SEMI-
FEUDALISM – CAPITALISM – IMPERIALISM – INTER RELATIONS. By
Late
Com. P. Jaswant Rao.
Indian
society has the nature of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial system. These
two are so entwined as to be indivisible. While feudalism serves as a social base for imperialism, imperialism
in turn strives to uphold the feudal system by bringing about changes
in it to suit
its needs of exploitation. This document tries to analyze this in-depth by the method of materialist
dialectical historical methodology.
Karl
Marx explained that in shaking up the self-reliant closed
economic system, thriving
in India, China, and other Asiatic Societies, British colonial rule played a revolutionary
role. He stated the following about the restructuring it has
undertaken in the agricultural
sector aftermath of the said destruction:
“Both
the zamindari and raitwari systems are agrarian revolutions ensuring
out of British orders.
But the two systems stand in opposition to each other. One is of
regal nature and the
other of democratic nature. One is the distorted form of the English
landlord system. The other
is a distorted form of French peasant ownership. Both are regressive.
Both have irreconcilable
contradictions ingrained in them. They have been created not for the
sake of peasants
who cultivate or for the sake of lords who hold feudal rights. They
were created for
the sake of the government which imposes the burden of tax on land”.
Marx
has described the manner in which the Indian rural system was destroyed and
how the feudal system,
which was required for exploitative colonial rule, was restructured.
Since then all the changes
which British rulers affected in the feudal system have been
continued without altering
its fundamental nature.
At
the same time, Marx also keenly analyzed the future consequences
of British rule.
The British rulers who destroyed the economic system of India which
had all the potential
of developing into a capitalist system, have in turn introduced
capitalist relations through
the formation of Railway lines. And their further development could
not be checked.
He
felt that those developing capitalist relations and the rise of the
working class resulting from
them would not only undo the British rule but also lead to
industrial development which would
lead to the abolition of the feudal system and along with it the
abolition of the caste system
and its characteristic hereditary division of labor.
With
colonial exploitation as the main economic source, the capitalist
system in European
countries has morphed into its highest form namely imperialism.
Giving up the progressive
role it played till then, it has compromised with all the reactionary
elements including
feudalism. It has protected them and formed them as its social base
and continued
its hegemony.
Conscious
of its inability to curb the growth of capitalist relations
which were introduced
by it in colonies, it adopted the policy of holding them under its
wing. As a result of
this, the independent development of them was prevented. It created a comprador bourgeoisie
that was bound to it in a thousand different links. This is how the Indian
comprador class
came into existence. Indian big bourgeoisie grew up under the lens of
British rulers and
acted in collusion with the feudal forces. The Indian big bourgeoisie usurped the leadership
of the anti-colonial national movement and its political representative
namely,
Indian
National Congress never offered any program to the peasants, leaving aside an anti-feudal one, at any stage of a national movement. It has also watered
down the anti-feudal movements taken up by the anti-feudal peasantry on their own initiative.
The
great leader Lenin who had made an in-depth study of these conditions declared that
the only way for the colonies to develop was the bourgeoisie mode of
agriculture.
He
stated that the development can occur in two forms. One is the
transformation through the reformation of the feudal economic system. The other is to abolish
feudalism through revolution.
This
was the situation in India in 1947 when the transfer of power
occurred. The direct rule of
the Britishers ended and the transfer of power to the Indian big
bourgeoisie and the big landlord
class occurred.
On
one side the peasantry was waging an anti-feudal struggle. The heroic
Telangana peasant
armed struggle had already begun. This brought onto the agenda
the abolition
of the feudal system and the revolutionary land reforms demanding land to
the tiller. This posed the question of the reform path proposed by Lenin or the revolutionary path in the face
of the ruling classes.
Indian
ruling classes have chosen the Path of reform. Accordingly, they have
picked up the
reformative measures of abolition of the zamindari system and land
ceiling legislation.
These
were meant to create illusions in the minds of the peasantry. At the
same time, they have
drowned the peasant struggles in bloody repression. The abolition of the zamindari system gave
the rights to Zamindars over vast swathes of land and the peasants
got nothing. Land ceiling
legislation with so many loopholes in them failed to help the
takeover of the lands under
the occupation of landlords. These policies adopted by the Indian
ruling classes soon after
the takeover of power indicate that they intended to preserve the status
quo.
After
brutally suppressing the peasant movements only the ruling classes took
measures to bring about a change in the feudal system slowly and gradually.
Com.
TN concluded that “Every specific step which the government
implemented in this direction
helped in strengthening the feudal base in rural areas”.
“With
all the talk of land reforms and its innocuous land ceiling
legislation and tenancy acts,
no democratic land reforms have been implemented by the Congress
government in its
long tenure in office for the last 23 years. Practically no change in
land relations has taken place,
except that with the vigorous implementation of Panchayat Raj,
Cooperative institutions, loans
for tractors and other agricultural machines, etc., only happened.
The economic and political
strength of the landlords has been further strengthened in the rural
economy. (P.417,
India Mortgaged, 2002 edition)
About
what harmful effects this gradual change has brought by the 1960
decade, Com.TN
has described as follows:
“This
is what we are witnessing in our country today. The excruciating pain
that the rural
economy today is undergoing — the forceful eviction of small
peasants and tenants, the
growth of concentration of land, the increase in the number of
agricultural labor, and the growing
hegemony of the upper castes over lower castes — are all symptoms
of this growing
disease. Lenin has explained that “The evolution is the transformation
of feudal bondage
into servitude and capitalist exploitation on the land of feudal
landlords” (Ibid, P.414)
He
has also enunciated our tasks at that stage of social evolution:
“Therefore,
no communist can support this kind of evolution of feudal
landlordism. Our task
is to firmly oppose it by supporting the fighting peasantry to liquidate feudal landlordism”.
(P. 414)
This
was the situation by the 1960s. By then itself green revolution was on
the go. The green revolution
was strategically framed for the entry of imperialist capital into
Indian agriculture in
the form of technological know–how with the aim of preventing a revolutionary peasant upsurge.
To this end in some areas of the country development of irrigation
infrastructure was
initiated. As a follow-up high-yielding crop varieties were
introduced which can yield big
only with the inputs of high quantity chemical fertilizers and
pesticides. These varieties introduced
at the behest of American monopoly capitalist organizations such as the Ford Foundation,
covered almost all types of crops.
Green
Revolution strategy made peasantry the purchasers of high-yielding
seed varieties
and thus created a market for the agro-industry of imperialist
countries. Com. TN. has
described the Green Revolution strategy as follows:
“Therefore,
it is clear that the imperialist policy of improving agricultural
production in under-developed
countries is only to develop a profitable demand by the
underdeveloped countries
for obtaining additional goods necessary for agricultural
development” (P. 144)
“Another
result of this policy would be that, with the strengthening of
landlordism in the countryside,
the social tensions which have been growing between the haves and have-nots will intensify, creating bitter struggles between the landlords and
the downtrodden agricultural
labor and poor peasantry in all walks of life-economic and
political” (P.145)
Just
in the span of a decade, the Green Revolution strategy fell into
crisis. The crop yields stagnated. Contrary to the expectations of the government the rich
farmers and the feudal landlords
played no role in the venture of the Green Revolution. It was the small
farmers who increased agricultural production with the support of subsidies offered by
the government.
But with the stagnation of crop yields the poor and middle-class
farmers are mired
in problems.
Under
these circumstances, the crisis in India's economic and political system
sharpened. The people of India were beset with restlessness. A wave of people's movements
cropped up demanding
solutions to the problems faced by them. The Adivasi and Peasant
revolts in Srikakulam
and Naxalbari had shaken the Indian political system.
This
led to the second phase of reforms in the agricultural sector
undertaken by the government.
To divert the peasantry from the path of struggle the ruling classes
spread the illusions
with a series of land ceiling legislation. At the same time, they
unleashed brutal repression
on people’s struggles. Also, they ventured to water down the power
of people's unity
inculcating divisive politics based on caste, religion, and
regionalism. As a result of the crisis
borne out of the Green Revolution life became unbearable and the
youth were in a state
of desperation. We are aware that the Congress government diverted
this into the Khalistan
movement in Punjab.
At
this very juncture imperialism in order to get over its crisis
formulated strategies to throw
its burden on the third-world countries. Its target was to see that
imperialist finance capital
got more and more penetration into the agricultural sector of those
countries.
With
this, the World Bank came forward with its version of the solution to the
problems. It prepared
a report on the effect that food grains produced in India with the
help of subsidies provided
by the government to the farmers are of high cost and that they are
available in the
international market at a lesser price. So, Indian farmers should
give up their production and
instead, they better cultivate export-oriented commercial crops. With
the income gained,
food grains may be imported at a lesser cost.
But
the real reason for the crisis in the venture of Green Revolution is
that much of the surplus
produce goes into the purchase of agricultural in-puts (fertilizers,
etc....) manufactured
by imperialist industries and this finds its way to the imperialist
countries, leaving
no gain to the peasantry. By suppressing this fundamental reason and
highlighting only
the factor of low yields of crops, this version of interpretation has
the strategic aim of latching the Indian agricultural sector to the wheels of imperialist exploitation.
The
Indian ruling classes by accepting the dictates of imperialists have
begun to implement
them. By propagating the lie that the subsidies offered to the peasantry
were an unbearable
burden, they began to cut to the lowest levels. The irrigation
service charges,
electricity charges, and fertilizer prices have been raised. All this
has gradually led the
peasantry into a debt trap. That this has led three lakh peasants
to suicidal end is a well-known
fact. Through financial leverage, they set out to remove peasants from
their lands.
During
this period technical know-how in agricultural practices rose up in
imperialist countries.
The technical know-how regarding genetically improved
varieties of crops,
animals, and biofuels has made great progress. With this in hand
imperialism drove forward
to turn the agricultural sector of the third world countries as
tail-end to its economic
system. Besides capturing crores of acres of fertile land in the
countries of the African continent,
and in countries like India by way of contract farming and corporate
cultivation, it
has tried to get the agricultural sector under its control. We have
been enlightening the evolution
and consequences of all this at appropriate junctures.
The
question confronting here is whether these transformations have
brought about a change
in the feudal relations in the agrarian system?
1.
Centralization of land: There is not much of a change in the level of
concentration of land
between the 1960s and 2010s. Even when the number of small and marginal
farmers increased,
they together hold only 30% of land either now or then. Less than 5%
of those with more than 25 acres hold 30% of the land.
2.
Even though the centralization of land is continuing and has brought in
capitalist relations to
some extent, they are in constant stagnation. Mechanization of
agriculture, institutional loan
lending, utilization of modern technology, cold storage - all these
cannot take a step forward
without governmental support. All the recent governmental steps
offering financial support
to utilize the above indicate the crisis in the just-said capitalist
relations.
3.
In the conditions of increasing landlessness, the depressed state of the extra-economic poor peasantry, increase
in the number of agricultural laborers and lack of alternative
employment in the population
of agricultural dependency leads to the enhancement of the
fundamental cause
of exploitation, namely, extra-economic coercion.
In
this coercion, we find an increase in the number of tenant farmers and
enhanced rates of
lease. These tenants are not capitalist tenants. These lease rates
are governed by capitalist
economic principles. It is well known that capitalism does not
hesitate to utilize pre-capitalist
modes of exploitation. An example of this is the exploitation of
Mexican migrant
labor in the grape gardens of America.
4.
What are the reasons for the stagnation of capitalist relations in the Indian agricultural sector?
The reason is that while the major part of the wealth created through
labor in agriculture
is whisked away by imperialism, a large part of the remaining wealth is
gulped by big
business. This appears clear in the case of commercial crops. As a
result agricultural sector
is deprived of any surplus. As such capital investment fund remains
unavailable for the
expansion of capitalist relations in the agricultural sector. That is why
the demand for the increase
in investment by the government in the agricultural sector is coming to
the fore again and
again. With the intention of encouraging capitalist relations
government has undertaken
the flow of bureaucratic capital into the making of cold storage,
market yards , and
institutional lending.
5.
Just as it is keeping the capitalist relations in the industrial
sector in its control and allowing
them to grow only to the extent they serve its interests of
exploitation, imperialism is
also bent on regulating the extant capitalist relations in the
agricultural sector. We can gain
an understanding of this if we critically analyze the suggestions of the World Bank regarding
the so-called reforms in agriculture.
Finally,
When
we define a society as semi-feudal it means that in that society
feudal relations and
capitalist relations are cohabiting. Those capitalist relations
should naturally grow and reach
a level to abolish feudal relations. But imperialism and the comprador
bourgeoisie are playing
a role in arresting this process. As a result, capitalist relations are
steeped in crisis. They have
not grown to the level of abolishing feudal relations. They have no
independent future.
Today
we are witnessing the harmful effects of this slow and gradual social
evolution.
The concentration of lands in the hands of a few; land grab by the native and foreign bourgeoisie
with the collusion of the state; the growing landlessness among the rural population;
peasantry in debt-trap; unemployment of agricultural labor; the
ongoing farmer
suicides; the nominal employment schemes brought up to pacify the
angry peasantry;
oppressive measures by the state, these being labeled as upper caste
attacks on
lower castes, these are disease symptoms of gradual, slow social
transformation. These disease
symptoms which Com. T.N. had pointed out five decades ago are being
witnessed by
us today in a more severe form.
As
Lenin said, “It implies the utmost preservation of bondage and the
serfdom (remodeled
on bourgeois lines), the least rapid development of the productive
forces and the
retarded development of capitalism; it implies infinitely greater
misery and suffering, exploitation
and oppression for the broad masses of the peasantry, and
consequently also for
the proletariat.” (Lenin, Page 243)
I
conclude my paper with the words of com. TN once again: “Therefore,
no communist can support this kind of evolution of feudal
landlordism. Our task
is to firmly oppose it by supporting the fighting peasantry to liquidate feudal landlordism”.
(P. 414)
(Document
Presented by Com. P. Jaswantha Rao in the Seminar on “Indian Revolution-Indian
Communist Movement” in Vijayawada on the 3rd and 4th of April, 2015). =======================================================================
