June 13th, 2024
‘Even after eighteen-hour struggle of workers daily
They are forced to live in hunger and scarcity
Little ones who even can’t figure out the world
Are obliged to croon – ‘Mummy, we are hungry’.
Someone toils in the dust
And baths in sweat every so often
Some other collects the same sweat and indulges in meat and wine.’
These lines, written almost five decades ago by politician and writer Mod Nath Prashrit, does not only reveal the lopsided flank of the Nepali state, but also demands that a change should be brought immediately. After the decade-long conflict and historic people’s movement of 2006, a discourse on the need for transformation of the Nepali state structure has begun. There are different wings of the debate, but one common conclusion has become apparent that – ‘Nepali society is in such a state that it should be changed and its existing character should be transformed.’
The words ‘change’ and ‘transformation’ used in the context of changing the society and transforming the state’s character carry their own meaning. ‘Change’ refers to the ‘form’ aspect where ‘transformation’ to the ‘essence’. Change is a gradual process, but transformation is a planned progression! According to Dev Raj Dahal – ‘Transformation leaves the basic structure of the social strata and transforms the roots of it. There is a great deal of interplay between old and new forces. Transformation in this sense leads to the dynamic balance of society.’
Philosophical and theoretical interpretations of what the state is are varied. Marx called the state the ‘executive committee of the bourgeoisie’ however, Lenin called it the ‘organisation of ruling class’! Gramsci says – ‘State is a means of fulfilling the vested interest of those who dominate it’. His statement stands closer to a Nepali proverb – ‘Praise those whose rice-grains you eat.’
Lenin put forward the ‘principle of the dictatorship of proletariats in the transformed state’. Mao refurnished Chinese society in a different way than that of Lenin, so he set forth the idea of the ‘operation of state system under the joint dictatorship of revolutionaries.’ Gramsci argued that state power ‘belongs to the dominant class’. He says – ‘A class is dominant in two ways: it is leading and dominant. On the one hand, it leads the allied classes, and on the other, it dominates the opposing classes.’ People’s leader Madan Bhandari’s view is parallel to Gramsci’s – ‘State power is like a double-edged sword: it advances democracy to allies, and it dictates opponents. No dictatorship is imposed on the state, but the classes that come to the rule use the state power!’
Dev Raj Dahal believes: ‘When a class ascends to power, it must carry its culture and protect its institutions. There are institutional policies. As soon as the class carries them, it will be suicidal for the class itself.’ However, Shankar Pokharel counters this argument and puts forth- ‘We have to understand the truth that the state protects the dominant class and controls the proletariats.’
Relevant here are famous words of Marx: ‘The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.’ Even we are saying that the character of Nepali state should be changed, but how? This is the pertinent question around which the Nepali society is focusing its discourse now.
In Dev Raj Dahal’s view, the conflict from the earliest times to date is of two things – one of aspirations and the other of organisation. Law seeks to maintain peace and order, where politics seeks to change it. Therefore, they never get along. Law avows tradition where politics espouses aspirations, and aspirations are change-oriented.
Karl Marx chose the class. He theorised labour power, the surplus exploitation of labour and the resulting class conflict as a process of transformation. According to Marx, labour power is the ‘ability to work and efficiency of work’ of an individual, which the individual sells it to the labour-buyer at a wage for a certain period of time. Even the owners of labour cannot permanently sell it to their buyers; if they do so, they would be slaves, and slaves do not own even themselves. Slaves depend on their ‘lords’ for survival, where the servants of feudal lords depend on their masters!
Marx, in his famous work The Capital, asserts, ‘Workers are free humans. They are not part of the means of production like slaves, and nor are they the owners of the means of production like self-employed peasants. Therefore, workers do not have the means of production and no masters to fill their empty stomach. They are free to find work and also free to not work at all.
Labour force that is sold for work for a particular time is arranged through negotiation by means of legal method. After the buyers utilise the labour force, the utility of the worker will be finished, and the worker needs ‘food, rest and entertainment’ to revitalise his labour force and reuse it. That’s why basic issues like working hours, method of employment, remuneration and its rate, etc are negotiated between the owner of the labour force – the workers, and its buyers or the employers. Both the parties argue, bargain and negotiate to bring more benefits to their respective parts. In this process, the whole society is divided into two factions of ‘workers and employers.’ Political parties, state, government and civil society institutions are divided along the line of ‘workers’ and ‘employers or masters’; and such division is what we call ‘class division’. This division leads to conflict and conflict leads to struggle. The struggle between the conflicting parties is transformed into peace and the society takes a leap forward. The society then acquires stability until the next stage of ‘disagreement – conflict – struggle’ starts between these two classes.
In the era of slavery, the slave-owners used to punish the slaves physically. During the feudal era, the servants used to pay tariff to their masters. Capitalism, on the contrary, is not based on individual but a system of public concern, where the state constitutes the methods and means for the owners to ‘exploit and rule’ at the workplace using their ownership, in the form of capital. In this way, capitalism becomes a public subject, and the workers also come forward as a new social class as they do not accept to be under anyone’s pressure.
The philosophy and ideology adopted by the political parties are basically their perspectives related to the use of labour force, profit earned from it and the right of the citizens over the profit. Due to the difference of their perspectives on using and managing it, the parties become different and they are identified based on the perspective they embrace. This is how the standard is determined to know who belongs to the working class and who sides capitalism.
According to Pradeep Gyawali, ‘Nepal’s political parties are not based on class, but ideas. In order to transform the ideology-based parties to class-based, they need to be educated and organised in a new way that they understand their class-base and target group, and they advocate for them.’
The European experience says – ‘Analyse class, assess the composition of labour force and then nurture political consciousness. Only then you can reach the goal.’
After consolidating his political power in 1380, Jayasthiti Malla reduced the kingdom of Nepal into caste groups. He divided the castes of Nepali people into ‘Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra. Through such a division based on Manusmriti under Hindu law, he implemented a judicial system that assigned different ‘work, duty and rights’ to ‘Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Shudras’ respectively. He further sub-divided Kshatriyas in ‘king’ and ‘master’ and assigned them with different ‘work, duty and rights’. Giving continuity to it, Prithvi Narayan Shah delineated the responsibilities of his army on the basis of caste and ethnicity so that ‘Khas, Thakuri, and Kshatriya’ became the chief commander of the army, Brahmans advisors and Gurung, Magar and people belonging to other hill ethnic groups soldiers. This was made the national identity of Nepal with the expansion the Gorkha state’s power, and this established the norms of social relations.
‘ Jang Bahadur Rana sieged power through ‘coup d’état’ in 1846, and further tapered people’s freedom and strengthened state ‘authority’, says Devraj Dahal, ‘The Civil Code of 1854 was amended by Chandra Shamsher in 1910. He institutionalised caste-based social stratification dividing Nepali society into a system of different beliefs and introduced practice to renew it annually. He also introduced that the state would draw a system to provide land and other facilities. Going further to it, he classified the Rana family into three sub-categories and implanted conflicts between ‘state feudalism’ and ‘private feudalism.’
Nepali social structure can be an area of research for sociologists as the social structure here is an amalgam of traditional castes and ethnic groups. From the economic-political point of view, although our society has entered the capitalist era passing through the feudal age, there is no clear social polarisation between the ‘proletariat’ and the ‘bourgeoisie’ like in capitalist countries. Therefore, Nepal is called the common land of ‘minorities’ including different caste and ethnic groups, religions, cultures and languages. Nepal’s class-form is a ‘post-agrarian (post-peasant)’ society, which is traditionally defined as ‘semi-feudal’ society.
The political change of 2006 has given opportunity and space to these minority ‘caste and ethnic groups’, who had the feeling of ‘lost identity’ and ‘victims of social oppression’, to propose their agenda and decide on the state structure now.
Even the world of work is not as it used to be. Globally, there is a diversification of workers now: some are ‘computer-based’ workers, whereas some others are ‘home-based’ workers. In Europe ‘work from home’ has been common today. There are many workers who work for factories in Europe from India. Prof. Leif Bjelin says – ‘When we talked about class, we used to see a factory the place of exploitation yesterday. It was said that ‘there is exploitation, there begins the organisation, and that is where the movement starts’. Today the field of exploitation is scattered. Yesterday ‘class’ used to be in one place, today it is everywhere. What difference does it make to our organisational strategy? The essence of it is how Marxism will deal with the new issues that will come up.’
The policy document passed by the GEFONT Congress seems to be attuned with this – ‘In today’s labour relations, the economic process has become primary and the physical location of Foundations secondary. Many subjects in the contemporary world of work are determined by ‘market forces’ rather than the strength of the workers within the Foundations, where the fate and future of all workers toiling hard around the world be decided in a minute by a single decision of an ‘invisible’ boss sitting in a corner of the world.’
This diversity of the world of work is not the present-day phenomenon. Rejecting Lenin’s argument that the capitalism has reached a dying stage, Bernstein in his 125-year-old article ‘Evolutionary Socialism’ claims – ‘Capitalism has developed a structure that can manage itself. It can avoid ‘crisis.’ Contrary to Marx’s hypothesis, an intermediate social group has developed performing a ‘stabilising’ function rather than polarising society into bourgeoisie and working class. … So, capitalism is not going to end in the foreseeable future.’
After 1700, craft production began. The control that workers had over the workplace before the Industrial Revolution in 1750s, however, was weakened with the use of steam energy. By the time (1850s) Marx portrayed workers as the “grave-diggers of capitalism”, the use of electricity and ‘mass production’ had already begun. With the beginning of the 20th century, F W Taylor’s ‘principle of scientific management’ and Henry Ford’s ‘assembly line’ began to hit the industry. After this, workers’ control over the workplace became even weaker. Following 1970, the world of organised works entered a phase of ‘mass customisation’, where the application of ‘new computer machine tools’ began to produce a wide variety of goods at once. This raised a big question on how much control the workers have in the workplace.
In this context, Dev Raj Dahal argues that capital is being globalised and the capitalism we live today is financial capitalism. The current economy is a perfunctory economy, not a real one, over which the workers have no control. According to him, the class movement is being overshadowed by caste movement in a country like Nepal, and because of this, the space of ‘class-struggle’ is taken by ‘mass-struggle.’ Citing Western European socialists, Donald Sassoon has laid out ‘four fundamental questions that socialists must seriously work to resolve’: ‘What are the forces that protect the present unequal social order? What are the trends of this unequal social order? Where is capitalism going to? Is the change being seen now adequately rational to fundamentally change our strategy?’
Quoting Gramsci, Rajan Bhattarai says in his presentation – ‘Revolution is a complete process of transformation from one social order to another. Its first step is to seize the state power and then reform it. The second step begins with the establishment a new hegemony. There is no only one path to hegemony or capture state power; there can be different ways. The key aspect is the formation of a new social order, which will be fundamentally different than that of the present.’
According to Paulo Freire, ‘Change brought about by distributing dreams with the oppressed cannot be sustainable and effective. Change is only possible through a series of teaching methods that individuals or communities learn from their daily lives and own experiences. Changes based on dreams that are remote of our real life are not realistic and sustainable.’
Why is the cultivation of dreams again? Why isn’t the change brought about by the decade-long movement and struggle actually felt by the common people?
Dr Govind Nepal says – ‘Rather than the lower class, the upper class of the society leads the change and utilises the opportunities, so our party, our organisation, and even the world’s movement have not been participatory. I would like to give three examples: one, from the Indian movement, where Motilal Nehru, who had studied in Britain and his son Jawaharlal Nehru and others led the government in India. In Nepal, the class that enjoyed the facilities most after the end of Rana oligarchy led the movement to overthrow Rana rule. The common people remained the same during after the Rana rule. Let’s talk about the current Terai movement, where the Yadavs have started the Madhesi movement. The Mushars, the Das, the poor there, and the Chamars are not leading it. So, I think inclusion has been difficult because the movement has always been led by the most privileged classes and individuals of the old system.’
He adds, ‘Excessive distribution of dreams leads to quick disillusionment, and people become disappointed. Political parties have boundaries, they cannot fulfil everything. We expect more from the parties and shatter our dreams. It may the compulsion of parties to cultivate more dreams, and when they are not fulfilled, we become weak. We need to internalise this fact.’
Marx says – ‘The liberation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.’ When the victory over bourgeois’ supremacy is won and the proletariats become the ruling class, then the fight for democracy is won. The proletariats use the forte of class to sweep the existing conditions of class antagonism.
Has the 2006 movement transformed Nepali society? Dr Arjun Karki has discussed an interesting case in his presentation –
‘I have a friend from Nicaragua. He was the Ambassador to the United Nations after the revolution in his country. I met him in Nairobi and said, ‘We have made a huge change in Nepal.’ All the people present there congratulated me. The Nicaraguan friend asked me a couple of questions like – ‘Have you formed a new army after the change in your country?’ I said that we have our army already there. He asked me, ‘Did you make any changes in your police? Have you changed the judges?’ I said ‘no’ and added that they all are already there.’ ‘Have you made a new parliament?’, he asked again. And I repeated my same answer ‘no’ and said that we have been working with the old ones. Then he said – ‘If so, what is the change that you have made in your country and for what should I congratulate you?’
‘I talked about the class base of industrialists and businesspersons, and the people in our political power. I talked about the judges, police and army. However, no changes have been made in these sectors. We say we have made a great change but not any in these structures where we can be proud of. Therefore, thought is a powerful tool, not a flag. It will work only if the mentality is revolutionary, pro-people, pro-workers and peasant-oriented. Otherwise, we will meet with a big crisis and problem in the subject of managing and mobilising state power, power centres and structures. Gyanendra has been ostracised by us, but many people with the same thinking and mentality as Gyanendra can be in our society, within the communist and congress parties, and within all democratic forces. The revolution against it is not finished yet.’
His conclusion was – the power centre and the power structure are also within the party. Operation of the state power is determined by how we mobilise power within the party and how the people reach the power centre.
Dev Raj Dahal adds – ‘We cannot change the world order. They change us. We have endorsed international values and norms, and ratified international treaties. We cannot go against that. If we do that, the monopoly and the legitimacy of the nation may be lost. We have to work within that. So, our option is we have to think about many things to empower ourselves internally. Geopolitics ignores domestic priorities. Hence, the success of leadership depends on how we balance the two types of conflict: the movement from the outside and the movement from within. Our state, civil society, and economy are dependent on others. Are our choices limited to the dependency only? We should discourse on this. It is not that external policies should be abandoned, but they should be internalised. How can they be in our interests? How can we increase our participation? We have to think about it. If we make a policy keeping at the centre the state and the society as a whole and if everyone’s interests are represented in it, then we can move towards constitutional stability and constitutional sovereignty. Otherwise, we may fall to victim of conflict again by not being able to balance internal and external pressures.’
His argument is that the leadership has appeared as not being able to develop policies and implement them. That has been our weakness since 1951. Laws are made, but not enforced. A question before us is – have the political changes in 1951, 1990 and 2006 given us an open opportunity to think about our future? I don’t think so.’
Thus, the power structure manoeuvres transformation. If power structure remains the same, the hard-won achievements of transformation become meaningless.
Every country has its own priorities and choices. South Africa made the ‘Freedom Charter’ its flag. From the time of fighting apartheid to the date of writing new constitution through the Constituent Assembly, the country remained firmed around the Charter. After Mao, Deng Xiaoping laid out four basic principles of building a modern China: ‘Opposition to bourgeois liberalisation, reform of political and economic structure, open door policy with the world, and the policy of one country, two systems.’
He announced the policy of being dedicated to the development of productive forces and, based on it, gradually raising the living standard of the Chinese people. In the 1980s, he had one famous saying: ‘Time is money, efficiency is life.’ At that time, he used to share a discussion he had with a Japanese friend – ‘I asked, what should China focus on to develop rapidly?’ He suggested, ‘Transportation and communication – high wages and high consumption!’ Deng argued – ‘Socialism is the end of poverty; penury is not socialism. It, of course, is not the communism either.’
Paulo Freire opines: ‘The oppressed have two main paths to their liberation. First, they should be able to understand deeply the burden of oppression, its forms and processes. The deeper they have its understanding, the stronger and more conscious its reflection they will have in their struggle against oppression. Secondly, the creation of such a situation where oppressors themselves should realise that oppressing others is harmful to their own development and security.’
Even Adam Smith has written in his ‘Wealth of Nations’ that wage labour is more effective in acquiring wealth than slavery. Slave-owners have to spend their own capital on the caring of slaves. But the employers do not have the burden of caring the wage workers once they pay the wages at the specified rate; the rest of the necessary expenses should be covered by the workers themselves. In slavery, the slave-owner is responsible for feeding the slaves even when they are not working, treating them when they are sick, taking care of them in childbirth, and also taking care of their children until they are able to work. Slave-owners also have to spend a lot of money to keep the slaves bound so that they do not run away.
The independent workers are both citizens and consumers. They do not produce only enough oto eat and consume like slaves, but also produce goods that are taken to market and sell for others. They want money to buy things they need for their own consumption. They believe that they do not get the things free so buy even the products they produce at their workplace. Therefore, the workers have the power to produce more than they need, while slaves do not have such aptitude.
Nepali industry and business have had feudal production relations for a long time. ‘The distance between those who participate in labour and those who consume without labour is the very foundation of this feudal production and relationship, says Umesh Upadhyay – ‘Work in feudalism is misery. Therefore, enjoying without working has become a matter of happiness, dignity and honour. Feudalism develops and practices as two opposing points of aristocracy and elitism, and labour participation. In order to reduce labour participation to zero at works, the use of slaves and servants was maximised. And injustice and tyranny were rationalised to inculcate fatalism in them, and keep them indulgent. For this, religion, especially Hinduism in the context of Nepal, played an important role.’
Breaking such production relations means starting the process of transformation in the context of Nepal. But how could it begin?
Let’s take a look at the debate between the ‘change agents’ of South Africa.
After the end of the apartheid regime and during the tenure of President Nelson Mandela, a discourse was begun on what would democratic South Africa look like, socialist or capitalist, in the days to come? Putting forward their viewpoints, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and South African communist party launched the slogan – ‘Socialism is the future … build it now.’ They interpreted the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) as the spark of change to uplift and rebuild Africa.
On the other hand, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) insisted on the policy of sustainable change through ripping up the economic roots of the apartheid regime. ‘In our country, quite different from the rest of the oppressed world, liberation will mean little if property and land are not returned to the common people. So, a fundamental part of our strategy is to elevate the change above formal democracy brought about by our victory. Allowing the role of the existing economic powers to remain as they are would mean irrigating the hegemonic roots of apartheid regime.’ Standing on this principle, the ANC launched the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) programme to facilitate broader participation in the economy by black people and bring the economy back to the hands of black majority from the fists of white minority.
Then, a new controversy arose – whether the policy should be focussed to make the blacks rich or empower the poor Africans. Following the election of Thabo Mbeki to a second term of President as Nelson Mandela’s successor, disputes between the leadership of trade unions, communist party and the ruling ANC reached to a peak with the questions- ‘Is our democracy providing upper hands to the working class, and urban and rural poor communities? Or has monopoly of capitalism strengthened further over the past decade? Has the dominance of the driving force of National Democratic Revolution (NDR) increased in society after 1994?’
The debate continued.
Grievances started to flare – ‘The situation has been worse than before!’ But the government’s answer to it was – ‘Today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will definitely be better than today.’ South African communist party claims that the NDR has changed its declared path, due to which capitalism has benefited more than the driving force of NDR.
By 2007, the other side of the grievances began interesting theoretical debate with questions like – ‘Are we still on the revolutionary path as of before? What is the path of transformation of our state and society after the end of apartheid in 1994?’ While putting the theory into practice by the ANC after the fall of apartheid regime, the list of unanswered questions lengthened –
The discourse began with the interpretation of the slogan put forth by the South African communist party and trade unions – ‘socialism is the future … build it now’. When the slogan was coined, it was interpreted as ‘socialist production relations cannot begin until the working class and its allies seize state power.’ Those who were in favour of this explanation begin to argue now that the slogan should be – ‘Socialism is the future, build the power of the working class now.’ Others argued that its reinterpretation is needed and it should be as ‘Socialism is the future, start socialist reforms now.’ The issue of controversy running between these two lines is – ‘Should we look for the class subject in the national struggle or should we look for the national subject of the class struggle?’ Based on this debate, the conclusion of ANC experts is that the national democratic state is like the current state – pure capitalist. Even the ‘mixed socialist economy’ that the South African communist party is advocating for is not a ‘Marxist-Leninist’, it, however, is social democratic!
The saying ‘socialism emerges from the womb of capitalism’ has become a topic of debate now. This debate is linked to the issue of whether South Africa’s path is ‘capitalist-socialism or non-capitalist.’ The socialism-oriented path taken by the progressive national liberation revolutions of Mozambique and Angola to move away from world capitalist production processes and reach socialism, and the non-capitalist path taken by Zambia, have been taken as examples of ‘living socialism” by the deliberators.
A leader of the ANC, Joyal Ntsitenze, has called South African communist party General Secretary Blade Zimande’s interpretation of ‘socialism-oriented’ and ‘non-“socialist path’ ’irrational’. According to his argument, just as production relations had changed in the historical periods of transition from tribalism to slave age, slave age to feudalism, and feudalism to capitalism, the socialist production relation also changes. It does not emerge from the womb of capitalism, rather such relations are consciously created by the triumphant working class. He says that the first and most complex task in the socialist revolution is the transfer of power to the working class. This can be done by capturing or winning elections. It could also be possible by transforming a broad-based revolutionary front into a ‘party of the revolutionary working class as in Cuba.
As we have repeatedly referred to South Africa’s experience in Nepal’s conflict resolution, it can be said that the questions raised by South Africans in the discourse regarding government management and political programmes will definitely be helpful in our discussion. Now Nepal also has a huge Constituent Assembly (CA). The status quoist, extreme leftist and rightist tendencies within the CA are explaining their own ways on how to make a new Nepal. Just like South Africans focus their political programme on the future of NDR, the construction of socialism and social transformation, we are also focusing the debate on ‘People’s Multi-party Democracy (PMD)’, the creative use of Marxism and the transformation of Nepali society.
Ghanshyam Bhusal has put forward four questions regarding the creative use of PMD:
Gauri Pradhan has put forward the following 10 questions as points to revisit and resolve through our discussion–
His further question is whether we revisit these questions now or put them in parking lot. If we revisit them now, we can build ideas based on Nepal’s experience.
There are other questions too – ‘What is the scenario of class upliftment/transformation or transition? Is there an existence of another class between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? What is the role of these classes in ‘maintaining or overthrowing’ production relations? What is the role of trade unions in transformation?’
One conclusion has emerged from all these questions that the analysis of Nepali society is not possible using the methods that Lenin applied in Russia and Mao in China. A new method must be found to unravel the social structure, class structure and class character in our context. Assessment of income, land and property alone is not sufficient for class analysis. Conventional methods do not work to determine the proletariat -working class.
According to Ghanshyam Bhusal and Prof Chaitanya Mishra, Nepali society is not semi-feudal, but capitalist. Jan Breman, a professor from Netherlands who has studied India’s labour relations for nearly 40 years, adds, ‘Nepali society cannot be called a ‘feudal’ society in any sense. ‘Capitalism’ has become the organising principle of political economy here. But Nepal has not been transformed into an industrial society. In other words, social development has not undergone the same processes of change as it did in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The group leaving the agricultural occupation is large, but that group has not become the industrial labour force yet. Nor have they been able to sustain themselves in a stable employment in this or that sector of the economy. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to call the Nepali society a post-peasant society.’
How do you distinguish between the traditional proletariat and today’s working class? Can the current working class be considered as a single class, which is divided according to income? What effect does this have on the working-class movement?
Breman says, ‘The class structure here is a mix of old and new classes. Some traces of traditional classes are still present here. But the main contradiction is between the bourgeoisie, who prefers to call themselves the ‘middle class’ now, and the working class, which is internally divided into various subgroups. In fact, the ambiguous character of political economy has become so reflective that it is impossible to define clearly who the proletariat is.’
Is a trade union ‘single class’ organisation? He says – Trade union is not an organisation of ‘one class’. But in terms of employment, it looks different like ‘regular or daily wage workers; wage employees or self-employed; workers working on time-bound hourly rate and on piece-rate. Trade unions are trying to unite the workers in their debates on social transformation, restructuring and trade unionism by bringing all these together and addressing their political and economic interests at the same time, a really difficult endeavour.
How to define class struggle in terms of social transformation? Some intellectuals in Nepal are arguing that transformation in Nepal is possible only through mass struggle but not through the path of class struggle. They are making their points referencing with the Nepali mood that has focused on the struggle for caste, ethnicity, region and gender identity. What do you say?
It will be easy to attract the workers to the organisation based on the issues related to traditions and origins such as caste, ethnicity, religion, region, but such a short-term strategy will lead to further division of the class that needs to remain naturally united.
Answers of Prof Breman and various aspects of the discourse that South Africans are launching can be a reference for us. However, it will be appropriate in our debates today in Nepal to find fresh answers to the fresh questions that are unanswered till now.
(Bishnu Rimal: From Conflict to Transformation. GEFONT. June 2010)