- Good afternoon. Namaste. I'm Ashok Gurung, the Senior Director of India China Institute
at the New School. It is my great privilege and honor to welcome Honorable Prime Minister of Nepal, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai; Honorable Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Narayan Kaji Shrestha; Honorable Member of
Parliament, Hisila Yami and their delegation to
this August gathering. I'm also pleased to welcome
our president, David Van Zandt and our distinguished
panel of discussants. Professor Andrew Arato of the New School, Professor Partha Chatterjee
from Columbia University, Dr. Mary Des Chene from Washington
University of St. Louis, and Professor Sanjay
Reddy from the New School. I see some old friends as well, as number of new people in the audience. I welcome all of you and
thank you for joining us on such a short notice. During a recent visit to Nepal, I had the privilege of meeting
with Dr. Baburam Bhattarai. We talked about him visiting
us at the New School, not only as a political
leader, but also as a scholar. I'm grateful that he has taken time out from his busy schedule with the UN General Assembly sessions to be here with us today. In a few minutes, our
president, David Van Zandt, will formally introduce Dr. Bhattarai. However, I want to
congratulate Dr. Bhattarai, for taking office as the
fourth Prime Minister of Nepal since the first
constitution assembly election in April of 2008. The fact- (audience applauds) The fact that there have
been four prime ministers in just over three years, says a lot about highly turbulent and contested period of Nepali politics. As a newly elected Prime Minister, Dr. Bhattarai faces the twin challenges of overseeing the completion
of Nepal's transition from war to peace and the
restructuring of state as a Federal Democratic Republic. This requires the reintegration of the People's Liberation
Army with the Nepali army and the drafting of a new constitution. In the midst of growing frustration with the political stalemate,
the compulsion and necessity for political compromise is greatest and something that all Nepalis
want you, Mr. Prime Minister, to pursue. However, I believe that
the biggest challenge faced by you is not how you
effectively facilitate compromise between the major political
parties and the elites, but to make sure that the aspirations and the needs of marginalized communities, such as Dalit's, Indigenous
People, Madheshi's and women, which comprise of about
80% of Nepal's population are adequately accounted for in the writing of the new constitution. Historically, it has been a
very small group of people who have controlled the power and wealth, and have been in position
to bring about change. Yet they have had no intention, no motivation to actually
bring about a serious, meaningful change so that
Nepali state can ensure that every single Nepali
citizen has access to equal opportunities to live life to its fullest potential. Today, Nepali people
demonstrate increased levels of apathy towards politicians. Yet you are one of a handful of leaders, if not the only one, who
is still highly respected and therefore Nepal's best
bet for a secure future. We wish you the very best, sir, in your efforts to help
establish the critical framework that is the new Federal
Democratic Constitution, which will allow people to build an inclusive democracy in Nepal. Before I request President
Van Zandt to formally welcome and introduce Dr. Bhattarai, let me outline briefly the
format of today's program. We will start with welcome remarks and an introduction by the President. While the Prime Minister
comes to the podium and before he begins his remark, I'll request Kevin
Burbriski to kindly come. Kevin is sitting here. And present his wonderful
new book "Maobadi" to the Prime Minister and the
President of the New School. And to say some brief
remarks about his book. The Prime Minister will then speak for about 40 minutes on today's topic, "What is the Relevance of
Marxism in the 21st Century, the Nepali Experience." This will be followed by
discussion session where each of our discussants has four
minutes to share their thoughts, comments, and a question
for the Prime Minister. Due to time constraints, I thank our distinguished
panel, Andrew Arato, Partha Chatterjee, Mary Des
Chene and Sanja Reddy in advance for sharing with us their rich knowledge and scholarship on the subject, and for doing it in a way that
enhances our understanding of the issues in just four minutes. Given the enormity of the topic for academics that can speak for hours, requesting them to briefly comment and pose a question is an
impossible proposition. However, I'm grateful that they
have accepted the challenge. Since time is limited, I won't be able to
present them individually. The program agenda includes
a bio of each discussant. We have a designated
timekeeper, Shen, a PhD student, who looks very nice, but is very tough. He will let you know when the time is up. Then Dr. Bhattarai will
have 10 minutes to respond to the discussants
which will leave us with about 30 to 40 minutes for
a general Q & A session with the audience. In order to manage with the
limited time we have had, and to get the maximum
number of questions out, a question card has been
given to every member of the audience for you to
write down your question. We request that you restrict
yourself to one question and include your name and
affiliation on the card. The cards will be collected immediately after Dr. Bhattarai's talk. Professor Susan Hangen of Ramapo College, Professor Susan Hangen,
can you raise your hand? And professor Sara Shneiderman
of Yale University, both of whom have deep knowledge
of Nepal have kindly agreed to quickly sort through the
questions and then pose a set of four to five questions
to Dr. Bhattarai. In addition, thanks to technology and my tech savvy student team, I'm pleased to welcome
all the people who will be participating in today's
program via live streaming and encourage them to pose
questions to the Prime Minister through the India China
Institute's Facebook and Twitter pages. Special thanks to Professor Kathy March, who I know is connected via internet, a scholar intimately involved in Nepal who will be joining us along with 30 or so of her students and colleagues
from Cornell University. Similarly, I understand
people from other locations in the U.S., Nepal and
Europe will be participating in the event today. Carrie James, where are you? They're sitting outside, I think. Carrie James, Koshal
Thresta and Katie Fitt, all students at the New School
will monitor the connections and conversations on the computers. And my new colleague
Georgina Drew, where is Gina? Georgina Drew, ICI scholar, and professor the New School will sort and select a set of questions
to pose to Dr. Bhattarai. Many have helped to
put together this event in this short span of time. And I wish to thank all
of them for their support. I thank the ICI India China Issue Team, in particular Ryan, Kashish, Katie, Hartig, Brenna, Hershell, Grace, Sid and others at the
New School who really helped and worked very hard
to organize this event. I would also like to
thank all our co-sponsors. Adhikaar, America Nepal
Friendship Society, Association of Nepali Teraian in America, graduate program in international affairs, global studies at the New School, NRN, National Coordination Council of USA and the Gurun Society. Last, but by no means the least, a very special thank you
to President Van Zandt for his enthusiastic support and for rearranging his demanding schedule to first welcome the President
of Ecuador in the morning and now the Prime Minister of Nepal. David is the eighth
president of the New School and has held his office for
roughly eight months now. During this short period, he has already managed
to infuse a new energy into the entire university with his new ideas and leadership. I thank you, David, for
your presence at this event and your confidence and
belief in the vision of the India China Institute. May I now request you to take the podium and introduce our guest of honor. Ladies and gentlemen,
President David Van Zandt. (audience applauds) - Thank you, Ashok, and welcome to everyone
here this afternoon. I just wanna point out that Ashok and his team at ICI put all this together. This is a global event with people from all over listening in,
hearing, even asking questions in a very short period of time. So it's very impressive. Thank you very much for doing that. So it's now my great honor to welcome and introduce Dr. Baburam Bhattarai the Prime Minister of Nepal. I would also like to acknowledge and welcome members of the
Prime Minister's delegation Ashok introduced a minute ago,
your Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and
the ambassador to the UN. Dr. Bhattarai was elected Prime Minister of Nepal in August, 2011. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to welcome him so early in his tenure, coinciding with his participation in the UN General Assembly meeting. He's addressed the UN,
reiterating his commitment as a key architect of
the 2006 peace accord to bring Nepal's peace process
to a logical conclusion in the drafting of a new constitution. The doctor is the Maoist
Party's Vice Chairman and is considered one of
the principal strategists of the party. The Prime Minister is a prolific writer, authoring several books and
essays on the role of Marxism in current global affairs and specifically within Nepal's modern
sociopolitical context. Prior to his election as Prime Minister, he served from 2008 to 2009
as Nepal's Finance Minister. Though he served in this position for only a short period of time, he is regarded as one
of the most successful Finance Ministers in Nepal. The Prime Minister received his PhD in Developmental Economics from the Nehru University in 1986, a university which shares a tradition of critical analysis in study
much like the New School. Mr. Prime Minister, under your leadership there's been a clear commitment
to issues of social justice and intellectual inquiry, similar to the ethos of the New School. While some may have
disagreements with your approach, your dedication to
issues of social justice, particularly in regard
to marginalized groups in Nepal is undeniable. Such issues are precisely what we here at the New School are committed to. The New School community
also has a special interest and connection to Nepal through
the India China Institute, the graduate program,
international affairs and its international field program. Over the past five years,
teams of graduate students have conducted field work in Nepal, observing and studying the
democratic transitions underway. The India China Institute has
also hosted a series of events on Nepal's political discourse, including hosting a
historic major public event with the first Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal Prachanda in 2008. Well, this afternoon's program and visit is therefore the continuation
of that ongoing dialogue. Today's event will offer a unique platform for the Prime Minister to
discuss his scholarly work and its impact on his vision for Nepal and present an opportunity to engage in conversation with fellow scholars. I'm looking forward to
today's talk and conversation. So everyone, please join me in welcoming
Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, Prime Minister of Nepal. (audience applauding) - Well, now I would like to invite Kevin to present his books
to the Prime Minister, and also to the President. Kevin. And say a few words, please. - Sure. I wanna thank Ashok Gurung
and the India China Institute for bringing me and the book "Maobadi" to the New School today. I wanna thank the Peace Corps,
the American Peace Corps, for introducing me to Nepal in 1975. For three years, as a Remote Areas Water
System Engineer and Overseer, I learned firsthand about
the basic human needs of the villagers with
whom I lived in Nepal. It's a great pleasure to present to the Prime Minister
of Nepal, Dr Bhattarai and the New School
President, Dr. Van Zandt, copies of my new book "Maobadi". May the portraits, the many portraits of the Maoist combatants in the book, remind us all of Nepal's recent history and the promise for the future. Thank you. (audience applauding) Dr. Bhattarai, pleasure to meet you. Here's your copy. Thank you. - Thank you (indistinct). Congratulations.
- Thank you. - Thank you. Doctor. - President of New School and friends. So it's a great pleasure and honor for me to be here with you and
share my humble thoughts. At the very outset let me quote Lenin. He once said, "It is more pleasant and useful to go through the experience of revolution than to write about it." (audience laughing) So for me, I'm also having the same feeling, though I'm not writing about
it, I'm talking about it. And there is one more dilemma I'm facing. I have to speak amongst such
distinguished academics, and I have lost touch with
academia for almost 20 years. I have been a revolutionary activist. I was underground for almost
10 years, more than 10 years, and now I've been overground
only for last five years. And ironically I become the
Prime Minister of the country. So I have slight trepidation
to stand before you. My presentation could be very mundane because now I'm in the
business of practicing theory. So when I have to present
about and talk about the theory of Marxism,
relevance of Marxism. So I just have to go back to
my student days of 20 years and then talk about it. I don't know how relevant that could be. But it's still, I think this
is a very interesting topic. I'm very happy to talk
about Marxism in USA. (audience laughing and applauding) I don't know how many of you know, when you apply for a visa to visit USA, (audience laughing) there are so many uncomfortable questions. (audience laughing) Whether you ever have
been a revolutionary. Whether you have ever used a guns. Whether you know how to use
the guns, et cetera, et cetera. Even as a Prime Minister,
I was interrogated and I had to answer, and now I'm talking about Marxism and making about revolution. So I think I'm very happy. (audience laughing) Friends, when I think of
this topic you have given to me today, a relevance of
Marxism in the 21st century and experiences in Nepal, I think I'll just talk in two parts. Firstly, I think I like to develop on the theoretical part of Marxism. What is Marxism? And I would say, what is not Marxism? And whether it is at all relevant
in the present day world. And the second part I'd like to discuss, what we have thought of Marxism and how we have tried
to apply it in Nepal. So you may disagree. I don't expect all of you to agree with me because Marxism inculcates in us an
attitude of criticality. The basic essence of Marxism,
what Lenin once said was to be critical and revolutionary. If you are not critical,
you can't be a Marxist. And if you are not revolutionary,
then you can be a Marxist. So to be a Marxist, you have to both critical
and revolutionary. So I would welcome your critical comments and I'll try to respond as much as I can. Starting with the relevance of Marxism. As you know, by the end
of the 20th century, all the socialistic states
created on the philosophical base of Marxism were defeated. Though there are still certain states who call themselves Socialist and Marxist. There is a debate whether the policy they
have been following is at all Socialist and Marxist or not. And then most of the states led by the Soviet Union was
founded on the basis of Marxism. They couldn't survive. By the end of 20th
century, they were gone. And few states who have been surviving, we don't know how long they will survive. So the thinking arose in the '90s the end of philosophy, end
of history, end of idol, et cetera, et cetera. But ironically, with the
beginning of the 21st century, when there was economic crisis all over, then people thought maybe
Marxism is still alive. Maybe we have to go back to Marxism again. So the critical debate surfaced and I see much of the
literature coming out, especially from the Western countries, USA or Western Europe. And very rich in content
about the essence of Marxism. I think that Marxism is reviving again. And people like us, it's
a matter of real pride and satisfaction that Marxism cannot die. It is still alive and kicking. And my own expectation is Marxism will again rise from
the ashes of the 20th century. And by the end of this century, it will again be the leading
philosophy and ideology to guide the world. This is my belief. I may be wrong, but I think
it still will prove me right, because I don't see any other alternative, any other philosophy, which can describe in
a scientific, holistic, objective manner, the
developments going on around us. So how do we explain the crises going on? Do you see the gap between
the rich and the poor? Both within the practical country and among nations is rising. And the conflicts, wars going on. I think we have more wars,
more people have been killed since the second world war. Then how do we explain that? Because Marxism is a philosophy and science of class struggle. When you see all round classes struggle or various forms of struggle are going on how do you explain that? I think there is no other
theory which can explain the root causes of struggle,
revolt, revolutions. Currently the so-called
Arab Spring going on. How do you explain that? Is it just a question of democracy or the basic class contradiction inherent in those societies which has erupted as the democratic moment? Or elsewhere, anywhere? So why does the US or the big powers intervene in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere? Is it just for democracy? Or there are some other hidden
motive or any other reasons? How do you explain it? I don't see any other
philosophy or ideology which can explain it in a
coherent and objective manner other than Marxism. So that's why I feel there is
still relevance of Marxism. And now the question
arises: And what is Marxism? And what is not Marxism? Though there are various interpretations, especially of the type of
Marxism which was practiced in Soviet Union under
leadership of Stalin. Often there are certain distortions. Marxism was just fortified and
reduced into simple formulae. And the way that was applied
was very mechanistic. And it was copied through
the third international in many part of the world. And against (indistinct), variety of Marxism as codified by Stalin, various other streams arose. I think even during the time of Lenin, people like Gramsci. And during Stalin's time, people like Trotsky or even Mao though, who basically supported Stalin, he had his own brand or
development of Marxism applied in China. And Marxism has been applied
in Cuba and elsewhere. They were also different. And Che Guervara, his Marxism was also much
different from as applied in Soviet Union. So there are various strains of Marxism. So though I belong to a stream of Marxism as developed by Mao. That's where our parties called
the Unified Communist Party of Nepal, Maoist. Basically I subscribe to
that variant of Marxism that developed by Mao. But that doesn't mean we follow Maoism as a religion. Whatever Mao says is not religion for us. But what Mao say, I
like to quote from Mao. What Mao said was, "Marxism also has its birth,
its development, and its death. This may seem to be absurd, but since Marx said that all things which happen have their death, how can we say that this is not applicable to Marxism itself? To say that it don't die is metaphysics. Naturally the death of Marxism means that something higher
than Marxism will come to replace it." I fully agree with Mao. Because a Marxism is a science. It itself developed in the 19th century to resolve the contradiction
arising out of capitalism, which were developed in Western Europe. So the first Marxist
project as applied well in the Paris Commune. The concept of Paris
Commune was direct democracy of the masses. Though it couldn't
survive more than 70 days, but it created history, and almost for 40 years, there was no revolution. And in 1917, when there
was revolution in Russia, Lenin creatively applied
and developed Marxism. What Lenin did in (indistinct) was different from what it was
applied in the Paris Commune. And after Lenin's death,
there was certainly distortion of application of Marxism under Stalin. This is my belief, though, my belief. Stalin did a lot of good things,
but he distorted Marxism. The way he applied
Marxism, it (indistinct). And it was Mao who applied
it creatively in China and made revolution in China in '49. But in China also, in course of time, the system would not go ahead. And so he tried to save the revolution in the name of the great
Proletarian revolution. That again, the mass
(indistinct) democracy. Mao himself was in power, but he asked and encouraged people to make revolution against himself, against the people in power. I think that really spread,
revolution is spread, but the system it's gonna be system, and it's really institutionalized. But after Mao's death, various attempts were
made to make revolution. In Peru, in Philippines, in
Turkey, in India, last in Nepal. But there are various experiments. So what I mean to say is there is no one straight line of development of Marxism, because Marxism is a science. So it has to be applied creatively. According to the changing context, you have to apply it. Only then you can make it revolutions. If you just try to copy and
impose on it, you can succeed. So in Nepal, we try to be creative. We try to learn the basics of Marxism, follow the basic tenants of Marxism, but try to apply it very creatively. That's why in within 10 years span, we could measure big stride. From a small force, we rose as the biggest
political force in the country. We mobilize the masses, the people. But in a country like Nepal,
which is not (indistinct). (indistinct) people are the poor peasantry who live in the rural areas. We mobilize them. Then apart from the class issue with the traditional Marxism, talked of only of class,
but we develop it. We thought only the class factor
cannot resolve the problem. We have to dig into the
non-class issues also. Like the gender issue, the caste issue, the nationality issue. These needs to be
incorporated into Marxism, then only you can mobilize the
masses and make revolution. That's what we tried in Nepal. So within a span of 10 years, we could mobilize millions
of masses of people. And we succeeded to overthrow
the autocratic monarchy and start a new era in Nepal. What we're trying to
(indistinct) right now. So this way, what I'm trying to say is Marxism
doesn't have a set format. It has basic tenants, which needs to be grasped
correctly and applied creatively. So what are the basic things? What are the fundamentals? So what are the universal
aspect of Marxism? I think there is universality
and very particularity. In this, there is a debate
in the Communist movement, in the Marxist movement. The one extreme just talks of the universal
aspects of Marxism. Try to take it very dogmatically
and apply dogmatically. And there is another extreme. We then talk of universal
aspects of Marxism. Talks are only of practical or
practical aspects of Marxism and gets debated, and gets caught in the
quagmire of reformism. So these two extreme, two
deviations of Marxism are what? Revisionism. We call it
Revisionism or reformism. And the other is dogmatism,
left sector revisionism. But the real Marxism is to grasp the basic essence of Marxism, universal aspects of Marxism
and apply these creatively, to suit your country's condition. So for both fighting against
revisionism or reformism on the right side. and left sectorism and
dogmatism on the left side. You can develop and apply
Marxism and make revolution. That's what we have been doing. And talking of the relevance
of Marxism in the 21st century, I think two, three aspects
needs to be considered. I think one thing, one aspect is the philosophical
aspects of Marxism. Because Lenin, you must all be doing. Lenin says "There are three
component parts of Marxism. One is philosophy, the second is political economy, and the third is scientific socialism." Philosophy, economics and politics. There's three aspects. There are three components
of Marxism there. So I think on these three aspects, we need to develop a
talking of philosophy. I'm not going into detail. I'm not a student of philosophy. So what I'd say is philosophy gives you a total picture of the world. It's the world outlook. It's the way you view things. And the Marxist philosophy, (indistinct) which teaches you to see
the world in a totality, in a dynamic frame, how the origin, how the universe originated, how these spaces originated, how society from very
backward, primitive stage, developed through stages. Primitive tribal society
to a slavery society and then the feudal society,
the capitalist society and socialist society. I say, this gives a current picture. I don't see any other
system which can explain how the human beings were first created or how the first the universe was created. Though various theories,
scientific theories are there. Big Bang Theories and other
theories, but everybody agrees. The human species originated
from lower species. And I think the human civilization is only about 10,000 years old. And it has been developing
through various stages. And all the societies have
almost the same history. You see 'til the 14th, 15th century, if you see the history of the world, almost all the societies were at the same stage of development. Now we see such a vast difference between America, Europe
and Asia and Africa. But 'til the 14th and 15th century, almost all the society
was at the same level. That means 'til all the societies
were at the feudal stage, they're almost at the same stage. But with the advent of capitalism or back to the industrial revolution, then the huge gap was created. Some society became very
advanced like the America and the Europe and the other
society were left backward. And because colonialism, when the (indistinct) accumulation was enforced from those societies, (indistinct) African, Latin America, and the development was
concentrated in Europe and America, there is this huge gap was created. I see this method of understanding the world,
understanding history, only the Marxist system method of dialectical materialism can explain. I don't see any other
method which can explain it. I haven't seen any other philosophy. There are various philosophies. I don't want to undermine. Neoscientism, agnosticism,
so-called post modernism, which in parts they can explain, but in totality, to understand
the whole human history, whole human society, there is no current system
other than the Marxist system of dialectical materialism. That's why this, on the
philosophical front, relevance of Marxism is there. Only problem we have not
been able to establish it. I think this area needs to be grasped
correctly and developed. That's why in this field of philosophy, there is a relevance of Marxism and dialectical and historical
materialism will remain at the leading force of
philosophy in the world. And then the other, on the
question of political economy. People talk of crisis, economy
crisis, financial crisis, but I don't see any other system which can explain it very coherently. What is the root cause of this crisis? How this society, how this capitalist system developed and how imperialism developed and what are the inner
contradictions of this system? I think only Marxism, only the Marxist political
economy can explain that because capitalism as such is a system which thrive on personal
greed and profit motive. And that personal greed
and profit motive creates an unequal and uneven development. Some part of some people get
rich, some more get poor. Some part of the globe become rich. And the vast part of
the globe become poor. That is inherent in the
accumulative logic of capitalism. And the so-called globalize will talk of. I think this is just a
expansionary drive of capitalism. It was very clearly forecast in the 1848 Communist Manifesto. Many of our scholars talk of globalization as the new (indistinct). But when I see, when I read
the Communist Manifesto written in 1848, they're already there. Forecast is there because the
capitalism cannot be confined to a party-political border. In search of profit, it will expand. It will (indistinct) walls. That's what Marx and Engels said. And that's what's happening. This is the application of Marxism. This so-called globalization
is a financial imperialism. This is called globalize. And what disaster it is
creating, you know it. So some parts of the world, the
whole wealth is centralized. People are filthy rich. And a vast humanity is suffering from hunger and deprivation. And this is the result of globalize. This is the capitalistic globalize. This is financial globalize. I think this only Marxism
can explain the root cause of this problem. So in the front of political economy, I think relevance of Marxism is there. And now coming to the question of politics of scientific socialism. There is a big debate on the dictatorship of the Proletariat dictatorship. Nobody wants to listen to
this word, dictatorship. It has becomes a very dirty word. But what a dictatorship? It's just the imposing
of will of one class, one section of people, on the other. And what is politics? Politics the same thing, Whether you call it
dictatorship or democracy, you are a section of the people
impose their will on others. The power of politics, this
all, a form of dictatorship. So democracy as being
practiced in today's world: It sounds very nice having
elections, periodic elections, people getting elected. But how does it make a difference to the masses of the people? Same group of the elite as the
ruling classes get elected. In turn, they rule and exploit the vast masses of the people. And very democracy for a handful of people and (indistinct) of the people. This is what exactly Marxism says. As long as there is this classes, a (indistinct) class society or the state-based on classes, then whatever you may call this system, this will be as long as
the classist state remains, there will be dictatorship
over the masses of the people, and there will democracy
for a handful of people. I could be making a
very scandalous remark. Being a Prime Minister of a
country, if I talk this way... Many of you, I don't how many of you, friends from the media,
fraternity are here. It could be very scandalous, but I'm talking as an academic. (audience laughing) Though I have been elected
as a Prime Minister, but I still feel the dictatorship and democracy
questions needs to be... It has not been resolved. Well, I like to call myself the Democrat. I am a Democrat. (audience laughing) But (indistinct) what about the people, masses of the people? Have they got real fruits of democracy? But I've not been able to do it. I'm talking from the seat
of Prime Minister's chair, if I want to give real democracy
to the mass of the people, poor peasant, poor workers, I can't do it. So that's why what Marxism says, as long as there is class society, the state serves a particular class. It is an instrument of imposing dictatorship over the masses
of the working people, and providing formal democracy to a few people who rule society. So I think this is still applicable. And I see in the field of politics also, Marxism is very relevant. And this concept of dictatorship and democracy needs to be debated. But we have the very critical
of the system that was applied in the erstwhile socialistic states. I'm very critical about it. What democracy, in fact, the
Communist should have been the most democratic people. Just see the experience of Paris Commune. They're the workers, the working
club, masses of the people, directly elected their representatives. They could recall back any time. That what the highest form
of democracy practice. In Lenin's time also,
during the Russian Soviet, initially, he tried to
practice mass democracy, real democracy. But after his death, the
type of system developed in the Soviet Union got designed, and it became very bureaucratic
apparatus was created. And in the name of working class, in the name of the toiling
masses, the people, few bureaucrats of the
party, and the state, they started ruling it. And that got designated. And I think that got the Proletariat democracy got distorted. And it gave a very bad name, (indistinct) gave a very bad name to the whole socialist project. And now we have become very defensive. Everywhere I have to go, I
have to give my credential. I have very hard to prove
my credential as a Democrat. (audience laughing) If I don't, like the what you call mantra in the Hindu religion, every now and then, if I don't give my
credential as a Democrat, then I have to be very defensive. I'll be attacked as being
an autocrat, a dictator. So why it happened? It was because it was
a very wrongly applied in the Soviet Union, and
that has copied elsewhere. And I, our own understanding in Nepalese, we should develop this
concept of democracy. We should go back to the
models of Paris Commune and the original Soviet
as practiced by Lenin and learn from some of the
experience of mass democracy try to be applied by Mao, and go beyond that. That's where our party made a resolution. In 2001, we passed a resolution on
development of democracy in the 21st century. There, what we said was, the people, real masses of the people should have the right to supervise and to intervene in their state affairs, then really you can have democracy. So that way friends in
the field of philosophy, in the field of political economy, in the field scientific socialism, relevance of Marxism is there, but the only thing is the
distortion being carried out in the past needs to be
corrected and developed further. And that's what we have
been trying in Nepal. In Nepal, though, we are
in a very difficult stage. We've pursued the revolutionary path, but because of the balance of forces, we couldn't complete the revolution. So we had to change our path middle way. So we saw the path of compromise. What we have been practiced
right now is, is practicing middle path of compromise with a section of the ruling class. We align with the bourgeois
forces, capitalist forces to fight against the autocratic monarchy, throw away with the monarchy. And we have aligned
with the bourgeois class that now that there is
a competition going on for the supremacy over the state. So that's why in the last three years, we have change of the
government, though our party, Maoist party, emerge as the largest party. So we are not allowed
to lead the government. For two years we were kept out of power. Only last month, we managed
to cobble up a coalition and form the government but
still challenges are there. The people are not very happy,
both inside and outside. It being Maoist leading a
government is not a happy scene for them, but it's still, we're trying to creatively apply Marxism in Nepal. And I believe if we stick
to the basic tenants of Marxism, universal truth of Marxism and try to creatively apply
in our concrete condition and we'll succeed. And I'm very confident the type
of crisis going on worldwide created by so-called globalization, it will soon give rise to
another wave of revolution. Nobody can stop that. Of course, revolution cannot be repeated. It don't repeat like
the Soviet revolution, or the Chinese revolution,
but revolution will be there. The path of revolution,
mode of revolution will have to find ourselves. But I see by the end of this century we'll have another wave of revolution and mankind will be liberated. And all the issues of gender, caste, oppression, nationality. If they are at this correctly, Marxism will be trying find. As great Rosa Alexander said, "Either socialism or barbarism. We have to choose it." And I am for socialism. We should choose socialism. Thank you. (audience applauding) - Thank you, Mr. Prime
Minister for a very rich and very thought provoking comments. I'm sure we will have a
wonderful discussion ahead of us. Now, I would like to invite
the discussants to join at the podium. And in the meantime, my colleagues will collect the questions. Please give them the questions. Volunteers. (speaking in foreign language). Can you collect the questions on the side? Grace, where are the questions? Can we collect the questions? Yeah. And give it to Susan and then yeah. Oh no. (speaking in foreign language) Andrew goes, (indistinct),
Mary and Danielle. - That's okay just let them. (speaking in foreign language) If you still have a card, please raise your hand and somebody will come and collect it. Well, now I would like to
invite Professor Andrew Arato to make his comments and
hopefully at least one question. Thank you. - I have to try to do it in four minutes. Welcome and congratulations. Just to tell you, I found
it quite disturbing the way that the previous Prime
Minister was removed. And I think that it is
only just and right, that your party is now again, and you yourself have the
responsibility as prime minister. The last time we did one of these things with Chairman Dahal Prachanda,
then Prime Minister, exactly three years ago, someone
in the audience asked him why the CPN Maoist has four dead white and one dead Chinese man
on his banners and posters? His response was, "Do not Americans have
five dead white men? Washington, Jefferson,
Madison, and Lincoln, and perhaps Roosevelt on their banners?" This was a clever response,
but it did not call for what should have been the rejoinders. Why not Rosa Luxembourg and
Edward Bernstein instead of Stalin and Mao? Or why not replace latter
two with Nikolai Bukharin and perhaps some other Chinese leader? I think today you took
Stalin off the banner. I don't know if you've done it before, but I think that was for me important. I come from that part of the world, which was under Stalinest systems. And the fact that you're
able to do that is positive. So the question which Marxism, which was one of my first questions, I think you have to an
important extent answered, but I have a second question. And that is whether any Marxism, even as you defined it
today is not misleading and problematic in relationship to the current political
problems that you face, specifically the process
of constitution making? Let me answer, let me address this issue
just very briefly myself, watching the time. You very well know that
of the Marxist greats only Marx in 1848 and
Lenin in 1905 and 1917 dealt with problems of constitution making and constituent assemblies. And they argued that without
requisite state power constitutions cannot be made. This was right and
important also in my view. But as you did today, they also saw this power as
ultimately all state power in terms of dictatorship,
in terms of a dictatorship. And I'd like to point out
that that two meanings of dictatorship that are at stake here. One meaning is the one you
gave today that all states in class societies are
in fact dictatorships. And that would go even for the
commune model that you used. But there's another
meaning of dictatorship. And that meaning is specifically
a form of government without separation of powers, without checks and balances,
without fundamental rights, without judicial independence. We know this meaning too. I'm sure you're aware of that meaning. The question to me is not
whether philosophically we'll regard the state, any
state as a dictatorship. That's a matter of definition and analysis from a very abstract point of view. What matters to me is
what is your relationship to the second meaning of dictatorship? In other words, government
without separation of powers, without checks and balances,
without judicial independence, without fundamental rights and so on. That I think is an important question, given what you're facing now, because you have to make a constitution. Now, you didn't come to
power, whatever you might say, by a revolution. You came to power after
multiparty agreements, after making a interim constitution, a constitutionalist constitution,
your current constitution, and then free elections. I think they were extremely
free, these elections, in which you party got
30% of the roll vote and 38% of the seats. You did not become the
majority party of Nepal. And 30% is a significant
part of the electorate, but it is only something
less than a third. The experience in most
countries where leftist parties play such an important
role in state formation, as you are now, is that it is during
the first few elections that the highest vote is achieved. I think Chairman Prachanda and you feel somehow that
successful governance will lead to much greater
majorities in the future. I consider that to be
basically, historically, in comparison to other
places, an illusion. So what are you gonna do? You are reaching the
stage, the first stage, which you call a bourgeois
republic, which after Lenin 1905, you accept now. But how do you gonna get to
the second stage on the basis of something that will remain
inevitably a minoritarian form of power? Thank you. - Thank you, is it working? - Maybe can you, can we just try this one?
- Sure. - Thank you very much for your talk and I'll simply, well follow
this democracy question, because that is in some
ways a central part of what you said. Let me say that actually,
I am in very broad sympathy with the fundamental critique that you make of modern
democracy everywhere. Because I too believe that, in fact, modern democracies today are everywhere oligarchies
of property and expertise. Now, oligarchy of property
is a class concept. Expertise is a little
more difficult to define. But regardless, I think there
is a very serious argument to be made that democracies, in fact, reproduce these class divisions. But I want to ask a more
specific question in relation to Nepal today and your situation. We all know that your party
and the broad popular movement that it represents is now in a position to play a very big role in
defining the future of Nepal. Nobody can ignore the
presence of your party and the force that you represent. But it has come to this position because of a very long armed struggle that it fought over
the last several years. Without that armed struggle, it would not have reached this position. So my question is, let me
ask this quite sharply. Do you believe that the
present parliamentary system and whatever tentative
constitutional forms there are, are actually a protection
for the various freedoms and rights that the
people have now gained? Or do you think that they might actually become opportunities for
the older monarchical elites and the privileged people
to actually push back on those gains and regain some
of their earlier privileges? That I think is a question
that interests a great deal of us, you know, of those
who watch Nepal today. And I would certainly like you
to respond to that situation. The second is a question that
do, how much I have left? One minute, okay, good enough. Second is, I'm following up on a remark that Ashok Gurung made
in his introduction, which is the question,
and you touched upon it, when you mention the question
of non-class elements in Nepali society. The question of gender,
the question of caste, the question of religious
and linguistic minorities. My question is, what
is a Marxist approach? Probably a distinctly
Nepali Marxist approach that you might have in
trying to resolve some of these questions? Because these questions have emerged in many other countries too. But what is your specific approach in resolving the questions that are posed by these non-class elements? - Thank you, Partha. Mary Des Chene please. - Thank you. I have at least six minutes
of thoughts on this. I'll try and give you four of them. A few years ago, there was a certain kind of
somber hopefulness, I think, in the world where even
conservatives were talking in favor of regulation and of control
of global finance capital. And liberals were joining
in and predicting, if not actually advocating it's demise. Today, just a few years later, it's rather hard to
remember that in the face of an even further consolidation and intensification of
its global hegemony. Those conservative and
liberal fellow travelers have mainly returned to
the more familiar roles that they have held as perpetuators, or witting and unwitting of
betters and financialization, supporting the continued expansion of financial capital even into
every possible relationship and process of society and of nature. Marxists, I would say, my
understanding of Western Marxist, which I will say is limited, have also returned to
familiar analyses and roles. Dilatant Marxism discovers bright signs of the imminent demise of capitalism, in even the smallest rear guard actions anywhere in the world. Neo-Marxisms bereft of a
positive program of action have returned to preaching accommodation. And what I'll call here
Unqualified Marxism and critics would call Unreformed Marxism, continue to make analysis of capitalism that demand a practical action directed at its systematic transformation
over the long run. And even that, I think in the West, and I think as Dr.
Bhattarai was also saying, remains largely a theoretical stance. So I want to say that you
have before you today, as I think he's made evident,
a rather rare kind of person. You have before you are practicing
Marxist in these senses. Rarer still in today's world,
his party currently holds an electoral plurality
and has sent him to serve as his country's head of government. In striking contrast, and
follow me here on my version of the United States. Here in the United States, the most effective practical application of a Marxist analysis to
finance capital is being led by the likes of the Koch brothers. That's the K-O-C-H Koch
brothers, not C-O-K-E. And as the audience
here will be well aware this transformation is destroying even the industrial capitalism
that it purports to promote, to say nothing of human
communities and of the biosphere. The conversation that's
being attempted here today, thus takes place, I want to say, across not merely theoretical divides, but among people who are
very differently positioned with respect to these worldwide struggles against the hegemony of
global finance capital. Since an adequate critique must
also be global in its scope I take this as a very important effort, but my own experience is
it's a very difficult effort. In the remainder of my
comments I wanna say just one or two things adding to
Dr.Bhattarai comments about Nepal's experience. When the West comes
peddling its wares in Nepal, which it does constantly, in the form of development packages, in the form of good
governance action plans and even lately ready made constitutions, the Marxist module is always left out. But not by chance. Nepal is self-sufficient and
self-sustaining in this regard. In Nepal, it has been Marxist analyses that have proven capable of
moving beyond description to explanation of persistent
socioeconomic inequalities and of Nepal's position
in the global economy. Those analyses have not just
been, I want to emphasize here, those analyses have not just been joined to active political struggle. They're emergent from it. And this is not to say
that Nepal's Marxist hold all the keys to transformation of actually existing capitalism. Far from it. But they are grappling
with developing mechanisms for such transformations
in a more practical mode than in most places in the world. I'll now, being out of time,
I'll turn to my question to Dr. Bhattarai. In Nepal, Dr. Bhattarai's party has talked about when they came
into the peace process, they were talking about real peace. They were talking about sustainable peace, but their term was really real peace. Which they were saying would
involve not merely things like army integration, but real sovereignty, which would include not
just border security, but food sovereignty and
financial sovereignty and real democracy, which Dr. Bhattarai himself
was talking about here today. A form of a state and
mechanisms in which the majority would have the power to supervise and intervene in the state. With Nepal and I now come
directly to my question, with Nepal now posed for almost inevitably for very rapid capitalist
development of one type or another, I would ask you to talk about the kinds of conditions that your representatives in the constituent
assembly are trying to set in the constitution, such that these things, as real sovereignty and real democracy, can be achieved to some extent? Particularly in state restructuring and forms of government debates. Thank you. - Thank you, Mary. Now I would like to invite
Professor Sanjay Reddy to make his remarks. - Thank you very much, Ashok. Your Excellency, Mr. Prime
Minister, Dr. Bhattarai, and perhaps you have many other titles. Of all of the titles I've mentioned, I feel the most appropriate
here is the last. And indeed, that is how
my other colleagues, co-panelists have been addressing you. I'm reminded of the story
of the (indistinct) general who broke in, in the middle of a lecture by a left wing professor of philosophy, I think at the University of Salamanca during the Spanish Civil War. And it was the general
who was beaten back, since the Professor
insisted that the General had no privileges in that classroom, at least until the end of the lecture, at which point the
Professor was duly arrested. (audience laughs) Happily, Dr.Bhattarai has
generously spoken here as an academic by his own description, perhaps a lapsed academic
or a returning academic, but nevertheless as an academic. And not only as an activist
and as a politician, which he, of course also is and a very distinguished one. The career of Marxism in the world is of course the foremost perhaps, certainly one of the foremost examples, of the effect of ideas in the world and of the effect of ideas on history. But of course there's
also another direction. The world also affects ideas, and history does or should affect the ideas which we hold to. Dr. Bhattarai spoke of
Marxism as being scientific. And of course at the
very heart of the idea of being scientific is
the idea of learning, learning from evidence and from experience and of shaping one's ideas in light of evidence and experience. How exactly should we
learn from the experience of the 20th century? With respect to those societies,
which to use professor, or Dr. Bhattarai's very well chosen words, trace their origins and
their inspiration to Marx. That perhaps is a better
description of those societies than as existing socialist societies, or some of the other phrases
which we sometimes use. It is not very difficult upon inquiring into the
particular histories of those societies as all of you know, to very quickly discover that
their failures were multiple. And of course they're
not the only societies which have had failures. And I do not mean to suggest that. Their failures were, of course, political, but they were also social and economic. And these different dimensions of their failure were intertwined. Although the metaphor of distortion, which Dr. Bhattarai used seems
perhaps helpful at first, one suspects that it
does not go far enough. There are certain historical moments when what one might call
a bias toward inclusion, in particular a bias toward
economic and social inclusion, is clearly in the interest
of national development. China in 1949 was, I think it's reasonable to suggest an example of a society,
in which this was the case. And it was for that reason
that the revolution in China, communist revolution in China, laid the foundation through social reforms and economic investments of various kinds arguably in China's subsequent
economic trajectory. It is not very difficult
to argue that Napal too is in a similar situation today, in which a bias toward inclusion, economic and social inclusion is in the interest of
national development. But this observation
brings me to my question. In what ways is the
prescription of your party, Dr. Bhattarai and of Marxists or those who seek their
inspiration from Marx generally different from the prescription
of a more general category of political actors, whom we
might call leftist Democrats concerned with inclusivity,
who of course come in many different stripes? On what specific issues of economic policy and in what ways does your
prescription differ from theirs and how would you trace that difference to specifically Marxist inspiration? In an interview, which
you gave not too long ago, you spoke favorably of those capitalists who have national characteristics and who are oriented toward productivity, as opposed to international capitalists, oriented toward short
term (indistinct) gains? That would be an example of a distinction, which it would seem, would be relevant to both
categories of political actors. So please, if you could,
illuminate for us, in what particular ways a Marxist analysis will make a difference
in the detailed conduct of the economic policy of Nepal, thereby enabling it to
avoid some of the mistakes of those other states and societies, which in the not too distant past, have sought inspiration from Marx. Thank you. - I wanna thank all the panelists for- (audience applauds) great questions and great comments. So now I would like to
invite Mr. Prime Minister, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai to
take about 10 minutes, which is again, not fair,
but now within 10 minutes, if you can try to respond
to some of the questions. From there, yes, please stay there. - Thank you. Thank you. (audience laughs) - Mine is the only one that works? - Yeah.(laughing) - Thank you, distinguished panelists. I think you have made some very distinct and interesting observations and comments. I have no reason to disagree with you on many of the issues you have raised. I didn't dwell much upon our
concrete experiences in Nepal, and maybe that's why I
couldn't convey more about it. And couldn't clarify myself. About the query for Mr. Andrew Arato. His question of making
the new constitution. How Marxism will address. Because generally people ask. Though the demand of
Constituent Assembly was raised by Marx and Engels, it was never
realized in their lifetime. In Lenin's lifetime he
also raised this question, but the elected Constituent
Assembly were dissolved after the Soviet revolution. And since then no
Constituent Assembly election has taken place under
the communist leadership. So I think we are the
only commission in Nepal who put the political demand
of Constituent Assembly at the center of our movement. And ultimately realized, and
we emerge as the largest party in the Constituent Assembly. Now, if it had been the direct election, then we are not only the
largest, but the majority party. We are a mixed electoral system in Nepal. 40% is the direct election,
first pass the post system. In that out of 240 seats, we own 124. That is a simple, absolute majority. But in the next 60% or 360 seats, it was proportional representation
so we got only about, the largest, we imagine the largest group, we didn't get the majority. I think nobody else in the world, in the proportional
system, you get a majority. So in that sense, in the
Constituent Assembly, we are the single largest
force and we are trying to make the constitution through
the Constituent Assembly. How does it fit in with
the Marxist project? But we think it fits in, because here lies the basic
credential of Communist, whether they are Democrats or not. We believe in democracy. We believe in the
representative institutions. The only thing is, our critique with the
bourgeoisie democracy is, it is equal competition
among the unequals, given the inherent economic
and social inequality. You talk of political equality. There is the contradiction. We have only reservation on that. That doesn't mean we are
against electoral system or representative democracy. So in Nepal's case, though, since it was in a transitional period, old monarchical system was gone and new system was not institutionalized. So in the interim period, we could mobilize the masses of the people and whenever the conference and
the elections free and fair. So we are fully committed
to the Constituent Assembly and we're committed to making
a democratic constitution through the Constituent Assembly. But this constitution
all to be (indistinct). So there is the difference. It will be a bourgeois
democratic constitution. So because in Nepal we feel this stage of revolution is a bourgeois
democratic revolutionary phase, not a socialist phase. So that's why we are committed
to constitution making, and it will make the constitution. It fully fits in with the Marxist project. And the question, how
will go to the next stage? That is a problematic. After the completion of the
bourgeois democratic revolution, how will it transit to
the socialist phase? And that is yet to be seen. We are not bothered because
it will take several years or decades to institutionalize and develop bourgeois democracy or the capitalist system in Nepal. So we'll think about it. So please don't force me to forecast that. I think we have enough
time to think over it. And about other strategies query. Without (indistinct). That's very correct. So we have never denounced
the arms struggle. We did very correctly without
the 10 years of arms struggle. The autocratic monarchy
wouldn't have been thrown out. We wouldn't have been able
to arouse the poor masses of the people throughout the country if we had not encouraged
them to raise arms against an autocratic system. So we are never apologetic about it. The only thing is after
reaching a certain stage, then we thought, now this is now time to
stop the arms stuggle and move along a peaceful path. So this depends on the stage
of development of revolution. And so now how do we protect our gains? The question is there. There are serious questions being asked from our revolutionary Comrades but we believe given the
power equation in Nepal, we can preserve the gains of
revolution and move ahead. If there is a arm backlash against us, then we will have to rethink. But as of now, we believe
given the concrete reality of Nepal after the monarchy
is gone and the old army, which were loyal to the monarchy is itself in the process of democratizing. So if we really manage to
mobilize the masses of the people to win over the progressive
section of the armed forces and the other people
working for the whole state, I think that we can build up
a fairly strong coalition, which can preserve the
gains and move ahead. So dangers are there, dangers are there, but we believe in Nepal's specific case, we can preserve these
gains and move ahead. And over the non-class factors,
I think I've already spoken. Because we give enough
attention to non-class factors, we could expand our base
and reach this stage. And over the Mary Des Chene's
question of financial capital and these things, I fully agree with her, that the crisis of financial
capital cannot be resolved within the imperialist system. So this is a broader issue. Right now in Nepal, since
we are just in a stage of developing progressive
industrial capitalism, our fight is not directly
against industrial capital, but our fight is against monopoly capital, against the international
imperialist capital. But for that, we can't fight alone. We need solidarity with
the movement elsewhere. That's why in Nepal, if we are
to preserve our revolution, we need to collaborate,
coordinate with the progressive and imperialist forces worldwide. And Mr. Sanjay Reddy's query, how different from left Democrats? What are economic policy? Because this stage of revolution in Nepal is a bourgeois democratic stage, our basic economic policy is to do away with all the feudal remnants, to abolish all the feudal
production relations in the agriculture sector and do away with all the
monopolistic features in the other sectors and to defend and
protect national capital, productive capital, so that there is a fairly well-developed industrial
base within the country, the creation of proletarian class, and which would create a basis
for moving towards socialism. So this phase of revolution in Nepal is development of a industrial,
productive, capital phase. And so our economic policy
will basically focus on that. So that's why our main
issue has been to bring out the progressive revolution land reform, based on the slogan of
land to the tillers, to do away with all the
feudal production relation in agriculture, protect the national capital,
initialize the economy, create a big investment base, create a strong proletarian class, and then prepare for
transition toward socialism. So I think this should
fundamentally differ from the policy of other
bourgeoisie Democrats elsewhere, because they want to ally
with imperialist capital. In our case, we don't want to
ally with imperialist capital, though, we are forced to selectively allow
foreign direct investment and invite even the imperialist capital, but that will be on a selective basis, which won't harm our
independent development of industrial capital within the country. So this way, I think we can complete the bourgeoisie democratic
revolution in Nepal, and then prepare the base
for moving towards socialism and communism. Thank you. (audience applauds) - Thank you, Dr Bhattarai. So now I think what I would like to do is I would like to request
my colleague Gina Drew to ask the first set of
questions from people who are, I don't know... Have you received any
questions Gina, by the way? Could you please come to the mic and then ask couple of questions? And identify if possible
where the questions are coming from outside the room. - [Gina] Thank you, Dr. Bhattarai. In the interest of time,
I'll keep it to three, 'cause we have a number of
questions from the floor as well that are coming. The first question, via Facebook, is from (indistinct), in Turin, Italy. He congratulates you on becoming
prime minister and he asks, What will be your next steps to safely integrate the Maoist army and overcome the internal
problems of your party, the United Communist
party of Nepal, Maoist? Next we have, via Twitter, Kyle Knight, who is a Kathmandu-based,
Fulbright fellow. He asks, When will Dr. Baburam
Bhattarai keep the promise and issue a direction regarding the 2007 Supreme Court Decision, and give citizenship IDs that
list a third gender option? This was also asked by
someone on the floor, (indistinct). Finally, via Facebook, Kathy March of Cornell
and Tribune university, asked the following, In 1990, speaking at Cornell, just after the then new
constitution had been drafted; You said that the hopes of
hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the street demonstrations needed to be addressed on two fronts. Number one, the democratization
of the political process and number two, economic
reform to lift people, mostly rural peasants, women, Dalits, and ethnic nationalities, out of poverty. You said then that the focus
was too much on the political, including all the parties
and professional politicians, and not enough on the economic
situation of ordinary people. Do you think this has changed? How specifically have
you adapted your Marxism to address not only the economic
vulnerability of peasants, but also that of women, Dalits,
and ethnic nationalities? - [Ashok] Thank you. Dr. Bhattarai. - About this question of
integration of the PLA. In the comprehensive peace
agreement we signed in 2006, there's a clear provision of integration and rehabilitation of PLA (indistinct), within the security forces, and then democratizing of the whole army. So these are the two provisions. Unfortunately, the question of democratizing
of the whole army has been put in the be back burner and people just talk of
integration of the PLA. Though still, we are trying to reach a consensus on the modality of integration. Those who want to leave the
jobs in the security forces and go to political activity
or lead a social life, they can voluntarily choose, and they will be given an economic package and go for rehabilitations. And those who want to join the
security forces will remain, and they will be integrated appropriately. So this way, now we are in the stage of giving choices to them,
regroup them, and then integrate. And the exact modality of integration, the exact numbers to be integrated, easier to be worked out. I think soon we should
be able to sort it out. And about the question of citizenship to the ID to third genders. We have in principle agreed
we'll provide citizenship. Even our Supreme Court has
given a ruling in that context. So the government is
committed to implement that. The third gender will be treated on equal basis with other genders, and they will be given
full citizenship rights and all the facilities. And about the question of economic issue. Yeah, of course the democratizing or all the question of political democracy and economic development. They are the two fundamental issues. Though, now we are more
occupied with completion of the political process,
completion of the peace process, and making of the new constitutions. But ultimately, we'll have to
address the economic issues until unless we bring out a radical reform in the socioeconomic despair
to eradicate poverty, provide employment within the country, and bring out a balanced
development of different regions. We can't have a sustainable
peace in the country. So our focus next would be
on economic development. But right now, since there
is political instability, we have to first complete this process. And our next focus would be definitely on economic development. And we are very clear on this issue. Thank you. - [Ashok] Thank you. Thank you again, Kathy, and
(indistinct) from Italy, and the friend from Kathamandu
posing the questions. Now I would like to invite
professor Sara Shneirderman to pose maybe four to five questions. We'll try to move through the
process as quickly as we can. - [Sara] Thank you very
much, Dr. Bhattarai. We've had several
questions from the floor, so we have tried to group them, so that we can have as many
topics discussed as possible. First, following on to at
the last answer you gave. How has Nepal's caste system influenced your practical application
of Marxism in Nepal? And secondly, in relation to that, you have agreed to creating states on the basis of ethnicity. How will this affect your explanation and application of Marxism? A further question, how do you see the role
of the Chinese government in the region? And another question on
international relations, but from the other direction. What lessons can Nepal
learn from the experiences of the Communist parties in West Bengal and elsewhere in India? Finally, there have been
calls for transitional justice in Nepal, in some form, perhaps through a truth and
reconciliation committee. You've called instead for full
amnesty for war time crimes. Why has your party taken this decision, and how does it contribute
to long term peace? Thank you. - [Ashok] Thank you, Sara. Dr. Bhattarai. - Yeah. Caste system. The Caste factor has been factored in our revolutionary program, because especially in
the case of South Asia, the caste system has been so
well entrenched in society. So this is another form
of a class distinction. Originally they were the laboring class. Those people who were
so called untouchable are the lower caste. Historically, they were the
working, laboring people. So this is, in our view, another form of a class question. So it needs to be dealt separately, and factored into the
overall class perspective. That's why we have
consistently raised this issue, and been able to mobilize
a large section of people of the so-called untouchable Dalit cast. And even in the Constituent Assembly, they have had a very,
fairly well representation. And in our political program, even in the new constitution, the special rights for the
Dalits will be enshrined. So this way we want to liberate them from the age-old oppression
of the caste system. And on the question of creation
of state based on ethnicity. It's not on the basis of ethnicity alone. Because of the wording,
(speaking in foreign language), was used for nationality. In Nepali (speaking in
foreign language) means: ethnicity, caste, as well as nationality. So what we meant was,
it's your nationality. Nationality means a group of people who have a common
language, common territory, common economy basis, and
common psychological makeup. So that group of people we
identify as nationality, and we are trying to
create a federal state on the basis of a nationality,
not on ethnicity alone. So I think there has been confusion. But instead of ethnicity, we have to use the word
ethnicity, then it'll be clear. And the role of the Chinese, I think it has been highly exaggerated. China and India are big neighbors. So historically we have had
a very balanced relation with both of our neighbors. And in recent decades, both our neighbors are
developing at a very fast pace. China has already become
the second largest economy, and rapidly heading towards
becoming a superpower by then end of the century. So naturally, China
would have its interest on this side of the Himalayas. And India historically has
been a big regional power. And it also would have its say on this part of the Himalayas. So there is a contention
between these two powers, but our policy has been to
maintain a strict neutrality, have a balance relation with the both. So this big, high power,
increasing (indistinct) and influence Nepal is not correct. So our party, are our government... In fact, on this issue, all the parties in Nepal
have common understanding. We are bound to have a balanced relation with both of our neighbors. We can't tilt on any side. And on the question of
West Bengal experience. I think it was slightly different. West Bengal Communist operated within the given parliamentary framework. So there was a limitation beyond which they couldn't go. So after ruling, after being in the
government for last 35 years, they were voted out. So since they're operating
within the parliamentary system, that is bound to happen. But in our case, it is different. We are not operating within
the parliamentary system. We revolted against the whole system. And now, we are trying to
institutionalize a new system through the Constituent Assembly, which is not a parliamentary system. So there's the basic difference. So there can't be any
comparison between us and the Communists in West Bengal. And the question of transitional justice. We are very conscious that we are about to form two commissions; truth and reconciliation commission. And the commission to look after the cases of the disappeared ones. After that, we'll administer
justice accordingly. So we have no policy to give
blank amnesty to everybody. There has been a amnesty
reporting in the press. There has been confusion. So what we mean to say is according to the comprehensive peace agreement, the political cases imposed
against the political leaders and (indistinct) during the insurgency, they are to be given amnesty, not all the cases, or
not to all the criminals, so this needs to be differentiated. So we have no policy of giving amnesty to the just criminal cases, only the political cases imposed against the political
leaders, (indistinct). Not all the cases. Thank you. - [Ashok] Thank you. May I ask- (audience applauds) Professor (indistinct) Yes, please. Four to five questions. Dr. Bhattarai, we have grouped... Is this on? - Yeah. A little bit closer. Can you... - Yes. Okay. Again, series of questions
on different topics and there have been multiple
questions on each of these. First of all, can you
provide specific examples of what you mean by the
creative application of Marxism in the context of Nepal? Second, you talked of peasants as agents of struggle in Nepal. How do you envision the role of peasantry in Nepal's transformation? On another topic, How can you improve Nepal's economy other than by promoting capitalism, and by participating
in the global economy? Third, a number of questions
emerged on the topic of Tibet. This one states China's
growing influence in Nepal has resulted in a Nepali
government crackdown against Nepal's 50-year
old Tibetan community. Will your government
respect the human rights of this important community? And finally, a question
on Nepali diaspora. Nepali youth are leaving
Nepal at an alarming rate for opportunities abroad. What are your thoughts on how to bring this
enormous talent back home? Thank you. - [Ashok] Thank you. Dr. Bhattarai. - Yeah. By creative application
of Marxism, I mean, you have to defend the
basic tenants of Marxism in the form of philosophy,
political economy and scientific socialism as
defined by the great thinkers. But you have to apply according
to the concrete condition. That means the path of
revolution to which, depends on the class
forces within the country. The strategy and tactics of revolution cannot be copied from elsewhere. Like the Soviet model
was not copied in China. And (indistinct) model
was not copied in Cuba. So that in that sense, the strategy and tactic
of making revolution should be developed according to the concrete
situation of the country. That's what we mean by creative
application of Marxism, apart from other factors. And the role of peasantry is
very important in our case, especially in most of the
underdeveloped countries, where there is no industrial economy and there is no industrial proletariat. Basic masses of the people, basic working people belong
to the poor peasantry. So they have to do the
role of the proletariat of the Western European and Americas. So the peasantry, we take it as the most
revolutionary class, try to organize them, and they have played a very important role in our revolutions. You can see any example in
China, Vietnam or elsewhere. So in case of Nepal also, the peasantry plays a
very revolutionary role. And because there is no
big industrial proletariat, the peasantry are to take that place. So we have analyzed it this
way, and it has proven correct. How to improve the economy without following the capitalist path? We think that though
there has been a debate in the international Marxist community, whether that during the Soviet era, whether it was really possible to jump over the capitalist phase and go straight into socialism. But personally, I was never comfortable with that formulation, because according to
history, (indistinct), according to history experiences, you have to go over to socialism. So you have to have an industrial base. Without industrial proletariat
or industrial capitalism, you can't have a basis for socialism. So you can't just skip
over the capitalist phase. Only thing is, we can't
follow the traditional path followed by Europe or Americas. So our capitalism will be more national, productive capitalism
oriented towards socialism. So that will basic difference. Otherwise we can't fully skip
over the capitalist phase. So this could be debated, but our firm belief is we have
to first develop capitalism and then go toward socialism. On the question of Tibetan issue and the crackdown on
refugees, that is not true. There is some misreporting
and misconception of our government changing that policy of Tibetan refugees coming to Nepal, not being allowed to remain as refugees, and there being forcibly (indistinct). That is not true. If there are genuine refugees, then they will be given the refugee status and will be handed over
to the UN agencies. But if there are some people
who are not really refugees and want to go back to China, (indistinct), they can go back to China. But we have no policy to forcibly
send the refugee to China and we haven't done. Let there be no confusion on it. And about drawing our talents back home. This has the most pressing issue. And personally, it hurts me a lot. A poor country like us, to
develop, we need human capital. Human capital is the most
precious metal for development. If we have our young
people, educated people, living the country and going
away and settling elsewhere, this is a huge drag on our development. So the government is fully committed to providing opportunities
for our young talents to remain in the country,
or go back to the country and contribute for the development. So for this, I'm fully committed. And I'll do my best to create
such a condition, atmosphere. Thank you. - [Ashok] Thank you, thank you. (audience applauds) I think we have received
many more questions and we will make sure they get typed, and they will be posted on the website, and we will make sure
prime minister's office will get those questions, so he knows people in the
audience wanted to ask. But since one person, I have been told, in Afghanistan stayed
up to watch this thing and has a question. So we wanna give that person a chance to ask the Prime Minister a question. - Yes, this question is from (indistinct), in Kabul, Afghanistan. He's a journalist. The question is: Without
revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement. Today we lack a revolutionary
political economy that not only interprets the world, but also explains how to change it, how to construct a different world. How do you suggest we do that? Is Marxism just a scholarly discipline or a revolutionary tool
in the 21st century? - [Ashok] Thank you. Dr. Bhattarai. - I think the gentleman from Kabul, I think he has answered himself. So what I said is we need
a revolutionary theory for a revolutionary practice. So there is a dialectical interrelation between theory and practice. So we are fully committed. In fact, fully grasped
the importance of theory, and that's what we applied in practice. As Karl Marx has the famously stated, the philosophers have interpreted
the world in various ways. The point, ours is to change it, is the question of theory is there, but it has to be applied
to change the world. So theory and practice are interrelated, and we fully grasp it, and we are committed to
maintain that dialectical unity. And that is the secret
behind the development of a Marxist moment in Nepal, and will continue to follow this relation between theory and practice. Thank you. (audience applauds) - Thank you, Dr. Bhattarai. Since we are almost towards
the end of the program, I know that he has another
meeting that he has to attend. Let me take this opportunity
to thank Ambassador Acharya, and Deputy Ambassador, (indistinct), who really made this event possible. And he has been a big supporter
of India China Institute. And thank you again to everyone of you, those who are in the room and those who are staying
up in Afghanistan, or Italy, or at Cornell, for participating in this
very important debate. Part of being in academia, and part of having this opportunity is to really critically think. So by coming here, Mr Prime minister, you have given us a great opportunity. I would request everyone to be seated until the Prime Minister leaves the room. This is what the security
people have asked me to do. So please be seated. And I just want to
thank the prime minister and his delegation for a
wonderful time with us. Thank you. (audience applauds)
