[From The Worker, #2, June 1996.]
COMMENT
Response of Different Forces to the People's War
The historic initiation of the people's war proved a great bombshell in the political world of Nepal. As it hit the very foundation of the existing state structure, all the political forces were bound to react either against or in favor of the people's war A great political debate was ushered in the country. For over a month after the initiation the main agenda of reportage and discussion in the national media was the people's war. This also sharpened contradictions, created new crisis within different political forces and opened a new horizon of political polarization in the country. On the basis of their class character and response towards the people's war, these political forces can be broadly, categorized into three camps: reactionary, centrist reformist and revolutionary.
* Reactionary Forces
As the reactionary forces representing the feudal and comprador and bureaucratic capitalist classes were the principal targets of the people's war, it was quite natural for them to be most offended and opposed to it. Consequently the principal reactionary political forces of the country, namely the rightist Nepali Congress, the royalist RPP and the revisionist UML, not only denounced the people's war in the harshest possible terms but were on public record to suppress and crush it. However, there were minor differences too among these groups and within the groups themselves as well, on whether to view the question as 'political' or just 'criminal'. The dominant G. P. Koirala faction within the Nepali Congress, the more pro-Indian S. B. Thapa faction within the RPP, and the 'Bahudaliya Janabadi' (or multi-party democracy) faction within the UML were seen to be more intolerant and aggressive against the people's war. Maybe because of their own inner contradictions some of the prominent persons within the anti-Indian faction of the RPP appeared to be more tolerant towards the people's war and seemed to advocate a 'political solution' to the problem. Because of these inherent contradictions among themselves, the top representatives of these reactionary parties including the ministers in the current coalition government called in a meeting by the Prime Minister S. B. Deuba to discuss the issue on March 6 could not reach any conclusions.
One of the main bogeys sought to be raised by these reactionaries was that the people's war was inspired by external forces and hence was 'anti-national'. How this ridiculous attempt failed to cut any ice even within their own reactionary camp is proved by an editorial rejoinder by the bourgeois daily The Kathmandu Post (March 12, 1996) to the Nepali Congress leader (now its chairman) and former Prime Minister (G. P. Koirala) thus:
"Yes: the Maoist movement is supported by other elements like poverty, backwardness and the indifference on the part of all the past and present governments towards the plight of the affected regions. Therefore, it would be unfortunate, on the part of our leaders, specially those belonging to the major ones, to indulge in unsubstantiated mudslinging, that to involving foreign powers".
The neo-reactionary UML clique, that has been the worst example of parliamentary cretinism perhaps anywhere in the world in the whole history of the international communist movement, has been the most outraged by the initiation of the people's war, perhaps fearing that its sham communism would be unmasked and it would soon be deserted by its rank and file. It has, therefore, played the role of police informer in many places and is seen to have collaborated with the government in terrorizing and intimidating the revolutionary cadres and into submission, but with little success.
* The Centrist Reformist Forces
Various revisionist and neo-revisionist groups that swear by even 'Mao Thought' and 'armed struggle' in words but are even occupied with only open legal and parliamentary struggle in deeds have sought to tread a typical centrist path of opposing both the people's war and the state repression in the same breath. Prominent among these are the neo-revisionist 'Mashal' group and the rightist liquidationist 'Unify Center' group (both the earlier breakaway factions of the now unified CPN (Maoist). Of these the 'Mashal' group, particularly its dominant faction led by M. B. Singh, has been the most vociferous in publicly denouncing and hurling wild, unsubstantiated accusations against the people's war. This group which has virtually dissociated itself from the RIM, because of its allergic opposition to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and gradual degeneration into parliamentary cretinism, has in recent times reduced itself into a tail-end of the reactionary UML, and hence, it is not at all surprising to find it in dead opposition to the Maoist people's war. By slandering the revolutionary war as 'ultra-leftism', 'terrorism', 'anarchism' etc. these revisionist reformists are merely repeating the history of their international ilks and offering an honorary service to the reactionary ruling classes. Their principal argument that the objective and subjective conditions are not favorable for a people's war is preposterous given the mounting crises and contradictions within the reactionary state and the revolutionary mood of the masses and long years of preparations by the communist revolutionaries. What these revisionists and neo-revisionists seek to hide shamelessly is that it is nothing else but the revolutionary will of the Party leadership and a correct idea logical and political perspective that is lacking to start a people's war in most of the oppressed countries like Nepal. Also these opportunists, particularly that neo-revisionist master M. B. Singh, tend to equate or confuse the desired objective and subjective conditions for mounting final general insurrection for countrywide seizure of power with those conditions required for initiating a people's war for areawise seizure of power in a military strategy of protracted people's war. It is not hard to realise that their frenzied attack on the people's war is motivated more than anything else by their political degeneration and their vain desire to check the flight of their lower level cadres to the revolutionary camp, which is any way likely to happen with the development of the people's war.
* The Revolutionary Forces
Various revolutionary forces representing the workers, peasants and petty bourgeois classes have enthusiastically hailed and supported the people's war in both overt and covert manners. Apart from the United People's Front, Nepal (UPF) and various mass and class organizations, some small political groups and several prominent intellectuals have come out openly in favour of the people's war or lent support to it in different ways. Also a large number of lower level cadres of different revisionist and opportunist groups, including the UML, have assisted the new revolutionary process in very significant ways. This has enabled the Party to reach new social classes, groups and regions. However, it should be acknowledged that a large section of the masses is still under the spell of the reactionary and opportunist political forces and they are yet to be won over to the revolutionary camp.
From outside the country, the Committee of the RIM, various Parties and organizations affiliated to the RIM and some Maoist revolutionary Parties and organizations outside the ambit of the RIM, particularly CPI (ML) (People's War) and Maoist Communist Center (MCC) from India, have greeted the initiation of the people's war in Nepal. This international solidarity has greatly boosted the morale of revolutionary fighters facing all sorts of physical and psychological hardships.
Thus it can be safely concluded that with the systematic development of the people's war according to its own objective laws both national and international support to it will go on increasing and it will be crowned with ultimate victory.