In 2017, when I had just started my undergraduate at Peking University in Beijing, one of my Chinese classmates asked me why the Nepali Communist Party (Maoists) chose to use Mao in its name.
She was troubled that their revered leader had been turned into an icon of armed struggle and violence. My friend’s opinion was valid because even in Nepal, the very word ‘Maoist’ still instills fear in many Nepalis who witnessed the strikes, murders and kidnappings during the conflict decade.
In fact, my Chinese classmate’s concern was in line with the Chinese government’s initial reaction and concern when the Maoist insurrection started. In early 2000s, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao stated that the rebels had ‘usurped’ the name of Mao Zedong.
Read also: What was it all for? Om Aastha Rai
Mao had led the Communist Party of China to power in 1949 after years of violent struggle, he said, and China had no relations or connection with the rebel group in Nepal. Ironically, Chinese government labelled the Maoists in Nepal as ‘terrorists’ criticising them for being anti-government and bringing disorder.
In 2001, the Contemporary World Magazine of the Communist Party of China International Department published a piece titled ‘Increasingly Active: Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)’ which described the leaders as being solipsistic and neither able to create unity even within the party nor allies with other parties.
The writer went on to claim that most Nepalis did not support the Maoists because the party was regarded as being ‘grossly out of touch with the reality in Nepal’ and even the international community hesitated to recognise them ‘because of their association with international terrorist organisations’.
However, after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006 that saw Maoists rise to power, the initial Chinese reaction to Maoism in Nepal that used to be previously fueled with skepticism and disdain, was replaced with a narrative that improves Mao’s own image.
Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal) was suddenly seen as a trail blazer against feudalism in Nepal. However, some unbiased content still lives in academic literature by Chinese scholars with citations that are not accessible anymore.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) used Maoism as a suffix instead of its main guiding principle. In fact, Mao Zedong himself was firmly opposed1 to using ‘Maoism’ as a political label for his ideology.
In a conversation with Wang Jiaxiang, a senior leaders of CPC, Mao said: “Maoism cannot be mentioned. I am a student of Marx and Lenin. How can I rank with them? Marx has Marxism, Lenin has Leninism, I cannot be labelled ‘Maoism’. I have no ‘ism’. My ‘ism’ is Marxism and Leninism. You must mention Mao Zedong Thought. Everyone has their own thoughts. We can’t casually mention ‘ism’. I still believe that I haven’t matured as a system of thought. It’s not modesty, it’s true.”
According to the CPC constitution, Mao Zedong Thought is ‘the application and development of Marxism-Leninism in China and the correct theoretical principles and empirical summary of China’s revolution and construction proved by practice’.
Read also: Prachanda’s family calls, Nepali Times
In 2013, a Chinese student published a paper titled ’Maoism’ in the eyes of Communist Party of Nepal in Liaocheng University’s Social Science Journal identifying ‘Maoism’ as the suffix of the party’s name, and was only a strategic choice under certain circumstances, not all actions are guided by ‘Maoism’.
Nor had ‘Maoism’ proved to be able to guide its actions in parliamentary battles, the paper elaborated, describing the Maoists’ bottomless compromise with other political parties as a violation of the basic principles of Marxism, and the party’s division has a hand in this.
The paper suggested that in the future political process, if Nepal’s Maoists wanted to adhere to the revolutionary line, it must adopt the basic principles of the proletarian party and have a new theoretical guidance to ensure that it will not degenerate into a reformist party.
If there is one person China decided to give attention to among Nepal’s Maoists, it was Prachanda. Although NCP (Maoist) received its fair share of criticism from China initially, the initial interviews with him by Chinese media tell a different story.
In a detailed interview with Global Times in 2007 soon after the ceasefire, Pushpa Kamal Dahal modestly replied to a question asking if he would run for president by saying he would if the people and the party required him too and that he would only once and after that lay low, be a member of the Party Central Committee and “slowly retire, read, write and do research”. A year later, the Maoists wept the election to the Constituent Assembly, and he was elected prime minister. Ten years later, he became Nepal’s prime minister for the second time.
Read also: Nepal’s Maoist revolution from the inside, Sahina Shrestha
By 2008, there were articles and interviews introducing Dahal and stories of his revolution. In a 2008 interview article featured in China Daily, Dahal confesses to the Chinese reporter that he is envious about how China dealt with Pu Yi ( last emperor of China).
He adds: ‘If Gyanendra like Pu Yi becomes a commoner, it will be a blessing for the Nepali people.’
The interviewer was impressed by Dahal’s simple lifestyle in Kathmandu, and the devotion of the people for him. He relates how when he arrived for the interview at 6am there were already people waiting to see him. The interviewer says there was a ‘common phrase in Nepal that anyone can have a handshake with Prachanda’.
A major part of why China seems to tolerate Dahal despite his perceived incompetence is because of the attachment of Mao’s name to his party, which carries China’s face. While K P Oli has been criticised in the Chinese media for his actions that led to the split in the NCP and the UML, Dahal is rarely thrown under the bus.
To be sure, Dahal has not tested the Chinese government’s patience like Oli has, but even the criticism Dahal receives within Nepal does not cross over to China while Oli’s does. The Chinese government seems to be careful about any negativity towards CPN (Maoist) and manages news on him within China to save its own face.
Dahal’s present predicament during the MCC debate in Nepal could lead to either improve or ruin his stature in China. State media here had the opportunity to denounce Deuba and Dahal for their recently exposed secret letter to the MCC, but it was unusually quiet.
Dahal belongs to the Maoist Centre and signed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – this seems to have made him immune to criticism in China. However, the final decision on MCC is not only going to test Nepal’s ties with China, but also Dahal’s faithfulness to the Mao name.
Aneka Rajbhandari has a Masters in Chinese Politics @ Silk Road School, Renmin University of China.
1: Author: Lin Zhiyou
Title: Historical research of Mao Zedong’s objection of changing “Mao Zedong Thought” to “Maoism”
Year: 2005
Journal of Henan Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences edition)
林志友:《毛泽东反对把“毛泽东思想”改为“毛泽东主义”的历史考证》《,河南师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)， 2005 年第 4 期，第 102 页。
Read more:
I love Prachanda, Rajan Adiga
“If I were to tell you everything I know about Prachanda …”, Jana Aastha Weekly
from Nepali Times https://ift.tt/H14ZrpT
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment