Spread the love

By Our Reporter

After nearly three decades of shaping Nepali politics through armed struggle, civil conflict, and radical revolutionary rhetoric, the term ‘Maoist’ has officially disappeared from the country’s political landscape. The merger led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ with nine other factions has resulted in a new entity, the “Nepali Communist Party,” leaving the historical identity of the Maoist movement behind.

The decision, framed as a step toward uniting leftist forces, masks a deeper reality: the systematic erosion of ideological integrity in the name of remaining politically relevant. The very founders and stalwarts of the original Maoist movement—leaders like Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran,’ Baburam Bhattarai, Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplav,’ and Janardan Sharma—have long abandoned the party, highlighting internal discontent and disillusionment with Prachanda’s leadership style. Those who once fought shoulder to shoulder during the party’s revolutionary phase have chosen alternative paths, leaving a hollow shell of the original movement.

Historically, the Maoist party emerged in 1995 as the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Centre), later becoming the CPN (Maoist), with the declared mission of dismantling social inequality, ending feudal exploitation, and building a socialist society. The decade-long armed “People’s War” concluded with the 2006 peace agreement, and the party played a crucial role in establishing the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. Yet, even after this historic success, the party’s focus gradually shifted from revolutionary ideals to personal power, political bargaining, and opportunism.

Internal fractures became evident as early as 2015–2016, when Bhattarai left to form Naya Shakti Nepal, criticizing Prachanda’s leadership for prioritizing power over principles. Similarly, Vaidya and Biplav broke away to establish separate revolutionary groups, underscoring the repeated failures of the party to institutionalize its revolutionary vision. Even within the remaining party, dissatisfaction simmered, culminating in the Gen Z movement of 2025, which challenged entrenched leadership hierarchies and demanded generational change.

Prachanda’s strategy to retain relevance—merging with other factions and discarding the Maoist label—reflects the classic cycle of personalist politics in Nepal’s communist sphere: ideology subordinated to individual authority. The new Nepali Communist Party, under the “coordinatorship” of Prachanda, signals a shift from the radical, people-centered vision of the past toward a more conventional, power-centered socialist rhetoric.

In essence, what is being celebrated as “unity” is, in fact, the formal dissolution of the Maoist identity—a historical movement forged through struggle and sacrifice—replaced by political pragmatism and opportunism. The narrative that the new party pursues socialist transformation belies the reality: the revolutionary ethos of the Maoist era has been overshadowed by the pursuit of office, alliances, and relevance.

The disappearance of the Maoist banner is a cautionary tale in Nepali communist politics: without principled leadership and institutional accountability, even the most radical movements can vanish under the weight of personal ambition. In the name of staying relevant, Prachanda has traded revolutionary legacy for political expediency, leaving the “Maoist” legacy to history.