READING THE CODE: Maoist Plans for the Revolution

(Courtesy: Dr. Thomas A. Marks)

A political risk consultant in Honolulu, Hawaii, Dr. Marks recently authored the entry, “Maoism in South and Southeast Asia,” in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (1750-Present); Peter M. Stearns, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, March 2008).

**************

Since their loss of the government in May of this year, the Maoists have threatened almost daily to launch another round of street violence if their demands are not met. They now have made good on those threats, building upon their continued use of terrorism beneath the surface to launch an open round of struggle designed to bring down the government. Put in the words of Prachanda (as per Republica): “The Maoist CC meeting decided to hit the streets for the sake of ‘civilian supremacy’ a Maoist-led national unity government, national independence, a new constitution, and the peace process.”

That statement says it all. One might wonder: What if the present political line-up continues to vote, as it has, for another, non-Maoist party to lead the government? Or to carry on as if Nepal indeed is independent, is involved in a peace process, and is writing a constitution, with only the Maoists determined to keep all of those things from being realities? “We don’t want to go back to the jungle as the regressive forces have wished,” answers Prachanda gravely.

The problem is that “back to the jungle” has never been the plan. Just what the Maoists are up to has been stated time and again, most recently by Central Committee member (and Mrs. Bhattarai), Hisila Yami, in a op-ed published by Kantipur located at the following URL: http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=208193.

Maoist Game Plan

The article contains the Maoist "game plan," spelled out very clearly. Maoists speak openly but in a language which utilizes "code." All one must do is decode, and the course of action appears. In fact, the same terminology can be found by perusing the pronouncements of any of the Maoist movements which have left their bloody fingerprints on the post-World War II pages of history.

Particularly interesting, though, is the striking similarity between the Nepali Maoist formulations and those of their Philippine counterparts. Though one might suspect plagiarism, the reality is simply that the ultimate sources are the same if one is using Maoist texts. They draw upon an eclectic group for inspiration but overwhelmingly Lenin and Stalin.

What unfolds in Ms. Yami’s discussion is the contents of the recent Maoist leadership debate on how to proceed. It's an old debate when it comes to Maoist insurgency: Do you mine beneath the opposition's castle, ultimately bringing it down with a charge from below? Or do you charge the gates, because you know the enemy within is weak and of limited will to resist?

Ms. Yami -- speaking for her husband's (and presumably Prachanda’s) faction -- recognizes that attempting to seize power now through overt mechanisms (“back to the jungle”) will certainly result in disaster -- and probably Indian invasion. Consequently, what she advocates is the classic "tunnel under them" or united front approach. The "new democratic republic" she mentions is the normal Maoist vehicle for doing this.

"A new democratic republic" sounds innocuous, but it is "Maoist" for a united front government. This is a government of like-minded forces brought together to oppose particular issues but later discarded when it is time to "move on." Such an approach was called "salami tactics" (from slicing the salami) in the 1960s and was used by the Soviets in Eastern Europe and, of course, the Maoists everywhere.

The tactic is simple: you get “useful idiots” to throw in with you to support tactical issues, such as "civilian supremacy." Who would be opposed to that? But the point is to use the issue to neutralize a particular foe, to achieve a particular end. The army, for instance, as has been demonstrated, remains the last real obstacle to the Maoists’ being able to do whatever they want. Neither the police nor the Armed Police will oppose them. They will simply fall in line, particularly because their leadership will be replaced with people who favor the Maoists. Thus, the need of the moment is to use the lofty goal to rally a coalition capable of neutralizing the army.

Once the particular issue at hand has been achieved, however, a new "crisis" issue will emerge. Then, the Maoists will seek to isolate the new foe – with the “issue” often explicitly invented to place that foe in its precarious position. The “Maoist discussion before this discussion” – on which foe was primary – centered around just this issue. At the time, Nepali Congress (NC) was seen as the key obstacle (in cahoots with the army, to be sure), because the UML was playing the “useful idiot” role.

Turns the worm, the UML has thrown sand in the gears, siding with both NC and the nefarious “still RNA at heart” (as the Maoists see it, especially in their not-so-secret conclaves).

What must be done, then, is to form the new coalition – their “Maoist-led national unity government” – to isolate and eliminate NC, UML, and NA. Gradually, by splitting, splitting, and splitting ("slicing the salami"), they will eliminate their rivals until the only people left are Maoists. Nobel Prize-winning author, the late Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, lays this out exactly in his famous work, Lenin in Zurich (1975).

A Republic is Not a Republic

A "people's federal democratic republic" (see Ms. Yami’s text) is but an interim step to the "new democratic republic" and the eventual "people's republic." Ms. Yami has spelled it out clearly: the need at present is to mobilize "anti-feudal" and "anti-imperialist" forces (feudal forces are those who favor parliamentary democracy and the market; imperialists are, in pride of evil place, the Americans and their friends, especially the dastardly Indians). How to mobilize these forces? By giving them the Maoist version of "federalism," a passing out of linguistic, ethnic, and economic goodies which exist in theory but will prove disastrous in fact. Long before realization is reached, the Maoists will have moved on and consolidated complete power.

Ironically, since the technique always works when faced with the sort of handicapped thinking one encounters in a particular slice of Nepal's chattering classes, what Ms. Yami is so angry about is the hard-core Maoists within her own party, those who want to "go for it." This is the group that challenges Prachanda and wants to use concerted street violence and assassination to sweep away the opposition.

A version of this is in play. The killing and the threats are daily reported in Nepali media. The unsavory actions of the Maoists at the Balaju Industrial Area are ample testimony to the manner in which violence has been woven into the warp and woof of every action undertaken by the “CPN(M)” (whatever its new name, it remains the same crew). So, too, do numbers of Nepali politicians bear witness to the actions of left wing fascism as they flee the country to escape the kukris, beatings, and kidnappings of the YCL storm troopers (yes, they’ve reflagged – name changes are meaningless).

And such sub-rosa violence is working. Yet, for the hard-core, none of this has given the Party power. The army remains intact and will fight; and India -- and even the most feckless and fickle of the foreign presence – seem willing to support the present government. Ultimately, though, it's an Indian show, and the Bhattarai faction is well aware that an IPKF would end the Maoists. They are not LTTE.

Faced with such a situation, Ms. Yami is surely correct that the proper course is to walk softly and carry a big kukri. Unfortunately, to keep the factions aligned, Prachanda has agreed to go to the well one more time, to once again threaten and bluster in the expectation that capitulation will result.

The Future

How well Prachanda has calculated will determine the future of Nepal. By now, a sizable portion of the public is wise to the Maoist strategy. It is unlikely he could field the same lineup as he so often threatens for a Janaandolan III. Nevertheless, he has mobilized the lumpens and the clueless in sufficient numbers to make a go of it.

By “discuss civilian supremacy,” Prachanda is not advancing the plain English meaning of the phrase. What he and the Maoists mean is this: if the government will once again give in, declare that only the prime minister can hire and fire, all will be well.

And it will be – for the Maoists. They will provoke the next round of crisis, put together the united front necessary to resume government leadership, then use that position to eliminate their few remaining foes. Dictatorship, when it comes, will be implemented in the name of “rule of law.”

Lenin in State and Revolution (p.73) put it bluntly: “…[T]heir resistance must be broken by force; it is clear that where there is suppression there is also violence, there is no liberty, no democracy.”

Thesis, antithesis and synthesis (By Hisila Yami)