Saturday, October 31, 2015

INDIAN REVOLUTION AND QUESTIONS OF REVOLUTION ( CONTRADICTION IN ITS PRESENT DAY CONTEXT )

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.

Independent development of capitalism is a continues process of economic change in the magnitude and direction, consistent with and advantageous to the realization of the potentialities of human as well as natural resources of the country. Under development of semi-feudal, semi-colonial economy is on the other hand, a continuous process of economic change in the magnitude and direction, inconsistent with and detrimental to the realization of the potentialities of both human as well as natural resource of the country. 

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
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. 

The advancement of technology renders huge stocks of machinery and equipment obsolete, and unless these out of the date stockpiles can be profitably jettisoned somewhere, this escape route of United Nations, 64 percent of the machine tools in the United States in 1963 were ten years old or older. Comparable figures for the same year were 59 percent for United Kingdom, 59 percent for France, 57% for Italy, 55 percent for Federal Republic of Germany and about 50 percent for Russia. The report further says that according to the expert opinion, industrial equipment on the average ten years old should be replaced by new (or reconditioned) equipment in order not to slow down increase in productivity and not to increase production costs. On the basis of such criterion, in 1965 there were about 13,00,000 metal working machines already marked for replacement in the United States alone. Thus, there is a huge surplus of second hand equipment, and with it, the production facilities for producing such equipment also are simultaneously found to be outmoded. Advanced capitalist countries are thus always burdened with a stock of new as well as old, obsolete plant and equipment, which has to be disposed of profitably. Otherwise technical progress could be choked off. Most of the commercial transactions in second hand equipment are within the industrialized countries themselves. Export sales, represent only a small fraction of the total sales. 

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.

*****************************************************************

Saturday, October 10, 2015

DIFFERENCES CONCERNING THE STRATEGY OF INDIAN REVOLUTION. By Com.G.Vijaya kumar.

DIFFERENCES CONCERNING THE STRATEGY OF INDIAN REVOLUTION.
By Com. G.Vijaya kumar. (published in 'CLASS STRUGGLE' Organ of the Central committee of CPI(ML) July 2015 issue)

Establishing a classless, exploitation and oppression-free Communist society is the ultimate aim of all the Communists in the world. At the same time, they have to go through different stages suitable to the concrete conditions of the country to ultimately reach the goal of Communist society.

In order to be able to determine and realise a particular stage of revolution the Communists are required to define the character of given society in the Country; the classes to be overthrown; the classes to be rallied and united in the revolution; the leader of the revolution; the aims and tasks of revolution. All these put together can be called the strategy of revolution.

In its long life, the Indian Communist Movement has passed through two different periods, in the main. One was the period of colonial rule. Second was the period thereafter. What strategy or strategies of revolution were adopted by the Indian Communist Movement and what problems or differences it encountered in the course of translating the strategy of revolution into practice are the points of study and debate here.

This study and debate are relevant and significant even now because we had witnessed many developments before solving these problems and the Indian revolution is still struggling to complete the stage of New Democratic Revolution.

The Communist Movement in our Country is a product of post- 1917 October Revolution. The Marxist Literature, the international as well as the experiences of our people were within its reach. How the Indian Communist Movement utilised them in the course of leading the Indian revolution is a matter of serious concern for us.

Let us discuss the question by dividing the entire period into two.

PERIOD OF COLONIAL RULE

Summing up the experiences of 1871 Paris Commune and the 1905 Russian revolution, Lenin has taught that in the era of imperialism and when the Proletariat has come to the fore as an independent, distinct political force, the bourgeoisie cannot lead the bourgeois democratic revolutions consistently and to the end. This class will compromise, collude with the colonial rulers, imperialists and the feudal classes. It will ultimately betray the bourgeois democratic revolutions.

In the face of this situation, the proletariat must take the leadership into its own hands, foil the attempts of the bourgeoisie to harm the revolution and make the democratic revolution victorious.Lenin called these revolutions as New Democratic Revolutions. These teachings were a guide for the Indian Communists.

More than two decades till 1947 were politically most turbulent and revolutionary days for the Indian Communist Movement. It was a time when reformism and revolutionism clashed. It was a time when the urge to end the colonial rule had strongly reflected in the form of rising waves of class struggles, people's movements and political actions of workers,peasants, youth, students, women and other oppressed people. It was a time when the different political streams had tried according to their own understandings and methods to provide the leadership to the national movement. It was a time when the spirit of sacrifice and dedication had overflown in all sections of people. It was a time when the CPI has emerged as a distinct political force and peoples leader in the Country through its most ideal, self-sacrificing and tireless work among the people in the face of many hurdles, repressions and persecutions. It was a time when it led many a struggles like historic Telangana, Tebhaga, Worli, Punnapra-VayalarMymensingh and other peasant revolutionary Movements, working class, student, youth and women movements,progressive, democratic, anti-imperialist protest movements and cultural movement in the Country.

The Communist Party had declared the end of colonial rule and National Democratic Revolution as its aims. Yet, it remains an objective reality that it could not establish the proletariat as the leader of national movement which alone could have led the national democratic revolution in a determined manner and to the end. The crux of the problem here was: What was the assessment and the attitude of the Communist leadership towards the bourgeoisie and the Indian National Congress which were at the helm of the national movement at the time?

Here it will be relevant to recollect the guidance or suggestions provided by the international leadership to the Indian Communists.

Addressing the Students of the University of the Toilers of the East in 1925, Com. Stalin said: [ The “fundamental and new feature” in the Colonial countries like India is ] “not only that the national bourgeoisie has split into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but primarily, that the compromising section of the bourgeoisie has already managed in the main to come to an agreement with imperialism.” “the victory of the revolution cannot be achieved unless this bloc is broken.”

Stalin also pointed out: i) The building of an independent Communist Party,ii) Setting up of a national revolutionary bloc against the bloc of compromising bourgeoisie and imperialism iii) Ensuring the hegemony of the proletariat in the bloc, iv) Emancipating the toiling masses of people from the influence of compromising national bourgeoisie and v) Developing a bond between the liberation movement in the colonies and the proletarian movement in the advanced countries are the immediate tasks of Communists to advance the national liberation movement in India.

Again, in 1928, t he Sixth Congress of Communist International pointed out that the principal tasks the Communists in Countries like India faced with are :”on one hand, to fight against feudalism and pre-capitalist forms of exploitation and to systematically develop the peasant agrarian revolution; on the other hand, to fight against foreign imperialism”. “Without the hegemony of the proletariat.............the bourgeois democratic revolution cannot be carried through to an end, “ “The Communists must unmask the national reformism of the Indian National Congress and oppose all the phrases of the Swarajists and Gandhists, etc., about passive resistance with the irreconcilable slogan of struggle for the emancipation of the country and the expulsion of the imperialists “.

Dimitrov’s Report to the Seventh Congress ( 1935) of the Communist International has called upon the Indian Communists “to support, extend and participate in all anti – imperialist mass activities, not excluding those which are under national reformist leadership. While maintaining their political and organisational independence, they must carry on active work inside the organisations which take part in the ........Congress, facilitating the process of crystallisation of a national revolutionary wing among them for the purpose of further developing the national liberation movement of the Indian people against British imperialism.”

The Communist Party had emerged as a powerful political force with an organised and wide mass base in the Country. But it left the leadership of national movement to the Indian National Congress. The party even accepted its leadership. We know, Gandhi, who was at the helm of national movement, used his methods of passive resistance and peaceful satyagraha, on one hand, to prevent a real anti – imperialist and anti – feudal national liberation movement and, on the other hand, as a means of bargain and compromise with the British colonial rulers. The Communist leadership harboured strong illusions precisely in this kind of bourgeois leadership. Here the Communist leadership, for all practical purposes, had ignored the international guidance or suggestions. It was guided by an orientation or trend which was not helpful to dislodge the bourgeois leadership and bring the proletariat to the fore as the leader of the national movement.

The Year 1939 unleashed significant political developments in the world influencing the course of India’s national movement. The Second World War had begun in 1939. In 1941 ........ the German Fascists had resorted to a war of armed invasion and occupation against Socialist Russia. All the political forces in India were required to respond and react to this international development of far reaching consequences.

In the turbulent political situation of 1942, the leadership of Indian National Congress had expressed readiness to support the British colonial rulers in the Second World War provided they agree to make some promises. The colonial rulers did not agree. So the Congress was compelled to adopt the Aug 9, 1942 Resolution calling for a passive mass protest action. For the Congress Leadership, it was only an act of pressure. But, in practice, the Country had witnessed a big mass upheaval, popularly came to be known as the Quit India Movement.

The questions before the Communist leadership at the time were: How to fight the menace of Fascism internationally? How to defend the Socialist Russia facing the Fascist invasion and occupation? How to protect the interests of national movement in the Country ?

The slogans and policy adopted by the Communist leadership were:-

1. Oppose Fascism and mobilise the public opinion against it.
2. Support the Russian people’s war against the Fascist aggression to defend their Country. Treat this war as a Peoples’ War for India too.
3. Support the war and war preparations of the British Colonial govt. as an immediate task.
4. End of repression against the people and release of the Congress leaders and activists.
5. Strengthen National Defence, promote food production, industrial production and war needs; stop hoarding, black – marketing, avoid protests, strikes, food riots, destructions and anarchic acts, etc.
6. Involve people in National Defence. The Govt. to create the conditions for the formation of a National Govt. in India.

Here it must be noted that several Communist Parties in a situation like India sought to advance the revolutions based on the strength of the national and democratic forces in their Countries, while, at the same time, carrying on an intensive political campaign against Fascism and imperialism and in defence of Socialist Russia. But the policy adopted b y the Communist leadership in India, in essence, amounted to calling for temporarily keeping aside the tasks of the
Indian revolution. This policy had placed the party in a position where it could not play its role in the nation – wide mass upsurge that erupted as part of the 1942 Quit India Movement and get politically isolated from the national and democratic forces at the time.

However, the strenuous, tireless and dedicated work carried on by it had greatly helped the party to retain and expand its links with the vast masses of people. The efforts as well as discussions in the p arty also reflected the urge for a correct orientation and practice in the sphere of strategy of Indian revolution.

TRANSFER OF POWER AND THERE AFTER

The British Colonial rulers and the Indian ruling classes had reached a deal of compromise for the transfer of power at the height of national upsurge in the wake of rout of Fascism in the World.

The questions before the Communists at the time were: What was the nature of the transfer of power? Into the hands of which classes the power was transferred? What changes this development had brought in the strategic stage and basic tasks of the Indian revolution? An organised and dispassionate discussion inside the party was needed to arrive at correct conclusions on these questions.

As part of fast changing attitudes in the given political situation, there reflected three attitudes in the party, in the main, as on 1948.

1. The understanding which saw the new regime as a National Govt.

2. The Political Thesis of the Second Congress of the party held in Feb 28 – Mar 6, 1948 had defined the new govt. as a govt. where the national bourgeoisie was sharing power with imperialism as a junior partner. It also said that it was a state “dependent on imperialism” and “ a satellite state”.“The existing co- relation of forces ....... clearly show that the old phase of Bourgeois Democratic
Revolution is over, a phase in which the bourgeois was in the anti – imperialist camp. Today, the entire trend of events demands.... to surge forward to the defeat of imperialism and its bourgeois allies, and emancipation of the people. It means that Peoples Democratic Revolution has to be achieved for the completion of the tasks of democratic revolution and the simultaneous building up of Socialism.”

3. “The Present Stage and Strategy of Indian Revolution” – popularly known as the Andhra Thesis- presented by the Andhra PC ( which was leading the Telangana Peasant Revolutionary Movement ) to the CC of CPI in April 1948 had characterised the Indian Society as semi – colonial and semi – feudal ruled by the comprodar bourgeois – landlord classes, the stage of Indian revolution as the Peoples Democratic Revolution and called for the building of a UF of revolutionary classes based on the worker – peasant alliance and under the leadership of the proletariat. It has clearly rejected the call of 1948 Second Congress to achieve the democratic and socialist revolutions at one stroke and simultaneously . These were distinctly different views and understandings and they clashed, sharply too in the party at the level of leadership.

Then came the Editorial Article, Jan 27, 1950 of the FOR A LASTING PEACE...........[ Organ of the Information Bureau of the National Liberation Movement in the Colonies. ]. The party leadership in India had reviewed its line in the light of this Editorial and declared a new line and new leadership. In essence, the line and policies proposed by the Andhra Thesis had become the official line and policies of the entire party. The New Democratic Revolution was declared as the stage of Indian revolution. But the new leadership was destabilised even before it could fully settle down and when it was still in the process of taking steps for the implementation of the new line. The controversies had landed the leadership in a serious crisis and led it to go for international
consultations and change of line as well as the leadership. The 1951 Programme of the CPI had come only in this wake.

The 1951 Programme has characterised the Indian society as semi –colonial and semi-feudal. It said that the state in India is pledged “ to protect and preserve the parasitic landlords, the wealth of Indian princes and imperialism”. It is also subservient to imperialism. It called upon “ the toiling millions, the working class, the peasantry, the toiling intelligentsia, the middle classes as well as the national bourgeoisie .... to unite into a single democratic front in order to attain complete independence of our Country, the emancipation of the peasants from the oppression of the feudals ..... “ It stood for a Peoples Democratic Revolution.

But, within a short time, the Programme was kept aside in practice and party leadership was found itself entangled itself in controversies and discussions on some aspects of the Programme. Whatever discussions or debates were there inside the party from 1952 onwards, they were centered around, in the main, on the class nature of the Indian bourgeoisie, that too, within the frame of the attitude that the Indian bourgeoisie was pursuing a path of independent capitalist development.

Madurai Congress of the Party held in 1953-54 brought to the fore the “ defend the independence” formulation in place of “ achieve the independence”. It also embraced the “ united democratic front” slogan in place of the strategic slogan, “ people’s democratic front”.

Beginning with the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU held in 1956 and by the Twenty Second Congress of 1960, Khrushchev came to the fore with his modern revisionist policies in a full-fledged manner. We can say that the CPI had wide sections in its leadership as well as ranks, who held views akin and closer to the views propounded by Khrushchev.

The Palghat Congress held in 1956 had called India as a “ new, independent and sovereign country.” The central leadership found itself divided into two sections. One advocated the National Democratic Front, the other advocated the Peoples Democratic Front.

The 1960 Vijayawada Conference has called upon the party to “ extend support to Nehru Govt. against the attacks of reactionary forces”; “ defend the progressive policies of the govt;” “forge unity with the progressive Congress men and the people following the Congress;” “ we can come to power through PDF and on the basis of a minimum programme.”

The Communist Party had split in the wake of intensifying differences and developments in the Country and world . They consolidated separately as CPI and CPI (M) in 1964 with their own Programmes and leaderships.

The CPI’s Programme of 1964 said that there exists a national govt. in India and it is pursuing a non – capitalist path of economic development. It also said this govt. is faced with hurdles from the right reactionary forces and, as against this, we must extend support to the progressive policies of the govt.

The 1964 Programme of the CPI (M) said that the Indian state is “ a class rule of the bourgeoisie and landlords, led b y the big bourgeoisie, who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital in pursuit of the capitalist path of development.”

Thus in their evaluations of Indian bourgeoisie, both the CPI and CPI (M) view it as a national bourgeoisie. The CPI (M) says that the Indian bourgeoisie is pursuing a dual policy towards imperialism, ie., compromise and struggle. But here it had only pointed out a nature of national bourgeoisie, but nothing more.

Both the parties, in their programmes, had expressed their readiness to utilise the opportunities to form the coalition or intermediary govts. In reality , this policy is rooted in the policy adopted by the then united Party in 1953 – 54.

Thus differences have manifested and views clashed at various levels and all through the life of the Party mildly or sharply on various aspects of the strategy of Indian revolution, , the character of society, stage, targets of revolution and the concept and practice of the UF. This clash, however, was uneven, unorganised and lacked continuity and comprehensiveness. Diverting the discussion from the main or serious issues to less serious or non – issues had been one phenomenon which harmed the discussion and prevented the polarisation and clinching of issues. A well organised system of discussing the issues in the light of ideology, experiences and facts and clinching the issues in accordance with the principles of Democratic Centralism has not developed in the Party.

During 1962 – 68, the questions connected with the strategy of Indian revolution had come in for a sharp debate in the Party as part of the debate on international ideological questions and led to a polarisation of ideas as well as forces in the Indian Communist Movement.

The Communist Revolutionaries were divided from the beginning and worked as separate groups. At the same time, almost all of them had declared the character of Indian society as semi – colonial, semi –feudal; targets of revolution as imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capital and the stage of revolution as New or Peoples Democratic Revolution.

A trend that negated the existence of national bourgeoisie had manifested in a section of CR leadership in the early period. Again in the early period, the word neo colony too was used by the CRs, but it was used to mean ‘semi- colony’ alone.

The world as well as India had witnessed many political developments and changes in the last more than four decades. It is quite natural for the Communists to study these developments and changes and apply to the concrete practice of Indian revolution. This must be a continuous and unending process.

We are now facing several questions as well as points of differences that affect the strategy and practice of indian revolution. Some of them are like this :

Some say, that it is true the imperialist plunder and control are growing in our Country. But, the capitalism too is developing here. So, Indian revolution must be a Socialist Revolution.

Some say, India is still in the stage of NDR. But, in the conditions when the imperialist plunder and domination had grown enormously, we must direct the edge of our struggle now against the imperialism, in the main.

Some are of the view that there is no feudalism in India today or it does not exist in the old classical form or it is weakened. The capitalist relations and methods are expanding in the rural areas. So, we must discuss how far the democratic task of NDR is relevant or important even today ?

Some argue that India is a neo colony, but not a semi-colony.

However, they do not propose any strategic stage other than the NDR.They are not taking into consideration of the fact that India is still continuing to be a field for competition among various imperialist Countries for plunder and domination. They are not caring to take note of the fact that the regimes here cannot be characterised as puppets of a single imperialist power and they cannot
be placed in the category of Countries like Iraq.

If one still thinks that india is a neo colony, they must state that India today is in the stage of national liberation against imperialism. We are seeing today in Venezuela and some other Latin American Countries the national and democratic forces had withstood the imperialist conspiracies, machinations and threats by organising the people, seized the power and are carrying out some pro-people reforms.

We the Communists must definitely take note of this development. The developments like this would, no doubt, enthuse the people in other Countries to further strengthen and advance the struggle against imperialism. But some are not seeing this as an experience, but as a model to be adopted and as an alternative to the revolutions for fundamental changes, as an interim, relatively easily and immediately achievable solution. This thinking, however, has nothing to do with Marxism.

We can continue the discussion and study of the experiences. In recent times and in some Countries ( the Arab Countries as well as India ), some protests have come up on the questions like corruption, economic burdens, unemployment and autocracy. Some of these protests had grown into mass upsurges and even toppled the regimes. In this background, the questions are being raised why Communists can not make the attempts for such protest movements?

The Communists must always be concerned about the general and democratic issues of the people while, at the same time, concentrating on the work aimed at bringing fundamental changes in the society. They must utilise those occasions to strengthen the struggle for fundamental changes and the unity among the people for it. They must take care not to get deviated, diverted and swept away along the general stream. We must evaluate the class and political forces as well as the aims of the protests that are coming up with no role or leadership of the Communists.

We must keep in mind that certain protests are coming up as part of the attempts of the ruling classes to divert the people from the real problems, water down the peoples discontentment and anger and use the protests as a means of resolving the problems among the sections of the ruling classes and to see that the peoples consciousness does not cross the limits and always revolve within the frame of existing exploiting system.

TO CONCLUDE When we are discussing the differences on the strategy of Indian revolution, we are faced with one difficulty. It is not always possible to arrive at evaluations on the parties just basing on their documents. Some times, we find the practices different from the understandings formulated in the documents. Therefore, we must be careful while discussing the differences.
Our present discussion is an attempt to understand how the Indian Communist Movement had dealt the question of understanding and practice of the strategy of Indian revolution and what problems or differences remain yet to be dealt today. We are confident that a healthy and dispassionate exchange of opinions, experiences and discussion on the questions would greatly help to deepen, enrich our understanding and make our steps more powerful, decisive and fruitful towards our goal of NDR in India.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visitors

flagcounter.com/more/OFw2">free counters