Rishi Raj Baral, Central Committee Member of CPN-Maoist
At the outset, I would like to announce that from today, I came to the point of real rupture with the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, led by Mohan Baidhya ‘Kiran’. It was Chunwang Meeting that the Party leadership led by Prachand-Baburam led the Party in the wrong direction— towards the bourgeois democracy. Then in the name of ”peace process’ Prachanda -Baburam surrendered themselves in the service of imperialism and Indian expansionism. After that, one after another they wiped out the whole achievements, including People’s Army, achieved during the 10 years People’s War. In essence, they betrayed the Nepalese revolution–the glorious history made by the oppressed people of Nepal.
Then it was necessary to follow the teachings of MLM, that—”It is right to rebel.” Then we organized national gathering and formed a new Party in the leadership of Com. Mohan Baidhya ‘Kiran’. After the formation of new Party we wanted something different. We wanted a new type of Party, filled with revolutionary enthusiasm. But it was a matter of sorrow that, Party could not succeed to take the new step. Baidhya leadership collectively (leadership means not a single person, but the top leadership as a whole) could not lead the party in the revolutionary direction. After the National Gathering they hastily registered the Party in the reactionary election commission.
Some of the senior leaders, including General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’, began to plead to join the government. They put the proposal to form the government in the leadership of Shusil Koirala, leader of reactionary party Nepali Congress. Regarding these issues two line struggle sharpened within the Party rank and file. To solve the ideological-political and organizational issues, Party decided to organize the 7th National Congress. But the National Congress also could not succeed to solve the problems. Instead of solving the problems there arose new type of problems. Particularly regarding the Party’s ideological and political line there was sharp two line struggle within the Party.
Concentrating on the Party’s ideological and political line, international communist movement and identity based politics, I submitted a note of dissent, which was elaborated in 45 points. In fact, 7th National Congress could not succeed to solve the ideological-political and organizational issues. Party’s political line and the team of leadership both came into the boundary of debate and discussion. Party’s line, ‘Peoples Revolt on the Foundation of Peoples War’, which was forcefully passed in the Convention, was the result of political compromise. It was not only ambiguous, but contradictory also. It resulted another CC Meeting to resolve the problem, which is known as Pokhara Meeting.
There was a sharp and harsh two line struggle in the meeting regarding the party’s line and working style of the leadership. But after the meeting, the leadership took disciplinary action against Comrade Anil Sharma ‘Birahi’ and Rishi Raj Baral, who had pleaded for the revolutionary line. After Six months of Pokhara Meeting the Party’s PB called another CC meeting and decided to organize the National Gathering ”to enrich the Party’s political line”. But It is a matter of irony that, when Comrade Biplav, secretary of the Central Committee, submitted his document for the National Gathering, the leadership postponed the National Gathering indefinitely without conclusion, just one day before the scheduled date.
It was a matter of surprise that in his document, Comrade Mohan Baidhya going back from the decision of the 7th National Congress, proposed the line of so called ‘people’s revolt’ without specifications. He totally denied the need of Peoples War and stressed only for the so called ‘revolt’ as he had mentioned in his document —(moolata: bidroha). In fact, gradually he abandoned the line of New Democratic Revolution and the path guided by Com. Maotse-tung. Then we demanded to organize special National Congress within the 6 months. Not only they canceled the program of National Gathering, they denied to declare the date of National Congress also. They discarded the voice of the majority members.
In such situation Comrade Biplav with his followers organized National Gathering and formed a new Party. But some of the CC members and intellectuals who were not in the position to support the document of Biplav, particularly the line of ”unified revolution”, did not join the new party. At that very time, writing an article on this issue I/ we made our position clear— that the political line of Biplav also is ambiguous and contradictory. After the split of Com. Bivlap, CPN-Maoist called National Gathering. There also I put my differences and requested to address the differences. But the leadership of the CPN-Maoist was not ready to correct even a single full stop and comma in his document.
It was clear that the split of Com. Biplav was not the matter of worry for them, as if, it has happened what they wanted to be. In fact, it was a pre-planned design, that they wanted Biplav and his followers to be out. After the split of Com Biplav, the leadership of CPN-Maoist did not manage to bring any exemplary program. Their party program was not based on the class struggle, but they concentrated their mind and action on the Party reunification with traitor Prachanda’s clique . Though CPN-Maoist has written MLM as the guiding principal of the revolution, but in practice they are not following the teachings of MLM. In their document they have written that the path of the Nepalese revolution will be the New Democratic Revolution. But in practice they were /are moving towards the reunification with UCPN(Maoist) led by traitor Prachanda, who has already abandoned the line of New Democratic revolution since the 7th National Congress of UCPN (Maoist).
In fact, Baidhya leadership has no any vision, not any plan and policy to advance the New Democratic Revolution. They just want to pass the time doing nothing. They have only one mission, that is Party reunification with traitor Prachanda and they want to achieve this goal at any cost. Party unification with Prachanda means to surrender oneself in the service of imperialism and Indian expansionism. Only that leadership which has gone far from the value of MLM dares to unite with Prachanda-Baburam. But Mohan Baidhya has done it. Addressing Prachand as a revolutionary leader, Biadhya has signed a joint statement with Prachanda regarding the party reunification. What a matter of irony! It is known to all that, Prachanda is retaining his existence serving the foreign powers and Baidhya wants his existence through the Party reunification with Prachanda. It is crystal clear that, Baidhya leadership is not exercising MLM, but liquidationism. He is pleading so called ‘people’s revolt’ and has abandoned the line of Peoples War and the revolutionary path guided by Mao tse tung.
He has abandoned the role of class struggle and exercising the identity based politics. In fact, Baidhya is a man of without willpower and revolutionary enthusiasm. He is not capable to lead the Nepalese revolution. Party members who were not in the position to support their liquidationary line were/are suppressed. In such situation, to stay with them means to spoil one self and to cheat the Nepalese oppressed people. That’s why I left the CPN -Maoist. I came to the point of real rupture with the liquidationists. I have already made clear that I/we are not agree with the document of Biplav entirely. For the time being I/we will not join any party. But we will support those revolutionary forces, who are in the way of New Democratic Revolution and sharpening the class struggle. In conclusion, I would like to call to all revolutionary cadres, particularly revolutionary intellectuals to come out in the field for the cause of National Sovereignty and the New Democratic Revolution, as we had played our role during the 10 years of People’s War.
April 30, 2015