Nepal: Maoist leader Prachanda resigns as PM

[Saorsa]

Nepal PM quits in army chief row


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45734000/jpg/_45734151_007268445-1.jpg Prachanda has only served as PM since elections in 2008

The Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, has dramatically announced his resignation in a television address to the nation.

"I have resigned from the post of prime minister," Mr Dahal - who is best known as Prachanda - said in his address.



The move follows his efforts - opposed by the president - to sack the army chief, who has refused to integrate ex-Maoist rebel fighters into the force.



The president said Gen Rookmangud Katawal's sacking was unconstitutional.
Correspondents say Prachanda's

resignation has pushed Nepal into a fresh political crisis following an election win by the Maoists last year.



Into opposition

In his TV address, Prachanda said he was stepping down "for the protection of democracy and peace" in Nepal.




http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45734000/jpg/_45734194__45733674_nepalafp-1.jpg Maoist protesters marched in support of the prime minister's move

"The move by the president is an attack on this infant democracy and the peace process."



"The interim constitution does not give any right to the president to act as a parallel power," he said.



Prachanda accused President Ram Baran Yadav of taking an "unconstitutional and undemocratic decision" by overturning his efforts to get rid of Gen Katawal.


His resignation - which is almost certain to be accepted by the president - follows months of worsening tensions between the ex-rebels and their former foes in the military.



Correspondents say that the expectation now is that the Maoists will sit in opposition in parliament. There is no suggestion that the Maoists will abandon constitutional politics, they add, but there are fears that the political crisis could threaten the peace agreement signed in 2006.



The Maoists want their fighters, who are currently restricted to United Nations-supervised camps, to be integrated into the regular Nepali army.
But the army has refused to take on the fighters, who number about 19,000 hardened guerrillas, arguing that they are politically indoctrinated.



Correspondents say that the crisis is the most serious in Nepal since its 10-year long civil war between the army and the Maoists came to an end.
The peace agreement allowed the rebels to enter the political mainstream. Last year they won elections, but not convincingly enough to hold on to power without the support of other parties.



Major crisis

Two parties which acted as key members of the coalition withdrew from the government on Sunday in protest against the dismissal of Gen Katawal.
That left the Maoists with a wafer-thin majority and the prospect of needing to win a confidence vote to remain in government.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45734000/jpg/_45734195__45733675_katwalap-1.jpg Gen Katawal is nearing the end of his career

The latest developments came to a head when President Yadav ordered the head of the army to remain in office despite his dismissal by Prachanda.



"Being the head of the state and the supreme commander of the Nepal Army I order you to continue with your duty," the president told Gen Katawal by letter.
The BBC's Nepali editor in Kathmandu, Rabindra Mishra, says that the country now faces a major crisis which could result in the peace process unravelling, the new constitution remaining unwritten and the Maoists struggling to stay in power.



Our correspondent says that the situation at the moment is fluid, with no-one able to say whether a compromise can be reached between feuding factions.



The Maoists fought Nepal's army for more than a decade before giving up their armed revolt, and the relationship between the two sides has been tense since the former rebels came into power.
Some 13,000 people died during the conflict.



In March, the Nepalese Supreme Court ordered the defence ministry to put on hold its decision to retire eight generals from the army.
Several coalition representatives walked out of the cabinet meeting in protest at the proposed sacking, but a vote went ahead.



"We have been insisting that the decision on the army chief should be taken through consensus among all political parties but the prime minister decided to ignore us," said Deputy Prime Minister Bamdev Gautam, according to the Associated Press news agency.



Gen Katawal is due to retire in four months.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8032389.stm

[LeninBalls]

Good news.

[STJ]

One more nail in the coffin of the peace treaty between the Maoist and the Nepal government. Wouldn't surprise me if the the civil war started back up again soon.

[Rawthentic]

Things in Nepal are definitely heating up.

May day, the Maoists organized massive demos, which (imo) can be dress rehearsals for future showdowns and insurrections.

In addition, General Katawal was fired and Prachanda resigned.

Things simply cannot stay as they are for long. There exist two diametrically opposed armies, something which cannot be sustained.

The question is: do the Nepali communists have the political unity and flexibility to correctly navigate through these decisions? Time will tell.

But let's also not forget: there are millions of people that vested their hopes and dreams in radical change and communist revolution. The rapid and intense events in Nepal will inevitably lead to a showdown in which the future direction of Nepal shall be decided.

[Saorsa]

What Rawthentic said. The Maoists have been blocked, hamstrung and frustrated at every turn by their coalition partners in government, and have almost completely failed to advance their programme of radical social transformation through parliamentary means. The Maoists have spoken many times before of their intention to launch a "revolt" if they do not succeed in advancing the working masses' cause through legal means, and this move frees them up to do so.

The events of the past few days should be studied closely and their significance must be recognised. For months, the Maoists have sought compromise and consensus, trying everything they could to make deals with the other parties and maintain the "politics of consensus". Their decision to go ahead and sack the chief of the army despite the CPN UML's open declaration that it opposed the move shows that they are beginning to move beyond this compromising approach towards a more confrontational one, and the fact that they have chosen to resign Prachanda from the position of Prime Minister shows that they are adopting new tactics.

A fundamental part of dialectical materialism is that no contradiction can be sustained indefinitely - ultimately it has to be resolved. The contradictory position of the Maoist-led government unable to push forward it's revolutionary programme in the face of legalistic opposition by the Nepal Congress, CPN UML and other bourgeois parties, and the threat of military opposition by the Nepal Army that continually defied the orders of the government and resisted efforts towards army integration, has now begun to be resolved.

Nepal should be watched closely over the coming days and weeks, I'd say these are the most significant developments since the Maoist election victory!

[Saorsa]

One more nail in the coffin of the peace treaty between the Maoist and the Nepal government. Wouldn't surprise if the the civil war started back up again soon.

Bhaburam Bhattarai said on the 30th of March:

http://telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=5116


Dr. Bhattarai making a threatening remark also said that if the Maoists’ party is forced out of the government, the Maoists will not have any option left than to halt the peace process and take on the path of yet another revolt.

“The UML is trying to use the Butwal episode as a vendetta against our party, if the UML quits the government, will force us to wage yet another revolt”.

Bhaburam Bhattarai has been quoted as saying that the peace process is effectively over, although that may just be a misquote. At the very least the Maoists are saying that the peace process is "in peril".

However, the Maoists are also saying that they have no plans to bring the PLA out of the cantonments at this time. I very much doubt we'll be seeing a resumption of the People's War any time soon, and if the Maoists do decide to shake things up it'll be through street demonstrations and mobilisation of the masses in the urban areas, not guerilla warfare from the countryside.


For now, however, Maoist officials says they have no plans to call out their rebel fighters -- who still have access to their weapons.
"The PLA is still intact, although we have no plans to bring them out from the UN-monitored camps," former People's Liberation Army deputy commander Barsha Man Pun said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5huFn7j489iqczl95a-axsBPIEipA

[RedScare]

I hope that they don't have to start the war up again, the country has suffered enough. Massive demonstrations and the government folding under that pressure would be preferable.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I saw this one coming. Now the UCPN(M) is back to square one, what a surprise.


I hope that they don't have to start the war up again, the country has suffered enough. Massive demonstrations and the government folding under that pressure would be preferable.

While this is preferable, it is highly unlikely.

[Rawthentic]

The Maoists will not resort to guerrilla warfare.

Their reason for ending the war and establishing a federal republic (based in Katmandu) was to gain support and broaden their base in the urban areas, crucial elements in a final seizure of power. It's a strategy aiming to "unite all who can be united" and isolate the reactionaries.

[STJ]

I think the peace treaty is over with. There are still no Maoist troops in the Nepal army. And this treaty was signed years ago. The Maoist have stood by there side of the bargin and the government keeps fucking them. Its done.

[chebol]

Fairly regular updates from an Australian comrade on the ground there:
http://maobadiwatch.blogspot.com/

[Saorsa]

Yeah he's very good, he's written some excellent stuff. Some Workers Party comrades will be heading over to Nepal within a month or so and will hopefully be making some kind of video documentary, or at least will come back with plenty of footage and info to be shared around.

[ComradeR]

Good to see the Maoists aren't just bowing to presser from the Nepalese bourgeoisie.

I hope that they don't have to start the war up again, the country has suffered enough. Massive demonstrations and the government folding under that pressure would be preferable.
I wouldn't rule it out. Whether we see a return to civil war or a mass revolutionary uprising that topples the government depends on how much support the Maoists can rally and how much strength the bourgeois state can muster to defend itself.

[STJ]

The Nepali Civil War was started by the Maoist. And lasted from 1996 until 2006.The aim was the establishing the Peoples Republic of Nepal. It ended in the with a Comprehensive Peace Treaty signed by both sides.More than 12,000 people where killed in the Civil War. And roughly around 150,000 people where displaced because of the Civil War. In 1990 the Communist party of Nepal was founded by Samyukta Jana Morcha. In the 1991 elections the party became the third force in the Nepali parliament. How ever disagreements regarding which tatics to use by the party. One side argued for immediate armed revolution. The other side argued that Nepal was not ready for a revolution yet. So in 1994 the party split in two. The Maoist where born. I think this peace treaty is over. The Maoist have lived up to there side of the bargin. The Nepali goverment for the most part has not.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I seem to have misunderstood this news at first, but after reading it carefully I have concluded that this is indeed a good thing to do.

If that stupid general doesn't want to recruit freedom fighters for the army, he should be fired, no hesitation, no pity.

[piet11111]

its good the maoists are standing their ground if they can not get their own into the army then it can be effectively used against them.

as it is the army is ideologically Bourgeois and they would have little problem fighting the maoists but if the rebels can enter and be a part of the army then they can hopefully gain favor with the common soldiers and win them over.

whomever controls the army effectively controls the country.

[вор в законе]

Why did he step down? If the heads of the army are against the government they should be stripped from their offices instead of quiting the government.

[Cheung Mo]

It's funny that a country where nominally Marxist parties have a majority in the parliament do not allow former Marxists rebels to fight in its army. Could you imagine Hugo Chavez only allowing AD and COPEI supporters to serve in the army?

[the-red-under-the-bed]

what has happened in Nepal was essentially a coup by the elites.
http://maobadiwatch.blogspot.com/2009/05/coup-in-nepal.html

as for whats happening now- daily protests- which i am off to join now.

[che_diwas]

The maoists are using more of a strategic moves than guided marxism, leninism or maoism principles. The Party is run by the grass root cadres and its the only bottom up party... So Prachanda quit the government from direction of his head quarters because he was unable to implent the sacking of Army General, who was later on re instated by the centre right president(constitutional one).

Now its very catch 22 situation because its not known who the party is favouring as the next leader... The party uses and utilizes a known figuire untill he/she can follow the party directives... Till now Prachanda was very much favourable to the mass and public and was used... we'll find out in the near future what the head quarter decides. Its now adays very much a day to day protests in Kathmandu as well as many parts of the country and we'll have to wait untill a new scenario arises..

Its very complex in Nepal as Prachanda himself has reiterated that the nepalese revolution is a mixture of Leninsm and Maoism and is the new kind for the 21st century.....

[Random Precision]

I am glad that the Maoists are out of the government, which was ridiculously opportunist even by Maoist standards.

However from the information I've been seeing, it looks more and more like Prachanda and his fellow party leaders are trying to pull a giant bluff. It doesn't sound like the military situation between the cities and countryside has shifted all that much since the end of the "peoples' war"- and the very reason the Maoists abandoned that path was because they didn't have the strength to take on the garrisons in the cities. I very much doubt that at this point, leaders like Prachanda and Bhattarai would exactly be pressing for an insurrection or anything like that. Most likely they've been calling a heap of protests to scare the UML and Congress back into coalition and get them to agree to sack Gen. Katawal.

And what makes things even more interesting is that it looked like the Maoists were heading for a pretty severe split before this. It will be interesting to see whether this development hastens the split, or postpones it, and what effect that will have on the situation.

[Rawthentic]

I am glad that the Maoists are out of the government, which was ridiculously opportunist even by Maoist standards. why is this necessary?

And, why is it opportunist for a revolutionary movement to end arm struggle and work to develop a broader base in the urban areas? This is the problem with dogmatism: the tendency to see a linear development of revolution rather than a highly dynamic, complex, and surprising one. Nepal has a quite bizarre political history; what makes people think that the road to power in Nepal is not equally bizarre? Was Lenin's road linear and cut out? Or did he face attacks and criticism due to his political tactics/strategy?

Anyways, it's really hard to tell what is going to happen. There have been recurring maoist protest and demonstrations, notably one by female maoist supporters. Things are definitely ripening. There is a chance of further compromise rather than a final showdown, though. It might just be that the maoists will become complacent if the government sacks Katawal (but I doubt it).

I think the recent events provide at least some proof that the maoist's political direction has changed. As I said earlier, they organized huge may day demos (as an act of rehearsing for possible insurrection and other actions), Katawal's firing, and Prachanda's resignation. The question is: is their base ready?

I also want to reiterate that it's easy to call the maoists sell-outs, opportunists, etc. But, once one actually studies the history of past revolutions and their complexity, things change. To many of you, revolutions are just mobilization - war- power. But, where has that ever happened? If we used the same standards we use to judge the maoists as revisionists (or whatever) and apply that to Lenin or Mao, we wouldnt have supported their revolutions. The Bolshevik revolution is a prime example of a movement with so much dynamism and compexity, so many different maneuvers and actions by Lenin, that, using the standards of dogmatic "communists" who judge the maoists on past formulas and principles, would have been equally if not more ruthlessly denounced.

I dont have a ready-made conclusion on the maoists. Clearly, they have a strong base which supports their program for radical change. Their movement rests on the hopes and desires of millions of people (including around the world). But I don't judge revolutions based on past formulas or past events. Marxism is not a formulaic doctrine to be applied regardless of material conditions. It, by necessity, needs to be fluid and corresponsive to particularities. Things aren't as happy and easy when you have to deal with real-world social contradictions.

[AvanteRedGarde]

why is this necessary?

And, why is it opportunist for a revolutionary movement to end arm struggle and work to develop a broader base in the urban areas?

That's not what they did though. They consolidated themselves into a bourgeois state, thinking they could use such to further their interests. Obviously it was the wrong path to take.


This is the problem with dogmatism: the tendency to see a linear development of revolution rather than a highly dynamic, complex, and surprising one. Nepal has a quite bizarre political history; what makes people think that the road to power in Nepal is not equally bizarre? Was Lenin's road linear and cut out? Or did he face attacks and criticism due to his political tactics/strategy?


This is the thing with eclecticism. You can through out a lot of pretty words, but it is still meaningless. The merger into the state was a mistake.


Anyways, it's really hard to tell what is going to happen. There have been recurring maoist protest and demonstrations, notably one by female maoist supporters. Things are definitely ripening. There is a chance of further compromise rather than a final showdown, though. It might just be that the maoists will become complacent if the government sacks Katawal (but I doubt it).

The Maoists have been marginalized and rendered near powerless. The fact that they simply called off the peoples war and land reform in order to secure themselves a place in the government led to this.


I think the recent events provide at least some proof that the maoist's political direction has changed. As I said earlier, they organized huge may day demos (as an act of rehearsing for possible insurrection and other actions), Katawal's firing, and Prachanda's resignation. The question is: is their base ready?

Prachanda has proven himself bankrupt. He's not going to reemerge as a leader of people's war because much of his base for such has been destroyed. He'd rather try to cut a deal. Either Prachanda and the revisionist leadership should be purged or the Maoists shoudl reform under different leadership.


I also want to reiterate that it's easy to call the maoists sell-outs, opportunists, etc.

It's even easier to pimp Third World movements for your sectarian interests.


I dont have a ready-made conclusion on the maoists. Clearly, they have a strong base which supports their program for radical change. Their movement rests on the hopes and desires of millions of people (including around the world). But I don't judge revolutions based on past formulas or past events. Marxism is not a formulaic doctrine to be applied regardless of material conditions. It, by necessity, needs to be fluid and corresponsive to particularities. Things aren't as happy and easy when you have to deal with real-world social contradictions.

Marxism carries with it key understandings. Otherwise, why even call it Marxism? Prachanda Pathers have given up Marxism for eclecticism labeled Marxism. While there may be fluidity, the state still has a class character, despite what Ely or Prachanda may say.

[Random Precision]

why is this necessary?

It wasn't. I'm sorry.

As for the rest of your post: I am not a dogmatist. There's a difference between Spartacist-style praising the revealed truth of socialism from Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky and recognizing there are certain key principles of Marxism that once you step outside of, you've stepped outside of Marxism. Otherwise why even bother having such a term if anyone and their dog can claim to be Marxist despite horribly anti-worker actions they might be taking.

One of the dividing lines in Marxism is that the working class is the agent of its own emancipation. If you step beyond that, you're not a Marxist. Corollary to that is the idea that the working class establishes its own dictatorship over society, and does not use existing organs of bourgeois rule. If you step beyond that, you're not a Marxist. These are not dogmas, these come from the historical experience of the working class, its attempts at revolution, and the parties that tried to take power in its name.