Respected Chairman Comrade Prachanda
CPN (Maoist), Central Office
Expecting necessary cooperation from the central office, I am going to inform you and register my opinion on some issues.
During our last central committee meeting, I and some other comrades had opposed the concept of a two-line struggle within our party, which is against our great people's war and Ma-Le-Ma-ism and Prachandapath. The two-line struggle has been conducted in a very unhealthy way, promoting groupism. But considering the complexities of class struggles in the past, we thought the internal struggle in the party should be managed in less complicated ways. That is why the agreement was: we should set aside issues that are potentially so divisive and serious.
Despite this, in certain circles, an internal struggle has been carried out in an unhealthy way, there have been violations of accepted norms, responsible comrades are spreading illusions and there have been activities that are against the well-being of the revolution. Raising serious concerns about all these, I demand that the central office control such activities.
The discussions and presentations on Prachandapath during the central committee meeting were against its (Prachandapath's) main spirit. All honest comrades present at the meeting had the feeling that such deliberations would take the party backwards, prior to the second national convention and that it would cause serious damage to the movement.
I had forwarded my solid opinion during the central committee meeting. Since there were serious differences and doubts in the leadership and mainly after my resignation episode, I had an informal talk with comrade chairman outside the meeting hall. During the meeting, we had an agreement that for now there would be an understanding on a simple principle that the party, army, and the front will have integrated and centralised leadership of the proletariat. In line with that understanding, both of us made presentations during the meeting.
But contrary to this, the minutes of the meeting contained sentences that have double meanings implying that the party, army and the front has a single leadership. And such information has been forwarded down into the party's rank and files in different ways. These are things I have come to know very recently. If that is the case, I do criticise myself for not hearing, looking and reading the minutes carefully after the meeting. I state my differences with such a decision and would like to register a note of dissent through the central office. I am taking these decisions because the idea of having a single leadership in the party, army and the front is against the consensus of our party's second national convention and the development of the republican system of the 21st century.
Some circles in the party have forwarded the argument that without such single leadership, the enemy will get room to play and that such leadership will make the plan of strategic counter attack successful. Such an argument has no weight and is not based on any principle. If such a concept is spread further, we will have to bid farewell to the sovereign committee system of the party of the proletariat and the system of collective leadership. If we choose that option, it is clear that it will be very dangerous and counterproductive.
Viewing the arrests that took place in New Delhi, Siliguri and Patna as part of a series and with all bad intentions implicating a layer of the party as being behind them will not only make the internal struggle unhealthier, it will intensify factionalism. There are sinister indications that this is happening.
That is why I request for the necessary initiative of the central office to stop the efforts of linking the arrests in India with the internal struggles in the party.
With revolutionary regards,