CPN-Maoist Clippings 11/12/2014


CPN-Maoist warns promulgating its own statute

KATHMANDU, Dec 11: The Mohan Baidya-led CPN-Maoist has made its view public on the contents of the constitution. Holding a press conference at the office of the Newa State Committee in Kupondole on Thursday, the party said it will promulgate its constitution by establishing people’s house of representative through people’s revolution. Addressing the press meet, Chairman Baidya remarked that the draft of the statute floated by their party will serve as an alternative for parties in the process of enforcing the new constitution through the Constituent Assembly (CA). Stressing that they are not interested in the CA, Baidya said, “We don’t have any relation with this process. We will now draft constitution through people’s revolution.”

The CPN-Maoist has proposed unicameral legislative, fully proportional electoral system and people- oriented judiciary in its statute. “We have proposed the people’s house of representative without opposition,” party’s secretary Dev Gurung said, “Our conclusion is that parliamentary system has weakened the national pride.” On federalism, the party has proposed 14 federal provinces as suggested though majority by the State Restructuring Committee of the erstwhile CA. It has also proposed forming council of ministers from people’s house of representatives, while president will be selected through two-third majority of central and provincial house of representatives. Likewise, it has proposed sealing Indo-Nepal border and annulling the 1950 Sughauli Treaty with India.



Should Nepal Maoist party run under dictates of single individual?

TGQ1: Just within two years of Maoists party split, your party has once again met with the same fate? Why? What is your comment on the fresh split in your party? It is talked that he wanted to summon the extended plenum of the CC but instead you convened the PB meet and thus encouraged him to go berserk?

Baidya: I think, he has committed a blunder. The one who had preferred the convening of the party’s Central Committee, he himself remained absent in the said CC meet. He have had forwarded some proposals at the party meet and the party meet had adequate discussion on his proposal. Having all these, he suddenly forwarded a letter wherein he had declared a split. With such acts the party doesn’t run. We had already initiated discussions and special convention had also been summoned.

The delay was for about six or seven months. During these months, he and his friends got nervous and split the party to form yet another party. That they should have not done. We presume that he and his colleagues shall correct the mistakes. As regards this question, well, that is completely an incorrect version indeed. We summoned the full CC meet as per their demand. And he also participated in that CC meet. It is not appropriate to blame us when he participated in the meet and alleged that he for one had not demanded the said meet. It is not fair. This attitude is not acceptable. He has put his views inside the party meet and while expressing his opinions, he had not talked that he is about to split the party. But all of a sudden he took a different decision. This has surprised us many inside the party.

TGQ2: But it is rumored that you blamed him-Netra Bikram. Is that correct? And it is also in the rumor that you have abandoned the line of people’s democracy? How you comment?

Baidya: In politics, talks are based on attitudes rather than making personal comments. They too have talked on these lines during the party meet. Yes! Indeed at times talks are there about the lapses and weaknesses. He too had put his views and pinpointed others’ mistakes and lapses. He should have not left the meet which he had himself summoned. He should have not left for district by leaving the party assemblage. Party’s structured line is to initiate debates and abide by the party’s majority outcome or say results.

Had we done so, we could have steered the party through forging unity. But he and his colleagues took completely a wrong step and exhibited arrogance/adamancy. This is what we have felt. If you do not abide by the majority decision then that is taken to have gone against the party’s structured policies. That is also an incorrect allegation. It is not that what is being said of. What could be more a people’s democratic line than to propose that put your views in front of the party and suggesting all to discuss on those issues in question?

Should it be taken as an act of abandoning people’s democracy when we have said that let’s find out any lapses or weaknesses and then come to a final conclusion? Had we in an autocratic manner did not allow them to air or ventilate their differing views then it would have been an act wherein he could have found some space for hurling allegations. Those allegations are incorrect ones.

TGQ3: We have been told that you act verbatim to what Ram Bahadur Thapa suggests you to do?

Baidya: A party is run by collective decisions and this is how the party organization should function. . It is not a question of thinking of one’s personal elevation and such acts must be abandoned. If the party is run under some one’s whims then the party organization becomes pretty weak which also denies the collective leadership theory while running a party. You boycott the party meet, refrain from attending the meet and you just put the blames onto the heads of others.

Biplav has said many a times that the party should run by the proposals that he has forwarded. But should the party run under the dictates of a single individual? It is not a fair play to split the party when he was denied majority for his decisions. If it is done so then the party sans two struggle line theory. A party must discuss all the proposals and finally adopt those one which enjoys the majority votes from the party. But Biplavjee has committed grave blunders. He split the party when his proposals were left in minority.

TGQ4: So how many Maoists party will this country have in all? But you differ in working procedures and thus how you could go along with?

Baidya: We the real and honest revolutionaries are determined to form a single Communist center in Nepal. Though Biplav jee has split the party and has left us yet we shall bring in him along with us in the said center. I think it is the demand of the time. We shall make sincere efforts in bringing in Biplav Jee with us. Yes! We have been in discussions and debate on this issue. He says that his words should be taken as final. In a party there prevails centrality of people’s democracy. They should correct their weaknesses and begin discussions and debates. If done so then that strengthens the party organization which later also facilitates the party decisions to come into active actions and implementation.

TGQ5: So whom do you find closer? Biplav or Prachanda?

Baidya: It doesn’t matter who is close or at a distance? What is important is to understand as to who’s views were what? How do they perceive the question of Nepal’s national sovereignty? How they view the rights of the people? It is all these which determines who is near or at a distance? All that the need is to make efforts serving the people and that of the nation in an aggressive revolutionary manner. This will lead us to toe the line of the Maoists’ demand. Obviously, whosoever come in that manner, whether it be Biplav or Chairman Prachanda, we will go along with them.

Text courtesy. The jan Dharana Weekly December 5. 2014:


This entry was posted in resistance, war and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.