This article originally appeared at The Next Front. Reposting here is for discussion and does not imply agreement or endorsement.- Nick

Recently,  in the meeting of standing committee,  senior vice chairman  of UNCP , Comrade Mohan Baidhya  ‘Kiran’ registered another note of dissent regarding the issue of PLA integration. Dahal denied the latest Central committee decision and passed his document by majority–with the support of  Baburam Bhattarai. It raised a lot of questions and worried all the revolutionaries.  It was infact , a surrender of the PLA. The decision done about PLA was not a minor issue, it was a vital one and an issue which will have a long term effect.

I think it is necessary to take PLA out of the cantonment.  We should know  that there is also a class division within the PLA.  The high rank commanders, specially who support Prachanda’s line are enjoying luxurious life. They have each and every thing to consume. There has been  a vast change in their life style and daily life.  Their dreams are different from the PLA of lower ranks. They don’t think about revolution and  they don’t have the dreams of revolution. Rather , they are threatening the lower PLA cadres, in the name of discipline and chain of command. Lower cadres are prohibited by minimum requirements and are disallowed to study revolutionary materials. They are prevented to take part in meetings and ideological debates and discussions. They are forbidden to study books of war memoirs, to listen to revolutionary songs and to go through the literature related to ten years people’s war.

It is true that the recently passed document  of Prachand is  an ideological continuation of Chungwang meeting: preparation for  deviation and betrayal of the revolution. When Comrade Kiran and Gaurav were imprisoned in Indian jail, Prachand abandoned the People ‘s War. In fact detainment of Kiran and Gaurav was part of the grand design to make the party organisation  and revolutionary line weak and  to make revisionists strong and in majority. And no doubt, it was done with the support of revisionists and Pro Indians, who have disguised themselves in one or the other name and faction within the party. The  main objective of this design was to turn the revolutionary party into a revisionist party. It was a long term plan and policy to destroy the party’s revolutionary line and spirit. The people’s court and the base areas and local people’s governments all were dissolved in the name of peace process. Only  the PLA remained to be dissolved.  Now they are going  to complete the remaining task , disarming and surrendering the PLA in the name of integration.

No surrender of PLA, was the conviction and dedication of the party. And it is  natural to be  one of the  main issues of two line struggle. It is a political crime to humiliate the PLA, who faught bravely against the reactionary forces and never were defeated.

In reality the lower rank of PLA cadres want revolution. They want continuation of revolution and people’s revolt. They want to go ahead.  Too much staying in the cantonment means to ruin oneself.  Therefore they want to come out  and participate in the class struggle. They don’t want to surrender in the name of integration. The major issue is:  PLA  must not be humiliated. It is the matter of dignity, value and class outlook. If the party leadership does this type of  humiliating decision, they will not accept this. No liquidation but revolution: they are free to  choose the path to revolution and revolt.

-Rishi Raj Baral

Join the conversation! 3 Comments

  1. This article is basically right, the PLA should not surrender, the Prachanda clique sold out the people, and the peoples war should continue to the end. Another question concerns how allies outside Nepal can aid this struggle. For example under the PATRIOT ACT and previous legislation in the U.$. made it illegal to give material aid to groups that are labeled terrorists. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) was labeled by the State Department as a terrorist group, and although the revisionist leadership had negotiated to take them off that list, any factions that renew the peoples war will be labeled as such.

    With this it is not wrong to bring criticism on groups and leaders when they err or go revisionist. Maoist Third Worldists were the first to denounce the sellouts by Prachanda, and although denounced for it at the time, now many others are coming out on the obvious betrayal of the People War. This shows that tailing, of groups of Nepal or others, is useless. Also, any Western solidarity efforts will be indecisive in the final outcome. The struggles in Nepal and elsewhere in the Third World will be by the efforts of the peoples in their countries by them alone.

    But this again brings up for us as allies, what do we do? Besides giving out solidarity statements when needed, and critiques when needed too. One thing that can be rejected is the line “wage the revolution where you are,” for those with an understanding of global class analysis one realizes that without a social base it is impossible. There should be no illusions that things like the unionists in Wisconsin have any sense of solidarity with the people of Nepal in their struggle. Any First World solidarity movement does not have any effect other than potential recruitment of members by the group leading the supposed solidarity effort.

    Anyone else have thoughts on this?

  2. I generally agree with the thrust of these comments. I think it is very important not to tail this or that group in the Third World. First World revolutionaries should use their privilege to critically support the struggle of the Third World masses and push it in a revolutionary direction. Many First World ‘anti-imperialist,’ ‘revolutionary’ websites link one or two nominally revolutionary organizations from various Third World countries. RAIM has never done this, specifically because we don’t want to impose an arbitrary and superficial view onto the Third World that effectively declares which organizations should lead their struggle- even if they are grossly inadequate. At the same time, the practice of linking popular Third World groups is a thoughtless exercise, one which allows First World ‘anti-imperialists’ and ‘revolutionaries’ to profess their uncritical support to Third World groups despite doing little study into their politics and workings.

    The question of what we, as allies of the Third World masses in the revolutionary struggle, can do in relation to Nepal is prescient, because it will come up many time again.

    I think there are two main areas we need to broadly focus as part of a realistic strategy.

    The first is a strident revolutionary internationalism: being clear and critical about supporting the revolutionary struggle of the Third World masses- [what was discussed above]. No, RAIM doesn’t support the ‘leaders’ of the U’C’PN selling out the revolution. We support the masses and their revolutionary struggle against domestic and international oppressors.

    The second is precisely having a practice “where you are” without necessarily construing it as ‘waging a revolution.’ Obvious, we are not going to launch any widespread revolutionary struggle in the First World, but that doesn’t mean there is not work to be done. Here we need to boost support for Third World struggles. Alongside and within that we need to enhance and grow the organizing base for revolutionary anti-imperialism, I.e increase our ability to project a revolutionary critique and expand the quality of struggle globally. Nothing we do in the First World is going to have a direct effect nor is it going to attract mass appeal amongst net-exploiters, but work in the First World can be part of a protracted strategy to create public opinion and enable revolutionary struggle in the Third. The key is having politics in command. We need to be clear and upfront about what we believe, what we want and what exactly we are trying to accomplish.

  3. “The key is having politics in command. We need to be clear and upfront about what we believe, what we want and what exactly we are trying to accomplish.”

    Yes, the key is condensed in what Mao ordered: “Serve the people”.

    It´s hard for antiimperialist to do it because we live behind enemy lines. Even those bearing the progressive label are such (m)Asses that they mistake themselves as oppressed people. The real masses and people are the enemy of First World oppressors. Whole nations are bourgeoisified, even the lest moneyed people among them, and defend imperialism because they know, consciously or otherwise in a darker way, it is in their material interest. Sadly, Third World revolutionary parties must be cautious of even the most correct among us, because there are a lot of spies trying to infiltrate them.


Leave a Reply, Comment or Question

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Asia, Neo-Colonialism, Nepal, News and Analysis


, ,