Thursday, April 30, 2009

May Day Rally In Kathmandu - Red Salute from top of the world



The Maoists party is preparing to gherao the entire Capital city come May 1, 2009, say fresh reports coming form the Maoists’ camp according to Nepal Telegraph.

The Maoists cadres from across the country have begun arriving in the capital to participate in the May 1-Workers Day.

“They have been kept in different locations in the capital from where they will organize rallies and converge in the capital center on Friday”.

“The May 1- Maoists’ rally will be the biggest of its own kind ever held in the capital”, say Maoists sources.

“Our major concern, on that day, will be to pressurize the government to restore Peoples’ Supremacy.”

On the other hand, the Nepal Army has instructed all its divisions spread in the five development region of the country to stay on high alert.

“The NA headquarters has also asked the Special Force of the Bhairab Nath Battalion to remain prepared to handle any untoward event”.

The Ranger Force of the Bhairab Nath Battalion, Maharajgunj, Kathmandu that was specially trained to fight against the Maoists at time of the Maoists’ led Peoples’ Revolt, are already in the state of alert.

The Ranger Force was trained on the Israeli and American style(Sniper Training).


Some Generals and high ranking officers have also been told to shorten their vacation and immediately show up at their respective divisions.



In the meantime, the Chief of the Army Staff Mr. Rukmangad Katwal had called a meeting with high ranking General of the Nepal Army at the NA headquarters.

“All those Generals who appeared in the Tuesday meeting are considered to be close to Mr. Katawal”, say sources.

Maoist secretariat asks govt to take action against army chief


Picture : Dina Nath Sharma

Unified CPN (Maoist) has decided to go ahead with the plan to take action against army chief Rookmangud Katawal.

Maoist leaders suggested the government to take action against Katawal after a marathon meeting of the party's central secretariat Thursday.

Talking to reporters after the meeting held at Prime Minister and party chairman Prachand's Baluwatar residence, Maoist spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma said the government has been advised to show 'maximum flexibility' while taking action against the army chief.

He added that 'maximum flexibility' would mean an understanding with ruling ally CPN (UML) and the main opposition Nepali Congress on the action against Katawal.

Sharma, however, didn't explain the nature of the action, but hinted at the sacking of the army chief as the meeting upheld the party's earlier position on the issue.

Rookmangad Katawal Army Chief corrupt says Janadisha Daily


A report published in the Janadhisha Daily dated April 30, 2009, claims that the incumbent Chief of the Army Mr. Katawal owns luxurious houses in Canada and Gurgaun of New Delhi, India.

The Canada house is being taken care of by Katwal’s daughter, says Janadisha daily.

The report quoting highly placed Army source claims that Katawal has been involved in corrupt practices, mainly in misusing the Nepal Army Welfare Fund.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Maoist leader claims parties are provoking army for coup


A senior Maoist leader has claimed that some political parties are provoking the Nepal Army to take over the power by means of a coup.

Speaking at Reporters' Club Wednesday, central secretariat member of the Maoist Lila Mani Pokharel said some parties want military coup to instigate political chaos in the country.

Pointing fingers at Rastriya Janashakti Party chairman Surya Bahadur Thapa, Pokharel said Thapa's statement were part of a mission for military coup. He also criticised the initiative taken by President Dr Ram Baran Yadav and reiterated party's stern stand to sack army chief Rookmangud Katawal even at the cost of the government leadership

Come to a meeting to discuss Developments in Nepal and the Stakes for the Communist Movement


This quote from Mao Tse Tung, taken from the Communist Party of China (CPC) textbook stands to truth today:

"Class struggle in the society inevitably has its reflection inside the Party, and it appears in a concentrated fashion in the form of the two-line struggle within the Party - this is also an objective law. The reason why there can be no doubt that class struggle in society has its reflection in the Party is that our Party does not live in a vacuum, but in a society in which classes exist, and it is possible for bourgeois ideology, the force of old habits and international revisionist trends of thought to affect and poison our Party organism. Moreover, imperialism and social-imperialism make use of every possible channel in their attempts to overthrow our state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and therefore they seek by every means to secure agents within our Party. It is always possible that people in our Party will let themselves be corrupted by the enemy, will let themselves degenerate to the point of becoming agents of the class enemy. The ten big two-line struggles which our Party has gone through in the course of its 50 year history have all been reflections inside the Party of the class struggle on the national and international levels...."

Though the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) does not have state power at present, this line struggle is nevertheless of great importance and will contribute to some degree the successful outcome of the Revolution in Nepal.

By all means Comrades, discuss the 2ls on the kasama site and Maoist Revolution though organise meetings, debates away from the limitations of cyber world. We also stress like our Comrades in the US have done, ensure the 2ls takes place in a Comradely fashion and where all antagonisms are reduced.

This way and due to facts that these meetings have been publicly declared, can we ensure that the enemy line does not penetrate our ranks, cause confusion and sow the revisionist line deeper.

We look forward to your participation!

Moderator of Maoist List

Come to a meeting to discuss Developments in Nepal and the Stakes for the Communist Movement, the Exchange of Letters between the RCP - USA and the CPN Maoist

Saturday 9th May 4pm at the Hundred Flowers Centre, Dalston, London

Digging deeply into this two line struggle and in particular the exchange of letters between these two parties is serious and necessary revolutionary work. This two-line struggle requires an approach which comprehends the life and death stakes of its outcome. The following topics will be the focus of discussion:The need to establish a new state led by the proletariat and its communist vanguard, as opposed to a strategy centering on participating in, and what amounts to "perfecting, " the reactionary state (minus the monarchy, in the case of Nepal).

The need to establish in the case of Nepal, as the first step upon the overthrow of the old order, a new democratic state which would undertake the development of the economic base and corresponding institutions of the nation free from imperialist domination and feudal relations, based on new production and social relations brought forward through the course of the People's War, as opposed to establishing a bourgeois republic which focuses on developing capitalism and finding a place within the world imperialist network.The dynamic role of theory and two-line struggle.

Discussion on the dynamic role of theory and two-line struggle (struggle within communist parties and among communists generally over questions of ideological and political line), vs. eclectics, pragmatism and attempts to rely on "tactical finesse" and what amounts to bourgeois realpolitik: maneuvering within the framework of domination by imperialism (and other major powers) and the existing relations of exploitation and oppression.The full text of the exchange of letters is available at: www.revcom.us (or www.rwor.org )

100 Flowers Cultural Centre, above 24 Stoke Newington Road, Dalston, N16 (entrance on the side)

5 minutes walk up Dalston High Street from the Dalston/Kingsland BR Station

Buses 67, 76, 149, 243


Thanks to Maoist List for this reminder

Rally to oust Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangad Katawal.



Cadres of the ruling Unified CPN (Maoist) have demonstrated in Kathmandu to support the government's plan to sack army chief Rookmangad Katawal, Tuesday afternoon.

Maoist cadres representing its sister organisations rallied from various parts of the capital before they converged at Ratna Park. The cadres shouted slogans demanding the removal of CoAS Katawal from his position.

Leaders of student, labour and other organisations affiliated to the Maoists addressed an assembly organised after the rally. About 5000 Maoist cadres participated in the rallies and the assembly. Traffic was adversely affected in various parts of the capital due to the rallies.

Meanwhile, Maoist-affiliated student organisation ANNISU-Revolutionary has shut down all colleges affiliated to Tribhuvan University in the country protesting against the recent fee hikes announced by the university.

Teaching learning activities could not take place due to the closure.

Earlier, ANNISU-R had padlocked administration buildings of TU affiliated colleges demanding the university to withdraw the fee hikes

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Even Time magazine calls Rukmangud Katawal a baiter of the democratically elected government of Nepal


"Indeed, the current army chief, Rukmangud Katawal, has a reputation for being a strident royalist and Maoist-baiter.

Katawal had been adopted by Mahendra, the father of King Gyanendra, whom the Maoists fought hard to bring down in their aim to abolish the monarchy.

The army chief has long resisted the induction of the PLA into the Nepal Army, and courted trouble last November by beginning recruitment of 3,000 new soldiers before any former PLA had been folded in — a move made without permission from the Ministry of Defense, and against the provisions of the peace agreement.

Katawal also refused to retire eight monarchy-era generals according to the new government's order. Things came to a head earlier this month when he refused to let the Nepal Army participate in the National Games because the PLA was also taking part"

Time Magazine - Monday 27th April

Although PM Prachanda had said on Monday that the final decision on the CoAS row would come today, the row is likely to prolong further as there has been no consensus yet.

Maoist leaders told media personnel after the meeting they would take a decision in a day or two.

Earlier this morning, Prachanda met with CPN (UML) leaders at Baluwatar who came up with a ‘middle path’ proposal to end the ongoing row.

According to UML general secretary Ishwar Pokhrel, the party proposed asking resignation of controversial generals Katawal, second-in-line Kul Bahadur Khadka and defense minister Ram Bahadur Thapa and appointing the third-in-line of Nepal Army Chhatra Man Singh Gurung as the new army chief.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Nepali Prime Minister Prachanda on Monday said the Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal will be sacked to maintain people's supremacy


KATHMANDU, April 27 (Xinhua) -- Nepali Prime Minister Prachanda on Monday said the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal will be sacked to maintain people's supremacy in the country, the Nepali national news agency RSS reported.

Addressing a program organized here to hand over the Bardibas-Banepa roadway in Sindhulimadhi, some 80 km east of Nepali capital Kathmandu, Prime Minister Prachanda said, "The CoAS has to be sacked as he challenged people's supremacy and snubbed government's directives again and again."

Prachanda, also the chairman of the ruling party, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) further said the agreement to this regard was being made with coalition party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-UML) and the largest opposition party Nepali Congress.

Final decision on army chief Rookmangood Katawal by Tuesday: PM Prachanda


Though the parties stick to divergent positions on army chief controversy, Prime Minister Prachanda Monday said a clear decision will be taken on Tuesday. He said the decision on the army chief will be taken on consensus.

Inaugurating the Khurkot road section of the B. P. Highway in district headquarter of Sindhuli on Monday, PM Prachanda said controversy over army chief Rookmangood Katawal has drawn national and international attention and he the government does not want to drag it further.

He said government will take final decision by Tuesday with consensus among all political forces.

PM Prachanda expressed hope that major parties would support the government's move to sack army chief. "There is no alternative to the political consensus to take decision on national issues," he added.

He also reiterated government's commitment to take the peace process to a logical end. Stating that suspicion has been raised whether new constitution would be written within the prescribed time, PM Prachanda said his party and the government would leave no stone unturned when it comes to timely drafting of the statute.

He also trashed allegations from other parties that Maoists were heading towards a totalitarian political system.

Prachanda has urged chairman of the CPN (UML) Jhala Nath Khanal to support the government’s plan to sack Chief of Army Staff Rookmangad Katawal



Picture Jhala Nath Khanal

Prime Minister Prachanda has urged chairman of the CPN (UML) Jhala Nath Khanal to support the government’s plan to sack Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangad Katawal.

Khanal had gone to the PM’s residence, Baluwatar Monday morning to propose an option acceptable to both the Maoists and the main opposition Nepali Congress.

PM Prachanda asked Khanal to make a decision through standing committee to support the government’s decision to sack the army chief. Defense minister Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’ was also present at the meeting between Khanal and PM Dahal.

The UML’s standing committee meeting on Sunday had decided the government should not take action against the army chief without a political consensus.

UML has proposed making the third-in-line of the army Chhatra Man Singh Gurung the new army chief and have defense minister Ram Bahadur Thapa resign from his post., it is learnt.

NC is expected to support this plan and coax the incumbent CoAS Katawal to resign if it works out.


Khanal will meet with NC president Girija Prasad Koirala later today with the same agenda.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Come to a meeting to discuss Developments in Nepal and the Stakes for the Communist Movement


Come to a meeting to discuss Developments in Nepal and the Stakes for the Communist Movement, the Exchange of Letters between the RCPUSA and the CPN Maoist

Saturday 9 May 4pm Hundred Flowers Centre, Dalston, London

Digging deeply into this two line struggle and in particular the exchange of letters between these two parties is serious and necessary revolutionary work. This two-line struggle requires an approach which comprehends the life and death stakes of its outcome. The following topics will be the focus of discussion:

The need to establish a new state led by the proletariat and its communist vanguard, as opposed to a strategy centering on participating in, and what amounts
to "perfecting, " the reactionary state (minus the monarchy, in the case of Nepal).

The need to establish in the case of Nepal, as the first step upon the overthrow of the old order, a new democratic state which would undertake the development of the economic base and corresponding institutions of the nation free from imperialist domination and feudal relations, based on new production and social relations brought forward through the course of the People's War, as opposed to establishing a bourgeois republic which focuses on developing capitalism and finding a place within the world imperialist network.

The dynamic role of theory and two-line struggle. Discussion on the dynamic role of theory and two-line struggle (struggle within communist parties and among communists generally over questions of ideological and political line), vs. eclectics, pragmatism and attempts to rely on "tactical finesse" and what amounts to bourgeois realpolitik: maneuvering within the framework of domination by imperialism (and other major powers) and the existing relations of exploitation and oppression.

The full text of the exchange of letters is available at: http://www.revcom.us/ (or http://www.rwor.org/ )
100 Flowers Cultural Centre, above 24 Stoke Newington Road, Dalston, N16 (entrance on the side)
5 minutes walk up Dalston High Street from the Dalston/Kingsland BR Station
Buses 67, 76, 149, 243

The government is intent on taking action against Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal

Speaking at an interaction programme in Kathmandu on Saturday,
member ofUnified CPN (Maoist)'s central secretariat Barsha Man Pun

claimed that some regressive forces are plotting to mount a Bangladeshi
model of army coup in the country.

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal met President Dr Ram Baran Yadav at Shital Niwas on Sunday to discuss the army chief issue.

During the meeting Prime Minister Dahal is said to have told President Yadav, who is the Supreme Commander of the Nepal Army, that the government is intent on taking action against Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal despite pressure from various quarters to forgo such a plan.

President Yadav on his part advised Dahal to reach consensus with political parties before taking any decision on the army chief.

PM Dahal's meeting with the President comes a day after the Unified CPN (Maoist)'s central secretariat decided to seek political consensus for taking action against Katawal. Sources say the Maoist party is adamant on ousting the army chief even if this move forces it to quit the government.

Earlier, Maoist leaders had publicly criticised the President over the CoAS issue for "not acting as a ceremonial head and trying to play the executive role".

However, the President's office on Friday issued a press statement, refuting news reports that the President had in his letter to the PM had advised him not to take action against Katawal.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Katawal should have been sacked without second thought: DPM Gautam


Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam said Prime Minister should not have delayed taking action against Chief of Army Staff Rookmangud Katawal.


Speaking at a function in Lalitpur Saturday, Gautam said there is no point allowing Katawal to continue working in the same position when he disobeys orders of an elected government. He also alleged Kawatal of trying to run a parallel government.


He said it would be akin to reinstating monarchy to allow Kawatal to continue as army chief.Gautam, who is the vice chairman of CPN (UML), also claimed that conspiracies are being hatched to begin direct military rule in the country.

Maoist leader Barsha Man Pun claimed that Katawal has put obstacle to the ongoing peace process and expressed doubt over the success of peace process due to 'non- cooperation' from Nepal Army when preparations are being made for army integration.

Secretary of CPN (UML) Shankar Pokharel opposed the idea of sacking Katawal saying that action taken without fulfilling due procedures would not consolidate civilian supremacy.

Maoist secretariat asks govt to find consensus on CoAS issue



Picture Lila Mani Pokhrel


The central secretariat of Unified CPN (Maoist) has suggested the government to reach consensus with ruling partners, most importantly the CPN (UML), before taking further decision on the Nepal Army chief Rookmangud Katawal.

Speaking to reporters after secretariat meeting, Maoist leader Lilamani Pokharel said that the meeting concluded that the government decision to seek clarification from Katawal for challenging the civilian supremacy was justifiable and that the "foreign intervention" following the clarification episode is a matter of worry.

He said the government has been advised to reach an understanding before taking decision on the army chief.

Foreign intervention in Nepal's internal matter is totally uncalled for, the Maoist leader said, adding that news reports of a coup planned by the army chief were not entirely false.

Meanwhile, the standing committee of the CPN (UML) is expected to decide the party's official position on the army chief issue this afternoon.

An informal meeting of the party's central commitee on Friday was inconclusive.

Source : Nepal News

Friday, April 24, 2009

The core of the issue is the need for there to be civilian control over all aspects of the state- especially the military writes Ben Petersen in Nepal



In recent months the military has repeatedly proved either unwilling or unable to take directives from the civilian government and especially from the Ministry of Defence headed by the Maoist Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal.

There have been multiple controversies from the (ex-royal) Nepal Army. Firstly, in February the National Army recruited several thousand soldiers against the orders of the Government, the Defense Ministry, the supreme court and the Interim Constitution. The army again challenged the civilian government when it reinstated 8 generals who where retired by the defense ministry on March 16th, and finally recently staged a political boycott of the National Games went the Peoples Liberation Army of the Maoists were allowed to compete.A military that repeatedly undermines the popularly elected government is an obviously enormous threat to democracy, especially in a developing nation like Nepal.



Thus for the ongoing security and prosperity of Nepal it is essential that the military be restructured and brought back under the control of the legitimately elected civilian government.

The creation of the New Nepal will also require the National army to be reconstructed and realigned to match the new reality of the new Nepali state. The Nepali Army has changed only in name from when it was previously the Royal Nepali Army, and has backed an anti-democratic coup to reinstate absolute royal rule in 2005

The retirement of the head of the Army, the Chief of Army Staff would be the first step in a process of creating the democratic new Nepali Army, and is thus essential for the ongoing peace, progress and democratic rule in Nepal. This is the core of the current issues around the army, the creation of new state structures in Nepal.

The sacking of the Chief of Army Staff should not be seen as a political question. The politics is obvious and beyond doubt- the chief of the Army has put himself outside of civilian control and therefor should be removed. The basis of the opposition to these moves is motivated instead by the question of power. People in positions of state power in Nepal, be it in the bureaucracy, in the judiciary and in the military, feel threatened by the process of change. The political opposition has no common politics, but unites those within the fabric of the old society to prevent the cultivation of the new.

Resistance to change in the military is the struggle of those who are rich and powerful who see the military as their armed gang to insure against radical change.However Nepal has shown repeatedly in its recent history that the real power in a society doesn' society.

There has been many demonstrations everyday by Maoist supporters calling for the retirement of the Chief of Army Staff, and these demonstrations coupled with the by-election results has put beyond doubt that the popular sentiment is behind the government and desires change.

Rookmangad Katawal - clarification of the word and the deed !


Kathmandu Post and Kantipur report aborted coup on Wednesday by Rookmangad Katawal - he should account for words and deeds !

Dr Ram Baran Yadav has denied that he asked Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal not to sack Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal


In yet another interesting twist to the high-voltage drama, President Dr Ram Baran Yadav has denied that he asked Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal not to sack Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal, claiming that there was nothing regarding the Army chief in his Tuesday's letter to the PM.

India was also dragged into the plot. New Delhi, according to the reports, "played a crucial role to establish the link between the army and the president (Dr Ram Baran Yadav)," apparently with the aim of establishing presidential rule.

"By Monday... Katawal seemed enthused by a renewed confidence (as) he had received strong backing from India and felt emboldened," the reports said.

Kantipur Daily and Kathmandu Post expose Nepal Army plans for a second coup



Picture Nepal Army and US advisors

Friday, the past reputation returned to haunt the Nepal Army four years later with the country’s biggest media house accusing them of having planned a second coup this month, which however was not executed due to India and other powerful donor governments.

The front-page reports in Kantipur, Nepal’s largest circulated daily, and its sister publication the Kathmandu Post drew an immediate response from the army , which rejected them as "fabricated, false and baseless".

The two dailies claimed to have senior army officers’ take on the "soft coup" that was to have taken place early Wednesday morning. They described a plot that was "like a page from a nail-biting thriller": "Maoist leaders, ministers and other selected individuals would be arrested" while former king Gyanendra be put in "line arrest" in the Nagarjuna Palace, his residence since his exit from the Narayanhity palace last June.

The plotters also planned to "cut off" Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda Prachanda, opposition leader Girija Prasad Koirala and a number of other leaders from the public and encircle Singhadurbar, Nepal’s cluster of ministries, Baluwatar, the official residence of Prachanda, offices of the Maoists’Young Communist League and other associations, and the 28 cantonments where the Maoists’ People’s Liberation Army combatants have been confined since the signing of the peace pact in November 2006.

However, the conspirators said they would not harm the PLA fighters who would be allowed to go home or abroad while the UN officers monitoring the camps would be escorted back to Kathmandu.

However, the Nepal Army headquarters in Kathmandu issued a strong rebuttal, calling the reports "a well-planned conspiracy to create a rift between the government and the army". "The army remains united, disciplined and under a chain of command," the army statement said. "It is dedicated to protecting the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the motherland and national unity."

Democracy and Class Struggle says Kantipur Daily and Kathmandu Post are no friends of the UCPN Maoist or the Government of Prachanda and the fact that they have chosen to break this story shows the profound threat to democracy posed by the unreformed Nepalese Army which is a proxy for foreign interests and not a patriotic army to defend Nepal and democracy like the PLA.

However the source of the Kathmandu Post and Kantipur report was senior officers in he Nepal Army who put the interests of democracy and nation ahead of serving proxy foreign interests - true Nepali patriots who bring hope to Nepal and democrats around the world.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Prachanda Reactionaries trying to derail peace process


Prime Minister and Maoist chairman Prachanda has directed his party workers to prepare for sacrifice.

"We must fight against reactionaries and foreign brokers who are trying to obstruct the peace process. We will win this fight" Prachanda said addressing a convention of the cultural wing of the Unified CPN (Maoist) in the capital Thursday.

Prachanda said, the party will mobilise people across the country to oppose the conspiracy against peace process.

"We want to write new constitution in a peaceful manner. Now we have to make preparations like that of the people's war," he said directing the party workers to stay united and prepare for sacrifice

Explicit Face of Indian Imperialism - Sood off to Delhi


Sood off to Delhi after hectic lobbying against govt plan to sack Katawal

Indian ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood has left for New Delhi on Thursday to brief top Indian officials on the current row over the Nepal Army chief.

Sood is visiting New Delhi after having a number of parleys with Prime Minister Prachanda since Monday, strongly asking him not to go ahead with his plan to sack NA chief Rookmangud Katawal. During his parleys with the PM, he reportedly warned that Katawal's ouster would invite political crisis in Nepal.

Some reports quoting Baluwatar insiders said the Indian ambassador also warned that the current Maoist-led coalition would be overturned within days if the government ousted the army chief.

Sood also had telephone conversation with CPN (UML) chairman Jhala Nath Khanal, who returned to the capital after cutting short his China trip this afternoon and informed him about India's position regarding the ongoing dispute.

Democracy and Class Struggle says how more explicit can Indian Imperialism be than the current display of interference in the sovereign state of Nepal another lesson for the Nepalese and the wider world.

Imperialism used to be shamefaced for a time but now it has become blatant and in your face and will generate the response that it has generated in Iraq or Afghanistan resistance and struggle - the sell by date of Imperialism has already passed - what is left is blatant parasiticism covered by anti totalitarian rhetoric.

Gautam defends govt in CoAS episode


Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam has said government sought clarification from army chief for his defiance to the orders given by the 'civilian government'.

Inaugurating the general convention of Commercial Banks Employees Association in Butwal on Thursday, Gautam claimed that the government's move is constitutional and added that it was given political colour by opposition parties.

He said Nepal Army defied government orders for three times - by not halting new recruitment, withdrawing from the National Games and calling back the generals who were given retired notice without government decision.

He said Nepal Army and other government agencies are to obey what cabinet orders but have no authority to define which is right or wrong.

Reiterating that government is committed to rule of law, Gautam claimed opposing government's move to seek clarification from Kawatal is intended to invite military coup in the country.

Katawal case divides army top brass


The army top brass has been divided to the extent of boycotting events participated by the other faction over the issue of possible action against incumbent Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) General Rookmangad Katawal, Annapurna post daily reported.

General Kul Bahadur Khadka, second man in the army hierarchy, has been boycotting all meetings as well as social functions participated by generals supporting the CoAS since the row surfaced.

Khadka was 'resting' at home when other generals were discussing their plan on Monday after the defense ministry sent a letter to the CoAS asking him to furnish clarification on some controversial issues. He has not attended any meetings of the generals after that.

Generals supporting the army chief have accused Khadka of trying to politicise the army by joining hands with the Maoists to sack the incumbent chief.

On the other hand, generals supporting Khadka have accused the army chief's supporters of blaming them without any evidence and discriminating against them.

Khadka is not invited in the informal meetings that take place in the army chief's residence. He was also not seen in a wedding party attended by most of the generals Wednesday evening.

Reports say army personnel have been deployed around Khadka's residence to monitor his movement after the row surfaced.

General Khadka is retiring coming Jestha 25. He can be the Chief of Army Staff only if the incumbent chief retires before that.

Khadka has a bitter relation with Katawal since a long time. Khadka has accused Katawal of correcting his age by a royal decree. A case related to the army chief's age is pending at the Supreme Court.

UML chairman Khanal arrives in Kathmandu as CoAS row deepens


CPN-UML chairman Jhala Nath Khanal has said that though it has become increasingly necessary to “discipline the Army”, it is not the time to meddle in its affairs just now.

Khanal, who hastily arrived in Kathmandu Thursday morning cutting short his week-long visit to China after the government’s decision to seek clarification from the army chief gave rise to a serious political stalemate, argued that keeping in view the ongoing peace process, it is advisable to give priority to the main task that lies ahead – that of taking the peace process to its logical conclusion - rather than “tampering with the Army”.

Upon being asked by journalists at Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) whether his party had given prior consent to the government to take action against the Nepal Army chief Rookmangud Katawal, the UML leader gave a cryptic response, saying that his party will make public its view on this row only after holding discussion with leaders of his own party as well as that of others.

Talking about his shortened China visit, he said that China wants to establish a new kind of relationship with Nepal. He didn’t elaborate.

Immediately after the arrival of Khanal, UML is expected to hold serious discussion within the party to come up with its position on the CoAS row.

Khanal is also scheduled to meet Prime Minister Prachanda and other party leaders to find a political consensus on the issue of Army chief.

However, if Home Minister and senior UML leader Bam Dev Gautam is to be believed, UML has already decided to back the cabinet decision to seek clarification from General Katawal, but is “still to study the Army Chief’s clarification”.

But UML General Secretary Ishwor Pokharel said at a meeting of political parties Wednesday that the government should take a consensus decision on the issue, but in a manner that “is seen as protecting the national army”.

Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal including top UML leaders Gautam and Pokharel are said to be in favor of relieving the army chief from his post, while former party boss and senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal and KP Oli, one of the contender to the post of the party chairman and a staunch Maoist critic, are strongly opposed to the Maoist government’s move, calling it a ploy to humiliate Nepal Army and weaken democracy.

Madhav Kumar Nepal also mediated between Maoist leaders, PM Prachanda and President Yadav all day Wednesday to find a political consensus before deciding on the fate of Army chief.

Democracy and Class Struggle has not said many good words to say abut Jhala Nath Khanal but today is an exception has he has clearly put himself in the camp of civilian supremacy and distinguished himself as a true democrat who wishes to bring the Nepalese Army under democratic control.

It is one of the ironies of history that those that raise the volume in denouncing totalitarianism in Nepal are the ones for military supremacy and this lesson will not be lost either in Nepal or the wider world.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Military supremacy or Civilian Supremacy ?


Picture Dinanath Sharma

Representatives of all 24 political parties representing the CA engaged in an all-party meeting called by the ruling Unified CPN (Maoist) to discuss the issue of sacking the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangad Katawal, Wednesday evening.


UCPN-M Spokesperson Dinanath Sharma, coming out of the meeting. “So Prime Minister said he is in favor of finding a middle point to resolve the issue.”

Sharma said all the parties in the meeting agreed in principle that it was the government which can seek clarification or take action against Katawal but there were for and against arguments on the timing of the action.

“All the parties agreed that it was the government’s prerogative to seek clarification or initiate action but they differed on the timing of the action because of the challenge of transitional politics,” he said.

According to Sharma, the parties have agreed to meet again to decide what to do further in Katawal’s case. All the parties have been provided with the copies of the clarification furnished by Katawal for study.

“We called the meeting with a view to consult the parties on the issue of government action against the army chief,” said Prachanda l. “We all agreed that the government should take further step only through consensus.” He said whatever action the government will take will be decided by all the parties.

Speaking at the meeting, prime minister said initiated action against the army chief to stop the army from turning authoritarian like in Pakistan and Bangladesh and bring it under civilian control, according to Sharma.

“The prime minister also drew attention of the parties toward possibility of establishment of military supremacy if the parties unnecessarily politicize the issue,” Sharma said.

Unified CPN (Maoist) called President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav’s advice to Prime Minister Prachanda Unconstitutional

Demonstrators in Kathmandu yesterday against Chief of army Staff

KATHMANDU, April 22 - The Secretariat meeting of the ruling Unified CPN (Maoist) on Wednesday called President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav’s advice to Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal not to relieve the Chief of Army Staff from his duties as unconstitutional, and decided to launch a nation wide campaign to let the people know why the government sought clarifications from the Army Chief.

In the meeting held at the Prime Minister’s official residence in Baluwatar this morning, the Maoist Secretariat members discussed the president’s missive and said that Dr. Yadav went against the spirit of civilian supremacy while offering the advice to PM Prachandal. They claimed that the President has started posing himself as the executive head of the state, and thus breaching his limits.

On Tuesday, President Dr. Yadav sent a written advice to the PM asking the latter to stick to the political consensus and not to relieve the army chief from his duties going against the existing constitutional and legal provisions.

Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has asked the government not to take decision on Army Chief Rookmangud Katawal in haste.

picture CP Gajurel

Secretariat meeting of the ruling Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has asked the government not to take decision on Army Chief Rookmangud Katawal in haste.

Secretariat member CP Gajurel told journalists that the meeting asked the cabinet not to take action against Katawal immediately.

Gajurel said it was not a matter to be decided immediately because of increasing interest of various forces including India and USA.

"As their views have already made public, we have concluded that there is interest of them as well," said Gajurel when asked to clarify how foreign interest was linked to the matter.

"So we have decided to study Katawal´s clarification, and the cabinet will also study it," said Gajurel. "We have not stepped back but what we want this matter to be decided after serious study."

The meeting, however, decided to ask the government to settle the issue without any delay.

"The meeting urged the government to take an immediate decision over the clarification given by the army chief after studying his (Army Chief Rookmangud Katawal) argument as soon as possible," Narayankaji Shrestha, Maoist deputy leader in the parliament, told myrepublica.com.

"The meeting came up with a decision to press the government to end the situation of indecisiveness at the earliest."The Maoist party in the meeting decided to call representatives from all the 24 parties represented in the Constituent Assembly at 4 p.m. at the ruling party´s parliamentary office to discuss over the same issue.

The meeting also expressed serious concern over President Dr Ram Baran Yadav´s role in the issue of government action against Katawal.

"President is ceremonial head of state so we are discussing with lawyers whether the role he played on this issue is legitimate," said party spokesperson Dina Nath Sharma. "We have concluded that president´s suggestion is attack on the principle of civilian supremacy over army."


Democracy and Class Struggle
says that it is becoming clear that there was considerable media co-ordination with the Nepalese Army and the discredited opposition of the Nepali Congress who has just suffered an electoral defeat in the recent by Elections to create this "instant" media Blitz against the Maoists for demanding something that any self respecting democrat would stand for civilian control of the military.
Koirala declared some weeks ago that the real war was starting enlisting India and the new Indian government political forces in his truelly machiavellian political schemes. Having lost the electorial battle all he has left is machiavellian plotting with foreign powers. However true democracy has much greater strength than Koirala ever dreamed of and the democratic forces will respond as appropriate in their own time.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Maoist supporters protest in Kathmandu, Nepal, Tuesday, demanding the resignation of army chief Rookmangud Katawal




Maoist top leaders in crucial meeting


Looking with Hope and High Vision to the Choosing of a New and Better Future - Diego Rivera : Man at the Crossroads 1933

In the wake of mounting international pressure against the possible shacking of Chief of Army Staffs (COAS) Rookmanud Katawal, the Unified CPN (Maoist) leaders are an emergency meeting.

Senior leaders of the party Ram Bahadur Thapa, Babu Ram Bhattarai, party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, among others, are participating in the crucial meeting Tuesday evening.

Kathmandu-based key foreign missions including that of India, US and UK are learnt to have put pressure on the Maoist-led government not to oust Katawal, cautioning difficult situation ahead if the decision was taken.

It is learnt that Maoists are likely to call for an emergency meeting of the council of ministers this evening to take formal decision on assumption that international pressure would increase from tomorrow.

Earlier today, the central secretariat meeting of the Maoist had directed government to take decision to strengthen supremacy of civilian government.

SOURCE: Nepal News

President asks PM not to oust army chief

President Dr Ram Baran Yadav in a letter to Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal on Tuesday asked him not to sack the army chief Rookmangud Katawal.

President Yadav in his letter said ousting the army chief in the present situation would be inappropriate. He also mentioned that the government will have to amend the Army Act 2063 before taking any sweeping decision on the army.

Action against CoAS depends on reply: Maoists


SOURCE: Kantipur Report

KATHMANDU, April 21 - The ruling Unified CPN (Maoist) on Tuesday reached a conclusion that the government will decide on the nature of action against Chief of Army Staff General Rookmangud Katawal after looking at the latter's clarification letter.

The decision was made at a meeting of Maoist secretariat members at the Prime Minister's official residence in Baluwatar earlier today.

Accusing the army chief of defying several government orders, the Ministry of Defence yesterday had demanded clarification from Katawal.

The meeting asserted that the main opposition party Nepali Congress (NC) should give clarifications about its protest at the parliament since the major parties has already agreed to keep the Nepal Army (NA) under civil administration in order to democratise it after the second people's movement.

Saying that it was the right decision to ask for clarifications, the meeting has decided to free Katawal from the top NA post if he fails to furnish rational clarifications, sources said.

Also today, a meeting of 16 political parties including the CPN-UML, a key partner of the Maoist in the government, convened by the NC at its headquarters in Sanepa criticised the Maoists for intervening into the state bodies and trying to derail the peace process.

Meanwhile, the Unified CPN (Maoist) are taking out a rally in the capital to express support to the government decision.

Democracy and Class Struggle says it it interesting how the media both on the Internet and the published form are playing this story - basically ignoring the defiance of chief of Army Staff General Rookmangud Katawal of the elected civilian government and charging the Maoists with totalitarianism because they believe that the military should be under civilian control.

It is very important that the three issues that Katwal needs to clarify do not get buried in this campaign of disinformation that is currently underway.

Prime Minister Prachanda has informed the Nepal President of the letter to Army Chief and Army chief has responded today with clarification of his defiance of government.

The Army chief went ahead with the recruitment of some 3,000 personnel despite the government directive to freeze recruitment

The Army chief asked eight retired generals, whose case is sub judice in the Supreme Court, to continue in office

The Army chief ordered the Army boycott of the National Games to protest PLA participation – again in defiance of the directive from the prime minister, who is patron of the National Sports Council

Landless people will get land within six months: PM Prachanda

PM Prachanda underscores need for land reforms

Picture : Chinese land reform Poster

KATHMANDU, April 21 - Prime Minister Prachanda Tuesday said sustainable development is impossible until there is proper management of land reforms in the country.

Inaugurating an international programme on land reforms in the capital, Prime Minister Dahal said High-level Land Reforms Commission will submit the suggestions within six months and head the works for the same.

He opined that land reforms took a leap only after the initiatives by the Maoists’ armed war though it was the main agenda in Nepal since many years.

Over 300 participants from some 43 countries are participating in the three-day international programme.

The Unified CPN (Maoist) has advised the government to suspend General Katawal from the post of army chief if his clarification is not convincing

The ruling Unified CPN (Maoist) has advised the government to suspend General Katawal from the post of army chief if his clarification is not deemed convincing.

A meeting of the party's Central Secretariat held today morning at the Prime Minister's official residence to discuss the government's decision to ask General Katawal to furnish clarification had reached to this conclusion.

The meeting also concluded that the government had the constitutional rights to seek clarification from its army chief and also decided to hold a mass meet in the capital city today in support of the government's decision to ask General Katawal to furnish clarification on the controversial issues related to the army.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Chief of Army (CoAS) Staff Rookmangud Katawal and supremacy of the people's government


Picture: Prachanda

Prime Minister Prachanda has informed the Nepal President of the letter to Army Chief and Army chief has responded today with clarification of his defiance of government.

The Army chief went ahead with the recruitment of some 3,000 personnel despite the government directive to freeze recruitment

The Army chief asked eight retired generals, whose case is sub judice in the Supreme Court, to continue in office

The Army chief ordered the Army boycott of the National Games to protest PLA participation – again in defiance of the directive from the prime minister, who is patron of the National Sports Council

Dr Baburam Bhattarai has warned that the Chief of Army Staff would be sacked if he failed to furnish clarification for defying government


Finance Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai has on Monday warned that the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) would be sacked if he failed to furnish clarification for defying a series of government orders.

The Maoist-led government has already asked general Katawal to produce clarification for recruitment of 3010 soldiers, reinstatement of the eight retired brigadier generals sans the approval of the Defence Ministry and boycotting the National Games by 10 am Tuesday.

Dr Bhattarai, who is also a senior leader of United CPN (Maoist), told media persons in Nepalgunj that if the CoAS failed to defend himself against the charges for "grossly" defying the government orders, he would be relieved of his duty.

The rebel-turned-minister also accused CoAS Katawal and few other Army generals of mocking the people's sovereignty by going against the law and the constitution.

Civilian control of the Army is the issue



Republica in Nepal , Blaze in USA and some Indian Media are out to create confusion about the situation in Nepal.

The Nepalese Army has consistently ignored the orders of the civilian government and the UCPN Maoist have recently recieved further endorsment of their policies by the people in by elections.Without the army being under civilian control democracy in Nepal is a mockery.

You would not hear any of this in the rants that come from Nepal, USA and India but truth will out and the army will come under civilian control and Nepal will build New Democracy.

MoD issues 24hr ultimatum to army chief to clarify on thorny issues

Picture Katawal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest News: Lt General Kul Bahadur Khadka is soon to replace Rookmangud Katawal as the Chief of the Nepal Army say sources.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ministry of Defense has given a 24 hour ultimatum to Chief of Army (CoAS) Staff Rookmangud Katawal to furnish clarification on three controversial issues related to the army.

The Defense Ministry has given this ultimatum in a letter it sent to the CoAS Monday seeking clarification on issues related to recruitment in Nepal Army (NA), retirement of eight army generals and boycotting of National Games by NA.

The letter has been formally registered at the NA Headquarters in Bhadrakali, Kathmandu, a ministry source said.

Accusing the CoAS of challenging people’s supremacy by repeatedly disobeying the government orders, a cabinet meeting on Sunday had decided to seek clarification from CoAS Katawal.

The defense secretary had personally called up the CoAS to acknowledge the receipt of the letter, according to reports.

The cabinet decision comes as part of a plan of the Maoist led government to relieve Katawal from his position, it is learnt.

According to a military by-law, the government can relieve the CoAS from his position if the latter does not furnish clarification within 24 hours or if the government is not convinced with the clarification.

The CoAS is normally appointed for three years, but the government can retire him if it deems necessary, the by-law states. However, the CoAS should be given a chance to furnish clarifications on the charges he is accused with.

CoAS Katawal had called on Prime Minister Pushpa Prachanda on Sunday. The PM asked the CoAS to quit and offered to appoint him as an ambassador or the security advisor to the PM if he quits voluntarily, reports say. CoAS Katawal refused PM’s offer, it is learnt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pokhrel of the UML added said his party has not been informed formally what clarification Katawal has been asked to furnish by the government.

He further said Nepal Army, as an arm of the government, should obey to orders of the civilian government without condition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, India's ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood met Prime Minister Prachanda after indications that the government was planning to fire the current Nepal Army (NA) chief, Gen Rookmangud Katawal.

Katawal, a graduate of India's National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy is due to vacate post in August but becuase of defiance of Government has been asked to leave early.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

China has agreed to increase its annual assistance to Nepal by 50 percent.

Picture China Nepal Friendship Highway

China has agreed to increase its annual assistance to Nepal by 50 percent.

Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav who returned to the capital on Saturday after a visit to China, said the Chinese government agreed to provide 150 Yuan (Rs 1.74 billion) annually. Chinese aid stands at 100 million Yuan at present.

Speaking to reporters at the Tribhuvan International Airport, Yadav also informed that China is positive about giving duty-free access to as many as 497 different Nepali export items.

China has also pledged help for developing Rampur Agriculture Campus in Chitwan into an agriculture university, he said, adding that the northern neighbour has shown readiness to help Nepal in infrastructure projects, science and technology and tourism.

The Foreign Minister maintained that if Nepal is able to sustain peace more foreign assistance will be available.

Apart from Beijing, FM Yadav visited Hong Kong and Macao, holding high-level parleys with senior officials there on issues concerning Nepali migrant workers. Hong Kong has been asked to grant transit and working visa for Nepalis, he informed.

Yadav also visited Indonesia where he participated in an international conference on human trafficking.

China has agreed to increase its annual assistance to Nepal by 50 percent.

Foreign Minister Upendra Yadav who returned to the capital on Saturday after a visit to China, said the Chinese government agreed to provide 150 Yuan (Rs 1.74 billion) annually. Chinese aid stands at 100 million Yuan at present.

Speaking to reporters at the Tribhuvan International Airport, Yadav also informed that China is positive about giving duty-free access to as many as 497 different Nepali export items.

China has also pledged help for developing Rampur Agriculture Campus in Chitwan into an agriculture university, he said, adding that the northern neighbour has shown readiness to help Nepal in infrastructure projects, science and technology and tourism.

The Foreign Minister maintained that if Nepal is able to sustain peace more foreign assistance will be available.

Apart from Beijing, FM Yadav visited Hong Kong and Macao, holding high-level parleys with senior officials there on issues concerning Nepali migrant workers. Hong Kong has been asked to grant transit and working visa for Nepalis, he informed.

Yadav also visited Indonesia where he participated in an international conference on human trafficking

Friday, April 17, 2009

Ian Tomlinson did not die from natural causes


A new post mortem says Ian Tomlinson died from an abdominal haemorrhage not a heart attack after contact with police during the G20 protests. He was hit and pushed over by a police officer on 1 April, when he was just trying to get home from work. The statement from the City of London Coroners Court overturns the initial assessment that the newspaper seller died of natural causes. Another lie exposed.

EMERGENCY PROTEST: Outside City of London Police HQ, 37 Wood Street EC211am to 2pm, called by G20 Meltdown

Ben Petersen on the By-elections: The revolution STILL going strong- and now we have the stats to prove it!


Picture Ben Petersen

Apologies its been a while since there has been an update. For the last week or so i have been in Rolpa- to see the bi elections and to meet the people there, as this was the base area for the Maoists during the peoples war. There are many pictures and interviews to come, but for now, here is an analysis of the election outcome.

On April 10 across the country by-elections were held in 6 constituencies that had been left vacant in the last 12 months. These elections took place in a range of areas, in different parts of the country, in areas where different ethnic groups and where political parties were powerful so in effect these elections gave a good reflection in the political mood amongst the people. While only a fraction of people could vote, and the small amount of seats at stake would not affect the balance of power within the parliament, these elections were incredibly important because of the role they take in the wider political struggle in the country.

In these elections, the Maoists (again) won considerably.

Of the 6 constituencies 2 were previously held by the Maoists, which they retained, and they also picked up another seat- previously held by the Nepali Congress. The other seats went one each to the Nepali Congress, the CPN(UML) and the Madeshi Peoples Rights Forum. Despite what was widely predicted, rather then Maoist support dropping in the last year, it has increased. This is further despite the constant media attacks and the inability for their government to carry out most of their programs in a meaningful way.

This is because the Maoists are still a party that has deep connections within the communities of Nepal. Its work in local areas , and its work in the youth, women's, trade unions, peasants, low caste and poor peoples movements means that there is a link with the average Nepalis that has proven to be strong, and hasn't yet been severed, despite the constant media attacks and co-ordinated attempts by the opposition to destroy or usurp this revolutionary base.

Also the Maoists polled well in the Terai areas, and finished second in one of the Madhesh constituencies. This is even more surprising due to the departure from the Maoists of Matrika Yadav, who was their most publicised Madheshi leader. Even despite this very public split and the very publicised criticisms of the Maoists from Yadav, the Maoists have been able to increase their support in the Madheshi areas, which are so crucial in the current situation. If the balance of power tips back in favour of the Maoists in the Madhesh, then it will help to overcome a major challenge to the ongoing revolutionary process.

This election is more than just a simple vote but is in essence an important part of the wider political power struggle that is still playing out. These results are encouraging for the revolutionaries, and strengthens their hands, and gives them more strength and ability to push forward with the plans and programs of the revolution. Conversely- the political opposition, was looking to these elections, to provide them with an opportunity to discredit and overthrow the government. The Nepali Congress leads this political opposition- including elements of parties within government and the Army, with the support of the international players in the embassy. The Congress opposition was hoping that this election would result in defeat for the Maoists, which would give them an opportunity to claim that that government had lost the support of the people, and try to overthrow it. The elections have instead, removed this possibility and rather will lead to renewed attacks on the state power that their class base still holds.

As I have said that these polls should not be looked at not just as polls, but as part of the political processes that is ongoing. They are important because the revolution, and the counter revolution are both progressing, and trying to gather strength to do away with the other. It is easy to see, for the political opposition has been very active in the army recruitment, disrupting the assembly and protests in different parts of the country, but the progressive forces have not simply stood back and done nothing, they have had mobilisations, they have retiring more and more officials, and now they have won this election. All these are just parleys. There are two fundamentally opposed forces vying for control and naturally there will need to be a confrontation at some point between these two poles. The old- the army and bureaucrats desperately trying to crush the new- a inclusive and equitable Nepal. The prize is the power to enforce and create the New Nepal in their image, and while this election, this small skirmish has been won by those with a very new vision for Nepal, the decisive battles are yet to be played out.
Visit Ben Petersen site here :
http://www.maobadiwatch.blogspot.com

Army integration pre-requisite for constitution making: PM Prachanda


Prime Minister Prachanda on Thursday said that the constitution drafting process will be smooth only after the major task of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants is completed.

"For this purpose the government is pushing ahead the army integration process with priority," he said.

Addressing a program titled "Concerns of Women and Children in the Upcoming Constitution of Nepal" organized by Mahila Adharshila in the capital city, PM Prachanda said, "to draft a constitution with which everybody can feel a sense of belongingness is the main challenge that lies ahead for the government."

He also vowed that he won't allow the new constitution to be like the one framed in 2047 B.S, and claimed that since the Constitution Assembly (CA) teams have already returned after learning the aspirations of the people and their suggestions for the new constitution from every nooks and corners of Nepal "everybody will now feel a sense of belongingness with the new constitution."

Stressing on the need to ensure the rights of women and children for drafting a "people's constitution", PM Prachanda , who is also the chairman of Unified CPN (Maoist), clarified that at the present juncture it is very important to ensure as well as institutionalise the rights of women and children in the new constitution.

"Although the country has witnessed historical transformation, few elements in the country are trying to push the country back to its former self," he further said, "so the people need to remain alert during these times."

He also used the opportunity to hit back at the previous governments, saying that only because of the failed leadership of the "old state" the Nepalese people are suffering with abject poverty in the country.

Similarly, citing the example of Norway and Finland, PM Prachanda said that Nepal too can become prosperous like them by utilising the immense potentials of its water resources.

Speaking at the same programme, chairperson of National Women's Commission (NWC) Naina Kala Rai said that the new constitution should not discriminate against women and children on any basis and also called for scrapping of all biased laws prevalent in Nepal

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Democracy and Class Struggle - State and Revolution in Nepal



Democracy and Class Struggle is publishing two long articles because they address the important question of State Power in Nepal.

The first is from comrade Barburam Bhattarai and was published in 2004 and still gives the best view of the UCPN Maoist view of the State and the question of Democracy.

Comrade Stephen Maudlin who has recently made contributions on this and other sites on the question of the State and Revolution in Nepal has brought Bhattarai's contribution to our attention once again - and we publish it because we cannot assume that new and some old comrades know its content.

The second is from comrade Joseph Ball who is critical of the UCPN Maoist view of the State and multi party democracy but is also active in support of the Nepalese Revolution.

We hope these different contributions deepen your understanding of the dynamics of the Nepalese Revolution.

The Question of Building a new type of State by Barburam Bhattarai



This article appeared in the issue 9 of "The Worker" (February 2004), the CPN's (Maoist) theoretical journal. It outlines the their basic stances on theoretical issues involving the creation of a new Socialist state in Nepal.

The basic question of every revolution is that of state power. Unless this question is understood there can be no intelligent participation in the revolution, not to speak of guidance of the revolution."- V.I. Lenin, (1917 b: 34)

The question of state power has now become the central question for the New Democratic revolution in Nepal, which is marching forward to capturing central state power after building revolutionary base areas and local power in the vast rural areas. The question has assumed significance and may be discussed primarily from two angles. Firstly, in the universal context; and secondly, in the concrete national context.


Firstly in the universal or general sense, the proletarian (i.e. New Democratic or Socialist) state power is of a ‘new type' as compared to all the state powers of minority exploiter classes in history. Further-more, after the downfall of all People's Democratic or Socialist state powers including those in Russia, China and others in the past, the proletarian state powers arising in a new setting in the 21st century have to be of a further newer type.

Secondly, in the concrete semi-feudal and semi-colonial national context of Nepal, where even the old bourgeois revolution and state has not been accomplished, the prospective proletarian state would naturally be, and have to be, of a ‘new' type. Hence, we would first make a general review of the historical experiences on the question of state and strive to analyse the fundamental characteristics of a new type of state.

1. Historical Background

A. International Context

The question of state power has been the central question in every major ideological political struggle in the international communist movement. Struggles against the anarchists during Marx-Engel's time, struggles against the revisionists during Lenin's time and struggles against the revisionists and dogmato-revisionists during Mao's and our own time are principally centred on the question of state power. It would thus be useful to make a brief historical review of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist or proletarian view against the anarchist, revisionist and dogmato-revisionist views, which may also be called petty-bourgeois, bourgeois and bureaucratic bourgeois views on the state and lay the foundation for a new type of state.As per the historical facts available so far and their historic-materialist interpretations, origin of the state followed the division of classes in society as a means of dictatorship of one class over the others.

Hence the state has been the centre of class struggle in every historical stage starting with the primitive state-communal formation through the slave and feudal societies to the modern capitalist society, and every victorious class has further sharpened and strengthened this weapon of the state according to its class interest. The state, which was initially born as ‘servant' of the society, gradually separated itself from the society and took the form of ‘master' of the society. By the time the state reached the ‘highest' and ‘ultimate' stage of the bourgeois republic it became terrible parasitic machinery over the society armed with a huge bureaucracy and standing army.

However, according to the law of dialectics that requires everything that is born to meet with its death, the state is also inevitably destined to die someday.The latest development of the social productive forces to a very high level has made this both possible and essential. This is the fundamental principal of Marxism on the origin, development and end of the state.Among the founders of Marxism, Marx through his works, principally, "Class Struggle in France" (1850), "Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaprte" (1852), "Civil War in France" (1871), "Critique of the Gotha programme" (1875), etc, and Engels through his works, particularly. "Anti-Duhring" (1878), "The Origin of Family, Private Property and State" (1884), etc. laid the foundation of the scientific conception of the state.

However, the issue of utmost dispute and debate in the international communist movement and the one deserving maximum attention while building a new type of state, is the question of elimination of the old type of state in its highest and ultimate stage in the form of a bourgeois republic and construction of new type of transitional state in its place. Marx and Engels had to wage the main ideological struggle on this question while fighting against the anarchist trend particularly led by Stirner, Proudhon, and Bakunin. While the anarchists idealistically talked of immediate destruction of all types of state and opposed building an alternate state of any kind,

Marx and Engels viewed the state objectively and put forward the concept of building a new type of transitional state in lieu of the bourgeois state, whose essence would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.Elucidating the fundamental difference between the Marxist and the anarchist views on the state, Engels has said:"While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation which the ruling classes-landowners and capitalists-have provided for themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state, which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say:

Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of the capital is precisely the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production." (Marx and Engels 1985:425)Thus it was well established that the state is not an abstract concept created by somebody's subjective wishes but a concrete object developed and demolished by the objective necessity of society.Engels had further expounded that after the displacement of the state of the minority exploiter classes by the social revolution of the conscious masses the majority exploited classes should establish a ‘transitional' state to apply dictatorship over the defeated exploiter classes and to move towards a classless society, and such a state would be "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word". (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984:120) Marx and Engels had time and again highlighted the Paris Commune of 1871 as the best example of such a transitional proletarian state.

After the experience of the Paris Commune Marx had all the more emphatically proclaimed that the form of the state needed for a long transitional period from capitalism to communism would be nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is expressed thus:"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." (Marx1975: 26)The Paris Commune which was created through direct election and participation by the workers of Paris, which was directly defended by the armed masses after dissolution of the standing army and which was equipped with all the executive and legislature powers was upheld as the most shining example of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat' by Engels till the end of his life.

This is amply reflected in the following assertion of Engels on the twentieth anniversary of the Paris Commune on March 18, 1891:"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentleman, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the Proletariat." (Marx and Engels 1985:189)

The founders of Marxism had visualized the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of a new type of state ending all states in history, not as a permanent object separated from and lording over the society but as a temporary product that would wither away by itself in course of time. This is well articulated in this initial formulation by Marx himself:"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economist the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove:
1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production,
2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,
3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." (Marx and Engels 1977:528)

The expression "this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to... a classless society" clearly asserts that the new type of state in the form of dictatorship of the proletariat is not a state ‘in the proper sense of the word' and is a means to do away with all the classes and state.

How the new type of proletarian state (or the dictatorship of the proletariat) gradually withers away and ultimately dies out as a state is further expressed by Engels as follows:"When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collision and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society- this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself: the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.

The state is not "abolished". It dies out." (Engels 1880:147)This long quotation is by itself so crystal clear and sharp that it needs no additional explanation. However, as the great Paris Commune in existence only for seventy-two days was the only example of a new type of proletarian state in the form of dictatorship of the proletariat during the life time of Marx and Engels, there was no possibility of any practicing of withering away of the state as visualized by the founders of Marxism.After the death of Marx and Engels, their worthy successor Lenin made additional contributions to the question of state power, both theoretically and practically.

Theoretically, his "State and Revolution" (1917) laid a new foundation for the Marxist knowledge and science on the question of state power, and his other works including "Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?" (1917), "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government" (1918), "Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (1919), etc. elucidated the Soviet system as a new type of state. Lenin practically played a pioneering role in building a new type of socialist state by accomplishing the historic October Socialist Revolution and by defending and developing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of Soviet system against internal and external attacks for seven years.

The concept of a new type of proletarian state put forward by Lenin on the eve of the October Revolution was like this:"The proletariat... if it wants to uphold the gains of present revolution and proceed further, to win peace, bread and freedom, must "smash", to use Marx's expression, this "ready-made" state machine and substitute a new one for it by merging the police force, the army and the bureaucracy with the entire armed people. Following the path indicated by the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Russian Revolution of 1905, the proletariat must organize and arm all the poor, exploited sections of the population in order that they themselves should take the organs of state power directly into their own hands, in order that they themselves should constitute these organs of state power". (Lenin 1917a: 326)

The question of 'smashing' the old state and merging of the army and bureaucracy with ‘the entire armed people', and that of ‘organizing and arming' the masses and taking the organs of new state power ‘directly' into their own hands by the masses, is definitely the most significant aspect of the concept of new type of state advanced by Lenin. This was sought to be implemented in the new state built in the form of ‘Soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants' after the October Revolution.Similarly, Lenin had envisaged to build a new type of state devoid of a ‘standing army' and an ‘officialdom placed above the people', and vowed thus:"...I advocate not the usual parliamentary bourgeois state, but a state without a standing army, without a police opposed to the people, without an officialdom placed above the people." (Lenin 1917c: 49)

However, Kautsky and other Right revisionists of the Second International had sought to discard the very class concept of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat and to spread the illusion of bourgeois parliamentarism in the form of so-called "pure democracy" within the proletarian movement, against which Lenin had launched a severe polemics. In his famous work "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (1918), Lenin had amply clarified that in a class divided society ‘democracy', too, would have a class character and bourgeois democracy and constituent assembly were mere concrete forms of bourgeois state.While replying to the critics of the Soviet system, Lenin had enumerated the specificities of the Soviet democracy thus:

"In Russia ... the bureaucratic machine has been completely smashed, razed to the ground; the old judges have all been sent packing, the bourgeois parliament has been dispersed-and far more accessible representation has been given to the workers and peasants; their Soviets have replaced the bureaucrats, and their Soviets have been authorized to elect the judges. This fact alone is enough for all the oppressed classes to recognize that Soviet power, i.e., the present form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic." (Lenin 1918:33-34)

Thus, an extensive network of local to central Soviets of workers, peasants, soldiers and other revolutionary classes developed in the model of the Paris Commune was the practical expression of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat' and a new type of socialist state after the October revolution. When there arose a contradiction between the bourgeois representative organ, the constituent assembly, and the socialist representative organ, the Soviet, immediately after the revolution, the constituent assembly was dissolved as a historically retrograde organ, and the forward-looking Soviet democracy was institutionalized.

Even when a vicious imperialist aggression and internal civic war ensued in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, the congress and meetings of the elected Soviets were held in short and regular intervals and all-important decisions of the state were taken through the Soviets.

However, when the civil war got stretched and a ‘New Economic Policy' (NEP) with features of state-capitalism was introduce to tide over the problems of the economic construction after the end of the civil war, there was gradual erosion in the dynamism and liveliness of the initial Soviet system. The higher-level executive committees started getting more active and powerful at the cost of the Soviet Congress and local organs. The organs of the state, Party and army (which was getting transformed into a standing army from the initial ‘Red Guards') were getting intertwined inseparably.

A bureaucratic apparatus in the old Czarist mould, cut-off from and placed over the people, started rising up gradually. Similar other bureaucratic deviations were cropping up menacingly in the new Soviet state system. As Lenin was a rare genius of revolutionary firmness and dynamism and a past master in applying revolutionary science in the concrete time and place, he made concerted efforts till the end to curb the rising bureaucratic tendencies in the Soviet state system and to ensure the initiative, supervision and participation of the revolutionary masses in the new state power through ‘Worker's and Peasants Inspection', ‘non-Party Worker's and Peasant's Conferences', etc.A glimpse of the problem of bureaucracy in the Soviet state and the Party can be had from the following comment by Lenin towards the end of his life in 1923:"Let us hope that our new Worker's and Peasants' Inspection will abandon what the French call pruderies, which we may call ridiculous primness, or ridiculous swank, and which plays entirely into the hands of our Soviet and Party bureaucracy. Let it be said in parentheses that we have bureaucrats in our Party offices as well as in Soviet offices." (Lenin 1923:419)

In this context it would be worthwhile to note the warnings of Rosa Luxemburg made from a left revolutionary angle, despite her certain idealist and voluntarist limitations, on the future of the Soviet state:"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule.

Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously-at bottom, then, a clique affair- a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, however, but only the dictatorship of the handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense...". (Luxemburg 1918:118)

After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin made efforts to continue and develop the Soviet state in a socialist direction. However, firstly due to a type of economic deterministic thinking that envisaged the development of the productive forces per se would lead the society towards communism, an one-sided stress was laid on economic development through central planning. Secondly, in the particularity of heightened contradictions with imperialism in and around the World War II, the ‘external' cause was accorded primacy and the policy of applying force of state power to settle internal contradictions within the state and the Party was followed.

Consequently, by the time of Stalin's death in 1953 the Soviet state was caught in a vicious bureaucratic quagmire, and with Khrushchev's advent it assumed an open bureaucratic capitalist and totalitarian character, which was ultimately transformed into naked capitalism in 1989.With the ‘peaceful' degeneration of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, Mao sought to draw grave lessons from it and developed the theory of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR).

Even beforehand during the Chinese revolution Mao had developed the concept of a new type of state in the form of ‘people's democratic dictatorship' or ‘New Democracy' to complete bourgeois democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat in pre-capitalist or semi-feudal and semi-colonial societies and to move towards socialism. These are incorporated in his celebrated works like "On New Democracy" (1939), "On People's Democratic Dictatorship" (1949), etc. After the revolution when there was the danger of the people's democratic dictatorship (till 1956) and the dictatorship of the proletariat (1956 onwards) undergoing bureaucratization and degenerating into bourgeois dictatorship, Mao searched for new methods to ensure supervision and participation of the masses in the state and to correctly handle contradictions prevalent in society. In this process were penned such important works like "On Ten Major Relations" (1956), "On Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" (1957), etc. Later on in the Sixties, when the Khruschovite revisionists blatantly abandoned the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat and advanced the bourgeois concept of the 'state of the entire people', Mao launched a powerful polemics against the same, which is widely known as the ‘Great Debate'.

The method of ensuring maximum and continuous participation of the masses in the state through the practice of ‘great democracy' under the leadership of the proletariat, is the question of utmost importance in checking bureaucratic deviations and building a new type of state, which is reflected in Mao's assertion:

"We must have this much confidence. We are not even afraid of imperialism, so why should we be afraid of great democracy? Why should we be afraid of students taking to the streets? Yet among our Party members there are some who are afraid of great democracy, and this is not good. Those bureaucrats who are afraid of great democracy must study Marxism hard and mend their ways." (Mao 1977:347)

There is no doubt that the GPCR carried out from 1966 to 1976 under the leadership of Mao made historic contribution in the development of a new type of proletarian state. In this context particularly noteworthy are: widespread slogans of "It is right to rebel', ‘Bombard the bourgeois headquarter' etc; revolutionary committees made up of non-Party masses to conduct state functions in the model of Paris Commune; formation Red Guards in millions through the arming of the masses; inclusion of the rights of workers to strike in the state constitution; etc.

Nevertheless, the incidence of counterrevolution from within the existing state and restoration of bourgeois dictatorship in China after Mao's death in 1976, has added further responsibilities on the shoulders of the new age revolutionaries to build a new type of proletarian state. In this context we should move further ahead after drawing positive and negative lessons of practices of dictatorship of the proletariat from the Paris Commune through the Russian Soviet to the Chinese GPCR. It is obvious that as long as the era of imperialism prevails and there is the compulsion of building socialism within a single country, nobody can and should objectively deny the possibility of counter-revolution after a revolution. Even then, if we can't provided scientific and logical answer to the subjective factors behind the relatively easy and more or less ‘peaceful' occurrence of counter-revolution and restoration of bourgeois dictatorship in nearly half of the world that had dozens of socialist and people's democratic state systems in the twentieth century, we won't be able to win the confidence of the masses to accomplish revolution and defend and develop the same up to communism. In this sense it is imperative to firmly grasp that the question of building a new type of state in the twenty-first century means the building of the state that would prevent counter-revolution after revolution and would lead to communism through a continuous revolution; or it is a state that would bring about its own end as a state.

Similarly, as there would be a ceaseless process of revolution and counter-revolution so long as the class division in society remains, we should beware of the dangers of reactionary psychological warfare against the possibility of another revolution after a counter-revolution and resultant proliferation of pessimism and liquidationist, agnostic, nihilist, reformist and revisionist thoughts within the revolutionary camp.

For this we should correctly grasp the dialectical law of opportunism donning different guises according to varying time and place as seen during the days of Marx, Lenin and Mao. For instance, on the question of the state in Marx's time as there was the need to fight against the anarchist tendency, which tended to negate the state instantly, Marx and Engels had to stress more on the ‘necessity' of a transitional state in the form of dictatorship of the proletariat. When this ‘necessity' aspect was one-sidedly exaggerated by the revisionists of the Second International and sought to perpetuate the bourgeois state through cosmetic ‘reforms', Lenin launched a vicious ideological struggle against it and developed the new Soviet state power after carrying out the October Revolution.

On Lenin's death and during the period of Third International and Stalin, though there was mechanistic stress on the ‘necessity' of dictatorship of the proletariat from a dogmato-revisionist angle, the question of continuous revolution and withering away of the state was put in the back burner and consequently the dictatorship of the proletariat itself got distorted and ultimately degenerated into bureaucratic bourgeois dictatorship or totalitarianism.

It was only during the period of Mao that both the revisionist and dogmato-revisionist tendencies were attacked and a balanced stress was placed on both the questions of dictatorship of the proletariat and of ‘continuous revolution' and withering away of the state. As Mao's efforts during the short period were grossly inadequate and incomplete, the revolutionaries of the present age should dare go beyond all the past experiences and build a new type of state power while firmly grasping the question of dictatorship of the proletariat and continuous revolution.

B. National Context

The centralized feudal state of Nepal was set up nearly two and a quarter century ago under the leadership of King Prithvi Narayan Shah of Gorkha.

Though there have been minor reformist changes in 1951 and 1990, the class character of the state has remained semi-feudal and semi-colonial and its political form has been basically autocratic monarchical. As the basic socio-economic base of society has remained semi-feudal and semi-colonial and the standing army, since its inception during the central state formation days, and the bureaucracy, along with its development since 1951, have been primarily loyal to the monarchy, attempts to introduce ‘constitutional monarchy' in the following decades after the 1951 and 1990 political changes have not been successful.

The latest experiment in ‘constitutional monarchy' and bourgeois parliamentary democracy has virtually ended with the qualitative development of the class struggle in the form of People's War (PW) since 1996 and the old state has once again donned the guise of nakedly autocratic monarchy and military dictatorship since October 4, 2002.

As per the general national and regional structure of the feudal state, the old state of Nepal is based on Arya-Khas high caste chauvinism and is of a unitary and over-centralized type. As a result the majority Tibeto-Burman and Austro-Dravid nationalities and Madheshis (i.e. inhabitant of Terai plains) and the regions of far-western Seti-Mahakali and Karnali are subjected to intense oppression of the unitary and centralized feudal state. Moreover, the dalits treated as untouchables in the so-called Hindu varnashram system (i.e. caste hierarchy) and women under patriarchal domination, are naturally subjected to worst form of oppression by the feudal state.

Thus it is axiomatic that a new type of state in the context of Nepal means a transitional state that would first complete the bourgeois democratic revolution and then would advance towards socialism and communism. In keeping with this objective reality the CPN (Maoist) has since its inception formulated a minimum programme of establishing a New Democratic state based on the people's democratic dictatorship and set the goal of attaining socialism and communism through carrying out continuous revolution.

It has also been envisaged that in the concrete condition of Nepal the form of the first phase of bourgeois democratic revolution would be joint democratic dictatorship of different oppressed classes, nationalities, regions, gender and communities under the leadership of the proletariat.In the light of the destruction of the old state in most of the rural areas and the rising up of different levels and forms of revolutionary people's power in its place, ‘United Revolutionary People's Council' (URPC) has been developed since September 2001 as an embryonic central state power to coordinate and guide the local people's power, which is a broad revolutionary united front of different classes, nationalities, regions, women and others under the leadership of the CPN (Maoist).

The 75-point ‘Common Minimum Policy and Programme' adopted by the First National Convention of the URPC provides a general outline of the New Democratic or People's Democratic state to be built after the revolution. This Minimum Programme has sought to incorporate many important aspects of proletarian democracy (viz. supervision of the masses over the state, public criticism of the state functionaries, etc) developed during the GPCR.Keeping in view such specificities like the stage of strategic equilibrium of the PW, the triangular contention among revolutionary democratic, parliamentarian and monarchist forces in the country, sensitive geo-strategic positioning of the country sandwiched between two gigantic neighbors, etc, the Party has advanced a further proposal of minimum forward-looking political solution of completing the bourgeois democratic revolution through peaceful negotiations. An outline of a transitional state which is a step below the New Democratic/People's Democratic state has been provided in the "An Executive Summary of the Proposal Put Forward by CPN (Maoist) for the Negotiations" [See, CPN (Maoist) 2004] proposed by the Party during the latest round of negotiations on April 27, 2003.

The Party believes that the concept of such a transitional state rising above the bourgeois parliamentarism but not yet reaching the level of New Democracy is appropriate both theoretically and practically in the concrete conditions of Nepal.Though the concept of New Democratic state developed by Mao is generally correct and appropriate, the CPN (Maoist) has found it imperative to further develop the concept of democracy in the light of the past experiences of counter-revolutions and continuously changing national and international conditions. In this context a recent resolution passed by the Central Committee of the Party for a public debate says:"A Party, which may be proletarian revolutionary, and a state, that may be democratic or socialist, at a particular time, place and condition, may turn counter-revolutionary at another time, place and condition.

It is obvious that the synthesis of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, namely the masses and the revolutionaries should rebel in such a situation, is fully correct in its place. However, as if a particular Communist Party remains proletarian for ever once a New Democratic or Socialist state is established under the leadership of the Party, there is either no opportunity, or it is not prepared, or it is prohibited, for the masses to have a free democratic or socialist competition against it.

As a result, since the ruling Party is not required to have a political competition with others amidst the masses, it gradually turns into a mechanistic bureaucratic Party with special privileges and the state under its leadership, too, turns into mechanistic and bureaucratic machinery. Similarly, the masses become a victim of formal democracy and gradually their limitless energy of creativity and dynamism gets sapped.

This danger has been clearly observed in history. To solve this problem, the process of control, supervision and intervention of the masses over the state should be stressed to be organized in a lively and scientific manner, according to the principle of continuous revolution. Once again the question here is to dialectically organize scientific reality that the efficacy of dictatorship against the enemy is dependent upon the efficacy of exercising democracy among the people."

For this, a situation must be created to ensure continuous proletarization and revolutionization of the Communist Party by organizing political competition within the constitutional limits of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist democratic state. Only by institutionalizing the rights of the masses to install an alternative revolutionary Party or leadership of the state if the Party fails to continuously revolutionalize itself the counter-revolution can be effectively checked. Among different anti-feudal and anti-imperialist political parties, organizations and institutions, which accept the constitutional provisions of the democratic state, their mutual relations should not be confined to that of a mechanistic relation of cooperation with the Communist Party but should be stressed to have dialectical relations of democratic political competition in the service of the people. It should be obvious that if anybody in this process transgresses the limits legally set by the democratic state, he would be subjected to democratic dictatorship. " [CPN (Maoist) 2004:148-49]Certainly the questions raised in the above resolution regarding the development of democracy will have far reaching significance not only in our own national context but also in the international arena.

Thus, only by correctly grasping this we may be able to build a new type of state in the coming days.

2. Important Questions on Building a New Type of State

In the light of the above historical experiences and the new necessities of the ever-changing space and time, it would be worthwhile to analyze the important questions on building a new type of state.

A. The Question of Smashing the Old State

One basic precondition for building a new type of state is the complete smashing of the old state. The more completely and deeply the old state is smashed, the better would be the probability of building a more stable and complete new state. This is the objective law verified by historical experience and facts. The main reason for this is the mutually exclusive rationale and basis of the ‘old' and ‘new' state.

The fundamental characteristics of the old state as manifested in the primitive class state power to the highly developed bourgeois republic is the use of force or exercise of dictatorship over the majority of laboring classes in society on behalf of the minority exploiting classes. As antithetical to this, the characteristic feature of the new type of proletarian (or people's democratic, or socialist) state is the use of force or exercise of dictatorship over the minority parasitic classes on behalf of the majority laboring classes. Because of this polar opposite characteristics of the two types of state, it is just impossible to transform the old state into the new one in toto or with general reforms. Particularly in the context of the modern bourgeois republic with a huge standing army and bureaucracy, which is linked with every nook and corner of society with innumerable fibers, it is just unthinkable to build a new state without first completely smashing the old one.

This is the reason why the propounders of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, have always forcefully hammered on the question of smashing the old state. While showering praises on the Paris Commune, they had said:"One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984:115)Furthermore, in his letter to Kugelman on April 12, 1871, i.e. just at the time of the Paris Commune, Marx had written:"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting."This was prominently quoted and highlighted by Lenin in his pioneering work State and Revolution. (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984:215)The principal rationale and basis of the strategy of protracted PW advanced by Mao is also the revolutionary tactics of smashing the old state power part by part from below and concurrently building the new state power in the predominantly rural and agrarian semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.

In this sense there is an inalienable and interdependent dialectical relation between the destruction of the old and construction of the new. If we intently analyze the experiences of revolution and building of new state in Russia, China and elsewhere, it can be seen that where there has been destruction of the old with greater intensity there has been construction of the new with reciprocal stability. In Russia, as the revolution had started from the cities and the impact of revolution in the rural areas had reached in lesser degree and late, there was greater difficulty in building the new revolutionary state in the latter.

This historical fact was even acknowledged by Lenin. It is also seen that the new state changes its color more easily and swiftly if we have to induct more officials and technicians from the old state after the revolution. This is the reason why Marx had stated that the workers had to pass through the experiences of intense civil war of fifteen, twenty or fifty years so as to be capable of running the new state.Certainly some organs of the old state like financial institutions, postal system, communications, transportation etc. can be adapted to the new state. But they are not the principle organs of the state. Standing army, bureaucracy, judiciary etc. are the principle and decisive organs of the state, which have to be mandatorily smashed to build the new state. Along with this the ideological and cultural organs of the old state need to be systematically dismantled to lay the ideological and cultural foundation of the new state. In this context all genuine proletarian revolutionaries should firmly grasp that to reject all revisionist and reformist illusions of ‘peaceful transition' from the old state to the new one is not just a question of tactical expediency but a question of strategic and theoretical importance.

B. The Question of Class Dictatorship and Proletarian Leadership

The most important and fundamental question in the context of building a new type of state is the question of class dictatorship and proletarian leadership. Because, the 'state' in its literal sense and essence is the means of forcibly exercising the will or dictatorship of one class over the other and without the leadership of the last class in history, which has ‘nothing to lose but its chains', i.e. the proletariat, no state can be ‘new' in its real sense. In essence, by ‘new' here it is meant to be the new means, which would negate itself like the proletarian class.

The word ‘dictatorship' has been in dispute since the beginning and it is for the use of this word that the bourgeoisie still castigates the communists the most severely. Shaken by such castigation the revisionist ‘communists' of the world, including those in Nepal, have sought to discard this word of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat' from their policies and programmes and vainly attempted to appease the reactionaries.

But, just as the sun does not stop shining even if someone closes his eyes, so the inherent character of class dictatorship of any state does not change even if someone stops using the word ‘dictatorship' about it. The only question to be chosen is: the dictatorship of which class? If it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the ‘peoples democratic dictatorship' in a multi-class society like ours, then it is the ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', or ‘feudal-bureaucratic bourgeoisie dictatorship', or any other single or multiple class dictatorship.

There is no such thing as the ‘free people's state' as claimed by the anarchists of Marx and Engels time, or the ‘state of the whole people' as parroted by the Khruschovite revisionists of the later period.Stressing on this very issue Engels had written in his famous letter to August Bebel in 1875:"As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is pure nonsense to talk of a free people's state: so long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist." (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984:120)As an exception in special situations of two struggling classes being in the position of a stalemate, Marx and Engels have talked of the state temporarily assuming a non-class and neutral status and have put forward the examples of the initial stages of the rules of Napoleon Bonaparte (1798-1815) and Louis Bonaparte (1848-1871) in France. (See, Marx 1871 and Engels 1884). However, there should not be any iota of doubt among the revolutionaries that these exceptional conditions are temporary and that the historical rule is for the state to ultimately assume the form of dictatorship of one or the other class.

Hence, while building a new state the revolutionaries should first of all determine with utmost gravity and clarity which class dictatorship it is and against which class this dictatorship is applied. In a semi-feudal and semi-colonial multi-class society like ours, it should be firmly grasped that at the initial stage the new state would be a joint democratic dictatorship of all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist classes, or all the progressive classes from the proletariat through the peasantry to the national bourgeoisie except the feudal and comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

After the completion of the bourgeoisie democratic revolution and transition to socialism the state's character would be the dictatorship of the proletariat and all types of dictatorship would whither away only in communism.In this context the proletarian revolutionaries should be clear of one general misconception that the ‘dictatorship' to be applied against the reactionary classes and the rule of law or ‘democratic centralism' to be practiced among the non-antagonistic classes and the general masses are not one and same thing.

Dictatorship is the means of eliminating the enemy classes through use of force and suppression, which is carried out primarily through the armed force, jails, etc. On the contrary, the method of non-antagonistic struggle and punishment used among the ranks of the non-antagonistic classes and masses so as to transform them is ‘democratic centralism'. Elucidating this point Mao says:"Dictatorship does not apply within the ranks of the people. The people cannot exercise dictatorship over themselves, nor must one section of the people oppress another. Law-breakers among the people will be punished according to law, but this is different in principle from the exercise of dictatorship to suppress enemies of the people. What applies among the people is democratic centralism." (Mao 1957:387)The method or process of applying dictatorship over the reactionary classes also needs to be developed with the demands of the time.

The Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) had put forward the concept that the reactionary ruling classes maintain their dictatorship (‘hegemony' in his word) by organizing a form of ‘consent' among the people through cultural and ideological means apart from the use of the armed force (see Gramsci 1971), and this had created quite a debate in the international communist movement.

This is, however, not an entirely new thing but a supplementary means of psychological use of force to aid the principal and ultimate use of physical force, and is in essence a dictatorship.

Nevertheless, in view of the increased role of propaganda war with the advance of information technology in recent years, the new type of state should pay more attention to use the cultural and ideological weapons to maintain its dictatorship.Whereas the bourgeoisie has been very craftily practicing its dictatorship under a parliamentary ‘democratic' cover and in the name of the ‘whole people', there has been a long debate in the international communist movement about the form of proletarian dictatorship and the practical method of assuming proletarian leadership over the state.

In view of the serious setbacks received by the models of proletarian dictatorship practiced in Russia, China and elsewhere in the twentieth century, the present day revolutionaries should draw appropriate lessons from these experiences and dare experiment and develop new models. After the experiences of the Paris Commune and the Russian Soviets a general understanding was developed that the proletariat should exercise its leadership through the Communist Party organized as its vanguard and the dictatorship should be applied through the Soviets or People's Councils modeled after the Paris Commune. Giving a concrete expression to this, Lenin in 1920 had said:"...the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organized in the Soviets; the proletariat is guided by the Communist Party....." (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984:473)Similarly, Mao had formulated the method of people's democratic dictatorship and proletarian leadership this way:"...People's democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the proletariat (through the Communist Party) and based on workers and peasants unity". (Mao 1948)After the October Revolution Lenin had time and again stressed that dictatorship of the proletariat should be applied through the Soviets.

However, his expression while addressing the Third Congress of the Comintern in 1921 that ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat would not work except through the Communist Party' was later taken mechanistically rather than in a general sense. As a result grave errors were committed everywhere to virtually erase all differences between a Communist Party and a socialist state. The present day revolutionaries should definitely dare correct them. In the light of the bitter experiences of gradual erosion of the distinction between the Party and representative institutions, the gradual conversion of the Communist Party itself into a bureaucratic bourgeois Party and the Party's claim of the leadership of the state as a monopoly, we should develop a correct and new method to apply class dictatorship and to exercise proletarian leadership over the state.

We should firmly grasp that the dictatorship is not that of a Party or a person but that of the class, and the proletarian leadership is not to be claimed as a monopoly but is to be won over through revolutionary practice and to be applied democratically. We must end at the earliest such paradoxical situation that the bourgeois dictatorship with a reactionary essence has been able to mislead the masses by presenting itself in an attractive form but the people's democratic or proletarian dictatorship with a revolutionary content has had an ugly external form and been discarded by the masses. For this, first of all, it should be established in practice that the Communist Party does not receive the leadership right as a ‘monopoly' but gets it because of its proletarian revolutionary character, and an institutional mechanism should be ensured for the class and the masses to reject and abandon a Party that has lost its proletarian character. Similarly, it should be firmly grasped and implemented in practice that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the dictatorship of the Party or its higher leadership but a class dictatorship applied through the elected representative organs (i.e. the Soviets or the People's Council) of the masses. Even though the ‘content' of the dictatorship is principal, the dialectical principle that if the ‘form' is not correct it will ultimately hamper upon the ‘content' should be correctly grasped and implemented. The future of building a new type of state principally rests on this cardinal question.

C. The Question of Democracy

The main essence of the new type of state is dictatorship over the reactionary classes and democracy for the majority of the progressive and patriotic masses. Hence there is a complex dialectical interrelation between applying dictatorship over one particular section of society and availing democracy to the other section. Only in the process of articulating this interrelation that it is possible to build a new type of state. If one attempts to divorce democracy and dictatorship from each other or to merge the both into one, then there occur serious problems and accidents. This has been proved by the bitter experiences of building new type of state in the past century.Democracy and dictatorship are two sides of the same coin.

In a class divided society democracy for one class is dictatorship against another class and dictatorship over one class is a democracy for another class. Hence in the new proletarian state to apply dictatorship over the handful of exploiting classes is to provide democracy for the overwhelming masses, and to expand the scope of democracy for the masses is to tighten the noose of dictatorship over the reactionary classes. In this sense democracy is also a form of state and as soon as the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes unnecessary democracy, too, becomes unnecessary or withers away.Hence the revolutionaries should be freed of the hypocritical illusion of absolute democracy or ‘democracy for all' as spread by the bourgeois. The bourgeois democracy, or formal democracy, is a concept born out of the struggle against absolute monarchy. Though it has a progressive character and role in a particular historical context, in another historical context it becomes retrograde and it is imperative for proletarian democracy to replace bourgeois democracy; and proletarian democracy itself will be negated in yet another historical condition. This may be made clearer from Lenin's statement:"The dialectics (course) of the developments as follows: from absolutism to bourgeois democracy; from bourgeois to proletarian democracy; from proletarian democracy to none." (Lenin 1958:42)In the context of building a new type of state our main concern is how to make proletarian democracy, or in our semi-feudal and semi-colonial context the people's democracy, more lively, dynamic and extensive. That means, once again, to mobilize the masses to the utmost for applying all-round dictatorship over the reactionary classes, on the one hand, and to correctly handle the contradictions among the people, on the other. As democracy is not an end in itself but merely a means to attain a specific goal, to think otherwise while talking of democracy in the present context would not only be wrong but also harmful.

Hence our foremost democratic task should be to mobilize the masses to the maximum extent possible for exercising people's democratic dictatorship over the pro-feudal and pro-imperialist elements in all the political, military, economic & cultural organs of the state. Similarly, our next important democratic task should be to solve the contradictions among different strata of the people by means of democratic centralism without any physical application of force and through ideological struggles and legal remedies. In the past, principal subjective factor for counter-revolution in the socialist and people's democratic states was the failure to constantly mobilize the broad masses for exercising dictatorship over the enemies and for practicising democratic centralism among the people and the lacunae in the organization so that the masses could rebel when the need be. It is imperative for us to acknowledge this and to practice proletarian democracy in a new way from the very beginning.Another important task is to find an appropriate method and institutional process for practicing democracy with these clear objectives. As in the hypocritical formal democracy of the bourgeoisie, we cannot confine the proletarian or people's democracy to formalism by fixing certain formulae.

Nevertheless, in the light of the experiences of the Paris Commune through the Russian Soviet to the Chinese GPCR, we can generalize and institutionalize certain methods of proletarian democracy and must dare adopt additional methods and principles going beyond them according to the new needs of the twenty-first century.In this context as the model of direct democracy practiced in the Paris Commune is worth emulating even today, it would be useful to quote Marx's description of it as below:" The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members was naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive & legislative at the same time....the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible and at all times revocable agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the Administration.

From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages...."Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the physical force elements of the old Government, the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression....The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the Apostles. The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it." The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subservience to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance.

Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable."...the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service." (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984:75-76)Similarly, as practiced during the GPCR, such methods like guaranteeing the freedom of expression, press, strike etc. for the masses, public criticism of and mass action against persons in high authority of Party and state, etc. should be institutionalized. Also, drawing correct lessons from the bitter experiences of failure of the masses to stage organized rebellion against counter-revolution in the past, we should ensure a system in the new context whereby political parties may be allowed to get organized keeping within definite progressive and revolutionary constitutional limits and they may be encouraged to function not only in a ‘cooperative' manner but in a ‘competitive' spirit vis-à-vis the formal Communist Party.

There can be no objective and logical reason for the Communist Party claiming itself to be the representative of the majority proletarian and oppressed classes to hesitate to enter into political competition within a definite constitutional framework, once the economic monopoly of the feudal and bourgeois classes over land and capital and military monopoly over the mercenary professional army, which are the sources of their political hegemony, are thoroughly smashed. One should earnestly acknowledge that this is not an advocacy of bourgeois pluralism but is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist method to objectively solve contradictions among the people as long as the class division in society exists. Though it could not be practiced for various reasons in the past, the fact that Mao himself was contemplating in that direction can be deduced from his following statement:"Which is better, to have just party or several? As we see it now, it's perhaps better to have several parties. This has been true in the past and may well be so for the future; it means long-term coexistence and mutual supervision." (Mao 1956: 296)Whatever it may be, we should be prudent and daring enough to develop proletarian democracy or people's democracy as per the new needs of the twenty-first century.

This is the rationale of the new decision of our Party, under the leadership of Chairman Com. Prachanda, in relation to the development of democracy. Moreover, keeping into consideration our specific situation of existence of autocratic monarchy and non-completion of even a bourgeois republic, we should not rule out the possibilities of having to pass through various mixed and transitional forms of democracy in the process of marching from autocratic monarchy through bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy.

D. The Question of Armed Force

Armed force or the army is the backbone of every state in history. To conceive of a state without an armed force is like dreaming of a sun without any light. In that sense, the principal organ of the new type of state would surely be the armed force. The same is the implication of Marx's observation: " The first condition of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the existence of a proletarian army" (Seventh Anniversary of the International). In what sense and to what extent such an army would be ‘new' would ultimately determine how much ‘new' the state would be.The professional standing army of the old state, generally rising from the period of absolute monarchy, has now become the largest and the most lethally equipped standing army in history under the modern bourgeois republic. As it fights for the minority exploiting classes and against the majority oppressed classes and is cut off from the masses and productive labour and thus reduced into a mercenary army, the inherent character of the reactionary standing army is utterly brutal, anti-people and counter-revolutionary.

That is why the pioneers of proletarian revolution and state have always stressed on smashing the old standing army and on arming the masses to defend the new proletarian state.While eulogizing the Paris Commune, Marx had said:" The first decree of the Commune...was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people." (Marx-Engels-Lenin 1984: 75)Similarly, in the decree on the formation of the Red Army issued by the Council of People's Commissars led by Lenin on January 12, 1918, i.e. immediately after the October Revolution, it was said:" The old army served as the instrument for all class oppression of the toilers by the bourgeois. With the transfer of power to the toiling and exploited classes, the necessity has arisen of creating a new army which would at present serve as the bulwark of Soviet power and which would in the near future provide the basis for replacing the regular army by the armed people, and give support to the impending socialist revolution in Europe." (Quoted in Trotsky 1969: 45)

However, due to different factors as cited earlier, the Red Army in Russia could not fulfill the dream of the Bolsheviks that it " would in the near future provide the basis for replacing the regular army by the armed people". On the contrary, in course of time the Red Army itself got converted into a large professional army and ultimately it became an instrument of counter-revolution. Similarly, the Chinese Red Army, steeled in the twenty-two years long vicious PW, too, gradually changed its colour as a standing army after the revolution and ultimately served as a weapon of counter-revolution. On the basis of these bitter experiences and guided by the scientific ideology of Marxism -Leninism-Maoism on the question of army and state we should strive to build a new type of army as a defender of the proletarian state and medium of continuous revolution, which would be equipped with revolutionary ideology and politics, intimately linked with the general masses and capable of organizing rebellion of the armed masses against counter-revolution.

In this context we should be serious to implement the following resolution recently adopted by the Central Committee of our Party:"....it should be guaranteed that the people's army of the 21st century is not marked by modernization with special arms and training confined to a barrack after the capture of state power but remains a torch-bearer of revolution engaged in militarization of the masses and in the service of the masses. It is only by developing armed masses from both ideological and physical point of view that one can resist foreign intervention and counter-intervention; this fact must be made clear before the armed forces right from the beginning. The main thrust of work for the 21st century people's army should be to complete the historical responsibility of developing conscious armed masses so that they may learn to use their right to rebel." [CPN (Maoist) 2004:147]

E. The Question of United Front

Another important aspect of building a new type of state is the correct handling of united front policy. In the real world there are several other classes in between the feudal/bourgeois and the proletariat, and in the particular semi-feudal and semi-colonial context like ours there are national, regional gender and other forms of oppressions apart from the class one. Hence, during the transition period the proletariat that has to bear the historical responsibility of providing the leadership for liberation of all the exploited and oppressed sections should be able to practice a correct united front policy and make the state a joint dictatorship of all of them. The question of united front is in essence the question of correct practice of democracy and dictatorship.In this context, we should correctly grasp that one of the major reasons for the defeat of the historic

Paris Commune was the inability of the Paris workers to materialize a timely united front with the rural peasants and one of the principal problems of socialist construction in Russia was the inability to correctly handle the contradictions among the rural peasants. Particularly in a semi-feudal context like ours, one of the principle basis of building a new type of state would be the correct united front policy with the various strata of the peasants. The revolutionaries should acknowledge this with deep seriousness.Similarly, another big problem encountered while building a proletarian state in the past was related to correctly handling the question of liberation of oppressed nationalities. In the light of all those historical experiences, we should firmly grasp that the best way to solve the national question is to implement the right to self-determination of oppressed nationalities under the leadership of the proletariat according to the concrete time, place and conditions.

The new state should strive to correctly handle the national question in the spirit of the following analysis of Lenin:"In the same way as mankind can arrive at the abolition of classes only through a transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, it can arrive at the inevitable integration of nations only through a transition period of the complete emancipation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede." (Lenin 1916:160)The question of liberation of women, occupying half the heavens but subjected to patriarchal oppression for ages, is another important task before the new state.


This is the main essence of Lenin's exhortation that ‘the subject most starkly demarcating bourgeois democracy and socialism is the status of women in them'. Hence the specific task of a new proletarian state should be to guarantee special rights to women for a definite period and to ensure them equal rights and status as the men in all spheres.Similarly, in the specificities of South Asia, the new state should scientifically solve the question of liberation of dalits, who are treated as untouchables according to the Hindu varna (caste) system, and other minority communities oppressed by the old state in different forms.In sum, the real essence and challenge of the new state is to solve the non-antagonistic contradictions among all the oppressed classes, nationalities, regions and gender not through the method of ‘dictatorship' but through that of ‘democratic centralism' and to organize a joint dictatorship of all of them against the reactionary classes.

F. The Question of Construction of Economic Base

There is dialectical interrelation between economic base and political superstructure of society. Whereas initially the economic base gives rise to political superstructure, later on the continuous intervention of the superstructure makes impact on the economic base. Hence, for moving forward towards communism after building a new type of proletarian (i.e. people's democratic or socialist) state, it is imperative to build a corresponding economic base.In fact the initial basis for the origin of the state and the principal basis of life of the class state so far has been the anarchy of social production. This is what he meant when Engels said:"In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the state dies out." (Engels 1880:151)

Thus the quintessential task of the new type of proletarian state is to end the anarchy of production inherent in the feudal, petty bourgeois, bureaucratic bourgeois, etc. economic systems and to construct large scale planned, balanced, organized and controlled socialist economic system.Moreover, without the development of labour productivity to definite higher levels, the material base for socialism and communism cannot be prepared. For, without sufficient production in society that enables distribution to all "according to necessity", one cannot materially conceive of classless and stateless communism. Hence the new proletarian state should prepare the economic base for socialism and communism by increasing the capacity of labour through rapid expansion of education and culture and by increasing productivity through maximum utilization of science and technology and organization of large-scale production.However in the past, particularly in Russia during the period of Stalin, a mechanical and metaphysical conception that the development of productive forces by itself would usher in socialism and communism was prevalent and a wrong outlook prevailed that equated state ownership with 'socialism'. These, of course, were proved wrong by the later developments. The development of the productive forces and state ownership are necessary preconditions for socialism, but they themselves are not adequate and complete.

More important than this are the socialist labour relations of production and socialist transformation of all the organs of the superstructure including the state and the development of socialist consciousness of the masses. Drawing lessons from these bitter experiences, Mao's China, particularly during the GPCR, had developed a new system of socialist economic construction based on the principle of ‘grasp revolution, promote production', which the present day revolutionaries should emulate and strive to develop further according to the changed circumstances. One should constantly keep in mind that the economic base for socialism and communism can be prepared only by resolving the long-standing contradictions between advanced productive forces and backward production relations, between physical labour and mental labour, between rural and urban areas, between agriculture and industry, between economic production and defense production, etc., through conscious and planned struggles.In a most backward and primarily agrarian and rural semi-feudal and semi-colonial economic context like ours, the path of economic construction from people's democracy to socialism would be all the more protracted, arduous and complex. Hence we should strive to transform the backward agrarian economy into an advanced industrial economy through cooperativization, collectivization and socialization and to lay the foundation of socialism and communism by constantly placing the revolutionary politics in command and by arousing the initiative of the masses. Only on such a material base that the new type of state can be built and can it march forward.

G. The Question of International Relations

In the present era of imperialism, due to the inherent unequal and uneven nature of development of capitalism, there is the need and possibility of bringing about proletarian (i.e. people's democratic or socialist) revolution even in one particular country of the world. However, as the whole world is increasingly tied into the economic, political, military, cultural stranglehold of imperialism, international relation would be a very complex and significant dimension in building a proletarian state in one country alone.The following analysis of Lenin about the international relation of proletarian state in such a huge country like Russia after a year of the October Revolution may be equally or even more relevant in our present context:"...From the very beginning of the October Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main question facing us. Not merely because from now all the states in the world are being firmly linked by imperialism into a single system, or rather, into one dirty, bloody mass, but because the complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries...." (Lenin 1986: 117)In the past century, even though the more than a dozen of the socialist or people's democratic states in the world perished mainly due to their own internal causes, there can be no doubt that world imperialist sabotage and interventions played an important secondary role in their downfall. Hence it is imperative for the new type of proletarian state to be built now to follow a policy of marching ahead while resisting against imperialism/ expansionism/hegemonism from the very beginning.

For this, it is necessary, on the one hand, to unite with all proletarian forces of the world on the basis of proletarian internationalism, strategically, and on the other, to maintain diplomatic relations with all the countries on the basis of the policy of peaceful coexistence with different state systems and to attempt to derive maximum advantage out of inter-imperialist contradictions, tactically.Within this general policy and in the specific geo-political context of Nepal, we should strive to maintain diplomatic relations with the two immediate big neighbours on the basis of non-alignment and mutual benefits and to march forward to establish South Asian Soviet Federation after completing revolution in whole of South Asia as envisioned by our Party's Second National Conference held in 2001.

H. The Question of Continuous Revolution and Withering Away of the State

The main reason why the proletarian state or the dictatorship of the proletariat was termed ‘no longer a state in the proper sense of the word' by Marx and Engels is that it is not a medium of preserving or defending class contradiction as in traditional class society but is a medium of transition from class society to classless society and the object of withering away of itself in the process. Thus the main essence or particularity of the new type of state is, firstly, that it is the means of continuous revolution against the residual and newly emerging classes, and secondly, that it withers away in the process. This is not separate but a single interrelated process.

Furthermore, what ought to be correctly grasped is that ‘withering away' does not mean physical liquidation of the state, but, as Engels has said, a transformation from the means of ‘government of persons' into means of ‘administration of things'. For, with the end of class contradiction in communism only the ‘political' role of the state as a 'special coercive force' is over, but the mechanism of voluntary organization to manage the essential goods and services in society remains intact.

However, it is a bitter truth that in the past the proletarian state powers instead of serving the masses and acting as instruments of continuous revolution turned into masters of the people and instruments of counter-revolution, and rather than moving in the direction of withering away transformed into huge totalitarian bureaucracies and instruments of repression. The present day revolutionaries should draw appropriate lessons from this and should strive to lay proper foundation for the new type of state from the very beginning.In this context the first thing the new state power should acknowledge and practice from the very inception, as Lenin initially propounded and Mao subsequently raised to a new height, is the concept of GPCR or continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. As the defeated reactionary class can again raise its head in a new form and the material condition of the state power itself can give rise to a new bureaucratic capitalist class from within the revolutionary camp, we should institutionalize a mechanism of continuous struggle with the participation of the wider masses under the leadership of the proletariat in every sphere of the state and the superstructure.

In other words, advancing from the GPCR in China we should look for new methods to exercise all round dictatorship over the old and the new reactionary classes and to continue this process till all classes are abolished in society.Secondly, to transfer the state power that had become master of the people in the past into servant of the people and to lead it towards ultimate withering away, methods of ensuring participation of the wider masses in the state or expanding greater democracy in society should be institutionalized. In this context it may be worthwhile to keep in mind the following statement of Lenin:" From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism-from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether.

The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away." (Lenin 1917d: 334-5)Thus, continuous revolution against the residual ‘pugmarks of the old state' and newly emerging classes and participation of the wider masses in such a continuous revolution is the method of withering away of the state initially hammered by Marx and Engels and later developed by Lenin and Mao. Withering away is, therefore, neither the abolition of the state immediately after the revolution as contended by the anarchists, nor is it first developing in a bureaucratic form like the old state of the bourgeoisie and then miraculously collapsing some day in the distant future as claimed by the revisionists, or more particularly by the dogmato-revisionists. Withering away means cessation of only the ‘political' function of the state as an instrument of coercion, and it begins on the very day of consummation of the revolution but gets completed only with the total victory over the residual and newly emerging classes through continuous revolution and with the ultimate submersion of the state in the sea of the masses.


The new proletarian (including the people's democratic) state should correctly grasp and implement this, and only in that sense would this state be different or ‘new' from the old one.

3. Conclusion

Despite the contrary propaganda of the imperialists, the 21st century will once again go through a vicious class struggle or war for the state power. Our great PW is part of the same worldwide process. Hence it is imperative for all to focus their attention on the question of state power, which is the central question in every revolution. Every state is in essence an instrument of dictatorship over certain classes and that of democracy for some others. In this sense dictatorship and democracy remain as two sides of the same coin in every state, and it is just ridiculous to talk of a state with either only dictatorship or only democracy.

But it is a great paradox of history that whereas the proletarian state with an essence of dictatorship over the limited exploiting classes and that of democracy for a majority of exploited classes has been denounced as ‘dictatorial', the bourgeois democracy with an essence of democracy for a handful of exploiting classes and that of dictatorship over the majority of working classes is hailed as an ideal model of universal and eternal democracy.

Apart from the class bias and disinformation campaign of the imperialists certain grave short comings in the practice of the proletarian state in the past, (for example, practical cessation of differences between the Party and the state, gradual inaction and demise of the people's representative institutions, development and expansion of the standing army in place of arming the masses, virtual emasculation of the electoral system and freedom of speech and press, use of state force to solve contradictions within the Party and among the people, lack of people's participation, supervision and intervention in the state affairs and development of totalitarian tendencies, etc.) are also responsible for this.

In this background, we should dare develop the model of a new type of proletarian state with the ideological guidance of MLM and Prachanda Path and keeping in mind the experiences of revolutions from the Paris Commune through the Russian Soviet and the Chinese GPCR to our present revolution.In this context it is imperative to keep in mind what Lenin has said:" The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat" (Lenin 1917d: 286) (emphasis added).In other words, the essence of the transitional revolutionary state to be built after smashing the old reactionary class state would be dictatorship of the proletariat or democratic dictatorship of the oppressed people.

But the political forms of such transitional revolutionary dictatorship can be varied in keeping with different time and places, and we should exercise our revolutionary creativity in practicing and developing such forms. Particularly in the light of the historical experiences of easy degeneration of the past proletarian states into totalitarian bureaucratic capitalist states, we should strive to find newer forms of the ‘transitional' state, which is said to be "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word".In the transitional period of a backward society like Nepal, where the transition has to take place from semi-feudal autocracy through bourgeois democracy to communism, there would be naturally more diversities and complexities.

However, if we succeed to exercise continuous dictatorship over the handful of reactionaries with active participation of the masses by forging a united front of different sections subjected to class, national, regional, caste and gender oppressions under the leadership of a correct proletarian Party, we shall definitely attain the goal of classless and exploitationless society. The main thing is the correct proletarian outlook of the leadership and the question of ensuring continuous and active participation of the masses in the state affairs. This is the rationale behind our Party's recent attempt to raise the question of democracy from a new perspective.

The proletarian revolutionaries should firmly grasp that the question of democracy and new type of state are inseparably interlinked, and they should initiate the process of withering away of the state by submerging the state in the sea of the great democracy of the masses, as Lenin had said: "The more democratic the 'state'... the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away."

In this context, we should defeat the anarchist tendency that denies the very necessity of a transitional state, the Right revisionist tendency that gets swayed by the formal democracy of the bourgeoisie and abandons dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dogmato-revisionist tendency that vulgarizes the proletarian (or people's democratic) dictatorship into a totalitarian bureaucratic capitalist dictatorship, and must-strive to establish the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought that leads to a classless and stateless communism through continuous revolution and withering away of the state by exercising great democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat (or people's democratic dictatorship). In this eventuality no body can stop our great campaign to build a new type of proletarian state in the 21st century and march towards communism through continuous revolution and withering away of the state.

â–„References1. CPN (Maoist) (2004), Some Important Documents of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Janadisha Publications, Nepal2. Engels, F. (1880), "Socialism: Utopean and Scientific", in Marx, K. and Engels, F., Selected Works (in Three Volumes) Vol.3, Moscow, 19763. Engels, F. (1884), "Origin of Family, Private Property and State", in Marx, K. and Engels, F., Selected Works (in Three Volumes) Vol.3, Moscow, 1976.4. Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections From the Prison Note-Books, London.5. Lenin, V.I. (1916), "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" in Lenin: Selected Works, Moscow, 1977.6. Lenin, V.I. (1917a), "Letters from Afar, Third Letter" in Lenin, V.I., Collected Works, Vol.23, Moscow.7. Lenin, V.I. (1917b), "The Dual Power", in Lenin, V.I., Selected Works, (in Three Volumes), Vol.2, Moscow, 1977.8. Lenin, V.I. (1917c), "Letters on Tactics", in Lenin, V.I., Collected Works, Vol.24, Moscow.9. Lenin, V.I. (1917d), "The State and Revolution", in Lenin: Selected Works Moscow, 1977.10. Lenin, V.I. (1918), "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in Lenin, V.I., Selected Works (in Three Volumes), Vol.3, Moscow, 1977.11. Lenin, V.I. (1923), "Better Fewer, but Better", in Lenin, V.I., On the Soviet State Apparatus, Moscow, 1977.12. Lenin, V.I. (1958), Marxism on the State, Moscow.13. Lenin, V.I. (1986), On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet State, Moscow.14. Luxemburg, R. (1918), "The Russian Revolution", in Gupta, S.D. (ed.), Readings in Revolution and Organization: Rosa Luxemburg and Her Critics, Calcutta, 1994.15. Mao Tse-Tung (1948), "On People's Democratic Dictatorship", in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.4, Peking.16. Mao Tse-Tung (1956), "On the Ten Major Relationships", in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.V, Peking, 1977.17. Mao Tse-Tung (1957), "On the Correct handling of Contradictions Among the People", in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.V, Peking, 1977.18. Mao Tse-Tung (1977), Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.4, Peking.19. Marx, K. (1971), "The Civil War in France", in Marx, K. and Engels, F., Selected Works (in Three Volumes), Vol.2, Moscow, 1985.20. Marx, K. (1975), "Critique of the Gotha Programme", in Marx, K. and Engels, F., Selected Works (in Three Volumes), Vol.3, Moscow, 1977.21. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1977), Selected Works (in Three Volumes), Vol.1, Moscow.22. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1985), Selected Works (in Three Volumes), Vol.2, Moscow.23. Marx-Engels-Lenin (1984), On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Moscow.24. Trotsky, L. (1969), Military Writings, Pathfinder, London.