Even at the height of Cultural Revolution, a few irreverent Chinese continued to refer to the revered prophets of Marxism as the illustrated history of shaving. The pantheon indeed appears striking in posters. The picture progresses from hirsute Karl Marx to well-groomed Friedrich Engels with his full-face but carefully combed beard. Goateed Lenin continues the tradition of keeping facial hairs but in severely trimmed form. Stalin limits himself to the iconic handlebar mustache. Mao Zedong takes a Great Leap Forward and becomes clean-shaven. Deng Xiaoping would later limit himself to coloring hairs, but then he was a reformist-communist. [break]
During their days in the wilderness, every male Maobadi of some repute played with facial hairs. Baburam Bhattarai had his salt and pepper beard and so did Ram Bahadur Thapa. Pushpa Kamal Dahal released photos that had been retouched to make him vaguely resemble the first prophet of the Faith. However, the transformation of Chairman Prachanda from a shaggy revolutionary of the countryside into suave operator of salon politics in the capital city encapsulates the history of Maoist insurgency in Nepal.
The change in taste is apparent at lower levels of the party as well. Gone are the Goldstar shoes of long walks during the night. Brands that are more conspicuous now adorn the feet of disqualified, retired, co-opted, recruited or transformed guerrillas of the disbanded fighting force. They do occasionally wear red tees, but of cotton rather than the nylon ones that would wash easily and needed no ironing.
Sartorial tastes of former revolutionaries are even more apparent in the breakaway faction that has been very appropriately named as Dash Maoists by the cognoscenti of Kathmandu. Ailing but alert, Mohan Baidya is believed to be the theorist of Maoist aesthetics. He tries to live up to the reputation and dresses up in dress shirts. Suits sans ties have become the hallmark of CP Gajurel. Pampha Bhusal often turns up in smart attires. The casual wear of Dev Gurung is often too well kept to be truly informal.
Netra Bikram Chand attempts to look rebellious, but there is little passion in his appearance. Even when the rhetoric is fiery, the Dash Maoists often talk in defeated tones of the ones left behind by the march of history. The bourgeoisification of the proletarian vanguard of yore seems to have happened sooner than expected. Most of them eat, dress, talk, live and act like fellow xenophobes in UML, RPP, Jan Morcha or the Majdoor-Kisan Party. Other than vacuous slogans of national sovereignty, they have little else to sell themselves to the masses. It is such a pity because the country could have done with a party of conscientious objectors.
The legitimacy of the hybrid regime at the helms of government is dubious at best. Impending elections hold little promise. Consequently, the electorate is under-whelmed by an event that could have truly been the celebration of democracy. Relying on the strength of dead dogmas, ideologues of Dash Maoists have failed to realize that ground realities of geopolitics and realpolitik have completely changed from the passionate years of mid-nineties.
Practical ideologue
Leftwing theorists hold that the ‘pure ideology’ is a set of ideas designed to give the individual a unified and conscious worldview of life and conditions of living. Practical ideology is then framed from pure ideology to formulate agenda and instruments of action. Lenin read Marx and suggested what needed to be done. Stalin interpreted classical texts—Marxist Shastras—in his own way and designed conservative communism, contradiction of terms notwithstanding. Mao Zedong dared to distinguish between Marxist ‘theories’ and ‘thoughts’ that were necessary for revolutionary action. According to Gramscian scholars, Mao produced practical ideology and changed ground rules of revolutionary discourse.
Independent of Mao, Che Guevara had formulated ideas that were improvisations of Marxist ideology. Iconic republican Ramraja Prasad Singh had reportedly advised Baburam Bhattarai during formative years of Maoist insurgency that every revolution was a unique creation. The ‘science’ of Marxism was all very well, but revolutionary spirit required artistic creativity rather than dogmatism. Revisionism is a reviled word in communist vocabulary—Prachanda once boasted repeatedly that he hated the term—but constant revision is the only way of surviving in the changing world.
It is indeed true that the confusion of post-1990 politics greatly helped Maoists to spread their net in the countryside. Purportedly a constitutional monarchy, the supremacy of parliament in the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal-1990 had been left open to different interpretations. The Supreme Court began to limit the mandate of the parliament. King Birendra openly told Premier Krishna Prasad Bhattarai that the ‘royal’ qualifier of the Nepali Army was suggestive. The UML considered Maoists to be their brothers-in-arm; hence the Nepali Congress slogan of mid-nineties: “Leninists by day; Maoists by night”.
Chattering classes of Kathmandu considered Maoists to be their redeemers. The monarchists thought that they could hit back at their nemesis—parliamentary parties—with the help of Maoists. It is no coincidence that the most earnest supporters of Maoists have turned their bitterest critics after the declaration of republic.
The geopolitics was also in the favor of armed guerrillas. Suspicious of increasing proximity between the-then Royal Nepal Army and their US advisors, Indians probably thought that the rebels would come in handy in exposing the duplicity of palace establishment. When the government wanted to mobilize army to fight Maoists, the king would not let them do it. By the time monarchists realized that the instrument of state coercion was necessary to tame insurgents, it was too late. Political parties had no confidence left in the institution of monarchy.
Keshav Thoker/Republica
Surprisingly, the Prachanda Path kept pace with every change in the circumstances. Dahal was making history in whatever situation history created for his actions. It has been a giant ideological leap—forward or backward is a matter of conviction—for a party that began with the aim of establishing dictatorship of the proletariat but has ended in institutionalizing bourgeois republic. Little wonder, the bourgeoisie hates him so much: He has defeated them at their own game with aplomb. Ideological acrobatic sometimes bordered on contortions, but considering that the same generation seldom participates in a second armed conflict, further bourgeoisification of Maoist leaders and cadres is a foregone conclusion.
Baidya and Company of Dash Maoists have failed to realize that rules of the game have fundamentally changed in Nepali politics. If they do not play by new rules, the third repetition of military intervention would be catastrophic for all. They may not realize it, but most other parties do, which is bad news for disruptive tactics that require at least tacit support of some mainstream groups.
Creative dissent
The best course open for Baidya and Company is still to reach for a compromise with the mother party. The UCPN (Maoist) may not be the most dominant political party any more, but it shall continue to be the decisive force of Nepali politics for quite a while. Socialism of the twenty-first century would require a culture of coalition rather than the idea of dominant vanguard.
The role of conscientious objectors is always important in every political order. The other option for the Dash Maoists is to participate in impending polls but only for proportionate seats in every constituency. If such an option doesn’t exist, the hybrid regime should make that possible to keep an important force of politics engaged in constructive competition. The armed Ma-Le is an alluring theory, but even Bamdev Gautam now knows limitations of that strategy.
It is unfortunate, but the most important player of Nepali politics today is the army and there is no reason for it to humor Dash Maoists. Others may not admit it, but Baidya should have realized by now limits of his obstinacy. Risks to national sovereignty are real; but that would increase manifold if polls were disrupted under any pretext.
Related story
Maoists had difficulties winning elections even in their bastio...
