"We need to make relations with states, not parties"

CP Gajurel, secretary of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), is a popular figure among Indian Maoists. Many pro-Maoist organisations fought against his deportation to Nepal (he was arrested in Chennai in 2003 while trying to flee to London using fake documents). He was jailed for three years in Chennai before he could return to Nepal. The senior Nepalese Maoist ideologue believes that Indian Maoists are a political force fighting for a just cause.

The CPN (Maoist) participated in last year’s elections to the Nepalese Assembly, where it emerged as the single largest party. Party supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Prachanda, became prime minister, until his resignation following differences with the President. As head of the party’s international department till recently, Gajurel played a key role in shaping the party’s policies towards Nepal’s big neighbours, India and China.

In an exclusive telephone interview to TEHELKA, the 60-year-old Nepalese leader shared his views with PC VINOJ KUMAR on a wide range of issues, including Operation Green Hunt, New Delhi’s planned offensive against the Indian Maoists. And although he reiterated his party’s desire to maintain an equi-proximity in relations with both India and China, his pro-China tilt was obvious in his comments on how India has exploited Nepal. Excerpts from the interview:

What is the nature of your party’s relationship with the Indian Maoists?

The two parties have no working relations. We share similar ideologies of Marx, Lenin and Mao. We are both fighting against feudalism and imperialism. But the domestic situation in both countries is different. Capitalism has grown more in India than in Nepal. India is much bigger than Nepal and it is much stronger than the Nepalese State. Nepal has had a long history of mass movements and struggles. We (the Maoists) have a strong presence in all seventy-five districts in Nepal. In the elections to Nepalese Constituent Assembly, our party won 123 seats, whereas the second largest party, the Nepali Congress, won just 37 seats. Since India is a vast country, it is difficult for any communist party in Nepal to become an all-India party.

There were reports recently in a section of the Nepalese media that Indian Maoist leader Kishenji met some of your leaders at an undisclosed location.

It is wrong information. No such meeting took place. People are making this accusation since we are part of COMPOSA (The Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations in South Asia). COMPOSA is a platform for some open organisations to support the left movements in the region.

We understand that representatives from both the parties — CPN (Maoist) and CPI (Maoist) — take part in meetings of COMPOSA. Is it possible that they may be attending these meetings in their individual capacities and not as members of the Maoist parties?

Since the last three years, this organisation has become almost defunct. After we entered the peace process, the situation has changed, and we are no longer participating in the meetings. If other organisations are functioning without us, there would be some activity and they would be issuing statements. Since no such statements are being issued, I think COMPOSA is not functioning anymore.

You seem to be distancing your movement from the Indian Maoists. Is it a conscious decision or is it a public posture?

We don’t want to get involve in political organisations, as it would definitely create problems for us. It is within our capacity to understand that if we have good relations with a party that has been declared as an internal security threat by the Indian State, how would India react? We have to take into account each and every aspect. Even in the past, we consciously did not develop a working relationship with the CPI (Maoist) because we didn’t want to provoke the Indian State, which is very powerful. We are in the higher stage of accomplishing the revolution in Nepal. At this stage, we need to make relations with states or governments and not only with parties.

Maoist sympathisers here are disappointed that Nepal Maoists have not done enough for comrades in India. Ideologically you are united, but you are not doing enough, not even extending moral support. How do you respond to this view?

As communists, we uphold proletarian internationalism. We are not deviating from that. But how do we define proletarian internationalism? The responsibility of any communist party is to make a revolution in their own country. Our main responsibility is to make a revolution in Nepal. That will be the best contribution to the international communist movement.

Every country has its own compulsions. Even the Chinese under Mao did not support the Nepalese communists when they were fighting against the monarchy. At the international level, China was supporting the Nepalese monarchy then. Since we are not openly or indirectly supporting the CPI (Maoist), it doesn’t mean we are deviating from our responsibility of proletarian internationalism. If we succeed in our revolution in Nepal under the leadership of our party, it will be the best contribution to Indian Maoists.

What are your views on Operation Green Hunt?

The Indian State has declared CPI (Maoist) as a terrorist organisation. We don’t agree with that. We think it (CPI-Maoist) is a political organisation. It has a comprehensive ideological and political line. They have support of the masses.

The Maoists believe in violence. So the Indian State feels it requires a military operation to take on the Maoist challenge.

Whether you adopt a violent form of struggle or a non-violent form, all depends on the situation. While we were leading a people’s war (there was violence)...We had and still have an army, which has been recognised by the United Nations. If we are not a terrorist organisation for the UN, how can the Indian Maoists be called a terrorist organisation?

How do you think the Indian government should deal with the problem here? Do you think it should hold a dialogue?

Since CPI (Maoist) is a political movement, you have to deal with it politically. The people’s war in Nepal was settled in a political way. Had our party not been recognised as a political organisation, then the war would have still continued.

Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram recently appealed to the Maoists to abjure violence. They have rejected his appeal and a spokesman said that the Maoists had taken up arms for defence of peoples’ rights and to achieve their liberation from exploitation and oppression. Do you agree with that?

Yes... You can understand how we did it in Nepal. Initially, the Nepalese government asked us to lay down arms as a condition for talks. We did not agree. When we negotiated with the government, we did not surrender our arms. If any state asks the rebels to surrender arms before going to the negotiating table, no rebel group in the world will agree to it.

How important is violence in the Maoist philosophy? Indian Maoist leader Ganapathi recently warned of unleashing a ‘tornado’ of violence if the government started its offensive against the Maoists. Is violence an effective tool?

Violence is the last resort of all Maoists. It is not first choice of any Maoist or communist revolutionary. We want to change society by non-violent means. Before we started our people’s war, we had put forward a charter of 14 points. The government simply ignored it. We gave them some period for negotiation. They still did not take it into account. After this, we were compelled to initiate the people’s war. For all communist revolutionaries, arms or violence is the last resort.

Talking of arms, people here are baffled at the kind of arms in the possession of Maoists and they are wondering where they are getting them. Some feel that arms could be coming from China. What do you think?

During the Chinese revolution, many people asked Mao that his enemy was very strong, had a lot of arms, and were getting arms from different countries. They told him he did not have arms, but was saying he would overthrow the government. So, they wanted to know how he was going to manage the arms?

Mao had an answer for them. He explained that arms were coming from different countries to the enemy, the Chiang-Kai-Shek government. He said the only thing that needed to be done was to capture the arms from the enemy. The revolutionaries get arms from different sources within the country.

Generally speaking, there are three ways of procuring the arms — capturing from the government forces, by manufacturing one’s own arms, and by purchasing. Purchasing would be difficult because it would require lot of money. It will be difficult to buy from other countries. It is not easy for the Indian Maoists to purchase arms from China. The Chinese government has good trade relations with India. Chinese leaders are not so stupid that by selling arms of few crore rupees they would spoil relations between the two countries.

A major grievance of the Maoists is that tribal people in the states like Jharkhand and Chattisgarh are facing exploitation, their land grabbed by Indian corporates. They also feel successive union governments have pursued an anti-tribal policy. Is this a justified grievance?

Definitely… so far as my knowledge goes, there is hidden treasure in the tribal belt. It is being sold to multi nationals and multi-billionaires. The tribals are getting nothing out of it. They definitely have the right to the wealth. They should be the masters of it. But they are being driven out of the area and prevented from even receiving a share of it. The tribal people will fight for their cause.

So far as I know, the Indian Maoists are raising this issue, which is just for the tribal people. The tribal people will definitely support the Maoists. The tribal area is a good area, a jungle area and is supposed to be best suited for carrying out guerrilla warfare.

As someone from a party that fought a long running war with the Nepalese state, how do you rate the capability of the Indian Maoists vis a vis the Indian armed forces?

It is difficult to predict whether they will succeed or not. Our country is a small country and we have a small army. India is a big country, with a big army. Any people’s war relies on people’s support. The basic question is how you can mobilise the masses. People are decisive. I am not saying the revolution is impossible. It happened in China, which is bigger than India. If it happened in China, and Russia, why can’t it happen in India? Theoretically, you could say that a revolution can succeed in any kind of country, big or small. But as far as revolution in India is concerned, nobody can say what will happen. I don’t have the knowledge to forecast what would happen.

How has your party’s transition from an armed rebel group to a political party in a democratic system been?

What we have learned is that you can’t make a photocopy of a revolution of any country and apply it to your own. When you make a revolution, you have to develop something new depending on the situation in your country. In Nepal, we have accomplished many things through the revolution. We have support of the masses, and largely get international support. We now want to write a new constitution for the country.

What would be your advice to the Indian Maoists?

We don’t want to dictate or advise any other political party to go this way or that way. They will decide their course.

Do you think the building of tension between India and China over Arunachal Pradesh is a cause for concern?

The border issue has been coming up time and again. But I don’t see an imminent conflict between China and India. Diplomacy will play a major role to resolve this problem.

What is your party’s stand on the Chinese claim over Arunachal Pradesh?

We have not taken any position. It is not necessary for us to take positions on the border issues of other countries.

Posted on Nov 13, 2009