“Learning from the experience of two-line struggle in our party, we have upgraded the methods to handle it…

“Several questions related to the communist movement can be debated openly; for example, the question of the nature and characteristics of imperialism in the 21st century. It is a purely theoretical question. So, this debate can be carried out openly.

“Secondly, a meeting of the like-minded leaders, and the comrades , is quite natural. Moreover, the leaders of equal level can also hold informal meeting with regard to two-line struggle. This is a new development. Previously, it was not accepted because it was thought to be party-splitting activity.

“Let me add one thing here. The differences within the party, which do not correspond to the opinion of the majority, should be, as decided, discussed within the party through the inner- party magazine Bichardhara.”

This article is from Red Star Vol. 4, No-3, Feb 1-15, 2011 which is available as a PDF file here.

Peace Process, Internal Affair of our Country



CP Gajurel ‘Guarav’ is Secretary of Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the single largest party in Nepal. Despite the fact that it is the largest party, a champion of national agenda at present and a party to the overall peace process, the other parties are against supporting it to lead the new government.

The party is also undergoing a two-line struggle. Given this, Editor of The Red Star, Kumar Shah, talked with Maoist Secretary Guarav.

Interview with Comrade Guarav:



How is the possibility of the formation of the new government in your party leadership accepting all the preconditions set by Nepali Congress asnd CPN-UML?

Our party’s standing committee meeting has already discussed the matter and concluded that it is illogical to deal with the issues related to army integration in such a way that means an exchange of the government leadership with the integration of the two armies. Our party has decided to reject any such conditions for securing support from NC or UML for our party to lead the new governmentIndia claims to be the guardian of Nepalese peace process. Will the peace process reach its logical end without ‘give and take’ with the South Block?

Definitely, India is trying to play a role of a Big brother and, in this sense, a guardian. India has its hegemonic attitude toward Nepal, which is unacceptable for us. In peace process, there is incessant interference from our southern neighbor. Due to this, the peace process is not moving smoothly. We neither expect nor accept any bossy role of the foreign powers because the peace process is the internal affair of our country, a homegrown process. Political parties of Nepal will decide its course and no external forces should try to play an unwelcome role.

PLA has been brought under the Special Committee. However, NC and UML, seem to be unwilling to build on the latest development and move ahead. How do you assess it?

The act of bringing the PLA under the Special Committee (SC) is a significant step forward toward army integration process because army integration is one of the compellingly important steps that has to be taken up for completing the peace process. Previously, because of different reasons, when the UNMIN was playing a significant role in the assistance of the integration process and monitoring of the two armies, this could not happen. Our party always advocated for keeping the UNMIN, and not sending it back right at this point of time. However, UNMIN was made to exit.

As the other parties including NC and UML had been accusing us of not being sincere to peace process and unwilling to bring the PLA under the SC due to what they termed our charm with arms and armies, we agreed to take the step to prove them false, specially at this specific situation created by the departure of the UNMIN, and to make it more clear to all the concerned that our commitment to peace process is firm. Actually, in principle, we had long before agreed to keep the PLA under the SC and made an announcement accordingly. Now, NC and UML, as their habits and tendency have come up with newer allegations to undermine the significance of the act of keeping the PLA under the SC. They are making clamour that nothing has happened and our party has no role or contributions in that. This is unwillingness on their part to build on the achievement and move ahead.

Modality of army integration has been hotly debated recently. What proposal has your party made in this respect?

On army integration modality, we made our positions clear a couple of months back with decisions from our party’s standing committee meeting. First, we proposed to make a separate force of the PLA as we knew that the NC and UML had been apprehensive that the politically indoctrinated PLA could influence Nepal Army into our favour when PLA and NA were integrated. This proposal was meant for riding them from their suspicion. Secondly, we proposed to form a separate security force comprised of equal number of PLA, Nepal Army, Armed Police Force and Nepal Police. We demanded that the leadership role of such a separate force should be given to the PLA. We also proposed to fix the number of PLA for integration through a process to collect data as to how many PLA members want to join integration or go for rehabilitation including joining politics or doing business. Now it is up to the other parties to make the choice or come up with acceptable proposals.

On Army integration modality, we forwarded two options – either make a separate security force of the PLA or constitute such a body comprised of equal number of the PLA and the state security organs.

Would you tell us about the newly developed procedures in handling the two-line struggle in your party?

Yes, definitely, we think that our party has developed ideologies and politics because revolution can not be replicated rather it can only be developed. So, to advance revolution and implement it in our society, we should develop our ideology, political line, and also the methods of two line struggle.

Learning from the experience of two-line struggle in our party, we have upgraded the methods to handle it, as you know, the intra-party struggle has been vigorous since the extended meeting in Palungtar. Recently, we have formulated a 5-point method in this regard. As per the methods, several questions related to the communist movement can be debated openly; for example, the question of the nature and characteristics of imperialism in the 21st century. It is a purely theoretical question. So, this debate can be carried out openly. Secondly, a meeting of the likeminded leaders, and the comrades , is quite natural. Moreover, the leaders of equal level can also hold informal meeting with regard to two-line struggle. This is a new development. Previously, it was not accepted because it was thought to be party-splitting activity.

We follow Leninist way to exercise the correct and democratic centralism – freedom of opinion, freedom of ideas and unity in action. That is the basic principle of Leninist theory of democratic centralism on two-line struggle. So everybody has to accept this principle.

Let me add one thing here. The differences within the party, which do not correspond to the opinion of the majority, should be, as decided, discussed within the party through the inner- party magazine “Bichardhara” (ideology). Opinions will be propagated in the party through the magazine.

However, the debate seems to be continued. Did the latest meeting develop some other propositions to enhance the inner struggle?

Issues of two line struggle should be decided upon as they cannot go all the way and every time overriding the actions of the party and turning the party into a debating club. Lenin has all emphasized on two very significant points: one, the difference of opinions should be carried out in the inner party democracy; two, when the opinions are decided upon, the decision should be implemented. Otherwise, there is a danger in the party that it will become meeting club. If we carry on two-line struggle all the time, we are always talking and talking and we are not implementing it. Now as we have taken decisions upon the differences, it is the responsibility of all the party members to implement the decisions.

Everybody should be ready to implement whatever may be his/her opinions. The opinion of the minority will be discussed in the party and the opinions will not be suppressed. And when there is a party congress or national conference, party will carry on the discussions as a forum and the dissent opinion will come up and again will be discussed and finally decided. The two-line struggle works in this way. If any member comes to the public to discuss the differences that have been decided upon, he or she is a subject to disciplinary action. Otherwise, there will be anarchism in the party.