A Single Spark Can Light a Prairie Fire

For most of its known history, Nepal has been under the rule of an absolute, hereditary monarchy.  This ruling family, which was predominantly of high-caste Hindu origin, came to dominate the tribal Tibeto-Burman population militarily, economically, and socially.  Nepal’s feudal elite created strong economic and military links with the Indian ruling class but maintained a strict isolationist position in all other respects, which prevented modernisation and limited external influence into the country.  This repressive rule was legitimised by a lengthy process of hinduisation of Nepalese culture and society, and the Hindu social structure and caste system was integrated into the existing society, often through force.  After years of popular protest against the monarchy, the feudal rulers of Nepal made concessions to the bourgeoisie and introduced a multi-party system of democracy in 1991. 

This transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy proved to be no more than a compromise made by the feudal monarchy to the bourgeois democrats.  The result was a democratic Nepal that differed only slightly from its previous status.  The interim government of the Congress Party, and even the first elected government of the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML), became bogged down in factionalism and inter-party bickering and failed to address the pressing problems of poverty, inequality, and a stagnating economy.  Even according to the most conservative estimates, well over 40% of the population of Nepal lives below the poverty line (other sources place it at a staggering 71%).  The rate of illiteracy and unemployment are at around 60% and nearly 90% of its 24 million population lives in rural areas.  Only 10% of its population earns 46.5% of its national income, and Nepal has recently slid from the rank of 13^th to the 2^nd poorest country in the world.

The failure of the new democratic system to deliver any substantial changes in these conditions resulted in bitter disappointment and only served to highlight the vast shortcomings of the bourgeois democratic system.  As a response to the prevailing political, economic, and social conditions in Nepal, the United People’s Front and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) launched people’s revolutionary war on February 13, 1996.

According to the Nepalese Maoists, the politico-economic rationale for armed people’s war is rooted in the external and internal class relations inherent in Nepalese society and the resulting conflict between these classes.  The desperate situations of the people of Nepal can be attributed to various economic factors.  These include external imperialist oppression, whereby multi-national corporations, through trade and finance, sell goods produced in India to Nepal, at the cost of local industry and trade.  Another factor is the external expansionist oppression, particularly that which is exerted by India.  The Nepal-India trade agreement and the 1950 treaty agree on making Nepal a “communal market” of India.  Trade and financial agreements favouring India have resulted in Indian control of most aspects of Nepal’s economy and approximately 80% of Nepal’s industry belongs to Indian or Indian origin capitalists.  India also effectively controls the rivers and water system of Nepal, and determines its imports and exports.  According to the Maoists, such factors have led to the stunted development of national industry in Nepal and contributed to its desperate economic conditions.

Along with this, there exist internal problems in Nepal that hinder its development. The Maoists ascribe them to the semi-feudal and semi-colonial relations of production that exist in the country.  The vast majority of Nepal is agricultural, but there is a lack of modern technology and most of the production is carried out using primitive equipment and human and animal labour.  Under 10% of rich landowners own 65% of the land and improper use of land, irrigation , and farming techniques has led to a sharply declining agricultural growth.  Corresponding to this decline in agriculture due to the semi-feudal conditions of production, there has been a parallel decline in Industry.  Along with external economic factors, and Nepal’s resulting inability to compete with foreign industry, the Maoists attribute this trend to the export oriented policies of the comprador and bureaucrat capitalists of Nepal.  Regional inequality has also led to the rising levels of poverty in the country.  Nearly all development and investment is urban-centric, while 90% of the population living in rural areas is largely without basic services such as roads, communication systems, etc.

Therefore the Maoists have developed a comprehensive economic program that rests on a revolutionary change of production relations.  This would entail the confiscation of the means of production form the feudal, comprador, and bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and a redistribution amongst workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie.  The CPN(M) also stresses the need for independent and self-reliant national development, and the implementation of a planned economy.  Under their economic programme, revolutionary land reforms would be carried out, national industry would be developed, and balanced and integrated regional development would take place.

The policies and programme of the CPN(M) addresses the concerns of the working class of Nepal, which has been marginalised and largely ignored by other political groups and parties in the country.  The objective conditions of the working class in Nepal, combined with the aims of the CPN(M), have led to wide support for its people’s war, especially in the rural areas.  Disillusionment with the electoral system combined with destitute economic conditions have resulted in a country ripe for a people’s revolution.  It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the Maoists now control over two-thirds of the country and enjoy immense popular support from the poor of Nepal.

However, the challenges facing this struggle are significant.  Apart from the threat to the Nepalese monarchy and Indian economic interests, the bourgeoisie is wary of the regional impact a socialist victory in Nepal will carry.  Just across the border, this struggle is being carefully monitored and supported by Maoist groups in West Bengal, Andhra, Bihar and other parts of India.  Given that the sub-continent has vast class inequities, the Maoist movement can easily flow over into other areas. Consequently, a lot is at stake for the regional and international bourgeoisie.  Efforts are being made to counteract this insurgency and already millions are pouring in to Nepal to aid the ailing military in an attempt to crush the Maoists.