‘Should not our chairman speak on this?’

(We have got two articles  from Comrade Indra Mohan Sigdel ‘Basanta,’ politburo member of UCPN (Maoist), entitled  ‘The question of building a new type of communist party,’ ‘The International Communist Movement and Nepalese Revolution’. He has focused on many burnings issues regarding to the International communist movement, as well as Nepalese communist movement, especially two line struggle within the UCPN(Maoist) and its consequences. The second one is very interesting. Following extract is very remarkable.

The words like RIM and CCOMPOSA might become today the words of terror for some comrades in our party. Fraternal parties have been raising a lot of questions with our party after we entered into the peace process. Our leadership does not think necessary to reply them rather he is fleeing away from the international debate. Why this? Why our chairman remains tight-lipped when one of the PBMs of our party, who claims ideologically and politically close to chairman, accuses in our party CC meeting that the RCP leader Bob Avakian is a CIA agent and another PBM writes in an article that Bob Avakian is a renegade? Should not our chairman speak on this?

 ‘The Next Front’ will post in detail on this issue in the coming issues.  In fact, it is not only the question of  any  PBM and CCM.  We know in Palungtar extended meeting, Prachand himself had raised this issue of stupidity.  And it is not the matter of surprise that Prachand’s followers the stooges, are in the way of their master . The full text of Comrade Basanta’s article has given below:

The International Communist Movement and Nepalese Revolution
The world communist movement, which suffered a serious setback as of the counter-revolution in Russia in 1956, had to suffer another bigger setback of counter-revolution in China after Mao’s demise in 1976. While arriving at the counter-revolution in China, the proletariat that exercised at one time socialism in a one third of the globe reached to such a situation at which there was no single socialist country in the world. It was an awful defeat for the world proletariat. However, the communist revolutionaries, who believe Marxism i.e. the dialectical historical materialism is a guide to action, never got disappointed but taking lessons from such defeats advanced further. The proletariat, which had been struggling against counter-revolution, succeeded to realise two important achievements in 1980s.
The initiation in 1981 of people’s war by the Peruvian Communist Party led by comrade Gonzalo was the first feat on the part of proletariat in that decade. And second one was the founding of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in 1984. Everyone is aware that the Revolutionary Communist Party of America, the RCP USA, apart from other revolutionary parties, had had an important role in organising the RIM. When there was widespread disappointment among the people due to counter-revolution these two achievements can be regarded as two important milestones in the erstwhile communist movement. It is evident that these two political events had succeeded to create all across the globe a new revolutionary wave in the erstwhile international communist movement, which was very weak from the standpoint of organisation and struggle.
No revolutionary can and should forget the ideological energy imparted to the entire party cadres and the Nepalese people in favour of new democratic revolution in Nepal by a revolutionary song, ‘Our red flag is flying in Peru’, sung at the time of initiation of people’s war in Nepal. Nor can and should a revolutionary forget the further ideological clarity that our party acquired from discussion and exchange of experiences among various revolutionaries all across the world. For a revolutionary the internal aspect is principal, but it is also clear that the deep discussions, interactions and debates that took place with the revolutionaries in India and those within RIM played an important role for the preparation of great people’s war in Nepal. Playing down it does not suit to a revolutionary.
New democratic revolution in Nepal is a part and parcel of the world proletarian revolution. All through the time of preparation, initiation and continuation of people’s war our party had seriously grasped that the Nepalese revolution serves the world proletarian revolution and vice versa. It is also clear that our party had seriously grasped the proletarian internationalism at that time. In addition to a PBM, deputation of five efficient cadres to work in the RIM clarifies how seriously our party had comprehended then the importance of proletarian internationalism. Together with our party, the entire RIM had served the world proletarian revolution by accomplishing important revolutionary tasks at that time. From the viewpoint of ideology, organisation and struggle, some of the tasks that RIM had accomplished in favour of the world communist movement and the new democratic revolution in Nepal can be listed as follows and they are very good examples of proletarian internationalism.
Firstly, the synthesis of Long Live: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which the second expanded meeting of the RIM reached to in 1993, has had an important ideological contribution to the contemporary world communist movement. This synthesis established that the terminology, Maoism, is an introduction of a revolutionary communist in the 21st century. Today, none can become a Marxist without becoming a Maoist. A genuine revolutionary can never minimise the vital role the RIM played in this regard.
Secondly, the formation of WPRM, which was organised from among the anti-imperialist political parties, forces and individuals all across the world, is another important international work on the part of RIM. In the context of Nepal, it had issued a slogan, Imperialism: hands off Nepal. And it is clear to all that the resistant movement launched on the basis of this slogan had played a vital role to defend the Nepalese revolution. In active participation of the RIM forces, the mass demonstration of more than fifty thousand people organised by “Solidarity campaign to support the people’s war in Nepal” on February 13, 2001 in Delhi not only challenged the Indian expansionism but also served Nepalese revolution by spreading revolutionary vigour among the revolutionary masses, cadres and the leaders as well in Nepal. Apart from that, this event had also been able to bring the revolutionary and anti-imperialist forces at one platform in India.
Thirdly, the role RIM played to unite the Maoist revolutionaries in India is vital. In India, armed clashes had been a regular phenomenon since long between the Maoist Communist Centre and the CPI (ML) (PW), two revolutionary communist parties of India. Although both of the central committees had regarded each other as revolutionary centres but the lower level committees had involved in armed clashes, a blemish for the Indian revolutionaries for long. The regional conference held in 1999 of the Maoist parties of South Asia called upon both the parties to stop the armed clashes unconditionally and unilaterally. Both of the centres accepted the call and then the clashes stopped. Not only that, the fraternal relation begun from this very event finally reached to party unity in September 2004. After the CPI (Maoist) was formed by way of unity between these two parties the Maoist movement in India has now become a formidable strength that is challenging the central power of India today.
Fourth, issue No. 28 of ‘A World to Win’, a magazine known to be ideologically close to RIM by writing a long analytical article entitled, “Look to the Himalayas: a new world is in the offing” played an vital role to make the world people know about the new democratic revolution in Nepal. During that period there was hardly an AWTW publication that did not have any material published on Nepal and Nepalese people’s war. We must admire the magazine, published in six different languages, for its role to make Nepalese revolution know to the world.
Fifth, while discussing the role of RIM in the context of new democratic revolution in Nepal, one cannot forget the international mass mobilization the RIM led at the time of building martyrs road in Rolpa. The joint action of well-dressed western revolutionary youths equipped with spade and shovel in their clean hands and Nepalese people with torn-clothes and cracked-legs in the operation of constructing Martyrs road had shown an unparalleled example of proletarian internationalism. Be it destruction of the old or construction of a new, the event of martyrs road, which disseminated a message that Nepalese people are not alone but revolutionaries the world over are with them, was a shocking news for the imperialists.
Sixth, after our party headquarters was shifted to Rolpa one of the leaders of RCP, USA, who was assigned to work in RIM, reached to Rolpa on foot to discuss the problems of the world communist movement in general and the Nepalese revolution in particular. When we heard from our chairman that the RCP leader embraced him saying that “I arrived at Rolpa, the place from where the proletarian revolution in the 21st century originated”, we expressed high regard to him for his unique example of the proletarian internationalism and we do now too. His high regard to the revolution in Nepal had made us feel that the task of accomplishing revolution in Nepal is upon our shoulder and so we feel now too.
However, along with unity our party had serious differences with RIM parties including RCP on various ideological and political issues and we have now too. Particularly, there are problems with the RCP on the question of understanding the dialectics between theory and practice. Among others, our party does not agree with the one-sided emphasis they lay on the development of theory. In spite of this dissension, it will be a blunder to minimise the positive role the RIM and RCP played to develop the revolution in Nepal. If someone does so, it will be simply a prejudice nothing other than that.
RIM had provided important help to our party at the time of initiation and continuation of people’s war, and on the other, they had and have been struggling on various theoretical questions even today. The secret and open letters of the RCP is an example. Before our party had entered into peace process, the RCP in a letter dated October 2005 had pointed out towards a danger that the concept of democratic republic, which comrade Baburam Bhattarai had put forward in an article headed ‘On a new type of state’, could entrap our party in a sub-stage of bourgeois democratic republic before new democracy. The party vaguely replied that letter and the party did not organise any discussion on the theoretical questions they had raised. The ideological and political debate going on in our party on this very question at present also shows how timely they had raised that theoretical question before us.
Before our party entered into peace process, our party had had regular ideological debates with Maoist revolutionaries in India and other parties in RIM, including the RCP. It is an indisputable fact that the Nepalese revolution had attained that height with the very strength of co-operation and collectivity of the ICM. In the situation when there were no established leaders like Lenin and Mao and socialist countries like Russia and China to support the communist movement, collectivity and mutual co-operation was the correct way of working for the communist revolutionaries. But the situation is quite different today.
After our party entered into peace process, the international work among the fraternal parties has become almost nil. Yesterday, our party used to cooperate with CPI (Maoist) while today this cooperation has started with the revisionist parties like CPI (Marxist) and SUCI. Our leadership, who used to lay a lot of emphasis on the international work in the past, hardly pays attention in it today. The words like RIM and CCOMPOSA might become today the words of terror for some comrades in our party. Fraternal parties have been raising a lot of questions with our party after we entered into the peace process. Our leadership does not think necessary to reply them rather he is fleeing away from the international debate. Why this? Why our chairman remains tight-lipped when one of the PBMs of our party, who claims ideologically and politically close to chairman, accuses in our party CC meeting that the RCP leader Bob Avakian is a CIA agent and another PBM writes in an article that Bob Avakian is a renegade? Should not our chairman speak on this?
With whom does one show his or her class partisanship in the international arena is a question related to proletarian Internationalism. Without a doubt, proletariat’s international class partisanship remains with proletariat and that of bourgeois with the bourgeoisie. With whom does he have his class partisanship, if not with the bourgeoisie, when a person who claims to be a leader of the proletariat accuses that a communist party leader of another country is a renegade or an enemy agent? How can a revolutionary cadre of our party see that our chairman is a proletarian internationalist leader if the later sides with those PBMs, who show their class partisanship with the bourgeois? Question is very serious.

Is he doing all this with no knowledge of what he is doing? Certainly not. Yesterday he was ideologically sound, so he was a proletarian internationalist leader, he saw the roles of RIM and RCP to be positive in favour of revolution and he also showed high regards to them. But today, he has undergone ideological deviation, so is hesitant to see his previous comrades as the comrades of today and yesterday’s enemies as the enemies of today. For him, yesterday’s friends seem to be like today’s enemies and vice versa. Why our party chairman, who sent a central representative along with a letter of condolence on the funeral day of the revisionist renegade Jyoti Basu, did not write a single word against the killing of the spokesperson of CPI (Maoist), comrade Azad, who was killed in cold blood by the enemy? In fact, bourgeois ultra-nationalism is gradually replacing proletarian internationalism in the thinking of our chairman, this is the reason.
The problem that our party and Nepalese revolution are confronting at present is the ideological one. Our party is going deeper and deeper to the quagmire of reformism because of the ideological deviation in our party’s main leadership. The vulgar evolutionism is gradually replacing Marxism and the bourgeois ultra-nationalism is slowly replacing proletarian internationalism in our party. The first step for the success of Nepalese revolution is to bring this situation to an end. And for that, the revolutionary transformation of our whole party in general and our chairman in particular is the first condition.
The objective situation is gradually becoming favourable for revolution. But, the subjective strength is very weak. Revolutionary transformation of the whole party including chairman, adoption of a correct ideological and political line, strong party unity based on it, formation of a broad united front amongst entire patriotic, progressive, leftist and revolutionary forces, a strong proletarian internationalist solidarity among Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties internationally, formation of an anti-imperialist united front among anti-imperialist forces in the international level etc. are the preliminary conditions to build up party’s subjective strength. By fulfilling these conditions the favourable objective situation can be transformed into revolution. To advance in this direction is the duty of the entire revolutionaries today.

July 10, 2011                                                              000

 

 

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

6 Responses to “‘Should not our chairman speak on this?’”

  1. Pratik says:

    This is why the inner party struggle is being raised in the party… and obviously one day Prachanda will fall down from the height and noone will be there for giving him stands.

  2. Divash Sharma says:

    I read the article with great interest. The analysis depicts the reality and diagnoses the issues of revolution with objectivity and fairness. However, the “revolutionary transformation of the whole party including chairman..” is just a subjective aspiration. The dilemma is that the revolutionaries inside the UCPN (M) wish to harvest a high quality apple from the bamboo grass. This is neither normal expectation nor possible. Nostalgia does not help, past could be recreated and transforming Khrushchev into Lenin is not possible. Therefore, if the revolutionaries inside the party fail to take out this “U” factor from U-CPN (M) and the revisionist ideology associated with it and could not get success to reorganize CPN (M) as a vibrant political vanguard, the political mess inside the party and in the country would continue. This is a simple fact, until now the revolutionaries have rejected to accept.

  3. Kumaraaditya says:

    Friend Divash I fully agree with you. Really transformation of Khrushchev into Lenin is not possible. But our revolutionary comrades are hoping such and such things. Now they are entrapped in doing nothing. To break the realition with the oppertunists is only the way to going a head.

  4. Divash Sharma says:

    A small correction in my post published above.
    The correct wording is as below:

    “Nostalgia does not help, past could not be recreated and transforming Khrushchev into Lenin is not possible.”

    I did mistake and left out “not” in between “past could” and “be recreated” in my initial posting. I regret for the error.

  5. Nick Brown says:

    I agree with Divash. From afar, it appears that the leadership of the UCPN sold out the revolution when they entered the peace process. They talked about preparing for a people’s revolt, but nothing really seemed to come of this. I know there were a couple left breakaway factions. I hope in the future Next Front covers what they are doing to try to advance the revolution. I certainly hope that the revisionists inside the UCPN can be swept aside so the revolution can be carried forward in Nepal.

  6. Roshan says:

    This poem was sent to the RED STAR some years ago, when i was working there, and was not published. it is written by a Maoist cultural front member, in English. the question this poem raises are still relevant, and I hope Prachanda and Bhattarai read it.

    Comrade!
    When you were in the street
    You spoke revolution
    Comrade!
    When you were in the slums
    You spoke liberation
    Comrade!
    When you were with the people
    Like the fish in the water
    You spoke Marxism
    You spoke Leninism
    You spoke Maoism
    You spoke so much
    Socialism and Communism
    And what not…

    But now Comrade!
    When you are in the chair
    You do not hear
    What the street is to say to you
    But now Comrade
    When you are in your heavenly kingdom
    You do not make the visit of the slums
    Even just to confirm
    Whether they are happily dead
    Or still alive
    But now Comrade!
    When you are in the palace
    You do not face the people
    Even just to ascertain
    What the complaint they are to place
    Frankly speaking,
    If you don’t mind
    What you were, Comrade, in the past
    You are not in the present
    You are wonderfully changed
    When nothing is changed
    With your kind permission
    May I ask you a crucial question?
    O Comrade!
    Are you still a Comrade,
    OR
    everything
    Except a Comrade?

Leave a Reply

See real websites hosted and built by iPage customers.