Following the mid-term parliamentary election, the situation in which His Majesty's UML Government has been formed, has given rise to some new questions and debates in the politics of Nepal in general and in the Nepalese communist movement in particular. The domestic and foreign reactionary media and the political representatives, on one hand, are propagating that the UML government, which has been formed with their assistance and support is the rise of a 'communist red star' in Nepal, and on the other, are busy in thanking and congratulating it for the task of defending their 'democratic mainstream' by being involved in it. What an irony! A 'communist red star' in Nepal and the enemies of the communism world over in queue for garlanding it with thanks and congratulations! The UML ministers, by distributing colorful 'sweets' of reforms and assurance in their happiness of outstanding 'success', have dumbfounded particularly the 'intellectual' section of the Nepalese petty bourgeoisie. Forgetting ideological committments, ideal and ABC of Marxist as regards the state power and shutting off eyes towards the inherent historical particularity of the leaders of feudalism and imperialism that adopt conspiratorial and rotational tactics to defend their power, this section of petty bourgeois intellectuals at this time have, as Lenin said, become 'ignorant persons', who are delighted by 'taking bathe in the glorious radiance of ministership of their leaders'.

Some of the political groups, which even utter the name of Mao, salivate at this 'success' of UML but lack strength to achieve that 'glory' of ministership in themselves, are at this time busy in opposing those who refuse to believe that the government of UML is a left government of patriotic and democratic forces. On the other, it is obvious for King Birendra to be proud of the UML leaders who have joined the task of washing his face stained with the blood of innumerable Nepalese sons and daughters. In this situation, it has been necessary to find a theoretical and practical answer to the question: finally what is UML government?

 Marxism, on the basis of historical materialist scientific outlook that severely attacks upon the entire mysterious and idealist explanations in relation to state power, declared with undeniable material of experience of class struggle that it is nothing but a weapon of one class suppressing the other. A state power that simultaneously represents classes of two opposing interests has neither been possible in the history nor will be in the future. Marxism hates and rejects the entire prattles of reform and class collaboration as the bourgeois hypocrisy. State power is either the dictatorship of the proletariat in different forms or that of the exploiting class. There can be no other stupidity than to imagine a power acting in between these two. This fact is equally true for freedom and democracy also. To talk of freedom and democracy that agrees for both the capitalist and worker, feudal and peasant, oppressed nation and imperialism can have no other meaning except serving finally the exploiting class by betraying Marxism and the experiences of class struggle. All of this is in fact the ABC of Marxism. Let us see. Lenin says, 'The State is a special organization of force; it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class.' Will now the state power stop becoming an organization of violence right after the UML has become a part of the government? What is the relation between the main organ of the modern centralized state power and the government? It is necessary to pay special attention to this question. Clarifying on this Lenin further says, 'Two institutions are most characteristic of this state machine: the bureaucracy and the standing army.' It is evident that any government, which is compelled to function under the direction of the bureaucracy and standing army, the main two components of the state power, is impossible to become pro-people to the least.

Further emphasizing it he said, 'Imperialism -- the era of bank capital, the era of gigantic capitalist monopolies, the era of the development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism -- has demonstrated with particular force an extraordinary strengthening of the "state machine" and an unprecedented growth of its military apparatus in connection with the intensification of repressive measures against the proletariat both in the monarchical and in the freest, republican countries.' (Lenin, The State and Revolution). From this, what is not difficult to understand for a person with a minimum sense in connection with the modern state is that the government is a component of the state but not the principal one. The principal one is the standing army and the bureaucracy, with the blessing of which the government runs. To go against the main organ of the state does not mean anything other than to go for violent confrontation. In this situation, is there any theoretical possibility for His Majesty's UML government other than to serve the centralized modern state? Marxism says it is impossible in straightforward and clear words and ridicules the stupidity of those who think so.

 Provided one does not deceive oneself, does not betray the working masses for one's petty interest, it is sufficient to understand the reactionary character of the UML government if one pays attention to the famous proposition of Marxism: 'To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament -- such is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.' (Lenin, Ibid). Dear readers! Can the Marxist intellectuals, who consider the UML leaders or UML government pro-people, repudiate these scientific propositions of Marxism? Is there any such particularity in Nepal because of which the class character of the reactionary state power has changed? No, the change has neither occurred in the state power and the scientific proposition of Marxism in relation to class struggle and parliamentarism, nor in the Nepalese reactionary class and its power, but it has occurred in the degeneration of UML group into reaction to serve feudalism and imperialism. The change has been witnessed in the fawning character of a section of petty bourgeois intellectuals before the reactionary power. The change has been observed at the treachery upon Marxism and betrayal to the interest of the masses.

 What is clear to any political cadre honest to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is that the UML group since many years has been degenerating to revisionism betraying Marxist ideology. It had been singing songs of parliamentarism. It had been colluding and compromising with the political representatives of declared reactionary class against the real interest of the people and struggle. It was quantitatively advancing towards reaction. We have already seen in innumerable examples the world over that revisionism is compelled to reach finally to the form of naked reaction. We have already witnessed these in the character of the First International renegades, development of renegade Kautskis of the Second International, who worshiped parliamentarism, to Khruschev, Gorvachev and Yeltsin, treason of Teng, and in the counterrevolutionary character of revisionism in our neighboring India. Not only this, we have already observed how the opportunists, who used to claim honest towards people's interest, have resorted to massacre of   people when they were trapped in the parliamentary web. But, different from this, the Nepalese revisionism has degenerated rapidly and nakedly to reaction. If one thinks  a little deeply, there is no doubt that such a corrupted and opportunist government in terms of norms and values has rarely been constituted in the Nepalese history.

 Why did such a 'hypocrisy' crop up in Nepal, and at this time? The Nepalese economy has since long years been ruined by the imperial and feudal exploitation and suppression and is approaching its collapse. Nepalese society and its culture have been pushed to perversion, anarchism and dissolution. Scarcity and insecurity has disarrayed the Nepalese life. Several imperialist and expansionist pressure and interference have shattered the national dignity of Nepalese people. Nepalese people have been constantly struggling since long against such situation. Nepalese people followed the path of forceful struggle against this too when problems of the country and people became more horrible even after the establishment of multiparty system. As a result of this, the declared political institutions of the reactionary class were so much hated among the people that it was impossible for them to face. The government became fickle. The legitimacy to running power of the reactionary class fell into danger. In that situation it was necessary for them to adopt a new tactics. In this context, as the result of conspiracy of domestic and foreign reactionaries, the web of midterm poll was thrown.

 On the other, the UML clique, since long, betraying Marxism and mass struggles, confusing people through reformist slogans and colluding and compromising with the known reactionaries for the chair, had been preparing itself as a new and capable servant of feudalism and imperialism. Though the revolutionaries had been exposing this process; the situation was not such that it could be adequate and effective at that time. In the situation when their whole system was in danger, the representatives of feudalism and imperialism found the UML clique as a new element that could defend it by confusing the people. As a meeting point of UML's treason and compulsion of the declared reactionaries, His Majesty's UML government has been constituted today. What the events now have been clarifying is that the western imperialists and the King have the special role in creating such an equation. On the other, this equation did not become that problematic for India in the context of rising US imperialist's hegemony over Indian expansionism. In order to justify this analysis of the course of events theoretically, I would like, in the context of lessons of revolution, to present comrade Lenin's saying before the readers: 'The capitalists, better organized and more experienced than anybody else in matters of class struggle and politics, learnt their lesson quicker than the others. Realizing that the government's position was hopeless, they resorted to a method which for many decades, ever since 1848, has been practiced by the capitalists of other countries in order to fool, divide and weaken the workers. This method is known as a "coalition" government, i.e., a joint cabinet formed of members of the bourgeoisie and turncoats from socialism.' (Lenin, From the Lesson of Revolution). Lenin had said it in the context in which Mensheviks also were a part of the government after the end of Czarism. In spite of different situation and background, this statement fully complies in the context of the 'government of the national consensus' of the King, Congress and the UML in Nepal today.

 In Nepal there is no  doubt that the Congress government, having fallen in crisis, has been disarrayed, the UML clique has fled into bourgeois camp deserting socialist principles and has reached to worshipping imperialism and feudalism with a reactionary slogan of 'the government of national consensus'. Only that section of the petty bourgeois intellectuals, who cannot understand the Marxist theory in its real revolutionary sense, run away from struggle due to the complexities of class struggle in today's era of imperialism, and follow appearance by ignoring the essence of subject matter, can foolishly propagate UML government as people's government. In the view of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, a revolutionary dedicated to real emancipation of Nepalese people, fighters firmly dedicated to advancing along the footprints of thousands of martyrs who sacrificed for building a new Nepal by completely destroying feudalism and imperialism, the UML government is from top to bottom a reactionary one defending feudalism and imperialism. It is a corrupt government that functions with the consent of killers and looters of the people and deceives them by paying lip service to communism and Marxism-Leninism. In a situation when UML has gone so nakedly away from all the aspects of theory, politics and practice, none of those, who consider the UML government as a leftist, patriotic and democratic, can be a Marxist. The exercise of defending UML by some of the leaders, who claim to be a mature Marxist, will be exposed with time and will be thrown away into the same garbage of the history.

 In this context, Lenin's statement against the bourgeois coalition government that was formed after the February revolution of 1917 in Russia, i.e. the end of Czarism, is worthwhile to note: 'He who says that the workers must support the new government in the interests of the struggle against tsarist reaction (and apparently this is being said by the Potresovs, Gvozdyovs. Chkhenkelis and also, all evasiveness notwithstanding, by Chkheidze) is a traitor to the workers, a traitor to the cause of the proletariat, to the cause of peace and freedom. For actually, precisely this new government is already bound hand and foot by imperialist capital, by the imperialist policy'. (Lenin: Letters From Afar). Dear readers! I have placed this quotation of Lenin knowingly that it does not fit in with our context. Lenin had termed renegade to those who argued that one should support the government, which was formed from revolution and by smashing Czarist monarchy. Here the government of UML has been formed under the servitude of monarchy. Therefore it is very clear that this government is several times inferior to the government formed after the fall of Czarism in Russia. Even in such a naked situation, whether we can call the leaders like Mohan Bikram Singh and Nirmal Lama, who are arguing that it is wrong to term this a reactionary government and must support it against the King and Congress, the renegades of the worker's movement in Nepal? I request readers to ponder on this question seriously. This theoretical and political condition of 'our mature leaders', who mutter Leninism, is really pathetic. Those mature leaders have charged that the leadership of Unity Center is childish or infantile, for the CPN (UC), on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has, in a straightforward way, clear language and without hesitation said that the UML government is the reactionary one. In this context, it will be a matter of pride for the leadership of Unity Center that, as Comrade Mohan Chandra Adhikari said, they have acquired the lucky status of the child who first of all cried 'the king is naked' in the story, 'The Emperor's New Cloth'. Rather, the question returns back to them, what is the mystery of the maturity of those who don't dare to open up their mouth even after seeing it naked?

 Finally, what has been tried to put forward in this short article is that, according to the Marxist outlook, the UML government in the present situation of development of class struggle in Nepal is functioning as a new shield of feudalism and imperialism under crisis. It is a strategic offensive of feudalism and imperialism against the Nepalese struggling masses and the communist revolutionaries. Ultimately, it will not be possible for the UML clique to protect the feudal, comprador and bureaucratic capitalism under this state and structure. The effort of entire reactionaries, the King, Congress including the UML that try to stop dynamism of the Nepalese society getting restless over the radical change will never succeed. The revolutionary storm of the people will smash the whole exploitative system of feudalism and imperialism together with the King, Congress, the reactionary cliques and sub-cliques including the UML, and New Democratic Republic of Nepal will surely be built up.