Exclusive interview with Prachanda, Maoist leader <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
专访毛泽东主义领袖普拉昌达
This is a complete verbatim transcript of Nepali Maoist leader Prachanda's interview with Siddharth Varadarajan of The Hindu, conducted at an undisclosed location in the first week of February 2006.
这是《印度教徒报》Siddharth Varadarajan对普拉昌达采访的逐字逐句的完整记录。采访在2006年2月第一个星期于一个秘密地点进行。
Highlights and excerpts from the interview were published in the print edition of The Hindu of February 8, 9, and 10, 2006.
采访的精编版发表于2006年2月8、9和10号的《印度教徒报》印刷版。
Varadarajan: Your party has waged a "people's war" in Nepal for 10 years and the anniversary is now coming up. There are some who say that this war - and the Royal Nepal Army's counter-insurgency campaign - has cost the country dearly in terms of the violence and bloodshed that has accompanied it. In your estimation, what has been the main accomplishment of these 10 years?
Varadarajan:你们党在尼泊尔发动“人民战争”已10年了，10周年纪念日现已临近。有人说这场战争——包括尼泊尔皇家军队镇压起义的战争——从随之而来的流血冲突方面而言，使这个国家损失惨重。据你评价，10年来取得的最大成就是什么？
Prachanda: For 250 years, our peoples have been exploited under the oppression of feudal lords. The people's war has helped crush the feudal structure in the rural areas. We think this is the main achievement. Also, in the overall sense we feel that in Nepal there is going to be a great leap forward in the socio-economic condition because we are going to lead the country to a democratic republican structure. A political situation has been developed through this process, and we feel this is also a very big achievement of the people's war.
普拉昌达：250年来，我国人民在封建地主阶级的压迫下受尽剥削。人民战争摧毁了农村地区的封建制度。我们认为这是最主要的功绩。而且，总的看来，我们认为尼泊尔在社会经济状况方面将会有一个巨大的飞跃，因为我们正打算在这个国家建立起民主共和国的制度。在这一过程中，政治形势已有了很大的发展，我们认为这也是人民战争取得的另一个很大的功绩。
Varadarajan: In your party plenum last August in Rolpa, you took a momentous decision - to strive for and participate in multiparty democracy. If you were going to accept multiparty democracy after 10 years of war, why go about this in a roundabout way?
Varadarajan:在你们党去年8月份在罗尔泊举行的全体会议上，你作出了一个重大决定，为多党民主制度而奋斗，并参与其中。假如在10年的战争之后，你们打算接受多党民主，为什么要通过如此曲折的道路来实现这一点呢？
Prachanda: I want to answer your question in two parts. There is the whole theoretical and ideological question that we are trying to develop, because we want to analyse the experience of revolution and counter-revolution in the 20th century on a new basis. Three years ago we took a decision in which we said how are we going to develop democracy is the key question in the 21st century. This meant the negative and positive lessons of the 20th century have to be synthesised in order for us to move ahead. And three years ago we decided we must go in for political competition. Without political competition, a mechanical or metaphysical attitude will be there. So this time, what we decided is not so new. In August, we took serious decisions on how practically to build unity with the parliamentary political parties. We don't believe that the people's war we initiated was against, or mainly against, multiparty democracy. It was mainly against feudal autocracy, against the feudal structure.
普拉昌达：我想从两个方面回答你提出的问题。这是我们正在发展的全部思想理论问题，因为我们想在新的基础之上分析20世纪革命与反革命的经验。三年前，我们做出的决议中说，如何发展民主是我们21世纪的核心问题。意思是说要对20世纪正反两方面的经验进行总结从而使我们向前发展。三年前，我们决定我们必须参加政治竞争。离开了政治竞争，机械主义和形而上学的作风就会产生。所以这一次，我们的决定没有那么大的更新。8月份，我们就如何在实际上和议会各政党加强团结作出了严厉的决定。我们认为我们发动的人民战争不反对，或者说，大体上是不反对多党民主的。它主要地反对封建独载统治，反对封建制度。
Varadarajan: How difficult was it for your party to come to this decision? How difficult was it to build consensus on the need for multiparty democracy within the leadership and cadres?
Varadarajan:你们党做出如此决定经历了哪些困难？你们在领导班干部中取得需要多党民主的共识经历了哪些困难？
Prachanda: An agenda was first presented to the Central Committee on democracy. Then there was an internal debate within the party rank and file for a whole year. After that, the CC plenum unanimously decided that within a definite constitutional framework we have to go in for competition. Without competition, we will not be able to go forward. This was a unanimous decision.
普拉昌达：首先，关于民主的议事日程被提到了中心委员会。然后在党的普通成员之间进行了整整一年的内部讨论。在那以后，中心委员会全体会议一致决定我们必须在具体的宪法框架之下参加竞争。没有竞争，我们就不能前进。这是我们的一致决定。
Varadarajan: Is this decision a recognition by you of the impossibility of seizing power through armed struggle? That because of the strength of the RNA and the opposition of the international community, a new form of struggle is needed in order to overthrow the monarchy?
Varadarajan:做出此决定是否表明你认为通过武装斗争夺取政权是不可能的？是否意味着由于尼泊尔皇家军队的势力和国际社会的反对，需要通过新的斗争形式推翻封建君主制度？
Prachanda: Here again there is not only one question. There is a specificity to the political and military balance in today's world. This has to be seen. The second thing to be seen is the experience of the 20th century. Third, there is the particular situation in the country - the class, political and power balance. It is by taking these three together that we came to our conclusion. We are talking of multiparty democracy in a specific sense, within a specific constitutional framework. We are not talking about bourgeois parliamentary democracy. This multiparty democracy will be anti-imperialist and anti-feudal. In other words, only within an anti-feudal, anti-imperialist constitutional framework is multiparty democracy possible. That is why armed struggle is also necessary, and unity in action with the other political parties against the monarchy is also a necessity. The socio-economic change we are fighting for is against feudalism and imperialism and it is within the context of that struggle that we are talking of multiparty democracy.
普拉昌达：这同样也不仅仅是一个问题。当今世界政治军事平衡的具体情况是大家都看得到的。第二个显而易见的事实是20世纪的经验教训。第三是国内的具体形势——阶级、政治和力量的平衡。把上述三点结合起来，我们作出了我们的决定。我们是在特定意义上，在特定的宪法框架之下讨论多党民主的。我们讲的不是资产阶级的议会民主。这个多党民主将是反帝反封建的。换句话说，只有在反帝反封的宪法框架之下多党民主才是可能的。由此武装斗争也是必需的，在行动上和其它政党保持团结反对封建君主制度也是必需的。我们为之战斗的社会经济变革是反帝反封的，我们讨论的多党民主就是在这样的斗争背景之下。
Road map to democratic republic
民主共和国的路线图
Varadarajan: So if the king announces tomorrow that the steps he took last year were wrong and allows free and fair elections under the present Constitution, the Maoists will not take part? Is a new constitutional framework a pre-condition for taking part in elections?
Varadarajan:假如国王明天公布他去年采取的步骤是错误的，并同意在当前宪法之下举行举行自由、公正的选举，毛泽东主义者们会参加吗？新的宪法架构是你们参加选举的前提条件吗？
Prachanda: Yes, you can put it that way. If the king says that I was wrong to have done what I did last year, now come on, let us sit across the table, and then he talks of a free and fair election to a constituent assembly, then we will be ready. Our minimum, bottom line is the election of a constituent assembly, that too under international supervision,either by the United Nations or some other international mediation acceptable to all. Under those circumstances, we will go in for elections and accept whatever the peoples' verdict is. This is our bottom line. But if the king says, come on, make an interim government and hold elections, we will not come forward.
普：是的，你可以那样说。假如国王说：“我去年所做的事情是错误的，现在让我们来坐到桌边”然后他说要自由、公正地选举出修改宪法的国民代表大会。那么，我们会预备参加的。我们的最低限度、底线是选举出修改宪法的国民代表大会，并且是在国际社会的监督之下，或者是联合国，或者是其它大家都能够接受的国际仲裁机构。在这样的情况之下，我们会参加选举，并接受人民作出的判定。这是我们的底线。但假如国王说，来，建立过渡政府并举行选举，我们是不会前往参加的。
Varadarajan: But will you oppose the parties doing that? If the parties agree to go ahead on this interim basis, what will happen to your alliance or agreement with the parties?
Varadarajan:但你们反对其它政党这样做吗？假如其它政党同意在此过渡基础之上向前迈进，你们和其它政党之间的联盟或协议将发生什么样的变化？
Prachanda: If the king asks them to form a government and the parties go in for parliamentary elections without looking at the demands we have been making for the past 10 years, it would be difficult for us to go along with the parties. Because this is what you had before. The king and the parties were together for 7-8 years. That was the situation. And still there was struggle, because the demand for a constituent assembly is a longstanding one. It is not a demand that came up only today.
普：假如国王要求他们组建政府，而其它政党们又无视我们过去10年来提出的要求参加议会选举，我们是很难赞同他们的。因为过去就是这个样的。国王和其它政党在一起已经七八年了。过去的形势就是如此。但那时仍就有斗争，因为召开修改宪法的国民代表大会的要求是一项久已存在的要求，它并不是仅在现在才提出的要求。
Varadarajan: How crucial was the August plenum decision on multiparty democracy to paving the way for the 12-point agreement with the parties?
Varadarajan:8月份全体会议关于多党民主的决议对于同其它政党达成12点协议发挥了多么重大的作用？
Prachanda: After the Royal Palace massacre itself, we had made an appeal to the parliamentary parties. There was a general understanding and some meetings were also held because the 2001 royal massacre was against democracy. In the 1990 movement, we were together with the Congress and UML [Unified Marxists-Leninists]. We felt the change that was needed in Nepal was against feudalism but the parliamentary parties were not ready for this. For three years we struggled inside Parliament. For three years we were there. Our 40-point demands were placed but there was not even any discussion on this. So the seeds of our armed struggle were sown inside Parliament, in a manner of speaking. This is a very big difference between us and, say, those in India who say they are waging a people's war. They didn't begin from inside Parliament.
普：王室大屠杀发生后，我们向议会政党发出呼吁。由于2001年的王室大屠杀是反民主的，我们取得了广泛的共识并召开了几次会议。在1990年运动中，我们同议会和联合马列（UML）站在了一起。我们认为尼泊尔需要的变革是反对封建主义，而议会政党并未为此做好预备。我们在议会内奋斗了3年。我们在议会里呆了3年。我们提出了40点要求，但他们甚至并未对它进行讨论。所以从某种意义上说，那时在议会内部就埋下了我们发动武装斗争的种子。这是我们同印度的一些人——他们也宣称正在发动一场人民战争——的一个很大的不同之处。他们并不是从议会内部的斗争开始的。
We were inside Parliament, so we had good relations with the parliamentary parties for a long time. The 1990 movement produced limited gains. We could have taken more but got less from the palace because of a compromise. At the time we said the Nepali peoples have been cheated. We said this compromise was bad and that there was a danger of the palace grabbing power again, as had happened in Mahendra's time. We said this from the rostrum of Parliament but the other parties did not have the courage even to act against those elements from the panchayat system that the Malik commission had identified as criminals. And gradually a situation arose where those elements were able to enter the parties, the government. After the palace massacre, we said that what we had predicted in 1990 had come to pass, that diehard elements have hatched a conspiracy and come forward. And we appealed to the parties to unite together as we had done in 1990. The parties were in government so it was not possible for them to understand our appeal. But slowly, the king's designs became clearer: he dissolved Parliament, dismissed the government and took direct power. This is when I think the parties realised they had been taken for a ride all this time. This is also when our plenum took concrete steps on the question of multiparty democracy.
我们过去参加了议会，所以长期以来我们同议会政党保持了良好的关系。1990年的运动取得的成果很有限。由于妥协，我们从王室那里所得极少，尽管我们本可以得到更多。那时我们就说尼泊尔人民受骗上当了。我们认为妥协是有害的，存在着王室会重新攫取政权的危险性，这个危险在马享德拉时期果然发生了。我们在议会的讲坛上指出了这些，但其它政党们甚至没有勇气去反对被马利克委员会认定为犯罪分子的无党派评议会中的反动分子。随着形势的逐渐发展，那些反动分子又进入了政党、政府。王室大屠杀发生后，我们说我们在1990年预言的事情终于发生了，顽固分子们策划阴谋、汹汹逼人。我们呼吁各政党象1990年那样联合一致。那时，其它政党还在政府内，因此他们不能理解我们的呼吁。但慢慢地，国王的图谋日渐清淅：他解散了议会，解散了政府，直接控制了政权。那时我想其它政党们终于明白他们那段时间是被耍弄了。也正是那时我们的全体会议在多党民主的问题上迈出了坚定的步伐。
And our statement stressed that the time had come for all the parliamentary parties to join hands with our movement and civil society to fight against autocracy and monarchy. At the plenum, we decided we needed to show more flexibility, that it was our duty to do this. So we took concrete steps and declared to the parties, 'You lead, we will support you.' This so-called king – he is not a traditional king and the Nepali people do not accept him as king. He and his group are well-known goons and people see them as a regicidal-fratricidal clique. He is not even a person who is capable of thinking politically. So we told the parties, come on,we want to help you. Before the plenum, we contacted the Nepali Congress and UML leaders and tried to bring them to Rolpa. But this was not possible.
我们的声明强调指出各政党同我们的运动和平民社会携起手来为反对独裁统治和封建君主制度而斗争的时刻来到了。在全体会议上，我们决定表现出更大的灵活性，这是我们的义务。我们采取了具体的步骤，并向所有议会政党公布，“你们带头，我们支持你们！”。这个所谓的国王——他不是正统的国王，尼泊尔人民并没有接受他为国王。他和他的团伙是臭名昭著的凶手，人民把他们看作一个弑君戮亲的集团。他甚至是一个没有政治头脑的人。召开全体会议前，我们联系了尼泊尔议会和联合马列的领导人，并想把他们请到罗尔泊。但这是不可能的。