问：People supported the 12-point understanding of November 2005,between the Maoists and the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), and came on to the streets demanding the abolition of monarchy. It is felt that the agreement of April 25 is incomplete. However, you have come overground and talks are now on. How are things proceeding?
答：At the time we forged the understanding with the SPA in November 2005,we had foreseen the sequence of events. That is why we strongly opposed the demand for the restoration of Parliament as a slogan in the movement. We tried to convince the SPA to move directly towards an interim government and elections for the Constitutional Assembly (CA). The Nepali Congress, specifically Girija Prasad Koirala, disagreed. We already guessed at that time that this slogan of reinstatement of the House of Representatives (HoR) might leave a loophole for the king to take advantage. And this reinstated HoR may be the tool for the leaders of the political parties to reach an agreement with the king. We suspected then that such possibilities would dilute the achievements of the movement. Because of our suspicions of these dangers and our observations, we did not accept the slogans of the SPA when we agreed to enter into an understanding. Our party was well aware that the politics in Nepal was like a frozen pond that needed to be destroyed in order to open the way for a new political environment.If it develops accordingly, then further understanding may develop for the election of the CA and the institutionalisation of Loktantrik Ganatantra (democratic republic). If things don’t happen according to our thinking, then this understanding will create a greater people’s movement. If one or another party betrays the movement, they would be left exposed to the masses politically, paving the way for the third phase of the movement to come into play. So, that was our firm belief. Observing and analysing this situation, we reached the understanding. Now, we are at the crossroads.
问：On the eight-point agreement of May 16, 2006 between the Maoists and the SPA, some newspapers commented on this as the formation of a new front, but it was opposed by the leaders of the political parties from the very next day itself.The present situation appears pretty much the same as on May 16. What are the contradictions and hurdles that created such circumstances?
答：Of course, the eight-point agreement of Baluwatar was a very important
understanding. The Baluwatar Agreement untied the knot of Nepali politics which was an obstacle since the 1950s. For the first time, the eight point
agreement had created a political arrangement for realising the right of the people in its true sense. It could be said that Parliament was the venue for foreign powers to play their role. The next place is the palace. When the political role of the palace and Parliament remains constant, then people never get their rights. We fought every time, but power remained in the same place. The Baluwatar Agreement clearly demonstrated the power beyond Parliament. It indicated the decisiveness of the State power in the hands of revolutionary people. The seven parties and we signed this agreement.
We understood it as a great event in the process of historical resolution.
When this agreement was made public, and when I appealed to the people through the press conference that we are moving towards a new experiment, then influential power centres, especially the United States, suddenly felt great pain. The very next day I heard that the US has been making provocative statements, saying that the entire country had followed the Maoists’ agenda. Second, Delhi went cold with fear. That was because during the Delhi visit of Koirala he had reached an understanding for not dissolving Parliament. Ten days later, we reached an agreement on the dissolution of Parliament. When Delhi asked them, “What did you do?” then the leaders of the parties, who are actually more dependent on foreigners, started crying the next morning. This is the real cause. Their mouths have opened here, but the reality is that only after Delhi and Washington started speaking the real problem commenced.
问：There are differences between your party and the SPA. How will your party and SPA protect the past understandings? How are you proceeding?
答：When dissenting voices began to emerge against the agreement, a distorted agenda emerged from new quarters. We reflected that this might have happened because of the lack of homework and the hurriedness of the process. We then came back and talked intensively to the parties. We talked informally with the CPN (UML) and the NC in the Godavari resort and similarly with other parties. We tried to streamline all procedures which had gone astray. We talked with seven-eight senior leaders of the NC and UML leadership, where talks on every issue went smoothly. To avoid differences, we agreed to return the property of concerned persons by accepting a mechanism.But the major issue of politics was never resolved. While all this was going on, the Congress parliamentary party passed the resolution against the eight-point agreement. We have observed that the problem will not be resolved by talking, because the key to the problem lies somewhere else. As we said earlier at the time of Sher Bahadur Deuba, that “nothing will be resolved by talking to the servant, we need to talk to the real master”. Things are looking similar even today. We think the parties and leaders are like servants, while the masters are living abroad. That is why I announced on July 28, 2006
问：You earlier talked about an October revolution, now you are appealing to the people to prepare for a peaceful movement. What message will go after this contradictory appeal?
答：What did the two of you understand from our appeal? In our understanding, when people ask us that Maoists are at the negotiation table while simultaneously preparing for a peaceful uprising, we don’t have an appropriate answer. The fact is that in its essence, it is both. We came here thinking that we will succeed in the agenda of creating a democratic republic through peaceful means and should try for this. It is not as though we came to the negotiating table with an uprising as the prime agenda. We are in the committee for the Interim Constitution and the talks committee. Our headquarters is also involved here in the political interactions for over a month-and-ahalf. On the basis of ten years of people’s war (PW), it is possible to go into peaceful transformation. The PW influenced the 12-point understanding and we can proceed to the October revolution in a peaceful way. If the parties had waited for two more days and not stalled the movement by accepting the April 24- 25, (11 Baisakh) announcement, the October revolution might have happened right then. Everyone knows that accepting the 11 Baisakh announcement was the result of a clandestine agreement between the SPA, the king and India. If the acceptance was deferred by two days, millions of people were advancing towards the Narayanhiti Palace. That momentum was there. Everyone knows that. If that process was not thwarted, the October revolution might have been heralded. It is possible to advance that process even through the people’s referendum and CA elections. We are focusing our attention on political transformation through peaceful means. However, in the end I have to say that if this government engages in a conspiracy against the people’s aspirations and if it plots with the high command of the old army, if they get intimidated by its generals, and if they want to advance and survive by being the brokers of the generals, then the Nepali people will revolt. We will be in favour of such a revolt.
问：You accuse the seven parties, their government and the outside powers
of obstructing political transformation. They say that you and the arms
of the Maoists are the obstruction. Don’t you think you have to assure
people and other parties by agreeing to the management of your arms?
答：At this moment this is being raised as the most important question. How
Nepali politics will advance, depends on this question. We do not want to put any obstacles in the path of weapons’ management. We have said, both in the 12-point understanding and the eight-point agreement, that both the armies and their arms have to be immobilised under the monitoring and cooperation of the UN. Then, keeping the mandate and spirit of the outcome of the CA
elections, we have to reorganise the armies to make one national army. We are committed to this. However, now the seven parties have moved back a little bit from this understanding, and are raising the issue of our arms as the only obstacle to the process of political transformation. Foreign powers, such as the US and its envoy James Moriarty, are presenting it as though our arms are the only problem. The central issue of whether Nepali people have reached the point of real democracy or not rests here. From 1950 to now, which was the army that on each and every occasion suppressed the people’s movement? And which was the army that played a crucial role in breaking Gyanendra’s authoritarianism and bringing the movement to this stage? If the People’s Army was not a people’s army, then the 12-point understanding would not have been possible. Showing the February municipal elections to be a sham to the world was also the work of the People’s Army. Later, the People’s Army played a critical role in ensuring the mass general strike. The People’s Army is responsible for the reinstatement of the present HoR. Or is it that the Royal Army reinstated the HoR? Despite this fact, despite our remaining flexible, despite our saying that make arrangements for the two armies, and even after the agreement reached in Baluwatar, the parties are still going back. If we decommission and disarm, and the Royal Army remains in the same position, then what will happen? What is our thinking? That only if the People’s Army exists, will the people’s movement remain secure and protected? The Royal Army, even if it tries, cannot quell the nationwide presence and stronghold of the People’s Liberation Army, with its seven divisions.
问：The fear of the parties is that how will the competition in elections between an arms-bearing party and unarmed parties be equal and fair?
答：We are saying that our weapons will be under observation of the UN.
After that, we will also not have weapons, is it not? It is not like we will seek votes bearing weapons; we will go like the other parties go. Our PLA will be in the barracks and camps under observation of the UN.
问：There are allegations against you of violating the 25-point code during
ceasefire. There are allegations of not returning houses and property that your party seized, of beating, abduction and continuing the collection of donation.
答：Whatever the parties are alleging on this is only pretence. If journalists and human rights activists raise this, it is might be valid. There have been some mistakes on our part, but, equally, we are working to correct these. Why I say that the parties, claims are a deception is because the parties cannot even agree to a common mechanism to solve such issues. If they had agreed to immediately move towards an interim Constitution and interim government, then automatically the people’s courts and people’s government would have been dissolved. After that if any incident took place, we would have investigated and conducted disciplinary proceedings. Whatever the parties are saying, it’s pretence. It appears that they are merely following the orders of Washington.
问：In Baluwatar, you said that within 15 days there will be an Interim
Constitution. Till today, it has not happened. Why?
答：The Interim Constitution Drafting Committee is working very seriously.
However, the delay is because of the political parties. It is likely that the
Interim Constitution will be ready in one week. The dominant classes of
the old regime and even some Congress and UML Bamun-Chhetri leaders are reluctant to allow the right to self-determination with autonomous ethnic federations. This is creating bottlenecks in the process of the CA elections, isn’t it? We are in the first decade of the 21st century. The world has moved far ahead. People’s consciousness, awareness and thoughts are high. Such kind of leaders have to understand these realities. In this changing context, how can we resolve ongoing contradictions and conflicts should be the focus of our attention. The slogans that we raised are not going to bring about social unrest, but they will help to resolve social contradictions for hundreds of years in the future. I request all concerned to view, from this perspective, our programmes which will provide a political climate that will not compel people to feel cheated. No one will be in
a situation where they might have to pick up arms.For 237 years, Nepal’s State was centralised and feudal. We cannot return to that stage. Now the circumstances have changed. Now people and ethnic groups have awareness about State oppression. There is an advancement of consciousness. The State should realise this consciousness. After that, a new nation-state can be formed. If each and every person feels that they are the owners of the country, then we all will feel secure and safe. This consciousness has to be understood.
问：On this issue, there have been questions raised by the Marxists. They
say that such issues of identity are not Marxist questions. They say that to gain strength, Maoists are raising identity issues instead of focusing on class issues.
答：If they say that, then we feel that they have not understood Marxism.
Ethnic struggle is also a form of class struggle. Ethnic struggle is not different
from class struggle. Marx himself, then, had interpreted in the Irish question, that identity was a part of the class question. Lenin had replaced the slogan of ‘Workers of the World Unite’ with ‘Workers and Oppressed People of the World
Unite’ during the Third International. These Red sloganeers have not understood Marxism. Lenin has used the formulation of self determination within a federal structure. Those who accuse Maoists of having abandoned Marxism have instead acquired stakes in the existing feudal structure of Nepal. If they genuinely want to end class exploitation,then why do they fear giving powers to Madheshis, Newar, Bheri-Karnali, Seti-Mahakali, Gurung, Magar, Tharu, Rai, Limbu and others? Even though the right to divorce is there, it does not mean that a husband will always leave his wife and a wife will abandon her husband. Only after giving everyone rights will national unity be strengthened.
答：假如他们那样说，那么我们认为他们没有理解马克思主义。民族斗争也是阶级斗争的一种形式。民族斗争与阶级斗争是一致的。当年马克思本人就阐明了爱尔兰民族问题，那个问题的性质就是阶级问题。列宁在第三国际期间，把“全世界无产者联合起来”的口号换成了“全世界无产者和被压迫民族联合起来”的口号。这些所谓的马克思主义者并不理解马克思主义。列宁在一个联邦体制内采用了民族自决的形式。那些指责毛主义者放弃了马克思主义的人，自己却把尼泊尔封建制度当做背靠的大树。假如他们真想消灭阶级剥削，那么为什么害怕把权力交给Madheshis, Newar, Bheri-Karnali, Seti-Mahakali, Gurung, Magar, Tharu, Rai, Limbu以及其他民族地区呢？尽管答应离婚，但并不意味着丈夫总是离开妻子和妻子抛弃她的丈夫。只有给与所有人权力，那么国家统一才会加强。
问：The dream of a new Nepal that you talked about after the 2 Asarh (June
16) agreement at Baluwatar evoked a tremendous response among the people and raised their aspirations. But looking at the structure of the State today, without a full transformation, what possibility do you see ahead if you were to be the prime minister? In the circumstances, is not the dream too idealistic?
答：It is not idealistic. We have developed the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism of the
old communist movement into a new manifesto of the 21st century because the old formulations will not work. Knowing that the old methods will not work, ten months back our central committee discussed and agreed on this matter. We did not make all this public. This document of the central committee is the new manifesto of the communist party of the 21st century. We have to evolve a new understanding of contemporary imperialism and revolution. In the prevailing context, strategy and tactics have to be new and relevant. The manner in which the party functions must also be according to a new strategy. In today’s age of globalisation and post-modernism, we have to move decisively in a new form. The 12-point understanding consciously reflects our 21st century interpretation of communist ideology. When we entered into the Baluwatar agreement, I told the world that we feel confident that we would be able to come forward with new ideas. This is not idealism. This is from our experience of the movement. These ideas came from the discussions among the tens of millions of people. Buddha was born in Lumbini but his ideas permeated the world. Likewise during our ten years of people’s war we were not merely confined to Mechchi-Mahakali or Sindhuli and Rolpa-Rukum. We lived in various states of India. We stayed from six months to one year each in Mumbai, Kolkota, Himachal, Delhi, Assam, and many other places. Our consciousness is the result of interactions and influences in a living relationship with humanity in the 21st century. This is why we are realists.
它是现实的。因为旧的方式不能解决问题，所以我们把旧共产主义运动的马列毛主义发展成了21世纪的新的宣言。10个月前，当熟悉到旧办法没用了时，我们中心委员会讨论并通过了这一决议。我们没有把它全面公开。这个中心委员会的文件是21世纪共产党的新宣言。我们必须发展当代帝国主义和革命的新理论。在主要问题上，战略和战术必须是全新的。党发挥作用的方式也应该根据新的战略。在今天全球化和后现代主义的时代，我们必须以新的形式迈出决定性的步伐。12点协议反映出我们对21世纪共产主义理论的解释。当我们签定巴鲁华特协定时，我告诉世界我们有信心以新的观点前进。这不是唯心的。这是来自于我们运动的经验。这些观点来自数千万人民的讨论。佛祖诞生于蓝毗尼，但他的思想却传遍了全世界。同样，在10年人民战争期间，我们并不局限于 Mechchi-Mahakali 或 Sindhuli 以及罗尔帕-鲁孔地区活动。我们生活在印度的各个邦。我们在孟买，Kolkota, Himachal, 德里，Assam和许多其他地方分别呆上半年到一年的时间。我们的思想是21世纪人类生产关系作用和影响下产生的。因此我们是现实主义者。
问：Let’s extend our discussion to the statement of the CPI (Maoist) (in
India) spokesperson Comrade Azad, who in a recent interview cautioned
about betrayal when collaborating with the State.
答：To begin with, we are not going to enter this present State structure.
Many people have represented us as being eager to become ministers.
They have not understood our thought and our feelings or we have
not been able to explain ourselves to them. We will not become ministers,
in the existing bureaucratic structure. We have asked for a democratic federal republic in the Interim Constitution itself. Even so there can be agreement with the SPA. After arriving at an understanding with them we can go into the interim government. Without change we won’t go there. When we believe that change has taken place then only we will go. Our people will run the ministries that we head. It is only on this condition that we will join the government. If we go without this condition then we will become just like the UML and NC.
We will not enter this State structure without this change. The 12- point
understanding and 8-point agreement have addressed issues of State
restructuring. If the SPA agrees then there is no problem. You have asked a very important question about Comrade Azad’s comments. See, when there is a revolution in the world in one instant, that revolution does not replicate itself in another time and another context. The Russian revolution took place in a very different manner to the Paris Commune. The Russian revolution took place in a different manner, the Chinese revolution took place in a very different way. The Cuban revolution did not take place in the same manner as the Chinese revolution. Stalin did not recognise the Chinese revolution as a proletariat revolution. He always held that until 1951, the Chinese revolution was a bourgeois revolution. When they really discussed about the Chinese revolution,
then he recognised it as a Communist revolution. The Russian revolution
faced attacks from all sides after its completion. Lenin proposed a treaty
with Germany in order to keep alive the revolution. Even within their central
committee, there was the accusation that Lenin had betrayed the revolution.
But the central committee rejected this decisively. The central committee needed three meetings to resolve the issue. What we are doing in Nepal is recognising the balance of power in the country, and taking the people for a new kind of revolution. Those who are viewing us from the perspective of the old forms of revolution will say that we have already Spoilt it all. However, those who view us in terms of transformation and flow of revolution will find us to be the most dynamic of communists. We made the Unity Centre (Ekta Kendra) in 2048 BS (1991). We had labelled the 1990 movement as a betrayal. But people did not accept this. When people did not believe this, then we too entered Parliament. At that time, many revolutionaries like Comrade Azad said that we were doomed. In the next three years, the RIM (Revolutionary International Movement) had declared us as Rightists and expelled us from the RIM. They had even brought out a voluminous publication on this matter. For boycotting elections, they also declared that only Mohan Bikram was a revolutionary. When we began the people’s war, all the revisionists of the world declared us foolish. They said that we would be turned into dust in ten months. But even after ten years we are here. During the first peace talks, people like Comrade Azad expected us to be finished. However, do we look at revolution in scientific terms, or do we apply the formulae of the 20th century to it is the primary question? We have, on one side, parties like the UML, who in its ‘progress’ has gone for class co-existence. Whatever we are attempting in Nepal is both risky and challenging. But without facing challenges and risks, which revolution in the world has taken place? When we address these challenges, it will appear that sometimes we are going to the Left and sometimes to the Right. In the course of revolution, if one goes Left, then they are Leftists. If they swerve to the Right, then they will be Rightists. We are walking on both our legs. Sometimes the left foot leads, sometimes the right foot is forward. It is only by walking on both our legs that we accomplished the ten years of struggle. When we extend our right foot, then some people accuse us of being Rightists. When we put forward our left foot, they call us Leftists. It is only when we walk using both our feet, that it is scientific.
问：We see indications that the CA and republic are not on the horizon. If
so, what are your preparations?
答：We have not thought that possibilities are exhausted. But the situation has
gone a bit awry. Against this, people have to raise their voice. When we
explained in our recent statement about being committed to peaceful means, we included that statement after much deliberation. We thought that it was possible to maintain ceasefire and go ahead with a peaceful people’s movement. It is possible to go via constituent assembly to democratic republic. This way has to be peaceful. If this is not to be, then Nepali people will go for an uprising. If people go for such a revolt, then CPN(Maoist) will support the revolt.
问：After you talked with the Misturaled UN team, you were looking satisfied.
What transpired there?
答：There cannot be a universal arrangement for arms management across the
world. Nepal has a unique context. According to our own context, we will manage. I was happy that they acknowledged that they could not replicate the examples of Mozambique and East Timor. Further, they agreed that the prime minister’s letter was not in accordance with the eight-point agreement.