing to see the complete adaptation between capitalism and medievalism in present day Nepal, Maoists falsely attribute a role to bourgeois in struggle against Monarchy and propose an alliance with it. Instead of marching towards a proletarian overturn in direct fight against the bourgeois, they are striving to forge a union with it, basing themselves upon the bogus doctrine of ‘two stage’ revolution- presently - democratic (bourgeois!), in future -socialist. Their limited programme does not go beyond the contours of a bourgeois republic, and they are preparing a roadmap which is essentially capitalist in nature. At a juncture in history when the forces of revolution have sufficiently matured to advance against Monarchy and bourgeois both, Maoists are capitulating, pinning their hopes upon bourgeois, instead of directing the revolution against it.

With a bright hope for a radical change in their lives, people in Nepal have hailed and celebrated the electoral defeat of pro-establishment parties-royalists and bourgeois both. But the Maoist leadership has already set down to drown these hopes, by seeking an alliance with bourgeois-landlords and their parties.

Immediately following the election result, Prachanda declared, “In this 21st Century we need the cooperation of everyone for development”. He further said that “CPN(M) is ready to work with all parties to write the Constitution”. In an interview to Nepal Times, Baburam Bhattarai clearly added further clarification- “when we say we want to end feudalism, we don’t mean we want to end private ownership. Our revolution in our language is a bourgeois democratic revolution. In other words collectivisation, socialisation or nationalisation are not our current agenda. We like to assure everyone that once Maoists come to power, the investment climate will be even more favourable. There should not be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that”. Both Prachanda and Bhattarai met the Federation of Nepal Chambers of Commerce and Industry, for more than two hours, wherein they called upon the Capitalists- “within 10 years let us work magic for economic revolution and mesmerise the whole world. We will allow private investment and promote foreign investment”. Doubly assuring the capitalists they told the gathering-“Do not lose confidence. We are not going to capture industries. We need your cooperation to gain economic prosperity”. Amidst applause from the elite gathering for this, Prachanda declared-“We are Maoists of 21st Century”. Repelling all apprehensions of those present, he added further-“A strong hand is needed to build a strong nation”. Both Prachanda and Bhattarai in their speeches cited South Korea and Malaysia as models of how the investment would be encouraged in Nepal. When asked about China, Prachanda praised it for elimination of feudal system ‘that established a solid foundation for economic growth’. He claimed that “once we restructure the state and involve the private sector, it will be possible to achieve that economic growth”. On 30th April Baburam Bhattarai asserted that Nepal would see economic revolution in next 10 years. Maoist leaders then deliberated with top World Bank officials upon the future development plans in Nepal, pledging that bourgeois interests would be protected under their rule. They have offered immunity to the King alongwith his properties, if he abdicates voluntarily, which after the revolt of 2006, is a big concession to the King.

The false Stalinist-Maoist leadership is engaged now in dousing the flames of revolution, whichever could survive after the debacle of April 2006. While hobnobbing with the local and foreign capitalists, the Maoist leadership is openly calling for a change in the role of Communist youth, i.e. Young Communist League. Prachanda has assured the Capitalists that the YCL would disengage from its past to assume ‘constructive’ activities. YCL representing younger generation of revolutionaries in Nepal, would become first casualty of political manoeuvre of the false leadership, which has already taken turn to reformism. To facilitate the smooth and peaceful participation in bourgeois power, the Maoist leadership has shown its readiness to return the properties confiscated during the last decade. It has agreed even for dissolution of the armed militias under its control.

Instead of taking power through direct action of workers and peasants, the Maoists are all set to assume the power through a ‘bloc of all classes’, including the Capitalists, both local and foreign. The blueprint they have for development of Nepal in the next decade to come is essentially based upon nationalist perspective, to be executed in conjunction with bourgeois, in sharp contrast to the dictatorship of the proletariat and its internationalist perspective. For present, bourgeois property would remain sacrosanct and it would be protected, and capitalism would be developed. Maoists, the petty bourgeois revolutionaries, would practically surrender all power to the bourgeois, converting themselves into a ‘bureaucratic crust’ representing this power. This they do in the name of ‘democratic revolution’ which they strictly compartmentalise against the ‘Socialist revolution’ leaving the latter to take place only in distant future.

However, paradoxically, there exists a peculiar overlapping of democratic and socialist tasks in the revolution in Nepal. Monarchy and bourgeois are integrated here with each other in a very close and inseparable mode, as the big bourgeois property and industry in Nepal belongs to members of royal family, either Shahs or Ranas, alongside with the feudal estates possessed by them. Nepali bourgeois, of which royal family constitutes an upper crust, is amalgamated on the one hand with medievalism in Nepal, while on the other it is directly subjugated to world capitalism. Thus, any alliance with bourgeois in Nepal would retard the struggle on both fronts. Revolution in Nepal cannot advance even an inch in alliance with bourgeois. Revolution can advance only as a two pronged sword one of whose edge is always directed against the bourgeois. Political alliances with bourgeois as a partner, would only more and more deepen the political crisis. Bourgeois republic in Nepal is a fiction in which neither the bourgeois nor the proletariat has any faith or interest.

Any sort of arrangement with Monarchy or bourgeois, thus would be outright reactionary and an open betrayal of the revolution. Merely a formal abolition of feudal titles, instead of destruction of feudalism and above all the Monarchy, would remain incapable of bringing any change in social relations in Nepal. Not able to conceive this abc of Marxism, Maoists are treading the path of class conciliation, instead of class struggle. While insulating the capitalist property against its invasion by the revolution, Maoists are deceitfully paying lip service to the cause of destruction of feudalism in Nepal, ignoring that the two are inseparably amalgamated with each other.

The fact is that while bourgeois wants ceremonial survival of the Monarchy, the Maoists want its symbolic abolition. They seem to be two sides of the same coin. The past of Stalinist-Maoist parties in Nepal is tainted in this aspect. Their long association with Monarchy under King Birendra, is not a secret in Nepal. This opportunist striving of political leadership, both bourgeois and communist, in competing with each other, for a place in the lap of the King, is sarcastically termed in political circles in Nepal as ‘princely trend’. They collaborated with Monarchy even against bourgeois democracy, when they should have taken the lead in fight against Monarchy, and now when it is turn to fight against bourgeois, they collaborate with it. If the Maoists could move against Monarchy in Nepal, it was only under the immense pressure of people and the rank and file cadres.

Abolition of Monarchy is meaningless as abolition of few titles and privileges. Immediate programme of the revolution in Nepal is to wipe out the Monarchy with all its political and social institutions, confiscate the properties of Royals and destruction of all feudal relations in Nepal. While executing this immediate programme, which of course would meet with fierce resistance from the forces of reaction in Nepal, above all from the bourgeois itself, the revolution must crossover to destruction of bourgeois property also, in an uninterrupted wave. This is the clear verdict of recent elections.

Maoists refuse to understand and execute the revolutionary verdict. They are zealously striving to establish a bourgeois democracy and thereby to arrest the revolution at the bourgeois democratic stage. Maoists fail to recognise that at the advent of 21st century, bourgeois democracy, being devoid of all political energy, is incapable to present any viable alternative to feudal regimes and it is only the dictatorship of proletariat which may successfully execute the programme of revolution.

Nepali bourgeois had already exhausted all its energies by 1958, i.e. within a decade of the armed struggle started by it with the demands of a Parliamentary democracy in place of Monarchy, which it openly betrayed by accepting and confiding itself in the Constitution handed over by the Monarch. It bargained Parliamentary Democracy for a Constitutional Monarchy. The weak bourgeois, miserably failed in taking the revolution even an inch further or to resolve any of the tasks of democratic nature. The ‘revolution’ of bourgeois had come to a halt over half a century before. Neither it can be repeated, nor there can be a second bourgeois revolution, now. Only a proletarian revolution can accomplish these left-over democratic tasks, as part of its uninterrupted revolution and not as a bourgeois-democratic revolution as our Maoists think. It is not parliamentary democracy, but the dictatorship of proletariat, followed by the peasantry, which is on agenda.

People have voted for Maoists hoping that they would overthrow the apparatus of exploitation and repression, but they seem to betray this faith, as they now propose to take power through alliance with bourgeois. One can see with no special efforts, that the plan of Maoist leaders for the whole of next decade includes everything for a bourgeois development in Nepal, but nothing for furthering and expanding the revolution, nothing for workers and peasants of Nepal. What they failed to achieve at the height of mass upheaval during the April upsurge, cannot be achieved through legal means under a Constitutional democracy.

Workers and the Youth in Nepal, who had raised the banner of revolt against Monarchy in April 2006, with the slogans –‘We want the head of the King’ and ‘it is we not the King who are the real power’, and who supported Maoists to gain electoral victory, in bright hope for radical changes, now wonder if this is what they had fought for? Enormous contradictions have erupted between the revolutionary potential that the situation offers and very narrow programme with limited demands presented by Maoists. Programme of Maoists is based upon a nationalist perspective of national progress and unity, that is a ‘progress’ essentially on capitalist path and a ‘unity’ between Workers-Peasants on the one hand and Capitalists-Landlords on the other.

At this critical juncture of history, when enormous revolutionary opportunity is presenting itself in Nepal, Maoists are playing orchestra of ‘bloc of all classes’ to appease bourgeois-landlords of Nepal and the world capitalists. Instead of directing the revolution further against landlord-capitalist combine, and appropriate the appropriators of toiling people, for which they have got a clear mandate, Maoists are making lucrative offers of collaboration to local and foreign reactionaries, even inviting them to share the power. It is not without reason that the strategists in US have already started discussing if and how the Maoist led coalition Government can be utilised for furthering US designs in the region.

Maoists got this unprecedented vote, not for their political perspective, as goes the general perception, which history would very soon prove incorrect out and out, but for their incidental occupation of the whole spectrum of ‘extreme left’ in Nepal, in absence of a genuine proletarian party. This explains how and why the Maoists in the seisin of events could not foresee or comprehend this victory in advance, which came to them only as a bolt from the blue, and why they fail even now to understand the meaning of mandate.

As far as the stealing of march by CPN(M) over other Stalinist-Maoist factions is concerned, the same has to be understood by the fact that while the all other factions had remained inside parliament, and thus got their opportunism exposed very soon, in their day to day activities, the CPN(M) though relying upon the very same politics in essence, escaped this casualty, as it had boycotted parliament for long. With this advantage over other factions, CPN(M) could secure a march over them, by consolidation of vote in its favour. It is however clear that this vote is not an endorsement for the opportunist politics of Maoists, full of zig-zags, but is a radical vote for extreme left, with a clear mandate to carry forward the revolution. This pattern of voting, clearly demonstrates the severity and depth of the social and political crisis in Nepal, to which the programme of Maoists, of revolution in stages – now democratic and then socialist- is no match. The Maoists, at the very threshold, refuse to understand and execute the mandate in this spirit. Instead of carrying forward the revolution, they have started to apply brakes to the revolution, depriving it of its class essence. Maoists’ conceive the question of abolition of Monarchy as if it affects all the classes in Nepal in the same way and as if all the classes are equally interested in it, thereby depriving it of its class essence.

Workers and peasants are not going to achieve anything by proclamations of ‘republic’. Such proclamations would become meaningless if they do not denote a power under the dictatorship of workers followed and supported by the peasantry. People have not given a mandate for a bourgeois republic to be realised through the bogus formula of ‘bloc of all classes’. The mandate cannot be understood in simplistic arithmetical terms of proportionate votes to parties representing different social interests. To understand the mandate one must have correct assessment of nature of revolution and role of different classes in it, which presents itself in algebraic fashion. The perception of Maoists that ‘people have voted different parties to work together for development of Nepal’ is not only incorrect but outright bogus. There is a historic and unprecedented swing of political pendulum in favour of the forces of extreme left, which means a forcible overthrow of all exploiters, one after the other. The mandate is for abandonment of the bogus idea of a bourgeois republic. The mandate is against the perspective of ‘stagism’, against compartmentalisation of democratic and socialist stages of revolution and essentially in favour of a dictatorship of the Proletariat followed by the peasantry. But the Maoists, in absence of a revolutionary mindset, fail to understand this mandate, and take it as a mandate for peaceful bourgeois development in Nepal, with cooperation of all.

The course of political developments in Nepal, is forcing the Communists to take power through proletariat and as proletarian dictatorship, but the Maoists are not prepared to take it and are willingly wasting the opportunity, surrendering power to bourgeois, clearing the road for capitalist development. Misinterpreting the mandate, Maoists refuse to carry it out against the enemies of people. Instead of taking it as a mandate to accomplish the revolution, Maoists have taken it for a peaceful collaboration of classes. They are out to invite everybody, from bourgeois Nepali Congress to CPN-UML, to form a bloc with them to run the country peacefully and on the path of bourgeois development. They are clearly heading towards open class collaboration with bourgeois, instead of its outright appropriation.

Maoists wish to execute the revolution according to their blueprint of ‘two stage revolution’-at present-bourgeois, in future-socialist. For this they invent revolutionary bourgeois in Nepal-the Nepali Congress etc. etc. as collaborator and pledge for a capitalist growth of Nepal for at least one decade to come!

The Stalinist-Maoist parties in Nepal, whether it is CPN-Maoist or UML or other small parties, all of them politically share this common perspective of ‘Stagism’ i.e. the bogus Menshevik ‘two stage theory’, which was discarded by the February revolution in Russia and since then is repeatedly refuted by revolutionary experience in different countries. Based upon compartmentalisation between the ‘democratic’ and ‘socialist’ tasks of the revolution, and adopted later by Comintern under Stalin, this line has proved a virtual trap to arrest the revolution at bourgeois democratic stage for indefinite period. It serves to disorient and demoralise the proletariat, pushing the revolution to an ebb, reinforcing and strengthening the bourgeois and ultimately losing the power to it. This is what exactly happened in China, Spain, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Chile, Nicaragua and other parts of the world, wherever this theory of revolution in stages was applied. Everywhere it proved disastrous for revolution, and resulted in complete destruction of proletariat. With this common perspective, shared among them, all the Stalinist-Maoist communist parties in Nepal, aspire for a bourgeois-democratic revolution in Nepal, which according to their dreams would establish ‘a democratic power shared by all classes, who would collaborate for development of Nepal for at least a decade, in the first instance’. From this common political platform, where they don’t have any dispute among them, these parties take to different routes to execute this Menshevik programme. While all others took to path through parliament, Maoists took to armed struggle, but to establish the same bourgeois democratic regime in Nepal, cherished by all of them.

Shocked and moved by the immense revolutionary energy generated by the upsurge of April 2006, of which cities and proletariat were the epic centres, and which successfully demonstrated the futility of the partisan warfare in rural Nepal, without the leadership of city proletariat, the Maoists reverted back to cities, but only to reinforce their alliance with bourgeois-landlords and their parties like Nepali Congress. This backtrack of Maoists to cities in the wake of the April uprising, abandoning the partisan struggle in rural areas, deflates the boasting that the April upsurge came as the result of ten years of partisan war. The upsurge came, in fact, as a refutation to the Maoist strategy, what they term as ‘Chinese path’.

This common perspective of ‘Stagism’ and the common goal of ‘bourgeois democracy’ is the real platform of politics of the Stalinist-Maoist parties of the old type, dominating the political scene in Nepal for the time being. None of these parties attempts to answer the discourse on real and fundamental issues of politics and instead raise the issues of secondary and tactical importance only, to draw the political lines. Maoists focus their disputes around the tactical issue like the forms of struggle, falsely counter-posing them to each other- armed action vs parliamentary action, though in essence they all carry out the same political line of class collaboration, whether through parliament or through partisan struggle.

The Maoists had parted their ways from the unified CPN, criticising its leadership as renegade and revisionist, mainly for its participation in parliamentary politics. They immediately proposed armed struggle of peasantry as an alternative strategy. This strategy was though changed after April 2006 uprising, but political perspective of Maoism- the ‘two stage theory’ and ‘bloc of various classes’, was retained. Maoists did not differ with the then CPN on any of the political positions or fundamental standpoint, but raised disputes on the tactical aspects, subsidiary to the main strategic issues.

The upsurge, however, compelled Maoists to change their tactical route, to shift the focus of their work from rural areas to cities, even contrary to the preaching of Maoism. Prachanda said in an interview in 2006, that in any event they would not return to villages to restart the armed struggle. Similarly, in 2007, CP Gajurel told a press conference that a city based revolution was in the offing in Nepal. Yet the Maoists failed to change their fundamental political perspective and retained it in all material particulars. Still they continue to refuse to open their eyes to the futility of their old Stalinist-Maoist perspective of ‘revolution in stages’ and ‘bloc of various classes’- thereby diminishing the role of the proletariat and instead artificially carving out a role for bourgeois in the revolution. They grasped the importance of action in cities and the futility of rural based warfare, in wilful and clear deviation from the conventional ‘path’ of Maoism, but their failure to understand the nature of revolution in backward countries, and the role and attitude of bourgeois and proletariat in it, made them to cling to their prejudices about bourgeois and its parliamentarism, instead of making preparations for a proletarian overturn in Nepal.

Now the question arises how this bogus recipe of ‘two stage theory’ and of ‘bloc of all classes’ laced with the gloomy dreams of growth of capitalism would be swallowed by the workers and poor peasantry in Nepal and why they would wait for another 10 years to come? Here would come into play the Prachanda doctrine – ‘a strong hand to build a strong nation’. This strong hand would punch the proletariat, the peasantry, if it refuses to swallow the recipe of capitalist development prepared by Maoists. Workers and peasants in Nepal would soon find the Maoists playing the role of a policemen standing as a guarantee for protection of bourgeois property in Nepal, as they have pledged time and again.

As apologists of the Menshevik theory of Stagism, Maoists are revealing themselves as red-lieutenants of bourgeois-landlords. The power in their hands, sooner than later, would turn into a bureaucratic apparatus for crushing the revolutionary proletariat and peasantry, which in any case would not confine itself to the ‘democratic’ stage of revolution even for months what to say of a decade, and would strive to carry forward the revolution by crossing over the narrow limits of the bogus programme of Maoists’ democratic revolution. The state power, if not directed against the bourgeois, would certainly be directed against the workers and peasants!

When the Maoists are busy in forging the unwarranted collaboration between the hostile classes, under the slogan of a republic, the history is presenting the question of power straightway- who would rule Nepal either bourgeois or proletariat? The simplistic Maoist slogan of a democratic republic does not present any answer to it. The dispute is to the role and character of this democratic republic. Would it be realised in opposition to, or in conjunction with bourgeois? A republic- under proletarian dictatorship or the dictatorship of the bourgeois? The fate of revolution is bound to this issue. Maoists show their utter incapacity to resolve this issue in a revolutionary way. The bourgeois, however, is unable to come to power unless and until the revolution itself is betrayed, its flames are put down and power is surrendered voluntarily by those at the head of the revolution.

The present turn in the politics of Nepal, presents only a caricature of the February revolution in Russia in 1917, with no October overturn in the offing, in absence of a Bolshevik opposition. We will soon witness the same surrender of power by its Menshevik leadership, before the local reaction and Imperialist bourgeois. We will find this leadership zealously defending the bourgeois state, law and property against the people. Unable to advance the revolution even an inch further, with every passing day, Maoists would find themselves more and more trapped inside their false cobweb of bourgeois democracy. Either Maoists would abandon the working people becoming open apologists of bourgeois democracy or the working people becoming more and more disillusioned, would abandon the Maoists.

From the perspective of Proletariat, abolition of Monarchy is only a means to an end and not an end in itself.
The Maoist-Stalinists, the epigones of Leninism, are seeking collaboration with bourgeois in Nepal, while heading towards a bourgeois republic, in complete betrayal of the mandate of uprising and election both, Proletariat must organise itself to take power in Nepal with the aid of poor peasantry and thus execute the mandate by overturning Monarchy and bourgeois, both. To be able do this, it needs first to detach itself from Stalinist-Maoist leadership and its false perspective. It must create its own party, the party of a new type, armed with the perspective of permanent revolution, instead of the old Stalinist-Maoist rubble seeking class-conciliation instead of class-struggle.

New Delhi/ 28.5.2008

No comments:

Post a Comment