New Stage in the National Liberation Struggle of the People of India
By V.V. Balabushevich
Marxism-Leninism teaches that the hegemony of the proletariat is the
decisive condition for the success or the national liberation struggle
of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries. It is only
under the leadership of the working class, the only consistently
revolutionary class, that the peoples of the colonies and dependent
countries can free themselves from imperialist yoke and win real
independence. Under conditions of the extreme accentuation of the
general crisis of capitalism, the further deepening of the crisis of
the colonial system and the unprecedented advance of the national
liberation movement of the peoples of the colonial and dependent
countries, the principal trend of this movement towards a further
widening and intensification of the struggle of the oppressed peoples
against the imperialist oppressors and internal reaction and towards
the consistent strengthening of the leading role of the working class
in the national liberation movement, manifests itself all the more
clearly. In the majority of the colonial countries, the working class
has today become the acknowledged leader of the general peoples’
struggle against imperialist oppression, which testifies to the
transition of the struggle to a new and higher phase at its development.
In dimensions and in the number of its population, India occupies one
of the first places among the colonial countries. Its territory exceeds
four million square kilometres and its 400 million population comprises
more than three-fourths of the population of the British empire and
more than half the population of the whole colonial world. It is
natural that the struggle of the peoples of India for their
independence has great importance for the entire democratic camp.
India is a typical agrarian country. Britain after her conquest of
India converted it into her agrarian and raw material appendage. The
overwhelming majority of the Indian population is engaged in
agriculture. According to the figures of the last census (1941), 339.3
million people or more than 87 per cent of the entire population or the
country live in villages and only 49.7 million people (nearly 13 per
cent of the population) in the towns.
In spite of extremely favourable natural and climatic conditions
agriculture in India is deteriorating and is characterised by an
exceedingly low level of development of productive forces. In spite of
being a very large agricultural country, India cannot feed her own
population. Not only has she stopped exporting foodstuffs but is even
forced to import them. India represents the classical land of famine –
famine that regularly carries off the lives of millions of toilers.
The reason for the degradation of Indian agriculture lies in the
prolonged rule of British imperialism and in the system of agrarian
relationships based on feudal landownership that have been implanted
and nurtured by the British colonisers. More than two-thirds of the
total land under cultivation in the country is concentrated in the
hands of the British and Indian landowners.
A great majority at Indian landlords hire out their land on lease to
big tenants who divide this land into still smaller plots and in their
turn also hire it out on lease. In India this “pyramid” of sub-tenants
sometimes extends to the twentieth degree and even more. Between the
owner of the land and the peasants who cultivate it, there exists a
numerous strata of parasitic middlemen sitting on the necks of the
peasants. The landlords serve as one of the main props of British
imperialism in India. The Indian countryside is enmeshed in all kinds
of feudal survivals, which are hampering the economic development of
the country and intensifying the degradation of its agriculture.
In spite of the fact that India is one of the most
industrially-developed colonies, her industry is not very great. The
cotton and jute industry had already arisen during the second half of
the last century and are the most developed branches of Indian
industry. Following on them, during the period between the two world
wars and particularly on the eve of the Second World War, there
developed a metallurgical industry. But it is a fact that the
production of the iron and steel industry is altogether insignificant.
In 1948 it consisted of only 1,470,000 tons of pig iron and 854,000
tons of steel. The Second World War gave an impetus to the development
of the chemical industry which till this time had been practically
non-existent in the country. The sugar, foodstuff and leather
industries saw a significant development between the two world wars.
However, in spite of the growth of certain branches of Indian industry,
the general level of industrial development in India is extremely low
even today. Industrial production comprises only 20 per cent of the
total value of the entire production of India and is less than two per
cent of the industrial production of capitalist countries, in spite of
the fact that approximately one-sixth of the whole world’s population
lives in India. This fact alone eloquently testifies to India’s extreme
backwardness, which is the direct result of the predatory rule of
British Imperialism.
India’s industry bears a typically colonial character. It is exclusively dependent on British capital
Even today, it is the branches of light industry – cotton, jute,
foodstuffs, etc. – which occupy a predominant place. As before, the
specific weight of the branches of heavy industry and above all, of
metallurgy, still remains insignificant in the total industrial
production of the country. Thus in 1947, the workers employed in the
cotton and jute industry comprise more than 44 per cent of all the
factory workers of India and the workers in the metallurgical and in
the so-called machine-building industry (in which Indian bourgeois
statistics include all kinds of machine and other workshops) comprise
14 percent in all. The specific weight of the workers in metallurgy and
machine-building industry in the total number of Indian factory workers
rose all told by three per cent during the five war years (1939-44).
These indices refute the fabrications of the British colonisers about
the rapid pace at which the industrialisation of India proceeded during
the war years. A machine-building industry which is the foundation of
real industrialisation and the basis of the economic independence of
the country is practically non-existence in India. The British
imperialists adopted every measure to prevent the rise and development
of this branch of industry even during the Second World War.
Two centuries of colonial slavery under the heel of British imperialism
and the very strong feudal survivals, have fettered the productive
forces of India, and have converted this country, so rich in natural
resources into one of the poorest countries in the world and made
millions of Indian toilers into paupers dragging out a starving
existence.
The partition of India into two parts – India and Pakistan – effected
by British imperialism in August 1947 and the granting of fictitious
independence to both these parts in the form of Dominion Status has not
changed the colonial character of the economy of these Dominions. One
of the most important aims of partition was precisely to strengthen the
backwardness of the economy of India and Pakistan, to create
difficulties in the path of their independent development and to ensure
their utmost dependence on British capital. The partition of India
destroyed the economic ties between different parts of the country and
placed both the Dominions in an even more difficult economic position
than before.
Pakistan is a backward agricultural country, with quite considerable
resources of foodstuffs and certain types of agricultural raw materials
(jute, long-fibred cotton), but it is completely devoid of a large
manufacturing industry. Apart from railway workshops, the whole
industry of this Dominion consists of one woollen and 14 cotton mills,
and nine sugar, five cement, four glass and two oil-refining factories.
The average yearly consumption of coal is 3.4 million tons but Pakistan
can produce only 300,000 tons annually and that too, of an extremely
bad quality. In Pakistan, a metallurgical industry is completely absent.
The Indian Dominion consists of regions that are relatively more
industrially developed. Till the partition, approximately 90 per cent
of the entire large-scale manufacturing industry of the country was to
be found here. Moreover, the Indian Dominion is experiencing great
difficulties in respect of food produce and certain types of
agricultural raw materials since the important agrarian regions of the
country have gone to Pakistan. Jute, which is the biggest branch of
Indian industry, is almost completely concentrated in the territory
which has gone to the Indian Dominion. (sic. It should be Pakistan – editor Revolutionary Democracy)
As a result of the partition of the country, the jute industry has been
deprived of indigenous raw materials since more than 73 per cent of the
jute grown is concentrated on the territory of Pakistan. The textile
mills of Bombay and Ahmedabad have been cut off from the regions where
long-staple cotton is grown from the districts of the Punjab, which
have gone to Pakistan. The dismemberment of India has increased the
economic dependence of both the Dominions and has sharply worsened
their economic position and still more hampered the development of
their productive forces.
All this creates favourable conditions for the British imperialists to
retain Pakistan and India as agrarian and raw material appendages of
Britain. The economy of India and Pakistan is in a state of decline.
Both the Dominions continue to remain an object of the predatory
exploitation and robbery by the British – and now also by the American
imperialists. The industrial production in both the Dominions is at
present at a lower level than that which was attained during the war.
Production in the jute industry fell lower than even the pre-war level.
In 1946-47, the output of cotton textiles was 3.4 milliard yards or 79
per cent of the war maximum and 90 per cent of the production in
1938-39; in 1947-48, the smelting of pig iron was 74.5 per cent or the
highest war level and lower than the 1938-39 level. The production of
steel and rolling-steel although rather higher than the prewar level is
lower than the war maximum and for the last three years it has been
systematically falling.
After the partition of India, both the Dominions continue to remain in
fact economically, politically and militarily, dependent on Great
Britain. And even after the partition of the country, British capital
has retained and is increasing its dominating position in the economy
of India and Pakistan. This is proved, for example, by the fact that
many British-Indian joint stock companies in which the leading position
of British capital is guaranteed, have been created in various branches
of industry in both the Dominions. The British capitalists are not in
the least attempting to utilise their position in these companies in
the interests of industrialising India. It is well-known that many
joint companies are offering in India under their own stamp articles
that have been mainly manufactured in Britain.
The ruling circles of India and Pakistan have betrayed the interests of
the people and are applying all their energies to creating the most
favourable conditions in these Dominions for the domination of foreign
capital. In speaking not long ago, before the annual meeting of the
Indian Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Indian Government’s Finance
Minister, Matthai, assured the British capitalists with the statement:
“We have no intention of taking any step which might, to
the smallest degree, be detrimental to British interests in India. On
the contrary, we shall be glad if the interests you represent are
retained in the country and continue to prosper.” (People’s Age, December 19, 1948)
The representatives of the ruling circles of Pakistan are no less frank
about their aspirations to make the country subservient to the
interests of foreign monopolies.
In the postwar years American capital is penetrating the economy of
India still more actively. The specific weight of the USA in the
imports of India rose from 7.4 per cent in 1938 to 30.3 per cent in
1947 and equalled Britain’s share, which in that year was 30.2 per cent
of the total Indian imports (in 1938, it was 31.4 per cent). In 1948,
the specific weight of the USA in Indian imports declined a little
while there was an increase in the share of Britain. The American
monopolies are attempting in every way to consolidate their position in
India. This is what explains in the first place, the creation in both
India and Pakistan of Indo-American joint stock companies and
enterprises. This also explains the granting of loans to India by the
International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, loans which are,
of course, reserved not for effecting the industrialisation of the
country but only for developing agriculture and transport. The organ of
the Indian capitalists, The Eastern Economist, wrote in its issue of January 14, 1949:
“For many years India will be in need of foreign capital
and foreign technical experience. And all this must come mainly from
the USA and Britain.”
Both the British and American imperialists in spite of the aggravation
of the contradictions and the competitive struggle between them in all
parts of the world and particularly in India and Pakistan, are both
interested in crushing the national liberation struggle and creating
difficulties in the way of independent economic development of both the
Dominions. At the basis of the American and British policy in India and
Pakistan as well as in other countries of the Asiatic continent there
lies as before the aim of strengthening the imperialist rule and
hindering in every way their industrialisation, retaining these
countries as colonial agricultural raw material appendages and markets
for the goods of the imperialist metropolitan State.
At the behest of Anglo-American finance-capital, the reactionary Press
in England and in the USA has lately intensified its propaganda of a
false thesis to the effect that in the countries of the East, the
development of heavy industry does not correspond to the demands of the
economic development of these countries, that they ought to concentrate
their efforts mainly on agricultural production. With idle talk of this
type, the British and American imperialists are attempting to conceal
the real colonising essence of their policy and to guarantee the
retention and extension of the former economic base of their domination
in the countries of Asia.
The USA and Britain continue to obstruct in every way the importation
of industrial equipment into India and Pakistan. Their trade with these
Dominions bears even at present a clearly expressed colonial character.
In spite of these facts, the leaders of the ruling parties of India and
Pakistan, the National Congress and the Muslim League, talk as though a
“bloodless revolution” had taken place in their country, as though they
had attained “independence” and as though the prerequisites for the
“rapid industrialisation” of both the Dominions had been created. The
facts quoted above decisively refute such false fabrications. It is
absolutely clear that it is impossible to achieve any economic advance
under conditions of the domination of the monopolies of imperialist
countries and under conditions when the ruling circles in India and
Pakistan pursue a policy dictated by the interests of the exploiting
classes. It is only complete freedom from imperialist oppression and
from the feudal survivals, nurtured by the colonisers, and the
fundamentally democratic reconstruction of India and Pakistan which can
create the lasting prerequisites for overcoming their economic
backwardness and for a rapid development of their productive forces.
* * *
The mass anti-imperialist movement which developed in India with
unprecedented force after the Second World War was an integral part of
the general revolutionary advance of the national liberation struggle
of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries, and it assumed
new features, which distinguished it in essence from all preceding
stages of the revolutionary struggle of the popular masses of India.
After the war, the national liberation movement of the peoples of India
entered a new stage. This stage is determined above all, by the fact
that it was the working class, led by the Communist Party, that stood
at the head of the popular masses and their struggle for freedom from
imperialist yoke, for real independence and democratic reconstruction
of the country and by the fact that the Indian big bourgeoisie had
openly gone over into the camp of reaction and imperialism.
The tasks of the national liberation movement have also extended. At
present, the struggle of the peoples of India is directed both against
foreign imperialism and also for the carrying out of decisive
democratic transformations inside the country, and above all, the
agrarian revolution without which it is impossible to lead the country
out of the economic impasse and to win over the wide masses of the
peasantry to the side of the working class.
The re-grouping of class forces that has taken place inside the country
and the emergence of the proletariat as the leader of the mass movement
of the Indian peoples and also the wider content of the tasks of the
struggle demonstrates the fact that the national liberation movement in
India has entered a new and a higher phase of its development and that
it will develop at an even more quickening pace.
The assumption of the leadership of the national1iberation movement in
India by the working class was conditioned by the entire course of the
historical and socio-economic development of the country.
Along with the development of capitalist industry which – the British
colonisers, despite their attempts, were not able to stop completely,
there arose, developed and consolidated within the country a working
class called upon to assume leadership or the struggle of the Indian
toiling masses for national and social liberation and to carry it to a
victorious conclusion.
Already in 1925, in his historic speech to the University of the
Toilers of the East, Comrade Stalin in speaking of the characteristic
features of the development of colonial and dependent countries of the
East, pointed out that in certain of these countries, India, for
instance there had arisen a more or less numerous class of native
proletarians and that
“the question of the hegemony of the proletariat in such
countries and the emancipation of the masses from the influence of the
compromising national bourgeoisie is assuming an increasingly urgent
character.” (Stalin, Address to the University of the Toilers of the
East, May 18, 1925, Lenin, Stalin, Zhukov, On the Colonial Question, PPH Ltd., p.56)
Since that time, the number of the Indian industrial proletariat has
increased considerably. In 1947, nearly 3.5 million people were
employed in the manufacturing industry, in the mines and in railway
transport in India. Of course, for a country with a 400 million
population, this is an extremely small figure, and it bears witness to
India’s colonial backwardness. It is a fact that there are also a
considerable number of workers in plantations, in irrigation works,
etc. Finally, even according to the official statistics, the
agricultural workers in India number a few tens of millions.
However, the role and the importance of the proletariat in revolutions,
in national liberation movements is determined not so much by its
number as above all, by its organisation, the firmness of its ties with
all the toilers. The proletariat is the only class which is
revolutionary to the end and as such called upon to be the leader, the
hegemon, in the struggle of all the toilers and exploited against the
oppressors and the exploiters. In the colonies where the exploitation
of the peasantry which represents the greater mass of the population
bears monstrous forms, there is a broad basis for creating a stable
alliance by the proletariat with the peasant masses for consolidating
in every way the ideological and organisational leadership of the
peasantry by the proletariat, for the successful conquest by the
working class of hegemony in the people’s struggle against imperialism
and internal reaction.
The struggle of the working class of India against feudal-capitalist
exploiters, and for the improvement of its conditions was from the very
beginning closely bound up with the struggle against imperialism. Under
colonial conditions, as a result of the inter-weaving of capitalist and
pre-capitalist forms of exploitation, the growth in the impoverishment
of the masses, which is the inevitable accompaniment of the capitalist
method of production is proceeding with particular sharpness and at a
particularly rapid pace. In pursuit of their super-profits, the
imperialists are employing the most inhuman, and predatory methods of
exploitation of the working class of the colonies. In consequence of
this, the struggle of the workers in the colonies for the realisation
of their immediate demands, for relieving their economic conditions
cannot be separated from the struggle against imperialist oppression,
from the struggle for freedom and independence. In the measure of the
strengthening of their class organisations, the Indian workers have
emerged all the more resolutely as the leading force in the national
revolutionary movement in the country. It is precisely owing to the
activity of the working class and its influence on the broad masses of
peasantry that the national liberation movement in India became
increasingly mass and revolutionary in character.
In India, already in the beginning of the twentieth century, there
appeared on the political arena in the person of the rising
proletariat, a force capable of unifying and leading the broad toiling
masses in the struggle for over-throwing the domination of British
imperialism In connection with the first mass political action of the
working class of India – the general strike of the Bombay textile
workers as a mark of protest against the sentence on the Indian
democrat, Tilak – Lenin had pointed out in 1908 that
“the Indian proletariat has already matured sufficiently to
wage a class-conscious and political mass struggle, and that being the
case Anglo-Russian methods in India are played out” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. Ed., Vol. XV, p. 161)
Since that time, the Indian working class has gone through the stern
school of the class and the anti-imperialist struggle and it has
immeasurably grown politically and organisationally. It has learnt much
from the Russian workers, who had destroyed the capitalist order in
their country in October 1917.
Even the first mass advance of the working class movement in India was
organisationally linked with the advance of the national liberation
struggle embracing the country in 1918-22 under the influence of the
Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. Already in these years
the working class played a most active role in the in the people’s
struggle against imperialist oppression and colonial exploitation, in
spite of the fact that there was no Communist Party within the country
and trade unions had only begun to be formed.
During the new advance of the national liberation movement in India,
beginning in 1930, the working class in the country in the person of
its foremost detachment had already emerged as an independent political
force and from the very beginning conducted a fight for the leadership
of the national liberation movement. This was a new and exceedingly
important feature of the movement. However, even at that time
revolutionary trade unions existed only in a few larger towns, an
all-India Communist Party had not yet been created though Communist
groups were active in a number of Provinces and in some industrial
centres.
The role of the working class increased still more in the years
preceding the Second World War when the mass anti-imperialist movement
flamed up once again in India. This was possible, in the first
instance, because of the fact that in 1933, as a result of the
unification of different Communist groups an all-India Communist Party
had been created. The formation of an all-India Communist Party was of
tremendous significance for the further development of the working
class and the general mass anti-imperialist movement. The Communist
Party began extending its influence in the course of the
anti-imperialist struggle and by attempting to wean away the peasantry
from the influence of the bourgeois leadership of the National
Congress, was winning it over to its side.
During the Second World War, the Indian working class was considerably
strengthened both politically and organisationally. From 1937-38 to
1942-43, the number of workers organised in trade unions rose from
390,000 to 685,000, i.e., by 75 per cent. Towards the end of the war,
the number of trade union members exceeded one million. Communists were
elected to the leading organs of the majority of the trade unions that
were formed. The Communist Party became the leading force in the
working class movement in the country. In the war years, the working
class under Communist leadership came forth with a detailed programme
of struggle for improving the conditions of the toilers, for carrying
out the demands of the national liberation movement. This to a
considerable extent, facilitated the growth of the influence of the
working class and its Party among the broad masses of the Indian
people. The toilers of India are more and more convinced that it is
precisely the working class led by the Communist Party which represents
that force capable of rallying all the toilers and leading them in a
resolute struggle against the imperialist oppressors of the country and
against the “native” exploiters and capable of carrying out the tasks
of the national liberation movement.
At present the Indian working class has won considerable success in the
fight for hegemony of the national liberation movement. This is
confirmed by the whole course or events in India, especially after the
Second World War.
* * *
The successes of the Indian working class in the struggle for hegemony
in the national liberation movement are above all expressed in the
organisational and in the ideological growth of the vanguard of the
proletariat – the Communist Party of India. This is of great
significance since as Comrade Stalin teaches us: “The hegemony of the
proletariat can be prepared only by the Communist Party.” (Stalin,
Address to the University of the Toilers of the East, May 18, 1925,
Lenin, Stalin, Zhukov, On the Colonial Question, PPH Ltd., 1948, p. 19)
The Second Congress of the Communist Party which took place during the
end of February and beginning of March 1948, was an important step in
the life of the Communist Party of India and a big political event
inside the country. The Congress demonstrated a big increase in the
influence or the Communist Party.
The Congress advanced as the most important task in the new stage, the
struggle for the consolidation by all means of the People’s Democratic
Front, which must be the embodiment of the alliance of the working
class, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie under the
leadership of the working class, The Congress proclaimed the following
demands as the central slogans of the People’s Democratic Front at the
present stage of the national liberation movement in India:
(1) Complete national independence, severance from the British empire
and the Anglo-American reactionary bloc, and the establishment of close
economic, political and cultural ties with the genuinely democratic
countries and above all, with the Soviet Union.
(2) Abolition of landlordism without compensation and distribution of land to the tillers of the soil.
(3) A determined democratisation of India and its conversion into a
union of national, People’s Democratic republics on the basis of the
principle of national self-determination; the abolition of Princely
States.
(4) Nationalisation of the key branches of industry and the
confiscation of foreign and above all, of British enterprises; a
radical improvement in the position of the. working class.
The Communist Party set itself as a specially important task, the
building of unity of the democratic movements in the Indian Union and
Pakistan and emphasised that this unity is the indispensable condition
for the liberation of both, these Dominions from imperialist oppression
and the most important pre-requisite for a successful democratisation
of both these parts of India.
The influence or the Communist Party amongst the workers in both the
Dominions has increased considerably and above all, because on the
fundamental question of the struggle against imperialism and colonial
oppression, and for the improvement of the conditions of the workers,
it has come forward with its own platform which expresses the
aspirations and the hopes of the broadest masses of the Indian people.
The conditions of the Indian working class who even before used to drag
out a starving existence has worsened sharply during the Second World
War and after its termination. The partition of India has aggravated
even more the process of the absolute and relative impoverishment of
the working class. The Indian capitalists and the Anglo-American
monopolists along with the Governments of India and Pakistan have
intensified their attack on the living standards of the workers and on
all the toilers or both the Dominions.
The rise in the prices of foodstuffs and manufactured articles of wide
consumption has brought new riches to the Indian and foreign
capitalists and also to the merchants and speculators and led to a
further lowering of the living standard of the workers, Even according
to the official falsified figures the index of the cost of living for
the working class is steadily rising. In Bombay, which is one of the
biggest industrial centres of the country, it rose from 103 in 1939 to
265 in 1947 and upto 296 in March 1949; in Nagpur, it was 104, 320 and
374 respectively; in Kanpur 105, 378 and 468 (The Eastern Economist,
July 1, 1949 p. 36). Even at present, as a result of the continuous
rise in prices, the real wages of the workers are steadily falling.
Everywhere, under the guise of “rationalisation” of production, the
exploitation of the workers is increasing and the intensification of
their labour is becoming greater. The army of unemployed is growing. In
1948, those of the unemployed registered with the urban employment
exchanges alone numbered more than two million people.
After the war, the struggle of the working class in India assumed
tremendous proportions. The strike movement reached an unprecedented
level. In 1947, in the Indian Dominion alone, nearly two million
workers and employees participated in economic strikes; as a result of
these strikes nearly 16,000,000 working days were lost. In India, the
strikes of the postwar years are distinguished by their mass character,
their solidarity and the active role of the workers and by the
inclusion on a wide scale of new strata of the proletariat and the
toilers, the workers in small enterprises, workers in States, those
employed in Government and private enterprises, etc., etc. It is
characteristic that the specific weight of general strikes embracing
broad strata of the workers and employees in the strike movement is
increasing in both the different industrial centres (the number of
general strikes in Bombay, Calcutta and other cities) as well as in
entire provinces (the general strike of the textile workers of the
Central Provinces and Berar, the general strike of teachers in the
Bombay Province, in the Punjab and in the United Provinces, etc.). The
workers of different branches of industry also went on strike on a
nationwide scale (the general strike of the Post and Telegraph
workers). The very broad sweep of the strike struggle of the Indian
working class played a big role in the growth of the revolutionary
consciousness of the popular masses and in rallying them around the
proletariat.
The Indian working class, fighting for the satisfaction of its economic
demands is at the same time, the pioneer and the leader of mass
anti-imperialist actions directed against the British rule. During the
mass anti-British disturbances in Calcutta in November 1945 and in
February 1946 and in other towns during the bloody clashes and the
barricade battles in Bombay in January-February 1946, the working class
drew the broad masses behind it and as a result of its active role,
these actions assumed a militant and revolutionary character.
The uprising of the sailors in the navy in Bombay and other places in
February 1946 would have been impossible without the active support of
the working class. The general strike of the Bombay textile workers as
a mark of solidarity with the sailors, running into three-day long
barricade battles as well as the solidarity strikes in other centres of
the country, brought out clearly the leading and guiding role of the
working class in the anti-imperialist movement of the Indian toilers.
The vanguard role of the working class was to be seen also in the mass
movements that flared up after the termination of the war in a number
of feudal Princely States (Travancore, Hyderabad, Indore, etc.) – these
bulwarks of reaction. The workers’ struggle was the signal for the
unfolding at a mass movement against the feudal Princes and the British
rule, for the liquidation of the feudal order in the States, for their
democratisation.
After the partitioning of India into two Dominions, the strike struggle
against the attack of the capitalists and of the ruling circles on the
living standard of the workers and all the toilers has not ceased. In
the Indian Dominion 1,634 economic strikes involving more than 1.3
million workers took place in 1948.
After the partitioning of the country, the political strikes and the
mass actions of the workers against the anti-popular policies of the
Congress Government in India and of the Muslim League Government in
Pakistan, against the persecution of the Communist Parties, the
All-India Trade Union Congress and other progressive democratic
organisations by the Governments of both the Dominions, have assumed a
wide sweep.
The most important events in the life of India were such political
actions of the proletariat as the one-day general strike of 700,000
workers of Bombay as a mark of protest against the lifting of price
control by the Congress Government (December 1947), the one-day general
strike of 100,000 workers in Calcutta against the adoption of the law
by the Bengal Provincial Legislative Assembly giving the Bengal
Government extraordinary plenary powers (January 1948), the one-day
general strike of 200,000 workers of Central Provinces and Berar
against the anti-working class policies of the Government (March 1948),
the one-day strike of 50,000 Calcutta workers as a mark of protest
against the introduction of anti-working-class legislation (July 1948)
and a whole number or other big political actions as well as a large
number of protest strikes against the persecution of the Communist
Party.
The brilliant successes of the national liberation army in China evoke
a broad response in India and Pakistan. In a number of towns in both
the Dominions meetings and demonstrations of solidarity with the
Chinese people are taking place under the leadership of the Communist
Party and other progressive organisations. The heroic struggle of the
Chinese people for freedom and democracy cannot but have a big
influence on the further widening and deepening of the national
liberation movement in India and Pakistan.
The growing political struggle of the Indian proletariat clearly proves
that it is resolutely emerging in defence not only of its own economic
interests but is leading the struggle for the defence of the interests
of the broad toiling masses and against the reactionary bloc of the
imperialists, the big bourgeoisie and the landlords. Thus, in practice
it rises to the level of the leader of the general struggle.
The Indian working class and its Party in its fight for the masses will
have to overcome serious difficulties and above all, it must fight to
establish unity within its own ranks. In the Indian Union, the
reactionary leadership of the National Congress and the Socialist Party
are trying to split the trade union movement. Apart from the All-India
Trade Union Congress which is led by progressive leaders, including
Communists, since the time of partition three new parallel trade union
centres have arisen inside the country – the National Trade Union
Congress, which is a Government-owners’ organisation and is the
creation of the leaders of the National Congress and the Patel-Nehru
Government; the Hind Mazdoor Sabha which was formed at the initiative
of the leadership of the Socialist Party and the United Congress of
Trade Unions which has recently been formed in Calcutta. And
notwithstanding the fact that these latter three organizations are
considerably weaker than the All-India Trade Union Congress, the
disruptive and splitting activities of their leaders constitute an
obstacle in the way of the struggle of the working class. A clear
example of this is the disruption by the Socialist leaders of the
general strike of the eight-hundred thousand railway workers, scheduled
to take place in March 1949, and for which 95 per cent of the members
of all the trade unions of the railway workers had cast their vote. The
trade union movement in Pakistan is also split.
The lack of unity in the Indian working class is to a great extent a
consequence of the fact that certain of its sections have still not
shaken off the influence of bourgeois national reformism. National
reformism appears both in the reactionary form of Gandhism which
continues to remain the most important ideological weapon of the
bourgeoisie as well as in the “Left” garb of the Socialist and other
“Left” parties. At the present time, “Left” national reformism, which
is attempting to conceal its subservience to the interests of foreign
and national capital, its fawning before them by demagogic and
pseudo-revolutionary slogans, represents a big danger to the working
class movement. The attempt to retain inside the country
imperialist-colonial slavery and capitalist oppression runs through all
the activities of the leadership of the Socialist Party. The Socialist
Party is intensifying its disruptive activity amongst the workers,
peasants, youth and other organisations.
* * *
One of the decisive conditions for the realisation of the hegemony by
the Indian proletariat in the national liberation movement is the
strengthening of its ideological and organisational influence among the
peasantry – constituting, in this typically agrarian country, the
overwhelming majority of the population. The peasantry is the most
important driving force in the colonial revolution and the main ally of
the working class in its struggle against imperialism, for national
liberation and for democratic reorganisation. The success of this
struggle depends on the extent to which the greater masses of the
Indian peasantry, along with the working class and under its leadership
are drawn into the revolutionary struggle against colonial oppression,
against the remnants of feudalism and for a democratic reorganisation.
The domination of British imperialism and the retention of strong
remnants of feudalism doomed the millions and millions of peasant
masses to dire want, terrible privations and subjected agriculture to
degradation. The pauperisation of the peasantry in India has reached
such dimensions that the main figure in the countryside at the present
time is the poor, landless or the almost landless peasant. The
impoverishment of the peasant is clearly illustrated by the systematic
growth of the number of agricultural workers. In India, the number of
the agricultural proletariat rose from 7.5 million in 1882 to 21
million in 1921 and to approximately 33 million in 1931. At present,
the number of agricultural labourers has increased still more and
according to even the Indian bourgeois economists represents in some
districts of the country approximately one half of the entire
population engaged in agriculture.
The big army of the agricultural proletariat is a clear indication of
the relative agrarian over-population in India. Indian agricultural
workers are essentially different from the agricultural workers of the
advanced capitalist countries. Side by side with the workers employed
in kulak and landowners’ farms (as a rule on a daily basis and for not
more than three or four months in the year), the great masses of
agricultural workers also comprise of those enslaved, the so-called
agricultural servants, debt-slaves and others amongst the dispossessed
strata of the rural population crushed down by feudal exploitation. To
the same category belong the impoverished and proletarianised rural
artisans (the potters, the tanners, the blacksmiths etc.). The position
of the small proprietors and the small tenants working on very tiny
plots of land is very little different from the position of the
agricultural workers. It is absolutely self-evident that only
fundamental changes in social relationships, only an agrarian
revolution, can abolish the feudal remnants and ameliorate the
conditions of the Indian peasantry and the agricultural proletariat.
The many millions of the Indian working peasantry, crushed by untold
want and driven off en masse from the land, cannot but become the most
important ally or the proletariat. The peasants can win their
emancipation only under the leadership of the proletariat, just as the
proletariat can lead the colonial revolution to victory only in
alliance with the peasantry and by leading it.
The struggle of the peasant masses of India against feudal-landlord
exploitation, against the yoke of the British colonisers had assumed
quite considerable dimensions, even in the second half of the
nineteenth century. However, it was only in 1918-22 that a broad
peasant movement began in India. But at that time the peasant movement
in spite of the fact that it was developing under the influence of the
strike movement of the working class, bore a spontaneous isolated
character and often proceeded under religious slogans. The struggle of
the peasants assumed a still broader sweep during the mass
anti-imperialist movement from 1930-32. But even at that time, the
peasant movement to a great extent developed spontaneously. The peasant
masses continued to remain under the bourgeois leadership of the
National Congress and in particular, under the influence of Gandhism.
Nevertheless, in a number of places, peasant actions bore a militant,
revolutionary character. Independent peasant organisations began to
spring up in some places.
The influence of the working class and the Communist Party among the
peasant masses showed a marked increase on the eve of the Second World
War. There arose in the country a considerable number of peasant unions
(kisan sabhas) led by revolutionary elements. Many mass actions of the
peasants were already being conducted under revolutionary slogans under
Communist leadership. During the war years and in particular, in the
postwar period, the peasant unions united in the All-India Kisan Sabha
strengthened considerably and are at present at the head of the mass
peasant movement. At present all over the country as well as in the
Princely States, there exist kisan sabhas led by revolutionary
elements. They enjoy a particularly strong influence in the south of
India.
The postwar peasant movement in India is developing under the slogan of
the consolidation of the alliance of the working class and the
peasantry and it is closely interwoven with the general democratic
movement, which is developing under the leadership of the working class
and the Communist Party. It must, however, be noted that in spite of
the fact that the peasant movement has in certain districts attained a
high level it is still distinguished by great unevenness and does not
bear an all-India character. In Pakistan in particular, the peasant
movement is at a weaker stage of development.
In the East and North Bengal as well as in certain districts of Orissa,
the tenants are waging a struggle for a reduction of the landlords’
share of the crop. Immediately after the war, this movement assumed the
widest dimensions and a militant character in Bengal. The tenants of
twenty districts of the province stopped taking the grain gathered in
the fields to the barns of the landlords and refused to give up the
one-half of the crop which the landlords were demanding. They kept the
harvest to themselves and delivered up to the landlords not more than
one-third of the crop. This movement of the Bengal peasants widely
known as “Tebhaga” (which means one-third i.e. the struggle for
reduction of the rent to one-third of the crop) has in fact been going
on for nearly the past three years, sometimes dying down and then
flaring up again.
In a number of districts in Bihar and Orissa (India) as well as in West
Punjab and the N.W.F Province (Pakistan), the struggle of the peasants
against mass evictions by the landlords from tenanted land is
spreading. Often the peasants refuse to leave the plots tenanted by
them and enter into an open fight with the police.
In the Madras province, where the bad harvest and famine have specially
worsened the conditions of the peasantry in recent years, the peasant
movement has assumed an extremely acute form. In this province not only
entire villages but whole districts are rallying behind the
revolutionary kisan sabhas. Here the peasant struggle mainly assumes
the form of confiscation of the landlord's grain which the kisan sabhas
then distribute among the particularly needy peasants. Quite often the
peasants distribute a portion of the confiscated grain among the
workers and in particular, at the time of strikes (it was thus in
Chirakkal and in other districts). The movement for the confiscation of
grainstocks from the landlords developed particularly widely in north
Malabar and very often passed over into an open fight of the peasant
masses against police and military detachments. Peasant partisan
detachments are active in certain districts of the Madras Province
(Krishna, Godavari, Guntur).
The agricultural workers who cannot but be a very important force in
the developing agrarian revolution are playing a very big role in the
peasant movement in many districts of the country. The strikes of the
farm labourers in Bihar had a decisive influence on the growth of the
peasant movement. In Bengal, the districts where the “Tebhaga” movement
is developing, the agricultural workers are participating side by side
with the peasants in conducting strikes and they are taking an active
part in the meetings and in the demonstrations of the peasants. In the
province of Madras, those organised in the unions of agricultural
workers are taking part alongside with the peasants in the confiscation
of grain from the landlords. The struggle of the agricultural workers
is also intensifying in the U.P. and in other provinces. In the
district of Gorakhpur, 1,500 farm labourers of one locality in reply to
an attempt to deprive them of their rights to till their plots of land
for themselves, proclaimed this land as their own and planted the Red
Flag in this locality. In Bombay province (India) and in East Bengal
(Pakistan), the struggle of the agricultural labourers for their
emancipation and for the payment of wages in cash assumed considerable
proportions (Warlis and Halis in the Bombay province, Nankari in
Bengal).
In India and in Pakistan, the peasants are beginning to put forward
more and more frequently the demand for the confiscation of the land of
landlords, without compensation and transferring it to the peasants.
The numerous peasant meetings and conferences in the provinces of
Madras and Bombay, in Bihar, in West and East Bengal, in the N.W.P.
province and in other places have put forward this demand. The total
inability of the Congress Government in India and the League Government
in Pakistan to introduce even the most modest democratic agrarian
reforms and their open support to feudal-landlord reaction cannot but,
lead to the strengthening of the peasant movement and to its transition
to a higher phase.
The numerous peasant meetings and demonstrations which took place all
over the country as a mark of protest against the persecution of the
Communist Party and against the mass arrests of Communists, testify to
the growing influence of the working class and the Communist Party
among the peasantry and a growth in the political activity of the
latter.
In the district of Guntur in the province of Madras many thousands of
peasants held a demonstration with the slogan: “We demand an end to
repression against the Communist Party”! The demonstration received a
warm welcome from the peasant population and it terminated in a meeting
attended by ten thousand people.
In Betuak (Bihar) seven thousand peasants attended a meeting called by
the kisan sabha where they demanded the immediate confiscation without
compensation of the landlords’ land, release of arrested Communists and
the withdrawal of the ban on the Communist Party in West Bengal.
In Darbhanga (Bihar), where a meeting of the Provincial Committee of
the National Congress was being convened, a 15,000 strong peasant
demonstration took place with the slogan: “We demand an end to
repression against the peasants! Long Live the Communist Party!” the
peasants would not allow a Government Minister attending the conference
to make a speech and he was compelled to leave the platform. Similar
meetings and demonstrations of the peasants are taking place
everywhere. In the postwar period, the peasant movement attained its
highest peak in the territory of Telengana in the Princely State of
Hyderabad. The peasants, who in the main belong to the Telugu (or
Andhra) nationality, rose in battle against the feudal exploitation and
simultaneously put forward the demand for incorporating their national
territory which was included in Hyderabad with the respective national
territory of the Indian Union. It was the combination of the
anti-feudal and the national struggle which conditioned the particular
acuteness of the peasant struggle in Telengana. In Telengana the
peasant movement against the landlords and against the despotic power
of the Nizam assumed the character of an armed revolt and an agrarian
revolution. As a result of this, the rule of the Nizam and the
landlords was overthrown on one-sixth of the territory of the Princely
State with a population of four million people. In 2,500 villages of
Telengana, the land of the landlords was distributed amongst those
peasants who had no or very little land and amongst the agricultural
labourers, the indebtedness of the labourers to the landlords and the
moneylenders was abolished, people’s elected organs and courts were
created and a people’s militia was formed. In September 1948 the
Government of the Indian Dominion sent its armed forces into Telengana
in order to suppress the revolutionary struggle of the peasants. It is
already one year since the punitive detachments began to run amok in
Telengana but they have not succeeded in breaking the fighting spirit
of the peasants and in crushing their heroic struggle. The peasant
struggle is continuing – it is very often assuming the character of
partisan warfare and is extending to the neighbouring districts and in
particular to those districts of the Madras Province where the Andhras
live.
The peasant movement in Telengana is closely bound up with the struggle
of the workers of Hyderabad and is being waged under the leadership of
the working class and Left organisations. The events in Telengana are
the most striking instance of the revolutionary struggle for land and
democracy and represent the first attempt at creating People’s
Democracy in India. And although this attempt is limited in its scale
and in its character, it has indisputably tremendous importance for the
further development and intensification of the general democratic
movement in India and Pakistan. The struggle in Telengana is the
harbinger of the agrarian revolution and constitutes the most important
content of the present stage of the national liberation struggle in
India.
In different parts of both India and Pakistan, the peasants have
already begun to follow to one or another degree the example of
Telengana. In a number of rural districts of the United Provinces, the
Central Provinces and of other provinces, peasant revolts against
landlord oppression are taking place more and more often. According to
the information of the agency of the Press Trust of India, 2,057 peasant revolts and disturbances took place in the United Provinces alone in the first six months of 1949.
The working class and the Communist Party of India have to overcome
serious difficulties in the fight for the peasantry. The influence of
reactionary Gandhism is still strong amongst the peasants. In spite of
the treachery and the betrayal of leading top sections of the National
Congress, the Congress still continues to retain considerable influence
amongst the peasant masses and the fact that the disruptive All-India
Kisan Congress led by the proteges of Patel and Nehru (Ranga and
others) finds soil for its treacherous activity amongst the peasants
can be explained by the illusions with regard to the National Congress
which have not yet been dispelled. The Socialist leaders are also
trying to carry out their disruptive activity amongst the peasant
masses. Not long ago they formed a parallel peasants’ organisation
aimed at undermining the developing revolutionary struggle of the
peasantry and the growth of the influence of the Communist Party.
An important ally of the Indian proletariat in its fight for freedom,
independence and democracy is also a considerable section of the urban
petty-bourgeoisie. Their difficult conditions and their exploitation by
foreign and native capital are more and more forcing the broad strata
of the petty-bourgeoisie on to the path of common struggle with the
proletariat. In recent years the authority of the working class has
been considerably strengthened amongst the lower strata of the urban
petty-bourgeoisie. Their active participation in the mass militant
political actions taking place under the leadership of the Communist
Party is a testimony to this. In recent years, the influence of the
Communists has increased in a number of mass democratic, student, youth
and other progressive organisations. In spite of this the influence of
national reformism is still strong among a considerable section of the
urban petty-bourgeoisie. This is especially manifested in the fact that
in some provinces there exist not a small number of petty-bourgeois
parties and groups who frequently screen themselves behind “Left”
labels and are in actual practice utilised by reaction in the struggle
against the democratic movement.
The dislodging of the national bourgeoisie from the leadership of the
movement and its isolation constitute one of the most important
conditions for the hegemony of the working class in the national
liberation movement.
The Indian bourgeoisie, not only the mercantile but even considerable
sections of the big industrial bourgeoisie, was from its very inception
closely bound up through diverse threads with the British imperialists.
These connections were established and strengthened through the credit
system, since all the principal banks in India belong to British
capital, and through the so-called “Managing Agencies” which represent
one of the special forms of the subservience of Indian industry to the
British financial oligarchy; these connections have also been
established in other ways. The financial magnates of Britain have
always occupied a dominating position in the Indo-British capitalist
alliance.
A considerable strata of the Indian industrial bourgeoisie is closely
linked with feudal landlords and quite often with usurious capital. To
a great extent the British policy of hampering the industrial
development of the country contributed to this.
Finally, one more characteristic peculiar to the Indian big bourgeoisie
must be noted. As is well-known India is a multi-national country and
the process of the formation of nationalities is proceeding in a uneven
fashion inside the country. Alongside regions which are more
capitalistically developed and in which nationalities have already been
constituted, there also exist in the country a considerable number of
regions that are economically extremely backward and in which the
process or formation of nationalities is still far from complete. The
process of the formation and growth of the bourgeoisie of the different
nationalities of India is intimately bound up with the process of
capitalist development and the formation of nationalities. At present
in India there exist not merely large enterprises owned by native
capital but national monopolist combinations have also been formed (the
joint companies or Birla, Tata and Dalmia, etc.) which play a big role
in the country’s economy. Of course, these monopolies have a special
colonial character; they are closely linked with foreign capital and
directly dependent on it. The Gujerati and Marwari groupings of the
bourgeoisie occupy a dominant position in these monopolist combinations
and it is in the first instance, these monopolist combinations that the
Right-wing leadership of the National Congress and the Indian Dominion
Government represent.
The fight of these already constituted monopoly groups for domination
over the internal market inevitably meets with the resistance of the
rising bourgeoisie of those national territories of India which are
more backward in the level of their capitalist development.
In Pakistan where the industrial development and capitalist relations
are still characterised by their extreme backwardness the big
industrial bourgeoisie is relatively weak. In both the Government of
Pakistan and in the top strata of the Muslim League, the leading
positions are mainly occupied by feudal-landlord elements.
The characteristic features of the Indian big bourgeoisie which have
been noted above and which are determined by the distinctive features
of India’s colonial development, are of important significance for an
understanding of the position of the Indian bourgeoisie in relation to
British imperialism, and in relation to the struggle of the popular
masses.
The policy of British imperialism which invariably aimed at holding
back the industrial development of India could not, of course, provoke
anything but the dissatisfaction of the Indian big bourgeoisie. There
existed serious differences between the Indian bourgeoisie and British
imperialism. Nevertheless, the Indian big bourgeoisie which from its
very birth was closely linked with British capital and feudal reaction
inside the country, was not capable of or inclined towards any kind of
active struggle against imperialism.
True, the Indian bourgeoisie through the leadership of the National
Congress attempted to utilise the mass movement in order to bargain for
some concessions for its own benefit from British imperialism. The
decisive and constant endeavour of the Indian bourgeoisie has, however,
always been one of not allowing the struggle of the broad toiling
masses for their independence and for freedom to assume an active,
extensive character, since in the epoch of imperialism, real freedom
implies freedom not only from the oppression of the colonisers but also
from the oppression of one’s “own” national bourgeoisie. The Indian big
bourgeoisie has always come to a compromise with British imperialism
and has reckoned on its support in the struggle against the proletariat
and the toiling masses of India.
Even in 1920, V. I. Lenin had emphasised that
“a certain rapprochment has been brought about between the
bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and those of the colonial
countries so that very often, even in the majority of case, perhaps,
where the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries does support the
national movement, it simultaneously works in harmony with the
imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., it joins the latter in fighting against
all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes.” (Lenin, The
Report of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions at the
Second Congress of the Communist International. July 26. 1920, Selected Works, Lawrence & Wishart, London, Vol. X, p. 241)
The position of the Indian bourgeoisie is an example which clearly
confirms this Leninist observation. The Indian big bourgeoisie took to
the path of treachery, to the path of national betrayal and compromise
with imperialism even during the very first stages of the national
liberation movement, when the direction of the movement was mainly
against foreign oppression and when the Indian proletariat had still
not yet become an independent political force.
Even the mass movement of 1918-22 pointed out that the big industrial
bourgeoisie of India represented by the leadership of the National
Congress is a compromising bourgeoisie and that it cannot be considered
as a revolutionary force in the struggle against imperialism. Comrade
Stalin pointed out:
“Dreading revolution more than imperialism, concerned more
about its moneybags than about the interests of its own country, this
section of the bourgeoisie, the wealthiest and the most influential
section, is completely going over to the camp of the irreconcilable
enemies of the revolution, having entered into a bloc with imperialism
against the workers and peasants of its own country.” (Stalin, Address
to the University of the Toilers of the East, May 18, 1925, Lenin,
Stalin, Zhukov. On the Colonial Question, PPH Ltd., 1948, p. 19)
Even in 1930-32 at the time of the advance of the national liberation
movement of the Indian toilers, the big bourgeoisie betrayed the masses
and came to a compromise with British imperialism,
After the Second World War and in connection therewith the national
liberation movement assumed an unprecedented sweep, its leadership
passing more and more into the hands of the working class. The Indian
big bourgeoisie openly went over into the camp of reaction and of
imperialism and began savagely to suppress the democratic movement in
the country. Its fear of its own working masses is intensifying as a
result of the growth and the solidarity of the democratic forces of the
whole world led by the Soviet Union and as a result of the
unprecedented advance of the revolutionary movement in the countries of
South-East Asia and the brilliant victories of the national liberation
armies in China.
If earlier the Indian big bourgeoisie, in spite of a whole chain of
betrayals and capitulation before imperialism represented some
opposition to imperialism, then at the present time it has completely
and openly gone over to the camp of imperialism.
The fact that not only the landlord-bourgeois top strata of the Muslim
League but the bourgeois-landlord leadership of the National Congress
completely accepted the “Mountbatten Plan” testifies to the open
passing over of the Indian big bourgeoisie into the camp of reaction.
As a result of the carrying out of this plan into practice, both the
Dominions continue to remain dependent on Great Britain although the
forms of this dependence have changed and although the British
imperialists have allowed the native exploiting- classes to be in power
in both the Dominions. The whole domestic and foreign policy of the
ruling circles of both the Dominions also proves that the big
bourgeoisie of• India and Pakistan has betrayed the national interests.
The internal policy of the leading circles of India and Pakistan is
wholly at the service of the interests of the reactionary bloc of the
Indian big bourgeoisie, the landlords and the feudal princes. After
coming into power, the Indian big bourgeoisie took all steps to retain
such a survival of mediaevalism and bulwark of reaction as the feudal
princes – the bases of British imperialism in India. It is bending all
its energies to preserve landlordism which represents the main basis of
feudal survivals and is at present the pre-dominant form of the
oppression over the Indian peasantry. The bills for agrarian reforms
which are being elaborated in a number of provinces of the Indian
Dominion clearly testify to this. These reforms retain the survivals of
feudalism and landlordism everywhere. But the implementation of even
these reforms is being prevented by the ruling circles in India.
Regardless of the former demagogic statements made by the leadership of
the National Congress, the rulers of India are refusing to nationalise
large-scale industry. Like the ruling circles of Pakistan, they are
opening wide their doors to foreign capital and are now increasing the
economic and political dependence of both the Dominions on British and
American monopolies.
The ruling circles of both the Dominions are resorting to brutal
repression against the working class and its organisations and against
all democratic elements. They are employing essentially fascist methods
in their struggle against the progressive forces and in particular
against the Communist Party. Trade unions and peasant organisations led
by democratic elements are savagely persecuted. Thousands of democratic
leaders have been thrown into jails. In India, in February 1949, more
than three thousand people were arrested solely in connection with the
threat of a general strike of railwaymen. News about brutal firing on
striking workers, on peasant meetings and on student demonstrations is
coming in from different parts of India. At present, laws are being
prepared which will in fact completely ban strikes. At a session of the
Constituent Assembly, Nehru threatened to ban the Communist Party,
which as it is, is working under semi-illegal conditions. In their
foreign policy, the ruling circles of India are following the dictates
of the bosses of the Anglo-American imperialist bloc. Ignoring the
demands of the people, they have obediently expressed their readiness
to remain as a Dominion and further, within the system of the British
empire. They are taking an active part in the formation of a bloc of
the countries of South-East Asia and the Pacific Pact.
The Indian bourgeoisie and its agents in the trade union movement are
carrying out the plans of Anglo-American reaction and have taken the
initiative in splitting the working class movement of the countries of
South-East Asia. The formation of the Asiatic Federation of Trade
Unions was brought about through the direct and active participation of
the reactionary Indian National Trade Union Congress organised by the
National Congress.
Facts irrefutably prove that the Indian big bourgeoisie has willingly
taken upon itself the role or a steward of Anglo-American imperialism
by rallying all the reactionary elements in the countries of East Asia
for the struggle against the national liberation movement of the
oppressed peoples against those forces that stand for lasting
democratic peace.
Therefore, the statements of certain leading statesmen of the Indian
Dominion about India following an “independent” or “neutral” foreign
policy, about her adhering to a “third” path in the sphere of
international relations in particular sounds altogether unconvincing.
All this talk is designed at duping the popular masses and deceiving
public opinion both inside the country and outside. In actual practice,
the reactionary circles both of India and Pakistan are adopting a
course of consolidating the position of their countries in the role of
satellites of the Anglo-American imperialist bloc. Even some Indian
bourgeois journalists were compelled to admit that “the middle path”
followed by India in its international policy is very little different
from the policy of the Western Powers and their satellites.
The Communist Party of India is resolutely exposing the bourgeois
machinations directed towards keeping India tied to the Anglo-American
bloc. The Communist Party has come forth against the so-called London
Agreement for retaining India within the British empire and has
characterised this agreement as one step further in the path of
converting India into a satellite of the Anglo-American imperialist
bloc. The Communist Party notes that the South-East Asia bloc and the
Pacific Pact created by the imperialists is a complement to the
aggressive North Atlantic Pact and an instrument for the struggle
against the rising national liberation movement in the countries of
South-East Asia and a preparation in the East for a base of attack
against the USSR. The Communist Party emphasises that the working
masses of India look upon the Soviet Union as a leading force in the
struggle against world reaction and are resolutely taking their place
in the camp of democracy led by the USSR.
Both in India and Pakistan, the popular movement for lasting peace and
democracy, and against the Anglo-American instigators of war and their
myrmidons is assuming a broader and broader sweep. At a crowded meeting
in defence of peace which was recently held in Firozabad, the following
resolution was adopted:
“Under no circumstances will the Indian workers ever take
up arms against the Soviet Union, the greatest defender of peace and
democracy. If the imperialists attempt to convert our country into a
war base for an attack against the Soviet Union, they will meet with a
shattering rebuff from the Indian people. The working class of India
alongside the working class of the whole world will fight for peace,
democracy and Socialism.” (Pravda, August 19, 1949)
The final going over of the Indian big bourgeoisie into the camp of
reaction and imperialism does not exclude the fact that individual
groupings in the national bourgeoisie can still at one or another time,
during one or another period, become fellow-travellers with the
democratic forces in their struggle against imperialism and its allies
in India. In the first instance, they comprise those elements of the
bourgeoisie whose interests in particular run counter to those of the
foreign capital that is flowing increasingly into the country. It also
comprises the rising bourgeoisie of those national regions of India,
which are more backward in their development. This bourgeoisie is
dissatisfied with the predominance of the already constituted
monopolist groups. At the same time, one must bear in mind that under
the present conditions of the extreme accentuation of the general
crisis of capitalism, when a specially sharp polarisation of class
forces, is taking place both on an international scale and within the
bounds of every capitalist country taken individually, these
oppositional strata of the Indian bourgeoisie ought not to be regarded
in any way as reliable or stable members of the anti-imperialist camp.
Closely connected with the final passing over of the Indian big
bourgeoisie into the service of the Anglo-American imperialists, it is
necessary to consider also the policy of the Indian National Congress
whose leadership had always remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie
and the liberal landlords. At the present time, the National Congress
has been finally converted into a party of the reactionary bloc of the
Indian big bourgeoisie, the landlords and the feudal princes, with the
bourgeoisie retaining its leading position in this bloc.
It is impossible not to take into account the fact that the National
Congress still enjoys a certain influence among the masses. This can
partly be explained by tradition since in the course of a long period
of time, the Congress was considered to have been in considerable
opposition to the policy of British imperialism in India. This can also
partly be explained by the nationalist demagogy of the Congress
leaders, by which they are trying to screen their compromise with
British imperialism. But the reactionary policy of the National
Congress is beginning to arouse greater and greater dissatisfaction and
indignation amongst the Indian workers. With the exposure of the
reactionary and treacherous role of the bourgeois-landlord leadership
of the National Congress and of reactionary Gandhism, the influence
among the masses of the National Congress is being more and more
rapidly dispelled.
It is becoming more and more evident to the broad masses of Indian
workers that it is the working class alone which is called upon to be
the leader in the national liberation movement and that it is only
under its leadership that the victory or the working people can be
ensured.
From “Problems of Economics” No. 8, Moscow
Click here to return to the index of archival material.