FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 

Revolutions and even near-revolutions are earthmoving events that leave a profound mark on any society. They change basic norms, redefining the social modus operandi, and just as often turn against their own children like the mythical Saturn. In Nepal, one can see how an almost-brought-to-completion revolution – led by a powerful and creative Maoist movement – has produced divisions among its leaders who are now desperately trying to regroup, reorganize, and get moving again.

I have come to Nepal from Venezuela to learn about and above all learn from the revolutionary experience here, thinking about how it might shed light on my own Latin American context and the challenges our revolutionary processes are facing. Like Latin America’s republics, the Nepali nation-state has an approximately two-hundred-year history, and it is one of repeated waves of struggle. A tumbling of the Rana oligarchy in 1951 led to a brief-democracy, followed by four decades of the Panchayat system of absolute monarchy. In 1990, pressure from a wide political front forced the monarchy to open up to formal, multiparty democracy again.

This is when Nepal’s Maoist revolutionary movement really got going, though its roots date back at least to the 1960s. From the beginning, fortuitously or not, the Nepalese Maoists saw the emptiness of the representative democracy taking shape in their country in the post-Cold War era. When their 40-Point Demand for social, economic and political justice was not met, they launched a People’s War that lasted from 1996 to 2006.

As is the Maoist custom, they established rural base areas and emancipatory forms of self-government, most often in regions with significant indigenous-janajati populations. They raised the banners of federalism and indigenous rights, calling for a “New Democracy” that would stamp out the remains of Hindu feudalism in Nepalese society. That platform was to be the first step in a long march toward socialism.

Success followed success for the Maoists despite growing US intervention after 9/11 and the calculated anti-terrorist hoopla that came with it. By 2004, the Nepali Maoists had come to exercise relative control over more than 80 percent of the national territory. Royal power suddenly ended in 2006 when a broad front involving both Maoists and non-Maoists staged a massive general strike. Still, the complicated peace process that ensued brought with it a “shifting of goalposts”: the objectives of constituent assembly and federal republic stole center stage from New Democracy as the main Maoist goal (I am simplifying radically).

Bogged down by a slow peace process and a not-very-satisfactory constituent assembly, the Maoist movement fractured into diverse strands. The three main leaders that include Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal), Kiran (Mohan Baidya), and Baburam Battarai went their separate ways. Kiran was the first to leave. This respected intellectual – his nom de guerre means “light ray” – separated in 2012 claiming that New Democracy (democracy without feudal elements and comprador capitalists) was still the goal.

Several years later Baburam left, who had been key to the movement’s outreach to Nepal’s growing middle class, among other important roles. He now heads up the Naya Shakti (New Force) party. Once part of the Kiran fraction, Biplav (Netra Bikram Chand) also took his leave. He is now forging a growing movement of youth and former Maoist combatants, who think about returning to armed struggle.

Meanwhile, the Maoist party’s supreme leader Prachanda ably changed horses and organized a fusion with UML, Nepal’s traditional parliamentary communist party, to form NCP (Nepal Communist Party). Since early this year, that party has ruled in Nepal, with K. P. Oli as Prime Minister for now and Prachanda in the offing.

A revolutionary event of this kind – like the Nepali Maoist’s meteoric rise – is usually said to mark “a before and an after.” Yet the “after” can mean quite different things depending on the individual or tendency involved. For some, the “after” might amount to fully entering the political gamesmanship of Nepal’s booming capital city. For others, it might mean retrenching to a still-valid orthodoxy (Kiran). Again, others have begun a process of soul-searching that attempts, perhaps with false starts, to develop new theory addressing the new conditions (Biplav and Baburam).

In his time, Mao Zedong discovered a principle valid for every revolutionary movement. His discovery was that there will be more than one line of struggle in a party, and it makes no sense to eliminate the visible heads of (what one sees as) an incorrect, revisionist line. The party need not divide over these issues but should permit struggle within. This is because struggle among tendencies is endemic to the popular movement. It is not solved by eliminating leaders, as Stalin thought.

When I spoke with Kiran in his home in the northern outskirts of Kathmandu, he explained that one of the still-to-be resolved issues for Nepal’s Maoist movement is the question of how precisely to manage inner-party struggle. Allowing for all the difficulties of simultaneous translation, I render his thought as follows:

How do you carry out inner-party struggle? What is the modality for conducting it? And the other thing is that, during the course of the movement, people, cadres, leaders could also get deviated. There will be deviations of various kinds. So how do you correct and what measures do you take?

Revolutionaries of the world, including those of Latin America and my own home turf Venezuela, take note! Our movements have not been sufficiently respectful of inner-party struggle, tending to silence internal dissent and debate. Yet the Nepali Maoists, whose debate is alive, even if now from separate camps, have a lesson for us: quelling such struggle and debate is, if not the death of a revolutionary party, at least a serious weakness!

Meanwhile Biplav, whom some accuse of eclecticism, is trying to revitalize and revive the revolutionary movement in the fullest sense. This somewhat younger leader is calling for a “Unified People’s Revolution,” which in a heterodox way accepts a more central role for the middle class and skilled workers in the struggle. He also believes that we live in a world of “post-imperialism” (which in my view would better be called “new imperialism”). His group has developed the term to mark the changes occurring since Lenin’s famous essay on the subject.

Whatever the theoretical bones one might have to pick with Biplav’s tendency – and remembering that Marx himself said that a single concrete step forward in the real movement is worth a dozen programs – this leader is advancing on the ground. Charismatic, Biplav is strong in the western Ropla region, which was the original Maoist base area. He is going forward despite persecution by the state, and even Kiran, who thinks Biplav is somewhat theoretically haywire, says his movement is impressive and has its own strengths.

Will the old mole of the Nepali revolution, now gone underground, emerge again? Of course, no one can know for sure. Still, one can see that a varied group of leaders are now engaged in the patient work that Marx would likely consider good “burrowing.” Every revolutionary I have spoken with here has said that “objective revolutionary conditions” abound, including poverty, “feudal remnants,” and Indian and U.S. domination. As far as subjective conditions are concerned, which refers to the people and movements who will actually make the needed changes, at least the diverse tendencies are hard at work forging them.

This article originally appeared in Monthly Review Online

 

 

 

More articles by:

Chris Gilbert is professor of political science in the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela.

November 20, 2018
John Davis
Geographies of Violence in Southern California
Anthony Pahnke
Abolishing ICE Means Defunding it
Maximilian Werner
Why (Mostly) Men Trophy Hunt: a Biocultural Explanation
Masturah Alatas
Undercutting Female Circumcision
Jack Rasmus
Global Oil Price Deflation 2018 and Beyond
Geoff Dutton
Why High Technology’s Double-Edged Sword is So Hard to Swallow
Binoy Kampmark
Charges Under Seal: US Prosecutors Get Busy With Julian Assange
Rev. William Alberts
America Fiddles While California Burns
Forrest Hylton, Aaron Tauss and Juan Felipe Duque Agudelo
Remaking the Common Good: the Crisis of Public Higher Education in Colombia
Patrick Cockburn
What Can We Learn From a Headmaster Who Refused to Allow His Students to Celebrate Armistice Day?
Clark T. Scott
Our Most Stalwart Company
Tom H. Hastings
Look to the Right for Corruption
Edward Hunt
With Nearly 400,000 Dead in South Sudan, Will the US Finally Change Its Policy?
Thomas Knapp
Hypocrisy Alert: Republicans Agreed with Ocasio-Cortez Until About One Minute Ago
November 19, 2018
David Rosen
Amazon Deal: New York Taxpayers Fund World Biggest Sex-Toy Retailer
Sheldon Richman
Art of the Smear: the Israel Lobby Busted
Chad Hanson
Why Trump is Wrong About the California Wildfires
Dean Baker
Will Progressives Ever Think About How We Structure Markets, Instead of Accepting them as Given?
Robert Fisk
We Remember the Great War, While Palestinians Live It
Dave Lindorff
Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security
Rick Baum
What Can We Expect From the Democrat “Alternative” Given Their Record in California?
Thomas Scott Tucker
Trump, World War I and the Lessons of Poetry
John W. Whitehead
Red Flag Gun Laws
Newton Finn
On Earth, as in Heaven: the Utopianism of Edward Bellamy
Robert Fantina
Shithole Countries: Made in the USA
René Voss
Have Your Say about Ranching in Our Point Reyes National Seashore
Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail