Indian Maoists criticise Nepali Maoists tactics

[A.J.]

Communist Party of India (Maoist)

Central Committee






Press Release: November 13, 2006



A New Nepal can emerge only by smashing the reactionary state!

Depositing arms of the PLA under UN supervision would lead to the disarming of the masses!!



On 5th November the CPN(Maoist) had entered into an agreement with the government of Nepal which stipulated that the PLA would deposit its arms in seven designated cantonments while the government's armed forces too would deposit an equal number of arms. These would be placed under the supervision of a UN monitoring team while the keys of the lockers of PLA arms would be with the Maoist party. It was also agreed by both sides to dissolve the present Parliament and form a new interim Parliament with a share of the seats for the Maoists, to form an interim government with some portfolios for the Maoists, and to elect a Constituent Assembly by next summer which is supposed to decide the fate of the monarchy and the future of Nepal. The agreement received the final official stamp when prime minister Koirala and chairman of CPN(M) comrade Prachanda signed the agreement and declared it publicly. The CC, CPI(Maoist) has been perturbed by this agreement concluded by the fraternal Ma!
oist party in Nepal with the government of the seven party alliance led by the Indian protégé Koirala.

The agreement to deposit the arms of the people's army in designated cantonments is fraught with dangerous implications. This act could lead to the disarming of the oppressed masses of Nepal and to a reversal of the gains made by the people of Nepal in the decade-long people's war at the cost of immense sacrifices. The clause in the agreement to deposit an equal number of arms by both sides will obviously work in favour of the Koirala-led government as the latter will have the option to use the huge stock of arms still at the disposal of the army anytime and to further strengthen the reactionary army of the government. The decision taken by CPN(Maoist) on arms management, even if it thinks it is a tactical step to achieve its immediate goal of setting up a constituent assembly, is harmful to the interests of the revolution.

Entire experiences of the world revolution had demonstrated time and again that without the people's army it is impossible for the people to exercise their power. Nothing is more dreadful to imperialism and the reactionaries than armed masses and hence they would gladly enter into any agreement to disarm them. In fact, disarming the masses has been the constant refrain of all the reactionary ruling classes ever since the emergence of class-divided society. Unarmed masses are easy prey for the reactionary classes and imperialists who even enact massacres as proved by history. The CC, CPI(Maoist), as one of the detachments of world proletariat, warns the CPN(Maoist) and the people of Nepal of the grave danger inherent in the agreement to deposit the arms and calls upon them to reconsider their tactics in the light of bitter historical experiences.

The agreement by the Maoists to become part of the interim government in Nepal cannot transform the reactionary character of the state machinery that serves the exploiting ruling classes and imperialists. The state can be the instrument in the hands of either the exploiting classes or the proletariat but it cannot serve the interests of both these bitterly contending classes. It is the fundamental tenet of Marxism that no basic change in the social system can be brought about without smashing the state machine. Reforms from above cannot bring any qualitative change in the exploitative social system however democratic the new Constitution might seem to be, and even if the Maoists become an important component of the government. It is sheer illusion to think that a new Nepal can be built without smashing the existing state.

Another illusion that the agreement creates is regarding the so-called impartial or neutral role of the UN. The UN is in reality an instrument in the hands of the imperialists, particularly US imperialists, to dominate, bully and interfere in the affairs of the Third World countries for the benefit of the imperialists. It is used as a guise to provide legitimacy to the brazen acts of the imperialists to oppress and suppress the people of the Third World. Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent instances of UN's direct role in legitimizing imperialist aggression and occupation of these countries. It is the duty of the revolutionaries to expose, oppose and fight this imperialist role of the UN. Giving it any role in arms management, election supervision, and peace process in Nepal, would only mean inviting imperialist interference, in particular that of US imperialism.

Another disturbing factor is the illusion harboured by the Maoists in Nepal regarding the role of the Indian expansionists. Indian ruling classes are the biggest threat to the people of the entire sub-continent and it is the duty of the people of the various countries of South Asia to unitedly fight Indian expansionism. The Indian state, with the backing of US imperialism, has been continuously interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal; it had backed the monarchy while encouraging its stooges among the parliamentary forces in the name of two-pillar theory; trained and extended all forms of aid to the Royal Nepal Army in their military offensive against the Maoists; has secret deals with the Nepali Congress led by Koirala and with other reactionary parties; and is bent upon disarming the PLA and the masses of Nepal and isolating the Maoists. Its aim is to grab the natural wealth of Nepal particularly its huge hydel potential and to make it a safe haven for the imperialists!
and Indian comprador capitalists. Comrade Prachanda's repeated praise for India's role in bringing about the agreement between the Maoists and the SPA in Nepal creates illusions among the masses about India rather than preparing them for fighting the Indian expansionists who are keen on Skirmishing Nepal in future.

Even more surprising is the assertion by the CPN(Maoist) that their current "tactics" in Nepal would be an example to other Maoist parties in South Asia. Comrade Prachanda had also given a call to other Maoist parties to reconsider their revolutionary strategies and to practice multiparty democracy in the name of 21 st century democracy. Our CC makes it crystal-clear to CPN(M) and the people at large that there can be no genuine democracy in any country without the capture of state power by the proletariat and that the so-called multiparty democracy cannot bring any basic change in the lives of the people. It calls upon the Maoist parties and people of South Asia to persist in the path of protracted people's war as shown by comrade Mao. We also appeal to the CPN(Maoist) once again to rethink about their current tactics which are actually changing the very strategic direction of the revolution in Nepal and to withdraw from their agreement with the government of Nepal on depos!
iting arms of PLA as this would make the people defenseless in face of attacks by the reactionaries.






Azad,

Spokesperson,

Central Committee,

CPI(Maoist)

[Joseph Ball]

The Maoists already have power in Nepal. The point of joining the government is to formalise this. Obviously, the Nepalese reactionaries are trying to use the ceasefire and negotiations to out-manoeuvre the Maoists and roll back the power they have achieved. The Maoists are struggling against this, taking over police posts etc. Let's have faith in them to win this struggle rather than declaring the battle is lost.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Maoists already have power in Nepal.

That's a neat trick, they took power without dismantling the state / royal army.

[Rawthentic]

It is not possible to build socialism or an actual working people's republic since Nepal is semi-feudal, in transition, but nonetheless. Making Nepal a bourgeois democracy would be progressive compared to the monarchy. But I'm down with the Maoists, as long as they are realistic.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Another unnecessary display of ultra-leftism by the Indian Maoist comrades.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 01:14 pm
The clause in the agreement to deposit an equal number of arms by both sides will obviously work in favour of the Koirala-led government as the latter will have the option to use the huge stock of arms still at the disposal of the army anytime and to further strengthen the reactionary army of the government.
Oh, they noticed that too? Yup, the agreement does not require the bourgeois army to lock up all its weapons. Just an "equal number" and presumably they have more to start with. It's probably face-saving to include them in that clause at all.


The agreement by the Maoists to become part of the interim government in Nepal cannot transform the reactionary character of the state machinery that serves the exploiting ruling classes and imperialists. The state can be the instrument in the hands of either the exploiting classes or the proletariat but it cannot serve the interests of both these bitterly contending classes. It is the fundamental tenet of Marxism that no basic change in the social system can be brought about without smashing the state machine. Reforms from above cannot bring any qualitative change in the exploitative social system however democratic the new Constitution might seem to be, and even if the Maoists become an important component of the government. It is sheer illusion to think that a new Nepal can be built without smashing the existing state.
....
Our CC makes it crystal-clear to CPN(M) and the people at large that there can be no genuine democracy in any country without the capture of state power by the proletariat and that the so-called multiparty democracy cannot bring any basic change in the lives of the people.

Ya think? This is not "ultraleft", people. It is the ABC of Marxism.

And clearly these are not just "tactical" disagreements.


Another disturbing factor is the illusion harboured by the Maoists in Nepal regarding the role of the Indian expansionists. Indian ruling classes are the biggest threat to the people of the entire sub-continent and it is the duty of the people of the various countries of South Asia to unitedly fight Indian expansionism.

Oy. No, actually the anti-Indian chauvinism of the CPN(Maoist) has always been one of its disturbing features, and it's good they're toning that down.

The "biggest threat"? A strange and nearsighted statement.


The agreement to deposit the arms of the people's army in designated cantonments is fraught with dangerous implications. This act could lead to the disarming of the oppressed masses of Nepal and to a reversal of the gains made by the people of Nepal in the decade-long people's war at the cost of immense sacrifices.

Except, of course, it's not the "people's army", it does not represent the "oppressed masses", and those masses have not made any gains thanks to the "people's war." On the contrary, working people have accomplished far more, including bringing down the absolute monarchy, since the Maoists dialed back their armed actions!

That's where this criticism falls down: the CPN(M) was not advancing the interests of working people so there's no need to mourn its disarmament. On the contrary, there's reason to celebrate the end to the civil war.

Also, "Prolonged people's war" as some inflexible strategic commandment is wrong. Guerilla war is only one tactic which can be used to advance revolutionary struggle - under some conditions. So under some conditions it can be right for revolutionary guerilla groups to negotiate an end to armed conflict, too. Especially if that conflict seems hopelessly stalemated.

Though there can be no justification to put out the reformist tripe being spouted by the CPN(M) leaders in order to justify their disarmament and reassure the bourgeois parties.


It is not possible to build socialism or an actual working people's republic since Nepal is semi-feudal, in transition, but nonetheless. Making Nepal a bourgeois democracy would be progressive compared to the monarchy.

One, the semi-feudal elements in Nepal's economy are probably exaggerated in order to justify collaboration with the bourgeoisie. More importantly, bourgeois democracy is not going to root out those remnants of feudalism or act in a revolutionary way. There will be no more bourgeois-led social revolutions - a century of trying and failing to get them proves that.

Bourgeois democracy is preferable to the monarchy only because it creates better conditions for working people to organize openly. It's necessary to continue fighting for working people to take power.

Only working people can carry through the unfinished business of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions. After that, well, let's see what it's possible to do about capitalism. Difficulties in the objective conditions are real but shouldn't be an excuse or reformist rationalization for not fighting.

[Joseph Ball]

Sevarin-the working class in Nepal is very small due to under-development imposed on Nepal by the decadent and bankrupt global system of imperialism that lacks any progressive historical role and cannot bring real economic development. Most people in Nepal work in the countryside. Most city dwellers pedal rickshaws, sell goods by the roadside, work in the tourist trade etc. They are not the kind of powerful, factory based proletariat that Trotskyists see as the vanguard. This latter is there but it is very small and cannot lead a revolution without the alliance with the peasantry. However, the Maoist party in Nepal has a proletarian line, hence they are leading a proletarian revolution.

The idea that some proletarian vanguard, independent of the Maoists, pushed the political process to this point, after the Maoist failed is fantasy. I was there and I saw the peasants streaming into the towns during the April movement, under the leadership of the Maoists and it was this that achieved the partial victory in the struggle. The 19 day general strike was led by the Maoists and facilitated by the Maoist embargo on motorised vehicle travel across the country.

Indian economic policies help keep Nepal under-developed and oppossing this is not chauvanism.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

As always, a brilliant response by Joseph Ball.

Excellent work, comrade.

[Xiao Banfa]

Oy. No, actually the anti-Indian chauvinism of the CPN(Maoist) has always been one of its disturbing features

The "chauvinism" is towards the indian government and capitalist superpower belligerence.

The nepali comrades don't feel this way towards the masses of India.

Maybe Sevarian is trying to pull a subtle Khmer Rouge comparison.

The CPN(M) and the oppressed classes of Nepal are only taking the revolution as far as their victories can carry them.

The elections which will be won by the maoists will provide a strong mandate as well as international legitimacy for socialist construction.


They are not the kind of powerful, factory based proletariat that Trotskyists see as the vanguard.

Not all trotskyists are quite as textbook about revolution. In the WPNZ, there are quite a few pro-Trotsky comrades who also respect the contributions of Mao and support peoples war (except for Peru).

[combat]

Ok. However if you were to use an internationalist approach, you would have guessed that Calcuta is just 150 kms away from the Nepalese border. Even if there is no urban proletariat in Nepal, a real revolutionary party could have spread the revolt across the boarder to this major industrial center. Trotskysts would have acted in such a way.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:48 am
Ok. However if you were to use an internationalist approach, you would have guessed that Calcuta is just 150 kms away from the Nepalese border. Even if there is no urban proletariat in Nepal, a real revolutionary party could have spread the revolt across the boarder to this major industrial center. Trotskysts would have acted in such a way.
In these two single sentences, the bankrupt, eurocentric, economist, and chauvinistic nature of Trotskyism lays bare.

According to combat, "Trotskyites in first world countries know how to lead revolutions, unlike the Maoists who are waging Protracted People's War in Nepal, India, Turkey, and the Philippines. Obviously, Americans know alot more about the concrete conditions for revolution in Nepal and India than Nepalese and Indian people do."

If only all those fucking peasants could learn from the all knowing white people! :rolleyes:

[combat]

This is simply silly. How do you know my skin color or citizenship for sure? You assume but what about if you are wrong??? There are Trotskyst parties in the third world(Latin America, Africa and Asia). Now if you consider shouting "Long live president Gonzalo" as a sign of revolutionary activism... :blink:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 17, 2006 08:23 am
Sevarin-the working class in Nepal is very small due to under-development imposed on Nepal by the decadent and bankrupt global system of imperialism that lacks any progressive historical role and cannot bring real economic development. Most people in Nepal work in the countryside. Most city dwellers pedal rickshaws, sell goods by the roadside, work in the tourist trade etc. They are not the kind of powerful, factory based proletariat that Trotskyists see as the vanguard. This latter is there but it is very small and cannot lead a revolution without the alliance with the peasantry.
You think anyone's unaware of that? These facts make Nepal seriously underdeveloped, but do not add up to "semifeudal".

Oh, and it's Marxists who emphasize the importance of a modern class of wage-workers. (Wage-workers include but are not limited to industrial workers.)

Of course, "Trotskyist" has often been used as a synonym for Marxism, by opponents of communism labelling themselves Communist.


However, the Maoist party in Nepal has a proletarian line, hence they are leading a proletarian revolution.

Amazing: you agree with their line, therefore they represent the working class. And when you say "the working class", you mean Chairman Prachanda.

No thanks, I prefer flesh-and-blood workers. That's who will lead the peasants and other working people in a proletarian revolution.

And the CPN(M) doesn't even claim that they're leading a proletarian revolution anymore. When it comes to immediate tasks they speak only of replacing monarchy with democracy.


The idea that some proletarian vanguard, independent of the Maoists, pushed the political process to this point, after the Maoist failed is fantasy.

I don't know what you mean by "some proletarian vanguard", but it is an obvious fact that the mass actions of working people in the cities brought down the absolute-monarchy regime," after the Maoists failed. Flesh and blood working people, not an ideological substitute.

Even Prachanda acknowledged, reluctantly, that their armed struggle could not bring down the regime and they needed to find another road forward through an agreement with the reformist and liberal parties. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46166)

I'm responding to some of your paragraphs out of order so I can reconstruct the chronological sequence of events - which you're distorting.


The 19 day general strike was led by the Maoists and facilitated by the Maoist embargo on motorised vehicle travel across the country.

What you call a "general strike" was a ban on vehicle travel by the Maoist army, enforced by attacks on vehicles and bus & truck drivers. The Maoists lifted their armed blockade - before the actual strikes and mass demonstrations began. At the request of the 7-party alliance, which pointed out they could not bring out the masses to protest - if the Maoists were strangling and terrorizing them.
As documented in this thread from the time. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47601)

Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal [aka Prachanda - Sev] said in a statement from underground that bowing to entreaties by civil society, rights organisations and parties, his underground party was withdrawing its protest programmes and would support the parties' peaceful protests in April.
....
"We have agreed (that) a mass movement is the only way," the underground leader said....

It was the later mass actions which brought down the monarchy.

After the monarch gave up absolute power and turned over power to a government of the 7 liberal and reformist parties - the CPN(M) tried to continue the protests, and announced a new military blockade. That didn't last long. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49182&st=0&#entry1292059606) They called off their blockade almost immediately. So obviously they weren't leading the mass movement all along, as you claim - or they coulda continued it without the 7 parties accepted. Instead, they had to reverse themselves almost immediately, the second they got outa tune with the 7-party alliance. In other words, they were following events, not leading them.


I was there and I saw the peasants streaming into the towns during the April movement, under the leadership of the Maoists and it was this that achieved the partial victory in the struggle.

How many peasants? At what point during events? You're conveniently vague.

Now, shortly after the fall of the absolute-monarchy regime the Maoists did attempt to have a mass rally in Kathmandu to show their power. In order to do this they probably brought people from the countryside, as with this rally in June (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5039788.stm)

But back to the April 28 rally, it reportedly involved "thousands" of people (http://www.samudaya.org/articles/archives/2006/04/senior_maoist_r.php). In contrast to a rally the day before called by the 7-party alliance to celebrate the victory of the mass movement - which was attended by "hundreds of thousands". (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060428/asp/foreign/story_6155893.asp)

More recently, in November, the CPN(M) planned another mass rally in Kathmandu, for which they planned to bring in supporters from the countryside again. They had to call it off - due to mass opposition to their typical, coercive organizing methods.

Maoist Chairman Prachanda’s programme to make his first public address in the capital on Friday has been cancelled.
.....
The Maoists’ withdrew their programme as Kathmandu residents on Wednesday staged protests against the Maoists' demand that the residents of Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhakthapur house and feed Maoist supporters and cadres who have gathered in Kathmandu to take part in Friday's programme.

The rebels’ activities drew widespread condemnation.
AP (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/08/asia/AS_GEN_Nepal_Rebels.php)
From Kantipur, a Nepali newspaper (http://kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=90847)

An earlier article on these protests against Maoist extortion (http://kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=90841) - similarly from AP (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/08/asia/AS_GEN_Nepal_Rebels.php)

The CPN(M) seems singularly unable to organize any kind of mass action in the current political situation. C'mon, give me a recent example where they have.


Indian economic policies help keep Nepal under-developed and oppossing this is not chauvanism.

What's that have to do with the real record of the CPN(M)? I might point out that Indian-descended Nepalese (Madheshis) have split off from the CPN(M) in reaction to its chauvinism. The new group's called the JTMM, and seems pretty similar aside from its ethnic makeup.

Additionally, in the past CPN(M) leaders like Bhattarai have gone so far as to praise the monarchy for its anti-Indian history. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0601letter.htm) That's a pretty blinding level of anti-Indian chauvinism when you're ready to praise the monarchy as long as it's also anti-Indian.

[Comrade_Scott]

Im sooo pissed at the nepal maoists, they had the king running scared and it was in there palm to take over with a bit of force, but then again i havent been fighting for 10 years straight they must want some bit of peice(altough i still see it as selling out a bit)

The clause in the agreement to deposit an equal number of arms by both sides will obviously work in favour of the Koirala-led government as the latter will have the option to use the huge stock of arms still at the disposal of the army anytime and to further strengthen the reactionary army of the government.

- the clause refferd to here made me lauh i cant belive they agreed to this the millitary obviously has more arms and if not they can just buy more. they have screwed themselves and the appointments show how screwed over they were mabey with this bit of rest they will be ready to take what they should have had months ago and dismantle the corrupt monarchy and this lying government

[combat]

Is it something new? :rolleyes: That's how most popular fronts end. Although I don't support them , I hope they don't finish hung as were the members of the Communist Party of China(then allied with Chang Kai Tchek) in 1927.

[Joseph Ball]

Sevarin 'And the CPN(M) doesn't even claim that they're leading a proletarian revolution anymore. When it comes to immediate tasks they speak only of replacing monarchy with democracy.'

Joseph Ball Yes I know, like Lenin said the immediate task was state capitalism in 1918. You can't build socialism in 48 hours, especially in a country where there is so little industrialisation or development of capitalism. Hence the theory of 'New Democracy'.

Sevarin-' I don't know what you mean by "some proletarian vanguard", but it is an obvious fact that the mass actions of working people in the cities brought down the absolute-monarchy regime," after the Maoists failed. Flesh and blood working people, not an ideological substitute.

Even Prachanda acknowledged, reluctantly, that their armed struggle could not bring down the regime and they needed to find another road forward through an agreement with the reformist and liberal parties.'

Joseph Ball-The CPN (M)'s line is that they could take power by purely military means but the cost to the people would be very high which would dent their popularity so much it would be very difficult for them to sustain power. Something those making a 'left maoist' critique of Prachanda path need to consider also.


Sevarin-'The Maoists lifted their armed blockade - before the actual strikes and mass demonstrations began. At the request of the 7-party alliance, which pointed out they could not bring out the masses to protest - if the Maoists were strangling and terrorizing them.

The Maoists controlled the countryside. Nepalese people we spoke to said that they could not take us out of the towns in motorised transport of any kind because they were concerned about the Maoists. In the towns I got the impression the strike was more likely to be enforced by members of the 7 party alliance, albeit with support from covert maoists.
But you're right, it wasn't an armed blocade. Potential strike-breakers were worried about Maoist supporters throwing rocks, using other forms of non-lethal force.

Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal [aka Prachanda - Sev] said in a statement from underground that bowing to entreaties by civil society, rights organisations and parties, his underground party was withdrawing its protest programmes and would support the parties' peaceful protests in April.'

Joseph Ball-Yes, but this only succeeded when peasants, led by the maoists, poured in from the countryside.

Sevarin-'After the monarch gave up absolute power and turned over power to a government of the 7 liberal and reformist parties - the CPN(M) tried to continue the protests, and announced a new military blockade.

They called off their blockade almost immediately. So obviously they weren't leading the mass movement all along, as you claim - or they coulda continued it without the 7 parties accepted. Instead, they had to reverse themselves almost immediately, the second they got outa tune with the 7-party alliance. In other words, they were following events, not leading them.'

Joseph Ball-It wasn't a new blockade, it was a continuation of what was happening already. It did end very quickly but this was because there had been a 19 day general strike and the people were getting desperate. I suspect the maoists didn't want to be seen to be associated with the rather shameful compromise accepted by the 7 parties, hence they did not want to be seen to support their decision to end the strike but practical realities forced their hand.

Sevarin-'
I was there and I saw the peasants streaming into the towns during the April movement, under the leadership of the Maoists and it was this that achieved the partial victory in the struggle.

How many peasants? At what point during events? You're conveniently vague.'

Joseph Ball-The size of the demos in the provincial towns went from hundreds to thousands or tens of thousands. This happened in the last week or so of the 19 day general strike.

Sevarin-'More recently, in November, the CPN(M) planned another mass rally in Kathmandu, for which they planned to bring in supporters from the countryside again. They had to call it off - due to mass opposition to their typical, coercive organizing methods.'

Joseph Ball-Yes but a previous rally in Kathmandu attracted about 100-200,000. I think it was in September.

I always find it bizarre to hear Trotskyists complaining about coercion. The Nepalese maoists are like buddhists compared to the tactics used by the Red Army in the Russian Civil War (tactics which those desperate times made all too necessary). War and class struggle does involve some unpleasantness as Sevarin will remember if she/he revisits the history of his/her own movement.


Sevarin-'Additionally, in the past CPN(M) leaders like Bhattarai have gone so far as to praise the monarchy for its anti-Indian history. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0601letter.htm) That's a pretty blinding level of anti-Indian chauvinism when you're ready to praise the monarchy as long as it's also anti-Indian.'

Joseph Ball-OK, so if the Nepalese Maoists object to the disgraceful Indian economic blockade of 89-90 this makes them chauvanists. Like the Palestinians are chauvanists for objecting to the Israeli blockade of the Occupied Territories currently underway.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph Ball+December 20, 2006 02:41 pm--> (Joseph Ball @ December 20, 2006 02:41 pm)
Severian
How many peasants? At what point during events? You're conveniently vague.'

Joseph Ball-The size of the demos in the provincial towns went from hundreds to thousands or tens of thousands. This happened in the last week or so of the 19 day general strike. [/b]
Oh. So all this hype about peasants "streaming" in from the countryside refers to the rallies in provincial towns?

It was events in Kathmandu that were decisive, that brought down the absolute monarchy. Do you claim most participants in those protests were from the countryside? That would certainly strain credibility - since we're talking about not just "March on Washington" style rally but sustained daily protests over a period of time. It takes local residents to do that.

Additionally, no other observer noticed any huge participation of rural residents in the Kathmandu protests.

You also admit: "In the towns I got the impression the strike was more likely to be enforced by members of the 7 party alliance, albeit with support from covert maoists."

Everything else in your post is just dodging around and transparent excuses so I don't think it needs a response.