Pleasure of staying at the crossroads

  Rishi Raj Baral

From Marx to Mao we have a lot of writings about two line struggle. What is two line  struggle?  What are the   differences  between inner party struggle, two line struggle and class struggle ? Is there any difference between two line struggle and ‘differences in tendencies’ ?  These are the questions to be answered now. Since last four years, especially after Kharipati (2008) meeting, we are  talking about –’sharpening of the two line struggle within UCPN(Maoist)’. A lot  has been written about this. Before Palungtar extended meeting comrade Gaurav wrote a long article about two line struggle in Samayabaddha, an ideological magazine in Nepali language. Now Comrade Basant has written another article entitled ‘Two-Line Struggle in the International Communist Movement’. But the questions are unanswered yet.  What will be the next step of ‘Revolutionary Camp’? Comrade Basanta’s article also is not clear  in this aspect.

 It is crystal clear that Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattarai have betrayed the revolution and they are turned  into the true servant of American imperialism and Indian expansionism. The 4pt deal with Madheshi Morcha is the clear evidence of their anti-national and counter revolutionary attitudes. Prachanda and Babu Ram Bhattarai are doing one after another anti-national and anti-revolutionary decisions and the members of ‘Revolutionary Camp’ repeatedly asking them to correct the 4pt deal, for their participation in the government. What a fun!

It is not the question of joining the government or not. Decisions  must be done on the basis of ideological and political stand. Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai  have proven themselves as the true treacherous of 21st century and they must be penalized.  But it is a matter to be worried that Baidhya faction is still in the position of wait and see. It seems that they are still looking towards Prachanda’s transformation-transformation of Khrushchev into Lenin.  Revolutionary cadres want concrete solution of the problem in practice. We must have a new step: that is, ‘restructuring’ the party organization.

Questions are raising: Is there really running two line struggle within UCPN( Maoist)?

 Long before RCP(America ) and CPI (Maoist) had made clear about the  ideological deviation of UCPN(Maoist). These documents are available also in Nepalese language.  Last year RCP(America ) raised the question that in the name of two line struggle Baidhya faction also is practicing new type of eclecticism. ‘On the Critical Crossroads in the Nepal Revolution, and the Urgent Need for a Real Rupture with Revisionism’ (Revolution : 200, April 22, 2010) and ‘ Save the Revolution’ by KJA ( first  published in Samayabaddha (2010)  magazine and it is available also in The Next Front) have openly raised the question on this issue.

Now the Maoist party of Colombia ( The Revisionist  Traitors in  Nepal Still in the Service of the Reactionary State) and France (Line, tendency, fraction and the question of Nepal)have raised the questions regarding  the  two line struggle within UCPN(Maoist). In their opinion, there is no any two line struggle within UCPN (Maoist), there is only ‘differences of tendencies’. It is the  question to note. Concerning  the issue of two line struggle within UCPN(Maoist), now we have a large number of articles from the Maoist organizations and supporters of Nepalese revolution.

 These days,  a faction of revolutionary Maoists inside the country and abroad are raising a question: actually, is there any two line struggle within UCPN(Maoist) ? Or that is only the struggle between  the various tendencies running within UCPN (Maoist)? It is known to all that a political line is not  the expression of a tactical problem, but it is a question of strategic significance. It is a matter of irony that bargaining for ministers and high post also are defined as the two line struggle. Instead of  Marxism some of our ‘leaders’ are exercising–Post-Modernist attitudes of ‘inclusive’ ‘exclusive’ and marginalized community  etc. We cannot reduce the significance of two line struggle in such INGO type of activities. The oppressed community gender, caste, and region must be addressed, but the major question is proletariat outlook and  class struggle.

 We know that, the two line struggle within the party is the reflection of the class struggle outside.  Hence, two line struggle means struggle between two opposite class outlooks- proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In fact, it is a struggle between bourgeoisie and the proletariat headquarters. Now we have the question how  the party of proletariat can exist in the party of  bourgeoisie ?

Baidhya faction  is  doing the work in the concept  of ‘Party within Party’. But we must be clear that ‘Party within Party’ means ‘Faction within Faction’.  Ambiguous working style must be abandoned. It needs transparency. Likewise empiricism, factionalism, regionalism and biased attitudes are the true enemies of unified effort. How can we fight against the revisionists and reactionaries without a strong unity within the faction? I don’t want to explain it more. But  Baidhya  and Badal must be watchful on this type of activities. It is the matter to be checked in time.

In my opinion, the concept of  ‘Party within Party’ is just an exercise of liquidation. Staying at the crossroads from long time means to harm oneself. It is not the correct way to fight against the revisionists and reactionaries. It does not lead the revolution a head.

As I mentioned above, restructuring the party is one and the only way to move forward. Restructuring the party means to break relation with revisionism-to overthrow the revisionists, who are in exercise of  party liquidation . This is the scientific way of restructuring the party. Now the time has come to perform strong will power and conscious  effort. First of all we must have a strong unity among the revolutionaries. Then  we have to form a joint front to fight against the anti -national and anti-revolutionary elements. It only leads us in the way to national libration and People’s Democracy.


You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Pleasure of staying at the crossroads”

  1. Divash Sharma says:

    The article has put forward a clear roadmap. It is well presented.

    I have some comments.

    1) Transition: Although, the incremental change, which amass the quantity, impetus and energy for a qualitative change is a continuous process, it has to lead somewhere to a clear break. In this way transition is a continuous process in generic interpretation but it is also an accumulative process for a phenomenal change. This change could be composting of biodegradable items that results in fertilizer or could be germination of seeds that gives birth to seedling or saplings. Now, within UCPN (M), both processes are active.

    2)Time: It is natural that such a complex process of transition to reaction and transition to reigniting revolution takes time. However, being active and taking time and being lethargic and taking time are two different circumstances. Now, the “transition to reaction” team has been active as it is spreading its legs everywhere – party, parliament, government and foreign forces, whereas the “transition to reigniting revolution” team has become mostly a talking club barring a few good organizational and analytical works. Hence, the proposition put forward by Rishi that “Staying at the crossroads for long time means to harm oneself” is correct.

    3)“Party within the party”: The concept, in practice, is a normal course for a brief period of split in any party. However, as a strategically workable concept, it is not only flawed but also suicidal. If Baidhya-Badal platform wishes that the two antagonistic Headquarters could stay together within a ‘party framework’, that is simply a concept, which would ultimately result to liquidation of them.

    4)Break: Rishi’s conclusion that “restructuring the party is one and the only way to move forward” is the correct course this time as the other side – Prachanda-Bhattarai platform has already reached to a destination from where they could only travel to reaction and more reaction.

    5)Two line or two tendencies: Being monolithic and too centralization had harmed the communist movement in the past and still it has been harming. So, “letting hundreds of flowers to bloom” should be the governing foundation that helps flourish the communist movement and the parties. Unity even with hundreds of friendly disagreements is what the communists should be happy with. Two lines, two tendencies, two platforms or even more are to be considered normal and natural.

    6)Concluding point: Even if Baidhya-Badal platform rejects to move forward and refuses to clearly breaking relations with the Prachanda-Bhattarai camp, revolution in Nepal will not stop to take its further course. However, they have contributed most meaningfully in the Nepalese revolution in the past; they are still trying to carry the glory though with a bit hesitation; the leaders and cadres around them have wonderful contributions and splendid images of sacrifice and revolutionary maturity; and people have trust and expectations from them, so Nepali revolution could wait them for a while. Let’s try for the best, if that would not happen, another better option could take concrete shape and a new course may get acceleration.

  2. Sheela says:

    Dr Baral not only analyses the problem statement of Nepali revolution but puts his proposal to move forward. Baidhya-Badal’s ‘Red Fraction’ should understand this and take a left course before it become too late, otherwise the nature will the the Marxist course on its own–no third option!

Leave a Reply

See real websites hosted and built by iPage customers.