Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” once symbolized radical transformation in Nepal. The man who led a decade-long armed insurgency in the name of Maoism which was instrumental in overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republic, has now abandoned the very ideology that defined his political existence. This the second time in past seven years that he abandoned Maoism ideology. Interestingly, he changed his party’s name for six times in past 37 years.

His recent shift toward Marxism-Leninism, as agreed upon with the CPN (Unified Socialist), marks a sharp ideological retreat and a desperate political maneuver to remain relevant. Prachanda’s “People’s War” (1996–2006) was fought under the banner of Maoism—a doctrine rooted in class struggle, revolutionary violence, and the dream of a new socio-economic order. The war took nearly 17,000 lives and culminated in historic change: abolition of the monarchy, a republican constitution, and a framework promising inclusion and social justice. For a time, Prachanda’s political narrative appeared heroic, even revolutionary. But three decades later, his revolutionary zeal has eroded into opportunistic politics.

His latest embrace of Marxism-Leninism appears less about conviction and more about survival. The Maoist movement that once inspired millions is now weakened, fragmented, and discredited by corruption and power-sharing deals. The rise of Gen Z politics—impatient, outspoken, and reform-driven—has made Prachanda and his generation of leaders look outdated and self-serving. The young generation’s call for transparency and change directly challenges the old communist elite that traded ideology for influence.

Faced with dwindling public trust, internal dissent, and possible legal and moral scrutiny, Prachanda has sought refuge in a new ideological identity. By agreeing to merge with Madhav Kumar Nepal’s Unified Socialist and adopting Marxism-Leninism as the unifying doctrine, he aims to repackage his party and extend his political lifespan. Yet this shift is cosmetic. Marxism-Leninism, in Nepal’s current political context, has little revolutionary relevance; it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify unity and consolidate positions.

The new agreement’s focus on “good governance,” “national sovereignty,” and “social justice” sounds pragmatic, but it lacks ideological depth. Prachanda’s record of broken promises and power-centric politics casts doubt on his commitment to any guiding principle. His past suggests he adapts ideology to circumstance, not conviction. Unless he retains a dominant leadership role in the new unified party, it is unlikely he will stay committed to this ideological shift for long.

Prachanda’s ideological evolution—from Maoism to Marxism-Leninism—is not a progression but a retreat. It exposes the moral exhaustion of Nepal’s old revolutionary class, whose pursuit of personal power has hollowed out the ideals they once fought for. What began as a promise of liberation now ends as a struggle for political survival.