Held in October 2017 the last year, the National Conference of our Party, the Communist Party of Nepal
(Revolutionary Maoist), had put forward the question of party unity in a systemic manner. The conference
had adopted some minimum bases, on the basis of which party could initiate debate with the communist
parties. As per the decision, the discussion could take place with those parties, which regard Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as their guiding principle, which take on the new democratic revolution as a minimum
political programme, which oppose parliamentary system, parliamentarianism and don’t participate in the
government under the reactionary state power, which believe that violence is inevitable for revolution,
which follow the organisational principle of democratic centralism, which support the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution led by Mao etc. Party had also become flexible that the discussion could be extended
to those parties that use the world Mao thought but comprehend it as a universally applicable principle if
the above bases were met.

हार्दिक शुभकामना !

On the basis of aforesaid policy, there have been debates and discussions several times with some parties
on the question of party unity. Among them was the Communist Party of Nepal led by comrade Biplab,
with which our party had several discussions in the highest level. This short article that has been prepared
in accordance with party’s preliminary understanding on unity with the CPN is aimed at making know
where the unity process has reached and what the possibilities and challenges exist on it.

First of all, party is not merely a physical organisation; it is the totality of ideology, politics, programme,
strategy, tactic and plan. The communist party, which is guided by Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principle, is
an organised vanguard of the proletariat and it applies its ideological and political line in to revolutionary
practice to fit in the particular objective condition of the given country. Precisely for this reason, Mao has
said, “Correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything”.

The party unity is that kind of unity which takes place mainly in the ideological and political questions.
The way towards organisational unity gets open only after the unity on ideological and political questions
is achieved. None must delay the organisational unity after the ideological and political differences are
resolved. Again, it is wrong to place the organisational unity at the first place and ideological and political
unity to the second. It is not a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist method of making party unity. The difference
between ideological and political issues must be resolved first and then opens the door of organisational
unity. This is Marxist outlook regarding party unity.

Almost every comrade is aware that comrade Biplab had been placing dissension on some questions ever
since two-line struggle in the erstwhile CPN-Maoist. All of them were not irrelevant and wrong. It was
necessary to develop ideological and political line that addresses the changes undergone in the national
and international situation and party also had placed them at the first place. He had placed his written
opinion in the party as well. But a strange, without debating questions in the expanded-meeting, which
was organised to discuss his dissension, he submitted a divorce letter to the party and thus split the party.
It is a bitter reality of the past.

Meanwhile, the party led by comrade Biplab, the CPN Maoist before and the CPN now, has put forward
some new questions on the ideological and political sphere. In some contexts, the CPN has taken wrong
position on Marxism but says it is the development of Marxism itself. He has said to the extent that it is
tantamount to fitting steam engine in a plane if one attempts to find solution of today’s world from Marx’s
synthesis, Lenin’s synthesis and Mao’s synthesis made respectively before 177 years, 100 years and 65
years.” What it clearly means is that MLM has been old, so it cannot ideologically guide revolution in the
world today. It is a serious ideological deviation.

Not only this, some of the ideological positions of the CPN are very much serious too. They believe that
party is not a unity of opposites like matter and so there is no two-line struggle in it. It contradicts with
MLM. In addition, they have made use of many new definitions in their party documents for example:
post-imperialism, comprador state, unified people’s revolution, feudalism does not exist in Nepal after 10
years of people’s war and the end of monarchy, the stage of revolution in Nepal is not new democracy etc.
Every terminology carries specific essence and form and there must not be any contradiction between
them. Also, the entire party members must have common understanding on it. Apart from the things said
above, there exist difference in many issues between the CPN and our party. While talking about party
unity, one must make sure that there is basic unity in the ideological and political questions between the
parties in concern and only then the question of organizational unity comes at the fore.

This article is not prepared aimed at discussing ideological and political line questions with the CPN. It
intends to say that though there are many theoretical questions in which our party and the CPN have sharp
difference but we still think that they are not of the nature that cannot be resolved by a comradely manner
i.e. through unity-struggle-transformation. Our party has put forward this question because party unity is
the need of the day to build a revolutionary communist party capable to confront the present challenges of
Nepalese revolution by developing our individual understanding of MLM and thus attaining basic unity
on the ideological and political line. We are clear that the organisational unity without ideological unity
leads ultimately to a compromise and the unity thus achieved cannot propel party and the revolution
forward. It is not only true for our party but also to the entire revolutionary communist movement.

Our party had put forward the proposal of party unity with the CPN based on aforesaid understanding. In
the meantime, there had been several meetings between GS comrade Kiran and GS comrade Biplab. All
of those meetings used to conclude that parties should unite and go ahead. In that backdrop, our party
proposed to constitute two high level central teams, one each from two parties, carry out debate between
the teams thus formed and take up the agenda of party unity, without delay, if there is basic unity in the
ideological and political line. The CPN too did not oppose it but agreed. It was a positive achievement.
In this context, our party constituted a three-membered central team led by comrade Kiran and proposed
them too to form a team of the same status and arrange a joint meeting. Nevertheless, they did not take it
seriously. We reminded them time and again, but they put it aside for long with an excuse that they were
confronting some technical problems. On the other, we came to hear a kind of naive and unprincipled
saying on the part of some senior comrades of CPN that we were in the same party before; there are no
such questions in which we diametrically differ and two general secretaries cannot sort out them. While
arriving here, it became apparent that the CPN was not prepared to take up theoretical debate with our
party.

In the meantime, some articles on the part of CPN leaders have been published in the online papers that
seem closer to them. The essence of those articles is that there cannot be debate on line and leadership of
the CPN and the parties that opt for party unity should unconditionally join them. Clearly, this saying and
understanding do not help party unity. Besides, instead of creating a basis of ideological unity by way of
fraternal and creative criticism in ideology, politics and line of the CPN (Revolutionary Maoist), the way
they have assassinated character of some comrades by accusing that this leader is rightist, this leader is
parliamentarian, this leader is reformist and this leader is vacillationist etc. shows that they are taking a
destructive attitude towards party unity. This is not the way a leader publicly talks of another leader of the
fraternal party. The criticism of certain leaders on their outlook expressed in the theoretical positions is
natural. However, random attack upon certain leaders without any context goes against unity and it is not
a communist ethics too.

Right in this context, a book named as “Mahan Patan”, which literally means a great degeneration and is a
collection of articles by comrade Biplab, was published a few months before. A part sub-headed as “The
struggle between Prachanda and Kiran” of his article entitled “The question of inner struggle and two-line
struggle” incorporated in that book has been simultaneously published in many online papers closer to the
CPN. It is not merely a coincidence, it understandably shows that it is done in a calculated way to distort
the revolutionary image of comrade Kiran and create disbelief towards him among the revolutionaries.
By fabricating a so-called history of two-line struggle in the erstwhile CPN (Maoist), Comrade Biplab has
taken help of Prachanda, Baburam, Badal and some others to depict his own appraisal on comrade Kiran
in that article. He writes, “Many people believe that Kiran was a teacher of Prachanda …… but, nowhere
and never has Prachanda scripted it”, “People believed or were made believe that Kiran is a leader with
‘philosophic’ ability but he lacked ability to lead revolution … … he used to be upset by it”, “Prachanda
had attained leadership after Kiran failed”, “‘The people’s war would not have been initiated if Kiran’s
opinions were followed’ … … Badal, Baburam and Diwakar too used to say it”, “The time had matured to
organise debate on dogmatism and conservative ideas and solve problem in the party”, “Badal used to say
that dogmato-revisionism had been a problem from the very beginning of people’s war” etc.

Standing with the crutch of renegades like Prachanda, Baburam and Badal, comrade Biplab has degraded
comrade Kiran. By so doing comrade Biplab has shortened his ideological and political height further.
How will Biplab, who needs to protect his ideological and political status with the help of accusations
made to Kiran by the traitors like Prachanda and his coterie, develop Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? It will
be clearer in the days ahead. Before ending that article he sums up, “Kiran, although he has ideologically
sided with revolutionary stream, he is creeping up his head towards the hole of parliamentarianism.

Whether he will take his head out of that hole or will only be pointing his tail towards revolution because
of vacillation, the upcoming movement will clarify. What does Biplab intend to say here is clear.
What is clear from the aforesaid facts is that comrade Biplab, inflating that the leader of revolution should
be ‘adept’, has attempted to minimise the role of ideology in revolution. This way of thinking is based on
feudal idea that the leader of a revolution should be like a Hindi movie “Hero”, who can accomplish all
miraculous actions alone. The working style of a communist party is the centralisation of all abilities and
its leadership works in a collective system. However, comrade Biplab does not agree with it. That is why
he has regarded Prachanda as an ideal teacher because of his “leadership quality”. The above excerpts
fully justify it.

On the other, comrade Biplab has criticised our tactic of revolutionary utilisation in the last parliamentary
election. Firstly, the use of parliament is not parliamentarianism. Secondly, our party is calling on others
to strengthen the ideological basis of party unity by waging intense ideological struggle in the entire
issues including line, programme, strategy and tactic of Nepalese revolution. We have never and nowhere
said that such and such questions cannot be tabled for discussion. In spite of such a clear position on our
part, why comrade Biplab is not enthusiastic to place the entire ideological and political questions on the
table for discussion and why he does not engage in the struggle that makes comrade Kiran’s head, not the
tail, face towards revolution, to paraphrase Biplab, but on the contrary, why he is so happy when
Prachanda belittles comrade Kiran? Let us think of it seriously; the crutch of Prachanda’s accusation upon
Kiran does not help Biplab make revolution.

The effort of party unity that our party had made with the CPN from the last conference has failed for the
time being. They did not get ready to undergo theoretical struggle for the development of ideological and
political line necessary to reach party unity. In this way, the possibility of party unity with the CPN has
ended for now. Nevertheless, the failure of unity talk this time does not stop the process for ever. Such a
situation come and go in the course of revolution, a revolutionary does not need to make it a big issue. It
is a normal thing.

History is a witness that if ideology and politics is correct then organisation expands and the revolution
advances. It has been proved to be so in our own history as well. The erstwhile CPN (Maoist), which did
not have even a slingshot in the beginning, had been able to militarily challenge the Nepalese reactionary
state power within a short span of five years. Not only this, it had become an ideological and political
threat to imperialism and expansionism as well. All knows what has happened now to the CPN (Maoist),
when it slipped of the revolutionary ideology. Let us grasp Marxism-Leninism-Maoism firmly and move
ahead resolutely to implement the party line in practice, the polarisation of revolutionaries will go ahead,
none can stop it. It is the masses of people equipped with MLM and led by a revolutionary party that
make revolution, not an unprincipled crowd.

प्रतिक्रिया

सम्बन्धित खवर