Netra Bikram Chanda ‘Biplav’
With the failure in the revolution, several of the questions and suspicions have been raised on the forthcoming revolution and the revolutionary leaders. It is the responsibility of the leaders to address and response on such questions and suspicions. They need to response them not only for the single time, but time and again. Several of the questions and doubts have been raised on the Nepalese revolution because of the deviation of Prachand- Baburam and adverse circumstances befallen on the Nepalese Revolution.
Several of the statement on the revolutions have been raised: “No-longer the former mode of revolution is possible in Nepal”, “The former mode of people’s revolution and armed struggle is not possible”, “We need not think on running the revolution in the traditional method”, “The revolution should be thought to be launched in the unique method” and so many others. We Maoists should give its correct answer. Generally, several of such propagation and logics have been raised from the side of reactionaries, revisionist and parliamentary parties and groups. Similarly, these base- less assumptions raised on the revolution are not new at the context of Nepal.
Such logics have been appeared, at the time, when the revolutionaries have been trying their best to practically implement the principles of the revolution, emphasizing on the class struggle and armed struggle. In the history, Dr. Kesharjung Raimajhi, the then general secretary of CPN, went to the side of palace in 1962 AD, using his fictitious logic that revolution is not possible just imitating the foreigners and thinking in the traditional way.
The same logic was used to insult the ‘Jhapa-Insurgence’ of 2028, and the then CPN (ML) deviated to be CPN(UML) with its principle of ‘Multiparty People’s Democracy’. At the time, of 1996 AD, when CPN (Maoist) announced to launch the People’s War, some of the ‘commu- nists’ forwarded their logic– ‘The revolution is not possible just with mechanical imitation of Chairman Mao, or forcefully imposing politics of weapon upon the people’, ‘Working for revolution is good, but is should be launched with the unique method taking the global circumstances and specialties of Nepalese society into consideration.
Even in the struggle after the April movement in Nepal (of 2006AD) similar logic has been put forward, just to enter into the parliamentarianism. With the help of this same logic, many of the small and split- groups of communist party have been fallen down into the parliamentarianist, capitalist and revisionist deviation. Now, when the CPN (Maoist) has been reorganized and preparing for the armed struggle, same logic has been raised again–”Revolution is not possible in the traditional method it should be launched in the new way”. The reactionaries, parliamentarianists, and reformists have been rumoring such fictitious confusion, and the rightist-surrenders are at its helm.
Sometimes, the impact of such logic is so intensive that, even the comrades of the revolutionary line might be pushed into the confusion. The underlying intention after their forcefully raising such logic is completely unexpected and different one. First CPN-(Maoist) has participated in the peace-process postponing the people’s war, and the country is in the transitional phase. Second, the parliamentarianist parties as Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) have hatched the conspiracy upon the issues of the people’s war, which were settled at the peace process. Third, one of the groups of the leadership of CPN (Maoist) has been deviated from the revolutionary spirit and has surrendered in front of the reactionary state and foreign masters. Fourth, because of this deviation, CPN (Maoist) has been divided and the party has been reorganized as the CPN-Maoist.
This reorganized party has approved its party line: People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War. Sixth, Nepalese revolution and counter-revolution have been facing each-other, and the masters of the old state have known this truth. In conclusion, a futile effort has been made to liquidize the Great People’s War in the conspiracy of the reactionary and surrendering elements. The history has imparted the revolutionary of this time to bear up the responsibility of launching the people’s war forward correcting all of these conspiracies and deceptions.
From this perspective, these logics and propaganda–”The revolution in Nepal is not possible in the traditional method”, “The traditional method of People’s War, or the armed struggle is not possible”, “The revolution of Nepal should be launched forward in unique way” are evil and ill-intended targeting against the renovated propagation of the revolution. The evidence of the history say that, same logic was used even at the case of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik Party of Lenin.
This logic was widely raised just after the failure of the revolution of 1905 AD launched by Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Lenin. All the opportunists and rightists were arguing that it was wrong to launch the revolution. Plekhanov in his note of decent, ‘Herostretian’, “Arms shouldn’t have been raised”.
Lenin ‘ in his article ‘Evaluation of Russian Revolution’ has mentioned : No one in Russia would now dream of making a revolution according to Marx… No one in Russia would now dream of making a revolution according to Marx…Today all and sundry are talking about the assimilation and critical evalu- ation of the experience of the revolution. Socialists and liberals talk about it. Op- portunists and revolutionary Social-Democrats talk about it. But not all understand that it is between the two opposites above-mentioned that all the multiform recipes for assimilation of the experience of the revolution fluctuate. Not all put the question clearly: is it the experience of the revolutionary struggle which we must assimilate, and help the masses to assimilate, for the purpose of a more consistent, stubborn and resolute fight; or is it the “experiment” of Cadet betrayal of the revolution that we must assimilate and pass on to the masses?1
Responding to those who have been crying, ‘Revolution should not have been launched in Russia’, Lenin told, Launching revolution was good, but certainly, there was some mistake, the revolution can be led to the success, correcting some of the mistakes there. Lenin wrote, “The struggle of December is the most essential, most valid, and largest proletariat struggle. Similarly, the working class of Russia, will be educated in similar ideologies, whatever the propaganda they have raised from the side of social democrats, however lauder the mourning they make.” Lenin, on the weaknesses of the insurrection, has mentioned: The struggle of December 1905 proved that armed uprising can be victorious in modern conditions of military technique and military organisation. As a result of the December struggle the whole international labour movement must henceforth reckon with the probability of similar forms of fighting in the coming proletarian revolutions. These are the conclusions which really follow from the experience of our revolution: these are the lessons which the broadest masses of the people should assimilate.2
Similarly, negative propagation was raised at the context of Chinese Revolution and in the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung. It was mentioned over there – When the Chinese Revolution got failure, because of the leftist mistake of Li Li San in 1930 and others ‘leftist’ opportunist mistakes, not only the question was raised, but the pessimism on the revolution was widely spread. Addressing on such situation, Mao stated: The Kuomintang’s three “suppression” campaigns against the Chingkang Mountains was the high water mark reached by the counter-revolutionary tide. But there it stopped, and since then the counter-revolutionary tide has gradually receded while the revolutionary tide has gradually risen. Although our Party’s fighting capacity and organizational strength have been weakened to the extent described by the Central Committee, they will be rapidly restored, and the passivity among comrades in the Party will quickly disappear as the counter-revolutionary tide gradually ebbs.3 Mao has mentioned that similar kind of difficult situation was seen at the adversities, raised by the Japanese attack over China.
Every Chinese suffering from the disasters of the war and fighting for the sur- vival of his nation daily yearns for victory. But what actually will be the course of the war? Can we win? Can we win quickly? Many people are talking about a protracted war, but why is it a protracted war? How to carry on a protracted war? Many people are talking about final victory, but why will final victory be ours? How shall we strive for final victory? Not everyone has found answers to these questions; in fact, to this day most people have not done so. Therefore the defeatist exponents of the theory of national subjugation have come forward to tell people that China will be subjugated, that final victory will not be China’s.
On the other hand, some impetuous friends have come forward to tell people that China will win very quickly without having to exert any great effort. But are these views correct? We have said all along they are not. However, most people have not yet grasped what we have been saying. This is partly because we did not do enough propaganda and explanatory work, and partly because the development of objective events had not yet fully and clearly revealed their inherent nature and their features to the people, who were thus not in a position to foresee the over-all trend and the outcome and hence to decide on a complete set of policies and tactics.4
While at the process of giving solution to the problems seen in the revolution, giving the instances of Russia and China, the logics of several categories including old and new, traditional and unique, mechanical and creative have been raised, they have single gist, they are not ready to raise the challenge of the revolution at any cost. They admire the greatness of the revolution, but at deviated from the intensity of the war. From this perspective, several of such logics fabricated to show the adversity for the revolution, raised in the country and abroad both are baseless. While closely observing them:
First, the logic that the revolution is not possible from the traditional method is philosophically wrong. The logic, whether the revolution should be launched in the traditional method or new method should be searched for, is opposite to the Dialectical Materialist view and it is rather metaphysical. Dialectical Materialist view is scientific, because it believes that the society, state, politics and things all are in the incessant process of change. When each and every thing is in the motion, how can the revolution be old or new?
Even if makes such logic, it is baseless and observes the things as the static and motionless situation. Even if one advocates against the law of change and innovation of the thing, it is the production of the ignorance. We should save our thinking from such logics which are against the true nature of the object. Second, just talking for the genuine revolution keeping aside the truth, which political context the people’s war or the people’s insurrection are being launched in, are subjective and are against the materialism.
Moreover, it is not to understand the alphabet of the political-line. Because, just discussion on this or that method of the revolution, without having the knowledge on the foundation of determining the party-line is being subjective and baseless, and it has no meaning on the revolution. When the party-line can’t be objective, even if the party or leader orally makes leftist logic, is rightist in political doings. Even today, we are at the stage of the New Democratic Revolution, where the comprador capitalist and feudal remainings should be solved the first.
To say it more concretely, we are at the stage of converting the old state into people’s state. In this sense, the party- line in Nepal, should be party-line of the People’s War. However, because of the political transition of Nepal, and the crisis created by the deception of the parliamentarian parties of Nepal, the possibility of people’s revolt has been created more. We need to take into consideration, if this crisis doesn’t continue, the possibility of the revolt also doesn’t continue. Therefore, the party-line People’s revolt on the foundation of People’s War is objective and scientific.
Whatever the party-line is objective and true, that is unique as well. It is Marx- ism that combines objectivity and uniqueness. Separating them is opportunism. Third, it is against Marxism to deviate from the objective foundation at the time of making party-line. We have not come to find new party-line renouncing the people’s war or saying the people’s war impossible while coming to the peace-process. Rather, we have come here to complete the people’s war, linking it with the city.
However, the Prachand- Baburam clique dissolved the people’s war and its foundations with a conspiracy. At this point, we need to pay out attention, that, they didn’t say the people’s war to be unnecessary and wrong, rather trying once for the people’s revolt, if got failure, then giving continuity to the people’s war. But when they deceived on it, two-line struggle was intensified in the party, and reorganization of the party itself became necessity.
The revolutionaries here need to understand that we have not protested Prachand-Baburam not as the protest of the individual, neither is it because of our envy to their facility, status and emotional protest. It is clear like day-light truth that we have been separated from them, because, they had abandoned all revolutionary thought, politics, people, revolution and all. We want to com- plete and succeed the people’s war not through the compromise, but through the people’s pressure. Therefore, the party-line which was at the stage of implementation can certainly not be the out-dated party-line. Fourth, it has already been proved that, the state of Nepal is impossible to convert from the parliamentarian politics.
For the proletariat to lead the state-power, the PLA is essential and armed struggle is inevitable. The armed struggle signifies that it is the line of people’s war, and the line of revolt. They are different forms of armed struggle. No other more unique formula can we get to dissolve the old state-power and give birth to the new state-power. Otherwise, talking for the unique revolution, being deviated from this truth is just an intention to deviate the expectation of the revolution to the world of imagination. Therefore, it can’t be out-dated. A question might be raised, whether the revolution can’t be unique, objective and innovative?
Certainly, it should be. There is no debate on it. The revolution of any country should match with the social, economic and political characteristics there. It should include the relationships of working class people and rulers, workers and masters, exploited and exploiters. Some of these factors of one country do not match with the next. In some of the countries, there is majority of the peasants; some others have the majority of the labors. In some parts the conflict between the peasants and landlord is the dominant, in some other parts, the conflict between employers and employee. In some part, the civil war is dominant, in some other parts, the struggle of the national sovereignty.
In some country, the settlement of the people is unitary, in other country, there is multi-characteristics of the people. Some countries have small geography, while others have large geography. Some have the feudalist mode of production, some others have the capitalist mode of production. While systematizing the revolution of the country, only after keeping such objective features of the country, we can determine the correct the party-line, strategy, tactics and work- plan. Only when we are able to identify the political and economic characteristics of the country objectively, we can prepare for the revolution accordingly.
Then the party-line and guide-line automatically becomes the unique and determine the guideline of the revolution accordingly, and they become successful as well. However, if we just talk for the uniqueness of the revolution, and if we are not able to identify them objectively, the thought, party-line and work-plan can never be the genuine (new) . While talking on the unique , whatever we talk on it, we can be unique only to that extent, which the law of class-struggle of the society allows us. We can never achieve the absolute and abstract uniqueness away from class ideology and class-interest. Searching for the abstract uniqueness out off the class-interest is like trying to fly going against the law of gravity, which becomes the desire against the objective law. Now, let’s seen the uniqueness linking it with the absence of revolution at present– was the people’s war conducted in Nepal not unique?
Is this situation the result with the failure of the party-line of the people’s war? Or have we come to this point while searching for the different and unique party-line? Do we need to have a separate party-line different from the people’s-war, is it possible to achieve? While observing it deeply, some people are bearing such of the thoughts. To some extent they have anarchism, which is utterly wrong. In our evaluation, the people’s war launched in Nepal is unique and objective on the ground of class-struggle of Nepal.
Second, we did not come to the peace-process because people’s war was non-objective, and got failure, rather we have come to the peace-process to complete it rising into new height. For some years of the peace-process, we had thought– if possible making the radical change through this transition, otherwise, developing the people’s war to the new height of people’s insurrection. This policy is still correct. Third, we have not come to change the party-line seeing the people’s war, impossible. We had come to this process with the conclusion that it is correct to capture the state-poser linking the rural people’s war with the city.
Some of the leaders, particularly, Prachand and his accomplices, have been making fictitious logic that we have come to the peace-process after getting failure in the people’s war, particularly, at the incident of Khara. It is utterly a deception to the sacrifice of the people. According to the data of our commander Comrades, about 85 percent of the battles we had fought were won. Only 15 percent of the battles were defeated. While seeing the casualties at the battle, keeping aside the case of the general public, the combatants of people’s liberation army had very little loss. On the other hand, Chunwang Meeting held after the Khara incident, people’s liberation army has been developed into the size of seven divisions and a military campaign has been launched forward to hit on the head of the old state just standing on its back.
That campaign gained glorious success with its area raid from Palpa to Sunwal. If the battle was defeated or the people’s war had been weak, why did Prachanda develop the PLA from three divisions to seven divisions? Why did he command thousands of PLAs to attack over the Army of the old state? But he can’t answer such question, because these decisions made by him were nothing but dishonest and deception. However, the reality is different. Since 2060 BS (2004AD) People’s Liberation Army was at the stage of strategic counter offense, it was not been weak, rather it was being stronger and stronger. It is not our fictitious logic, rather it is the stated saying of Prachand.
As it has been mentioned over there: “The divisions of People’s Liberation Army, under all three command of the country, have achieved the series of the successful raid over the Royal army in the Terai and Higway, and contributed to raise the fortified war into a new height.”….. “Based on several of our experience we can come to the conclusion that the first work-plan of the counter-offense has achieved the success fundamentally.” Moreover, Prachand’s evaluation the first planning the successful, postulating the second work-plan of the counter-offense and wrote on the military- target, “Trying to add four more divisions in the structure of People’s Liberation Army.” similarly, “Emphasizing to develop insurrectional military through the process of the decentralized, fortified, mobile, and guerrilla actions.” (Political Document of Chunwang CC Meeting) The revolution in Nepal is inevitable, and they will be conducted in the unique way. However, that unique is not abstract, rather it is successfully completing the people’s revolt on the foundation of people’s war; it is unique in Nepalese context.
Then we can argue, wasn’t it the conclusion of Palungtar Plenum, wasn’t it formulated by Prachand himself? We are not arguing here on the old and new. Our concern is whether the principle is objective, practical and correct or not. It can’t be the old method just because People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War, was mentioned in Palungtar Plenum at the presence of Prachanda. It was objective party-line postulated with the objective of maintaining the party revolutionary, and to accomplish the revolution successfully with thoughtful planning. It was postulated with the objective of stopping Prachanda and Baburam’s plot of dissolving the People’s Liberation Army and submitting the weapon and completing the revolution protecting the People’s Liberation Army, and it was true. Therefore, the principle of People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War is not new.
At this time, our People’s Liberation Army has been dissolved and a large portion of weapon has been submitted. However, it’s our concern to re-organize the dissolved People’s Liberation Army, and completing the Physical preparation. We know it well that it is impossible to complete the people’s revolt without the ground of people’s war in Nepal. It is just waste of time to think the possibility of revolt in Nepal, without the relation of the decade-long people’s war in Nepal and its impact, as well as its’ achievement.
In other words, it is being fictitious and Utopian Socialist to think the classical insurrection in Nepal like in Russia. It is utterly impossible. We need to understand that naturally our country needs to go through ‘People’s War’. However, at the special context of the present time, we are saying revolt , only in the sense that there is possibility of organizing the revolt in especial way, when the Ten-Years’ People’s War has achieved something. People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War is new and special synthesis of the revolution.
This is the right way to understand it. Otherwise, people’s revolt without people’s war is nothing but fictitious imagination. Some people are arguing the revolution can’t move forward, and it can’t earn the people’s participation. Lenin has mentioned clearly, remembering the incident of 1905: “… on the day after the onset of the revolution in 1905, there was striking evidence, and there is still evidence, of the illusions of petty-bourgeois opportunism, which hoped to achieve a compromise without a struggle, feared a struggle and after the first defeat hastened to re- nounce its own past, poisoning the public atmosphere with despondence, faint-heartedness and apostasy.”5 Clarifying the reality that after the petty-bourgeoisie set back from the revolution, and they deceived it, the responsibility of the labors has increased on it: ” And therefore on the Russian working class there has devolved with particular force the task of preserving the traditions of revolutionary struggle which the intellectuals and the petty bourgeoisie are hastening to renounce, developing and strengthening these traditions, imbuing with them the consciousness of the great mass of the people, and carrying them forward to the next inevitable upsurge of the democratic movement.”
Moreover, reenergizing those who were discouraged seeing the failure of the revolution, Lenin wrote with full confident to the revolution: “The factory owners have taken away what we won, the foremen are once again bullying us, just wait, 1905 will come again….Just wait, 1905 will come again. That is how the workers look at things.” In his article ‘Problems of strategy in China’s revolutionary War’, Mao has clearly mentioned emphasizing on the believe to the revolution and seeing the possibilities: “The revolution got failure, the deception of the capitalist in power was its primary cause, and the opportunists at the helm of the revolution deliberately left the leadership of the revolution.” Emphasizing on the inevitability of the possibility of the revolution, Mao clarified more in the article: ‘Problems of strategy in China’s revolutionary War’ that “Some of the comrades of our party have yet not understood correctly, how to make correct analysis of the present context, and how to analyze them. Though they believe on the inevitability of the revolutionary upheaval, but don’t believe it will be soon”.
Mao had strong belief on the revolution, with a saying that ‘A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire’ and wrote: ”We have also known that the outbreak of the revolution is essential against the Imperialist war-lords and land-lords. It will soon be appeared. Whole china is like the pile of dry firewood, it will set fire soon.” Clarifying the victory of the revolution, stated in his famous article ‘On Protracted War’, “We can take all aforesaid as the political and military short-sightedness. Though appeared most appropriate they are void and baseless. Throwing the void thinking into the garbage and running the revolution in the right way is to lead the revolution to the success.”
Let’s talk on the possibility of the revolution of our country. Will the revolutionary force, class or community get confused; just bear the meaningless life, just searching for confused ‘new’ monolithic insurrection? It is far from truth. The people will directly participate at the revolutionary process, so far analyzed and objectively proved true. They will move forward to the direction, from where the suppression over them can be finished. The relatively true and objective way for this is nothing but People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War. In the countries like ours, we can say it the strategic counter-offense.
When the political, economic, and social relationship of Nepal accepts the people’s war and the objective party-line of the People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War at the special present context, and adapts them, we can slam on those who have escaped away from the revolution saying, “Those who have been protesting against the people’s war, those who are saying People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War the old, those who have been rumoring the confusion among the people, please just wait for a short while, wait that time, the upheaval is very near in Nepal, the People’s revolt on the foundation of the People’s War is inevitable. That revolt will wipe-away all the deceptions, all the ill-intentions, all the hypocrisies, and opportunist rumors, and would lead the people to the great victory of the history. It will complete the pious desire of the liberation, independence and transformation of the Nepalese people.
(It is the slightly edited version of the article “Maulik Kranti’ Ra Nepalma Nayan Janawadi Krantiko Prashna” (“Unique Revolution” and the question of New Democratic Revolution) published in the Nepalese Vernacular Magazine Communist Outlook. Thanks friend Shusil Bhattarai for the English translation.)
1 V.I. Lenin: Collected works, V 15, 4th edition (Masco : Progress Publishers,1963), p.55/56.
2 Lenin- ibid, P. 60.
3 Mao tse-Tung: ‘A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire’, Selected Works of Mao-tse Tung, Vol 1, 2nd edition, (Peking : Foreign Language Press: 1967), p.127/128.
4 Mao tse-tung, ‘On Protracted People’s war’ Selected Workas of Mao Tse-tung, Vo. 2.( Peking : Foreign Language Press, 1967), p.114.
5 Lenin : Opcit, p 52.