General explanation of Nepal

[RotStern]

I must say comrades I haven't been paying much attention to Nepal and I deeply regret it. Can somebody please give me a general explanation?

[scarletghoul]

There was a civil war/Peoples War fought by the Maoists against the King from 1996 to 2006. Towards the end the King Gyanendra became totally evil and abolished parliament to make an absoloute monarchy and became deeply unpopular. The Maoists took over most of the country but decided to move to the political arena at the end to avoid a bloodbath in the capital. They sided with the bourgeois-democratic parties and succeeded in forcing elections, which they won, and getting rid of the monarchy to form the current Republic. Last year the Maoists were forced out of government because reactionary bourgeois politicians would not let them function, like the president who blocked attempts to merge the Peoples Army with the national army. Maoists stepped down and the government is now led by the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) who despite their name are totally reactionary and more revisionist than you could magine. All this time the constitution was supposed to be being written but the bourgeois parties are putting it off because they cant get their way. The Maoists, now in opposition but with huge mass support, are attempting to topple the bourgeois government and create a 'national unity government' headed by them so they can write the constitution and establish a government for the people..

As for the current stuff specifically, they bussed in loads of people to the capital from the rural support areas, and they had massive protests on may day, followed by a general strike which has just been called off as things were starting to get violent. Not sure what will happen now.. They still have the Peoples Army and YCL and stuff to use if things get worse and they probably could win if violence erupted properly, but theyre trying to do it peacefully..

Hope that helps

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I've actually made a sweeping attempt to sum up recent developments in Nepal myself in my latest blog entry:
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=937)

Though the Nepalese "Maoists" have recently initiated a general strike (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8656894.stm), I'd like to highlight why I'm not a supporter of these now-phonies.


"Revolution and major political changes in Nepal have come through street protests," AP quoted Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal as telling the crowd Saturday.

The Maoists, the largest party in parliament, want to lead a national unity government. "The Maoists...want to lead a national unity government." Concentrated in that statement is the entire political line of the UCPN(M) at present.

For a decade, the Maoists in Nepal fought a people's ware wherein they liberated 70 to 80 percent of the country and were approaching the threshold of seizing state power and establishing the 21st century's first people's republic. Then, on encountering the difficulties of the assertion of the absolute monarchy, they, in 2006 decided to abandon people's war and disarm the People's Liberation Army. Their weapons are currently stashed away in UN-supervised cantonments. From there, they proceeded to join the newly established bourgeois republic and were elected to head up the new government, becoming the new oppressors of the people. They presided over deepening poverty and social misery and proposed to model Nepal on contemporary China in the new constitution they, together with the reactionary parties they had previously been at war with, were working to write. (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=5029) To quote Mr. Prachanda (the UCPN(M) Chairman): "We will build special economic zones like China.. The special economic zones stimulated China’s economic development, and we want to learn from China. China’s experience is really helpful for us." In other words, they established their aim as that of building an export-centric sweatshop economy.

After all of one year or so in the parliament, they ran into a basic problem. They had been aiming to completely dismantle the PLA by dissolving it into the regular army. But the army insisted on retaining its full independence from the former rebels and refused to admit former PLA fighters into its ranks. Able to go no further with their new, reactionary agenda, the UCPN(M) withdrew from the parliament about a year ago. Since that time, they've been mounting an escalating pressure campaign on the government to resign and grant them leadership of the "peace process" again. This general strike they've initiated is part of their effort to achieve that objective.

Neighboring India is currently at war with real Maoists within its own borders. (http://www.revcom.us/a/200/india-en.html) They support Nepal's military (which has only grown stronger while retaining its complete independence throughout the "peace process") in its not-so-subtle threats to declare martial law at the end of the month "if the peace process fails" because they (India) don't want a Nepalese government that may be sympathetic to the real Maoist rebels in their country.

The real danger here is that the UCPN(M) is headed for disaster sooner rather than later as a direct result of its revisionist political line. With the PLA disarmed, they are basically defenseless in the face of this threat and, as such, it's entirely possible that what remains of the revolution in Nepal will soon be lost, and perhaps with a lot of bloodshed involved. A few PLA fighters have been integrated into the regular army. Those forces are now thus safely nestled in the barracks of the enemy, awaiting destruction. It strongly appears that Prachanda has snatched defeat from the clutches of victory. This last desperate bid will not change that. Only an immediate return to people's war can yield any plausible chance of survival for the revolution in Nepal. I join the RCP, USA in calling for exactly that change of position on the part of the Nepalese "Maoist" leadership. (http://www.revcom.us/a/200/Nepal_crossroads-en.html)This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8669158.stm) provides some more detail on the strike situation.

[Saorsa]

RDR, this is starting to get very, very annoying.

THE PLA IS NOT DISARMED

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/5_maoist_women_fighters_peoples_liberation_army_ne pal.jpg

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

RDR, this is starting to get very, very annoying.

THE PLA IS NOT DISARMED



Though to be honest, whether they are disarmed or not is not as serious as the fact that the "Maoists" are actually capitalist roaders.

[Saorsa]

Enlighten us o Takayuki on why you think the UCPN (M) are capitalist roaders. Do you think all the major leaders are capitalist roaders? Which ones are and which ones aren't? How does their actual practice (as opposed to a handful of media statements) indicate their capitalist roader tendencies?

Please share your knowledge and wisdom with us.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Enlighten us o Takayuki on why you think the UCPN (M) are capitalist roaders. Do you think all the major leaders are capitalist roaders? Which ones are and which ones aren't? How does their actual practice (as opposed to a handful of media statements) indicate their capitalist roader tendencies?

Please share your knowledge and wisdom with us.

To be honest I was hoping you would elaborate on the situation, as I find it very confusing. On the one hand these claims of wanting to set up SEZ and supporting a stagist approach and so on, or for example, the mentioning of China as a good example (though it's obviously possible that it's just a question of getting some support from them and playing cautious with regional powers). Thus, I was hoping it could be elaborated on - as everything I've so far read in threads and articles have painted very different images and suggested many contradictory things - do the Nepalese Maoists support this Dengist approach of supporting the local bourgeoisie in a transition to capitalism, leaving the eventual move to socialism onto some indefinite future of doubtful existence, or do they not?

[Saorsa]

Ah, ok. Apologies for the sarcasm it's been a long day... I'll try and respond to some of your points. Before I do that I'd like to make the point that Nepal is confusing and contradictory because that's how all revolutions are. In retrospect it's easy to work out what was really going on, but right now it's like we're staring into a pool of water which has just had half a million Maoists splashing it about. There's so many ripples bouncing off each other that we can't see below the surface to establish what's happening deep down. In time, as the ripples die away, things will become more clear... but for now it's inevitably going to be confusing.


On the one hand these claims of wanting to set up SEZ and supporting a stagist approach and so on

The Maoists have never done anything to undermine worker's rights. In fact, they not only raised the minimum wage during their time in government, but they have organised a massive and militant trade union movement that has rallied behind it the most militant workers in Nepal. They've won real battles in the class war, and they continue to do so.

All revolutions have stages. There are obstacles that prevent the revolution progressing, and the masses have to figure out how to sweep these obstacles aside before they can advance further. The main obstacle in Nepal used to be the monarchy, and while that could still be restored by the military (still led by royalists), it has been knocked out of the path. Now the main obstacle in Nepal is the bourgeois democrat parties and the current government. The struggle is no longer against the monarchy for a democratic republic - it is now against the bourgeois republic for a people's republic.

So yes, the revolution is 'stagist', but so are all revolutions. And there's nothing wrong with that.


or for example, the mentioning of China as a good example (though it's obviously possible that it's just a question of getting some support from them and playing cautious with regional powers).

I think you've worked this one out yourself. Nepal is dominated by India, which can starve the country simply by closing the border. The only hope for a post-revolutionary Nepal to challenge Indian dominance (apart from the revolution spreading of course) is to exploit the inter-imperialist rivalries between India and China. China wants India to stop controlling Nepal (and for the West to stop using it as a base for Tibetan pro-imperialist mercenaries and bandits), India wants it to remain a vassal. But if China can intervene to diplomatically challenge India's complete control, an act that would be in China's interests... Nepal can navigate an independent, revolutionary path forward without bowing down to Delhi any longer.

So when the Maoists send people to China where they give interviews that praise China's development and so on, it should be seen in this light. They need to get China on board as much as possible if they want to succeed in their revolution.


do the Nepalese Maoists support this Dengist approach of supporting the local bourgeoisie in a transition to capitalism, leaving the eventual move to socialism onto some indefinite future of doubtful existence, or do they not?

The Maoists are revolutionary communists. They plan to radically transform Nepal and empower it's people. The first steps will be land reform - land to the tiller. This will mean the extension of private property relations throughout the countryside, and the development of capitalism. However at the same time as this is carried out, the Nepalis will be encouraging collectivisation and communal forms of agriculture. So the development of capitalism and the development of socialism can proceed side by side in a country like Nepal, with socialism always being prioritised and dominant. It happened in Russia with the New Economic Policy, it happened in China, and it will continue to happen in real world revolutions for generations to come.

If you want to read some detailed proposals they put forward before the Constituent Assembly elections in 2008, check this out. (http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/396/)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

However, this I think is of some concern:


1.3. Public-Private Partnership: Public-Private Partnership system shall be taken forward in a planned manner in order to supply necessary capital for development and for maximum utilization of the capital scattered in the country. Consumers of various services such as telephone, electricity, water, etc., and labourers working in such industries shall be encouraged to invest in shares in those corporations or industries. This system that ensures participation of national or international private sectors in the management and initiation of the State shall be the backbone of a new Interim economic policy.

While supposedly "interim", does this "participatory capitalism" really do anything other than entrench values of capitalism and capitalist ownership? Of course, it is a fact that the country has scarce resources to invest with as it is, but regardless of the intention, is this not a possible source of future problem, if the roadmap was followed? Allowing, also, foreign direct investment of this sort, might create further problems in the concern of these private interest for the situation in Nepal, and their possible attempts to influence it in a way beneficial to their profits?

In addition to that, what exactly is "socialism-oriented national industrial capitalism", sounds like a vague buzzword and isn't explained in the text.


Keeping in mind the large market in India and China, `special economic area’ shall be established in major Southern and Northern border areas to establish export-oriented industries.

Capitalist free exploitation zones, then (if they are to be successful), as in China and in North Korea on both the Chinese and South Korean borders?


An attempt shall be made to solve internal contradiction between labourers and management in a friendly manner by involving labourers in industrial management and by distributing industrial shares to labourers.

Doesn't the permitting of "shares" still imply capitalist exploitation and the existence of a stock market? After all, if the shareholders can't extract surplus value as dividend from the shares, why hand them out at all? It's similar to what is popular in some places these days, handing out basically useless shares to employees to make them feel associated with and as having a common goal with the management and true owners. Of course, involving labourers in industrial management does hold some potential, but it all seems a bit fuzzy to me.


2.2. While training health workers, individual and integrated colleges shall be established for allopathic, homeopathic, unani, acupuncture, acupressure, natural treatment and yoga services.

2.3. A special programme shall be held to establish at least one allopathic health post, one homeopathic health post and one natural treatment centre in each Village Development Committee.


Why educate people in, and even more damning, establish official "health" posts for this sort of quackery?