People’s Liberation Struggle in Colonial and Semi-Colonial Countries after Second World War
I
A joint session of the Academic Councils of the Institute of Economics
and of the Pacific Institute of the Academy of Sciences, USSR, devoted
to the problems of the national liberation struggles of the peoples of
the colonies and semi-colonies and dependent countries after the Second
World War was held in June 1949.
In opening the session, the Director of the Institute of Economics, K.
V. Ostrovityanov noted that the unprecedented advance of the national
liberation movement of the oppressed peoples after the Second World War
is a clear indication of the deepening of the crisis of the colonial
system which in its turn is one of the most important manifestations of
the accentuation of the general crisis of capitalism.
The world is divided into two camps – the camp of reaction, of
imperialism and of war led by the USA and the camp of peace, democracy
and Socialism headed by the USSR. The imperialist camp is attempting to
crush the powerful national liberation movement in the colonies and
dependent countries. The Anglo-American imperialist bloc which is
preparing for an aggressive war against the Soviet Union and the
People’s Democracies is attempting to utilise the colonies as a source
of military-strategic raw material and cheap labour power, as a
supplier of cannon-fodder, and their territory as a strategic
jumping-off ground and base. The policy of imperialist aggression is
opposed by the camp of peace, democracy and Socialism, which is
fighting for the freedom and independence of colonial peoples and
actively supports their national liberation struggle.
The path traversed by the Soviet State, the historic experience of the
Party of Lenin and Stalin in the solution of the national question,
which is now being followed by the People’s Democracies where also the
great principles of the Leninist-Stalinist national policy, the
principles of complete equality and friendship of all nationalities are
being embodied in life – all this is a beacon-light for the oppressed
peoples fighting for freedom and against imperialist slavery. The
national liberation movement of the colonial peoples is assuming more
and more the character of a struggle for People’s Democracy, conducted
under the hegemony of the working class and under the leadership of the
Communist Parties.
Fourteen reports were discussed at the session. The introductory
report, “Problems of the National and Colonial Struggle After the
Second World War”, was made by the Director of the Pacific Institute,
E. M. Zhukov. Comrade V. A. Maslennikov delivered the report on
“Hegemony of the Working Class in the National Liberation Movement”.
(Revised reports of E. M. Zhukov and V. A. Maslennikov published in
Problems of Economics, No. 9, 1949)
Further reports were heard from Comrade V. Y. Averin on “The National
Liberation Movement in China”, Comrade V. V. Balabushevich on “The New
Stage in the National Liberation Movement of the Peoples of I” (Revised
report of V. V. Balabushevich published in Problems of Economics, No. 8,
1949); Comrade V. Y. Vasileva on “The Struggle of the Peoples of
Indo-China”; Comrade A. A. Guber on “The National Liberation Struggle
in Indonesia”; Comrade A.M. Dyakov on “The National Liberation Movement
in Burma”; Comrade M. V. Danilevich on “The Working Class of Latin
America in the Struggle for Independence and Democracy”; Comrade V. I.
Zabozlaeva on “The National Liberation Movement in the Philippines”;
Comrade O. I. Bondarevsky on “The Struggle of the Peoples of Malaya for
their Liberation”; Comrade V. B. Lutsky on “The National Liberation
Movement in the Near and Middle East”; Comrade I. N. Vatolina on the
same; Comrade F. I. Shabshina on “The Struggle of the Peoples of Korea
for Independence and Democracy”; and Comrade A. T. Yakimov on “The
Mongolian People’s Republic.”
Comrades A. I. Kogan, Yau-Khin-Shum, G. V. Astafev, N. I. Shvetsov, S.
M. Melman, F. D. Gapchenko, N. D. Grodko, G. G. Kocharyants, A. M.
Dyakov and Dr. V. M. Fedonenko spoke in the discussion of the reports.
A short summary of number or reports and speeches is inserted below.
* * *
II
Comrade V. Y. Vasileva (Institute of Economics) in her report on the
struggle of the peoples of Indo-China pointed out that in the postwar
period, Indo-China, like other countries of South-East Asia has become
the seat of a powerful national liberation movement. The peoples of
South-East Asia inspired by the successes of the building of Communism
in the USSR, the heroic struggle and victories of the Chinese people,
are rising, arms in hand, for the attainment of their freedom and
independence. Having been steeled in the struggle against the Japanese
invaders, the peoples of Indo-China, Indonesia, Burma, Malaya and the
Philippines have turned their weapons against their age-old oppressors,
the French, the Dutch, the British and American imperialists.
The Republic of Viet Nam, bordering on China, is marching in the front
ranks of the fighting peoples of South East Asia. The three years of
the Republic’s existence were for it years of difficult ordeals and at
the same time also years of great victories in the path to liberation
from the imperialist yoke.
The independent democratic Republic of Viet Nam emerged as a result of
the defeat of imperialist Japan at the hands of the Soviet Army. It was
proclaimed on August 17, 1945. It comprised of Tonkin, Annam and Cochin
China. At the time of its formation the territory of the Republic was
equal to 328,000 sq. km. (the territory of the whole of French
Indo-China being 750,000 sq. km.), its population being twenty two
million (out of the twenty-six million population of the whole of
Indo-China). The French imperialists did not recognise the Republic of
Viet Nam and opened military operations against it. Already, in the
period of the war against the Japanese occupiers, an army of resistance
had begun to be formed in the Republic.
The regular army of Viet Nam numbers 150,000 soldiers and officers;
besides this, there are 300,000 combatants fighting in the ranks of the
partisans. The Republican Army is armed with modern fire-arms, captured
in the battle against the enemy. Viet Nam organised its own production
of armaments and munitions. The regular army of the Viet Namese
Republic relies on the support of the absolute majority of the
country’s population.
The basis of the new State structure in Viet Nam is the People’s
Committees which have been formed in all the villages, districts,
regions and provinces. The members of the committees fulfil their
duties without any remuneration. The activities of the People’s
Committees are subordinated in the first place to the tasks of the
defence of the Republic. They also render tremendous help to the
Government in the carrying out of all social and economic and cultural
measures.
The. foundations of a new democratic State are being laid in Viet Nam.
The liberation struggle and democratic construction are being carried
out by a united anti-imperialist National Front, in which the majority
of the people of Viet Nam are unified under the leadership of the
working class. The political organisation, the Viet Minh, which unites
all the progressive political parties including the Communist Party,
was founded during the years of resistance to the Japanese occupiers.
The Communists became the leading force in the Viet Minh; they also
lead the trade unions and other mass organisations of workers.
The President of Viet Nam is the oldest and most popular leader of the
Indo-Chinese people, the founder of the Indo-Chinese Communist Party,
Ho Chi-Minh, who heads the Republican Government and the Viet Minh.
Many other well-known Communists are also included in the Government of
the Republic. In the general elections for the National Assembly which
were held in January 1946 eighty per cent of all the voters of the
Republic participated. These elections resulted in a complete victory
for the Viet Minh, which won 230 out of the 300 seats.
The Government of Ho Chi Minh has as its aim a resolute struggle for
the complete independence and the territorial integrity of the
Republic, for the strengthening of national unity. the extension of
democratic liberties, the improvement in the material and cultural
conditions of life for the workers and in the conditions of labour and
for the development of all the branches of national economy. This
programme of action unifies the widest strata of the population of Viet
Nam.
The National Front of Viet Nam embraces the workers, the peasants, the
urban poor, the artisans, the intelligentsia, the petty and middle
urban bourgeoisie. The leading force in the National Front is the
working class which has rich revolutionary traditions and is led by
Communists.
At its present stage, the struggle of the peoples of Viet Nam is
directed in the first instance against the French interventionists. The
Indo-Chinese big bourgeoisie has broken off from the general National
Front and taken to the path of collaboration with imperialism, to the
path of the betrayal of the interests of the peoples. During the years
of the Japanese occupation, these exploiting, anti-popular classes and
strata cooperated with the Japanese. At present they are actively
collaborating with the French interventionists; by utilising the
difficult economic position of the Republic, they, by all possible
adventures and speculations continue to increase their profits. These
groups of the compradore bourgeoisie, which even earlier were closely
linked with French imperialism as well as the sections of the national
big industrial bourgeoisie and the all-powerful financiers and
businessmen, which were grouped around the Indo-Chinese Bank are at one
with the French occupiers. The indigenous landlords who are most
powerful in Indo-China also take up a hostile position vis-a-vis the
freedom struggle of the people.
In their policy which is directed towards the crushing of the Republic
of Viet Nam, the French colonisers rely on the bourgeois-landlord top
strata, which is the prop of the puppet “Governments” in the territory
of Viet Nam. With their help they are attempting to deceive the people.
By utilising the Right-wing leaders, the nationalist parties and
groupings, the French imperialists want to split the United National
Front of Viet Nam. The reactionary leadership of the Kuok Zan Dang
Party, which has remained outside the Viet Minh and likewise the
pro-Chiang Kai-shek leadership of the Party of Dong Min Khoi, which was
formed in 1942 on the territory of South China out of Annamite
emigrants assist alike the French colonisers in carrying out their
provocative policy. Though the leaders of both these parties came forth
in words against French imperialists, in practice, they along with the
former Emperor Bao Dai formed in Nanking in January 1947 the so-called
United Front of Viet Nam, around which were grouped all the treacherous
anti-popular elements. It was precisely from here that all activities
hostile to the Republic of Viet Nam and directed towards the
liquidation and the splitting or the unity of the people of Viet Nam
were organised. With the help of this centre, the Americans dispatched
their agents into the Republic.
The French imperialists are fanning national enmity between the peoples
of Indo-China. Through their old established agency, the monarchist and
feudal elements of Laos and Cambodia they have succeeded in tearing
away these regions from the Republic and preserving them as realms
subservient to French imperialism. French imperialism which operates
through the most diverse methods – diplomatic machinations, the
utilisation of puppets of the type of the Emperor Bao Dai or the
traitor General Nygen Ksu An and the use of armed force – is attempting
to deprive the people of Viet Nam of their independence and to doom
them to colonial slavery. However, the broad and stable front of
national unity which exists inside the country guarantees the firmness
of the Ho Chi Minh Government, which is supported by the majority or
the people.
The building of the Vietnamese Republic is now proceeding under
conditions of imperialist intervention and uninterrupted colonial war.
This is hampering the construction work of the People’s Government and
is restricting the scope and depth of the democratic transformation in
the Republic. The economic situation inside the country continues as
before to remain difficult.
The Vietnamese Government has set about reorganising transport and
strengthening the financial system; it has reorganised the tax system
and abolished the poll-tax. It pays great attention to the advance in
agriculture. The agrarian question is one of the most acute problems in
Indo-China. The Government of the Vietnamese Republic has begun to
carry out agrarian reform. The division of common land among the
toiling peasants has been effected. Rent which earlier in many regions
of the country was two-thirds of the harvest has been lowered to 50 per
cent and usury has been prohibited.
The Labour Code adopted by the National Assembly of Viet Nam has
introduced a forty-hour week, leave with pay, sickness benefit,
protection of female and juvenile labour and social insurance. The
trade unions control the carrying out of labour laws through the
workers’ committees which exist in every factory and the employees’
committees in establishments. The General Confederation of Labour in
Viet Nam unites 250,000 organised workers. Patriotic emulation of the
toilers for the raising of production is developing inside the Republic.
Democratic public opinion in France strongly supports the struggle of
the people of Viet Nam for freedom. It demands the immediate cessation
of the colonial war against. Viet Nam and the peaceful settlement of
Franco-Annamite, relations with the lawful Government of Ho Chi Minh
that has been elected by the people. The people of Viet Nam have faith
in their victory, they are full of determination to continue the
struggle for freedom and independence.
III
Comrade A. A. Guber (Pacific Institute) made the report on “The National Liberation Struggle in Indonesia.”
By the time of the collapse of Japanese imperialism, the objective
prerequisites for the creation of a broad anti-imperialist front on
democratic principles had been laid down in Indonesia. These
objectively favourable circumstances were predetermined by the entire
social and economic structure of Indonesia, by the entire historical
development of this colony under Dutch rule. The relative weakness of
the Indonesian big bourgeoisie and the comparative numerical strength
of the proletariat and its concentration in the working class centres
of Java had already, after the First World War, told favourably on the
development of the national liberation movement of Indonesia. However,
till the time of the collapse of Japan, until the proclamation of
Indonesian independence in August 1945, there existed inside the
country neither a strong Communist Party nor mass organisations
connected with it. The uninterrupted terror of the Dutch imperialists
since 1925 and the persecution by the Japanese occupiers of the
Communists – the only force which came forward to lead the people s
anti-Japanese resistance-had had its effect. Sjoerifuddin, one of the
most militant leaders of the resistance movement, was thrown into
prison by the Japanese usurpers, subjected to torture and escaped
execution only by an accident. The leader of the Indonesian Communists,
Sardjono, spent eighteen years in penal servitude. Other leaders of the
Indonesian Communist Party were also thrown into prison, served penal
servitude or were deported to Australia by the Dutch during the war and
were able to return to their country only after the proclamation of
Indonesian independence.
Under these conditions, independence and the Republic were proclaimed
by the representative of bourgeois nationalism, Soekarno, who had
collaborated with the Japanese occupiers. The Provisional Constitution
conferred unlimited powers on Soekarno as President of the Republic.
The Provisional Parliament created for the first time after the
proclamation or the Republic was entirely composed of persons proposed
by Soekarno. In the first ministerial Cabinet were included people who
had enjoyed a legal position during the Japanese occupation and had
actively collaborated with the Japanese imperialists.
However, the experience of the Second World War and the growing
influence of the Indonesian Communists among the masses had created
conditions extremely favourable for the Communist Party enabling it to
conduct, after the proclamation of the Republic, a determined struggle
for the leadership of the national liberation struggle of the
Indonesian people. The Communist Party was reformed in October 1945
immediately after the defeat of the Japanese occupation army earlier
than the formation of the Soekarno-Hatta party, the National Party; the
Masjoemi Party arose on the basis of the amalgamation of different
Muslim organisations. The growth of the Communist Party numbering tens
of thousands of workers and peasants testifies to the fact that by its
leadership of the struggle for national independence during the war,
the Indonesian Communists have won deserved authority among the people.
Already by the end of 1945, as a result of the consolidation of the
democratic forces the state of affairs ensuring the unrestricted
control of President Soekarno was in practice abolished in the
Republic. In 1946, the party of the Socialist bloc began to play a more
and more important role in the Parliament of the extended Indonesian
Republic. The Socialist bloc was formed by the Communist Party and the
Socialist Party in which the strong Left-wing section with Sjoerifuddin
at its head predominated. It was created in December 1945 and headed by
the old leader of the working class movement, the Communist Satiadjidom
of the Workers’ Party. Towards the end of 1946 and particularly by the
beginning of 1947, this Socialist bloc had won not, less than half the
seats in the Provisional Parliament.
The Left bloc enjoyed the support of the workers’ and peasants’
organisations and the Socialist League of Youth. It was also able to
mobilise the support of a considerable section of ordinary
rank-and-file members of the Mussalman Party of Masjoemi and the
National Party since the greater mass of these parties were comprised
of peasants, artisans and the urban petty bourgeoisie.
However, the Indonesian Communist Party did not wage a sufficiently
consistent struggle for democratic transformation, did not expose those
bourgeois and petty bourgeois leaders who were taking the Indonesian
Republic onto the path of compromise with imperialism, onto the path of
bourgeois nationalism.
At the same time, events inside the Indonesian Republic in the postwar
period were determined not only by the correlation of class forces
inside the country but also by the attack of external reaction on the
Republic. The Lingadjatti agreement signed in March 1946 was a
temporary concession which Dutch imperialism was compelled to make
since it was not strong enough to openly oppose the Republic. The
support of this agreement by the Communists was a correct step on their
part since this agreement secured the recognition of the Republic by
Holland and was able to give a breathing space to the Republic. But
later on when it became clear that the Lingadjatti Agreement was only a
screen for Holland and the other imperialist powers behind her to
prepare for a new attack against the Republic and when it became clear
that the propertied classes of Indonesia were prepared to come to a
compromise with the imperialists and renounce even that which was
recognised by the imperialists in the Lingadjatti Agreement, the
Communist Party was not able clearly to define its attitude to the
policy of the bourgeois elements in the leadership of the Indonesian
Republic.
In July 1947, at the time of the resumption of the colonial war against
Indonesia by Holland, the activity of the Indonesian people increased
sharply. President Soekarno was compelled under pressure of the popular
masses to agree to the nomination of a coalition Cabinet of
Sjoerifuddin, in which the Communist Satiadjit, representing the
Workers’ Party was Vice-President. A representative of the Communist
Party also entered this Coalition Government. The Coalition Government
was not able to utilise the wide possibilities that unfolded before it.
It rejected the plan for the economic reconstruction of Indonesia
worked out by the Socialist bloc and agreed to the so-called “Ten-Year
Plan” of the bourgeois leadership of the National Party – a plan which
in essence meant the rejection of the policy of industrialising the
country and of utilising the rich resources of Indonesia for the
development of national industry. This “plan” did not also provide for
decisive changes in the agrarian relationships.
The Republican Government placed great hopes in the intervention of UNO
in the Indonesian conflict. However, the discussion of the Indonesian
question in the Security Council revealed that it was only the Soviet
Union and the People’s Democracies which were the consistent defenders
of the Indonesian people, and the Soviet policy on the question met
with furious opposition from the colonial powers. The bourgeois
elements in the Indonesian Republic displayed their readiness to come
to a compromise with the imperialists. The representative of the
Republic, Sultan Sjahriar, withdrew his proposal on the ways and means
of solving the Dutch-Indonesian conflict. He not only did not support
the proposals of the Soviet Union, which alone corresponded to the
aspirations of the Indonesian people, but under pressure from the
colonial powers, he adopted their proposal for the creation of the
so-called “Good Offices Commission.” This Commission which was screened
by UNO, pursued the aim of defending the colonial interests of the
Dutch and American imperialists. The USA utilised this Commission for
the aim of its own imperialist expansion.
During the work of the notorious “Good Offices Commission”, the USA
conducted negotiations with the Rightwing circles in Indonesia for the
conversion of the weakened Republic into an obedient instrument of the
imperialist plans of the American monopolies. These negotiations
terminated in the signing of the so-called Renville Agreement. The
parties or the Socialist bloc were unable to see it clearly and expose
either the plans of American imperialism or the treachery of the
bourgeois elements in the leadership of the Republic. They did not
expose the imperialist essence of the Renville Agreement which
signified a deal between the Indonesian reactionaries and the USA.
The policy of the new Government which came into power after the
Renville Agreement and which for the most part was composed of the
American proteges headed by Hatta was characterised by treachery to the
Republic, But even in this period, the Socialist bloc did not expose
the joint attack of the American imperialists and the Hatta Government
on the Indonesian democratic camp. The Communists did not conduct
explanatory work in the mass organisations that were under the
leadership and attempted, in spite of everything to maintain the United
Front which by that time had already become a fiction.
It was only in September 1948 that the Socialist Party, the Workers’
Party and the Communist Party merged into a single Communist Party in
which was also united the Socialist Union of Youth. But Hatta’s
treachery was not sufficiently explained to the broad masses, the
organisational changes were not firmly consolidated and thus a
favourable situation was created for Hatta and his American patrons to
come out with a further attack on the democratic camp.
In the beginning of September 1948, raids were made on the democratic
organisations, Trotskyites were set free from jails and clashes
provoked with the People’s Democratic Front. It was only in this
situation, after the first open blows of reaction on the democratic
camp, that a rupture took place between the forces of the People’s
Democratic Front and the Hatta Government,
On September 17, a People’s Democratic Government with Sjoerifuddin at
its head was formed in Madiun. It put forward a broad programme of
democratic changes and proclaimed the necessity of a determined
struggle against Dutch and American imperialism and for the overthrow
of the treacherous Hatta Government. But all these slogans were not
prepared for by previous work among the masses,
The Hatta Government resorted to a roguish trick. It demonstratively
cut short the negotiations with the Dutch imperialists, declaring that
the conditions put forward by the Dutch were unacceptable and thus
disorientated the popular masses still more. For these reasons the
People’s Democratic Government did not find the proper support. The
Hatta Government succeeded in a short period in crushing the first
centres of popular uprising. The blow dealt to the revolutionary forces
in the capital of Jogjakarta at a time when the People’s Democratic
Government had just been formed in Madium considerably weakened the
position of the democratic camp. On the eleventh day of the struggle,
the reactionaries succeeded in capturing Madium. The most prominent
leaders of the United Communist Party and other people’s democratic
organisations were thrown into the prisons of Jogakarta.
But the traitors celebrated victory prematurely. In spite of temporary
defeat, the popular movement continued to develop and new centres
arose. The partisan struggle became intensified. It was evident to the
Hatta Government and its American masters that this growing popular
movement could not be destroyed by the forces of internal reaction
alone.
Then the American imperialists sanctioned a new attack by the Dutch
troops, who were armed with American and British weapons. They tried to
liquidate the national liberation movement in Indonesia through unheard
of torture and terror. Dutch parachutists captured the capital of the
Republic and shot down political prisoners who had been flung into
prison and had still survived the butchery of the Hatta Government. At
the same time quite comfortable conditions were created on the Island
of Bangkok for Hatta and other traitors, who had also been captured by
the Dutch. And there negotiations were conducted with them with the aim
of securing the complete capitulation of the bourgeois nationalists.
These negotiations terminated in the signing of an agreement, which
converted the Indonesian Republic into a powerless puppet of the
imperialist powers and a participant without any rights in the sham
“United States of Indonesia”.
It is under difficult conditions of imperialist terror, execution and
mediaeval torture that the revolutionary camp in Indonesia, the
Communist Party, continues its struggle. The national liberation
struggle of the Indonesian people continues. It relies on the growing
national liberation movement in the countries of South-East Asia, on
the world-historic victory of the Chinese people, on the
ever-increasing might of the democratic camp led by the great Socialist
Power – the Soviet Union. In their struggle, the Indonesian people are
not alone and in this lies the guarantee of their future victory.
IV
Comrade G. L. Bondarevsky (Tashkent) devoted his report to a characterisation of the national liberation movement in Malaya.
In the course of the last decade, British finance-capital displayed
tremendous interest in the colonies of British Malaya, British capital
in the Malayan rubber plantations alone amounting to two hundred
million pounds sterling. Two British firms – the British Tin Investment
Corporation and the London Tin Corporation – completely dominate the
tin industry of Malaya.
In the postwar period, the United States of America is more and more cornering the exports of raw materials out of Malaya.
In 1947, the USA took out of Malaya 457,000 tons of rubber and more
than 20,000 tons of tin. Malayan exports to the USA consist for the
most part of strategic raw materials and in 1947 amounted to 346
million dollars, which is 166 million dollars more than the value of
the entire exports of Britain to the USA in that very near.
In the prewar period, the colonial powers had in every way obstructed
the formation of workers’ organisations. It was only in 1940 that for
the first time the workers succeeded in organising trade unions in
Malaya. In the period of the Japanese occupation, the trade unions were
partially smashed and those that survived went over into a semi-legal
existence. The Japanese occupiers carried out brutal terror against the
Malayan people. But already, in the period of the occupation, the
working class movement had assumed a broad sweep.
Enriched by the experience of the liberation movement against the
Japanese, the toiling masses of Malaya, headed by the Malayan Communist
Party, are waging a struggle against British imperialism, for freedom
and independence. In Malaya are developing the activities of such mass
organisations as the People’s Anti-Japanese Army, uniting the
participants of the struggle against the Japanese occupiers, the League
of Democratic Youth, the Malayan Youth League and the Pan-Malayan
Federation of Trade Unions, comprising nearly five lakh members and
affiliated to the World Federation of Trade Unions. The Malayan Youth
organisations are affiliated to the World Federation of Democratic
Youth.
The proletariat in Malaya, led by the Communist Party, is more and more
winning the leading positions in the national liberation struggle of
the peoples of its country. Its numerical strength, as distinct from
certain other countries of South East Asia, is considerable and
(together with the workers of the rubber plantations) amounts to 10-12
per cent of the entire population of the country. The solidarity and
the organisation of the Malayan proletariat, and particularly the
workers of the mining industry, the tremendous authority and the
popularity inside the country of the Communist Party, which is able to
rally not only the proletariat but unites around itself the tens of
thousands of farm labourers and seasonal workers in the plantations –
all this is determining the success of the struggle of the Malayan
peoples, a struggle which enjoys the sympathy and support of the
democratic forces of the entire world. The British colonisers supported
by the American imperialists, are trying out all measures in order to
suppress the growing national liberation movement of the Malayan
people. The main base of the British Far Eastern Squadron was
transferred from Hong Kong to Singapore, where they began amassing the
army units that they proposed to use against the Malayan people. The
British bourgeois press raised a hysterical campaign against the
“Communist menace” in Malaya and about “foreign interference” in
Malayan affairs, etc. In June 1948, at a signal from London, all over
the country there took place raids against Communists – the smashing of
trade union organisations, the arrest and massacre of leaders of
democratic organisations. However, the attempts of the Anglo-American
imperialists to smash within a few days the Malayan Communist Party and
trade unions turned out to be unsuccessful.
In answer to British imperialist provocation, the workers in Malaya
rose arms in hand for the defence of their rights. Partisan detachments
began to arise all over the country, the war of liberation began.
On June 22, a state of siege was proclaimed in the four main rubber
producing regions of Malaya and after two days, It was even extended to
Singapore – the centre of the national liberation movement of Malaya,
Even according to the official British figures, within five days from
June 20 to 24 more than 800 members of the Malayan Communist Party were
arrested in the big centres of Malaya. The police fired upon and
tortured hundreds of workers.
But in spite of this repression, the advance of the national liberation
movement continued. It embraced the regions adjoining Kuala Lampur.
Partisan detachments were active all over the country,
From England, from the countries of the Near East, Malta, Ceylon and
Hong Kong, troop were sent by air and sea to Malaya and hurled against
the partisans. In these punitive expeditions the British widely
utilised aviation for which destroyers and bombers were transferred
from Ceylon to Singapore and Kuala Lampur. In the second half of July
all over Malaya big battles took place between the partisan detachments
and the regular British army. The most serious engagement took place in
Central Kadakh, in the region of Balito and also in Selangore, Perak,
Negri-Sembilan. In the princedom of Johore (near Singapore) the workers
of the rubber plantations supported the struggle of the partisans by
calling a strike.
On June 23, the British Minister for the Colonies, Creech-Jones,
declared in the House of Commons that the British Government had
consented to the decision of the Malayan Council authorities for the
immediate banning of the Malayan Communist Party. Speaking after him,
the Communist Member of Parliament, Gallacher, exposed the slanderous
attacks of the Conservatives and the Right Labourites. In an address to
the Malayan working class and Communist Party Gallacher declared that
events in Malaya are an expression of the open and legitimate demand of
the peoples of that country to establish their freedom and independence.
The British authorities banned not only the Malayan Communist Party but
also other democratic organisations – the Pan-Malayan Federation of
Trade Unions, the League of Democratic Youth, the Association of
Ex-Servicemen the People’s Anti-Japanese Army and the League of Youth
for Struggle for the National Independence of Malaya; the Malayan
Communist Party working underground led the struggle against the
British colonisers.
In the autumn of 1948, the partisan war embraced almost the entire
country. To Malaya were directed two British guard brigades, two
squadrons of new destroyers, tanks and heavy artillery. The question
was raised of a quick transfer of Australian occupation troops from
Japan to Malaya. On August 6, a conference of British military and
civil authorities in South-East Asia was held in Singapore to work out
concrete measures for suppressing the national liberation movement in
Malaya. The British Labourite Government transmitted by plane to
Singapore for the war against the Malayan partisans, hidden in the
jungles, the savage inhabitants of Borneo, the Dyaks, armed with
poisoned arrows. The British colonial rulers began to carry out mass
public executions of those captured from the ranks of the partisans. In
the struggle against the partisans, the British made wide use of
Malayan feudal reaction and the reactionary Muslim priesthood which set
the Malayan Muslims against the Chinese.
According to British figures, by the end of 1948, a British army more
than 50,000 strong was operating against 5,000 Malayan partisans. Still
the British imperialists did not succeed in crushing the national
liberation movement of the peoples of Malaya. At the cost of big
sacrifices, they could only drive back the fighting detachments of the
Malayan patriots into the Southern part of the country and in the main
into Johore. In February 1949, the Conservative Lord Sandford admitted
in the House of Lords that “it is difficult to understand what is now
going on in Malaya. One thing is clear – we are not winning.”
Similarly, the journal of the British Conservatives, the Yorkshire
Post, while noting that the number of the British troops and police in
Malaya had increased to 70,000, was forced to admit that they had not
succeeded in winning victory over the partisans
Being unable to achieve the wished-for results through military
operations against the partisans, the British colonisers are resorting
now to ferocious terror against the unarmed population. According to
the bulletin, the Malayan Monitor, since the beginning of military
operations in Malaya upto the end of 1948, 75 people were hanged and
more than 500 patriots were shot, nearly 7,000 Malayans languish in
concentration camps; 200-300 Malayans and Chinese have been deported
from the country on suspicions of entertaining sympathy for the
partisans. Applying fascist methods, the British burnt down eleven big
villages, only because their dwellers were suspected of sympathy with
the partisans.
But neither executions nor torture can break the will of the Malayan
people for the struggle for freedom and independence. The Manifesto of
three organisations participating in the struggle for national
liberation of Malaya, the Fighting Organisation of Youth, the Peasants’
Union and the Women’s Federation, says:
“British imperialism has fully exposed its fascist character by the
extermination of villages populations, by the bombardment of villages
and the banishment of people from the country.... Though the fight
against the imperialists will be a long one, yet victory is with us
because British imperialism is getting weak and is become more and more
isolated while we have become more powerful because our struggle is a
revolutionary war for the freedom of our country and of our people.”
The American imperialists are now staking on disrupting the national
liberation movement in Malaya. They have embarked on a policy of
disrupting the trade union movement in Malaya by the creation of yellow
trade unions and appointing to them reformist British “trade union
advisers”. Traitors to the people of the type of the leaders of the
Malayan feudal reaction Dato Oma Vin Jaffar, who received his post as
Prime Minister of Johore at the hands of the British imperialists, are
also being drawn into participating in this provocative disruptive
activity.
The Malayan workers are boycotting the yellow unions. The Pan-Malayan
Federation of Trade Unions, which has been driven underground by the
British colonial authorities is enjoying as before tremendous authority
and popularity. In their efforts to destroy this fighting organisation
of the Malayan workers, the British authorities, in spite of the
protest of the democratic forces all over the world, hanged the former
President of the Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions, Ganapathy, in
May 1949 and subsequently shot his successor Veersenan.
The armed struggle of the Malayan people continues. In the beginning of
June 1949 more than 40 per cent of the territory of the country was the
arena of stubborn battles between the partisan detachments and the
British troops. And though the partisans have not yet succeeded in
winning the liberation of great regions and unifying them into a
contiguous territory, one can state that the British troops rigged out
with new weapons are powerless against the growing liberation movement
of the Malayan people.
V
Comrade O. I. Zabozlaeva (Pacific Institute) threw light on the
question of the national liberation movement in the Philippines. It is
characteristic of the national liberation movement of the Filipino
people that after the Second World War, for the first time the working
class is coming forward as its leader. This has become possible, thanks
above all to the great work done by the Communist Party of the
Philippines, even in the prewar period – the work of struggling to win
over the workers and the peasant masses from the influence of the
reformist trade unions and the bourgeois landlord “Nationalist” Party.
In the period of the war and Japanese occupation, the
bourgeois-landlord “Nationalist” Party, which was a pretender to the
role of leader of the popular masses in the struggle for national
independence had compromised itself by open collaboration with the
Japanese and the suppression of the popular resistance to the occupiers.
The only political party in the Philippines, which while passing over
to an illegal position during the Japanese occupation consolidated its
organisation and still further strengthened its links with the masses
was the Communist Party. It organised and led the armed resistance
against the Japanese usurpers and linked the struggle against the
occupiers with the general political and class interests of the toiling
masses of the Philippines. It united all the progressive forces inside
the country around itself. Into the United Front organisation which had
arisen on the initiative of the Communist Party, had also come the
Socialist Party, the Union of Civil Liberties, the Chinese Communist
Association, the Chinese Anti-Japanese Association, the Workers’ and
Peasants’ Unions, the Youth and other organisations. Towards the end of
March 1942, the various partisan detachments were amalgamated into a
single army of resistance, which was called the People’s Anti-Japanese
Army (Hukbalahap).
The organisations of popular resistance set before themselves the tasks
of cooperation with the United Nations in the anti-fascist struggle,
the destruction of the Japanese usurpers, the creation of an
independent Philippines, the overthrow of the power of the
anti-patriotic bourgeois-landlord Nationalist Party, the carrying out
of land and other democratic reforms. After liberating various regions
the Hukbalahap helped the workers to organise a new People’s Democratic
power and to carry out democratic transformations. In a number of towns
and villages in the Provinces of Pampang and Nuev Yesikh People’s
Councils which functioned as the authority in the locality – elected by
the population – existed even in the period of the Japanese occupation.
The population did not recognise the authorities appointed by the
Japanese. The lands of the rich landlord collaborationists who had fled
under the protection of Japanese bayonets to Manila, were confiscated
and distributed among the landless peasants, the peasant debts to the
landlords and the moneylenders were annulled. The landlords who had not
collaborated with the Japanese were left with their landed property but
the portion of the crop paid by the tenants was considerably reduced.
Various feudal services of the tenant-isdolshis were abolished.
The non-collaborationist landlords who had at first sought an alliance
with the Hukbalahap, regarded these democratic transformations as a
threat to their class interests and left the national liberation
movement.
Since the end of the war the struggle of the people of the Philippines
for freedom and independence is taking place in a complex situation. In
order to re-establish their domination, the American ruling circles
utilised the fact that the USA troops had entered the Philippines in a
period when the war in Europe was still not over, Fascism was the main
danger and the Hukbalahap regarded the USA as an ally in the world
anti-fascist struggle and co-operated with American troops in the war
against the Japanese aggressors. The leadership of the Hukbalahap
demanded that the USA treat the people of the Philippines as an equal
ally and energetically resisted the attempts of the American Command to
convert the army of the Philippines into a hired colonial army of the
USA. The re-establishment of the pre-war bourgeois Government of Osmen
by the Americans met with opposition among the population of Central
Luzon.
The American imperialists reckoned on swiftly crushing the national
liberation movement in the Philippines. In February-March 1945, the
American Counter-Intelligence Service arrested a number of leaders of
the movement – among them Louis Taruc and Costo Alexandrino. However,
the popular movement was not decapitated and the fighters for freedom
were well organised and enjoyed the active support of the majority of
the people. Then the American imperialists gave the power to the most
reactionary strata of the Philippine bourgeoisie, which was closely
linked with the big feudal landowners. MacArthur’s Staff freed the
former Japanese protege, Roxas, from prison. In June 1945 a senate and
parliament in which the collaborationists predominated was already
functioning in the Philippines. Roxas was given the post of President
of the Senate and in this capacity he directed the Commission which
made the appointments for responsible administrative posts. He
appointed his protege collaborationists to all the most important posts
in the Government, the courts of law and the army.
The restoration of the Japanese puppets to power was marked by a new
wave of arrests of the political and military leaders of the
Hukbalahap, of the workers’ and peasants’ unions and by the smashing
and liquidation of the organs of people’s power in the country.
The ruling classes in the Philippines, the big bourgeoisie and the
landlords – both the collaborationist and non-collaborationist –
unreservedly supported the imperialist policy of the USA in the
Philippines.
However, the division of the bourgeois camp into the collaborationists
and the “loyal” nationalists which was maintained till the election of
President Roxas had in the initial period after the war became a cover
for the reactionary essence of both these groups. The Communist Party
tried to utilise the temporary differences in the ranks of the national
bourgeoisie in order to consolidate the democratic camp. In the period
of preparations for the Presidential elections in 1946, the Communist
Party organised a Democratic Alliance – the unification of the mass
workers’ and peasants’ organisations and partisan detachments. During
the elections, this Democratic Alliance formed a bloc with that section
of the “nationalist” Party, which was headed by Osmen and which had
broken off with the collaborationists, and supported his candidature
for the Presidentship in spite of all the inconsistency of his policy.
In respect of this, the Democratic Alliance demanded that the
Nationalist Party should adopt its election platform and promise to
form a coalition government in the event of a victory in the elections.
However, already in the course of the elections, the
bourgeois-nationalists showed that they were against the victory of the
democratic forces and that they had formed a bloc with the Democratic
Alliance only on account of the fact that with its help they would be
able to ensure victory for themselves. A considerable section of the
members of the Nationalist Party already in the course of the elections
betrayed the Democratic Alliance and even their lead Osmen and crossed
over to the side of the collaborationists.
The elections exposed to the popular masses the imperialist essence of
the American policy in the Philippines, the close links of the
bourgeois-nationalists with American imperialism and the inability of
the national bourgeoisie and the landlords to fight for the national
interests and for profound democratic transformations.
The victory of Roxas in the elections, the establishment within the
country of an open fascist dictatorship with the support of the
American bayonets, the unbridled terror against the participants of the
democratic movement, the adoption of anti-national laws dictated by the
USA – all this aggravated sharply the struggle in the Philippines. It
made even more clear the demarcation of the political forces inside the
country into two opposite camps – the anti-imperialist proletarian and
peasant camp of struggle for democracy and the agrarian revolution; and
the reactionary anti-democratic bourgeois-landlord camp of the proteges
of American imperialism.
The forces of the democratic camp in the Philippines are growing, the
influence of the Communist Party is increasing. In the postwar years,
the number of members of the Communist Party rose six times, the number
of members of the National Peasant Union rose from 250,000 to one
million; the Hukbalahap which in the initial period after the
liberation of the Philippines comprised seventy thousand members, was
composed of 200,000 combatants by August 1948. While towards the end of
the war the influence of the Hukbalahap was spread over five Provinces,
of late it has already been extending to ten provinces and spreading
far beyond the borders of Central Luzon.
The Filipino people are more and more convinced that the Roxas
Government as well as the present Quirino Government are both agents of
American imperialism. The repeated attempts of the ruling circles of
the Philippines to liquidate the Hukbalahap have led to nought. The
Hukbalahap repeatedly refused to give up its weapons and demands the
fulfilment of the fundamental points of its programme. In August 1946,
Roxas turned to the Hukbalahap with a proposal to cease the armed
resistance. The Hukbalahap and the National Union put forward the
following conditions on the basis of which alone they agreed to come to
a truce:
Firstly, the cessation of the persecution of the partisans and the members of the National Peasant Union;
Secondly, the admittance of democratic deputies into the Parliament and the Senate;
Thirdly, the removal of all the local reactionary officials and their
substitution by the representatives of democratic organisations in
those towns and provinces where the Democratic Alliance had gained the
majority of seats in the Parliament, and the appointment of local
authorities under the direction of the Democratic Alliance.
Similar conditions were also proposed by the democratic forces of the
Philippines to the new President, Quirino, in May 1948 for an armed
truce “for an indefinite period, till the time comes when a really
democratic State will be created, by peaceful constitutional means if
that is possible or through the path of revolution if that remains the
only way out.”
In the name of the Hukbalahap and the National Peasant Union, Taruc
declared a propos this: “The enemies of the Filipino people – the
landlords and the monopolists of Wall Street, are still in power and
they must be removed.” He demanded the lifting of the American ban on
trade, the removal of “equality of rights” of the Americans with
Filipino citizens, the liquidation of American bases and the withdrawal
of American troops from the country.
Quirino and other American puppets reckoned on duping the people with
false promises about carrying out democratic reforms, amnesty of the
partisans and the granting of freedom to all those organisations which
had been declared “outside the law” by Roxas, under conditions of the
registration and confiscation of arms of partisans. They hoped in this
way that they would succeed in liquidating the Hukbalahap and also
along with it the whole national liberation movement in the country.
However, all these plans collapsed. In spite of the fact that the
period of registration of weapons was prolonged twice, the
reactionaries succeeded in confiscating arms from only ten people.
After this failure, Quirino went over to an open attack on the
democratic forces and renewed the armed struggle against the Hukbalahap
and the National Peasant Union on an unprecedented scale. Under his
orders police troops armed with American guns and aeroplanes, were let
loose. The Philippine Government simultaneously intensified its attack
on the working class. The right of the workers to strike was curtailed
by a decree of the High Court. The Congress set about debating
legislation depriving the State employees of the right to strike. In
the Philippines there was created on the American model a “Commission
for the Investigation of anti-Philippines Activity” which accused the
defenders of genuine national freedom and democracy with
“anti-patriotic activity.”
The American imperialists are trying to intimidate the Filipino people
with false versions about the Soviet Union threatening the Philippines.
However, this provocative propaganda meets with no success. The
Filipino workers see in the peoples of the USSR a reliable ally in the
struggle to end colonial slavery. In the achievements of the Soviet
Union, the Filipino workers see the guarantee of their own liberation.
They rightly consider the USSR as a reliable bulwark of the national
independence of all the people, big and small.
“We have seen,” said Louis Taruc, the leader of the Hukbalahap, “what
the Soviet policy is in relation to other Asian peoples. The USSR is
the only country which consistently fights for the interests of the
Indonesian People’s Republic, Viet Nam and other colonial peoples.”
The General Secretary of the Philippine Communist Party, Mariano Balgos
declared: “In the event of a war, the Communists of the Philippines
will be on the side of the Soviet Union. We will support the Soviet
Union since we consider her to be the leader of world democracy and of
the struggle for peace and also a fighter for the interests of the
ordinary people all over the world.”
The forces of the democratic camp are growing and consolidating in the
struggle; the political influence of the Communist Party is extending
and strengthening. Broad sections of the Filipino people are more and
more becoming an active force in the anti-imperialist, democratic camp.
The struggle against the American imperialists ruling the country and
their Filipino puppets is assuming a broader and broader sweep.
VI
Comrade V. B. Lutsky and I. N. Vatolina delivered the reports on the national liberation movement in the Near and Middle East.
Comrade V. B. Lutsky (Moscow State University) noted that at the end of
the Second World War, the countries of the Arab East continued under
the colonial oppression of British and partly French imperialism.
Britain till that time retained her mandate over Palestine and
Transjordan, fettered Egypt and Iran with unequal treaties and tried to
squeeze out the French imperialists in Syria and Lebanon. These Arab
countries were occupied by British troops. The key positions of their
economy were concentrated in the hands of British and partly French
monopolies.
At the end of the Second World War, the national liberation movement of
the peoples of the Arab countries developed with renewed force. The
class and national consciousness of the Arab masses rose sharply. The
influence of the Communist Parties increased in the Arab countries and
particularly in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
The defeat of the Axis powers by the armed forces of the Soviet Union,
the liberation of the peoples of Europe from the oppression of Hitler
fascism, the liberation of the peoples of the East from the yoke of
Japanese imperialism played a big role in the awakening of the peoples
of the Near East. The new stage of the national liberation movement of
the Arab peoples after the war, is characterised by the fact that the
workers are more and more often putting forward political demands; the
strike and the agrarian movement is spreading. The working class which
is growing numerically and consolidating organisationally is the basic
core of the movement and in the majority of cases leads it. The
national bourgeoisie is being dislodged more and more from the
leadership of the national liberation movement. The old
bourgeois-nationalist reformist parties which used to lead the movement
in the past, as for example the Wafd and Hizbst Watan in Egypt, Kutla
Wataniya in Syria etc.’ are losing their authority and are breaking off
from the movement. The Communist Parties, the trade unions and the
organisations of the United Front of the anti imperialist forces are
leading the national liberation movement.
The feudalists and the big bourgeoisie of the Arab countries have
betrayed the national liberation movement and gone over to the camp of
imperialism and reaction. They are waging a struggle against the
national liberation movement; organising the shooting down of popular
demonstrations and the execution of democratic leaders; they are
persecuting the Communist Party and of the progressive organisations,
they are banning strikes and bringing into force extreme laws against
trade unions. They unreservedly support the aggressive foreign policy
of the bosses; of the Anglo-American imperialist bloc.
The national liberation movement has assumed a tremendous sweep in
Egypt. The popular masses in Egypt are fighting for the withdrawal of
British troops from the Nile Valley; i.e., from Egypt and the Sudan as
also for the unification of these two countries on democratic
foundations and for the annulment of the unequal Anglo-Egyptian treaty
of 1936. It was under these slogans that the mass demonstrations of the
workers took place in 1945-47 during the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations
and the discussion of the Egyptian question in the Security Council.
In spite of the Government terror in Egypt the forces of genuine
democracy are growing and consolidating. A new progressive
organisation, “Democratic Movement for the National Liberation of
Egypt”, operating underground has been created. In its programme
manifesto, this organization calls upon the Egyptian people to wage an
armed struggle against the imperialists, for an end to the state of the
landlords and capitalists – the betrayers of the people – and for the
establishment of a People’s Democratic order inside the country.
The national liberation movement has also assumed big dimensions in the
so-called Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Here the popular masses have for the
time awakened to political life, to an active struggle for freedom and
independence. National organisations and political parties which lead
the popular resistance to the colonial policy of British imperialism
have emerged in the Sudan. At present the Sudanese liberation movement
is led by the national-revolutionary organisation – “Progressive
National Liberation Movement of Sudan”; which bases itself on the
support of the workers, the farm-labourers, the progressive student
youth; and by the petty bourgeois organisation of the intelligentsia –
the “Sudanese National Congress”. Around the Congress are grouped the
main political parties of the Sudan which are leading the struggle for
the liquidation of the regime of colonial oppression – the “Unity
Party”, the “Party of the People,” “The Party of the Partisans of
Freedom” and the “Party of Our Own Brothers” (Hizb-al-Ashika). These
parties are adherents of a joint struggle of the peoples of Egypt and
the Sudan against imperialist rule.
Opposed to the democratic forces are the feudal compradore agents of
imperialism in the Sudan, forming the so-called “Party of the Nation”
(Hizbal Humma) which supports the British policy directed towards the
separation of the Sudan from Egypt and towards the granting of
fictitious independence to the Sudan whilst retaining the British
colonial regime intact in the country.
The workers of Sudan are organising demonstrations and strikes; they
boycotted the elections to the so-called “Legislative Assembly”
conducted by the British in November 1948; more than 80 per cent of the
electors did not participate in the voting. During the time of the
elections and later too, at the opening of the Legislative Assembly,
demonstrations numbering many thousands were held under the slogans
“Down with the elections”, “Down with the British imperialists!” “Out
with the British imperialists!” In a number of towns; the demonstrators
were fired upon by the British troops and many of them were arrested.
In Syria and Lebanon, the people’s struggle for the final abolition of
the mandate and for the withdrawal of the Anglo-French troops from the
country, developed-towards the end of the Second World War. The
struggle was crowned with success, thanks mainly to the support
rendered by the Soviet Union to Syria and Lebanon during the discussion
in the Security Council, on the question of these two countries.
Towards the beginning of 1947, foreign troops were withdrawn from Syria
and Lebanon. But the capitalist monopolies retained their enterprises
and concessions there; the American and British monopolists received a
number of new concessions. Syria and Lebanon were overrun with foreign
and predominantly British political and military advisers. The ruling
cliques of Syria and Lebanon came to an agreement with the British and
American imperialists. It was at their orders that the Communist Party
of Syria was banned towards the end of 1947 and the Communist Party of
Lebanon at the beginning of 1948; the Societies of Friendship with the
Soviet Union and progressive organs of the Press were closed down; the
trade unions were also subjected to repression.
In 1948, the British imperialists dragged Syria and Lebanon into the
Palestine provocation and attempting to convert these States into their
colonies, they tried to thrust their unequal treaties on them.
The USA and Britain are involving Syria and Lebanon in the various
aggressive blocs formed by them in the Near East. The popular masses of
Syria and Lebanon are coming out against the agreement of the ruling
cliques of these countries with the Anglo-American bloc and are
demanding the liquidation of imperialist concessions.
In December 1948, mass demonstrations took place in Syria. The Djamilya
Mardama Government which orientated towards Britain was overthrown.
However, the American and French imperialists by use of these events in
Syria promoted their protege, Khalid Azam to power. Khalid Azam’s
policy evoked the sharp displeasure of the popular masses. In March
1949 a mighty wave of anti-Government demonstrations arose in Damascus
and all over the country Khalid Azam’s Government found its existence
threatened. On March 30, the military clique in Damascus, headed by
Colonel Husein-ez-Zaim who commanded the Syrian, army effected a
military coup and seized power in its own hands.
Husein ez-Zaim established a regime of fascist dictatorship in Syria.
Military courts functioned inside the country, concentration camps were
overfilled with progressive leaders, and in the first instance, the
Communists; Left papers were closed down; popular demonstrations,
meetings and assemblies were dispersed. Husein-ez-Zaim tried to crush
the national liberation movement of the Syrian people by means of
fascist terror.
In order to hold on to his power, the new dictator of Syria resorted to
demagogy. He declared that he was a champion of national independence
and declared the military fascist coup accomplished by him – “a
national revolution”. But in actual practice, Husein-ez-Zaim sold, the
country to foreign imperialists. Against the will of the people, he
concluded a currency agreement with France, with enslaving conditions
for Syria (one-sided from the point-of-view of Syria) and granted the
American oil companies the right of constructing oil-pipes in Syrian
territory. The influx of American goods into Syria has led to, the
closing, down of a number of industrial enterprises. (In August 1949,
Husein-ez-Zaim was deposed and shot down by a British agent).
The Communist Party of Syria is leading the struggle of the working
masses for freedom and the independence of the country under difficult
conditions of underground functioning and fascist terror.
In Lebanon great successes have been achieved by the democratic forces.
But the Lebanese Government has intensified its repression. In 1948,
hundreds of progressive Lebanese leaders were confined in a
concentration camp in Baalbek. However, under the pressure of the mass
movement of protest against this repression which arose inside the
country, the Government was compelled to set free the captives of
Baalbek. The Government’s attempt to close down the Lebanese Federation
of Trade Unions also failed as a result of the resistance of the
proletarian masses of Lebanon.
In February 1949, many thousands strong popular demonstrations took
place within the country as a mark of protest against the execution of
the Iraq Communists. Lebanese progressive public took an active part in
the World Congress of the Partisans of Peace.
In Lebanon as well as in Syria, the old bourgeois parties have proved
bankrupt and exposed themselves in the eyes of the people as agents of
imperialism. The leading role in the people’s democratic movement
belongs to the Lebanese Communists.
The working class of Lebanon has now become the leading force in the
national liberation movement, in which the democratic trade unions and
such progressive organisations of the United Front like the League of
Struggle against Fascism and Nazism, the Lebanese National Congress and
the Lebanese Committee of the Partisans of Peace, etc., are also taking
an active part.
The leader of the liberation movement of the people of Iraq also is the
working-class which has the experience of the revolutionary struggle
from 1948-49. Neither terror nor the repression of the hangman from the
camp of Nuri Sayyed and his Labourite imperialist patrons can crush the
will of the people of Iraq for freedom, independence and democracy.
British imperialism in the course of its thirty years’ domination in
Palestine fanned national enmity between the native Arab population and
the Jewish population. The latter increased as a result of immigration
from 55,000 persons in 1919 to 600,000 in 1948 (nearly one-third-of the
entire population of Palestine).
The British provocateurs and their agents utilised the anti-Arab,
chauvinism of the Jews and the animosity of the Arabs towards Zionism.
The Arab-Jewish hatred assumed particularly sharp forms after the
Second World-war and hampered the advance of the national liberation
movement in Palestine.
With the aim of ceasing the internecine war and liquidating the
colonial regime the Soviet Union proposed the formation of two
independent democratic States – Arab and Jewish – on the territory of
Palestine. On November 30, 1947, the General Assembly of the UNO
adopted an appropriate resolution on this question on the basis of the
Soviet proposals.
However, the American and the British imperialists, who were attempting
to maintain the colonial regime in Palestine adopted measures
calculated to disrupt this decision of the UNO. The Zionist bourgeoisie
serves as a prop for the carrying out of the Anglo-American plans.
Till 1939, the Zionist bourgeoisie including its Right-Socialist group
of Mapai, which at present occupies a leading position in the State of
Israel, had fully complied with the British Mandate and the colonial
position of the country. However, in 1939, Britain attempted to ensure
the support of the Arabs in the war and made concessions to the Arab
feudal-bourgeois upper strata and partially restricted the activities
of the Zionists. This provoked friction between British imperialism and
the Zionist bourgeoisie. The Zionist bourgeoisie began to demand the
abolition of the British mandate and the formation of an independent
State. But it could not conceive of its existence without the support
of one or the other imperialist power. The USA easily converted the
Zionist leaders into its agents. It is precisely on this basis that the
Zionist bourgeois State of Israel is now built. Its leaders have begun
their State functions by agreeing to the enslaving conditions of an
American loan, conditions which were concealed even from the
Constituent Assembly. The Government of Israel is henceforth obliged to
render an account to the Export-Import Bank of USA and present it with
all the information that they demand, which is incompatible with the
conception of national sovereignty, Israel can expand the means
received through this loan only for the purchase of American goods or
the construction of different projects directed by the Americans and
above all for military strategic communications (e.g. the construction
of the Tel-Aviv Port under the supervision of American specialists).
The ruling circles of Israel have opened the country’s doors wide open
to foreign capital and in the first place to American capital and
presented it with all possible privileges.
The leaders of the State of Israel have expressed their readiness to
enter into an aggressive Mediterranean Bloc, which has been knocked
together by the Anglo-American imperialists the leaders of the Mapai
Party have come out openly against the World Congress of the Partisans
of Peace and are manoeuvring for the withdrawal of the Israel trade
unions from the World Federation of Trade Unions. In the UNO, the
delegates of the State of Israel cringe before the Anglo-American bloc.
Thus, the UNO decision on the formation of an independent democratic
State of Israel in Palestine has not in essence been transmuted into
life. The UNO decision on the formation of an independent democratic
Arab State has also not been carried out. Along with the Anglo-American
imperialists, the Arab feudal-bourgeois leaders, who are under the
thumb of the British imperialists are also guilty of this. Neither the
Zionist nor the Arab bourgeoisie is interested in the liquidation of
the colonial oppression in Palestine.
The advanced workers of Palestine, the Jewish as well as the Arab, are
more and more conscious of the necessity of intensifying the struggle
for independence and democracy under the leadership of the Communist
Party of the State of Israel and the Arab League of National
Liberation, which is the Communist organisation for the Arab sections
of Palestine, which mark out the path for the solution of the
fundamental tasks of the national liberation movement.
All the objective conditions for a new advance of the national
liberation struggle exist at present in the Arab countries. The war in
Palestine has sharpened the crisis of the colonial system in the Near
East. It has displayed before the Arab popular masses all the
rottenness and the reactionary character of the ruling cliques of the
Arab countries, exposed their close links with British and American
imperialism. It has worsened the already difficult economic situation
of the Arab peoples and brought them to the verge of economic
catastrophe. It has brought innumerable tribulations to the popular
masses on whose shoulders were transferred all the burdens of the war.
* * *
Comrade I. N. Vatolina (Institute of Economics) in her report noted
that the national liberation movement had intensified under the
influence of the historic victories of the Soviet Union in the Second
World War, the consolidation of the democratic camp and the grandiose
successes of the USSR in the building of Communism; it embraced the
countries of the Arab East and is distinguished by its mass character
and by a comparatively high organisational, ideological and political
level. The different level and the distinctive features of the historic
and socio-economic development of the Arab countries – among whom there
are countries with relatively developed capitalist relationships and a
bourgeois parliamentary system (Egypt) and countries with a
patriarchal-tribal structure and a monarcho-feudalist system of
government (Yemen and Arabia) – condition the different levels of the
national liberation struggle and the great diversity of its forms in
everyone of these countries.
The leadership of the national liberation movement in the Arab East is
more and more passing over to the working class, which grew in number
during the war. In Egypt (with a total population of 20 million
people), the workers number 700,000 and together with the agricultural
workers – more than one million. In Arab Palestine there are 25,000
industrial workers; in the State of Israel, 50,000 workers. In Syria
and Lebanon, the number of the working class has risen to 150,000 (the
total population being four and half million).
Of late a young proletariat had also begun to arise in Saudi Arabia,
connected with the creation of an oil-extracting industry there.
The working class of the Arab countries has created its own mass
organisations. Even according to the official figures in 1946, these
numbered 465 trade unions in Egypt and 11 trade unions in the State of
Israel.
The position of the working class in the Arab countries is exceedingly
difficult. It is subjected to capitalistic and semi-feudal
exploitation; working class legislation is nonexistent. In Egypt,
before the war, according to election figures, in certain branches
children comprised 12 per cent of the entire labour force; in more than
37 per cent of the enterprises the working day lasts for more than 12
hours. Egypt occupies first place in the world in the rate of her child
mortality. Almost slave-owning methods of exploitation of labour power
are employed in the American oil trade in Saudi Arabia.
In its struggle for freedom and independence, for an end to the system
of colonial slavery the proletariat of the Arab States has a mass ally
in the person of the dispossessed peasantry. The main mass of the
peasantry in all the Arab countries is deprived of land, which belongs
to the local feudalists and to the landlords and also to the religious
communities and foreign companies. The poor peasants, the farm
labourers and the fallahi tenants are ground down by semi-feudal
exploitation of the landlords and the kulaks, by the arbitrary rule of
the local authorities, the bondage of the usurers, foreign companies
and banks. The peasants in the Arab countries are struggling against
both imperialist oppression and against the feudal-landlord
landownership. The successes of Socialist construction in the USSR and
also the agrarian reforms and the transfer of land into the hands of
the peasantry in the countries of People’s Democracy inspire the
colonial peasantry in its struggle.
The Communist Parties of the Arab countries have considerably
intensified their activities. They have become politically and
organisationally consolidated and have grown numerically. The
industrial workers, the urban poor, the student youth, teachers and
other strata of the population of these countries are joining and
becoming more and more active in the Communist Party. The Communist
movement assumed particularly big dimensions in Syria and Lebanon,
where it existed legally till 1947-48. The Communist Parties of Syria
and Lebanon play a leading role in the revolutionary movement in the
Arab East.
Alarmed at the sweep of the national liberation movement of the Arab
peoples and the increasing role in it of the working class and the
Communist Party and also at the activity of the numerous democratic
organisations which are shooting up everywhere, the national big
bourgeoisie of the countries of the Arab East, instigated and supported
by their imperialist masters is attempting to hold back the national
liberation struggle in every possible way and is resorting to terror
and social demagogy.
In the postwar years, the ruling circles of the Arab countries are
employing particularly savage repression against those participating in
the working class movement. They have more than once proclaimed a state
of siege in Egypt, Iraq and other Arab countries; they have banned
demonstrations, meetings and the various organised gatherings of the
workers. In order to decapitate and to crush the working class
movement, the big bourgeoisie is attempting to thrust it on to the path
of trade unionism, to separate the economic struggle from the political
struggle and to restrict the movement to narrow trade union tasks and
place it under the control of the Government. Trade unions of the
“Zubatov” type are well-known in the history of the working class
movement of Egypt. After the Second World War, the Egyptian Government
once against tried to plant similar organisations. The ruling circles
in other Arab countries are also resorting to exactly this policy.
The Anglo-American imperialists who are preparing for an aggressive war
against the USSR and the countries of People’s Democracy are using the
Arab East as one of their jumping-off grounds. They are trying to
conceal their war preparations by slanderous, anti-Soviet propaganda
and intimidation about the “Communist menace”. But the peoples of the
Arab East do not believe the false fabrications of the imperialists and
show growing resistance to the aggressive policy of the imperialist
bosses and their agents in the Arab countries. A characteristic feature
of this resistance is the solidarity of the workers, which embraces the
still broader masses.
The close link of the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples
with the international democratic movement the growing international
solidarity of the workers, the activisation of the work of the
representatives of the Arab countries in the international democratic
organisations and Congresses, the going over of the leadership of the
national liberation movement into the hands of the working class and
its vanguard the Communist Party – all this testifies to the fact that
the national liberation struggle in the countries of the Arab East is
rising to a new and higher stage.
Comrade V. M. Fedorenko (Institute of Economics) spoke on the:
discussion on the reports on the national liberation movement. He noted
that in spite of the fact that in the numerical strength of its
population, Syria (in 1945, 3,052,500 persons) and Lebanon (in 1949,
1,227,000 persons) are considerably exceeded by other countries of the
Near East, the Communist Party and the trade unions of these two small
Arab countries are the strongest in numerical strength and in their
solidarity. This is explained by the fact that the peoples of Syria and
Lebanon under the leadership of the Communist Party have waged a
prolonged struggle against the French imperialists, German and Italian
fascism and at the present time continue to lead the struggle against
the Anglo-American imperialists and internal reaction.
The Great October Socialist Revolution pointed out to the colonial
peoples and among them to the peoples of Syria and Lebanon, the path to
freedom and independence. The Communist Party of Syria and Lebanon was
formed in 1923 and participated actively in the general uprising of the
Syrian people against the French colonisers in 1925-27 and led the then
nascent working class movement inside the country. Before long it was
compelled to go underground. It was only in 1937, that thanks to the
successes of the Popular Anti-Fascist- Front in France and the advance
of the national liberation movement in Syria that the Communist Party
was legalised. It became one of the most influential political
organisations in the country. Its journal Saut-ash-shaab (Voice of the
People) played an important role in the development of the working
class movement in Syria and Lebanon.
In July 1939, the French reactionaries, after having dismissed the
national Government of Syria, revoked the Republican Constitution and
once against drove the Communist Party underground. It was under the
difficult underground conditions that the Communists continued the
struggle against fascism and reaction in the course of two years. After
the driving out of the fascists from the Levant countries, the
Communist Party of Syria and Lebanon once again emerged from
underground into the wide political arena. The Communists conducted
active work in the mass non-Party democratic organisations and stood at
the head of the movement for national independence and the
democratisation of Syria and Lebanon.
In January 1944, the Communist Party of Syria and Lebanon adopted a
programme which was set forth in a National Charter and in which the
basic demands for the democratisation of the country and the ensuring
of its independence were put forward.
That very same year was marked by the setting up of Syria and Lebanon
as sovereign States, a fact which was made possible through the support
rendered to them by the Soviet Union The single Communist Party of
Syria and Lebanon was divided into two Communist Parties – the
Communist Party of Lebanon with Faroj Alla Khela and Nikolai Shaup at
its head; and the Communist Party of Syria headed by Khaled Bagdashe
and Rashid Issa. This led to an improvement in the organisational work
in the Parties and in particular to an improvement in their leadership
of the trade unions and the working class movement.
The trade unions of Syria and Lebanon have for more than 25 years waged
a struggle for their rights in semi-illegal conditions. In 1945, they
entered the World Federation of Trade Unions. In 1949, the membership
of the democratic trade unions reached 45,000 and unified 110 trade
unions they waged an organised struggle for the interests of the
workers, whose conditions of life were and continue to be very
difficult. By utilising unemployment and widely exploiting child
labour, the owners are lowering the wages of the workers and
particularly those of unqualified workers. Thus, an unskilled worker
working for 10 hours a day received 1 ½ to 3 lira; the farm
labourers even less – 1 1/3 lira. And at least 7-8 lira a
day is essential for the meagre subsistence for a family of 4-5 people.
The indignation of the workers has often burst forth into strikes which
are led by the trade unions. Thus several general and more than 50
local strikes were successfully conducted under the leadership of the
trade unions. In 1946, after a continuous and stubborn struggle, the
workers of Syria and Lebanon achieved a big victory. For the first time
in the history of these countries, the Parliaments of Syria and Lebanon
adopted labour legislation (though considerably curtailed in comparison
with those in the plan of the trade unions).
In December 1947, at the command of the Anglo-American masters,
internal reaction in Syria and Lebanon passed over to an attack on
democratic organisations. Both the Communist Parties were once again
forced to go underground. But even under the difficult conditions of
underground work; they continue to lead the struggle of the working
class distribute leaflets, organise strikes. In the summer of 1948, the
Communist Party called upon the people to intensify the
anti-imperialist struggle for the independence and sovereignty of Syria
and Lebanon, to fight the machinations of the imperialists and against
the British plan for the creation of a “Greater Syria”. In November
big strikes burst forth in Aleppo and Beirut. Towards the end of 1948,
the already difficult material condition of the worker still more
worsened with the drought. Famine attacked Syria.
In spite of the rage of reaction, the movement for peace is spreading
in Syria and particularly in Lebanon. In April in Paris at the World
Congress of the Partisans of Peace, a Lebanese delegation headed by the
well-known public leader of Lebanon, the architect Antoine Tabet was
present. In the name of the Lebanese people, Tabet declared at the
Congress that the Lebanese people will not fight against the Soviet
Union, and will fight against the forces of imperialism. Tabet and the
representative of the Lebanese Trade Union Federation Livan Mustafa EI
Ariss, were elected members to the Permanent Committee of the Partisans
of Peace. During the war years, the Communist Parties of Syria and
Lebanon grew considerably. By fighting consistently for the interests
of the workers, they strengthened their influence among the broad
popular masses. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, the people
of Syria and Lebanon have won a certain amount of democratisation at
the election law and the substitution of indirect by direct election.
The parliamentary elections of 1947 demonstrated, notwithstanding the
atmosphere of terror, the strengthened ties of the Party with the
masses. The workers, the peasants, the intelligentsia, contributed in
one lira bits and less and in a short time collected nearly 20,000 lira
for the Fund for the candidates put forward by the Communist Party. The
pre-election meetings where the candidates of the Communist Parties of
Syria and Lebanon spoke were well attended. It was only through
falsifying the results of the elections that reaction did not admit the
Communist candidates in the Parliaments of Syria and Lebanon although;
for example, the leader of the Communist Party of Syria, Khalid
Bagdashe had received a sufficient number of votes to become a member
of Parliament.
The people of Syria and Lebanon, like those in all Arab countries,
cherish profound sympathy for the USSR. It was thanks to the support of
the Soviet Union for the demands of Syria and Lebanon that in the
beginning of 1946, foreign troops were withdrawn from their territory.
Democratic publications “At Tarik”, “Saut-ash-Shaab”, the Bulletin of
the Society for Cultural Relations between Syria and Lebanon and the
USSR regularly publish articles devoted to the Soviet Union. The
leaders of cultural of Syria and Lebanon who visited the Soviet Union
in the spring of 1947 related in their articles about the advantages of
a Socialist system of economy and the achievements of Soviet science
and art.
The attack of reaction has extremely complicated the political
situation in Syria and Lebanon. The popular masses are continuing the
struggle against Anglo-American imperialists, who with the help of
native agents are attempting to utilise Syria and Lebanon in their
imperialist plans.
VII
Comrade S. M. Melman (Institute of Economics) spoke in the discussion
on the report by Comrade V. V. Balabushevich on the national liberation
movement in India. She noted that the partition of India into two
dominions did not bring national independence to the country, did not
solve the contradiction between the Indian people and British
imperialism, did not solve a single social and economic problem.
Neither in the Indian Union nor in Pakistan were any social and
economic changes in the interests of the popular masses carried out the
contradiction between the toiling masses and the exploiting classes of
India was still more aggravated and deepened.
The agrarian question-which is the basic question for India – cannot be
solved under the rule inside the country of the bloc of imperialists,
big bourgeoisie and landlords. The growth of the mass movement forced
the Provincial Governments of the Indian Union to set about the working
out of agrarian legislation; but the laws which now exist in almost all
the Provinces were not directed against the feudal survivals in the
economy of India and did not in any degree correspond to the needs of
the popular masses.
The position of the peasantry continues to worsen after the partition
of India. Debt-slavery in the shackles of which millions of toiling
peasants find themselves, has not yet been abolished. Even after the
war, famine is the scourge of the population in a number of districts,
particularly in the South. After the partition of India the volume of
agricultural production has still not reached the extremely low prewar
level Indian agriculture continues to deteriorate.
Indian industrial production had somewhat developed during the years of
the Second World War. However, after the termination of the war the
level of industrial production is once again falling. Thus, the general
index of production in terms of value (1938-39 = 100) fell from 126.8
in 1943-44 to 106 in 1947-49. In 1947-48 production in the textile
industry was in all 77.3 per cent of the war period maximum, and
production in the jute industry was also lower than the war maximum and
smelted iron 76.7 of the war maximum; production is also decreasing in
other branches of Indian industry.
Towards the end of the war, the fixed capital of Indian industry and
railway transport had become badly worn out. Thus, for example in the
textile industry, the fixed capital was required to be renovated by not
less than 50 per cent. However, the renovation of fixed capital is
being carried out at an extremely slow rate. This is conditioned in the
first instance by the peculiar features of the colonial economy in
India, which possesses no machine-building industry of its own, as well
as by the policy of the Anglo-American imperialists who are hindering
the industrialisation of the country. Indian industry continues to find
itself chained to British and particularly also to American
imperialism. During the war years, owing to the straitened financial
situation in England, the shares of a number of British enterprises
passed over into hands of the Indian capitalists. However, after the
termination of the war and after partition of the country resulting
from the treacherous capitulatory policy of the Indian big bourgeoisie,
the position of British capital is being once again consolidated in the
industry of India. To this day not a single British enterprise has been
nationalised and the “British Managing Agencies” which control a
considerable part of the industry and trade of India continue to
function as before. One of the forms of the further penetration of
British capital into India is the organisation of a number of joint
Anglo-Indian companies. American capital is also being more and more
directed into Indian industry.
The fate of the so-called British Sterling Debt to India also testifies
to the fact that as before the country is enslaved to British
imperialism. After the partition of India in 1948 a financial agreement
was concluded between the British Government and the Nehru Government
by which a considerable part of the Sterling Debt was in fact annulled.
275 million pounds, i.e., more than 20 per cent of the debt, are
officially written off. Out of this 100 million pound sterling was put
down to cover the expenses of war materials forced upon India by the
imperialists. 175.5 million sterling was “reserved” for the pensions of
officials in Britain. It is projected to freeze a total of 160.5
million pound for three years. As for the remaining 850 million pounds,
the agreement does not even mention them – this sum continues to remain
in essence blocked in England.
Thus this agreement once again shows the imperialist essence of the
Labourite British Government and the capitulatory policy of Indian big
capital.
Towards the beginning of the Second World War as a result of Japanese
penetration into the Indian market, Britain lost a considerable part of
its foreign trade in India. Thus while on the eve of the First World
War, she sent approximately 3 milliard yards of cloth into India, on
the eve of the Second World War it was only 270 million yards. Towards
the end of the war, the dislodging by American industry and the growing
Indian industry deprived the British textile industry of the Indian
market and the import of British cloth decreased to two milliard yards.
In 1947-48 Britain’s export of textiles to India decreased to 50
million yards. She is hardly likely to succeed in re-establishing her
former positions. In the postwar period, besides Indian and American
competition, England is once again threatened by Japanese competition,
which is spurred on by the American imperialists. The competition
between British and American imperialism for markets in India and
Pakistan is more and more intensifying. Already in 1947, the shares of
Britain and the USA in the foreign trade of India and particularly in
its imports were almost equal.
At present, it is apparent that the attempt of American imperialism is
to convert India into a colonial appendage and to utilize it as one of
the military and strategic bases of the USA in the East, as a
jumping-off ground to suppress the national liberation movement of the
peoples of East and South East Asia. American capital is directed and
particularly active in industry of military importance. The American
imperialists are also attempting to enslave India through the aid of
loans.
The Indian Government finds itself at the present time in the position
of a “servant of two masters” – British and American imperialism. A
certain section of the Indian big bourgeoisie is evidently orienting
towards the USA. Thus, the journal Eastern Economist, the organ of the
Birla group demands the establishment of “business ties” with the
American monopolies and “justifies the expediency of receiving loans
from USA.
The consolidating of the democratic forces in India under the
leadership of the working class is leading to the further advance of
the national liberation movement of the Indian people against British
and American imperialism and against the Indian big bourgeoisie which
has formed a bloc with them.
The Indian liberation movement is closely bound up with the world
revolutionary movement and together with it, is going formed towards
victory. In his time, V. I. Lenin pointed out –
“in the last analysis, the upshot of the struggle will be determined by
the fact that Russia, India, China, account for the overwhelming
majority of the population of the globe. And it is precisely this
majority that, during the past few years has been drawn into the
struggle for emancipation with extraordinary rapidity so that in this
respect, there cannot be the slightest shadow of doubt that the final
outcome of the world struggle will be. Victory of Socialism is fully
and absolutely assured.” (V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow;
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1947, p. 854)
Comrade F. D. Gapehenko in his speech dealt on the problem of agrarian
relations in India and on the particular significances of this question
for the national liberation movement after the partition of the
country. She threw light on the character and the significance of the
peasant armed uprising in the princely state of Hyderabad. This
uprising has dealt a blow to British imperialism and the feudal
reaction in the very centre of India. Though for the time being the
uprising has spread to only a limited part of the territory of the
country, yet it is of exceedingly important significance.
Hyderabad is one of the biggest Indian princely states, with a
population of 17 million and its territory exceeds that of England. The
British potentates in India have always utilised this artificially
created princedom in order to crush the national liberation movement of
the Indian people. At the time of the partition of India, Hyderabad did
not become part of any one of the Dominions. The British imperialists
had reckoned on the fact of this feudal princely State becoming
henceforth their obedient instrument in the struggle against the
national liberation movement in the countries of South-East Asia.
After the partition of India, Hyderabad received a loan amounting to 60
million pounds sterling from the British capitalists. The Americans
were engaged in equipping three war factories in Hyderabad. And
American advisers rushed thither. With the help of American and British
imperialists, the reactionary authorities of Hyderabad armed a one
hundred thousand strong army which was utilised above all to crush the
uprising in Telengana. But these troops did not succeed in destroying
the democratic movement of the Hyderabad peasantry. The peasants of
Hyderabad having seized and from the feudalists are continuing their
heroic struggle. They declined the offer for the carrying out of a new
“redistribution” of all the land put forward by the Hyderabad
organisation of the National Congress which is an agent of the
bourgeoisie and sets before itself the aim of restoring the land to the
Hyderabad feudalists.
In Hyderabad the peasants have created a democratic power, ousted the
landlords and set about organising an economy free from the fetters of
slavery. The acreage under crops is being extended and includes sowing
of virgin soil. In the villages, sanitary improvement measures are
being carried out – mass vaccination against epidemics, etc. The
intelligentsia is also participating energetically in the democratic
transformation. The deterioration of agriculture, hunger, poverty and
the oppression of the workers in backward India stand in contrast to
the fruitful creative labour begun in Telengana.
In Hyderabad the Communists wield extremely great influence. They
headed the struggle of the peasant masses when the terror against
Communists was particularly unbridled and many Hyderabad villages rose
in defence of the Communists. All over India the movement for
solidarity with Telengana is extending. The uprising of the peasants in
other districts of India is becoming more and more bound up with the
working class movement. The historic example of Hyderabad and Telengana
is inspiring the progressive forces in India in their struggle for
genuine national independence of the country and for the democratic
path of development.
Comrade N. D. Grodko (Moscow Finance Institute) elucidated the question
of the penetration of foreign capital into India. The Indian ruling big
bourgeoisie opened wide the door in India to the British and American
monopolies. Already in February 1947, Dr. John Matthai, the Finance
Minister, declared in the Legislative Assembly of the Indian Union on
“the desirability of the influx of foreign capital into India.” The
Australian economist, Colin Clark, invited to India in the capacity of
an expert, attempted to give a “scientific basis” to the treacherous,
anti-national policy of the top strata of the Indian bourgeoisie and
the feudalists and to justify the alliance of Indian big capital with
British and American imperialists. In this alliance, the British and
American capitalists occupy the dominating position and they are
attempting to convert India into a jumping-off ground in the East for
the aggressive Anglo-American bloc, directed against the USSR and the
national liberation movement of the peoples of the East.
In the joint Anglo-Indian enterprises, it is British capital which is
dominating and which determines all its activities. In the interests of
the magnates of British finance-capital in India, nationalisation of
industry, about which the leaders of the Indian National Congress had
made demagogic promises at the time of the election campaign, will not
be carried out. While deciding not to repudiate nationalisation of
industries immediately after the Punjab tragedy and the wave of mass
strikes and uprisings, the Government of the Indian Union organised a
“discussion” on the “advantages and disadvantages” of nationalisation.
And already in 1948, it declared in its decision that nationalisation
was “untimely” and postponed it by 10 years, i.e., in essence it
admitted that it had only cheated the people.
The Nehru Government’s programme passes over the urgent interests of
the workers of India; it is surcharged with secondary details as well
as hackneyed demagogic recipes like proposals about “cooperation in
production”, about the consolidation of small landownership and the
elaboration of schemes to relieve indebtedness, the desire for
conducting reform of land taxes, etc. No small place is given to the
“plan” conceived in the Gandhian spirit – a “plan” for the development
of domestic and light industry on “non-capitalist foundations.”
De-centralisation of industry is being propagated and the absurd “idea”
is being put forward about creating in a single region with a
population of one million “a complete economy, satisfying all the needs
of the region.”
The Indian people drag out a poverty-stricken existence. Their
difficult position is aggravated by inflation, about which the India
bourgeois press is silent. The abolition of the meagre controls which
existed over prices and of the rationing system (in the beginning of
1948) proved a scandalous failure and only gave rise to a fresh
increase in prices and the accentuation of inflation. The Government
was alarmed and compelled to re-establish the rationing system – only
to meet the situation. The normal provision is 6-12 ounces of grain
daily per person but in fact, it is still less. Apart from the grain,
the population receives nothing else at fixed prices. The Government
officials like the President of the Agricultural Conference, Nanavaty,
proposed for the fight against famine a programme unsurpassed in its
hypocrisy and cynicism: (1) the improvement of the “human factor”; (2)
the improvement of statistical and economic investigations; (3) the
strengthening of “co-operation”.
Comrade Grodko recalled that as a result of the Hindu-Muslim riots,
provoked by British imperialism after the partition of India, more than
10 million people were rendered homeless and compelled to flee (Muslims
to Pakistan and Hindus to the Indian Union). To this day the problem
arranging for work for these people has not been solved – they are
starving and have no dwellings. The responsibility for the tragic fate
of the millions of dispossessed people lies not only with British
imperialism but also with the ruling top strata of the Indian
bourgeoisie.
Comrade E. M. Zhukov gave a summing up of the three day’s work of the
session. He remarked that a wide circle of problems of the national
liberation struggle of the peoples of the colonies and dependent
countries been broached in the reports and speeches. Of course, not all
problems had been analysed with due attention. Lack of time had not
permitted them to place the report on the struggle of the peoples of
the African continent, although these peoples already are awakening to
political life and are undoubtedly casting off imperialist oppression.
The working class in the colonies and dependent countries has become
the recognised leader, the hegemon of the national and colonial
revolution. This signifies that the national bourgeoisie is dislodged
from the leadership of the national liberation movement in almost all
the countries of the colonial East. Thanks to this, the colonial
revolution in many countries has assumed the form of a People’s
Democratic Revolution, a form of the struggle for People’s Democracy.
Whichever country under question – the countries of the Near or Far
East or the countries of Latin America – everywhere the main enemy of
the national liberation movement is American imperialism. This is
precisely why it is impossible to regard the national liberation
movement in every individual country of the colonial world apart from
its connection with the struggle of the two camps, the struggle of the
forces of democracy and Socialism against the forces of imperialism and
reaction.
The progressive character of this or that social movement, the
revolutionary or the reactionary nature of this or that party is at the
present time determined by its attitude towards the Soviet Union, to
the camp of democracy and Socialism. Therefore, the controversy as to
at what stage the colonial bourgeoisie begins to play a reactionary
role, can be solved only under the conditions when an answer is given
to this main question.
A number of new problems and in particular those connected with the
activities of the Communist Parties of .the countries of the colonial
East were put forward at the session. The reports revealed the
necessity of conducting scientific discussion on problems relating to
the national liberation struggle in the colonies and semi-colonies.
Click here to return to the index of archival material.