UCPN-M: At the Season of Falling Flowers

While Nepal writhes through an interminable political crisis, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M), former armed rebels and now the main Opposition party, has also plunged into a deep internal dispute.

The ongoing prime ministerial elections, which have so far witnessed 16 rounds, are the most significant provocation for the rising internal dissension, with some Maoist leaders demanding a change in the party?s prime ministerial candidate ? currently party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda ? while other continue to back him unconditionally.

Media reports in June 2010 disclosed that Vice Chairman (VC) Baburam Bhattarai was preparing grounds inside and outside the party to garner support for his candidature as PM. Standing Committee (SC) members Barsa Man Pun, Top Bahadur Rayamajhi and Giriraj Mani Pokhrel had publicly spoke in Bhattarai?s favor, arguing that Prachanda had already been tested. However, the faction led by another VC, Mohan Baidhya and Post Bahadur Bogati, were trying to sabotage Bhattarai?s attempt.

The internal differences among the leaders, and directly between Prachanda and Bhattarai, came into the open when Baburam Bhattarai separately addressed cadres of the UCPN-M at Biratnagar on October 31, 2010, declaring, “I was ready to be Prime Minister if the people wanted him to find a solution to the problems confronting the country.”

He, however, conceded that the purpose of the meeting was not to promote ?groupism? inside the party, but that, “There is nothing unusual in meeting cadres of an open party like the UCPN-M. It will be too hasty to start counting the number of the cadres present in the meeting at the moment.”

Agitated by this, Prachanda and another VC, Kiran Baidhya, demanded that Bhattarai clear his stance within the party. Bhattarai responded by clarifying that, “The meeting was aimed not only to clarify his political stance and documents but also to meet and discuss with the party cadres.” However, in one meeting at Kathmandu, on October 5, Bhattarai had claimed that the party would never split and urged the public not to believe rumors.

The differences among Maoist leaders had emerged when, in March 2010, the UCPN-M was planning to topple the Government headed by Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML). In the Standing Committee (SC) meeting of the UCPN-M on March 15, 2010, the party split into two groups ? one, headed by Prachanda, supporting the no-confidence motion against the Madhav Kumar Nepal Government and the other, headed by Bhattarai and Baidhya, opposing the move. At the same meeting, however, it was decided that the party would opt for a signature campaign on filing the no-confidence motion.

Bhattarai, however, refused to sign and urged the party to secure the support of other parties before filing the motion. On March 17, 2010, Prachanda declared at a meeting in the Nepalgunj District, “We have not decided yet whether we would register the no-confidence motion”. On the same day, Bhattarai chose to emphasize “a national unity Government”, arguing, “We are for the Constitution, not the Government.”

The Maoists then declared a programme of nationwide protests against the Government, to commence from May 1, 2010. However, some 208 cadres and combatants of the party, including 44 commanders from the cantonments of Kailali, Surkhet and Rolpa Districts, defected to the Sanghiye Rashtriya Loktantrik Manch on April 28, 2010, insisting that the protests would lead to anarchy and provoke violence.

This development deepened the internal crisis within the UCPN-M even further. Nevertheless, the subsequent nationwide protests by the Maoists succeeded in pressurizing the CPN-UML to write to the PM on May 5, to resign from his post. Subsequently, Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned on June 30, 2010. However, some 75 national level Maoist leaders tendered their resignation in the Dhanusha District on August 6, 2010, demonstrating their disappointment over what they said was a ?one-sided decision? by ?party headquarters?.

Further instances reelecting differences and discontentment within the UCPN-M include:

January 4, 2010: Prachanda made a statement accusing India of proposing Baburam Bhattarai as the next PM.

January 6, 2010: SC meeting reiterated that Prachanda would continue to lead the party.

May 11, 2010: An SC meeting decided to keep options open on an alternative to Prachanda?s candidature.

June 6, 2010: Prachanda claimed that the Nepali Congress (NC) demanded his leadership in the new Government.

On June 15, 2010, the party was polarized during a politburo members? meeting to discuss party?s future strategy, formation of a national Unity Government and the alternative to Prachanda?s leadership. During the meeting, Prachanda stated that hopes of a Maoist-led national Unity Government were failing, hinting that the party might sit in the Opposition.

Bhattarai, however, expressed his reservations on the ?Prachanda document?, arguing that a Maoist-led Government remained possible, and a simultaneous struggle from the streets and Parliament should be initiated to achieve the goal. He stressed, further, that “the party should be open to find Prachanda?s alternative”. Here, Mohan Baidhya had opposed Bhattarai, declaring that the party was not open to a search for an alternative to Prachanda?s leadership.

The differences of opinion on party leadership resurfaced during the first round of PM elections, held on July 21, 2010. Significantly, Prachanda had filed his nomination despite the headquarters? – a seven member committee ? indifference to the nomination process.

According to media reports, an unnamed politburo member close to Prachanda had stated, “Bhattarai?s opposition is irrelevant and absurd. The party will interrogate Bhattarai.” On the other hand, the Bhattarai faction believed that the party could have formed a Government under its leadership if Bhattarai had filed candidacy.

With Prachanda failing to secure the majority necessary to form the Government, the Bhattarai faction has secured the space to prove its point. On August 4, 2010, in a meeting of office bearers?, Bhattarai floated the idea of a ?new course? to end the electoral process and amend parliamentary regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the idea was turned down by the Prachanda faction on the grounds that, “CPN-UML wants us to withdraw to pave the way for a consensus Government, but it is irrelevant at this point.” In this meeting, two points of view crystallized. The Prachanda faction reasoned that, due to the NC?s opposition, a consensus Government was impossible even if the ?new course? was adopted.

The Bhattarai faction, on the other hand, reiterated the position that a Unity Government was possible with Bhattarai as candidate: “NC, CPN-UML and foreign forces have said they do not trust chairman Prachanda due to his performance when he was PM. They would support Bhattarai.”

Meanwhile, the Central Committee (CC) meeting of the UCPN-M kicked off on August 25, 2010, with significant dissatisfaction being voiced on Prachanda?s report, which emphasized the need to intensify the struggle in the streets, Parliament and Government, to push the ?peace process? to a ?logical conclusion?, draft a people-oriented Constitution and safeguard national independence.

The critique insisted that the Prachanda document did not define any clear roadmap to secure these objectives. Prachanda was criticized by Party Headquarters for his working style mainly his monopoly in decision making. “Dahal is taking important decisions without consulting anyone in the party”, a CC Member disclosed on condition of anonymity.

Here again, Bhattarai and Mohan Baidhya presented two separate reports on the future strategy of the party. In his report, Baidhya stressed the need to focus on the people?s struggle and safeguarding national independence. Bhattarai emphasized that the ongoing peace process needed to be concluded in the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and that the party had to focus on drafting the new Constitution to bring about socio-economic transformation in the country.

At a time when the party leadership is under fire for being ?revisionist? and polarized into two (principal) blocs, Baidhya?s ideas have been endorsed by SC members such as Krishna Bahdur Mahara and Dev Gurung and politburo member Pampha Bhusal, suggesting the emergence of a third bloc within the UCPN-M.

Meanwhile, a group of politburo members including Pampha Bhusal, Hitman Shakya, Agni Sapkota and Haibol Gajurel, has voiced the demand for a “centralized leadership based on ideology”.

The divisions in the communist movement in Nepal in general, and the Maoist movement in particular, are nothing new. The UCPN-M has already been divided into several factions after the abolition of the monarchy on April 24, 2006.

The Madheshi Janatantrik Forum (MJF), Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha- Jwala Singh faction (JTMM-J), JTMM-G and the Matrika Yadav-led Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, all, defected from the parent UCPN-M.

With disagreements among Maoist leaders deepening at a time when the country is straining for political stability, the war within the UCPN-M may well bring the most fractious elements within the party to the fore, leading to a power struggle that may well push the country towards another disaster.

(The writer is Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management)

(Credit to author and his organisation mandatory/The view expressed in the article is of the author and not India Blooms News Service)