Lest we find an easy scapegoat for every problem and blame it all on - who else? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Factionalism in the Communist Movement in Nepal.
by Narayan Khadka
The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe also led to the collapse Communist military dictatorship and one-party authoritarian regimes in many countries. By early 1991, a number of these regimes were transformed into pluralistic democratic systems. There are only four countries in the world that are nominally under the grip of Communist dictatorship: the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. However, Communist opposition is posing serious challenges to many new democracies. Supporters and workers of the former Communist regimes have either come to power or have emerged as the parliamentary opposition in some East European countries that were transformed into a democracy in recent years. Other countries such as Peru and Angola are facing daunting challenges from the left-wing guerrillas. Challenges from the Communist organizations in many Third World democracies are not wholly determined by class conflict, but are also the product of the opposition's ability to capitalize on nationalist and ethnic issues.
In April 1990, Nepal became one of the countries that has recently been transformed from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy with a multiparty democracy. The country had its first parliamentary elections in thirty-two years in May 1991 and the Nepali Congress party, which won a simple majority, is now the ruling party while the United Marxist-Leninist party (UML) occupies the role of the opposition. Besides the UML, there are three smaller Communist factions in the parliament and over a dozen who resort to street politics.
Poverty associated with a higher incidence of socioeconomic inequalities, geographical proximity with communist China, and India's growing influence in Nepali sociopolitical life, made Nepal a fertile ground for the Communist movement. But paradoxically, these factors also contributed to cause factions. The UML party is the second largest party in Nepal as indicated by the 1991 general elections and the politics of opposition of the UML and other Communist factions have posed the most difficult challenge to the process of institutionalizing democracy in Nepal.
This challenge is posed not by the incompatibility of democracy and communism but by the absence of a strong leadership, and lack of well-defined goals and strategies. The UML has admitted that the Communist movement was severely weakened(1) due to both internal and external factors. The Nepal Communist Party (Masal), which claims to be revolutionary, acknowledged that factionalism is attributable to the internal contradictions between the revolutionary teachings of the Communist ideology and the lack of consciousness and commitment in the Communist organizations.(2) It is the objective of this paper to analyze the factors that led to factionalism in the Communist movement. The paper has a two-fold objective: (a) to analyze the trend in factionalism in the Communist movement in Nepal, and (b) to examine the factors causing factionalism in the movement. It must be mentioned here that factionalism is not the consequence of the ideological incompatibility between communism and democracy.
Most of the issues that led to factionalism originated during the period from the nineteen sixties to the nineteen eighties when political parties were banned. But most of these factors still continue to play important roles in causing factionalism at the present time when Communist parties are operating freely in a democratic system. Without examining these factors the study will fail to get the correct perspective. Therefore, this study employs trend analysis to examine the above objectives.
INTRODUCTION
Of the many socioeconomic and political implications of Nepal's geopolitics, the rise of the Communist movement is one. Communism as an organized movement in Nepal was strongly influenced by the independence movement in India and the success of the Chinese Communist revolution of 1949. Nepal's first Communist party known as the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was formed in September 1949. From the time of its inception to date, the NCP has suffered serious setbacks due to both external and internal factors. In the riffles, the main objective of the NCP as stated in its policy statement issued in 1951 was to transform Nepal into a republican state through violent revolution. However, in the 1950s the party adopted the Leninist strategy of provoking discontent by focusing on issues that were urban centered and elite oriented. For example, the central issue for the NCP was to oppose the Nepali Congress government and India's growing influence in Nepal and to advocate a resumption of relations with the People's Republic of China. At that time more than 97 percent of Nepal's population was rural and about 98 percent illiterate. Such a large section of the population was completely unaffected by the oppositional politics of the Nepal Communist Party. One major reason was that the party organization was weak and the membership was small and drawn mainly from the urban population. This is evident from the poor performance of the NCP in the 1959 general elections.
Table 1 shows the tremendous achievement of the Communist movement in Nepal in terms of gaining political popularity in the last four decades. Communism as an ideology and a movement became increasingly intensified especially after the abrupt dismissal of Nepal's first elected government by the late King Mahendra in mid-December 1960. Various estimates indicate that the general membership of the various Communist parties increased from 5,000 in the 1950s to 10,000 in the 1980s. After the democratic change in 1990, communism gained considerable strength as its membership went up to 35,000 in 1992. The strength of the Communist movement can also be gauged by the fact that the largest party, the UML, provided 177 candidates for the May 1991 election to the 205-member House of Representatives. The party won 69 seats and obtained 28 percent of the total votes as compared with 4 seats and 7.2 percent votes in the 1959 general elections (table 1).
The organizational and numerical strength of the Communist movement has increased but so has the increase in internal feuds and factionalism. The various groups of radical extremes want to establish "New Democracy" through people's revolution, while the moderate talk of a multiparty "people's democracy." If the former group is divided on ideology and strategy, the latter group is divided on the concept of democracy and its utility in overcoming communism in the long run. In the following section we discuss the general trends in factionalism.
TABLE 1Â
POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN 1959 AND 1991 GENERAL ELECTIONSÂ
Election Total Seats Seats % of Year Seats Contested Won VotesÂ
Elections (1959) 109 47 4 7.20Â Elections (1991) 205Â UML 177 69 27.98Â UPF 70 9 4.83Â NWPP 30 2 1.25Â NCP(D) 75 2 2.43Â
Figures in parentheses indicate the years in which general elections were held. UML=United Marxist-Leninist Party; UPF=United People's Front, Nepal; NWPP=Nepal Workers and Peasants Party; NCP (D)=Communist Party of Nepal (Democratic).Â
Source: 1959 election results are from G. B. Devkota, Nepal ko Rajnitik Darpan (Political Mirror of Nepal) (Kathmandu: D. B. Devkota Publication, 1960), p. 698, and the 1991 election results are from the Election Commission, House of Representative Members' Election-2048 (Kathmandu).Â
FACTIONALISM: THE GENERAL TREND Ever since the formation of the first Communist party in 1949, the Communist movement has been divided into twenty factions and subfactions. Such an increase in factions is an indication of the popularity of communism but it is also a reflection of cleavages and schisms. Although disunity in the NCP over certain issues was a common feature ever since its formation, factionalism has become a frequent phenomenon since the early 1960s. The royal takeover of the democratically elected government in December 1960 divided the Communists into two major blocks, those who criticized the king's action and those who supported it. Nepal's relations with India and China, the Sino-Soviet ideological rift of the early 1960s, the Sino-Indian war of 1962, and their divisive effects on the Communist Party of India contributed to further polarization.
By 1962 Nepal's Communist movement was formally divided into two main camps, the pro-Chinese faction, and the pro-Soviet Union faction (refers to the former Soviet Union), before the official separation of the Communist Party of India into CPI and CPI (M) in 1964. The pro-Soviet Union Communist group of Nepal operated openly, although without formally announcing itself as a political party, after it held the 3rd Convention in 1966 and became separated formally from the parent party. However, it failed to emerge as an unified alternative to the pro-China group. Instead, by the early 1980s, the group was split into three groups, each headed by a leader. The group led by K.J. Rayamajhi, the main leader of the pro-Soviet Group, who first broke away from the parent party and became the general secretary in 1966, was reduced to a minority group by the early 1980s. After the fall of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990 and the fall of the partyless regime in Nepal in April 1990, the three Communist groups also faced an ideological crisis. One group, which was led by Mr. B. B. Manandhar, called itself the Nepal Communist Party (Democratic); the other group was led by Krishna Raj Burma and was called the Nepal Communist Party (Burma). The third one was led by Mr. K. J. Rayamajhi who not only dropped the name "communism" but also called his party a Socialist-Democratic Party. But Rayamajhi, the president, dissolved it in late May 1991 because of the party's failure to win a single seat in the House of Representatives.
The pro-China group was also divided into many factions. The first generation Communist leaders, who followed the policy of the Communist Party of India in the 1950s, were convinced that the barrel of a gun is not the only way to gain political power. These Communists had seen the southwest Indian state of Kerala becoming the world's first democratically elected Communist-led government in 1957 and most of Nepal's first generation leaders of the Communist movement had taken part in the parliamentary elections held in 1959 as did the Indian Communist leaders in the first general elections of 1952.
A radical minority of the pro-Chinese faction have been differentiating themselves from the moderate majority groups. There were strong differences of opinion on a number of issues even within the pro-Chinese faction of the Communists in the mid 1960s. The general secretary of the NCP, Tulsi Lal Amatya, who was elected by the third convention held in 1962, resigned from the Politburo due to lack of support for an armed struggle for his proposed "Supreme Sovereign Parliament." Similarly, Puspa Lal, a member of the Politburo, held a conference in 1968 and created a separate Communist party called NCP (PL). By 1972 when the NCP (PL) held the fourth party conference, it was fragmented into three groups. These groups could be classified as moderate left, radical left, and extreme radical left. The moderate group was led by the leader of the NCP (PL); the radical left was led by Rohit, and the extreme radical left was represented by two groups, the Liberation Front created in 1974 and the People's Revolutionary Organization of Nepal created in 1976 by some members who broke away from the NCP (PL) in that year.(3) The main reason for the fragmentation was the fundamental difference over their strategy for the overthrow of the partyless regime of the king, and the establishment of a Communist regime.
It is interesting to see that the left group led by Rohit also became divided into various factions. Although the break-away groups also considered the workers and peasants as the core elements, the split was the result of a personality conflict and the consequence of the ongoing change in both external and internal factors. However, only two groups from the fourth party conference of 1972 were in existence until the parliamentary elections in 1991. The NCP (PL) was active until the death of its leader, Puspa Lal, in 1978, and was later revived by his wife, Mrs. Sahana Pradhan, in collaboration with another Communist activist in 1987. The party was merged with another moderate left force, the Nepal Communist Party, in 1988 and became NCP (Marxist). In 1991 it was again merged with the Marxist-Leninist group and became the NCP United Marxist-Leninist party (NCP UML).
The leaders and workers of the NCP enjoyed comparatively better treatment from the royal regime as compared with that of Nepali Congress. Some of the leaders and workers of the NCP who were released in the late 1960s made efforts to reunite the Communists who were either in exile in India or were scattered within Nepal. The active members of the NCP created a coordinating body in 1971, but it soon became divided over two issues, the application of Mao's strategy in Nepal and the question of "constituent assembly." One of the members, Mohan Bikram Singh, who had been arguing for a "Constituent Assembly" since 1961, broke away from the main body. He convened the party's fourth convention in 1974 in India and followed a revolutionary line. This group, known as the NCP (Masal), claims to be the true follower of Maoism. By the year 1991, the NCP (Masal) was divided into five small groups. Interestingly, two of the groups known as "lighted torch," NCP (Masal) and NCP (Mashal), were differentiated only by their pronunciation. Interestingly enough, all the various factions differ very little in their ideology.
Inevitably, factionalism at the central level produced a similar tendency at the local level. For example, the Kosi Provincial Committee was divided on the issue of adopting an armed insurrection in the province. One of the district bodies, the Jhapa District Committee of the East Kosi Provincial Committee, defied the decisions of the Kosi Provincial Committee and advocated the Maoist strategy of organizing a guerrilla warfare that was adopted by the extremists' variant of the Indian Communists (i.e., the Naxalite movement across the Nepal-Indian border). The Nepali variant of that movement was known as the "Jhapa Movement" which followed the strategy of organizing peasants and killing local landlords. However, the movement was ruthlessly suppressed by the government and several of its leaders were arrested. This movement was opposed by various splinter groups of the Communist movement. In 1978 the two district bodies of the East Kosi Provincial Committees, the Jhapa and the Morang districts (in the east low land bordering India), formed a coordination committee which led to the formation of the NCP (Marxist-Leninist). Several district bodies and independent Communist movements were absorbed by the NCP (M-L). Although the NCP (M-L) accepted Mao as the sole leader of the revolutionary movement, and class conflict as the basis of struggle, it agreed to continue with the guerrilla warfare, but neither an anti-landlord nor an anti-royal regime armed insurrection was launched.
The NCP (M-L) was united with the NCP (M) in 1991 and became the United Marxist-Leninist party which is the opposition party in the House of Representatives. The party is a loose organization of various brands of communism. Until recently, the party had a common ideology and orientation (for example, Marxism-Leninism as practiced in China) but has seen an erosion of faith in Communist principles. Internal dissension and disenchantment have already contributed to "groupism" and breaking away.
As stated earlier, there are as many as twenty different factions of the Communist movement in Nepal. Some of these parties have only a handful of members with insignificant differences in their ideology and strategies. These parties are NCP (Amatya), Nepal Communist Party (15 September), Nepal Communist League (Sambhu Ram), Nepal Proletariat Workers' Organization, Nepal Communist Party (Sixth Convention), Independent Workers Union (affiliated with the UML), Nepal Communist Party (People Oriented), United Popular Front, Nepal Communist Party (Marxist), Nepal Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), Nepal Communist Party 4th Convention, etc. Besides, there are small ethnic- and region-based Communist parties. The NCP (4th Convention), NCP (Mashal), and Nepal Proletarian Worker's Organization formed the Unity Centre in 1990. The NCP (Amatya) group and the other pro-Moscow groups, NCP (Burma) and NCP (Democratic), formed a unified party called the Nepal Communist Party (United) in early July 1991. The unity broke and the NCP (Amatya) became merged with the UML in December 1993.
FACTIONALISM: THE FACTORS
The factors that led to multiple factionalism can be safely grouped into external and internal factors. Generally speaking, Nepal's geopolitical location between countries with diametrically opposite political and sociocultural systems is the dominant factor that interacts with both external and internal factors. Nepal's two immediate neighbors, India and China, have played a major role in causing factionalism in the Communist movement insofar as the role of external factors is concerned. Nepal's border with India on the south, east and west, and the Tibetan region on the north, its dwarfed size in terms of both territory population, and its economic dependence on India are factors that have been shaping its external and internal politics. External factors are the dynamics of Chinese communism and the Chinese and Indian policy towards Nepal. The dynamics of Soviet communism, Sino-Soviet and Indo-Soviet relations, as well as the Soviet-Nepal relations, were influential in Nepal's Communist movement. Similarly, the global as well as regional policy of the former Soviet Union was also of secondary importance in Nepal's Communist movement. The U.S. policy towards Nepal in particular, and South Asia in general, as well as the nature of the Sino-U.S. and the U.S. Soviet relations were factors that provided stimulus to the trend towards factionalism.
The India Factor
In the 1950s the NCP concentrated mainly on urban and elite-oriented nationalist issues. The NCP criticized the "Delhi Compromise" and the formation of the Rana-Nepali Congress coalition government. The NCP almost unanimously criticized India as "expansionist" because of its growing influence in Nepal's economy and administration and also opposed the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Nepal and India, the Kosi and Gandak rivers projects, and the military missions.
India was a major factor in causing factionalism in the Communist movement in the 1960s and 1970s. The various factors related to India in causing factionalism were (a) India's Prime Minister Nehru's criticism of the dismissal of the first democratically elected government of the Nepali Congress in December 1960, (b) an arms insurrection launched by the Nepali Congress members living in India and India's moral support for it, © the Sino-Indian war of 1962, and (d) the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1971. The first two factors caused serious friction between the Politburo member Puspa Lal Shrestha and the party general secretary K. J. Rayamajhi. Although the NCP of which Puspa Lal Shrestha was a founding member had criticized India as "bourgeois and reactionary," he thought that "in the circumstances New Delhi could be expected to favor an alliance with the Nepali Congress as the necessary prerequisite to a successful revolution."(4) This was opposed by K. J. Rayamajhi who was then labeled as pro-monarchy and a moderate. Rayamajhi threatened to expel the member and his followers from the Politburo. This led to a bipolarity in the NCP.(5)
This pro-Moscow group changed its policy especially after the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation signed in 1971 and acted according to the USSR's policy. The moderate force who opposed seeking India's cooperation in the 1960s began to follow the pro-Moscow line whereas those who favored it followed the pro-Beijing line. Since the 1970s, the pro-Chinese Communists of Nepal have adopted an anti-Indian stand, but they have differences over whether India should be considered as their "enemy" and differences about the government of India's sympathy with the upper and middle classes of Nepal.
After the restoration of democracy in April 1990, the various radical factions were almost unanimous in criticizing India as "hegemonistic and expansionist" whereas the UML faces a polarization between those who have adopted a realistic attitude and those who still see anti-Indianism as a factor that could give rise to a flareup in nationalism. The Communists have been criticizing the decisions reached on various water resource projects including the Tanakpur barrage as well as the trade and transit agreements signed between India and Nepal in December 1991. Of all these, the Tanakpur barrage has become the most controversial and politically sensitive issue. The radical factions of the Communists consider that the Tanakpur barrage project constitutes a failure to protect Nepal's "sovereignty," but the UML is divided on the degree of criticism. The moderate section in the UML sees the project against Nepal's "national interest," but the hard-liners see it as another example of India's expansionist policy. However, all the members of parliament of the UML support its President Man Mohan Adhikary's statement that "a treaty should be signed with India" on the basis of determining Nepal's "share of water and power according to international law" and a politics of consensus must be followed on such issues. But he warned, "it will be wrong to think that the Tanakpur Treaty need not be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament. The Treaty Act must be made consistent with the provisions of the Constitution."(6)
The China Factor
China has also been a decisive force in causing division in the Communist movement in Nepal. As stated earlier, one section of the first generation Communists (some of them are founding members) had developed an interest in Chinese communism especially since the 1950s. Their interest was expressed as both ideological and material support for the Communist movement and was born out of a desire to use China as a neutralizing force against India.
It was only in the late 1960s that the like-minded pro-Chinese Communists held a party conference in India and accepted Maoist thoughts as the main ideological guidelines. Later at the height of the so-called Naxalite movement in India, a group of second-generation Communists differed from the moderate pro-Chinese groups and started a violent insurrection movement against landowners in the far eastern district of Nepal bordering with the Naxalbari district of India. This Maoist strategy was foiled by the Panchayat government and therefore it gained very little momentum nationwide. The supporters of this movement formed their own party in 1978 called the NCP (Marxist-Leninist). This party was committed to Mao's tactic of guerrilla warfare and to his thoughts for ideological guidance. The death of Mao in 1976 and the internal political situation in Nepal forced this party to abandon its revolutionary strategy. This group later merged with the moderate faction of the pro-Chinese group and formed the United Marxist-Leninist Party in 1991.
The China factor was also important in causing a split in the moderate faction of the pro-Chinese Communists. As stated previously, the central coordination body formed by the Communists (mainly the pro-Chinese) in the late 1960s was divided between those who supported the Maoist strategy and those who opposed it. The group which wanted to follow the Maoist line faced a further split. Ironically, the group that broke away from the fourth convention did not accept the leadership of the violent anti-landlord movement mentioned above, and the two groups of pro-Mao Communists went their own way.
Within the UML, only a small group believe in Maoism. The majority of the Communists (belonging to the former NCP [Marxist-Leninist]) support Communist China. In order to maintain unity, the UML stated in its 1991 election manifesto that its aim was to establish "scientific Marxism and Leninism, taking lessons from the positive experiences of such international proletarian leaders as Mao Tze-tung, Ho Chi Minh, and Kim Il Sung, as well as from national and social liberation movements and proletarian socialist movements in different countries."(7) Interestingly, the assortment of pro- and anti-Maoists within the UML is well known from the statement by the member of the Politburo, J. L. Khanal, who said that the "UML has not adopted Mao's Thoughts as its guiding principles. Even then, we have not forgotten Mao . . . In this process, both the extremist leftist line and the extremist rightist line are proving equally harmful."(8)
The NCP (Masal), which calls itself revolutionary, sees very "little difference between the Chinese and the Soviet revisionism."(9) The NCP (Masal) and the NCP (Unity Centre) reaffirmed their belief in the New Democracy that is based on the model of Mao and have criticized Deng Xiaoping's theory of "socialism with Chinese characteristics." They also criticized the UML's multiparty model of New Democracy. Maoism as an element is decisive in the pro-Mao faction and there are those who believe in the holistic adoption of Maoist strategy in Nepal. The party also criticized the UML, the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP), and the NCP (United) for adopting an "extremist reactionary line and becoming a petit bourgeoisie rightist and revisionist group." The party also condemned the "Soviet and the Chinese rightist revisionists who are distorting Marxism and discouraging true communist revolutionaries.(10) Some of the members formed a party known as the Nepal Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) in February 1991. Some other parties(11) which believe in Maoism are NCP (15 September), NWPP, the United Peoples Front, and the Nepal Communist Party (League). The NCP (League) attempted to forge functional unity among Communist groups "who believed in Maoism and the New Democratic Revolution," but it did not succeed.
Among the external factors, the global and regional policies of the Soviet and the U.S. and their policy towards Nepal were influential. The role of the USSR both as a Communist country and a superpower, and its relations with India and China were significant for influencing the Communist movement in Nepal. Similarly, the U.S. policy towards Asia in general and Nepal in particular has always been an important factor in influencing Communists politics in Nepal. The U.S. was the first country to maintain presence in Nepal after the Communist takeover in China and the democratic change in Nepal. The geopolitical importance of Nepal was evident by the fact that all the four countries, the two superpowers (the U.S. and the USSR), and the two regional powers (China and India), were conspicuously present through their aid programs in Nepal since especially the early 1960s except the Soviet Union which stopped its aid in 1973. The interplay of their competitive presence had a strong effect on Nepal's external and internal relations and, through them, on the Communist movement in Nepal.
THE INTERNAL FACTORS
The Communists of Nepal have had to confront many interrelated internal challenges posed by the country's political history, socioeconomic characteristics, and cultural complexities in their endeavor to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. These internal issues (the Communists would call them "obstacles") often times are reinforced by external factors, and have become subjects of prolonged debate and controversy among the Communists with regard to both the understanding of the issues and the methods of solving them. These internal issues that have been causing sharp division in Nepal's Communist movement are monarchy, democracy, the opposition parties (mainly the Nepali Congress), the sociopsychological factor, etc. These internal factors are discussed in the following section.
(a) Monarchy and Communism. From both historical experiences and ideological standpoints, it is generally accepted that communism and monarchy are not compatible. The Soviet Union instituted the first Communist regime after a violent overthrow of the monarchy. The Communists of Nepal have well understood that without first overthrowing the monarchy the possibility of establishing a proletarian regime is almost impossible. But they face two major dilemmas with regard to monarchy. First, they know that Nepal's monarchy, which is over two centuries old, has long been entrenched in the social traditions of the Nepalese society. The monarchical institution derives power and authority not only from the feudal elements who support it but also from all economic classes. Additionally, the country's geopolitical situation and the dominance of two major parties, the Nepali Congress, with ideological proximity to India, and the Communist party, ideologically closer to China, have reinforced the importance of monarchy as a balancing force in Nepali politics. And secondly, they have yet to determine who is their greater enemy, the monarchy or the Nepali Congress.
Ideologically the Communists have found it difficult to come to terms with the monarchy, and a debate about how the Communists should take monarchy has been a subject of protracted controversy. In fact, the first bone of contention in the Communist movement of Nepal was the monarchy. In 1954 the banned NCP, at its First All-Party Congress, approved a program that aimed at replacing "the monarchy by a republican system framed by an elected constituent assembly."(12) When the prime minister became the NCP's ally in 1956, the Communists had to accept constitutional monarchy as a condition for lifting the ban. Since then, the question of constitutional monarchy has badly divided the Communists into moderate and extremist factions.
From the standpoint of monarchy, the Communist movement in Nepal can now be grouped into two factions, those who believe that monarchy can be abolished in the long run through democratic means,(13) and those who want an immediate overthrow of the monarchy through people's agitation. Although the UML's Election Manifesto (1991) vaguely accepts "constitutional monarchy," the party is not unanimous on this issue. Madan Bhandari, the former general secretary of the UML softened up his attitude towards the monarchy, particularly after he had met with the king. He said that "the constitution has granted the King definite powers,"(14) and called for a dialogue between his party, the king and the Nepali Congress. This was in contradiction of his statement in which he had said that the UML regarded "the King and the monarchy as one component in the present balance of forces" and that the UML had never said that "the nation needs them."(15) This led to a serious crisis in the UML party. One member of the National Council of the UML and ten members of the Rupandehi District Committee left the party accusing the UML of talking about having a dialogue with the king and the Nepali Congress.(16) The party is still divided on the issue of monarchy. C. P. Mainali, a member of the Politburo of the UML, stated that "the UML has no plans to present a resolution in the Parliament declaring Nepal a republic so long as the King works as a constitutional monarch."(17) But Madhav Kumar Nepal, the present general secretary of the UML, stated that any party that guarantees all fundamental rights and rule of law is acceptable to the UML because it supports multiparty people's democracy. However, "such a system can be established only through a radical social change leading to a new society, if need be, without the King."(18)
The NCP (Masal), NCP (Mashal), the Unity Centre, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party and the United People's Front have been advocating that so long as the monarchy is not overthrown, it will be impossible to establish a Communist regime. Therefore, they will continue their struggle for establishing a new republic. However, with the possible exception of the Masal which considers monarchy as the main enemy, none of the extremist parties have come to an unanimous decision on the issue of monarchy.
(b) Democracy and communism. Democracy as a political concept has been a subject of controversy among the Communists throughout the world. Marx and Engels introduced the concept of "true democracy" in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Lenin introduced the concept of "proletarian democracy" and Mao introduced his concept of "new or people's democracy" based on a "system of the joint dictatorship of all Chinese revolutionary classes headed by the Chinese proletariat." The functioning of Communist parties in a pluralistic democracy has produced contradictions and conflicts for Nepal's Communists. Since Nepal restored democracy in April 1990, the majority of the Communists (especially the UML, and all the pro-Soviet-oriented) have been claiming that they are committed to multi-party democracy. The UML stated that its main objective is to protect the multiparty democracy, basic human rights and fundamental rights of the citizens, and guarantee the rule of law in order to attain a people's democracy. However, the party suffers from extreme contradictions with regard to the compatibility of communism with democracy, and the stated goals and strategies of communism have led to serious intraparty feuds and "groupism." Since the restoration of a multiparty system, the members of the UML have been split by three different concepts of "democracy." One is the "multiparty people's democracy" proposed by Madan Bhandari, the former general secretary, which was approved by a majority of votes at its first national congress of February 1993. According to the UML, the multiparty democracy "accepts the multiparty polity and a pluralistic society with continuous struggle against feudalism, monopoly capitalism and all forms of suppression and exploitation."(19) This is now the official doctrine accepted by majority vote.
Another group is led by C. P. Mainali, member of the Central Committee, who represented the "reformed new democracy" concept. This concept allows limited roles for political parties. This proposal received only 101 votes as compared with 541 votes for the former at the congress. Another view is represented by Mohan Chandra Adhikari, a member of the Central Committee who represents Mao's "new democracy" concept which advocates the supremacy of the proletariat. But this proposal fared poorly as it received only 55 votes. The differences in views on democracy have contributed to widespread discontent and groupism in the UML since the first national congress.
The concept of multiparty new democracy caused raucous debate in the party which culminated in a split and defection. Three members of the Central Committee of the UML resigned from the party and criticized the party for proceeding "along an ultra-rightist course."(20) According to one media source, "seven members of the Central Committee of the UML . . . and hundreds of workers had already quit the party in protest against its new line of multiparty people's democracy." A large number of members of the Bheri Zonal Committee and Banke District Organization Committee of the UML joined the Nepali Congress. The members criticized the party for adopting a "revisionist policy of multiparty peoples democracy in a conspirational manner."(21)
Communists' practice of majority rules - one of the fundamental elements of democracy - has caused serious inner party lack of discipline in the UML leading towards a possible split. Formation of "groupism" has become an inherent source of intraparty dissension. One consequence of this was the rejection of the party's nominee in the election to the National Assembly in 1993 in favor of an independent candidate by a group of members led by C. P. Mainali who had proposed the "reformed new democracy." In the ninth plenary session of the Central Committee of the UML held in September 1993, the party issued a notice to ten UML members of parliament asking them to undertake self-criticism - a Maoist method of correcting inner contradictions. The party also issued a warning to another ten members of parliament not to commit such mistakes again. The former group has declined from making any "self-criticism" and threatened to contact all the workers of the party for a decision. The party also "removed C. P. Mainali from the post of Deputy Leader of the UML in the House of Representatives." Another consequence is ideological contradiction. Some of the members from the pre-UML parties, the Marxist and the Marxist-Leninist have formed an alliance to oust the present general secretary and reestablish Mao-style new democracy. They criticize the leadership for grossly neglecting the main conditions for the unification of the two parties and resorting to repressive control of the minority members. It has created a new coalition between the former Marxists and the Marxists and Leninists to form a new party.(22) Ironically this group's opposition to the majority rule itself runs contrary to Lenin's "democratic centralism." Most of the pro-Moscow factions believe in parliamentary democracy. For example, the NCP (United), which was a conglomerate of three pro-Moscow Communist parties, called for reinterpretation of Marxism in the context of Nepal. The party decided to adopt "peaceful struggle under the multiparty system" to achieve the newly interpreted Marxism. More than three thousand members of these parties which were united (the NCP United) left the party. They said that without political equality, socialism will lead to dictatorship of the party. And "at a time when dictatorial systems are collapsing all over the world, it is unrealistic to raise crude slogans of New Peoples' Democracy or Multiparty People's Democracy."(23)
The revolutionary or extremist Communist parties have not come up with a well-defined policy with respect to democracy. The end of East European communism and the transformation of even the revolutionary Communist movement into democratic parties have gravely affected the extremist parties of Nepal. It is quite likely that the issue of democracy will be the major factor in any further split in the various extremist groups. Some of these parties, for example, the United People's Front, are adopting an opportunistic strategy. Ideologically they label pluralistic democracy as "bourgeois-democracy," but strategically some of these parties also take part in the parliamentary elections. The other extremist Communist parties, for example, the NCP (Masal), have been distancing themselves from the Marxist and Leninist parties, for they abandoned the revolutionary path. This party has expressed its commitment to the line of "New Democracy based on the Mao model, with the leadership of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the people as essential attributes."(24) According to the strategy, as pointed out by the leader, the party would encircle "urban areas from the villages and organize a movement against the present reactionary regime, which is based upon an alliance between the king and the Congress." The party criticized the "Soviet and Chinese rightist revisionists who are distorting Marxism and discouraging true communist revolutionaries."(25) Similarly, the NCP (Unity Centre) approved a new constitution in November 1991 which provides for a revolutionary Communist party and a revolutionary joint front and Peoples' Army under its leadership to achieve a people's revolution.(26) This party wants to prepare for a "new people's struggle without deluding itself about the parliamentary system. The Marxist-Leninist and Maoist party and another group representing the worker and peasant class repudiate democracy and believe that only through Leninist-type organizational networks and Maoist-type mobilization of the rural peasantry can they achieve true Marxism in Nepal.
© The Communists and the Nepali Congress. In countries where non-Communist political parties are stronger and receive popular support, they are considered by Communist parties as major obstacles to the development and growth of the Communist movement. Depending on the relative strength and who is in control of power, Communist parties apply different tactics vis-a-vis the non-Communist parties, ranging from outright opposition to proposing united fronts. The Communists of Nepal have applied all the various options available. In the 1950s, the NCP launched a strong anti-Congress tirade following the Delhi compromise, one of the reasons being the Nepali Congress's denial of a united front with the Communists in the movement against the Ranas.
The NCP suffered from a deep-seated division on the question of dealing with the Nepali Congress party in the period following the royal takeover in December 1960. The moderate faction of the Communists had favoured a united front with the Nepali Congress in the 1960s, but abandoned this strategy after the acting president of the Nepali Congress, Mr. Subarna Shamsher, who had launched an armed struggle against the king in 1961-62, offered "unconditional cooperation" to the king in 1968. The Nepali Congress leader stated that Nepal could face a serious threat from China. This created a serious strategical gap between the Nepali Congress and the moderate faction of the pro-Chinese Communists. As both the parties were banned until April 1990, there were no direct hostilities between the two parties. However, often the student wings of these two parties were involved in direct confrontations.
The Nepali Congress and the coalition of various factions of the Communists finally abandoned the policy of criticizing each other and agreed to launch a movement against the king's partyless system in early 1990. The period of cooperation and understanding lasted until the formation of the new government in May 1991. The UML is now divided on the question of how it should treat the Nepali Congress. This is clear from the statement of the former general secretary of the UML, the late Madan Bhandari, who stated that "for 30 years, the Communists of Nepal have been divided on the basis of ideology. One line inside the movement has a tradition of respecting the Nepali Congress and placing it above criticism. We are opposed to this line, for the leftists have their own ideology, policies, programs and goals, and the leftist government alone can provide real leadership to the nation."(27)
The member of the parliament of the United People's Front said that his party would support the Nepali Congress government for its "good steps."(28) The member of the Parliament of the Nepal Workers and Peasants Organization also pledged his party's support to the Nepali Congress government in its policies and programs that "directly benefited the people."(29) The NCP's Masal stated that both the King and the Nepali Congress are its enemies.(30) It is also evident from the acts of violence that have been practiced by the Masal against the NC leaders.(31) The other extremist group, the NCP (Unity Centre) stated that monarchy is its first enemy. Following the Stalinist-Maoist line, the centre would accept the Nepali Congress "only if it gives up its policy of reconciliation with the monarch."(32)
With regard to the politics of opposition to the Nepali Congress, the moderate and radical Communist factions are guided by tactical and ideological philosophies. The moderates oppose the Nepali Congress to the point where democratic political stability is not jeopardized whereas the radicals want to overthrow it for preparing groundwork for instituting a Communist regime. This was evident from the movement launched jointly by the UML and six other Communist factions, mainly the radicals, in June 1993 to protest against the report of the government's commission to "inquire into the Dasdhunga accident of May 16 in which the UML leaders, Madan Kumar Bhandari and Jiv Raj Ashrit, had been killed." The report said that the deaths were due to the negligence of the driver, whereas the UML's inquiry committee believed that "the accident was due to a conspiracy and the driver was not alone." The joint movement, which continued for two months and caused massive law and order and economic problems, demanded not only a judicial inquiry into the death but also the resignation of the prime minister. The movement was called off following an understanding between the Nepali Congress and the UML signed in August 1993. But the four radical Communist factions alleged that the understanding was a betrayal and pledged to continue the movement until the Nepali Congress prime minister is removed. These four factions have been organizing protest movements every now and then even after the August 1993 agreement.
(d) The Socio-Psychological Factor. The socio-psychological factors have also contributed to factionalism in the Communist movement. The Nepali society is complex and based on hierarchy determined by caste, economic status, education, etc. The Communist leadership is mostly provided by two castes, the Brahmin (the priest group) and the Newars (the traders). Communists in principle do not believe in religious or sectarian creeds; however, certain caste groups (those representing the lower caste group) are convinced that the lower caste groups have always been exploited by the upper caste group. Therefore, the leaders of the lower caste group believe that the Communist leaders who come from the upper caste structure (about 40 percent of the UML members of parliament belong to the priest caste) might pose obstacles in the former's struggle against caste domination. Such issues were raised even within the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party where a Politburo member representing the Mongoloid community (generally classified in the third caste group in the Nepalese social hierarchy) stated that the "Communist movement in Nepal was not making progress because no political party had been able to organize ethnic communities." The member warned that "a civil war might break out in Nepal as in Eastern Europe if their problems were not solved."(33) Another caste-related aspect is that the priests who dominate the Communist party are good at debating but they are not revolutionaries. The Newars are good merchants and they also, traditionally speaking, do not have the history of being revolutionaries. Similarly, the National People's Liberation Front stated that the "high class ethnic groups are masters" and the "backward communities as [sic] workers." It therefore called for a "struggle to end these circumstances" as "envisioned in the Marxist doctrine." It also called for bringing the Hindu dominance to an end.
The people of the low land of Nepal called Terai have felt discriminated against by the people of the hills and mountains who dominate the socio-political life of Nepal. They also feel that the existing Communist parties have failed to address their grievances. Hence, a separate Nepal Terai Communist Party was formed in July 1990. This party advocated that "Nepal must be divided into four regional autonomous units or provinces, two in the Terai region and two in the hill region." The party's manifesto declared that the "Madhises (the Terai people) must be granted equal rights in all fields, and constitutional provisions must be made to protect these rights." It further stated that "the Nepali language must remain the national language, while Hindi must be made the link language, and constitutional recognition must be given to other languages also."(34) There are also differences in the level of education among the leaders of the various factions. Then there is also the generation gap. First of all, the first generation leaders are in their seventies and are suffering from ego-centrism. No one wants to be under the leadership of the other. Hence some of the Communist parties are differentiated by only their family names. Some of the first-generation leaders are facing a dilemma. They have groomed and described their political careers as "communist" - a title which they do not want to abandon even if they no longer believe in its ideology. The president of the UML, Man Mohan Adhikari, stated that his party keeps the name "communist" because it is a "trademark." He stated that one can't get anywhere today "just by following the writings of Karl Marx from a century ago. But people recognize the name. I personally would have no trouble changing it to something else. In another country we could be social democrats.
Most of the young leaders have a tendency to bypass the older generation leaders, for they think that the latter group lacks both revolutionary spirit and sufficient knowledge about scientific socialism. Most importantly, most of the leaders of the Communist movement represent the middle and the higher middle classes in the Nepalese class structure and are urban centred. Interestingly, the leaders who come from the landlord or capitalist class have either abandoned Communist ideology or are following the most extremist line. But the irony is that none of the leaders have distributed their land to the tillers/peasants, nor have they done anything to lessen socioeconomic inequality in their respective areas of residence to set an example of their genuine commitment to communism. Rural Communist workers are realizing that Communist leadership must come from the rural and downtrodden people.
CONCLUSION
The Communist movement in Nepal is a product of India's independence movement and the struggle for democracy in Nepal. But the Communist movement has been going through many ups and downs since its inception. Firstly, the NCP failed to chart an appropriate policy with regard to internal political factors. Secondly, the NCP's policy directions were largely determined by external conditions which were applied in Nepal without studying their implications. The Communists became overexposed to outside Communist influence, which itself was volatile in the 1960s and the 1970s. And finally, the Communists also failed to identify their immediate enemy and hence their well focused and realizable goals. All these factors posed obstacles in refining the ideology, perhaps in the socioeconomic and politico-cultural context of Nepal, and determining the correct strategy. Hence the Communist movement instead of advancing along its well-refined ideological and methodological chart, went on suffering from ill-timed and premature factionalism with the consequence that every factionalism became a birth ground for another ill-conceived and hastily decided factionalism.
The study of factors causing factionalism in Nepal shows some pattern. It has been found that from the very beginning the Communist movement was dominated by two major groups, one moderate and the other group relatively more radical. Those who belonged to the first category adopted a flexible strategy and used communism only as a bargaining point for personal power and prestige. Those who lost credence as Communists in the early 1990s had indicated a very moderate stand as early as the 1950s. In the radical group, we find two subgroups, pragmatists and hard-core extremists. The pragmatist group adopted different sorts of strategy as demanded by the situation, but the hard core extremists, who remained a minority especially after the mid 1970s, have remained convinced of an ultimate victory in a peoples' war as professed by Mao.
A large majority of the Communists, most of whom are with the UML, have now accepted the parliamentary means to achieve socialism. The internal dynamics within the UML party as well as in other Communist parties may cause dissension and thus could cause further factionalism. Nevertheless, these parties have accepted parliamentary democracy and therefore will not face any major psychological fallout even if they have to abandon the name Marxist-Leninist. It is quite certain that a majority of the members belonging to the parties that have now taken part in a democratic experiment will emerge as social democrats. But the main problem lies with the so-called extremist parties. In view of Nepal's formidable geography and the existence of the strong anti-Communist forces, establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat through revolutionary means does not seem to be a feasible strategy. Secondly, the Communists have to confront four much stronger political forces in the country: the king and his military force, the ruling Nepali Congress and the middle class, and the various nonextremist Communists as well as anti-Communist parties. Moreover, most of the socioeconomic measures (for example, land reform, distribution equity and poverty eradication) advocated by the extremist parties will also be implemented by the ruling party, and other nonextremist Communist parties. The credibility of the extremist parties will also depend on how communism fares in China. China has been criticized by the extremist Communist parties of Nepal for following a capitalist road. But once China embarks on major democratic reforms, the extremist parties of Nepal will suffer both moral as well as ideological crises.
In the process of creating institutionalized development of political parties in Nepal, it will be better if the various Communist factions unite and form a left-oriented political party like that of social democratic parties of Western Europe or the New Democratic Party of Canada, for example. Nepal at present is represented on the far right by the vanguards of the old system, in the center by the ruling party. In order to represent the peasants, proletariat and downtrodden there is a strong imperative for a left-wing party that believes in constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. In the changed context, both global and national, Nepal's Communists of all ideological strata must make peace with constitutional democracy. And only if political parties could be institutionalized along these three classes of society, can Nepal sustain its newly acquired democracy. It must also be well realized that without institutionalizing political parties, it will be extremely difficult to attain economic development and social justice in Nepal.
Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, June 1994
The author would like to thank the three anonymous referees for their excellent comments. However, the author alone is responsible for any errors in this paper. The author would also like to draw the reader's attention to the fact that the Nepali Congress did not complete its terms. Midterm polls were held in November 1994 in which the UML secured eighty-eight seats and the Nepali Congress eighty-three. The UML formed a minority government on December 1, 1994. The article focuses on factionalism in Communist parties up to the spring of 1994, although the trend has not changed much.
1 Nepal Communist Party, Ekikrit Marxbadi ra Leninbadi ko Chunau Ghosana Patra 2048 (The election manifesto of the Nepal Communist Party, United Marxist-Leninist, 1991) (Kathmandu: Election Publicity Committee, 1991), p. 3
2 This was stated in the resolution adopted in the party's Central Committee's meeting held in September 1992. See "The Political Line of Masal," in Saptahik Bimarsa (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 23 October 1992.
3 See B. Rawal, Nepalma Samyabadi Andolan: Udbhab ra Bikaas (Communist movement in Nepal: Its origin and development) (Kathmandu: Pairavi Prakshan, 1990), p. 71.
4 Bhuban Lal Joshi and Leo E. Rose, Democratic Innovations in Nepal (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), p. 452.
5 The division in the NCP(O) along pro-Chinese and pro-Moscow lines must have taken place in the 1950s. Man Mohan Adhikary, the party general secretary from 1954 to 1957, who went to China in 1957 and again in 1960, has been a leader of the pro-Chinese faction since the early 1960s. K. J. Rayamajhi, general secretary of the party from 1957 to 1961, who went to Moscow in November 1960 and again in September 1961, adopted a pro-Moscow line.
6 See Deshantar (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 27 December 1992, and Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 7 September 1993.
7 Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 13 March 1991, as translated in the Nepal Press Digest (Kathmandu), vol. 35, no. 11, 18 March 1991.
8 Chhalphal (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 29 December 1991.
9 The Politburo appealed to the true Marxist-Leninist "not to be misled by the talk of unity with pseudo-Marxist-Leninist and opportunist elements but to rally behind the true Marxist-Leninist Party, the Nepal Communist Party (Masal)." See Naya Jhilko (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 8 September 1991.
10 See Nepali Patra (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 18 December 1991.
11 These were the parties who actively celebrated Mao's ninety-eighth birthday in Nepal in late December 1991. See Nepal Press Digest, vol. 36, 6 January 1992.
12 See L. E. Rose, "Communism Under High Atmospheric Conditions: The Party in Nepal," in Robert A. Scalapino, ed., The Communist Revolution in Asia (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965), p. 348.
13 For example, one member of the Politburo of the UML said that the members of the UML are "proceeding peacefully toward Marxism. It is through a peaceful struggle that we have been able to weaken the monarchy and make the people more powerful than they were before." See Pristhabhumi (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 27 June 1991.
14 The Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 1 August 1991.
15 Samolochana (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 30 September 1991.
16 Arati (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 3 October 1991.
17 See Nepal Bhumi (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 4 June 1991.
18 Nepali Patra (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 1 November 1991.
19 The Rising Nepal (official English daily) (Kathmandu), 4 February 1993.
20 Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 23 September 1991.
21 Nepali Patra (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 2 January 1992; Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 23 September 1991.
22 Suruchi (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 30 January-5 February 1994.
23 Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 11 October 1991. Earlier in September 1991, several workers belonging to the CPN (Amatya) decided to join the UML as they thought that this party was the "vanguard of the leftist movement in Nepal." See Samalochana (Kathmandu), 25 September 1991.
24 See Nepali Patra (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 13 September 1991.
25 Nepali Patra (Kathmandu), 18 December 1991. In an attempt to launch sporadic guerrilla attach, the party had organized a clandestine guerrilla training camp at Baghtar in Nawal Parasi district which was raided by the government in February 1992. See Hindu, February 12 and 13, 1992, as quoted in the Nepal Press Digest (Kathmandu), 17 February 1992.
26 Dristi (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 4 December 1991.
27 Dristi (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 10 April 1991.
28 Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 8 June 1991.
29 The Rising Nepal (official English daily) (Kathmandu), 7 June 1991.
30 Pristhabhumi (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 25 July 1991.
31 The Nepali Congress leaders have been subject to physical attacks by the NCP (Masal) group. For example, the general secretary of the Nepali Congress party was attacked by the supporters of the NCP (Masal) in Pyuthan, the western district of Nepal in February 1991. See Gorkhapatra (official vernacular daily) (Kathmandu), 10 February 1991.
32 The Rising Nepal (official English daily) (Kathmandu), 7 March 1991.
33 Hindu (vernacular weekly) (Kathmandu), 1 January 1992.
34 The Rising Nepal (official English daily) (Kathmandu), 22 July 1990.
35 The Newsweek, 9 August 1993, p. 20. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->