|
Two rounds of
‘dialogue’ have already been held between the central delegations of our Party,
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN(M)] and the present government of Nepal
led by Sher Bahadur Deuba. Guns have stopped roaring and news of ‘capturing of
the police stations and all the arms and ammunitions by Maoist guerillas’ have
ceased to appear at the national and the international press.
The second round of
the ‘dialogue’ which was held in the Bardia National Park resort on September
13-14 as a continuation of the first round, terminated without any outcome
except passing the news that both sides presented their views explicitly and
agreed to resume talks further. One point was very clear that the government and
Nepali Congress delegation combined outrightly rejected three specific proposals
of the CPN (Maoist) delegation—one, that the state of the republic should be
institutionalized; two, this constitution should have to be abrogated and a new
constitution should be promulgated by the constitutional assembly; and third, an
interim government should be formed. Apparently there seems that there is no any
meeting point between these two and there is hardly any possibility of coming at
a consensus or agreement. Nevertheless, the ‘dialogue’ has not been declared
broken from either side. Lots of speculations are floating about the possibility
of a next round of dialogue. But when from, is yet uncertain.
Whether the ‘dialogue
will continue?
Whether there is any
possibility of a next round of ‘dialogue’? I think such possibility has not
completely vanished. A next round of talks can happen provided the government
fulfils the demands put forward by the delegation of our Party in order to
create an atmosphere to continue the ‘dialogue’. But till now almost all the
demands have been totally neglected by the government. If this situation
continues, it is hard to speculate that the ‘dialogue’ will still keep going.
Then the possibility will turn into an impossibility. Therefore, it is up to the
present government and ruling party, the Nepali Congress, whether they like the
‘dialogue’ to go ahead or stop it. Thus the ball lies in their court. If the
‘dialogue’ breaks down, what course the events will take after that, it is
difficult to forecast. People are expressing their concern about the situation
that is supposed to come after the failure of the ‘dialogue’. Therefore, every
body should have to understand that the government and the ruling Nepali
Congress are fully responsible if the ‘dialogue’ will break down and for its
consequences thereafter.
What the masses can
get through the ‘dialogue’?
People have their own
expectations and views regarding this ‘dialogue’. Some people say that every
thing should be resolved through the ‘dialogue’ and thus no revolution will be
necessary after the ‘dialogue’ will be properly resolved. This is a wrong idea
and it does not correspond to the law of revolution and the ‘dialogue’ as a
step. What can be achieved in the dialogue does not depend on the ‘holy wishes’
of the delegation or any party. Some specific laws of development govern it. So
far as we Maoists are concerned, we are very much clear about the ultimate
achievement of the ‘dialogue’. What we get on the table depends on what we have
achieved in the field of class struggle or people’s war. No body should be in
confusion about the demands that our delegation has put forward on the table of
‘dialogue’, that these are our achievements that we have achieved through the
people’s war and we like to legitimize these achievements. Reactionary parties
like the NC and opportunist parties like the UML and others are blaming our
party for raising unnecessary and irrelevant demands in the ‘dialogue’. These
forces are against the revolution and thus they can never understand the
legitimacy of the achievements of the revolution. What our delegation has raised
during the ‘dialogue’ has already been achieved in the people’s war. Our aim is
to legitimize those achievements that we have already achieved. It is sheer
betrayal to give up the achievements on the table, which the masses have already
achieved in the field, at the cost of blood. Therefore, we cannot abandon or
give up those demands. If the government and the parliamentary parties are
really in favor of paving the way for the peaceful resolution of the problem,
they should fulfill the demands put forward by our Party. Every body has to be
realistic. It means every body has to accept the present reality of the movement
and achievement of the revolution in the field. After this condition is
fulfilled, the ‘dialogue’ can give a real way out and can reach a correct
conclusion.
It is "tit for tat"
What was the factor
leading us to go to the negotiating table with the acknowledged reactionary
government? It is the concrete and real situation of Nepal and it is the
teaching of Maoism that led our Party to take this decision. Nobody should be in
confusion about the tactics our Party has adopted regarding the ‘negotiation’ or
‘dialogue’. We are equally competent in going to the ‘dialogue’ and also coming
back from the ‘dialogue’, depending on the concrete situation. We are efficient
in giving "tit for tat". Our great teacher Comrade Mao has very explicitly
stated—"How to give "tit for tat" depends on the situation. Some times not going
to negotiation is tit for tat: and some times going to the negotiations is
tit-for-tat." We understand this principle very well, but our enemy is unable to
understand it, which is a problem. Sometimes it is necessary to make the enemy
understand about some established principles. It is reflected in their naďve and
foolish ideas being expressed. The reactionaries are presenting things in such a
way, as if, once we came to the negotiating table we cannot go back, and that
whatever they impose we are obliged to accept. They must understand that if they
compel us to go back from the negotiating table we are always ready. We are
Maoist and in the course of applying Maoism in the Nepalese reality we have
generated ‘Prachanda Path’. Thus we know how to give "tit for tat", which has
been proved numerous times in the course of almost six years of People’s War.
Question of
surrendering the arms
Once again I like to
reiterate that in our country it is not sufficient any way to educate our people
only, rather it is necessary to teach our opponents as well. The leaders of the
ruling party and the government are constantly claiming that ‘If Maoists like
to come to the negotiating table they have to surrender their arms’. This
claim is nothing but a mockery. No any wise leader that may belong to any
political party can claim like this. There were many negotiations in world
history, but these types of ridiculous claims can hardly be found in the history
of negotiations. There is a famous negotiation in the history of China, known as
‘Chungking Negotiation’, which was held between two warring forces: the
Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang in October 1945. In the course of
the negotiations, Chiang Kaishek put forward the demand of reducing the number
of the army on both sides. He did not propose that to go for negotiations with
the Kuomintang, the Chinese Communist Party should surrender its army and arms.
It is pity that even after 60 years of this historical event, Girija Koirala and
K.P. Bhattarai are unable to understand even this minimum criterion. In this
regard again Comrade Mao has taught us to be very careful, he has said- "The
arms of the people, every gun and every bullet, must all be kept, must not be
handed over." Therefore these reactionary leaders must comprehend that our
party will never surrender our arms and the People’s Army. Therefore they should
feel shame in making these types of ridiculous claims.
Question of abandoning
politics
It is pitiable, that
not only Girija and Bhattarai, but also Deuba and Madhav Kumar Nepal, leader of
UML and other such people are asserting that " Maoist should come to the main
stream politics, abandoning their politics of extreme." Is it not really a
stupidity to call for abandoning our politics in order to come for negotiations?
They are reiterating their own stupid argument that the ‘constitutional
monarchy and multi party systems are not negotiable’. Thus these people are
trying to teach us that we have to abandon our politics and join them to get a
share of what they are enjoying. Can we imagine any wise person asserting to
abandon the highest and most scientific ideology of the world, and the best
politics manifested in the same ideology? Perhaps not. But what is happening in
Nepal, is really ridiculous. The ideology and politics embraced by our Party,
which is acknowledged by the masses through the experience of the hard and
violent battles of the last six years, these phony democrats are instructing us
to abandon!
Who is shattering the
‘dialogue’?
It is now become
quite clear to everybody, as to who is really trying to disrupt the ‘dialogue’?
The miserable shadow of the palace-Girija combine, Sher Bahadur led government
or we, the Maoists? Let all of us judge the facts. The government and NC
combined delegation was feeling very proud to reject out rightly the proposal
put forward by the counter part, even without feeling imperative to accept the
proposals for discussion. For the other five points essential to be fulfilled
for creating a suitable atmosphere for the ‘dialogue’, they never fulfilled and
they are making no any attempt to fulfill. The government forcibly banned the
proposed peaceful mass rally of 21st September, in a situation when both the
parties are claiming that the ‘dialogue’ should go undisturbed. The government
also banned the student conference organized by the All Nepal National
Independent Students’ Organization (revolutionary), at the capital. They
arrested many cadres and sympathizers of our Party. They raided well-known
student hostels at Kathmandu and arrested many student leaders and activists.
They passed the same-hated ‘armed police force’ bill from parliament, which was
even withdrawn by the Girija government, when there was no situation of
‘dialogue’. The government is deploying not only the armed police but also the
army as well, especially in the areas where our party has a stronghold, and
People’s Governments are working. Underhand preparations of using the army to
suppress the revolutionary movement is learnt to be proceeding at a very fast
pace. The statement of the Indian foreign minister alleging the on going Maoist
movement of Nepal as "terrorist" and vowing to fight out this movement and
asserting open support to the present ruling alliance, violating all norms of
not intervening in the internal matter of any country, has made clear to
everybody how these reactionary and opportunist elements are conspiring to sell
out our nation and the national interest. Is it not clear even for a lay man to
understand the reality that this government, the ruling Nepali Congress in
collaboration with the palace, is solely responsible for shattering the
‘dialogue’?
Destiny of the
‘dialogue’
Now, it is clear to
every body that the Deuba government, which is a helpless shadow of the palace-Girija
combine, has virtually created such a situation that it is almost impossible to
keep the ‘dialogue’ going. Therefore, the destiny of the ‘dialogue’ seems to be
murky. Nevertheless our party will go on trying its best to keep the ‘dialogue’
going. In spite of our effort, if the government and the ruling party will go on
disrupting the situation, it is bound to get broken. If such an undesirable
event will happen, the present government and its accomplices will be fully
responsible for all consequences and every body should get prepared to face any
eventuality.
|
