CPN (Maoist): Personality clash?
By Akhil Tripathi
The events that led to the reported expulsion of Baburam Bhattarai, the number two leader of the Maoists, point to a serious credibility crisis at the leadership level of the rebel outfit, say the army officials.
[Infighting: Maoist leader Dr. Bhattarai (File Photo)]
The reported ‘expulsion’ of number 2 Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai from the CPN-Maoist was perhaps the hottest and the most surprising news in the month of March. The Directorate of Public Relations (DPR) of the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) issued a press communiqué on March 14 saying that “the Maoist terrorists’ politburo member Dr Bhattarai and his wife Hisila Yami have been expelled from the party.”
Many did not believe the ‘news’, as it came from the army that is fighting the rebels. But the coverage of “Baburam’s expulsion” in the recent days by some major national weeklies-- though it may not be possible under the state of emergency for any publication to list and weigh each and every possibility-- has only made even the most impartial observers to believe that something of that nature has certainly happened within the rebel outfit.
Though Maoist spokesperson Krishna Bahadur Mahara’s statement, which came on the same day, said that “they (Bhattarai and Yami) had been fulfilling their roles and responsibilities in the party and the movement through mutual consultation and regular co-operation with Prachanda", it failed to convincingly counter the army’s claim. Instead, it added to the public suspicion by not clearly saying whether Bhattarai still held his earlier position in the party. Later on March 17, the Home Ministry said in a statement that the Maoist statement was aimed at covering up Baburam’s expulsion from the party.
After the 'action' against Baburam Bhattarai (Laldhwoj), -- who besides being a politburo member, was entrusted with key responsibilities like coordinator of the ‘United Revolutionary People’s Council and in-charge of the ‘central regional command’ etc, prior to the ‘action’ against him —the Maoist ideologue is now said to have been demoted to a mere ordinary member of the party.
Media reports have indicated that the Maoist party, like other parties in the country, could be suffering from a chronic pathological form of egotism and personality clash among its top leaders.
Wrote Sudhir Sharma, editor of Nepal weekly magazine, in his cover story (March 22 issue), “The party has indeed taken action against Bhattarai. It has been learnt that along with him and his wife Hisila Yami, another leader Dinanath Sharma, too, has been relieved from all previous responsibilities in the party.” Quoting security sources, Sharma further wrote, “The party has also taken action against nine others, including politburo members duo Dinanath Sharma (Kishor/Ashok) and Bhattarai’s wife Hisila Yami (Parvati) and Bhattarai has been kept incommunicado, guarded by armed gunmen.”
Sharma further wrote that a recent meeting of the Maoist politburo took the decision (of taking action against Bhattarai). While the decision was being made, seven politburo members expressed their dissatisfaction by signing a note of dissent. And, as the difference in regard to the ‘action’ heightened, a voting had to be held. A total of 17 members of the Maoist politburo, that has 27 members including the alternative members, have the right to cast their votes. At present, three politburo members- Mohan Vaidya, CP Gajurel and Kul Prasad KC- are languishing in Indian jails while one more politburo member, Matrika Yadav, is behind bars in Nepal itself, the Nepal magazine reported.
According to published reports, the latest spell of differences in the Maoist leadership stemmed from a plenum of the Maoist central committee held last August that took a decision to cleanse ‘individualistic anarchy’ from the party, which was said to begin from the central level itself. The meeting had agreed to centralize the struggle against India and also redefine ‘Prachandapath’ as ‘Prachanda-ism’. Bhattarai was not ready for many a decisions of this nature. Finally, he submitted a 13-point note of dissent in writing to the High Command as well as to other party hierarchy. “
‘Personality clash’
Reports suggest that the ‘action-scandal’ inside the Maoist party is a result of the long-running personality clash between Prachanda alias Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai. Though there are some known serious policy-level differences between them, the ‘scandal’ seems more to do with the personality clash between them other than anything else.
According to reports the personality clash between Baburam and Prachanda grew more intense after a Maoist plenum in 1998 decided to hoist Prachanda to the post of the party’s supreme leader and also decided to publicize his photo and made it compulsory to quote him while writing political articles. Bhattarai appeared against these decisions. “And then a clear division was observed in the party, ” according to Sharma.
Since the 1998 plenum, the Maoist party engaged in mending fences between the two leaders. For example, a central committee meeting held in July 1999, in which all central-level leaders, including Baburam and Prachanda, expressed their commitments to correct weaknesses. And after seven months, another central committee meeting decided to launch a ‘purification campaign’ under which action was taken against the then in-charge of eastern region, Yan Prasad Gautam (Alok). As Alok was considered close to Prachanda prior to the action, the Bhattarai camp took it as a ‘victory’. This resulted in the gradual lessening of the Bhattarai-Prachanda conflict.
However, the campaign to ‘establish’ Prachanda didn’t end inside the Maoist party. During the party’s second conference in 1999, this campaign was given the name ‘Prachandapath’ and homework was completed to hoist Prachanda to the position of party chairman from that of the general secretary. “Prachanda was brought in the party leadership according to the ‘plan’, not according to the ‘process’, and Bhattarai did not appear against it. But the personality clash did not cease to exist, which has now reappeared,” wrote Sharma.
Bhattarai has himself indicated to this personality clash at a number of places in his 13-point note of dissent. “Some responsible comrades, and particularly those who claim to be close to Comrade Prachanda, have been repeatedly saying directly or indirectly that ‘Prachandapath’ has already attained universal character and that it should be accorded the expression of ‘Prachanda-ism’. What should one say when Comrade Prachanda himself does not contradict this in any effective manner? ... Is it correct and prudent to put the photograph of Chairman Comrade Prachanda alongside those of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao?” Bhattarai said in his 13-point note of dissent.
Similarly, accepting the existence of a ‘long-running cold war’ inside the Maoist party, Baburam has mentioned in point 9 of the note of dissent, “A type of ‘cold war’ has been going on in our party for a long time on the question of centralisation of leadership, which is a concrete expression of democratic centralism in the party and proletarian dictatorship in the state. In essence, what should be the system of a true proletarian leadership? Does centralisation of leadership mean, as Mao said, unity of thought, understanding policy, plan, command and action, or a centralisation of power as the reactionaries do? ...How does the system of a single person occupying the top party, army and the state posts, and that too for life, solve the question of generating revolutionary successors and of continuous revolution?”
“…The most serious aspect is that there appears a gap between the words and deeds of the main leadership and there is lack of will to set personal example. Until and unless so happens, the talk of cultural transformation and proletarianization is bound to be a mere phrase mongering,” Bhattarai concludes his note of dissent.
It becomes clear that Bhattarai has openly criticised the attitude in the (top) Maoist leadership that does not allow any other shade of opinion to exist. His remarks also make it clear that the Maoist leadership has been completely impervious to criticism and argument.
The action scandal against Bhattarai and ilk is perhaps a clear indication that no criticism- fair or unfair, valid or invalid- is acceptable and ‘Prachandapath’ has to be acclaimed as PERFECT. Any criticism is condemned as ‘treachery’ to the cause of the proletariat. And there is hardly any place for those who can no longer give uncritical and unconditional adoration and support to Prachanda and his ‘Path’.
Having said that, questions that still need to be answered include: will the 'action' taken against those who have been critical and have registered their reservations openly, impel them to seek alternatives? Will they continue to put up a ‘fight’ or reach a compromise under the mounting pressure from the ‘Supreme Commander’? Will Baburam and the likes surrender their individual freedom and the right to criticize, if they have not already, which will only satisfy the very ‘attitude’ of the top leadership they have been critical of? Does the division that is so apparent in the party leadership mean a split is imminent?
Speculations are high. The events that led to the reported expulsion of Baburam seemingly point to a serious credibility crisis at the leadership level of the Maoists. Reports of wall painting against Prachanda by Baburam supporters in various districts and fleeing of some Maoist cadres indicate that the recent clash of titans within the Maoists is likely to have serious fallout within the underground outfit. But only time will answer the above questions precisely.
nepalnews.com Mar 29 05