The historic initiation of the people's war proved a great bombshell in the
political world of Nepal. As it hit the very foundation of the existing state
structure, all the political forces were bound to react either against or in
favor of the people's war A great political debate was ushered in the country.
For over a month after the initiation the main agenda of reportage and
discussion in the national media was the people's war. This also sharpened
contradictions, created new crisis within different political forces and opened
a new horizon of political polarization in the country. On the basis of their
class character and response towards the people's war, these political forces
can be broadly, categorized into three camps: reactionary, centrist reformist
and revolutionary.
* Reactionary Forces
As the reactionary forces representing the feudal and comprador and bureaucratic capitalist classes were the principal targets of the people's war, it was quite natural for them to be most offended and opposed to it. Consequently the principal reactionary political forces of the country, namely the rightist Nepali Congress, the royalist RPP and the revisionist UML, not only denounced the people's war in the harshest possible terms but were on public record to suppress and crush it. However, there were minor differences too among these groups and within the groups themselves as well, on whether to view the question as 'political' or just 'criminal'. The dominant G. P. Koirala faction within the Nepali Congress, the more pro-lndian S. B. Thapa faction within the RPP, and the 'Bahudaliya Janabadi' (or multi-party democracy) faction within the UML were seen to be more intolerant and aggressive against the people's war. Maybe because of their own inner contradictions some of the prominent persons within the anti-lndian faction of the RPP appeared to be more tolerant towards the people's war and seemed to advocate a 'political solution' to the problem. Because of these inherent contradictions among themselves, the top representatives of these reactionary parties including the ministers in the current coalition government called in a meeting by the Prime Minister S. B. Deuba to discuss the issue on March 6 could not reach any conclusions.
One of the main bogeys sought to be raised by these reactionaries was that the people's war was inspired by external forces and hence was 'anti-national'. How this ridiculous attempt failed to cut any ice even within their own reactionary camp is proved by an editorial rejoinder by the bourgeois daily The Kathmandu Post (March 12, 1996) to the Nepali Congress leader (now its chairman) and former Prime Minister (G. P. Koirala) thus:
"Yes: the Maoist movement is supported by other elements like poverty,
backwardness and the indifference on the part of all the past and present
governments towards the plight of the affected regions. Therefore, it would be
unfortunate, on the part of our leaders, specially those belonging to the major
ones, to indulge in unsubstantiated mudslinging, that to involving foreign
powers".
The neo-reactionary UML clique, that has been the worst example of
parliamentary cretinism perhaps anywhere in the world in the whole history of
the international communist movement, has been the most outraged by the
initiation of the people's war, perhaps fearing that its sham communism would be
unmasked and it would soon be deserted by its rank and file. It has, therefore,
played the role of police informer in many places and is seen to have
collaborated with the government in terrorizing and intimidating the
revolutionary cadres and into submission, but with little success.
* The Centrist Reformist Forces
Various revisionist and neo-revisionist groups that swear by even 'Mao
Thought' and 'armed struggle' in words but are even occupied with only open
legal and parliamentary struggle in deeds have sought to tread a typical
centrist path of opposing both the people's war and the state repression in the
same breath. Prominent among these are the neo-revisionist 'Mashal' group and
the rightist liquidationist 'Unify Center' group (both the earlier breakaway
factions of the now unified CPN (Maoist). Of these the 'Mashal' group,
particularly its dominant faction led by M. B. Singh, has been the most
vociferous in publicly denouncing and hurling wild, unsubstantiated accusations
against the people's war. This group which has virtually dissociated itself from
the RIM, because of its allergic opposition to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and
gradual degeneration into parliamentary cretinism, has in recent times reduced
itself into a tail-end of the reactionary UML, and hence, it is not at all
surprising to find it in dead opposition to the Maoist people's war. By
slandering the revolutionary war as 'ultra-leftism', 'terrorism', 'anarchism'
etc. these revisionist reformists are merely repeating the history of their
international ilks and offering an honorary service to the reactionary ruling
classes. Their principal argument that the objective and subjective conditions
are not favorable for a people's war is preposterous given the mounting crises
and contradictions within the reactionary state and the revolutionary mood of
the masses and long years of preparations by the communist revolutionaries. What
these revisionists and neo-revisionists seek to hide shamelessly is that it is
nothing else but the revolutionary will of the Party leadership and a correct
idea logical and political perspective that is lacking to start a people's war
in most of the oppressed countries like Nepal. Also these opportunists,
particularly that neo-revisionist master M. B. Singh, tend to equate or confuse
the desired objective and subjective conditions for mounting final general
insurrection for countrywide seizure of power with those conditions required for
initiating a people's war for areawise seizure of power in a military strategy
of protracted people's war. It is not hard to realise that their frenzied attack
on the people's war is motivated more than anything else by their political
degeneration and their vain desire to check the flight of their lower level
cadres to the revolutionary camp, which is any way likely to happen with the
development of the people's war.
* The Revolutionary Forces
Various revolutionary forces representing the workers, peasants and petty
bourgeois classes have enthusiastically hailed and supported the people's war in
both overt and covert manners. Apart from the United People's Front, Nepal (UPF)
and various mass and class organizations, some small political groups and
several prominent intellectuals have come out openly in favour of the people's
war or lent support to it in different ways. Also a large number of lower level
cadres of different revisionist and opportunist groups, including the UML, have
assisted the new revolutionary process in very significant ways. This has
enabled the Party to reach new social classes, groups and regions. However, it
should be acknowledged that a large section of the masses is still under the
spell of the reactionary and opportunist political forces and they are yet to be
won over to the revolutionary camp.
From outside the country, the Committee of the RIM, various Parties and
organizations affiliated to the RIM and some Maoist revolutionary Parties and
organizations outside the ambit of the RIM, particularly CPI (ML) (People's War)
and Maoist Communist Center (MCC) from India, have greeted the initiation of the
people's war in Nepal. This international solidarity has greatly boosted the
morale of revolutionary fighters facing all sorts of physical and psychological
hardships.
Thus it can be safely concluded that with the systematic development of the
people's war according to its own objective laws both national and international
support to it will go on increasing and it will be crowned with ultimate
victory.