Where did we go wrong in the question of East-West?

During the people's war, the Maoists reached the place where they were finished many times and came here after shaking the dust. What was the power of the Maoists when the peace agreement was signed and how much is it now? Needless to say. The life of a party is no different than the life of an unhealthy and a healthy person. Now the party is getting infected with many diseases. It is beyond the power of Maoists to cure all diseases at once. Therefore, if one disease is treated one by one, even if it takes time, confidence will increase and one can move forward facing new challenges. Transformation is not completely impossible if the leader-activist has a strong will.

s are the main and supporting factors in success and failure. Arguments must be linked to facts to find the root cause. Most people do not search for truth by connecting facts with logic without going to mind-numbing trouble. They go the opposite way and fail. If the same happens in the life of the party, there will be an accident. This applies in the case of Maoists. We failed to distinguish between the main and the subsidiary in the East and West question after coming to the peace process to bring the party to the right conclusion. There is hope that there will be some correction with the current division of labor. If success is achieved in this, the way to solve other problems will be opened. However, there is one strict condition. Pragmatism in thought and utilitarianism in organization should be prepared to be used in rhetoric.

There is no need to hesitate to accept the fact that people's war has achieved success because the people of West Nepal played a leading role against the feudal oppression in Nepal. Generally, where there is more oppression, there is also more resistance. However, immediately after the peace agreement, work in the eastern and urban areas should have been started in a normal manner and after the constitution was made. But without doing this, giving priority to the West in terms of socialist work has led to the current destiny. After the election of the first Constituent Assembly, the leadership has been drawing attention to this issue. However, if it is not taken seriously, the party has become very weak in the eastern and urban areas, which are playing an important role in the development of capitalism today.

In Russia, there was a serious debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks about whether the peasants or the workers were the main force in the revolution. The Mensheviks said that the peasantry was the main force. At a glance, although the peasants were dominant in terms of numbers and strength, Lenin emphasized that the workers were the main ones in terms of revolutionary consciousness and emerging power, and a revolution took place in Russia. The Mensheviks became counter-revolutionaries. This happened because Lenin made policy by assessing the present and the future, while the Mensheviks made policy by assessing the present only. Considering the supplementary suggestions that came in the legislative session, if the chairman has prioritized the eastern and urban areas in the meeting of the standing committee, it will prove to be a milestone in the party's transformation efforts. If this proposal of division of labor comes only to solve the immediate problem, it will backfire. Hopefully, the leadership should have brought this proposal after reviewing the negative and positive events of history.

Various speculations are being made after the subject of a comrade's disagreement that the leadership did not have visionary thinking during division of work came to the media. Somehow the equation between different interest groups within the party has changed, and the question has started to arise whether this debate has gained entry or not. In the first meeting of the CPN (Maoist) after the exit of Baburam Bhattarai, Chairman Prachanda said, "If there is still factionalism, let's dissolve the party", the trend turned into factions, factions and interest groups because they could not synthesize the debate within the party. As a result, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that a new equation is being attempted between interest groups. If policies and methods to end factionalism cannot be developed, the possibility of recurrence of Dhobighat equation (Mohan Vaidya, Baburam, Narayanakaji) cannot be ruled out. It has become a matter of concern where the legal system of democratic practice without centralization will lead.

Where capitalism has developed, the embryo of socialism remains. Therefore, it is a progressive step to balance the West and give importance to the East and urban areas. Certainly, a new debate has started in the party on this issue. If this debate is settled, the party will enter the process of transformation. But, can we digest this kind of debate or not? Herein lies the knot. The leadership must review the past in terms of East and West. Even those who are clear about this kind of ideas, policies and methods in time must admit that it was a mistake to keep a low voice before the leadership lest they be accused of regionalism. And, you should be able to say - 'I have a hand in bringing this party to this state, I also have a hand in making it.'