This is an article written by Manushi Yami-Bhattarai, daughter of Baburam Bhattarai and Hisila Yami. Do you think she wrote this article without help of her parents ;) ?

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=99030

Search for explanations

By Manushi Yami-Bhattarai

Talks of 'historic moment', 'new Nepal' are to be found in almost every corner of the city; even jokes seem to have become incomplete without the use of these terms. Stepping into Kathmandu after a long time, having covered the April movement and other major events in its aftermath only through electronic media, one was thrilled to see people in the streets and in media talk (and joke) about politics. Faces are colored with excitement, confusion, discontent, humor and even overdose of politics. Clearly, these are not frivolous moods and acts but a reflection of the level of politicization and sensitization of the masses, something that one longs to see in other parts of the world.

The series of political developments up till the recent promulgation of Interim Constitution and the formation of the Interim legislature, however, did not follow a continuous, linear path of progress. We all know that there were frequent tidal waves threatening a breakdown of the agreement between the SPA and the CPN(M). Political diplomacy alone would not have borne the results that we are celebrating today had it not been for the pressurization by people representing different groups based on gender, nationality, region, profession including a forceful role played by 'civil society' members.

What engages my mind to a large extent is how history, in the future, is going to evaluate these events and actors. For it is correct to say that there occurred a historic movement for 19 days, that such and such agreements were signed between so and so on, so and so day. But as the famous historian EH Carr said: "One can read, or even write, about the events of the past without wanting to know why they happened, or be content to say that the II World War occurred because Hitler wanted war, which is true enough but explains nothing."

The onus, to a large extent, falls on the shoulders of intellectuals who need to breakup, expose all the past ideas and practices, and provide convincing arguments to the present who are the makers of the future. But intellectuals themselves are not an autonomous and independent social group. Gramsci in his writings talks about the democratic character of the intellectual function, but more significantly he writes about the class character of the formation of intellectuals. He also writes: "Every "essential" social group which emerges into history out of the preceding economic structure, and as an expression of a development of this structure, has found (at least in all of history up to the present) categories of intellectuals already in existence and which seemed indeed to represent an historical continuity uninterrupted even by the most complicated and radical changes in political and social forms."

In Nepal, traditional intellectuals have been the ones who have for a long time held a monopoly of a number of important services such as education; this category is what Gramsci calls 'ecclesiastic', a category of intellectuals organically bound to the landed aristocracy.

Few days back an article by Kanak Mani Dixit appeared in a renowned Indian journal Seminar (569- January 2007). The problem arose from the fact that the writer was a well-known intellectual and so the expectations were naturally high. It seemed, however, that the writer had assumed that the readers would have little or no prior knowledge of the recent developments in Nepal and so in the course of presenting a well articulated note on the making of 'naya Nepal', there has been carelessness (or is it inability?) to convince the reader.

If, as Dixit stresses, "dozen years of freedom and democratic experience following the first People's Movement (of 1990)" is the primary explanation for people's participation in Jana Andolan II, there should have been no reason for people to come out in the streets in April 2006, for people should have been happy with the post-1990 'free and democratic experience'. What reasons did the people have to join a Maoist movement that would call for sacrifice of their lives?

An argument repeatedly heard is that of the Maoists joining the political mainstream, that they needed an excuse for a 'safe landing', for abandoning the people's war, and hence used the 1990 Constitution as a 'sacrificial lamb'. From what I understand of the term 'political mainstream' that is the prevailing current of political thought, the mainstream that prevailed a decade ago no longer exists. People who have been living through the past two decades and are not amnesic are sure to be aware of the changes.

One can thus still read and hear many people dearly embracing the view that there were many problems in the post-1990 period --- an immature middle class and civil society, and destabilizing role played by the palace amongst the national political parties --- but over all the 1990 Constitution was working well. For such people one can only say that there are bundles of readings to be done on the political economy of Nepal and if these traditional intellectuals don't do their homework they won't be able to catch up with the new developments taking place; they will get washed away with the waves, and in the meantime they can continue parroting.

However, the fear expressed by many, quite rightly, is that such remnants of the past leave some space for a possible backdoor entry of the status quoist position supporting constitutional monarchy.

Crises are abound in different parts of the world, not only in Nepal. In fact, people in some countries are living in worse conditions of poverty, of being occupied by foreign troops, displaced by one's own state, of being under autocratic, conservative rulers. What explains the lack of successful uprising in such places? And even if there are uprisings why haven't they been able to topple the system, the way that Nepal witnessed? In understanding the ten years of people's war and the recent developments emanating from the alliance between SPA and CPN(M) against the monarchy, one cannot help but take Lenin's assistance. Explaining why a revolution should occur when it does in a country, Lenin talks about three main symptoms of a revolutionary situation-'(1)…For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for "the lower classes not to want" to live in the old way; it is also necessary that "the upper classes should be unable" to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in "peace-time", but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the "upper classes" themselves into independent historical action'.

Apart from these objective conditions, which are independent of the will of any individual class, group or party, there has to exist subjective condition, which is- 'the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, "falls", if it is not toppled over.' (V.I. Lenin, The Collapse of the Second International. Collected Works, Vol. 21) Reading this in the light of the Nepali context can help us in searching for correct answers to the what, how and why of the past and recent political events. However, nothing much can be done if some are inherently allergic to the name 'Lenin'. But even to argue and fight against the enemy, it is always wise to understand the theory and politics of the opponent.

 One has here only thrown up some questions and issues for further digging and debate, leaving the rest for 'naya' intellectuals. This is the right time to problematize all issues that concern the people of this country, for it is only then that we stop taking things for granted and start asking new questions and come up with innovative possibilities. The restructuring of state is making new history. The makers and interpreters of 'history' have to be responsible in their tasks, if not for today, then for tomorrow's generation.