Nepal Maoists Announce Temporary Ceasefire

[Red Heretic]

Nepal: Maoists announce unilateral ceasefire



12 September 2005. A World to Win News Service. We received the following from
supporters of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).



The people’s war in Nepal is undergoing a new twist in its long march to nationwide
political power. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) announced a unilateral
ceasefire for three months beginning 3 September. Coupled with the ceasefire, the
party has also initiated a programme for mass mobilisations from 10 September to 3
December. The main item on the agenda is the overthrow of the feudal monarchy and
the achievement of a People’s Republic of Nepal.



This programme include three phases. The first phase, from 10 September to 2
October, involves countrywide political propaganda such as putting up wall posters,
leafleting, street-corner speeches and cultural performances in favour of the
formation of an interim government, the election of a constituent assembly and the
establishment of the People’s Republic of Nepal. The second phase, to last another
month, will focus on door-to-door visits aimed at informing the Nepalese people
about the current political situation and the party’s policies. These public
relations efforts will be accompanied by small-scale development projects. The third
phase will see bigger and bigger demonstrations at the district and regional levels
and the broad arousal of the masses to achieve the agenda put forward by the party.



The declaration of the unilateral ceasefire brought immediate major political
repercussions in Nepal and internationally. Voices from the Nepali parliamentary
political parties, the UN and the European Union have welcomed it. Nepalese media
reported expressions of support from broad and varied nationalist and democratic
forces, including people from different quarters such as political figures and
prominent personalities, writers and reporters, artists and academicians. There was
also much support for the ceasefire among the middle and lower classes in the
capital of Kathmandu and in towns and villages throughout the country. The
widespread public opinion in favour of the establishment of a People’s Republic of
Nepal has put tremendous pressure on the feudal autocrats in Singha Durbar (the
official seat of government) and the Royal Palace in Kathmandu.



Explaining the objectives of the unilateral cease-fire, CPN(M) Chairman Comrade
Prachanda told Janadesh weekly, “The declaration of the ceasefire is aimed at
creating an atmosphere at the national and international level in favour of a
forward-looking political exit, inspiring the seven political parties to come to the
co-struggle by aiming their tactical agendas straight forward, reinforcing the
struggle of various sectors of civil society, increasing the political pressure on
the old state and strengthening public relations by respecting the desires and
feelings of the broad masses of people.”



Chairman Prachanda also made it clear that “there is no possibility of a dialogue
with the old state, which would be meaningless.”



The party has been leading a people’s war since February 1996 to carry out a New
Democratic revolution in Nepal and then advance to socialism and communism. The
CPN(Maoist) has entered negotiation processes twice in the past, and during those
political moments, millions more Nepalese people across the country were mobilised
in favour of revolution. Though entirely isolated from the masses of people, the
reactionary feudal monarchy of Nepal has refused to hand over political power to the
people through peaceful means but instead resorted to brutality in an attempt to
crush their revolutionary desires. Instead of respecting the peace process, the
ruling reactionaries killed thousands of people, raped women, looted the people’s
property and burned their homes. The party responded by dealing deadly military
blows against the Royal Army. The reactionary regime has shown that they have no
intention of handing over political power to the people peacefully, and that
people’s war is necessary
to end the unjust war imposed by the reactionaries.



Chairman Prachanda’s statement warns king Gyanendra Shah, “If, taking our
comprehension of our responsibility towards the people and a political exit as a
sign of weakness, the royal regime responds with adventurism, stepping up military
activities and expanding Royal Army camps, we would like to make it known that we
will break the ceasefire at any point and mount a whole new level of attacks.”



The party’s declaration of the unilateral cease-fire presents grave challenges
nationally and internationally.



The first and foremost challenge is to the king. In a sign of the major political
earthquake that has shaken the Royal Palace, Gyanendra Shah cancelled his scheduled
visit to UN headquarters in New York at the last minute. This known drug dealer had
intended to take part in the General Assembly’s yearly opening session to tell the
biggest monsters on the earth – like Bush & Company of the United States – that he
needs more weapons to kill more Nepalese people. And these monsters need a fascist
flunkey such as Gyanendra. “The disruption [caused by the ceasefire] is so severe,”
a Nepalese newspaper commented, “that the text prepared by royal experts working day
and night for a month so that the king could read it at the UN has become useless.”



The second challenge is to the parliamentary parties: whether to take the side of
the people and the new political power to be born, or the side of the dying feudal
monarchy. Despite the fact that the Nepali Congress Party recently removed its
pledge of loyalty to a “constitutional monarchy” from its party programme and the
United Marxist-Leninist (UML) party just made a similar move, declaring itself in
favour of the struggle for a republic, they continue to vacillate. This political
vacillation is profoundly expressed in a letter to UN General Secretary Kofi Annan.
The letter, signed by seven parliamentary parties and handed over to the UN envoy in
Kathmandu, urges Annan not to let the “unconstitutional old government” take part in
the General Assembly. It continues, “We have, as representatives of seven major
political parties, come together and made public our common platform in which we
propose the reinstatement of the Third House of Representatives, formation of a
government of
all-party consensus, free, fair and peaceful elections to the constituent assembly
following peace negotiations with the insurgent Maoists, and inclusive
restructuring of the state as a way out of the current crisis.”



The “reinstatement of the Third House of Representatives” means the re-establishment
of parliament. This can lead nowhere but to the survival of Nepal’s semi-feudal,
semi-colonial system (as a country that is independent in name but run by feudal and
big capitalist forces entirely dependent on imperialism). Despite the massacre of
the former king that brought Gyanendra to power in 2001, his dismissal of the
parliamentary government in 2002 and his takeover of executive power through the
royal coup of 1 February 2005, the parliamentarians have always refused to support
the abolition of the monarchy as the immediate task, because of their own
anti-people class character.



Chairman Prachanda clearly stated, “The main responsibility for achieving a
political outlet falls on the political parties.” He cautioned against
“conspiracies” to “end the existence of Nepal by declaring it a failed state.”
Instead of deeply considering the grave situation, the parliamentary parties have
been slavishly throwing themselves into the arms of the imperialist powers, raising
demands that the People’s Liberation Army should give up its arms and that the
Maoist party should commit itself to the reactionary parliamentary system. The
declaration of the cease-fire has opened the door for the parliamentarians to
advance and help overthrow the feudal monarchy if they are truly committed to the
service of the people. Otherwise, if the Nepali Congress’s changes to its programme
and the UML’s declaration of republican intentions are simply bargaining chips to be
used in coming to an agreement with Gyanendra, if their intention is to protect the
feudal monarchy, they will be left
behind by history.



The third challenge is to the imperialist warmongers who have been undermining the
right of the Nepalese people to sovereignty, prosperity and self-respect. These
monsters have been dreaming of resorting to foreign armed intervention beneath the
blue flag of the UN with the pretext of civil war in Nepal. Gyanendra Shah, a
prudent puppet of imperialist and expansionist forces, would rather see a foreign
army parading on Nepalese soil, with the survival of his outdated system dependent
on the killing of thousands, than give up political power to the Nepalese people.
The declaration of the unilateral cease-fire is meant to deal a blow to the agendas
of the imperialists.



Mixed messages have come in response to the ceasefire. On behalf of the government
of the old state, Tanka Dhakal said, “The sincerity of the truce offer is doubtful,
as we have experienced in the past that such commitments have been flouted time and
again.” Responding to the statement of the monarchy, a Congress leader said, “It
has forgotten its responsibility towards people as it is resorting to suppression
rather than consolidating peace and democracy.” Similarly, UML leader Jhalnath
Khanal said, “I have sensed a language of panic in the government statement. Either
it is trying to disband the peace process or is trying to ignore it.” Another leader
from the Congress-Democratic party declared, “Peoples’ priority is peace, but they
are interested in military operations rather than finding a political way out, which
is very tragic.” A human rights activist remarked, the “immature response of the
government exposed its true nature.”



More and more, the reactionary regime in Nepal is being cornered. The decadent
monarchical system is staring at the possibility of its collapse.

-end item-

[metalero]

Very Interesting! I support the struggle that maoist are leading in Nepal, this is a very good move to test the national oligarchy, to bring development to the country-side and also to bring proletarian class conscious to the peasants. there must be however wide spread eduaction and agitation among the exploiedin the cities

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Very interesting turn of events. Whats up with the use the term fascist so much though?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:12 AM
Very interesting turn of events. Whats up with the use the term fascist so much though?
Uhhh... the article only says fascist once...

But either way, I assume that it's rather difficult to talk about a ruler who claims to be a descendant of "god" and has his army systematically rape and burn entire villages without using the word fascist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Uhhh... the article only says fascist once...

I meant overall in the RCP's papers and literature, not specifically this article.


But either way, I assume that it's rather difficult to talk about a ruler who claims to be a descendant of "god" and has his army systematically rape and burn entire villages without using the word fascist.

Incorrect assumption. Fascism is a specific political system, it's dangerous to throw the word around. Just because a ruler says "claims to be a descendant of "god" and has his army systematically rape and burn entire villages" doesn't make him a fascist.

[Red Heretic]

I meant overall in the RCP's papers and literature, not specifically this article.


It's not from the RCP...



Incorrect assumption. Fascism is a specific political system, it's dangerous to throw the word around. Just because a ruler says "claims to be a descendant of "god" and has his army systematically rape and burn entire villages" doesn't make him a fascist.

Those are fascistic traits. The RCP and many other revolutionaries use the word fascism to compare the fascistic traits and actions of the represenatives of this system today, to the actions and traits of the represenatives of Italy and Germany in the 30's and 40's. If you refuse to learn from the history of this system, there will be no resistance if full-scale fascism comes in to being once again.

However, in the case of Gyandera, he disolved bourgeois democracy, and made it illegal to print any news without first running it through the royal censor. If that isn't fascism, I'm not quite sure what is.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's not from the RCP...

"12 September 2005. A World to Win News Service."


If that isn't fascism, I'm not quite sure what is.

Obviously.

[Red Heretic]

AWTWNS is a world-wide Maoist publication that works with the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (which aims at becoming a new Communist International). It is centered in Great Britain, and has segments contributed by authors and parties from all over the world, inlcuding from Nepal, Turkey, Iran, India, Afghanistan, Italy, Great Britain, and the USA.

It is not a specifically RCP or RIM organ, though it supports both.

www.awtw.org (you can't actually view most of the articles on their site, but you can subscribe here http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/AWorldToWinNewsService/)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I know what it is.

[Red Heretic]

Here's an interview with Comrade Prachanda (Chairman of the CPNM) on the topic:

Interview With Comrade Prachanda
Comrade Chairman, why did you declare unilateral cease-fire all of a sudden?

To create environment in both the national and international level for a forward-looking political way out, to inspire the seven political parties to come in cooperation by clarifying their immediate slogan, to reinforce the movement of civil society, to increase political intervention upon the old state and to consolidate party’s relation with the broad masses by honouring their sentiment and aspiration etc. are the main motivating reasons behind the declaration of cease-fire.

The royal state has its own military. How will the ceasefire declared without its agreement succeed?

In our opinion, the development of the events of 3/4 days has justified the correctness of political intervention against the old state, the purpose with which the ceasefire was declared. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the important aspect of the psychological war against the royal army underlies in this ceasefire. To prove that the royal army is not in support of peace and way out from a new height is not less significant.

Royal state is speaking the language of repression. Does not this ceasefire become counter-productive in the situation when the parliamentarian seven political parties have not been able to come unitedly with a concrete program?

In my opinion, no question of it being counter-productive arises for its correctness lies in exposing worldwide the fascist character of the royal state and inspiring to change the vacillating and unclear character of parliamentarian seven political parties. Concretely speaking, the ceasefire has already played that role within 3/4 days.

Now, some rumour is spreading out that the ceasefire can be a respite for the royal state in the situation when the party is now acquiring military successes!

The political intervention that has been made by stepping at the footing of military success has never become a respite to the old state. None, who has seriously observed and understood the historical reality that the key of the development of Nepalese people’s war lies with the appropriate coordination of political and military intervention, can have such kind of talk. It is also necessary here to pay attention to the strategy of active defence, offend when attacked, of People’s Liberation Army.

What would you do if the royal government also by declaring ceasefire calls on you for a dialogue? Is it that you won’t have a dialogue in any case with the government?

Right now, we are not seeing any possibility and justification of dialogue with the royal government. If it makes such declaration and put forward clearly that it is ready to provide opportunity for the people to decide their fate then there can be dialogue in agreement of political parties and civil society. We are never absolute to talk with the aim of providing total right to the people.

There was an outside propaganda that an especial agenda on Nepal would be tabled in the general assembly of the United Nations and Gyanendra would participate in that. Is not this ceasefire declared aiming at influencing the forthcoming convention of the United Nations?

Definitely, there lies an objective of clarifying doubts remaining within different sections in the world on our party politics and exposing the old feudal power. But, it was not declared with the prime objective of influencing the forthcoming convention of the United Nations.

You have said in your statement that all from the UNO to the main neighbour and entire international community are showing concern on the present situation in Nepal from their own angle and are presenting their own kind of solution to the problem. Would you please clarify it further?

I think, the international concern, move and anxiety that is being shown on the present Nepalese civil war is known to and endured by all. Also it is not hidden that some of the power-centres are working with the strategy of isolating our movement by creating an alliance between king and the parliamentarian parties, some of them are working with the strategy of making the king agree with constitutional monarchy by creating a pressure of cooperation to a certain limit between our party and the parliamentarian parties, where as some of them are in favour of a real democracy and peace in Nepal. In this very context, it has been clarified in the statement that none can deny some of the elements are not trying to gain from by declaring Nepal a failed State. The essence of the aforesaid saying in the statement is to make the Nepalese people further clear by clarifying the reality that all of the international communities have no unified standpoint.

A short time before, India was very much offensive towards you and the previous CC meeting had raised the danger of Indian expansionism. Now, how has been the role of India?

Following the step of February 1, 2005, the fact is open that the discord and contradiction to a certain extent between the king of Nepal and the Indian ruling class has increased. In spite of class unity, today’s necessity is to try to use the contradiction emerged between them in favour of the democratic aspiration of the Nepalese people.

Comrade Chairman, the propaganda like, you declared ceasefire after meeting the foreign minister of India and according to India’s suggestion, is coming from the media of royal government. What is truth, would you clarify?

Nothing can be proved from such propaganda excepting that our declaration of ceasefire caused the brain of royal ringleaders to disfigure. The misinformation of the national betrayers that are killing the best sons and daughters, who love the national integrity and sovereignty of the country more than they do for their life, is nothing other than the excuse to hide their defeat. The fact that who is sensitive and responsible and who is criminal towards the interest of Nepal and Nepalese people is clear as daylight. The feudal palace’s move that the patriotic Nepalese people can be confused by planned misinformation has been too old. Nepalese people have been able to identify their real friend and foe. I challenge the lackeys of the feudal palace to prove that I met with any of the authorities of the Indian government and the ceasefire was declared according to their plan. This kind of misinformation can never save the feudal elements standing in the palisade to get thrown into the garbage can.

Will this ceasefire lead to a concrete result in the situation when, though objectively necessary, the dialogue and cooperation between the Maoist and seven political parties has not yet taken a concrete shape?

The decision the seven political parties took on the next day of our declaration clarifies the fact that our declaration of ceasefire has motivated them to go forward to the direction of taking concrete decision. But, because of vacillating, unclear and collaborationist stance of some of the leaders of the seven political parties, how resolutely they should have taken initiative and decision has not been observed. Nevertheless, we are optimistic that they will come forward with the passing of time.

Comrade Chairman, had this ceasefire been declared by having discussion with seven parliamentarian parties? Was this ceasefire declared to resolve the complexity arisen between the forces waging armed struggle and the peaceful movement?

The present decision of ceasefire has been taken based on our party’s political analysis not by having discussion with anyone else. It is not also true that this declaration has been done to resolve the complexity between peaceful and armed struggle. What is true has been said before.

Can the political movement against the feudal autocracy reach to its climax now? How much optimistic you are towards the possibility of a forward-looking political way out in the near future?

Nepal, in her political history, is in a serious turning point. In the immediate sense, the country can have a forward move only through people’s victory against the feudal power. We, on our behalf, are making efforts to make the people’s movement victorious by utilizing both the tactics of firmness and flexibility maximally as necessitates. The feudal autocratic monarchy has been in political isolation and confined within people’s encirclement from all sides. In this turning point of the history, it is necessary for all of us to push on. What is necessary here is to make ineffective the strategy of some of the international power centres and mainly the United States of America, which does not want this political way out to take place under the leadership of a revolutionary party, is another point to pay attention to.

All have raised the question of democracy. In fact, what kind of democratic republic you mean?

The democratic republic, which we are saying, is the transitional republic that can address the problems related to class, nationality, region and sex in today’s Nepal. Transitional means, it is a republic in between new democratic republic and parliamentary republic with Nepalese specificity.

What is Party’s opinion on the new decisions of the N.C. and UML?

Objectively our party has taken the NC’s decision to remove constitutional monarchy from their party constitution and go ahead for constituent assembly and the UML’s decision that they could go up to democratic republic through constituent assembly as positive and advanced ones, whatever be the reasons subjectively.
How are you looking at the role the civil society is playing now?

In the political movement in Nepal, the civil society has been playing a very important role since the period of anti Panchayat movement. The political clarity and mass mobilisation that is taking place under the initiative of intellectual personalities, including Devendra Raj Pandey, the civil society has become an imitable inspiration for the political parties. In this sense, we have high regard to the role of civil society.

For a party in war, the military success becomes a pressure against the enemy. Now, is not there any possibility of the Party being cornered because of the ceasefire? How much is there the possibility of conspiracy from different internal and external power-centres?

We must never understand the political and military intervention in an absolute sense. If military support for every political intervention and political correctness of every military success could not be justified the movement can fall prey to the conspiracies of national and foreign reactionary powers. We must never forget this salient particularity of Nepalese people’s war of ten years. Enemy’s business is always to conspire. The coordination of military and political intervention is unavoidable to make such kinds of conspiracies ineffective. In this sense, the present declaration of ceasefire is pushing the reactionaries into corner not us.

How possible you see to make the parliamentarian party confront against you by the palace fulfilling their demand of parliament?

Although the palace can move that pawn of conspiracy but right now it has not been imminent. Therefore, we have been appealing the parliamentarian parties to come forward directly to the interim government and constituent assembly for their slogan of reinstatement of parliament has already been outdated and turned to be a weapon for the palace to play.

What is the situation of inner-struggle within the party? Has it gone to the direction of resolution?

The problem of unhealthy inner-struggle has already been resolved. Healthy inner-struggle is the party life so it continues uninterruptedly.

A joint statement of Ganapathy, the general secretary of CPI (Maoist), and yours has come out. How will the communist movement in the region and the world go ahead?

Ideologically, we are confident on the fact that a new wave of revolution in South Asia and the world is coming up. Our joint statement with comrade Ganapathy is the expression of that identical ideological conviction.
(We have reprinted this interview published in Janadesh Weekly on September 06. The interview was taken by Maheshwar Dahal, Editor-in-chief of the weekly.)

[Sa'd al-Bari]

I’m glad to hear the actual plan surrounding the ceasefire. I was a bit concerned when I first heard of it but now it seems rather rationale. Conducting party work among the masses more-so should help to expand their support when they resume fighting. I’m also rather surprised that some of the imperialists are welcoming the ceasefire, are they misinterpreting it into thinking the CPN(M) is backing off a bit or what?