Tuesday September 2nd, 2014, 7:33 am (EDT)

“Note of Dissent” Presented by Comrade Laldhwaj

Com, Chairman
C.P.N. (Maoist)
Central Office

Subject: Note of Dissent

Dear Comrade,

I am hereby presenting my note of dissent on the wrong charges and wrong actions, which are against the interest of the Party and the revolution, against Com.Laldhwaj, Com.Rahul (Alternate PBM) and Com.Ashok (PBM) by the recently concluded meeting of the politbureau of our glorious Party, I request you to register this formally in the records of the Party and circulate it throughout the Party rank and file in a proper manner.

I. On Charges and Disciplinary Action Against Com.Laldhwaj

(A): Though it is said that the disciplinary action against Com.Laldhwaj has been taken for violating the rules and norms of the Party, from the HQ resolution titled “On Com.Laldhwaj’s letter and other activities” and the attached “chargesheet” there is no iota of any doubt that this is a vengeful action for ideological-political reasons on the basis of the four-point ‘Letter’ and thirteen-point “Questions for Discussions” presented by Com.Laldhwaj to the Party HQ. It is quite logical and a right granted by the Party constitution for a Party member to present his views, whether correct or otherwise, to the Party headquarter and accordingly Laldhwaj had presented the 4-point letter on November 11, 2004 and 13-point letter on November 30, 2004 to the HQ. However, rather than resolving the ideological, political and organisational questions raised in those letters through a correct inner-struggle according to the universal Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Prachanda Pathist method of the proletarian Party, a disciplinary action was taken against the producer of the very letters by sidelining the essential contents and exaggerating the minor-procedural matters. This is against the accepted rules and norms of any revolutionary communist Party and this seriously endangers the development of our revolutionary movement and that of M.L.M and Prachanda Path. This method of attempting to resolve the ideological and political question through administrative measures is against the revolutionary dialectical method of resolving contradictions within the Party developed by Maoism and further refined by Prachanda Path and instead is closer to the negative dialectical method of Hoxaism.

(B): One cannot accept the logic that such a harsh disciplinary action was necessitated because of the breach of Party policy and discipline by the press material written by Laldhwaj simultaneously on December 23, 2004 and published in Samaya Weekly of Jan 6, 2005 as “Letter to the Editor” and in Kantipur Daily of Jan.19, 2005 under the title “Princely Tendency and Democracy.” Because, it cannot be factually and logically established that the same letter and article written in a generalised form have in any way violated the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Prachanda Pathist ideology, politics and organisational principles. Nevertheless, as the reactionaries and opportunists have sought to create confusion by sensationalizing the said letter and article, the author has already acknowledged that they were not timely and made self-criticism for the same and also volunteered, if the Party so desired, to make a public clarification about the confusion created on them. But to take such a harsh action (i.e. to dismiss from all Party posts for an indefinite period) upon Laldhwaj under the same pretext cannot be judicious and correct. There is clear indication of political vendetta in this.

(C): Wheras Laldhwaj has been penalised under the slightest pretext of breach of Party rules, norms and discipline, others committing grave violation of discipline have been protected under this or that excuse. For example, there are those who claim themselves being closer to the headquarters (or Chairman) and indulge in factional activities; who indulge in smear compaign and character assassination against comrades of higher committees at the lower committees; who make public exposure of sensitive diplomatic activities of the Party in front of reactionary media persons; who make media statements counter to the Party policy; who indulge in uncontrolled loose talk and back-biting; and so on. Hence it is amply verified that the action against Laldhwaj is an act of ideological-political vengeance. A serious question has been raised as to how such a tendency would promote genuine proletarian and inner-party revolutionary unity.

(D): The attempt of the resolution “On Com. Laldhwaj’s letter and other activities” presented by the HQ and adopted by the PB to counter the issues raised in Laldhwaj’s letter is itself subjective and prejudiced. Instead of delving into the essence of the 4-point “Letter” the resolution has on the one hand, dealt with only the formal and legal aspect and presented an eclectic and scholastic logic, and on the other, given predominance to the individual’s unknown will or intention rather than to the objective aspect and provided a glimpse of the idealist thinking. Moreover, giving pre-eminence to sensation or perceptive knowledge over idea or conceptual knowledge, it has provided a glimpse of empiricism. For example,

i). (Laldhwaj’s) 4-point Letter was presented with a request to bring the inner-struggle conducted in a very antagonistic and anarchic manner after the last Central Committee (CC) meeting to a controlled and organized track. However, the Resolution has distorted the basic essence of the Letter and branded it as “a dangerous tendency to raise the question of inner-struggle at the time of class struggle.” To dissociate class struggle and inner-struggle from each other, thus, is a metaphysical method. Moreover, to talk one-sidedly only about class-struggle and to forget about the process of “revolutionary transformation” as resolved by the last CC meeting, is a sign of empiricist thinking.

ii). To link a very important ideological-political question on centralisation as raised in the 4-point Letter with an individual’s unverified and unknown intention is an example of subjectivism and idealism. Militant materialism regards not somebody’s subjective wish or intention but the objective reality as primary. But the adopted Resolution not only minimises or downgrades the serious question of centralisation by linking it with the individual Laldhwaj’s intention, but it has violated even the general dialectical materialist method and tended to take recourse to subjectivism and idealism. There can be no dispute about the necessity of centralisation for a revolutionary Party and the movement entered into a decisive stage of war like ours. However, nobody can afford to forget that the nature and method of centralisation for revolutionary communists would be different from that for other reactionary classes and forces. For the proletariat, centralisation is, as Mao said, “a centralisation of correct ideas, on the basis of which unity of understanding, policy, planning, command and action are achieved.” Hence, first of all, if ideological centralisation is not achieved, it is likely that other forms of centralisation will not take a revolutionary direction. The latest ideological milestone of Prachanda Path, namely the resolution on “Development of democracy in the twenty-first century,” had developed some norms and methods of centralisation. If somebody suddenly makes a retreat from this, there is bound to be discussions and debates over it. However, if a healthy debate on this is negated and false charges are leveled against the person involved by questioning his motives, it will give rise to not the proletarian democratic centralisation but feudal autocratic or bourgeois bureaucratic centralisation, or in essence, a mere decentralisation. Hence, it is felt that the Resolution has downgraded a serious question like centralisation by focusing the attack on the individual Laldhwaj’s motive. It is apparent that in the pretext of fighting “individualism” the Resolution has on the contrary promoted individualism.

iii). The Resolution has taken recourse to subjectivism while opposing Com.Sunil’s case (i.e. a case of falsely implicating a PBM comrade Sunil in the arrest of several central level comrades by the Indian police in Patana in May 2004) as raised in the 4-point Letter. Rather than providing a factual and logical reply to questions raised in Com.Sunil’s case the Resolution has once against questioned the motives of Laldhwaj and furnished an example of idealist thinking. In the aftermath of Com.Sunil’s rehabilitation by the Party after the disciplinary committee report absolved him of all the insinuations against him, the charges against Laldhwaj, too, remain automatically dismissed.

(E): The “charge-sheet” produced for disciplinary action against Laldhoj is of ideological-political nature and the charges leveled are eclectically jumbled up, subjective, exaggerated and prejudiced rather than being based on concrete truth and facts, for instance,

i). Without furnishing any concrete basis a serious charge like “mounting attack against the revolution and the Party by attacking the HQ and the CC” has been hurled, which cannot be deemed proper for a responsible and serious Party like ours. This merely reminds one of a sequence in the well-known film made during the Great Chinese Proletarian Cultural Revolution, namely “The Breaking with Old Ideas,” in which the opposition to a district committee secretary named Com.Chao is labeled as “opposition to the district committee,” “the opposition to the district committee” is regarded as “opposition to the Party,” the “opposition to the Party” is deemed as “opposition to the revolution,” and so on. It is quite obvious how ridiculous this whole thing is.

ii). Similarly, to level such a serious charge as having organized a “parallel HQ” without advancing any concrete basis or proof is merely an example of subjectivism or political vendetta. If to circulate a letter to the Central Advisory Committee Members of the Party, which the HQ had already informed them about, is to be regarded as an adequate proof of organizing a “parallel HQ,” then nothing could be more exaggerated and subjective than this.

iii). As mentioned earlier, to level a charge of “pluralist and liquidationist thinking” on the basis of the letter and article written in a generalised form and in an entirely different context and published in Samaya weekly and Kantipur daily, is just to seek a lame excuse to justify one’s wrong deeds.

iv). Laldhwaj has been insinuated as saying that there is “rising militarism” and belittling the PLA as bunch of “ignorant.” This is an attempt to play with the sensitivities of Comrades and valiant fighters in the PLA, which is the backbone of our People’s War. This would be quite unbecoming of a responsible Party like ours. In the 13-points “Questions for Discussion,” the need for an integrated politico-military thinking, plan and working style has been emphasized and in its absence the danger of rising reformism or militarism has been cautioned. However, to distort the facts and play somebody’s sensibilities, thus, is a very serious matter.

v). To say that the 13-points advanced for discussion amongst the top leadership of the Party are the “basis for organizing a faction,” is another example of subjectivism. Those points basically concerned with strategic questions have been under discussion within the Party for long and relative consensus has been achieved over them. Since these questions are within the accepted ideology and politics of the Party, it is just ridiculous to think of organizing a separate “faction” on their basis.

vi). To accuse Laldhwaj of being a follower of Nietzsche’s philosophy of “rule of the ablest” in another subjective charge contrary to the facts. It could be somewhat logical if somebody cautions about “over-centralization” was linked with the weaknesses of “social anarchism.” But it would be just like comparing the North Pole with the South Pole if he were associated with the philosophy of Nietzsche that inspired Hitler’s fascism.

vii). In sum, to say that if Laldhwaj does not rectify himself in time he is bound to land ideologically in “bourgeois idealism,” politically in “rightist capitulationism” and organisationally in “liquidationism,” is like craftily making an astrological forecast that the newborn child is bound to die someday. Certainly, a person can be afflicted with such deviations and the material social conditions and the balance of class forces may give rise to such tendencies. However, in a Party like ours, which is experiencing one success after another in the great campaign of strategic offensive, such tendencies are likely to occur wrapped in a “revolutionary” cloak rather than in such an open form. An historical materialist evaluation of Laldhwaj’s revolutionary life so far would not indicate that Laldhwaj is heading in such a direction and to say otherwise would be mere idealism and political prejudice or vendetta. On the contrary, as there is predomination of rural and urban petty-bourgeoisie in our society it would give rise to petty-bourgeois idealism as a serious problem within the Party, which may be expressed sometimes as “right” and other times as “left” deviations.

II. On Action Against Com. Rahul

The disciplinary action against alternative PBM, Com.Rahul, without furnishing any concrete charge-sheet and on the insinuation of having provoked Com.Laldhwaj, has been another great puzzle. One can see clear sign of political vengeance and personal prejudice in this. Moreover, the act of penalizing a woman Comrade for the “crime” of her husband merely smacks of conservative and monolithic outlook of the Party leadership on the women question. Hence one cannot support the wrongful, subjective and prejudiced action to divest alternative PBM, Com.Rahul, of all responsibilities and to demote her to the status of an ordinary member for an indefinite period.

III. On the Forced Resignation of Com. Ashok

PBM Com.Ashok has been forced to resign from all Party posts and responsibilities, by accepting moral responsibility for the articles and news items written by his son-in-law and daughter in a newspaper, without any concrete basis and investigation and on grounds of mere suspicion. He has also been penalized by linking indirectly with Laldhwaj. This cannot be regarded as justified and logical by any means. To charge somebody this way for the activities of the relatives who do not belong to one’s own Party and do not physically stay together, and that too without any investigation and verification, is not only against the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Prachanda Pathist method and norm but also against the interests of the Party and the revolution. Whereas there has been no investigation and action against people who have been exposing the Party’s secrets in the media and to the public for a long time, now the blame has been heaped on Com.Ashok alone, which clearly smacks of political vendetta. Moreover, Com.Ashok, who has been shouldering international duties of the Party, has been charged with indulging in “factionalism” and abetting to organising a “parallel HQ” for having sent letters and other reference materials to Com.Laldhwaj, who is also the secretary of the International Department of the Party. This is a sure example of sectarianism and monolithic thinking. Hence the indirect action of forced resignation imposed on Com.Ashok cannot be accepted.

IV. On the Negative Tendencies within the Party

As the great revolutionary People’s War is entering into the glorious tenth year by scaling numerous peaks of victories, there is no doubt that the positive achievements of our Party, leadership and the movement are the principal aspect. There should be no compunction amongst the true proletarian revolutionaries about this. However, according to the law of materialist dialectics applicable to everything in the universe, viz. the law of “one divides into two,” there are certain negative aspects of our party, leadership and the movement, which the HQ resolution has not only failed to record but has tended to divert elsewhere. This can be mentioned as follows:

i). Ideological Sphere

Because of the material ground with a predominance of rural and urban petty bourgeois (including peasants) class, which has no ideology of its own, ideologically the Party has been facing the problem of petty-bourgeois eclecticism. This is usually manifested as a hodge-podge of empiricism and dogmatism, which are the two opposite sides of subjectivism based on idealism and metaphysics. Moreover, against the norms of dialectics that a sum of relative truths constitutes absolute truth, it always vacillates in or plays with relativism.

ii). Political Sphere

As the domestic reaction and foreign imperialism and expansionism are still much more powerful militarily, the danger of rightist capitulationism within the revolutionary Party and the movement should not be underrated. However in a situation of the revolutionary People’s War advancing with one victory after another and without facing any big defeat so far, it is more likely that the right opportunism would be active and manifest in a veiled form than in a naked form. That is, it is most likely to assume a “left” form with a right essence, or a dogmato-revisionist form. Hence this problem within our Party and the movement should be taken with particular seriousness.

On the tactical question, there has been a problem within the Party since the days of the undivided Party as regards to grasping, applying and developing the two different tactics basically associated with “Rayamajhi” (i.e. pro-monarchy) and Puspalal (i.e pro-democracy). If there is any confusion or vacillation on the basic tactical question that the New Democratic revolution can be consummated only after total destruction of the monarchy and its mercenary royal army, which is the fountain-head of domestic reaction and is mainly backed by Indian expansionism, along with making a correct fusion of the national and democratic question and correctly assessing the ever changing national and international power balance, it is likely that neo-Rayamajhi tendency will again raise its head. One cannot deny that this tactical question, too, has directly or indirectly influenced the current inner-struggle within the Party. It is also quite likely that in a society like ours with a predominance of small peasants the Lassallian tendency of viewing feudalism as more progressive than capitalism would arise.

iii). Organisational Sphere

It is quite natural that organisationally the problem of anarchism and decentralisation would be principal in a social context like ours with a predominance of peasants and petty-bourgeois production relation. However, within feudal ideological base and a particular situation of war, this can be manifested as monolithism in form and pluralism or regional-lordism in essence. In our concrete situation this aspect of the organisational problem ought to be taken seriously and attempts should be made to resolve it through correct practice of democratic centralism. If we cannot identify this problem of monolithism in form and pluralism in essence and cannot firmly uphold the method of revolutionary dialectics and particularly the methods further advanced from the experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution under the leadership of Com.Mao to solve the contradiction within the Party, there is a danger that the Party will be entrapped in Hoxaite deviation.

Similarly, in this particular situation of strategic offensive all the activities of the Party should be organised and handled keeping the necessity of the war at the center. However, as almost all the rural areas have come under the control of the people’s power and now the center of the revolutionary work is gradually shifting towards the urban areas, if we fail to correctly apply and develop the revolutionary mass line and there are further recurrences of Dailekh-like incidents [i.e. the incident of mass protests against the Party in the Dailekh district in far-western Nepal during Nov.2004] serious problems may arise in the Party and the movement. The monolithic tendency within the Party can lead to the wrong policy of use of force against the masses as well.

iv). Cultural Sphere

As a result of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial base a hodge-podge of feudal conservative and hypocritical culture and bureaucratic bourgeois consumerist and vulgar culture, habit and tradition may crop up in the cultural sphere. The tendency of class upgradation rather than that of proletarianization may also arise within the Party. Such a wrong tendency exposed as “Alok tendency” in the past can recur all the more fast as the Party and the revolution move further closer to capturing central power. The Party should pay adequate attention to this in time.

In sum, a serious question has arisen within the Party as regards to whether it will advance further by defending, practicing and developing M-L-M and Prachanda Path or it will relapse into Hoxaism and neo-Rayamajhi tendency by discarding the essence of Maoism and Prachanda Path with this or that excuse. It is imperative to have a serious debate on this important question in a proper manner and by keeping the great campaign of strategic offensive at the center. In this very context we have to see whether we will further develop Prachanda Path by stepping ahead from the ideological mile-stones of our Party, like historical Second National Conference and the “development of democracy in the 21st century,” or we will make a historic blunder by pursuing a regressive path knowingly or unknowingly. It is certain that the decision of the current PB meeting will be evaluated by history in this very context.

Despite these points of difference, I would like to reassert my commitments to wholeheartedly devote myself to all the plans and programs of class struggle by carrying out all the decisions of the Party and by preserving Party unity at all costs.

Laldhwaj

I agree with this.

Rahul C.P.N(Maoist)

January 30, 2005