INDIAN REVOLUTION
AND QUESTIONS OF STATE OF REVOLUTION.
(Contradiction in its present day context)
BY Com.Subodh Mitra – CEC Member, CPI(ML). (Published
in 'CLASS STRUGGLE' organ of the Central committee of CPI(ML) July,
2015 issue)
India is a
predominantly agrarian society with 68% of its population living in
the villages. Out of this 65 percent of this population is dependent
on agricultural produce and 5 percent of the population is dependent
on handicrafts and other sources. Thus, it is the peasantry which
happens to be the numerically
strongest productive force in India, the important creator of our
country’s wealth.
India has huge
natural resources with ever flowing rivers, vast fertile agricultural
land and it is a land of rich forest, sea and geological (water,
natural gases, oil and minerals) resources. It is a country of
unlimited human resources. In spite of having all this, our people
see no ray of hopes in their lives. The
problem of food, cloth, health, education and shelter remain
unresolved. Joblessness and fanaticism dominate the country in place
of education, culture and knowledge. In one word the people are
groping in darkness without any freedom and safety.
The significance of
this peasantry as a potential force cannot be exaggerated either.
They had been the pioneers of our freedom struggle, and indeed the
numerous peasant uprisings against British imperialism and its feudal
allies had constituted the most important feature of 19th and 20th
century Indian history. Keeping that glorious tradition alive, the
peasant masses in different corners of the country continue to launch
militant struggle for bread and freedom even today.
Yet it is a matter
of great regret that ruling classes of our country had never cared to
harness this immense strength and dynamical of the peasant masses to
build a modern and developed India. Rather the peasants have remained
neglected and constantly aggressed by the imperialist, the landlords
and thereby bourgeoisie who have fleeced all the wealth produced by
them.
It should be
remembered that the emancipation of the protestant can never be
achieved and completed unless it emancipate the peasant allies from
the fetters of semi- feudalism. The creation of the modern India
demands the unleashing of the creativity of peasantry. It is due to
these reasons that we characterize the peasant problems as natural
problem as the solution of which is a must if our country is to move
forward.
The Indian people
continue to be crushed by the poisonous of fangs of landlords,
big bourgeoisie and imperialists even after the 1947 transfer of
power.
The rural people who
constitute an overwhelming majority of Indian population are tied of
feudalism. The oppressed masses of rural people have nothing but
hunger, poverty, ill health and unemployment as their property. They
are rewarded with lathis, bullets, chains and jails as their
ornaments.
By venture of wows
of struggles of peoples struggles the ruling classes enacted several
laws. They brought Land Reform Laws, Minimum Wages Act, Operation
Banga Act, Forest Right Act, various forms of tenancy, Rights Acts,
Untouchability Act, Prevention of Atrocities on SC ST Act, Women Act.
But they were only aimed at sinking the people in illusions and are
becoming useless for the people etc.
Right from the time
of First Five Year Plan till today, the plans are drawn in the
interest of landlords, big bourgeoisie and imperialists. Even they
are drawn under the direct guidance of Imperialists.
In history this
external hand in drafting our internal plan reveal that in the year
1950 a world bank team visited India, just before the first five year
plan was begun. The world bank gave assistance even from the early
1950s onwards for the development of infrastructure. Chester Bowles,
the then American ambassador to India brought wolf Lodinsky and
Kenneth Fersons the American economists to guide and advise the
Indian Government on Agricultural Policy. The staff of the Ford
Foundation was also closely associated with the National Planning
Commission. The world bank team visited India again and again during
time of second five year plan was being formulated. American Food Aid
Funds under PL 480 were used to promote American private enterprise
and also to set up the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation
of India (ICICI), with the specific plan extending credit to farms
collaborating with foreign concerns.
It is important to
note that Prof. Wolf Ladejinsky and Prof. Kenneth Pensions were expert
American economists who were
deputed to India by the American Government to divert the ongoing
Agrarian Revolutionary movement in India. ‘Ladgenski papers’
reveals that Land Reforms Act in 1954 was drafted to
curtail and to divert the Agrarian Revolutionary movement led by the
Communist Parties. The plan of distributing vested land under the
leadership of Government was initiated as opposed to ‘Land
to the tillers’ slogan of the Communists.
Unfortunately the
then leadership of CPI had accepted this land reforms and abandoned
the path of Agrarian Revolution and its slogan of Land to the
tillers.
The Green Revolution
in 1970, intensive farming, Blue Revolution, high yielding seeds,
aquaculture-all these only aimed at breaking the backbone of
peasantry and Indian Agriculture and serving the interests of
multinational companies. The whole peasantry and Agriculture are
subjected to market exploitation and price of spiral of fertilizers
and insecticides.
Again the
liberalization, privatization and globalization pursued by the Indian
ruling classes had become potential
tools in the hands of Imperialists and Indian Corporate Houses to
penetrate into, lost and control the entire agriculture and rural
sections in the interest of imperialism, big bourgeoisie and landlords
combine. In this wake, the peasants are displaced from their rights
over the lands, forests and natural resources and the vast masses of
rural people are deprived of their means of livelihood and pushed
into ruination in a big way in the name of SEZS, SAZS, other schemes
like Corporate Farming-Contracts Farming-and other scattered
development policy. These plan development
Reforms Policies are being initiated by our ruling classes under the
direct guidelines of imperialists.
Thus the Indian
economy remains under developed, dependant on imperialism because
agriculture, its main story suffers from stagnation. On the other
hand, land-the principal means of agricultural production- remains
alienated from the bulk of the peasantry who trill on land but do not
own it on the main.
It is in fact due to
the reason India is still remains semi-feudal and semi- colonial
country in which two basic contradictions and (1) between Imperialism
and the various Indian nationalities and (2) between Feudalism and
the broad masses of the people crust.
In order to bring
revolutionary change it is necessary to change the productive
relations to unleash productive forces.
In order to change the productive relations it is extremely important
to understand the nature of our society and its contradiction
in tentatively. Essence of dialectics is to study intentional
contradiction without proper understanding of contradictions. We will
fail to bring about revolutionary change or successfully adopt
tactical time for social revolution.
With this view in
prospect we need to discuss the basic question on Contradictions and the
Principal Contradiction in our
semi-colonial and semi-feudal country in order to draw the program of
action for revolutionary social change in N.D.R. In other words to
assert the stage of Revolution.
PRINCIPAL
CONTRADICTION IN SEMI COLONIAL-SEMI FEUDAL INDIA.
Meaning of the
Principal Contradiction:-
Marxist-Leninist are
always guided by the world outlook of “Dialectical Materialism” a
phrase first framed by Plekhanov
in 1891 to describe scientifically the “Consistent Materialism”
of Marx and Engles. It is called “Dialectical Materialism”
because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of
studying and apprehending them is ‘dialectical’, while its
interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these
phenomena, its theory is materialistic. According to Engels (1894),
‘Dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion and
development of nature, human society and thought. Lenin(1915) puts it
precisely “Development or motion is the struggle between the
opposites i.e. contradiction”. Thus everything is inherently
contradictory (Hegel 1831) and development is
the struggle of the contradiction. This is the University of the
Contradictions. i.e. contradictions are universally existing.
But there are many
contradictions in the process of the development of a complex thing
(Mao, 1937) when we analyse a phenomena in it’s particularly to
time, place, phase and context. One of them is necessarily the
principal contradiction, whose existence and development determines
or influences the existence and development of other contradictions.
Even in the
principal contradiction, there is always a principal aspect which
determines the character or nature of the thing or phenomenon.
When we accept the
characterization of Indian Society as “Semi- Feudal ,
Semi-Colonial”, we also aspect the
strategy of ‘New Democratic Revolution’ as the programme of
Indian Revolution. Since the problems of India’s New Democratic
Revolution can be solved only in conformity with the principles of
Dialectical Materialism. We have to base our strategy and tactics on
the very principles of contradictions themselves. By the very logic
of the semi-feudal, semi –colonial system itself, we have to accept
the existence of following contradictions;
*Imperialism and the
Indian nation.
* Feudalism and the
broad masses of the people.
*Bourgeoisie and the
proletariat.
*Bourgeoisie and
peasantry as well as petty bourgeoisie.
*Contradictions in
the rank of the ruling classes.
Out of these
contradictions, there are two basic contradictions. First is the
contradiction between imperialism and the people of the oppressed
nations and second is the contradiction between feudalism and the
broad masses of the people. Whereas all other contradictions are
secondary i.e. derived from the basic contradictions themselves. One
of the differences, which existed in our C.P.I.(ML), is centred
around the questions of principal contradiction i.e. recognition of
the contradiction whose existence and development of other
contradictions of our semi- feudal, semi-colonial society. Our unity
convention of 2005 out of which CPI(ML) was born had seen the
discussion on two different opinions on the question of principal
contradiction in India.
The first opinion
held, “The contradiction between the feudalism and the broad masses
of people is the principal contradiction in India”. Feudalism, is
thus the principal aspect of the principal contradiction.
The second opinion
on other hand held, “The contradiction between the alliance of
imperialism with domestic reactionaries and the broad masses of the
people is the principal contradiction. Imperialism is the leader of
this alliance.
Third position
failed to determine the principal contradiction (KN’s Position).
As such nothing the
opinions were discussed by the delegate of the unity convention was
accepted as the official line. The comrades were asked to produce
“document” of documents for the discussion. The present document
has been prepared as a part of the fulfilment of the task assigned by
the unity convention itself.
There are two
aspects of the present subject. One is political aspect and the other
is economic aspect. Both should
be understood in order to have a comprehensive understanding.
An Economic
Analysis of the Semi-feudal, Semi-colonial System:
Anatomy of the civil
society must be sought into political economy. According to this
principal, the anatomy of the
principal contradiction must be sought into the political economy of
the semi-feudal, semi- colonial system itself.
Maximization of the
‘surplus profit’ (super profit) has been the fundamental law
governing both the capitalist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export
of commodities) before 1870 as well as the imperialist policy of
colonialism (i.e. the export of capital) after 1870. Marx has defined
the surplus profit or super profit as the difference between more
labour in exchange for less labour. “The favoured country recovers
more labour in exchange for less labour, although this difference,
the excess is pocketed as in any exchange between labour and capital
by a certain class. Since the rate of profit is higher, therefore,
because it is generally in a colonial country, it may, provided
natural conditions (soil, atmosphere etc) are favourable, go hand in
hand with low commodity prices. “Marx has made it explicitly clear
that surplus profit which is the main regulator free exchange”.
Rather, it can be recovered only through “forced trade” or
unequal exchange i.e. exchange of larger amount for the smaller
amount of labour. Thus without unequal exchange surplus profit cannot
be recovered.
According to Marx,
“One of the fundamental laws of the development of the capitalist
mode of production is that the more the productive forces are
developed, (higher the rate of constant capital to variable
capital is allowed to grow) the more the proletariat is exploited,
i.e. higher is the proportion of surplus labour to necessary labour.
From this Marxist formulation a couple of contradictory inferences
have been drawn.
As the productive
forces are developed more and more, the actual daily and weekly wages
go on rising higher. It means that wages are higher in the developed
capitalist countries than the underdeveloped countries.
The more the
productive forces are developed, the more the proletariat is
exploited. It means that the relative price of the labour i.e. the
price of the labour as compared both with surplus value and with the
value of the surplus product stands higher in the backward countries
(since the ratio of surplus labour is lower than the necessary
labour) than the developed countries. Marx had summarized these
contradictory inferences in following words. “It will be found
frequently, that the daily and weekly
wages in the first nation (rich country) is higher than in the second
(poor country), while the relative price of labour i.e. the price of
labour as compared to both with surplus value and
with the value of the product, stands higher in the second (poor
country) than in the first (rich country).
It means that a
situation exists in which more and more wages are paid to less and
less labour in a rich country, whereas less and less wages are paid
for the more and more labour in the poor country. This differences in
wages is the first source of unequal exchange.
There is the second
source of unequal exchange also. It is the difference in the prices
of primary products i.e.
agricultural as well as mineral products and the manufactured
articles. Marx had accepted the
argument of all the bourgeois scholars right from John Start Mill to
Ricardo that with the progress of the society with the development
of capitalism, the exchange value of the manufactured goods would tend
to fall, whereas the exchange value of the primary products drawn
from agriculture and mines would tend to rise. In other words, the
rate of profit will go on falling in the capitalist
countries in course of their development. As Lenin(1916) and
Bukharin(1917) have argued, since there has been regular and
universal rise of the cost of primary products, imperialists are
forced to struggle fiercely to control the areas of chief raw
material or primary products as colonies or
semi-colonies in order to maximize their super profit.
From the above brief
analysis of the tendencies of capitalism made by Marx, it is apparent
that capitalism in the developed countries cannot maximize its super
profit without an unequal exchange nature, where more and more labour
can be exchanged for less and less wages, where more and more
commodities can be exchanged for less and less prices. This unequal
exchange between the two countries is ultimately the unequal exchange
between the labour and the products of a low productivity economy
with those of high productivity- economy. This can be ensured only by
the export of capital which links and subordinates the economy of the
backward colonial as well as semi- colonial countries to the economic
needs of the developed capitalist countries. This export of capital
transforms the dialectical relationship between the two countries.
The developed capitalist country is transformed into an imperialist
country whereas the backward country is transformed either into a
colony or the semi-colony. This export of capital generates,
regulates, as well as maintaining a definite scheme of
class-structure or class arrangement in the semi-feudal,
semi-colonial countries without which no unequal exchange is
possible.
This scheme of
class- arrangement for the purpose of unequal exchange has been
thoroughly investigated, discussed and formulated by the “commission
for colonial and national question” as the 5“Triangular alliance”
among imperialism, comprador capitalism and feudalism against the
majority of the people in semi-colonies. The report of the commission
was prepared under the Chairmanship of Com. K USSINEN of Finland,
which is called the Colonial Thesis of Third Communist International”
or “Colonial Thesis” in brief. It was adopted at the 6 th
Congress in Sept 1928.
The colonial Thesis
is supposed to be the second manifesto of the communist party
prepared for the people of colonies and semi-colonies. Para 9, of the
colonial Thesis says, “The recent history of colonies (and
semi-colonies as well) can only be understood if it is looked upon as
on organic part of the development of capitalist world economy as a
whole”. “Where the ruling imperialism is in need of a social
support in the colonies, it first allies itself with the ruling
strata of the previous social structure the feudal lords and the
trading and money-lending bourgeoisie against the majority of the
people. Everywhere imperialism attempts to preserve and perpetuate
all those pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (especially in the
villages) which serve as the basis of or the existence of its
reactionary allies”. Again Para 13 says “Since the overwhelming
mass of the colonial population is connected with land and lives in
the country-side, the plundering character of the exploitation of
peasantry by imperialism and its allies (the class of land owners,
merchants and money-lenders) acquires special significance.
It is thus this
‘triangle alliance’ against the broad masses of the people for
their exploitation as super profit through
unequal exchange that constitutes the principal aspect of the
principal contradiction. Feudalism is assigned a role in this
alliance, but not as a principal or leading force but as an ally of
imperialism. No alliance can be formed without feudalism. As such a
part of the surplus, not the whole of it drained
from the people is shared by the feudalism. But the major part of the
surplus is shared by comprador bourgeoisie and the imperialist forces
among themselves. No class-struggle against such alliance can be
waged without directing its edge against ‘the weakest link in the
alliance’ i.e. Feudalism. ‘Agrarian revolution which is axis of
New Democratic Revolution on the other hand, is directed not only
feudalism alone, but against the whole alliance.
‘Super Profit’,
‘Unequal Exchange’ and ‘Alliance’.
Just as ‘Super
Profit’ cannot be obtained without unequal exchange in the same way
unequal exchange cannot be made without this ‘triangular alliance’.
It is thus apparent that neither super profit nor unequal exchange is
possible, if feudalism is allowed to be principal aspect of the
principal contradiction. Let us see how without this triangular
alliance neither unequal exchange nor super profit is possible. Lenin
has described “Super Profit” (extra profit obtained over and
above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of
their own country) as the fundamental law governing the export of
capital to both colonies and semi-colonies where labour, raw
material, and land are cheaper and the capital is scarce.
Consequently by the very process of the export of capital, capitalist
mode of exploitation is super imposed (imposed from above or outside)
on the feudal mode of exploitation, super imposed by the export of
capital (through joint collaboration, joint- ventures etc.) on the
feudal mode of exploitation is described, defined and characterized
as the semi-feudal, semi-colonial mode of production.
Such a mode of
production itself is the unity or alliance or co-existence between
the two opposite modes of production the feudal mode of production
i.e. small scale production based on manual labour operating through
the formula of C-M-C and the capitalist mode of production i.e. large
scale production based on machines operating through the formula of
M-C- M. But according to Lenin, such alliance between the two
opposite modes of production or the co-existence of large scale
production based on machines side by side with the small scale
production based on manual labour cannot continue for long simply
because of the capitalist law of the development i.e. the law of the
displacement of small scale production based on manual labour by
large scale production based on machines. But the economic history of
India of last 206 years. i.e. from 1853 when the net-work of railways
was spread till 2008, reveals just the opposite trend. During this
whole period there was very little displacement of small scale
production by the large scale production, as a result of which there
was no marked displacement or change in the share of the industrial
product in relation to the total National Product from 1948 to 2008.
It proves that share of industry in the Net National Product in 1948
was 17.2% and it remained almost the same i.e. 16.7% in 2008 after a
gap of 60 years?
The analysis of the
distribution of population confirms that there has been no
displacement or change in the percentage of population engaged in
industry either in 1911, there were 9.8% of people engaged in the
industries and even after a gap almost (in 1981) 100 years, the
percentage remains, almost the same i.e. 9.90% and even after.
This situation of no
displacement of small scale production by the large scale production,
no displacement in the shortage of industrial production or
population either can be explained only in terms of the
role which imperialism has played in India directly before 1947 and
indirectly after 1947. “Capitalism in our country, because of the
historical conditions of colonialism did not spring from the
class-struggle of Indian people, from our soil by the efforts of
national bourgeoisie of our
country. Rather, it was imposed from above and outside by the
imperialist bourgeoisie. As a result of it, capitalism, which was
super imposed, was not competitive with feudalism.
Rather it was complementary to it. Imperialism has maintained this
unity, alliance or co- existence by paying two opposite roles just to
preserve the condition of the “unequal change” through which
super profit could be obtained.
Imperialism has
encouraged the simple commodity production under the formula of
C-M-C,(Commodity – Money - Commodity) while at the same time it has
discouraged the extended capitalist production under the formula of
M-C-M. (Money – Commodity – Money). So two unequal sources of
exchange (C-M-C as the source of low-productivity economy and M-C-M
as the source of high productivity
economy) remains maintained in the economy. It is because of this
alliance between the two partial modes of production, opposed to each
other that the more and more labour and
labour products by the imperialists. Imperialism exploits peasants
and handicrafts by obtaining more and more products for less and less
prices through the formula of C-M-C with the help of feudalism, and
exploits working class (proletariat) by obtaining more and more labour power
for less and less wages through the formula of M-C-M with the help of
comprador bourgeoisie. This exploitation by the alliance of
imperialism, comprador capitalism and feudalism constitutes the solid
basis for another alliance for the class- struggle. It is the
alliance between the working class and peasantry. It confirms that
the alliance between the two parallel or opposite modes of production
unequal in the level of productivity is the alliance for unequal exchange cannot
serve imperialism with unequal exchange. The economic necessity of
the unequal exchange rules out completely the possibility of
feudalism, being the principal aspect of the principal contradiction
in semi- feudal, semi-colonial country. The contradiction between
feudalism and the broad masses of people is found to be the only
basic and principal contradiction only in a feudal society with which
no large-scale exchange is possible due to the predominance of
Natural economy. On the other hand unequal exchange is impossible
with capitalistically developed bourgeoisie
countries. It is thus this triangular alliance in the
semi-feudal,semi-colonial countries that forces the prices of the
primary products exported there from to decline up to 40% from 1900 to 1945.
The assistance given
by the rich countries to the poor countries compensated only less
than half the loss suffered by
under developed countries due to exports and unequal exchange.
Due to the
super-profit through the mechanism of unequal exchange, the
development of capitalism in the imperialist countries become at the
time a process of under development in semi-feudal, semi-colonial
countries. This process operated in a couple of ways in India.The
first is the way of draining away a large volume of “surplus”
from India so that India cannot accumulate enough capital to make
effective use of whatever potentialities it has in terms of human and
natural productive factors. The second is the way of distorting
Indian economy continuously so as to reduce it to a mere
apparatus for supplying raw materials and for absorbing the obsolete
products and technology of the advanced capital country. Thus, India
is suffering predominantly not from the independent development of
capitalism but from the insufficient development of capitalism.
Where as the development of capitalism is the result of “independence” in the process of economic change, the under development is the result of dependence in the same process of economic change. The “triangular alliance” is thus the alliance for under development is the result of dependence in the same process of economic change. The “triangular alliance” is thus the alliance for under development through the dependence of feudalism on comprador bureaucratic capitalism and the dependence of feudalism on comprador bureaucratic capitalism on imperialism i.e. on the import of capital through direct and indirect routes for their existence and survival. Liberation from underdeveloped means liberation from this triangular alliance i.e. from imperialism, from comprador bureaucratic capitalism, from feudalism at the same time by anti- imperialist, anti-feudal New Democratic Revolution.
The word
‘development’ is a neo- colonial concept for the third world
countries, where imperialism and feudalism exist together. Susan
George says “Development has been the password for imposing a new
kind of dependences for enriching the already rich world and for
shaping other countries to meet its commercial and political needs”.
Let us see how the
system of triangular alliance works. Alliance between Feudalism and
Comprador Bourgeoisie.
Agriculture is the
foundation of the economy in India whereas industry is the leading
factor 53% of gross national product is drawn from agriculture and
allied economic activities. If handicraft products are added to it,
this proportion reaches 61.7%-70% of the export items and products
are drawn from agriculture itself. In the concrete conditions of
India today the agricultural sector of economy is
controlled by Feudal Lords mainly and the industrial sector of
economy is controlled by “comprador
bureaucratic capitalism” with direct help of imperialism. There are
three grounds for the alliance between the two.
Feudal lords exploit
the peasants and agricultural labourers, and compradore bourgeoisie,
the industrial proletariat. Due to feudal oppression in agriculture,
the class of compradore bourgeoisie is well assured of the continuous
supply of cheap labour at 7 constant real wage rate. This is the first indirect
service to compradore bourgeoisie by feudalism in India.
Feudalism is the
source of the supply of cheap food grains and agricultural raw
material to compradore bourgeoisie. Since the prices for the food
grains and agriculture raw material are cheaper than the prices for
the industrial goods and since the wages of the working class are
fixed in terms of food
grains, the class of compradore bourgeoisie is bound to get more
profit due to feudalism.
Compradore
bourgeoisie in India cannot survive without a “domestic market”
from where they can recover the “loss” obtained in the
international market, over which they can exercise their
monopoly-type control. Some times this ‘loss’ is recovered
directly by raising the prices of the industrial products and
indirectly at times by the rise of administered prices of subsidies
through the agencies of Govt. themselves who are the major consumers
in the market.
In a country like
India, the rural market for industrial consumer goods estimated to be
two and half times the size of the urban market. In 1952-53, for
instance, rural India absorbed industrial consumer goods worth Rs. 31
billion at current prices as against the urban consumption of Rs. 12 billion. In 1968-69
these figures were respectively Rs. 58 billion and Rs. 25 billion.
Now it goes up to 108 billions. Under these conditions, compradore
bourgeoisie cannot ignore the rural market.
Now, who are the
major customers of industrial goods in the rural market? If the
Indian data can be taken as the basis f
or the generalization, it can be said that only 10 percent of the
rural consumers consume as much as
the total urban population out together. If this top ten percent in
the rural areas are identified with the feudal lords and their
associates, it is this class of feudal and semi-feudal forces which
is the strongest pillar that supports the market for industrial
production. Its share in the rural market is as high as one-third or
so. (37.64% in the year 1968-69). It is the same class which rules over agrarian
economy. This class of feudal lords transfers the major portion of
the surplus obtained from the exploitation of peasantry and allied
toiling masses to the compradore bourgeoisie through unequal sale and
purchase.
Alliance between
the Compradore Bourgeoisie and Imperialism:
‘Foreign capital’
in the shape of investments, aids, loans, FDI-SEZ, machines and
technology has been exported to India mainly in two forms. First is
the colonial or direct form, second is the semi-colonial or indirect
form. By the direct form, we mean direct foreign private investment
only to be regulated by Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (FERA). By
the ‘Indirect Form’, we mean foreign capital invested
through indirect routes just as ‘joint collaborations’, joint-
ventures’, ‘bilateral-cooperation’ and ‘investment in Govt.
or Public sectors’. Under the new economic order neo- liberal policy today
the direct foreign private investment from 1948 to 2008 in which U.K.
and U.S.A. occupy first and second position in order or the size of
capital invested with 28.7% and 26.7% respectively
as their shares.
Secondly ‘indirect
foreign investment approved by the Govt. of India’ from 1979 to
2008 in which USA and Japan stand first and second. Thirdly the
picture of foreign collaboration is approved by the Govt. of India
(1948 to 2005). Economically speaking a country is said to be a
‘colony’ when the ‘direct foreign capital from a single country
dominates or rules the entire economy, whereas the same country is said
to be a semi- colony when the foreign capital invested through
indirect routes i.e. through joint collaborations and joint-
ventures from different countries compete to dominate or rule the
whole economic scene both in private as well as public sector. A
‘colony’ is thus transformed into a
‘semi-colony’ when direct rule is replaced by indirect rule.
India was
transformed politically into a semi-colony from the British colony on
15 th August 1947, only after the British bourgeoisie sold and
transferred their direct capital and other direct economic interests
to the indirect control through joint collaboration and
joint-ventures in partnership with J.R.D. Tata, G.D.Birla, J.K. and
Sri Ram etc. In the ‘Private Sector’ and government itself in the ‘Public
Sector (Railways for example) during 1945 to 1947. It was only after
the publication of ‘Bombay Plan’ in 1944 based on mixed economy
of public as well as private sectors by the representatives of Indian
compradore bourgeoisie which accepted the necessity of foreign capital through the
indirect routes of ‘technical collaboration’ and ‘scientific
cooperation’ that this transfer of British capital from direct
control to indirect control was effected. Now, India is a semi-colony
because it is the foreign capital through the indirect routes that is
dominating or ruling Indian economy today
with the help of compradore bourgeoisie and feudalism. The transfer
of power on 15 th August, 1947 itself constituted the political basis
for the alliance between Indian compradore
bourgeoisie and imperialism which can be economically described as
the joint collaboration, joint
venture, technical collaboration and economic cooperation. This
alliance is getting strengthened everyday by the increasing number of
foreign collaborations.
Through the ‘New
Economic Policy’ of Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 followed the neo liberal
policy adopted since 1991 the Indian compradore bourgeoisie wanted
to solve the economic crisis of the system by choosing and changing
their alliance with the different imperialist groups. This has
created a rift in their rank by splitting FICCI on 17 th August, 1987
after 61 years of its existence. Now Assocham led by RJD Tata is
throwing a challenge to the truncated FCCI led by Birla. Assocham
i.e. Associate Chambers of Commerce and industry has now emerged as
‘secular’ organization of
bourgeoisie with ‘diversity’; in religion and caste-Parsi, Sikh,
Muslim, Christian, Chettiars and some of the Hindu Marwari.
On the other hand FICCI i.e. Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had how become ‘communal’ organization of Hindu Bourgeoisie of Marwari-Gujarati and Sindhi origin with a few Sikhs and others as an exception. It is interesting to note that Nusli Wadia of Bombay-dyeing has joined Assocham which claims to be more representative of trade and industry in India than FCCI. Where as the rival of Nusli Wadia,Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani of Reliance is an active member of FICCI which claims to enjoy the fullest
On the other hand FICCI i.e. Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had how become ‘communal’ organization of Hindu Bourgeoisie of Marwari-Gujarati and Sindhi origin with a few Sikhs and others as an exception. It is interesting to note that Nusli Wadia of Bombay-dyeing has joined Assocham which claims to be more representative of trade and industry in India than FCCI. Where as the rival of Nusli Wadia,Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani of Reliance is an active member of FICCI which claims to enjoy the fullest
patronage of Rajiv
Govt. at the central level. Although both the rival groups stand for
alliance and liberalization without any ‘discrimination’ from the
side of Govt. the FICCI is in favour of ‘discriminative
alliance’ technology and finance. Imperialism, on the other hand is
also in need of an alliance with the third world bourgeoisie. The
tendency of the ratio of profit to fall in mature capitalist
countries is sought to be neutralized through rapid technological
progress.
For instance, United States machinery dealer national appropriation report that export sales for its members in 1964 represented only 22.4 million dollars i.e. 5.5 percent of the total sales. This need not be surprising that the third world countries account for only 7 percent of the total industrial production of the world as a whole. Yet without export of capital to the third world countries including India, the world capitalism would run into a serious crisis.
The compradore
bourgeoisie of the third world countries on the other hand, require
these second, third or ninth degree obsolete technology and
equipment. Their industrial production is aimed at meeting the
demands of the limited richest sections of the population-feudal
lords, bureaucrats, officers, politicians and bourgeoisie themselves
for which their home market is quite suitable. They compensate the
high prices for the imported commodity capital and technology from
the cheap labour, cheap raw material and cheap land made available to
them by feudalism and semi-feudalism through exploiting peasants and
tribal population. After all the fashions of New York, London and Paris take some
time to reach Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Cairo.
Alliance between
Feudalism and Imperialism
Even if, our country
is achieved relative independent, feudalism renders a great service
to imperialism first through its alliance with compradore
bourgeoisie by creating a domestic agricultural market,
for the products of manufacturing and chemical industries, for
pesticides, fertilizers, tractors and pumping sets together with
seeds of high yielding variety. It is the same class of feudal lords
which acts as semi-feudal forces i.e. local money lenders,
contractors, wholesale dealers,
commercial merchants, proprietors for selling seeds, pesticides,
fertilizers. It is the same class of feudal lords who acts as owner
of cold storage holder of license-quota and permits
truck-transporters for imperialism’s goods and commodities. It is
on the other hand this imperialism which through the
export of finance capital helps these semi-feudal elements with the
loans from the banks. “Semi-feudalism” is the alliance of
land-ownership with money lending capital. The whole of the alliance
is stronger than the sum total of the individual parts. specially
when our great country is
pregnant with New Democratic Revolution. Actually, the alliance of
feudalism with imperialism serves as the foundation stone of unequal
exchange.
International and
National Situation
The International
Situation
The principal
contradiction in the world today is that between imperialism and the
oppressed nations. It is the contradiction which provided the basic
threat to the ever depending crisis of world imperialism on the one
hand, and of the semi- feudal, semi-colonial and neo colonial
countries on the other. The other basic contradictions in the world
are between imperialist powers between the socialist forces
and the imperialists, and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
in the capitalist
countries.
Immediately after
the Second World War and after the victory of the Chinese revolution
and especially after the defeat of American imperialism in Korea, US
imperialism began its decline. The
international situation was characterized by the solidarity and
expansion of the anti-imperialist forces with a solid socialist camp
as their nucleus. The tide of the national and democratic movement in
Asia, Latin America and Africa was on the rise, while the imperialist
camp was splitting into factions. At that time the oppressed peoples
of the colonial and semicolonial countries were not only objectively
but also subjectively the real and conscious allies of the socialist camp
against imperialism. In this situation, the ruling classes in a
number of these semi colonial countries, were forced to proclaim an
‘anti-imperialist’ or ‘non-aligned’ stand as was the case in
Egypt and India.
With the betrayal of
the Russian revolution at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956,
this extremely favourable situation a temporary setback. The soviet
betrayal certainly had a major and negative impact on the
international communist movement and created confusion in the minds
of the people struggling for national liberation for a while. As a
result, the contradiction between, imperialism and the
oppressed nations came to the forefront and became more sharp.
Thus, although the
presence of a strong and united socialist camp was an undoubtable
advantage to the struggle of the oppressed peoples of the world, it
would be incorrect to say that its absence changes the objective
situation basically. The real barriers to the development and victory
of the national liberation
struggle in the majority of the third world countries, has been the
lack of unified, mass- based proletarian parties and leadership and
this has given scope for the soviet renegades under their
revisionists henchmen and neo- revisionists in the third world to
create more confusion and corrupt the ranks of the working class and
toiling masses in their own interests. In fact, revisionism has
become an international phenomenon.
But regardless of
this or that socialist country becoming revisionist, and regardless
of the uneven and weak condition of the genuine communist parties in
most countries of the world, the objective situation continues to
develop more and more favourable for the oppressed peoples and
nations, while imperialism
gets more and more deeply enmeshed in its own fundamental and
irreconcilable contradictions.
As Lenin pointed
out: We are ‘in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution’.
In his scientific analysis of imperialism he said that imperialism is
monopolistic capitalism, parasitic of decaying capitalism, moribund
capitalism, and that it intensifies all the contradictions of
capitalism to the extreme. He
therefore concluded that “Imperialism is the enemy of the social
revolution of the proletariat”.
The basic world
contradiction as analysed by Lenin are still operative today and have
been aptly put by Com Chou En-Lai in the report to the Tenth Congress
of the CPC where he says. “Since Lenin’s death the world
situation has undergone great changes. But the era has not changed.
The fundamental principles of Leninism are not outdated; remain the
theoretical basis guided our thinking today”. The report goes on to
say that “the present international situation is one characterized
by great disorder on earth. The wind weeping through the tower
heralds a rising storm in the mountains”. This clearly shows that
relaxation is a temporary phenomenon and great disorder will
continue. Such great disorder is a good thing for the people, not bad
thing. It throws the enemies into
confusion and causes division among them, while it arouses and
tempers the people thus helping the international situation develop
further in the direction favourable to the people and unfavourable to
imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction.
The basic cause for
this ‘great disorder’ and conflict is the fierce struggle for
hegemony, re-division of the world.
Lenin described the
essence of imperialism as being “a combination of antagonistic
principles, viz., competition and
monopoly”. In the sphere of inter-imperialist relations and
especially among big powers this is also a basic law driving them
into ever more bitter and fierce contention, even while certain other
factors such as the relative balance of economic and military power
between the Indian and American blocs,
the fear of nuclear holocaust and the rising anti- imperialist struggle of the world peoples, force them into collusion for this
very survival. But this collusion is temporary and superficial.
Contention is permanent and basic-being a fundamental law of
capitalism itself.
Thus the danger of another world war remains inherent in the situation, although the imperialists have tried to avert this by adopting the Nixon to Bush doctrine of ‘making Asians fight Asians’ and forcible occupation of Iraq and turned Iran into neo colony of US has threatened the existence of relative independence of semi-colonial in the world. And now under American Policy of re-division of world the military agreements.
This fundamental and
growing contradiction and contention of the big powers for hegemony
on the one hand, and their increasing exposure as oppressors and
exploiters of the whole world, especially the third world, under the
rising struggle for national liberation, on the other, makes it
possible for the ruling classes of the oppressed nations of Africa,
Asia and Latin America to resist coming under the complete control
of a single imperialist power, that is, becoming a neo-colonial
puppet. In other words, they are able to retain a semi-colonial
status allowing them certain ability to manoeuvre and bargain between
the contending imperialist powers. But these ruling classes can never
take a stand against imperialist as a whole, even though they may go
against one imperialist power in a given situation. They can only
exist within the framework of world imperialism, tilting at most,
towards this or that super power, in line with the particular
concessions or support they need at any given time.
A semi-colony is
economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically subservient
to world imperialism. “Semi Colony” is a peculiar condition of
state existence in the epoch of imperialism when the world has
already been divided up between the imperialist powers. If
imperialism was free from all
inter-imperialist conditions and rivara lanes, it preferred policy
would be directed colonization. But with inter-imperialist rivalry,
to re-divide the world and extend the spheres of influence of the
contending powers, direct colonisation becomes more difficult than
before, and imperialism is forced to seek subtler and indirect
methods of retaining and expanding its hold over the semi-colonial
countries as well as the world markets, thus intensifying the
contention more and more.
Thus, a country is
able to retain its semi-colonial status in the face of
inter-imperialist rivalry on the one hand and people’s struggle for
liberation on the other. For the semi-feudal, semi- colonial ruling
classes, this situation enables and also compels them to maintain a
semblance of ‘independence’ and ‘non-alignment’,
but which they can wring certain concessions from the contending
imperialist ‘powers’ and also hoodwink their own people into
illusions that they are ‘independent’, thus buying a little more
time for their own survival. That his ‘non-alignment’ in reality
only a dual or bi-alignment imperialist big super powers is today
becoming more and more apparent to the oppressed and exploited
peoples, who are rising in revolt against their comprador ruling
classes and world imperialism in
country after country.
The National
Situation:
The Basic Contradictions,
The world is living
in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution today. We cannot
analyse any economic or political issue of national or international
importance leaving imperialism aside, especially when India is a
semi-colonial country. Lenin summarized the fundamental traits of imperialism among
which the following three are important.
*The export of
capital became extremely importance as distinct from export
commodities.
*International
capital monopolies were formed and shared the world among them.
*The territorial
division of the entire world among the greatest capitalist powers was
completed.
Hence, without
fighting the imperialist politics of domination, no successful
struggle is possible in a semi-colonial
country. Since ML groups on the other hand, while recognizing India
as a semi-colony, arbitrarily separated the anti imperialist struggle
from the anti feudal struggle, thus one sidedly emphasizing the
principal contradiction of the phase of agrarian revolution while
totally ignoring and forgetting that the phase is part and parcel of
the stage and that the phase is a tactic for realizing the strategic
aims of both anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism.
India is a semi
feudal, semi colonial country. This means that there are two basic
social contradictions operating in Indian society. One is
contradiction between feudalism and the great masses of the people,
and the other is between imperialism headed by U.S. imperialism and
the Indian nation. Apart
from these two basic or fundamental contradictions there are a number
of other
contradictions as
well.
It is vital to
locate and assert the basic contradictions in a society, and to
determine the principal contradiction at a
given time. This is because : i) the stage of revolution is determine
by formulating the basic contradictions correctly. The tactical line
is determined by the phase, and to determine the correct tactical
line we have to correctly asses the principle contradictions in the
current phase. The basic contradictions of a particular society are
the basis of social revolution itself. ii) political contradictions arise
and develop within phases and stages and caused by the basic and
fundamental contradictions, and only a correct analysis and evaluation of the political contradictions can determine the correct
political resolution or policy to be followed.
How do we determine
the basic or fundamental contradictions? The contradiction between
the productive forces and the production relations in a given society
is the basis of social revolution. At a certain stage of development
of society the productive forces come into conflicts with the productive relations
of that society which have become obsolete, incapable of further
life, and thus act as a fetter on the further development of the
productive forces. In such a situation, the objective social law
demands that these fetters be broken so that the productive forces
can be unleashed and allowed to grow. In word, the law of social
development demands a revolution in production relations. Thus
follows a period of social revolution.
In India, semi
feudal, semi colonial society, the predominant feudal production
relations in the country side areas a basic obstacle in the
unleashing of the productive forces, and the fate of the great masses
of the people depends on the liquidation and complete overthrow of
this obsolete and bankrupt production relation. Hence, the
contradiction between feudalism and the masses of the people is one
of the basic social contradictions in our society and can only be
resolved by social revolution.
The second basic
contradiction in Indian society at this stage is the contradiction
between imperialism and the whole nation. British Imperialism
refashioned Indian feudalism and made it. Its main social
base for the ruthless plunder of India’s resources in the colonial
period. When British capitalism reached the stage of finance
capital being exported entailing the further industrialization of
India for British imperial interests, the protection and maintenance
of semi-
feudal relations in
the countryside became an absolute necessity to ward off the threat
of indigenous capitalist developments in India which would have
destroyed feudalism and striven to establish an independent
capitalist state, under normal conditions. This process was no longer
possible after the October
Socialist Revolution in Russia, and in the epoch of imperialism, when
the colonial bourgeoisies of the oppressed countries, fearing for
their money bags more than for the independence of their countries,
went over to the camp of imperialism.
British imperialism,
weakened and in grave crisis after the second world war was forced
to transfer power to the landlords and comprador capitalist in India,
turning it from a colony into a semi-feudal, semi- colonial country,
exploited and dominated now no longer by a single imperialist power,
but by a number of contending imperialist powers.
However, the
fundamental economic interests of imperialism as a whole, continued
to be served by retaining the basic
feudal social relations in the countryside which forms the main
social base of imperialist exploitation and retards the nature i.e.,
capitalist development of productive forces. As a result, Indian
capitalism in the interest of country can only develop in a deformed
and distorted way, not relying on the development of a home market
which is the primary factor for genuine capitalist growth
but operating on an extremely narrow home base, oriented almost
wholly towards export of the national produce on unequal terms and
throw away prices to serve the interests of imperialism and social
imperialism in the main.
Thus, the second
contradiction basic to Indian society at this stage is the
contradiction between imperialism and the whole nation.
Unquestionably then,
the main task of the social revolution at this stage is to overthrow
the two main enemies of the Indian people to carry out a democratic
revolution against feudal oppression and a national liberation to
overthrow imperialist aggression. These two basic tasks are
interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is terminated, the
feudal-landlord class cannot be overthrown because imperialism is
its main support. Equally, unless the peasants are mobilized to
overthrow the feudal landlord class it will be impossible to build
powerful revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialism because
feudalism is the main social base of imperialism and the peasantry is
the main force in the Indian revolution.
Basic contradiction
will remain unchanged throughout the stage of revolution, but the
principal contradiction will
change its position in the process of development. This means in the
process of development the position of the principal contradiction
keep on changing as the political situation develops under a given
phase of development which plays the leading role at a given phase.
Basic contradiction
determines the stage of revolution but principal contradiction
determines the political tactical
line at particular phase.
The Principal
Contradiction
Mao Tse Tung in his
‘On Contradiction’ has pointed out that at every stage in the
development of a process, there is
only one principal contradiction which plays the leading role. (1) “Hence
if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them
must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive
role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position.”
(2) “When
imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all
its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite
in a national wars against imperialism. At such a time, the
contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned, becomes
the principal contradiction, while
all other contradictions among the various classes within
country(including what was the principal contradiction between the
feudal system and the great masses of the people) are relegated to a
secondary and subordinate position.”
(3) “But in
another situation, the contradiction changes its position. When
imperialism carries on its operation not by war but by wider means-
political, economic and cultural ruling classes in semi-colonial
countries capitulate to imperialism and the two form an alliance for
the joint operation of the masses of the people. At such a time, the
masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism and
feudal classes, while imperialism often employs indirect method
rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi -feudal, semi-colonial countries to oppress the people, thus the
internal contradictions become particularly sharp.”
It is apparent that
the first situation (1) refers to history when China was a feudal
country during the period of Opium War,
in 1840, Sino- Japanese war of 1894 or XIHUAN war of 1900, sector
Japanese association when the contradiction between the feudal system
and the great masses of the people was the principal contradiction,
and when due to the direct imperialist war of aggression, China was
being reduced to the position of a colony (some parts) and semi
colony. Here the clause, “and so it is now in the present Sino-
Japanese War” only refers to the changes that have taken place due
to the direct imperialist aggression in the present tense. It has
nothing to do with the principal contradiction between feudal system
and the great masses of the people written in the past tense. But
Charu Mazumdar has distorted the whole thing, and quoted it out of
the contest. This is the anarchism at the
ideological plane. It is further clear by studying the second
situation (2) when an alliance between imperialism and feudalism is
formed against the broad masses of the people. It becomes and remains
the principal contradiction under the semi feudal semi colonial
conditions of economy.
The theory of
alliance of imperialism (including comprador bureaucratic capitalism)
and feudalism against the broad masses of Indian people has been
accepted by 1951 programme of undivided CPI adopted first by all
India party conference in Oct 1951, endorsed by the third congress of
the party held in Madurai. This Programme for the first time
accepted India as a semi feudal, semi colonial society.
“The basic
conflict( Principal contradiction) in Indian society is the conflict
between imperialism, comprador bourgeoisie and feudalism on the one
hand, and the entire Indian people including national bourgeoisie on
the other hand.”
It can thus be
safely concluded that, The alliance of imperialism with comprador
bourgeoisie and feudalism against the broad masses of people should
be accepted as the principal contradiction. This will qualitatively
enlarge the scope of class struggle throughout the country. “This
class struggle will include all the struggles of all the people of
all the areas including urban as well as rural areas”. We should
emphasis ‘working class peasant alliance’. “Under the
leadership of working class” as the core of our New Democratic
Front Alliance of the enemies can be fought effectively only by
the alliance of the people as the core of New Democratic Front. It
means that we have our class enemies both in cities as well as
villages. It also means that we have our class friends both in cities
as well as villages.
Conclusion :
With this analysis
we can conclude that at present immediate main task is to launch
struggle against the alliance in
order to advance the struggle for New Democratic Revolution. We
therefore need to rally- organize-and unite the landless labour, poor
peasants, middle peasants and other sections of rural poor with
landless labour and poor peasants as its core for the abolition of
Semi colonial- Semi Feudal system around the central slogan ‘Land
to the tillers and to resist the semi feudal authority, exploitation
and along with this we should organize the peasantry to oppose the
imperialists and multinationals
penetration in Agriculture.
While developing
struggle against landlords - big bourgeoisie -imperialists combine
and their so called developmental
policy, let us evolve and practice all forms of alternative system
for future society.
*****************************************************************
