Maoists from the rise to the merger

Rising Background

The emergence of the CPN (Maoist) as an armed movement in 2052 BS was a turning point in Nepal’s political history. The revolt was launched citing that even after the restoration of multiparty system, there was no improvement in the living standard of the people in the rural areas, social discrimination persisted and the state power was concentrated in a limited class. The movement presented itself as a movement for class equality, social justice and state restructuring.

In the rural areas, the movement built a strong base through parallel structures, people’s courts and local control. This created direct conflict with the state, and the country was plunged into violent political conflict for decades.

Organization, Leadership, and Extension

In the early stages, the movement appeared to be organizationally disciplined and ideologically clear. The leadership pursued the political strategy, the people’s organization and the military structure equally.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai, Mohan Baidya, Ram Bahadur Thapa and others are considered to be notable among the leaders who played prominent roles during this period. The decade-long struggle had a profound impact on the state, society and politics.

From conflict to peace process

As the political situation changed, the armed movement turned towards the peace process. Cooperation with multiparty forces, peace accord and entry into competitive democracy took the movement to a new phase. After this turn, the movement transitioned from guns to parliament.

Stage of power and legitimacy

After the peace process, the movement became a decisive force in the debates on the Constituent Assembly, the establishment of the republic and federalism. The leadership was directly involved in the administration of government, policy-making and state structure.

But from this stage onwards, the revolutionary voice of the movement began to transform into practical power politics.

Ideological differences and divisions

After coming to power, there were differences in strategy, ideology and political line among the leadership. This controversy started a series of divisions.

Baburam Bhattarai broke away from the Maoists and formed a new political party and joined alternative politics.

Mohan Vaidya formed a separate group to maintain the revolutionary current.

Ram Bahadur Thapa later joined another communist stream and became active in parliamentary politics.

These divisions weakened the organisational strength of the movement and fractured ideological cohesion.

Current status of leaders who have left the party

The leaders who broke away from the party are now in different positions.

Some are active in politics through new parties.

Some are associated with other communist currents in parliamentary politics.

Some have been limited to ideological campaigns.

Some leaders seem to be losing influence in public politics.

This paints a picture of the old leadership under unified command now divided into different streams and roles.

Social grounds and unfinished issues

The issues of wartime combatants, wounded and victims’ families were not fully resolved. Criticism was rife that the areas of rehabilitation, employment and social justice did not yield the desired results.

The inclination of ex-combatants to foreign employment, the search for justice for the victims’ families and the incompleteness of social restructuring are pointed out as weaknesses of the movement.

Change of name and approach

Over time, the political currents associated with the movement seem to have tried to change their identity and attitude.

The name and structure of the party has also been changed as we move from the identity of armed struggle to parliamentary democracy and socialist-oriented development. In this context, it is mentioned that the name of the party has been changed to the Communist Party of Nepal.

This shift reflects a strategy from an insurgent political image to a political force that transforms the system from within.

Current state

Now the movement is not as unified and aggressive as it used to be. The leadership is divided into different streams, ideological clarity is weak, and the influence of the movement seems to be mainly limited to parliamentary politics.

But its historical contribution cannot be denied. Its role was decisive in the establishment of the republic, inclusive representation and in the debate on federalism.

Finally,

The journey of the Maoist movement from its emergence to the present situation has been multi-layered – insurgency, peace, power, division and ideological reconstruction.

Today, the question of the movement is not just whether it is over, it is how lasting the change it has created. The change in the party’s name, the change in attitudes and the division of the leadership signal its new phase.

Although the movement has been stagnant in history, its political influence is still alive. In the future, the question of whether this stream will be strengthened ideologically or will remain confined to parliamentary practice will determine its future direction.