it is a collection of hollow wishful words. And the Maoists have thought mechanically from the very beginning that some constitutional words and the abolition of monarchy will change the reality. In fact, it does not. They blurred the difference between reform and revolution. W e find similarity between this constitution and the Indian constitution. Both constitutions begin with‘ We the People’. In the Nepalese constitution, it is said that‘ Nepal is an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive democratic, socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state’. What a complex manipulation of words. In Indian constitution, we have all the words socialist, democratic, secular. We know that the life of the people does not change by using this empty verbosity. But in the Chinese constitution( 1954), the General Principles, Articles One and Two, say that‘ The People’ s Republic of China is a people’ s democratic state led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. All power in the People’ s Republic of China belongs to the people. The organs through which the people exercise power are the National People’ s Congress and the local people’ s congresses. The National People’ s Congress, the local people’ s congresses and other organs of state practise democratic centralism’.
The difference between the two is clear: China is a new democratic republic whose main leadership will be in the hands of the Communist Party and the working class, while the people of Nepal, who relied on the so-called communist parties in exchange for their blood to win the fight against the monarchy, have been handed over to the parties of the traitorous classes like the Nepali Congress. These so-called communist parties have also brought socialism to the place of bargaining with the traitorous 12 classes. It is written in the constitution of Nepal that the foundation of socialism will be laid through democratic methods!
And what does the Constitution of China( 1954) say! Articles 4, 5, and 6 clearly state,“ The People’ s Republic of China, by relying on the organs of state and the social forces and by means of socialist industrialization and socialist transformation, ensures the gradual abolition of systems of exploitation and the building of socialist society. At present, the following basic forms of ownership of means of production exist in the People’ s Republic of China: state ownership, that is, ownership by the whole people; cooperative ownership, that is, the collective ownership by the working masses; ownership by individual working people; and capitalist ownership. The state sector of the economy is a socialist sector, owned by the whole people. It is the leading force in the national economy and the material basis on which the state carries out socialist transformation. The state ensures priority for the development of the state sector of the economy. All mineral resources and waters, as well as forests, undeveloped land and other resources which the state owns by law, are the property of the whole people.” It clearly shows the path of action in reality instead of empty directives. The reason why I have to quote so much is that the new Nepali constitution prepared with the participation of the Maoists and the ML group after the end of the monarchy in Nepal, has failed to ensure the role of the workers and peasants in the state, and like the Indian constitution, it is nothing more than a few nice words and a manipulation of words. They have strengthened the hands of a semi-colonial, semi-autonomous state by using the names of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
This becomes even clearer when we come to the question of land reform. W hen the Nepali Maoists and the Nepali ML party claimed the end of feudalism through the abolition of monarchy, we have to examine the peasant question. It is not possible to destroy feudalism without radical land reform, which is not even mentioned in the 2015 Constitution of Nepal as a matter of national importance in point 5. Land reform has been pushed into ineffective constitutional admonitions like the Directive Principles( just like in Indian constitution, which are called the spirit of Constitution, having no executive or legal binding or compulsion). And it has been said that scientific land reform will be carried out, but not radical land reform. Again, manipulation by words. Without any clear explanation, it is said that there will be no dual ownership of land. The presence of three four types of slave labourers in Nepal, which constitute almost 50 percent of the landless farmers is mentioned in it. For example, Haliya and Harua in the hills and Terai regions, Kamaiya, Charuiya, Kamalri in Western Nepal, are mentioned in the constitution and it is said that they should be given specific small lands so that they can survive. By using this type of language, the framers of the constitution have made it clear that they are not representatives of Kamaiya, Charuiya, Kamalri. They are representatives of the upper caste feudal lords- landowners. The entire Nepali constitution does not specify any responsibility for land reform and land distribution. Not only that, even though some land reform laws were made through the 7 th and 8 th constitutional amendments, till 2018, they have not been implemented yet. The Ministry of Land Reforms does not have even 5 percent of the budget allocated to it.( https:// saape. org / wpcontent / uploads / 2023 / 12 /
Class Struggle