29 July 2006
Q. Did you ever anticipate that within 10 years of initiating the People's War it would reach such a great height?
A. I would like to tell you that towards the last leg of our preparations for launching the People's War, we did discuss about the progress sequence of Nepalese People's War. The pace of its progress was thoroughly discussed and finally, we reached at the conclusion that contradictions existing within the country and the prevailing external situation combined together to facilitate the speedy progress of the People's War.
Q. Some people opine that the timing of your starting an armed struggle was wrong since the objective situations were not ripe at that time. After the dismemberment of Soviet Union in 1990, the communists, all over the world, were feeling let down and post-1990 the imperialist forces were gaining ground. Was it the right time to launch People's War?
A. True, the conditions at that time, were really adverse. Post-Soviet Union dismemberment, the imperialist forces were celebrating the demise of communism. On the other hand, Peru's Maoist revolution got a severe blow with the arrest of Com. Gonzalo. Thus the international scenario was really very unfavourable for our action. But when we analyzed the situation, we found that within Nepal people's aspirations had got a fillip after the 1990 pro-democracy movement and they were under a false hope of improvement. In order to remove this false sense of hope, we even entered the parliament and for three years tried to explain to the masses that post-1990 agreement was not the real agreement, it was not in the interest of the people. We repeated the same inside the parliament also. We told people that they have been betrayed. Thus after three years of continuous campaigning, we found that conditions, within Nepal, were getting conducive for launching People's War. All the work undertaken by us during the parliamentary sittings and debates convinced us that conditions at the national level were quite ripe for the launching of the People's War. Though it is true that, at the international level, conditions were not as favourable but then this was exactly the time when our valor was needed to be tested. We thought that if we could move forward by using our internal conduciveness to remove the general sense of despair spreading fast throughout the world, then we can contribute a bit towards bringing some change in the prevailing situation. Moreover, it was our well thought-out strategy. We are convinced now that our strategy was right. By initiating People's War amidst trying conditions we got an opportunity to show that revolutions are not dead. We could tell the world that 21st century will again be a century of revolutions.
Q. What was your final objective at that time?
A. Looking at the semi-colonial and semi-feudal conditions prevailing in Nepal, our immediate aim was to attain new democratic revolution but like any other communist our final objective was also to establish socialism and communism.
Q. But then you had to change your objective. Shouldn't it be called opportunism?
A. On this question a lengthy debate is still going on. We are not taking recourse to this new strategy due to some weakness. In fact, we are trying to move ahead only after gaining strength. People should understand that we have changed our policy not because of some sort of setback but due to the strength derived from the People's War. Secondly, we are forced to bring change in our functioning due to the existing balance of forces at the international level. But the first reason is primary. Having gained enough strength any revolutionary party tends to acquire greater flexibility on its way to reaching the seat of power. This is what happened in China also, when Mao Tse-tung, before meeting Chiang Kai Shek in 1945 for the talks regarding the formation of a coalition government, had already decided, in 1940, about reaching the goal of New democratic Revolution. And this could become possible since by that time the communist party had been able to gain lots of strength. Thus, Mao's proposal of a coalition was not an act of weakness but an evidence of CPC having gained strength over the years. Similarly, if we are currently talking about the democratic republic or if we engaged in peace talks or if we are here in Kathmandu, this is the result of our strength and not weakness. Even Lenin was forced to enter into Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany at the time of October Revolution. At that time, many in Lenin's party said that it was, like an act of surrender but it was not that. Rather, it was the result of Lenin and Bolshevik Party, the result of their gaining strength. In the same way, the flexibility which you see in our tactics is not the result of our deviation but that of strength.
Q. Somewhere you have said that current phase is a transition phase. What do you mean by it?
A. We have said so in the context of democratic republic. It means that if we look at the current international balance of forces as also the regional balance of forces in South Asia then it is difficult to reach the centre of power. We will have to take a diversion. That's why our moving forward after reaching an understanding with the liberal faction of the bourgeoise is being called a transitionary phase by us. If we look at deeply at the essence of that which we are calling democratic republic then we would find that it was none other than the people's republic. I am saying this because within that we have raised the class question, nationality question, gender question and the regional question. If all these four issues are solved then it amounts to having new democratic republic. Contentwise it is fine but since we are also talking about the peaceful competition with the bourgeoise, its form looks like a bourgeois democracy whereas it is a New Democracy in essence. That's why we said that it could be a transitional democracy. We feel that only this way we can fulfil people's aspiration for a revolution in the current global scenario and can somewhat contribute towards international communist movement and world proletarian revolution.
Q. But this is not supposed to be your final goal, it is much beyond this. You have just said that you have reached this stage through gradual strengthening of your party. Now efforts are on to disarm the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the main source of your strengthening process. How you are going to counter that?
A. We feel that we have already countered them successfully. They have been defeated and we have been victorious. The question of the management of army was solved by us in Delhi itself when 12-point understanding was reached. Now what these people are doing is counter to 12-point understanding and historical mass movement. We are still being requested by the Nepalese people, Nepal's intellectual section and the civil society not to give up our arms. They say that if we give up our arms, the autocracy will again have its say and these parliamentary parties will be destroyed overnight. Those who are asking us to give up arms are unable to comprehend this. When we talk with the leaders of these political parties we say that had we not been armed, there would have been no 12-point understanding. Had we not been armed, Deuba would have never been able to come out of prison. Had we not been armed, many of you would have been killed because for a feudal monarchy, which murdered its blood-relations inside the Palace, these parliamentary parties are of no importance. These parties have nothing to fall back upon. During 12-13 years of their rule, they have been so corrupt that they have lost their credibility. They have no base among the masses nor do they have any access to arms. This autocracy could have easily eliminated them. But they were saved because we were armed. We also told them that our weapons only made the revival of your parliament possible, you are not credited with it, the credit goes to PLA. We are also saying that you have become ministers and prime minister because PLA is armed. Royal Nepal Army (RNA) has never been active in the cause of democracy. On the contrary it has suppressed all the people's movements which took place since 1951. It has always been loyal towards feudal aristocracy. Therefore the top priority should be given to the democratization of this army. When the 12-point understanding was reached we had told you clearly that we would not give up our weapons. During those days king Gyanendra was conducting farcical municipal elections and these political parties had requested us not to give up arms in any condition otherwise the dictatorship of Gyanendra will unleash a reign of terror. And now when because of these very guns you are in the parliament then you are saying that our weapons are creating trouble for you? The people of Nepal will not accept this. The people know how important are our weapons for them and that if we are disarmed, it will bring havoc in the country. But their class character and selfishness is forcing these political parties to say otherwise. Besides they are also feeling the external pressure. US is openly pressurising these political parties and they are also feeling the pressure of India. These pressures are forcing them to say such things. But we are of the view that even this battle has been won by us. When 8-point agreement was reached at Baluatar (PM Koirala's official residence) on June 16, 2006 then it was decided that both the armies and their weapons will be monitored with the cooperation of the UN. Now raising this issue again amounts to going back on the agreement. If these parties retrace back for the agreement then, we feel, people will not bear them. And a single appeal by us will again bring the masses on the streets. That's why I say that we have won this round too.
Q. But these parties are delaying the implementation of 8-point agreement.
A. Yes, this is precisely the main thing. We never pressed for the 8-point agreement. It was reached at Baluatar, the residence of prime minister Koirala. We were brought to his residence by home minister Sitaula so the question of our putting the pressure does not arise. On the contrary, it were we who must be feeling the pressure because we had been brought to Baluatar. We had a fierce discussion for 10 to 11 hours on the question of dissolving the parliament before the agreement was reached. We want that after drafting an interim constitution an interim government should be set up and parliament be dissolved. After this we would also dissolve the governments in areas controlled by us and will work under the interim arrangements. These things became the part of the agreement. But, later, Washington started putting pressure on these parties and India also wielded some pressure. Perhaps earlier they did not consult the Indian government on this issue. These leaders are not habitual of thinking independently and they are least bothered about the lot of the Nepalese people. These leaders pay little attention on what the people desire, what are their feelings and aspirations. Their main attention is always focussed on what US is saying or what India is saying. I think this the main weakness of Nepalese parliamentary parties. And this weakness has been playing havoc with the expectations and aspirations of the people of Nepal since 1951. Now also they have sidetracked the agreement to which they have been a party. Thus, these leaders are befooling themselves and are committing hara-kiri because Delhi and Washington cannot rescue them. Only the people of Nepal can rescue them. If, in the eyes of the people, these leaders prove themselves as honest and firm then only their political survival will be possible. Otherwise if they keep looking towards Delhi and Washington, then Nepalese people will not allow them to hold the ground. We hope that they will try to understand this. I am still hopeful of their comprehending this before it is too late.
Q. Tell me at a time when American attitude is quite negative, and due to their class interests, the political parties are creating all sorts of obstacles, what can be the worst scenario?
A. It is due to their class interests that US and feudal elements, comprador and bureaucratic capitalist classes want to halt and destroy this political process. At the time of 12-point agreement also US had openly said that the agreement will benefit the Maoists most and the political parties should not have entered into the agreement. Later, the US said that these parties should withdraw themselves from the obligation of the agreement. But such was the situation in Nepal that these parties were compelled to be with us. This time also when 8-point agreement was reached at the residence of the prime minister, the US ambassador James Moriarty openly said that this agreement is the agenda of Maoists. I think that the agreement is the agenda of the country, of the people and is representative of everybody's feelings. We feel that the experience of the Nepalese people is helping them to identify who are in the favour of peace and who are against it; who are pro-democracy and who are anti-democracy. One thing is sure that these political leaders cannot politically alienate us. Since you have asked about the worst scenario, I feel that they might conspire to give effect to some tragedy. For, we are presently in Kathmandu, and this is an area of their influence. We have seen that internationally when any revolutionary or democratic party becomes immense popular and starts challenging the imperialist forces then imperialism, as a last resort, orders killing of some of the leaders. After eliminating main leadership, divisions are created within the party. This has happened in many countries of the world. I think in the worst of the situations this can happen here also, but we are quite vigilant. We have also warned the Nepalese people against this danger. While currently being in Kathmandu we have received requests to remain alert and these requests have poured in from the people, intelligentsia, civil society and other segments of the country. This suggests that there does exist danger to our lives. We are trying our utmost to make their designs fail.
Q. In February 2006 during an interview, you had said that important changes will take place in the Nepalese politics after 6th of April and you were proved right. Could you now tell by what time the Nepalese politics will be able to take a correct course?
A. At that time we had made predictions only after objectively analysing the political forces and political events and we were proved right. We think that within one year scenario will be crystal-clear. May be things can become clearer even within 8 to 10 months or even less than that. We want that things should be clear within 3-4 months and we are making deliberate efforts towards that direction.
Q. Whether you see any possibility of Jan Andolan-3 ( People's Movement-3 taking place? Can we see the emergence of a front of those who are in support of the Republic?
A. This is a very important question. We feel that the chances of initiation of a third movement are very much there if those in the government do not comprehend the needs and aspirations of Nepalese people. But this will be a decisive movement. If these leaders are able to comprehend the feeling of the people then the chances are there of establishing a democratic republic through the elections of the constituent assembly and without initiating a movement. But the tendencies currently evident suggest that these leaders will not comprehend it. Therefore, the danger has increased. In such a condition things will be clear even before the process of electing the constituent assembly is initiated. The creation of the republic will be announced. Proceeding through the path of the constituent assembly may delay the announcement for some time, may be one year or so but if peoples movement-3 is started then this announcement could be made much earlier. We are trying our utmost to make this transition peaceful. For the last one and half months while staying at Kathmandu we met people from various sections and we are continuing to tell them that we are not going back and we will be staying here only. Hence, we are exchanging views with the people of Newar community. We keep on telling them that 237 years ago the Shah of Gorkhas Prithvi Narayan Shah had committed atrocities on your people. At that time your leader was not good. Your king had amassed wealth which made him a debauch. Whereas the king of Gorkhas did not have much money. So he tried to establish himself by wielding his sword. At that time your people opposed him tooth and nail. The commander of Prithvi Narayan Shah was killed in Kirtipur and one eye of Shah's brother got damaged. Now the time has come for you to stand up. We have arrived in Kathmandu after smashing the roots of 237- year old feudalism from the villages. Now it is your turn to make next revolution possible. In this endeavour we are with you. We keep on talking like this and are having a positive reaction to it. I feel that once they stand-up in Kathmandu, it won't take even 19 days to make the king run away.
Q. You said that you will now follow a peaceful struggle but People's Liberation Army (PLA) has put up its camps all around Kathmandu which give the impression of a forthcoming war. What is the secret behind this?
A. We have stationed PLA in temporary camps for monitoring purposes. We have put on these camps for peace talks and not for initiating war. Moreover, PLA is required to do regular exercises and training. In a sense, this is also our preparation to meet any eventuality in case the Royal Army plays some prank or takes recourse to some sort of conspiracy. In this sense, of course, it can be called our preparations. One reason behind putting up these camps is also to let people go to these camps and see our army. Our goal, at least now, is not to wage war. You can look at it both ways- it can be a preparation to meet any eventuality and can also be an effort towards pushing forward the peace process. If the enemy creates some trouble then it should be considered a preparation and if the peace process is moving smoothly then it should be considered a contribution.
Q. We have seen in the past in Nepal as well as other countries, the so-called revolutionary communists got degenerated once they occupied the seat of power. If you come to power what is the guarantee that you will not be degenerated? What measures you have taken to save your leadership from falling down?
A. This is a very important question. We had tried to raise this debate within the party at the time of making preparation for peoples war. We should not try to mechanically implement the experiences of the revolution of 20th century and should keep in mind the specificities of 21st century and should also keep in mind the specificities of our struggle. We had also raised this debate as how to develop further the science of revolution. Many such types of serious debates were regularly held within the party. After the five years experience of People's War we did analyse a group of thoughts but decided not to follow a particular model. Two years later we organised a historical meeting in which we passed a resolution entitled 'Development of Socialism in 21st Century.' We consider this resolution as a milestone in course of development of our thought and ideas. The resolution says that a multiparty competition should be organised within a constitutional framework under both dictatorship of the proletariat and people's democratic dictatorship. If competition will not be there then the whole society will become more and more mechanical and metaphysical. There is an objective rule of society. We can't forcefully take people to a particular direction for long. If done so it always results in rebellion. This is what happened in Russia. The same happened in China too. Without learning from these experiences if we keep on repeating it then it will mean that we don't accept Marxism as science but as a dogma. We are not dogmatists. A real Marxist can never be a dogmatist. Comrade Stalin created a system wherein if you are in conflict with someone you remained in conflict with that person or system forever and if there is unity with someone it is taken to the extreme level. For this reason a metaphysical tendency dominated over the entire communist movement which Mao Tsetung tried to overcome through Cultural Revolution but the influence of Russian socialism and Stalin was such that even Mao could not succeed in his efforts. The same model was complemented in China too but after the death of Mao everything changed in China. After the Chinese revolution there existed eight political parties in China which did not support feudalism and imperialism. Mao allowed them to continue to work because he wanted them to support the Communist Party. We have turned this 'support' to competition. We feel that in order to make a society lively, the proletarian party should also take up the task of organising competition. It does not mean that we are moving towards bourgeoise democracy. We have clearly written in that document that this is organising competition under the dictatorship of the proletariate. People might get the impression that this is also a kind of moving towards bourgeois democracy but it is not so. The difference lies in that we are talking about organising the competition in the leadership of the proletariate whereas they organise the competition under the leadership of the bourgeoise. Immediately after the October Revolution, Lenin gave a call to organise the socialist competition. He had talked about the economic policy and in the field of ideology had talked about organising the socialist competition. We think that had Lenin been alive for another five years, he would have certainly gone further ahead towards organising the political competition. He would not have allowed the kind of repression within the party which was unleashed by Stalin. Though Stalin was a committed revolutionary but it is one thing to be committed and completely different to apply science in a proper way. After so many years we are again falling back upon Lenin and trying to further develop his principle. That's why we passed a resolution on 'Development of Socialism in 21st Century.' We feel that it is a revolution within a revolution, a big revolution at the level of ideology, an important development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. And we consider this a solid ideological base which will prevent our party from getting corrupted and degenerated. We will welcome the critics, we will get those in front rows who are ready to pinpoint our weaknesses, thus we will be saved from disgrace. If we commit any folly, then another proletarian party will emerge to replace us.
Q. Does it also involve the system which will save you from liquidation?
A. I do think this way. We will have to generate a system. Through revolution we will reach there and organise the competition. We are not talking of surrendering to the bourgeoise democracy. This is not at all connected with that. Some are not getting it. We are repeatedly saying that we will reach there through revolution. While making our bases throughout the country we have already got some indications of degeneration. When you have enough resources, the image of your party starts building up, it starts getting the respect from the people, the leader of the party becomes important then the danger of degeneration also crops up. We have already seen this. The same happened in Russia and China and its embryonic form has been seen in a symbolic way in Nepal also. In order to prevent it from growing we have thought of starting some sort of competition under the leadership of proletariat in the villages too. If we could implement this, we would be able to save our activists from degeneration. When we will occupy power in the Centre, then the danger of us and our Central committee getting degenerated will be lesser. That's why we want to develop a system. It will be a new experiment under the leadership of the proletariate. We feel that only this way we can save ourselves from getting degenerated and will prevent the revolution turning into counterrevolution.
Q. After coming to power will your party operate freely or will it still remain underground?
A. If we come to power 'fully' then the party will be functioning openly but if we come to power partially, then one part of the party will remain underground. The current phase is transitional in nature. Therefore we have to wait and see which direction the politics takes. During the transitional phase we will have to keep a part of the party leadership underground in order to maintain the revolutionary character of the party and to remain connected to the people's movement during the transitional phase. That's why I can not give clear reply to this question.
Q. In your documents you have talked about the perpetual or continuous revolution. In this situation it is necessary to maintain the entire party structure including the PLA. Will international powers give consent to it?
A. You must realise that these international powers even did not recognise our movement and what we have achieved till today but still we are here. Even these international powers are divided, there exist all sorts of contradictions among them and we have been able to reach here by properly handling these contradictions. That's why we feel that we will be able to take forward the revolutionary forces even after coming to power. In this context I will like to make a clarification. Ten months back our Central Committee has passed a resolution in which it has been said that if we occupy the seat of power then the top rung of the leadership will keep itself away from the day-to-day administrative affairs. This is a very serious question. Only by solving them properly we can save the party from degeneration and will be able to continue our programme of perpetual revolution. This is an important strategic question. If our top leadership, even after coming to power, keeps itself connected to the masses and lets the second rank of leadership look after the administrative work then we can succeed in our goal to a great extent. The top leadership will formulate a policy and handover it to the second generation of leadership which will be made responsible to run the government. We mean to say that only people from the second rank of leadership will be eligible for the post of President and Prime Minister and the top rank of leadership will remain engaged with the people's movements. This way we will also be able to keep an eye, with the help of the people, on the working of the second rank of leadership. If the person occupying the seat of power commits some mistake then we will organise the people against him. Through this process we would be able to educate our successor and at the same time people will manage to have an eye on the functioning of those who are in power. Mao could not do this in China. But we must do this and I am sure we will be able to do it. That's why we have passed a resolution to this effect. It will be a stupendous task and I am sure that if we could live for 10 more years then we will show the results. After 10 years our places will be taken up by those second rank leadership who are in the government and, in turn, they will train the third generation leadership. This way the danger of counter-revolution can be reduced to a great extent. This is also a method, rather it is an ideology. There is a rule pertaining to the development of the society - the new replacing the old. This rule is scientific in nature. We have seen that even when the leaders attain the age of 80 years, even 90 years and become absent minded but still they remain clung to the top rung of the leadership. Mao did it, Stalin also did the same. This is not a good practice, it is unscientific. This had been one of the factors responsible for creating troubles. That's why we passed this type of resolution.
Q. How do you conceive the future of Nepal?
A. If you are asking this from the revolutionary point of view then we look at Nepal as the base of the world revolution. From economic point of view, within 10 years we can change the face of the country. Nepal has got immense resources, mighty manpower and strong determination of its people. With the help of these we can give effect to all-sided development of Nepal. Our planning is to create a highway in hilly region linking east to the west. This highway will further be linked to various areas with the help of the link roads. Nepal has electricity in good amount which can be utilised for running many small-scale projects. No doubt, we also want to award some major projects to international agencies. This way we will be able to create a huge infrastructure providing employment opportunities to the people. Nepal is most beautiful country of the world and has got immense possibilities in the field of tourism. If we could implement our plans then we could be able to make Nepal like Switzerland within 10 years.
Q. Is there any plan to call back millions of Nepalese gone abroad in search of livelihood?
A. If a genuine people's government is formed, a government which has a vision and has a determination to work according to that vision, then we will certainly call back all Nepalese living abroad and they will be eager to come back.
Q. If the ruling class of India obstructs this, how will you face it?
A. Its true that in the context of Nepal, the history of Indian ruling class has not been very good. But India's masses are gradually understanding the importance of Nepalese revolution and are coming forward in its support. We would like to see this process getting more concretised. I am convinced that with the support of Indian masses we would be able to remove all obstacles put up by the Indian ruling class.
Q. What will be the status of Gyanendra in the face of the changes being brought about in Nepalese politics?
A. He will have to quit. If he voluntarily wants to quit Monarchy then he will be allowed to stay in the country like an ordinary citizen. If he does not do so then he will have to leave the country. We don't see any future for him because the average Nepali hates him a lot.
VideoBinay Shah Interviews Paramendra Bhagat 3
Binay Shah Interviews Paramendra Bhagat 2
