Democratic Revolution and adopted democratic
republicanism as their new goal. They tried to craftily
frame this as a transitional slogan, a mere tactical
adjustment. We did not agree.
In retrospect, once the Prachanda-Baburam
group put forward the ideas of democratic
republicanism of French revolution at the Chunwang
meeting, we were already on the slippery slope. This
was an openly capitalist slogan and marked the
beginning of end of Maoist politics under their
leadership. It was primarily Baburamjis idea, which was
endorsed by Prachanda. While I hold both of them
responsible for this compromise & betrayal, I think it
was Baburamji who brought this idea within the party.
However, I know he feels otherwise and claims that
was the only way forward.
[RS] When I met Dr. Baburam Bhattarai yesterday,
he highlighted that since India, China, and the
United States actively interfered in Nepal at that
time, it was only ‘pragmatic’ to make some
tactical compromises. He said that it was
acceptable to forgo Maoist labels and slogans
like the People’s War and New Democratic
Revolution to necessary to preserve the gains
of ten years of peoples’ war and to achieve the
important goals of democracy, federalism, and
inclusion. Such slogans, he claimed, were out
of sync with the post 9/11 world, where Maoists
could be labeled as ‘terrorists’ much to the
detriment of the people of Nepal. If some tactical
compromises help you achieve larger goals of
revolution,
what’s
wrong
with
such
adjustments? Why do you think your ideological
puritanism is better than his pragmatism?
[Kiran] I understand your question. This
justification from Baburamji is not convincing. His ideas
were not just a matter of tactical compromise. Back
then, it was probably nothing but reformism. But, given
everything he has done in the subsequent years, he
has proven us right. We were rightly wary of his rightist
tendencies. Currently, his ‘pragmatism’ extends to the
denial of even core communist principles. He has
formed a party named “Naya Shakti” (New Power).
What is the theoretical basis of this party? It is neither
Marxism nor Liberalism. He seems to think that none
of them are viable in and of themselves, which makes
only a mashup of both the preferred idea. That is
preposterous! Isn’t that ridiculous? As far as tactical
adjustments or going zigzag to preserve the gains of
revolution are concerned, it’s all right. Such tactical
compromises can be made within the limits of theory
and in advancing your strategic goals. But when you
surrender the fundamental theoretical premise of
Marxism Leninism and Maoism, your deviation from
the path of revolution is complete.
October - 2018
[RS] What are your plans to accomplish the
revolution? Aside from China, which too
eventually deviated from the Maoist path, there
has been no model of a successful Maoist
revolution. Do you have a road map to
accomplish the New Democratic Revolution in
Nepal?
[Kiran] We recognize that the Maoist movement
in Nepal had suffered a serious setback, primarily
owing to the deviation and betrayal of our top
leadership. But we do not believe that the Maoists
have lost. We have neither lost nor won. The people
in Nepal are yet to experience any positive change in
their day-to-day lives, and continue to experience the
same oppressive conditions. The plight of our people
will provide fertile ground for us to engineer another
revolution. Know that there are some serious
challenges. First and foremost, we need to win over
the trust of the people all over again. So many of our
senior comrades, once the leading faces of courage
and struggle, have accepted the bourgeois
parliamentary system and non-revolutionary way of
life. Some of them have assumed positions that are
outright counter-revolutionary. Further, many of these
former Maoists abandoned communist principles
altogether. They have assumed the class character
of our antagonists—the Nepali Congress and the
Nepali army. Yet they continue to claim that they are
communists. This causes confusion among ordinary
people, who have started to express doubts about
our intentions and about the communist ideology in
general. Our immediate challenge is to ideologically
expose these counter-revolutionary elements and
regain people’s trust. However, after the splits, our
organization is currently too weak. We have to rebuild
our party to expose these fake Maoists. Having said
that, I do believe that most of them will come undone
by themselves, as they will fail to fulfill their promises
to the people. It’s just a matter of time. And as they
fail, they will open up space for those of us, who have
not strayed from the path of revolutionary politics. It
might take several years, so we must persist.
[RS] On this question of persisting after a
setback, I’d like to ask you about the trajectory
of revolutionary left politics in India. The Naxal
movement of the 1960s-70s, as you know, was
decimated. Through many splits, however, they
regrouped and resurfaced three decades later
to challenge the state again. The former Prime
Minister of India called them ‘the biggest internal
security threat the country has ever faced’.In
my own research, I have found that militant mass
mobilization programs, particularly by the
People’s War Group, with its emphasis on
creating organic leadership and real social
transformation at village level, had contributed
15