People's
War in Nepal
By
Li Onesto
28 April, 2004
Revolutionary Worker
When
the People's War in Nepal started in 1996, the fighters led by the Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) were armed with only sticks, sickles, khukuri
knives and a couple of guns. Three years later, when I traveled through
the guerrilla zone, the Maoists still really didn't have any modern
weapons. Most of the fighters I met had really old- fashioned single-shot
rifles and relied mainly on homemade hand grenades and khukuris. I heard
many stories about raids carried out in the first few years of fighting--attacks
against local police posts and money lenders, corrupt officials and
landlords. The guerrillas would always proudly report on how many weapons
they had captured--"six rifles, one pistol and 300 bullets,"
or "eight rifles, one revolver and 780 bullets." I remember
thinking at the time--how are they going to be able to fight and win
with so few and such primitive weapons?
Today, after eight
years of fighting, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has modern weapons,
including GPMGs, LMGs, SMGs, SLRs, and rocket launchers.
When the Maoists
initiated armed struggle in 1996 they had no people's army, no trained
fighting forces and no experience in military warfare. They started
off with only small "fighting groups." After six months the
first squad was formed and after several months there were 32 squads
(of seven to nine guerrillas). When I interviewed the Central Committee
member in charge of the Maoist strongholds in the Rolpa, Rukum and Jajarkot
districts, he told me, "Sometimes the squads had to retreat when
the police came into a village where the squad lived. But when the police
left, the squads returned and the village would be back in the political
and military control of the People's Army. There were many ambushes
of police, going from smaller to larger actions and also many raids
of police posts and mining of roads where police were traveling. Some
were successful, some not, due to lack of experience. We were learning
warfare through waging warfare."
Again, these were
impressive beginnings but still on a very small scale. The Maoists had
squads and platoons (with 24-30 fighters) but had not yet formed any
company-size units (of about 100 guerrillas).
By 2002 the People's
Liberation Army (PLA) had several permanent companies, and in some cases
was fighting in units of brigade strength--several hundred soldiers.
Today the PLA has expanded to the level of two divisions, seven brigades,
19 battalions, several companies, platoons, sections and tens of thousands
of militia. And they are able to mobilize thousands of fighters in a
single battle.
When I was in Nepal,
the Maoists were also only in the beginning stages of establishing political
authority and organization in the villages. In the countryside there
were "guerrilla zones" where fighting was going on. But the
guerrillas had only just begun a campaign to establish "base areas"
that would serve as embryos of "red political power."
Less than three
years later, by the end of 2002, 10 million people in the Western Region--out
of Nepal's total population of 24 million--lived in areas under Maoist
control. And "United Revolutionary People's Committees" were
exercising power, mobilizing the masses to administer production, the
supply of basic necessities, education, sanitation, communications,
transportation and the establishment of a judicial system.
Why and how has
the People's War in Nepal been able to make such impressive military
and political gains?
First of all, this
is a real war of the people that has mobilized and gained the support
of millions. Peasants want land. Women want an end to their deep oppression.
National minorities want an end to discrimination and the brutal caste
system. Youth and students want a future other than poverty and malnutrition.
The people want an end to foreign domination. The Maoists have given
concrete expression to all these aspirations--and provided the people
with the necessary military and political leadership to fight for such
a future.
In developing their
fighting capacity, the PLA applied the principles of Mao Tsetung's military
strategy-- tactically pitting "ten against one" and strategically
"one against ten." They recognized that on a nationwide level
the revolutionary forces were (and would remain) outnumbered by government
forces--and so, in an overall strategic sense, faced "one against
ten." But tactically, and in particular battles, they saw it was
possible to concentrate an overwhelming superior force to wipe out concentrations
of government forces--with an orientation of "ten against one."
So, for example, they intensified their military assaults on weak links
of the government, mainly the less fortified police posts.
The guerrillas consciously
carried out Mao's strategy of protracted warfare--avoiding all-out battles
and instead taking the approach of waging guerrilla warfare, luring
government forces deep into "red areas," encircling them and
striking big blows at their weakest links. Broad popular support provided
the Maoists with intelligence and reconnaissance, and local militias
played an important political and military role. In this way, the PLA
was able to carry out successful military actions, even with primitive
weapons and relatively small fighting units, and the police were increasingly
put on the defensive and eventually forced to stay holed up in their
barracks most of the time.
>From the very
beginning, establishing base areas and new political power has been
a crucial component of the overall strategy of the Maoists.
As police, officials
and landlords were driven out of the countryside, the authority and
institutions that had ruled over and oppressed the people ceased to
exist--making it possible for the Maoists to set up a "new people's
power." The more the guerrillas were able to "liberate"
territory through military struggle, the more they were able to consolidate
political authority in a more ongoing, even if still relatively tenuous,
way.
Today the Maoists
control 80 percent of the countryside in Nepal. And in the base areas
the Party is leading the masses to exercise "red power"--to
destroy the old oppressive system and its infrastructure of exploitation
and oppression, and build a new economic base, new revolutionary forms
of government, a new culture and new relations between people. In early
2004, several Autonomous People's Governments were formed--giving concrete
expression to the Party's policy of granting autonomous rule and the
right to self-determination among oppressed nationalities and regions.
These tremendous
advances of the People's War have been made in spite of a brutal counterinsurgency.
The Royal Nepal Army has carried out search-and-destroy campaigns in
the countryside--killing, torturing and arresting anyone suspected of
being a guerrilla or "Maoist sympathizer." A massive disinformation
and censorship campaign has closed down revolutionary newspapers, jailed
journalists, and spread lies and slanders about the Maoists. Nepal's
ruling class has been in constant crisis, fraught with deep divisions
and in-fighting, over how to deal with the growing insurgency. And in
October 2002, King Gyanendra, in what amounted to a palace coup, removed
the Prime Minister, assumed executive power, and dissolved the parliament.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
global "war on terrorism" has provided new freedom for foreign
intervention and support for the counter-revolution in Nepal. The Nepalese
government has officially branded the Maoists "terrorists"
and the U.S. State Department has put the CPN (Maoist) on one of its
lists of `terrorist' organizations. The U.S. has given the RNA military
training and advisers, at least $22 million in military aid and more
than 5,000 M-16 rifles. Britain has provided $40 million and played
a leading role in getting other countries to give political, financial
and military support to the Nepalese regime. India has provided truckloads
of military hardware and helicopters and is hunting down and arresting
leaders of the CPN (Maoist) in India.
The U.S. is attempting
to label as "terrorists" any movement that dares to challenge
their domination--or rises up against a regime they support. Meanwhile,
the system has worked hard to get people to embrace facile verdicts
on people's wars--which in essence condemn the masses for daring to
fight against their oppression. And there have been attacks and threats
aimed at forces outside Nepal which politically support the People's
War. U.S. State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher recently stated:
"We have designated the Maoists under an Executive Order, blocking
any Maoist assets in the United States or held by U.S. persons, wherever
located, and bars U.S. citizens from most transactions or dealings with
the Maoists." ( Kathmandu Post , April 24, 2004)
In such a situation
it is important to distinguish between the unjust violence of the oppressors
and the just violence of the oppressed. And people need to seriously
discuss and understand the right of the people of the world to make
revolution.
There are many who
are inspired by the revolution in Nepal and oppose the counterinsurgency
being carried out by the U.S.-backed Nepalese regime. But even those
who do not support or have questions about the People's War in Nepal
should oppose U.S. intervention--and cannot allow attacks on those who
do.
If the U.S. is allowed
to attack real liberation struggles and call them "terrorist".
If those who politically support people's wars are attacked and called
"supporters of terrorists". If those who say we need revolution
are targeted and persecuted. If the government succeeds in distancing
the most radical elements from other activists. If red-baiting tactics
succeed in dividing the movement... this will affect all the people
and put an even deeper blanket of repression on all progressive organizations,
movements, thinking, and actions.
Is another world
possible? Can humanity ever get rid of the inequalities between countries,
nationalities, men and women, and different religions? Is there a path
for the planet other than McWorld globalization and the jihad of religious
fundamentalism?
Defenders of capitalism
may answer this question by declaring that "communism is dead"
and that the path of Maoist people's war is passé. But the fact
is, in the Himalayas, new heights are being reached towards the goal
of building a new society free of all forms of oppression and inequality.
---------------------------------
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker
Online
http://rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497