Nepal: Socialism vs Neorevisionism

Whither UCPN(M) General Convention?


bishnu hari nepalThe General Convention of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 2-7 February 2013, gave an unprecedented and disappointing message to the revolutionary communist parties of the world and Nepal. It went to the Chunbang way disrespecting the last two National Conventions of Kharipati and Palungtar.

The Baidhya faction ahead of the Bauddha National Convention had blamed the UCPN(M) leadership that it had plunged into opportunism and surrender-ism. Because Prachanda and Baburam had dissolved the party’s  People’s Liberation Army including the YCL, and other establishments, and had handed over the keys of the  cantonments to the government on 11 April 2012 without writing the People’s Federal Democratic Constitution.

The historic Bauddha National Convention decided to establish the CPN-M.  One step forward to the charges of opportunism and surrender-ism, the Bauddha Convention followed the parts of nine-blunder-charges (of nau ‘ga’ -gaddaari) to the establishment side by this author in the first historic separate Central Committee Meeting in Kopundole on 31 May 2012. Out of nine charges, the first was of neorevisionism. (see Rajdhani Daily, Box News,1.6.2012, p.1) The Kopundole CC meeting did not pass it the very day. Till then, the party was not clear to split. But the nine-charges (nau ga proposal) developed confidence on theoretical and practical bases to come to a conclusion of dissidence to the line of people’s revolt. The theme in general was passed by the Bauddha National Convention of 15-19 June 2012 and the 7th General Convention of the CPN-M of 9-15 January 2013 blaming the UCPN (M) as neorevisionist. 

The neorevisionism is much worse than deviation-ism. The deviation-ism only misguides the process of the evolution of the proletarian revolution and socialism, but the neorevisionism destroys the root cause and the soul of the idealogical and strategical base of the party. The political document of the 7th General Convention of the UCPN(M) clearly proved that the charges imposed by the CPN-M to the UCPN(M) were true. It is because the document categorically gave up the party’s strategy to form a People’s Republic of Nepal as envisioned by People’s War in 1996 based on Marxism, Leninism and Maoism.

The UCPN(M) accepted ‘double standard’ after being ‘unified’ writing both Maoism from RIM, and Maoist Thought as Prakash proposed. After 2nd National Convention, it made a potpourri of Prachandapath like shining path of Gonzalo. Unfortunately, the concept of prachandapath also had given birth by this author through Martyr Com. Pratap (Rit Bahadur Khadka) during underground meeting with him earlier to the 2nd National Convention, which had passed it as basic guideline (see Prachanda: Unknown Revolutionary, Roy: 2008, p.65).

Both Shining Path and Prachandapath were defunct after Gonzalo was imprisoned and CPN-M denounced the latter simultaneously. Neither CCOMPOSA nor the Philippines Communist Party liked them. Due to the fear of the revolutionary cadres inside the party in the General Convention, Prachanda hesitated to use the terminology People’s Multi party Democracy (jabaja) like Madan Bhandari did. But Prachanda cleverly manipulated the cadres saying ‘Federal Constitution with identity through Constituent Assembly and Economic Development through capitalism’. Was People’s War only for capitalism?

Mao in early 40’s had classified many societies to be of semi-feudal. Many monarchies like Nepal’s were the pillars of feudalism. The situation still prevails in Nepal even after the abolishment of 240-year old Shah dynasty. Semi-feudal society Prachanda agreed, but work plan while creating a socialist economy, Prachanda deviated. In one point, Prakash clearly mentioned that the party would go to democratic socialism (which NC during BP’s time used to follow) quitting Maoism. Is this not cruel revisionism to the proletarian revolution for which nearly 13 000 martyrs sacrificed their lives?

They clearly spoke that New Democratic People’s Revolution has been over. The task now was to preserve the achievements. The CPN-M in contrary regards it as half way only. Prachanda and Baburam have deceived the spirit and destination of the People’s War. They also well served the USA for lifting the terrorist tag by not denouncing imperialism. Usually, all communist parties of the world do so. It is clear that now Prachanda and his team wanted a safe landing from the bloody war they created. Many speculate it is to skip away from the fear of the probable ICC charges on them. Therefore, they wanted the party quit the path of dialectical materialism and democratic centralism for building socialism. Rather they plunged into the same once failed parliamentarian system.

Prachanda did not foresee any contradiction with regional hegemonism, expansionism and interventionism. He rather borrowed the word ‘neocolonialism’ from the CPN-M to confuse/satisfy the cadres. If he cannot foresee any major contradiction with regional interventionism, how can he see the situation to be of neo-colonial? How many of Baburam’s 40-point and CPN-M’s 70-point demands have been fulfilled? Prachanda’s vision masks the lies making the document self-contradictory.

(Dr. Nepal is Central Advisor and International Bureau Member, CPN-M)

7 Responses to “Nepal: Socialism vs Neorevisionism”

Leave a response »
  1. Krishna

    Interesting article. However, as a supporter of the Masal Unity Centre even after it joined with the CPN-M, and became UCPNM, I see things in a different way. Firstly, as Com.MB Singh and Com.Prakash and Com.Swanaam always said, revolution is impossible in Nepal without first a revolution in India or China, because Nepal is a landlocked country. The CPN-M Kiran group say this is ‘Trotskyism’, but it is not and the reunification of the two parties, and with Com. Prakash entering into the senior leadership of the UCPNM seems to suggest that the MB Singh Masal analysis was correct.. Revolution is not possible in Nepal without first a revolution in India or China. I think even Prachanda who used to denounce this now accepts it as correct. The UCPNM line is correct for Nepal, and we should support the UCPNM rather than denounce them. For a start, this article begins says that the conference:
    ‘ gave an unprecedented and disappointing message to the revolutionary communist parties of the world and Nepal’.
    I would like to ask the author or this site, who or where are these revolutionary communist parties around the world? In reality, there are very few revolutionary communist parties, and many small sects, such as the RCP USA, the RIM parties etc, which have no social base or power at all. If India cuts off the power to Nepal, are these tiny groups going to do anything? these so called ‘revolutionary parties’ are irrelevant. the comments about the RCP USA on this site only illustrate the complete irrelevance of most of the ‘revolutionary parties’. as for the revolutionary parties which are actually doing something, such as the Indian ‘Naxals’, the Filipinos, the remains of the Shining Path etc, these are not successes. We may respect their struggle, but the Shining Path is finished and is a failure, the Naxals are stuck in the jungle for fifty years with adivasis, and the filipino’s also. I think Prachanda spoke about the ‘outdated tactics of the chinese revolution’, and he is right. These wont work now. the party came in for a safe landing under Prachanda, and is now leading the government.
    The Kiran faction are not going to do any kind of Peoples War now or in the future. They cannot succeed. they are going the way of MB Singh’s sano masal party. As i see it, the future is with the Prachanda/Bhattarai/Prakash team. the line is to build capitalism and a prosperous Nepal. this is what people want, not another war that, which as MB Singh showed, could not win.

    • Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

      1.When People’s War started in 1996, people commented that only 70 people can win the war? Now imagine the size of the UCPN(M) and CPN-M together. That is why Com. Mao had said that one small sparkle of fire can destroy the forest. At least, the Maoists were able to lead the government two times-wrong or right. Monarchy was abolished. Secularism has been attained. It went federal to safeguard the rights of the indigenous/deprived people. If Com. MB’s version was correct, even these achievements also could not be attained.
      2. Nepal needs not to wait successful revolution in India. It is a dependent psychology, which is a plague in Nepalese politics of strategy for survival. There are two other terminologies interdependent and self-dependent. The last we need to develop for revolution and also for Nepal’s national interest. Look at Cuba, just 90 miles from Florida. Cuba is surviving on its own socialist way despite so long US embargo.
      3. Power question- Nepal can supply to India out of her 83 000MW capacity if Nepal had a good system to explore them. If Mr. Krishna means trade and transit, it is LLDC’s inherent right to access to sea. Nepal should remove this fear psychology. India also is dependent to Nepal on water, culture and economy. In good terms, it is interdependence on equi-justice system, Nepal is ready.
      4. There are many revolutionary parties in the world, some of them, it has been named. Seed of revolution is never small. Simply it is the time factor. Jhapa Movement in Nepal was started by 10 people. The present UML is the shape now, even though, deviated. PW in Nepal as mentioned was started by 70 people. The strength is before the world. If Chunwang had not taken a Comprehensive Peace Accord line to accept multi-party democracy, Nepal so far could have turned to People’s Republic of Nepal. If Com. Prachanda and Com. Baburam had not surrendered PLA and key of the cantonments without the final achievement also, it still would have been faster for the accomplishment of revolution. Therefore, CPN-M had to be born and it will carry out revolution and nationalism together. I am sure, it wins the revolution.
      5. Nepal’s PW would have never gained this height, if the revolutionaries had listened to our learned Com. MB Singh- to wait India’s revolution to be completed!!
      6. The seventeen thousand people gave their lives for the establishment of People’s Republic of Nepal, not for safe landing of the leaders. It was promised in 1996 that the PW would not stop at any cost without full achievement.
      7. Sad that UCPN(M), despite the trust of the many revolutionary cadres in the party, left the path of New Democratic Revolution and plunged into parliamentarian path in a worse way than CPN(UML).
      8. It is a long way to re-make four preparations of revolution for CPN-M, but it is the correct revolutionary line. The victory is next door if it rebuilds its PLA and YCL making the party semi-underground and prepares the people for People’s Revolt through Jana Andolan-III to begin.
      9. The proof that CPN-M can revive the revolution is the instance of the support of the people in their General Strike against Baburam Government on 19 February 2013 against the formation of the Chief Justice led Government and on 12 February 2013 while starting the movement on People’s War Day.
      Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

  2. Robert

    I would like to ask the author of this article what his thoughts are on BOB AVAKIAN and the NEW SYNTHESIS of Communism. We firmly believe that this is the way forward for the whole world. It is time for people in Nepal, in Peru and everywhere to GET WITH IT! GET WITH BA!

    If Prachanda and Bhattarai capitulated to India in 2002 as the author claims, then the Peoples War was a fake peoples war? this seems contradictory. clarification would be necessary. We believe the RCP USA has done this. GET WITH IT!

    • Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

      Dear Com. Robert
      Nice to hear from you. How are you?
      Dear Comrade, it is wrong to say the Great People’s War of Nepal was ‘fake’ only on the ground that simply two leaders (Com. Prachanda and Com. Baburam), through Prof. SD Muni, wrote a letter to the then PM of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
      It will be dishonor to the 17 000 martyrs and the red flag, if we used the word ‘fake’. The people, the militia, the YCL and the PLA wholeheartedly fought for the New Democratic Revolution in Nepal and the world and it was a great achievement in the history of communist revolution during the post-1991 uni-polar world.
      It seems true that the two leaders had a strategy of safe landing. As Krishna enjoys it in his comment on 12 February. But it is proved fully after the UCPN(M) General Convention 2013 that they wanted safe landing. My idea is if safe landing also, much could have been achieved- I mean better achievements than this if they had not surrendered the PLA and the people’s weapons. Now it is also clear that, that is why, they had deviated in Chunwang and signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord.
      About the letter, there was no information in the party, many leaders have told me personally in this regard. Inside the party, they were preparing nationalist war against the regional expansionism also. On the other hand, the letter was kept secret until SD Muni disclosed it. Therefore, it was a matter of two influential leaders not the Great PW. Com. Bhattarai, while PM, accepted and clarified that they had written the letter not only to the then Indian PM but also to other agencies including the UN.
      Therefore, I respect the PW but withdraw my respect from the two leaders, which they deserved high in my heart and the people earlier.
      About your great statement about BA, frankly, I need to study more about RCP. I do it, and will certainly comment on new synthesis. Please forward me the specific document if any. I will certainly go through Internet if covered.
      I simply know so far is ‘thesis +anti-thesis=synthesis’. I cannot prove 2+2=5, which Shiv Puri Baabaa, while met Einstein had proved by argument.
      Kind Regards
      Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

      • Robert

        I do not mean to imply that the PW was a fake, it most certainly was not, but Prachanda and Bhattarai misled the people, the PLA, ycl into revisionism. We denounced this in our letters, and were dismissed. All i want to argue is that the CPN M should take up BOB AVAKIAN’S NEW SYNTHESIS over the discarded prachanda path.

        as for Krisha; he is the kind of revisionist traitor that has corrupted the UCPN M.

        • Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

          Thank you Com. Robert.
          1. We also came to know very late that the two leaders Com. Prachanda and Com. Baburam wanted safe landing. Perhaps all this was plotted during the Chunwang convention. But now the CPN-M comparatively is on the correct line.
          2. I am sure you have my first observation on CPN-M 7th GC of 11 January 2013. If not, please visit in Google, -or in my name Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal. The post-7th GC of CPN-M also, as a writer, I have entitled the evaluation as ‘Old Wine in a New Bottle, or Otherwise?’. The focus particularly was on the re-election of the same old CC -not adding the emerging young, dynamic and the experienced comrades ready for sacrifice for the New People’s Democratic Revolution. This article is being published by the Nepal Council of World Affairs in its annual special issue 2013 ( I think, part of it, I have posted it to Co. Peter Tobin.

          3. On the current affairs, projecting the role of the CPN-M today, ‘The Weekly Mirror, KTM, on March 1, 2013, op-ed, p.2, has published my latest piece entitled, ‘Two Keys for the President for Saving Separation of Power’ ( -opinion column.

          4. I like to study BA’s New Synthesis in detail. Once I make a notion regarding the theory, I do post/project the idea simultaneously. If it is a good theory, the world will follow automatically. No need to advertise in a hurry like Christianity. The Marxism came to practice after Marx’s death ! We all know that, isn’t it? Time is important.. Of course, theory and practice/action if go side by side, it is credible in today’s world.

          5. Regarding Krishna, I know many good Krishnas in that party. But I don’t know who this Krishna is. Here Krishna clearly enjoys safe landing- that we have titled opportunism, surrender-ism and neo-revisionism.

          Best Wishes
          Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

  3. Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal

    I appreciate W P R M (Britain) for posting my article to its web on 08 February 2013. I welcome the comments from all over the world. I like to post a minor correction. In the last but one paragraph, line-4, an ‘n’ has been omitted. I humbly request the readers to read as: Many speculate it is to skip away from the fear of the ICC charges ‘on’ them.
    Prachanda, once I debated in his favor, and had adorned him even the title of ‘Leader of the century in Nepal’s history leading People’s War’ and conferred ‘Dr. Dilli Raman Regmi National Peace Award 2009′ in my chairmanship. These awards earlier were conferred to Mandela and also Gandhi posthumously.
    Unfortunately, he surrendered to regional expansionism so badly that he even proposed a humorous proposal of referendum to fix the already encroached 60 000 ha of Nepalese land in nearly 108 places including in Kalapani and Susta in Indo-Nepal border. He had to correct it with humiliation in the general convention. Therefore, SD Muni’s claim comes true that Prachanda and Baburam had signed a letter of surrender to AB Vajpayee, the then PM of India, in 2002.
    Kind Regards
    Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal, Kathmandu

Leave a Reply