Politics In Nepal ( Quite long but believe me you will get bored )

Nepal, with 1,47,181 Square km area and 2.6 million population is a small, least developed and landlocked country. It can be said that it lies in the centre of Asia. It is between the two big countries of Asia, China in the North and India in the East, South and West. This geo-political situation position has much influenced the history, economic condition, life, culture and politics of Nepal for centuries. Nepal stretched out to various small states before Prithivi Narayan Shah laid foundation of kingdom of Nepal in 1764 A.D. The country was ruled by the Shah Kings up to 1846 A.D. Then after, Nepal went through Rana autocratic rule for one hundred and five years. The Rana rule was abolished in 1951. But after a decade in 1960, King Mahendra established his absolute rule which existed till 1990. The united people's movement succeeded to abolish the absolute rule of the King and restore multi-party system. But the King Gyanendra again took power into his hands and established his direct rule. However, the united movement of 2006, which is known in history as a April Movement 2006, not only restored parliamentary system, but also abolished monarchy and established the republic. The election of the CA took place in 2008. The period of two years was given to make the constitution. But the task could not be completed within fixed time. So the period of CA was extended time and again for two years more. But the constitution could not be drafted even within the extended period of two years too. In the last the CA was dissolved on June 28, 2012 without making the constitution. Then after the major political parties tried to make a consensus government to conduct the election of the CA again. After the failure of four major political parties, they made the sitting chief justice (CJ) the head of the executive. It is in such a background that we have to evaluate the current political situation of the country. The political situation of Nepal is very complex and critical at present. The present complex and critical situation arose out of the situation created by the dissolution of the constitutional assembly (CA) on June 28, 2012. The dissolution of the CA without making the constitution itself was a serious setback and was result of the series of fallacious policies and roles on the part of the major political parties or organizations for years in general and during the period of four years of the CA in particular. By major political parties or organizations of Nepal, we mean: United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), UMaoist in short, United Marxist-Leninist Party (UML), Nepali Congress (NC) and Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (Loktantrik), a regional political organizations of Tarai/Madhesh. These parties or organizations have been playing decisive role to decide the political course of country for many years. Even when the CA, existed, they used to take all decisions for CA bypassing or minimizing the role of CA. In fact it was the issue of the federalism or the structure of that (federalism), which caused the dissolution of the CA without making the constitution. In Nepal, all political parties or organizations, except the NCP (Mashal) and National People's Front(NPF), support federalism. But all political parties or organizations of Nepal supporting federalism are divided on the modality of that (federalism). UMaoist is in favor of building federalism on the basis of racism, right of self-determination with the right of separation and racial prerogative. They also take all tribes or ethnic groups of the country as nations and demand right of self determination for them under federalism. The CPN-Maoist, Maoist in short here after, led by Mohan Vaidhya 'Kiran' also takes the same stand on the question of federalism and racism as that of the UMaoist. Madheshbadi oppose racism, but demands that whole Southern part of the country, irrespective various races living there, should have one or two pradeshes with the right of self-determination. Both UML and NC together with almost all political parties or organizations of the country supporting the federalism oppose the conception of building it on the basis of race or region,, right of self-determination, separate one or two pradeshes in Tarai, multy-nationalism, racial prerogative etc. There are thousands of NGO and INGO backed or aided by imperialist powers who are conducting countrywide campaign in a planned way to steer up the country to the path of federalism based on racism. The difference among the major political parties or organizations supporting federalism reached a climax on the question of reconstruction of the states in general and that of reconstruction of the pradeshes (zones) in particular. However, on May 15, 2012 UMaoist, UML and NC agreed to build the pradeshes on multi-racial basis with the Forum remaining absent. People had hoped that May 15 agreement would pave the way to make the constitution. But such an agreement was opposed by all racist organizations demanding that the pradeshes should be built on the basis of single identity basis. It meant that in place of providing equal rights to all races living in the pradeshes, a major race living in a pradesh should have prerogative (in this paper 'race' should be understood in strict sense of tribe or ethnic groups). It is worth mentioning here that no race in any proposed pradesh of the country is in majority. So. such a demand meant that a minority tribe, having more population than others in a particular pradesh, but having no majority, should be given priority over other races, who, taken together, compromise majority or two-third majority. They organized countrywide movement against the May 15 agreement. The NGOs, INGOs Madheshbadi supported the movement, the Maoist being in the front line to support the racist movement. They organized signature campaign of the members of the CA against the agreement. Meanwhile a high level minister of Norway came to Nepal to instigate the movement. All these activities made Prachand, the chairman of the UNaoist, to withdraw from the May 15 agreement. As a result of that the agreement was broken and the CA was dissolved. After the dissolution of the CA, four parties had made efforts to form a consensus government to conduct the election of the CA. But even after efforts of months they, could not reach an agreement to form such a government. In the last, they decided to make the sitting CJ, Khil Raj Regmi, the head of the government with the responsibility of conducting the election of the CA. A High Level Political Committee (HLPC) of four parties was formed to assist the government. Needless to mention, such a decision, to form a government or non-party basis was an erroneous step. Firstly, it was against the well-established democratic principles of separation of power of various organs of the government. Secondly, it threatened the very existence of multi-party system, and lastly, it indicated the failure of the political parties. The decision to hand over power to a non-party person was retrogressive act and it threatens the very existence of multiparty system and republic too. The decision of the four parties to hand over the power to the CJ has been widely criticized in the country. NCP (Mashal) and National People's Front (NPF) both issued statements opposing the formation of the government on non-party basis and organized protest meetins and demonstrations countrywide just after the oath taking ceremony by the Regmi government. In the same time the Maoist also organized countrywide movement against the Regmi government and in many places both of our organizations organized protest movement jointly. Overwhelming central committee members of both UML and Congress raised voice against the shifting of the power to CJ. It was because of such opposition of the members of the central committee of their own organizations that the leadership of both of the UML and the NC took decision to install the CJ as the prime minister without putting the matter to their central committees and taking any decision formally on the subject. The Bar Association, the largest and authentic organization of the layers in the country, strongly protested the decision to make Regmi prime minister. The National left-Democratic Forum (NLDF) popularly known as 17 party alliance, in which both NCP (Mashal) and NPF also are participants, organized various protest programmers on the subject. An alliance of 33 groups under the leadership of the Maoist. Maoist organized various programs of movement countrywide. Besides these organizations, media of the whole country have vehemently criticized the formation of the government on a non-party basis. The initiative to install the CJ as the head of the government, first of all, was taken in the Seventh Congress of the UMaoist. Its Chairman Prachand had moved the motion for that and was carried out unanimously by the Congress. Later the proposal was put to the meeting of the parties and was supported by them. We have been emphasizing on three major important tasks of the country at present. Firstly, the making of the constitution and consolidation of the republic. Secondly, defense of the nationality and, thirdly, opposition of the federalism. However, for the time being the most important political question of the country is the election of the CA. Generally it is supposed that the election of the CA at least will rescue the country out of the dilemma created by the dissolution of the CA and formation of a government on non-party basis. The Regmi government has been given the responsibility of conducting the election. But there is a ground to doubt if the election of the CA will be held in time. Firstly, it cannot be fully believed that the government is honest and able to to conduct the election of the CA. Secondly, the possibility of the UMaoist trying to foil the election also cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, the Maoist is posing a serious threat to the election of the CA. UMaoist is afraid of it that their position in the election would not be as before because of the split in their organization, on the one side and, on the other side, decline in the popularity of them. They are hoping that only a government under their direct leadership would enable them to get majority or two-third majority in the election. It seems, they are thinking on the line that failure of the Regmi government will provide them opportunity to lead the government. They also have been often expressing the view that they would come to power if the Regmi government fails to fulfill its responsibility till November 19, 2013. So, it seems, they are more inclined to foil election of the CA rather than make it a success. Maoists have declared that they would not allow the election of the CA to be a success. They think that what is required at present in Nepal is not the election of the CA or the consolidation of republic system but people's constitution or people's republic. It is on this ideological basis that they seem to oppose the election of the CA together with all achievements of April Movement 2006. Although their stand seems revolutionary outwardly, in fact it is "leftist" sectarian view, which is correct from the strategic or ideological point of view, but does not agree with present historical or objective political conditions of Nepal. So, tactically their position is wrong. So, their line of action, in practice, serves the interests of retrogression rather than that of revolution. Even if the election of the CA takes place anyhow, firstly, it is doubtful whether the CA would succeed to make the constitution. The policies and role of the major political parties, which had caused the former CA to fail to make the constitution, exist even at present. It is a known fact that the CA, because of the divergent views of major political parties on the federalism, had failed to make the constitution. There has not been any change in the views of them even now. In such a background, there is much possibility of the past history being repeated on the question of constitution making. Secondly, even if the constitution is made, there is no guarantee that it would be republican or democratic one because of the role of the racist and regionalist forces. What has made the situation worse is that both of Maoist organizations are on their side. So, the possibility of the constitution being made on racist and regional lines and that leading the country to racial and regional strife and national disintegration cannot be ruled out. Federalism is not appropriate for a small, undeveloped, economically weak and a country surrounded by IE by three sides. Besides it, federalism in Nepal is being presented in most distorted form. Many of the supporters of federalism in Nepal emphasize on the pradeshes or states to be built on the basis of race, right of self-determination, right of self-determination with the right of separation, One Madhes-One Pradesh, multi-nationalism and racial prerogative etc. Such symptoms are not found in all of the countries of the world where federalism has succeeded. In fact the concept of federalism in Nepal is a part of strategy of Indian Expansionism (IE) and western imperialism. That is why it (federalism) represents more the inherent interests of the foreign powers than the national interests of Nepal. Such a strategy of federalism of IE or western imperialist countries would shake the very basis of not only the nationality, sovereignty and integrity of Nepal, but also the very existence of Nepal as an independent country. Even today the politics of federalism is dividing more and more people of the country on the basis of racism and regionalism. Besides it, some of the supporters of federalism are raising voice for independent states in many regions of Nepal. The existing unitary system is of reactionary in nature as it is of feudal and centralized type. So, it should be abolished. But federalism is not correct solution of that. So, the existing system should be replaced by an unitary system based upon democratic decentralization and local self-rule. The four parties while taking decision to make the CJ the head of the executive took a very subversive decision on the question of citizenship too. The question of citizenship has been a crucial national question in the politics of Nepal. It has been long-term plan of IE to make Indians citizens of Nepal in increasing number. Nepal has open boarder with India and. So they come to Nepal without any restriction. In the last a few decades millions of Indians have entered into Nepal. The Madhesbadi claim that all of Indians coming or living in Nepal are Nepalis and those should be given citizenship right. Due to pressure of Indian government and Madhesbadi the various governments of Nepal have been taking decisions to loosen the laws concerned with the citizenship rights, and that has been providing more and more opportunities to Indians to become citizens of Nepal. Such a process, if not checked soon, will make the number of Indians in Nepal more than Nepali themselves. Needless to mention, such a process will turn Nepal into Fiji. A few years ago the government had decided to provide citizenship on the basis of birth. To prove that a person was born in Nepal, it was not required to produce any birth certificate, but was enough to be approved by a few witnesses that he was born in Nepal. Taking benefit from this weak point of the law large number of Indians became citizens of Nepal. Decision to give citizens on the basis of birth was wrong and was criticized widely all over the country. Later the government had taken a decision that all the descendants born before a person having achieved citizenship right on the basis of birth would be natural born citizen. Such a decision of the government was against the existing law of the country, which did not allow citizenship to a descendant of a citizen born before any of their parents became citizens. So the decision of the government was turned down by the Supreme Court. But in the course of reaching understanding to make CJ head of the government, it was agreed upon by four parties that all the descendants born before their parents became citizen, would be natural born citizen and that was made law by the ordinance of the President. Formerly, the Spreme Court had given the verdict that only a citizen would have voting right. But after the suggestion of the four parties, by the ordinance issued by the President persons having no citizenship right also on the basis of other documents or papers would have right to vote. By both of these decisions, large members of Indians would be citizens of Nepal and would get voting right even if they are not citizens. As a result of such a conspiracy of citizenship in the long run, real Nepalis would be in minority in their own country. Even after millions of Indians have become citizens of Nepal, the Madhesbadi are still claiming that there are still 4 million people left to become citizens of Nepal. Because of open border with India even after all these people become citizens of Nepal, additional 4, 5, or 10 millions people would be left to become citizen of Nepal. Anyone can guess what such a circumstance would lead Nepal to ? It is a known fact that the Madheshbadi have been triying for long time to recruit Indians as the citizens of Nepal in more and more number. But now the UMaoist has come forward to serve IE many time more effectively than the Madheshbadi and it has taken the issues of Indian citizens too in its hands. In their Seventh Congress held a few months before, it has officially given up their line to oppose IE. It was with such a turnover in their policy that Umaoist had fully supported position of Madheshbadi on citizenship too. It was through the ordinance of President that such subversive decision on the citizenship was made law. As for the UML and NC are concerned, they also are in favor of the decisions on citizenship. The American imperialism and globalization are posing danger to the independence and economy of the all developing and least developing countries of the world as a whole and Nepal too is not exception from that. Together with the problem concerned with imperialism and globalization, the national question of Nepal has its some special characteristics. In this context three aspects related with the national question of Nepal deserve special consideration. Firstly, main threat to the nationality of Nepal is posed by IE. From the time the British rule came to an end in India, the ruling classes of India have been trying to bring Nepal into their domination. In 1951, when an armed struggle against the autocratic Rana rule was going on in Nepal, the then deputy prim-minister and home minister of India, Shardar Patel had put forth the view that Nepal should be brought into Indian Union like Hyderabad of Nizam. In the last more than six decades Indian ruling class has been trying to carry out the policy of Patel in one or another way. However, refraining from going into details of the history of expansionist policies and activities of IE towards Nepal in last more than half century, this paper will be confined to touch only a few current topics. Indian army is still in Kalapani, a far western part of Nepal. Patriotic forces or people of Nepal for decades have been struggling to bring back Kalapani to Nepal. India claims that Kalapani is in India itself. But such a claim on the part of India doesn't conform with the reality. Kalapani lies in the East of Kali River and according to authentic maps and documents the land east of Kali River belongs to Nepal as Kalapani lies East of Kali River. So the claim of India on Kalipani is baseless. Besides Kalapani, India is encroaching the border of Nepal from East to West in many places. Many of the pillars, which are known as Junge Pillars, built between Nepal and India are being shifted from South to North to capture the land of Nepal. India is building various dams near to the boarder of Nepal which are causing flood in many parts of Nepal. According to International law a neighboring country has no right to make dams near the border of neighboring country. India has not yet signed on international transit treaty. Nepa, except Bhutan, is only a landlocked country in the border of India to provide transit facilities. Reluctance of India to sign on the treaty is guided by her intention to make Nepal to accept her (India) expansionist interests. Nepal is rich on water resources second only to Brazil in the world. In the last six decades numerous unequal treaties on water resources of Nepal have been accomplished between Nepal and India. In fact in this way India intends to bring all rivers or water recourses of Nepal into the control of India. As it has been explained before, India has been trying for decades to make Nepal second Fiji by the inflow of Indians in Nepal and making them citizens of Nepal in increasing numbers. Secondly, the federalism combined with racism, right of self-determination, right of self-determination with right of separation, One Madhes and One Pradesh multi-nationalism, racial prerogative etc also are endangering the nationality, sovereignty and integrity of the country. This weakness on the part of political parties of Nepal has served much IE to increase its influence in Nepal. In totally the national question has been very serious question in the country. In the past communists had been most advanced force to struggle for the nationality of the country. But, later various communist organizations claiming themselves as "main stream" (UML) or "most revolutionary" force (Umaoist) of Nepal have deviated from the path of national movement. Thirdly, the leadership of the prominent political parties of Nepal generally are found to think that they would not be able to go to the government and stay there longer without the support of India. To get the support of India they prefer to go to the extent of bargaining or giving up the greater interests of the country. Both UML and NC have much record of having pro-Indian tendency. Later Madheshbadi emerged as a major force with the sole objective of serving Indian interests. Recently UMaoist making collaboration with Madheshbadi came in the front to work for the interests of IE. Such a character of the major political parties shows that they have very low level of patriotism. Because of such shortcomings in their part, they seem to give more priority to foreign interests than the national interests of the country. To understand the political situation of Nepal properly, we should have a correct understanding of the situation of Tarai/Madhes and Madhesbadi political organizations working there. Together with the various classes, groups, regions, the people of Tarai/Madhesh too are being exploited or suppressed under feudal rule for countries. So, the exploited people of Tarai are facing exploitation and suppression for long. So the struggle of all the organizations or people of Tarai against such exploitation is just and must be supported. But a handful political forces or organizations, supported by IE, have been trying to divert the just dissatisfaction and struggle of the people of Tarai to serve the interests of IE. In fact, during a few decades these organizations have succeeded much to influence the policies of the government, the politics of major political parties to a large extent to fulfill to the interests of the IE. Such a success on their part is due to the backing of IE. As major parties or organizations of the country are divided among themselves, they cannot form a government without the support of Madhesbadi organizations. Taking undue benefit of such a division among the major political parties, they have succeeded to compel them to accept many of their erroneous demands. It was in such a background that they had succeeded to compel the major political parties to accept their demand of federalism which had never been the demand of the people of Nepal, not to speak of any of the communist organizations in the whole history of the communist movement of Nepal. Out of all major political parties, UMaoist is in frontline to go with the demands of Madheshbadi organization. The latter together with many NGOs, INGOs and racist organizations had been raising voice for federalism for long time. But, it was only after UMaoist supported federalism that it (Madhesbadi) succeeded to develop federalism as a force in the country. It was due to the pressure of UMaoist, Madheshbadis openly and IE in disguised way compelled the government led by Girija Prasad Koirala and almost all political parties or organizations of the country, except Mashal and NPF, to yield before the line of that (federalism). During the period of coalition government of Maoist and Madheshbadi led by Dr. Bhattarai had taken many decisions which were against the greater national interests of the country. However, many of such decisions were suspended or turned down by the Supreme Court. The NC had been taking pro-Indian stand for long time and lately UML also had followed the same line for a few years. But during later years, UMaoist has come ahead of all of them to serve the interests of IE. It is worth mentioning here that both UML and NC have been taking comparatively correct position than the Umaoist on various issues. But in practice they have been following the line of UMoist and Madheshbadi even against their own conviction in many cases. There are series of examples to prove that the decisions of making the CJ the head of government and the Karki being fresh ones. In this context two points deserve special mention. Firstly, the people of Tarai are exploited by feudals or landlords, belonging to both Tarai and hillside But the Madhesbadi make demarcation on regional basis opposing all people belonging to hills and safeguarding all kinds of exploitation conducted by landlords of Tarai. In the CA, they had gone to the extent of opposing land reform bill. So, it is obvious, the main purpose of Madeshbadis is not to eliminate the exploitation or suppression upon the people, but keep on it. Secondly, we make demarcation between Madhesi and Madhesbadi. We do not oppose all Madheshi or their movements, but support the just struggle of all people or organizations of Tarai/Madhes. But unlike Madhesi, Madhesbadi are the handfull persons or organization whose sole objective is to serve the IE and we adopt uncompromising line of opposition to them. Now the whole country has been moved by an issue which seems pesonal to look at first, but is very dangerous in essence. The issue is concerned with Lokman Singh Karki. What makes the issue more important and dangerous is the trend manifested by Karki than the person himself. He was chief secretary of the government during the absolute rule of King Gyanendra. The Raymajhi Commission (RC), a commission appointed under a judge to investigate into the abuse of power and suppressive measures upon the people by government personnel during the April Movement 2006. The RC concluded that Karki was responsible for repression upon the people, abuse of power and misuse of national property and suggested to the government to scrap him from the post he held, to make him unworthy for any government post in future. The same person has been appointed the head of the CIAA (The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority), a highly sensible constitutional body to Investigate into the abuse of power and corruption by the government personnel or politicians. According to the agreement among four parties the post, the post of the head of the CIAA, was in the share of the UMaoist and it was on the proposal of Prachand that the HLPD accepted to appoint Karki as head of the CIAA. Later the proposal was approved by government, decided by the judiciary council and in the last he was appointed to the post by the ordinance of the President. The Karki issue has been very controversial national question of the country at present. Except the Umaoist, Madheshbadi and royalists almost all political forces of the country have stood against the decision to make Karki head of the CIAA. Although both the UML and NC had supported the proposal of Prachand on Karki,both of the organizations have raised voice against the decision. The standing committee, the highest decision making body of the UML, had unanimously decided to withdraw the decision. The president of the NC has openly made self-criticism that he had committed a mistake by supporting Karki. Workers of both organizations have raised voice countrywide against the appointment of Karki. The Mashal, NPF, Maoist and many other political organizations, the Bar Association and various other organizations of the country and people in large number have opposed the decision on Karki. But in spite of such countrywide opposition against Karki, the decision could not be withdrawn as UNaoist and Madheshbadi firmly stood in favor of him. The hardened stand of Prachand in favor of Karki has raised the question: what is the motive of him to appoint a notorious royalist and most corrupt person to a high constitutional body, responsible to investigate into abuse of power and corruption? Is it a signal of disguised understanding of him with the royalist ? As it is widely reported in the media,. the proposal to make Karki the head of the CIAA was the idea of Indian government. It was because of it that both the Maoist and Madheshbadi had firmly stood on the side of Karki. What is the Indian motive behind it? Two possible reasons can be guessed: firstly, to restore monarchy in Nepal as an effective means to fulfill its interests in Nepal. Secondly, to keep political parties, mainly UMaoist under its control by using Karki as a weapon. However, time will make clear what their real intention India is behind it. But it is crystal clear, both UMaoist and Madheshbadi have fully supported Karki because of India. In the last, a few words on the communist movement of Nepal. Generally it is supposed world over that the communist movement in Nepal is very strong. At present, where the world communist movement is very weak and in defensive position, it is not ordinary thing that the communist movement is so strong in Nepal. It is on record that the communists had waged an armed struggle for a decade, had emerged as major political force in the election of the CA, various leftist groups had led the government for almost half a decade, have been playing decisive role in the politics of Nepal. But regardless of all these questions, a big question is: whether all those who are supposed to be so strong in the Nepal are communists in real sense or are their policies or roles in accordance with the Marxust-Leninist principles? But there is not any unanimous definition of communist. In times even the persons such as Khruschev, Breznov, and Kosygin etc had been posing themselves as communists, who ultimately caused a well-established socialist system to collapse and restiore capitalism there. In Nepal too there is no shortage of such examples, such as Dr. Keshar Jung Raimajhi. However, we are reframing from the discussing who is communist or not in Nepal in real sense; this paper would be confined to the question: how far the role they re playing in the current politics of Nepal are correct in the exsiting political situation of the country. Irrespective of the questions whether they are communists or not in strict sense of Marxist-Leninist ideoligy, the Maoists, who are divided into UMaoist and Maoist at present, are major force in the current politics of Nepal. But from facts given before it is clear that they have not been able to play correct political role in the politics of Nepal. The Umaoist was in the government when the CA was dissolved. It happened so because they had backtracked from the May 15 agreement to make the pradeshes on multiracial basis. After the dissolition of the CA, the consensus government could not be formed because of the conditions they (UMaoist) put forth. In their Seventh Congress, they gave up the line of opposition to IE which the communists of Nepal had been emphasizing for more than 6 decades. In the Congress, they took the decision that new democratic revolution was no more required in Nepal. They also took the decision to make the CJ the head of the government which was supported by other parties too later.After the government was formed they proposed to make Karki the head of the CIAA. It can be concluded that it was because of the wrong policies and role of UMaoist that the country has not been able to take right course on the line of April Movement 2006. The communists world over tend to give priority to class struggle and opposose racism. But the Umaoist is determined to push forward racism. The communists of Nepal in their history of six decades had never raised voice for federalism. But it was under the pressure of IE that they adopted line of federalism and that too giving emphasis to right of self-determination with the right of separation. They adopted the policy of racism because of the influence of western Imperialist countries. They also are responsible for the subversive decision or the citizen right and voters list which would turn Nepal into Fiji. The stand of UMaoist on federalism, racism, right of self-determination with right of seperation, formation of the government on non-party basis, appointment of a notorious royalist on the post of head of the CIAA, subversive decisions on citizenship and voters of list as a whole tend to endanger the republic, nationality, sovereignty and too. The Maoist is sharply critical of many erroneous decisions of the UMaoist such as formation of the government under CJ or Karki as the head of the CIAA, subversive decisions on citizenship and voter list, pro-Indian policy etc. But their approach on current political situation is basically wrong. Their stand on election of the CA, achievements of the April movement 2006, making of the democratic constitution and republic etc are guided by "Left" sectarian thinking and their position on federalism and racism is like that of UMaoist. The communist movement of Nepal has important place in the political history of Nepal. It has become a burning question of world politics too today. There are many controversial questions concerned with history, character, role and the policies of the various organizations claiming themselves as true communist parties. But we think, present paper is not a proper place to evaluate of all these uestions. Similarly we would not discuss here in making demarcation on which of the party organizations are real communist or not. Regardless of the question, whether various organizations of Nepal are the real communists so not we would prefer to take into hands the subject: what should be the role of any organization claiming itself communist at present in Nepal. Both strategy and tactics have very close relation and are interlinked. But in spite of this, we should not take both of these as one, and, we should be very careful to make demarcation and keep the balance or co-ordination between both of these. There are divergent views among the organizations claiming themselves communists on strategic program. We are in favor of new democratic revolution, whereas various other organizations believe in socialist program, people's multi-party democracy people's democracy of twenty first century etc. But reserving our right to put forth divergent views on the questions concerned, for the time being, we emphasis on having unity on immediate national issues such as election of the CA, making of the democratic constitution, consolidation of republic, defensive of nationality etc. Some of the leftist organizations agree it that a radical change should be made on all existing political, social or economic system. But the view of all the organization is not the same on what should be understood by radical change. The existing system has two aspects: the feudal and capitalist ones. Both of them are closely related. In the same time, both of these are contrary to each another. In the western developed countries, capitalism or bourgeois democratic systems have already been established. But in our country, both of these systems are in low level of development. Taken as a whole, the feudal system is strong, while capitalist system is comparatively weak. But, on the other side, the former is decaying, while the later is in the process of developing. On the political side, the multi-party system and republic are still in the process of being established. The monarchy is abolished and that is a great historical achievement in the history of Nepal. But the political, economic, social or cultural basis of feudalism are still strong enough and the royalists are trying their best to restore that (monarchy) in an organized way. So, the possibility of restoration of monarchy cannot be fully ruled out. In such a background if in the name of radical change in the existing system, we concentrate our efforts to pull down the bourgeois system itself or in other words, bourgeois political system or republic too; it would have negative impact on struggle against feudalism and monarchy too. As a part of our strategy, we have to fight to replace the capitalist bourgoise democratic system by higher level of revolutionary system, but at present is primary task to strengthen the bourgeois multiparty system or republic. If our effort fails to achieve those goals, it would strengthen the position of the retrogressive forces. Election of the CA is a precondition to consolidate the drafting of the constitution and consolidation of the republic. But it has become a very complex and uncertain matter at present. We oppose the Regmi government as it is formed on non-party basis. But it would be a profound mistake to oppose the election of the CA poll because of opposition to Regmi government. The danger is that the Regmi government and four parties, who are responsible to make the government in non-party basis, might conspire to block election. In such a case, if we adopt any policy to foil the election of CA, it will be nothing but to play in the hands of the forces who intend to turn the election of CA into a failure. As Marxist Leninists while keeping on our efforts to prepare conditions to struggle to achieve strategically goals, presently we should adopt policies or line taking into account the existing the historical and objective conditions. Lenin emphasizes on it that the tactical line should be determined making concrete analysis of the concrete situation. Mao also in his famous work, On Practice gives emphasis to take care of the existing condition while deciding line of action. Such a Marxist-Leninist approach and the correct evaluation of existing historical and a objective condition does not leave any doubt that in spite of limitation of the multi Party system, republic or election of the CA , we should adopt line of action to make all of these success. All these tasks mentioned above are agenda of the bourgeois political parties too. But at present, communist should also take all these tasks in their hands, because their strategical goals cannot go ahead unless and until this task are completed. So, it has been historical necessicity of the country that not only all Marxist Leninist or organizations but also all political forces of the country supporting multi party system, republic or the election of the CA, should come together to achieve or consolidate those objectives. The democratic movements of 1990 and 2006 against retrogression had got success because of the united movement of communist and non communist forces. Achievements of those movements are still to be consolidated. So, it is a historical responsibility of all political parties to support the election of CA and republic together, although reserving our right to struggle on the subject they defer in a democratic way. As has been reported before, the Maoist has taken the policy to oppose the Regmi government and the election of the CA too. Their line to oppose the Regmi government is correct. But their policy to oppose the election of the CA and to concentrate all their efforts to fail the election of that (CA) is wrong. Their opposition to election of the CA is based on this ground that CA. firstly, is being conducted by a non-party government and, secondly, it will be unable to make a people's constitution having anti-feudal and anti-imperialist charter and fulfilling basic demands of the people those of workers, peesonts, women, tribal people, 'lower caste' people etc. The logic they have put forward is correct, meaning the election of the CA is being conducted by a non-party government, the constitution it would make will have not ant-feudal or anti-imperialist character and it will not solve the basic problem of exploited and oppressed people. But in spite of this limitation the election of the CA is a historical and progressive necessity. The failure of the election of the CA would pave the way to retrogression. Now the Maoists have publicly declared that the former King is the most patriotic person in the country. On his ground they have put forth the policy to have unity-in-action with him for the nobel couse of defense of nationality. From such a public declaration on their part, it is crystal clear that their opposition to the election, is more guided to the interests of the retrogression than that of revolution. In short, such weaknesses on the part of both the UMaoist and Maoist, who claim themselves as most revolutionary communist forces of the country, leaves no doubt on it that they have not been able to adopt correct political line in present political situation of the country.

#adopted_from_janakpur_news