-Rajesh Tyagi/ 2 November 2011
CPN (Maoist) has finally signed a deal with bourgeois Nepali Congress and Stalinist CPN (UML), as last leg of the overall agreement to establish a bourgeois republic in Nepal.
The nine point agreement, encompassing issues on peace process, constitution and power sharing, is arrived on Tuesday night at Kathmandu at the end of five years of acrobats by Maoists and Stalinists.
A statement detailing the agreement was issued soon after it was announced by the four major parties of Nepal - the Maoists, the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) and the Madeshi People's Rights Forum (Democratic) party.
It said that agreement had been reached "on issues relating the integration of former Maoist combatants into the security forces and providing support to victims of the conflict".
1. Out of 19602 combatants 6,500 would be integrated in a special force under new directorate to be established under Nepalese Army.
2. 500,000 to 800,000 Nepali rupees ($6,300 to $10,190) would be given in compensation to those Maoists who do not join the security forces.
3. Weapons used by former Maoist fighters, and presently palced under UN surveillance, will be handed in to the state
4. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Disappearance Commission will be formed within a month
5. The Constituent Assembly's duration will be extended by six months
6. Land captured or confiscated by the Maoists will be returned to original owners
Jubilant at the agreement, bourgeois NC leader Sushil Koirala termed the pact historic and said that he had full faith it would be implemented. “Now we have created a new and real unity”, he said.
The US has welcomed the landmark agreement on Nepal Comprehensive Peace Accord and commended all the political parties and stakeholders.
"We welcome today’s (Tuesday) landmark agreements by Nepalese political parties on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Accord, including the integration and rehabilitation of former Maoist combatants, the agreement to complete drafting the Constitution by the November 30 deadline, and agreements on other important outstanding issues," the State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
The US encourages all those involved to implement these agreements and remains committed to supporting the ongoing peace process as appropriate, she said.
"We commend all parties for their statesmanship and leadership in forging this consensus, which we believe is a crucial step toward ensuring a democratic, stable, and prosperous future for Nepal," Nuland said in a statement.
Sentiments of leaders of Nepali and world bourgeoisie found their echo in statement of the Maoist leader Prachanda, who immediately after signing the deal, said, “Today’s deal shows my party’s and my commitment to the people, the nation and to history”.
Reacting to the apparent betrayal of the revolution in Nepal at the hands of Maoist party, and in an attempt to save their face, however, a faction of Maoists under Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’, vice-chairman of CPN (Maoist) has criticised the agreement for namesake, however, adding that adhering to democratic centralism, they stand with the party decision.
As the Maoist leaders continued to hobnob with bourgeois in Nepal since April 2006, the 19,602 combatants, who followed the Maoist leaders under illusion of a ‘democratic revolution’, remained stationed in barracks. Now these combatants would get jobs to serve the new bourgeois state in Nepal or in alternative cash packages to turn their backs upon the revolution.
Maoists gave up their decade-long armed revolt in 2006 and joined hands with bourgeois parties to bring about a bourgeois democratic republic. They agreed to confine their fighters to UN-monitored camps and locked up their weapons, in addition to taking part in mainstream politics and contesting elections.
In the decade long peasant based Maoist insurgency, more than 15,000 young workers and peasants, had laid their lives in the hope for a revolution in Nepal, which would liberate workers and toilers of the shackles of poverty and exploitation.
All hopes stood shattered as Maoist leaders refused to fight against Nepali bourgeoisie, terming it to be an ally of revolution. Instead of taking power against the bourgeoisie, Maoist leaders, despite of immense mass support of urban and rural poor, opted to join hands with the Nepali bourgeoisie and pinned all hopes in forming a government of national consensus, a ‘bloc of all classes of Nepal’, as Prachanda had termed it. In arguing for a bloc with bourgeois in Nepal, Prachanda had sincerely followed the path of ‘democratic revolution’ suggested by Mao in China, wherein he advocated a ‘bloc of four classes’, bourgeoisie included.
This flawed concept of collaboration with national bourgeois, which Prachanda has applied to Nepal, is based upon Stalinist formula of ‘two stage theory’ of revolution: democracy today-socialism tomorrow. One after another, innumerable proletarian revolutions have since become casualty under the axe of this bogus Stalinist-Maoist formula of ‘two stage’ revolution. This formula has served as an apology for Stalinists and Maoists, to collaborate with this or that section of the bourgeoisie in different countries from China to Nepal. They laboriously discovered national and progressive sections of bourgeoisie in Kuomintang under Chiang-Kai-Shek in China and in Nepali Congress under Koirala in Nepal. Recently, Maoists in India had supported Trinamool Congress under Mamata Banerjee in recent Assembly elections in West Bengal on the same pretext.
This ‘two stage’ formula of revolution, derailed the revolutionary process everywhere and became a real instrument to put bourgeoisie to power. Adhering to the servile formula of ‘two stage’ revolution, Maoist leaders remained oriented to bourgeoisie in Nepal and did nothing to organise independently the urban and rural working class and to put it at the head of the revolution. Instead of calling upon and mobilising the working class inside and outside of Nepal, to lead the revolution, Maoists, as elsewhere had turned their back upon the working class, all through the political movement.
The great uprising of April 2006 brought about a clear message as to how urban mobilisation of several days in Kathmandu, core of which was the general strike of workers, was able to bring down the whole regime. This April uprising of 19 days stood in clear refutation of peasant based Maoist ‘people’s war’, yet Maoist leaders refused to draw essential lessons. Instead of mobilising the working class to take the uprising to its culmination into a workers and peasants government under proletarian dictatorship, Maoist leaders remained oriented to the bourgeoisie under Nepali Congress.
Maoists failed to take power in 2006, when they had a highly politically charged radical mass at their disposal. In 2008, even in the aftermath of a landslide victory, Maoists refused to take power against the bourgeoisie and kept talking of constitutional regime of national consensus.
While Maoist leaders remained immersed in weaving the illusions of national alliance, consensus, peace and constitution, Nepali bourgeoisie had focussed more and more upon perfecting its grip upon the Army and forcing Maoists to put their armed forces under check, first of UN observers and then under surveillance of multi party committee in the name of ‘peace-process’.
As mass wave subsided, Prachanda was kicked out in 2009, after his efforts to sack the country's army chief - who he accused of hampering his efforts to integrate former Maoist fighters in the army - were blocked by the then president.
Sobered down under the weight of the real power of Nepali bourgeoisie, supported by medieval forces inside and imperialists outside, Maoists found themselves left in a lurch, completely unable to counter the hegemony of the bourgeoisie leading to its dictatorship.
The Constituent Assembly however continued to reflect the old mood of the masses and thus bourgeoisie also failed to find any other solution except once again rope in the Maoist leaders in a harmless settlement, as volunteer to establishment of bourgeois democratic republic and bourgeois constitution.
Revolution in Nepal, like elsewhere is part of the world socialist revolution, but Maoists resist and deny this proposition.Like Stalinists, Maoists are also nationalists and avowed enemies of the proletarian internationalism and theory of 'permanent revolution'. Revolutionary process, for them exists within confines of national states and thus they rely upon national sections of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie in their countries, instead of placing reliance upon the international working class. They falsely assume that there exist nationalist progressive sections of bourgeoisie against imperialism outside and medievalism inside the backward countries, while bourgeoisie as a whole remains integrated into system of world capitalism. Their adherence to sections of bourgeoisie inside their countries, in the name of fighting against reaction and imperialism, is based in its turn upon their essentially nationalist perspective and prevents them from mounting an offensive against the rule of bourgeoisie. Tagged with this or that section of national bourgeoisie, they remain annexed to the world bourgeoisie and its rule in different countries.
We also recommend the following writings on Nepal, published on this site earlier:
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2009/02/our-viewpoint-on-maoism.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2008/11/prachanda-path-and-question-of-power-in.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2008/11/nepal-april-uprising-and-constituent.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2009/06/nepal-maoist-backslide-on-prachanda.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2010/12/nepal-after-culling-tide-of-revolution.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2010/05/nepal-six-day-strike-leads-maoist-road.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2008/10/forced-displacement-of-landless-and.html
The nine point agreement, encompassing issues on peace process, constitution and power sharing, is arrived on Tuesday night at Kathmandu at the end of five years of acrobats by Maoists and Stalinists.
A statement detailing the agreement was issued soon after it was announced by the four major parties of Nepal - the Maoists, the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) and the Madeshi People's Rights Forum (Democratic) party.
It said that agreement had been reached "on issues relating the integration of former Maoist combatants into the security forces and providing support to victims of the conflict".
1. Out of 19602 combatants 6,500 would be integrated in a special force under new directorate to be established under Nepalese Army.
2. 500,000 to 800,000 Nepali rupees ($6,300 to $10,190) would be given in compensation to those Maoists who do not join the security forces.
3. Weapons used by former Maoist fighters, and presently palced under UN surveillance, will be handed in to the state
4. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Disappearance Commission will be formed within a month
5. The Constituent Assembly's duration will be extended by six months
6. Land captured or confiscated by the Maoists will be returned to original owners
Jubilant at the agreement, bourgeois NC leader Sushil Koirala termed the pact historic and said that he had full faith it would be implemented. “Now we have created a new and real unity”, he said.
The US has welcomed the landmark agreement on Nepal Comprehensive Peace Accord and commended all the political parties and stakeholders.
"We welcome today’s (Tuesday) landmark agreements by Nepalese political parties on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Accord, including the integration and rehabilitation of former Maoist combatants, the agreement to complete drafting the Constitution by the November 30 deadline, and agreements on other important outstanding issues," the State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
The US encourages all those involved to implement these agreements and remains committed to supporting the ongoing peace process as appropriate, she said.
"We commend all parties for their statesmanship and leadership in forging this consensus, which we believe is a crucial step toward ensuring a democratic, stable, and prosperous future for Nepal," Nuland said in a statement.
Sentiments of leaders of Nepali and world bourgeoisie found their echo in statement of the Maoist leader Prachanda, who immediately after signing the deal, said, “Today’s deal shows my party’s and my commitment to the people, the nation and to history”.
Reacting to the apparent betrayal of the revolution in Nepal at the hands of Maoist party, and in an attempt to save their face, however, a faction of Maoists under Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’, vice-chairman of CPN (Maoist) has criticised the agreement for namesake, however, adding that adhering to democratic centralism, they stand with the party decision.
As the Maoist leaders continued to hobnob with bourgeois in Nepal since April 2006, the 19,602 combatants, who followed the Maoist leaders under illusion of a ‘democratic revolution’, remained stationed in barracks. Now these combatants would get jobs to serve the new bourgeois state in Nepal or in alternative cash packages to turn their backs upon the revolution.
Maoists gave up their decade-long armed revolt in 2006 and joined hands with bourgeois parties to bring about a bourgeois democratic republic. They agreed to confine their fighters to UN-monitored camps and locked up their weapons, in addition to taking part in mainstream politics and contesting elections.
In the decade long peasant based Maoist insurgency, more than 15,000 young workers and peasants, had laid their lives in the hope for a revolution in Nepal, which would liberate workers and toilers of the shackles of poverty and exploitation.
All hopes stood shattered as Maoist leaders refused to fight against Nepali bourgeoisie, terming it to be an ally of revolution. Instead of taking power against the bourgeoisie, Maoist leaders, despite of immense mass support of urban and rural poor, opted to join hands with the Nepali bourgeoisie and pinned all hopes in forming a government of national consensus, a ‘bloc of all classes of Nepal’, as Prachanda had termed it. In arguing for a bloc with bourgeois in Nepal, Prachanda had sincerely followed the path of ‘democratic revolution’ suggested by Mao in China, wherein he advocated a ‘bloc of four classes’, bourgeoisie included.
This flawed concept of collaboration with national bourgeois, which Prachanda has applied to Nepal, is based upon Stalinist formula of ‘two stage theory’ of revolution: democracy today-socialism tomorrow. One after another, innumerable proletarian revolutions have since become casualty under the axe of this bogus Stalinist-Maoist formula of ‘two stage’ revolution. This formula has served as an apology for Stalinists and Maoists, to collaborate with this or that section of the bourgeoisie in different countries from China to Nepal. They laboriously discovered national and progressive sections of bourgeoisie in Kuomintang under Chiang-Kai-Shek in China and in Nepali Congress under Koirala in Nepal. Recently, Maoists in India had supported Trinamool Congress under Mamata Banerjee in recent Assembly elections in West Bengal on the same pretext.
This ‘two stage’ formula of revolution, derailed the revolutionary process everywhere and became a real instrument to put bourgeoisie to power. Adhering to the servile formula of ‘two stage’ revolution, Maoist leaders remained oriented to bourgeoisie in Nepal and did nothing to organise independently the urban and rural working class and to put it at the head of the revolution. Instead of calling upon and mobilising the working class inside and outside of Nepal, to lead the revolution, Maoists, as elsewhere had turned their back upon the working class, all through the political movement.
The great uprising of April 2006 brought about a clear message as to how urban mobilisation of several days in Kathmandu, core of which was the general strike of workers, was able to bring down the whole regime. This April uprising of 19 days stood in clear refutation of peasant based Maoist ‘people’s war’, yet Maoist leaders refused to draw essential lessons. Instead of mobilising the working class to take the uprising to its culmination into a workers and peasants government under proletarian dictatorship, Maoist leaders remained oriented to the bourgeoisie under Nepali Congress.
Maoists failed to take power in 2006, when they had a highly politically charged radical mass at their disposal. In 2008, even in the aftermath of a landslide victory, Maoists refused to take power against the bourgeoisie and kept talking of constitutional regime of national consensus.
While Maoist leaders remained immersed in weaving the illusions of national alliance, consensus, peace and constitution, Nepali bourgeoisie had focussed more and more upon perfecting its grip upon the Army and forcing Maoists to put their armed forces under check, first of UN observers and then under surveillance of multi party committee in the name of ‘peace-process’.
As mass wave subsided, Prachanda was kicked out in 2009, after his efforts to sack the country's army chief - who he accused of hampering his efforts to integrate former Maoist fighters in the army - were blocked by the then president.
Sobered down under the weight of the real power of Nepali bourgeoisie, supported by medieval forces inside and imperialists outside, Maoists found themselves left in a lurch, completely unable to counter the hegemony of the bourgeoisie leading to its dictatorship.
The Constituent Assembly however continued to reflect the old mood of the masses and thus bourgeoisie also failed to find any other solution except once again rope in the Maoist leaders in a harmless settlement, as volunteer to establishment of bourgeois democratic republic and bourgeois constitution.
Revolution in Nepal, like elsewhere is part of the world socialist revolution, but Maoists resist and deny this proposition.Like Stalinists, Maoists are also nationalists and avowed enemies of the proletarian internationalism and theory of 'permanent revolution'. Revolutionary process, for them exists within confines of national states and thus they rely upon national sections of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie in their countries, instead of placing reliance upon the international working class. They falsely assume that there exist nationalist progressive sections of bourgeoisie against imperialism outside and medievalism inside the backward countries, while bourgeoisie as a whole remains integrated into system of world capitalism. Their adherence to sections of bourgeoisie inside their countries, in the name of fighting against reaction and imperialism, is based in its turn upon their essentially nationalist perspective and prevents them from mounting an offensive against the rule of bourgeoisie. Tagged with this or that section of national bourgeoisie, they remain annexed to the world bourgeoisie and its rule in different countries.
We also recommend the following writings on Nepal, published on this site earlier:
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2009/02/our-viewpoint-on-maoism.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2008/11/prachanda-path-and-question-of-power-in.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2008/11/nepal-april-uprising-and-constituent.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2009/06/nepal-maoist-backslide-on-prachanda.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2010/12/nepal-after-culling-tide-of-revolution.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2010/05/nepal-six-day-strike-leads-maoist-road.html
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/2008/10/forced-displacement-of-landless-and.html
No comments:
Post a Comment