development of industrial capitalism with a national
character, but that’s nowhere to be found in Nepal.
Instead what we have here are comprador and
bureaucratic capitalism.
Secondly, the New Democratic Revolution will
successfully end both internal feudal oppression and
external imperialist foreign intervention. Did that
happen? Of course not. In Nepal, the bourgeoisie is
too weak and comprador in nature, so the peasants
will lead the new democratic revolution targeted
against the feudal lords, the comprador bourgeoisie
and the meddling foreign powers, and ends all forms
of oppression.
The fall of monarchy did not automatically end
feudalism in Nepal. In China too, monarchy was
overthrown in 1911. However, the Chinese
communists, once they were organized themselves
as a party later in 1921, had set liberation from
feudalism and imperialism as their goal. This is an
important point to note. Yes, the abolition of monarchy
in Nepal has dealt a severe blow to feudalism, but
conflating that with the end of feudalism is very
pretentious.
A real New Democratic Revolution will uproot
feudalism once and for all, annul all unequal treaties,
challenge all indirect exploitation by multinational
corporations and global capital, and organizations like
World Bank, IMF, and WTO. We need to augment the
development of the national bourgeoisie, build
national industries and do so much more to end the
oppression of the people, both by India and by the
global multinational corporations.
[RS] But the abolition of monarchy was an
episodic moment in the history of Nepal. Don’t
you agree? One might argue that it was the tragic
Palace Massacre of 2001, when the Crown Prince
Dipendra mysteriously murdered King Birendra
and his entire family that led to the collapse of
the monarchy. Further, it is public knowledge that
prior to that event in 2001, the Maoists were
already trying to explore opportunities for
compromises and alliance, either with the seven
parliamentary parties or with the monarchy.
Given all that, do you think that the Maoists can
take credit for the abolition of monarchy?
[Kiran] There were two immediate reasons for the
fall of monarchy in Nepal. First, in the 2001 palace
massacre the entire family of King Birendra Shah was
slaughtered. When his brother, Gyanendra Shah took
to the throne, he was no Birendra and the Nepali
people lost faith in the monarchy. Given that the Nepali
people considered the King a direct descendant of
the (Hindu god) Lord Vishnu, such loss of faith is
remarkable. Second, Gyanendra Shah, as soon as
he ascended the throne, seized the power of
14
parliament and became authoritarian monarch, which
sparked anger amongst the people. As a result the
major parliamentary parties including Nepali
Congress, CPN(UML) and others joined hands with
the Maoists against the king, which paved the way for
the abolition of monarchy.
However, Nepali Congress and UML deny the role
of the Maoist peoples’ war in creating conditions for
the downfall of the monarchy. They single out the 19
days Janaandolan (people’s movement) in 2006,
which is a completely wrong interpretation. We think
that both the palace massacre and Maoist peoples’
war actively contributed to the eventual abolition of
the monarchy. Our armed struggle against the state
was the primary reason that Gyanendra decided to
act the way he did.
On your question about Prachandaji reaching out
to the monarchyor Baburamji reaching out to the
seven parliamentary parties prior the palace
massacre, let me tell me yes, there were two lines
within the Maoists at that time. Such internal
contradictions and tactical compromises happen –
there is nothing wrong with that. Theoretically
speaking, in order to accomplish the goal of revo-
lution, you can enter into a tactical alliance with any
group to strengthen your side, as long as you remain
true to your goal.
You can always wonder ‘what if’ the massacre did
not happen, ‘what if’ the other parties did not join
hands with the Maoists — these are all hypothetical
questions with no definite answers. What actually
happened was that the King banished all seven
parliamentary parties and took power in his own hands
because he felt that these parties were ineffective in
tackling the Maoist armed struggle. The king had twin
objectives to decimate the Maoists and simultaneously
abolish the democratic parties. This was an ill-advised
and imprudent move by the king. We immediately
understood the situation, took advantage of it and
allied with the other parliamentary parties to rally
against the King. India also stepped in and played a
significant role here, by brokering some of these
challenging conversations. We were able to enter into
the 12-point agreement with the seven parliamentary
parties, which pledged to work towards democracy,
peace, prosperity, social advancement and the
abolition of monarchy. During this time, I was not in
Nepal. I had been languishing in prison in India when
all of these happened.
While the 12 point agreement was a high point of
Nepali politics in, a much more significant event rocked
our party in 2005. A fissure in our party was cracked
open during the Central Committee meeting, also
known as Chunwang meeting. This meeting marked
the beginning of the end of Prachanda. The
Prachanda-led faction abandoned the goal of New
Class Struggle