INDIA: deepening on Prachanda’s visit

The Prime Ministers of India, Narendra Modi, and Nepal, Prachanda, meet with a friendly behavior. Source: Republic World.

The 31st of May, Prime Minister of Nepal, Pushpakamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, began his trip of four days trough India. During this trip, relevant economical power agreements were signed. We have already reported on this. This week new news has been known regarding the signed agreements and the political ties between India and Nepal.

A business summit was also held, and big bourgeoisie from both countries, ambassadors and high-level government officials and experts attended it. Prachanda has stated that the links between Nepal and India “is not a partnership nor a friendship, it is a one family”, and he expected to increase the trade between both countries. Data shows that Nepal has a big trade dependency of India (the 70% of Nepalese trade is with India). On the other hand, for India the trade with Nepal is secondary (Nepal was the ninth trade partner of India during the 2021). The Prime Minister of Nepal also emphasized “private sector as an indispensable partner in development” in order to “promote competitiveness”. The non-state capitalists in the power sector of Nepal, gathered in the Independent Power Producers’ Association of Nepal (IPPAN), also talked about the power trade agreement and the analysis of Prachanda regarding private property. The IPPAN has stated that the commercial agreement “are of high significance for Nepal’s economic prosperity”. At the same time, these capitalists considers this visit “created a positive atmosphere for inviting investment in the energy sector”. A leader of a political party of the opposition in Nepal, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, linked to Hindu nationalism had the same position. He stated: “The Prime Minister’s trip was good on the fundamental side”, and the most relevant thing was the electrical power agreement.

This shows an obvious contradiction with the original position regarding private property explained by Prachanda in the Common Minimum Policy & Program of United Revolutionary People’s Council in 2001: “In other words, there shall be collective ownership of the state on large and basic industries and financial institutions, joint ownership of the state and individuals on certain large means of production, and private ownership of peasants in agriculture‚ which constitutes an overwhelming proportion of the economy, and of the entrepreneurs and traders on small and medium industries and commerce.” [Author’s note: Point 8 of the Program]. And regarding strengthening the economical links with India, the trade dependency to it, and the comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie, the following was stated in the program: “For that, the path for rapid industrialization in the country shall be paved by nationalizing the capital being misused in the hands of the comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the country, liberating the labour trapped in the agricultural sector and promoting internal markets‚ on the one hand, and by liberating national industries from the grip of imperialism and particularly Indian monopoly capital‚ on the other.” [Author’s note: Point 40 of the Program]. But now, he is reinforcing the private sector in a “large and basic industry” like the power production industry.

In the diplomatic aspect, Prachanda highlighted that the relations between India and Nepal are very old and intimate, and these relations will continue growing. Another thing that shows this focus is the explicit defense made by Prachanda regarding the “Akhand Bharat” map, exposed in the Indian Parliament, representing the Nepalese territory as Indian territory. Prachanda stated this map is just a cultural and historical, not a political one. Besides that, some analysts are pointing that the agreements, except the ones regarding electricity, were few and not so relevant for Nepal.

Regarding these “old and intimate” relations between India and Nepal, Prachanda didn’t express the same position during the People’s War in Nepal, when he analyzed the class struggle in the recent history of Nepal, and he explained the negative role of Indian State in the development of Nepal and the mass struggle there: “With the context of the increasing rebellion and people’s conscience in the whole world of the epoch of Second Wold War, the Nepalese people also started to combat violently against the oppression of the ruling classes. In this process, was the birth of the Communist Party of Nepal, and Nepal entered in a stage of revolution of New Democracy against feudalism and imperialism. The people of different parts of the country stand up in order to combat with weapons against the expansionist ruling classes of India, their lackeys in the Nepalese Congress, and the feudal king who conspired in order to crush the people’s movement trough the Delhi agreement. (…) Armed conflicts started against local feudal tyrants in different places. Inside this kind of armed rebellion against feudalism and expansionism, the armed rebellion under the leadership of Bhim Datta Pant in the west of Nepal was historically important. Thousands of Indian troops were called to crush this rebellion and the leader was assassinated in the most horrible and inhuman way. Is since this period to forward, when the current ruler class has shown his anti-national, capitulator and fascist character.” Also, Prachanda stated the following regarding the ruling classes of India after the formal independency of India: “The new rulers in India wanted their own direct agents in Nepal not those of the British. The Indian rulers, who were misguiding peoples in the name of democracy, succeeded step by step to develop Nepali Congress as an honest servant to fulfill that necessity.”

Regarding the recent and current relation with India, Prachanda had a strong position on that India was carrying out an expansionist policy, and don’t justified or excused the reactionary nationalist ideology of the Indian State. For example, he described as follows the chieftains of the old State of Nepal and the need of Nepal to defend itself from Indian expansionism: “The chieftains of the old state of Nepal, in a daydream of lengthening the period of reactionary state, have been committing a heinous crime of mocking over the independent existence and self-respect of the Nepalese people by kneeling down in front of the Indian expansionism. (…) The document, in the new planning of the party, has emphasized to concentrate against the national capitulation and Indian interventions in all out ideological, political and military fields. The document has also emphasized that the independence of Nepal and Nepalese people can be preserved by turning the whole country to a war front, by militarizing all people, and by raising the war strategy to a new height against military interventions of any imperialism and expansionism.”

Prachanda is still moving forward in his betrayal to the People’s War and his continued betrayal to the Nepalese people. Those who benefits from the agreements with the Indian State, are the comprador bourgeois and the bureaucratic bourgeois, represented by Prachanda himself, specially the capitalists in the power sector. Prachanda also is still selling the national independence of Nepal and has become one of those chieftains of the old Nepalese State against who he struggled before.