2nd March 1951
Introduction
These notes represent the transcript of the second of two discussions which were held in Moscow in February and March 1951 between the leaders of the CPI and the Soviet leadership headed by J. V. Stalin. These have been released from RGASPI, the former Central Party Archive, several years after the transcript of the first discussion which was published in an English translation in this journal in September 2006.
The ‘right reformist’ leadership of P.C. Joshi and the ‘Trotskyist-Titoist’ leaders of the B.T. Ranadive group were considered to have advocated positions which had led to the near collapse of the communist movement in India. The former group had held positions which were considered illusory with regards to the British Labour Party and the Nehru section of the leadership of the Congress Party. It was under the P.C. Joshi leadership that the Adhikari theses ‘On Pakistan and National Unity’ were accepted, for a period supporting the establishment of Pakistan. The BTR leadership was identified with Trotskyism for having adopted the Yugoslav position of the ‘intertwining’ of the democratic and socialist revolutions. Stalin considered that pushing for socialist revolution was a very dangerous course and this had precipitated the Cominform editorial of 27th January 1950 which repudiated this understanding and pointed to the lessons to be drawn from the democratic course of the revolution in China. Stalin iterated the importance of this editorial in his discussion with the CPI in February 1951. The consequences of the Trotskyist line which was embroiled also in persistent working class strike activity far beyond the then current capabilities were disastrous for the communist movement and caused serious consternation in the international communist movement amongst the CPC, the CPGB and the Communist Party of Ceylon. The BTR group had ‘discovered’ that independent capitalism had come to dominate in the country, that imperialism and the survivals of feudalism had ended. Similar considerations were prevalent outside the CPI among the Revolutionary Socialist Party, the Socialist Unity Centre headed by Shivdas Ghosh, and the Radical Humanist Party led by M.N. Roy in those years. The criticism by Stalin extended to the other parties which opted for socialist revolution. Such views continue to exist today when the grip of finance capital has gone from strength to strength over the decades, when industrialisation in the Marxist sense has yet to begin in the country, when no significant land reform has taken place such views are being periodically propagated de novo in the interstices of the democratic movement. In the supportive deliberations of these attacks on Marxism, Bukharinism, Kautskyism and Trotskyism of necessity replace the Leninist understanding of imperialism. The Trotskification of Marxism rests inter alia on the social-democratic ‘decolonisation’ theory of Bukharin and others which considers that imperialism contributes to the industrial development of colonies and thus, allegedly weakens their dependence on the metropolitan countries, or ‘decolonises’ them. Stalin pointed out that imperialism permits only that industrial development that does not produce the instruments and means of production. This is allied to the bourgeois suppositions which substitute for Marx’s comprehension of the industrial system, as the production of factories by factories, and paint a faux picture of advanced industrial development; the development of capitalism in agriculture is proclaimed by re-introducing the discredited views of the opposition in the Soviet Union of the 1920s to the effect that in Persia, Turkey, India and China that via the rule of imperialism through the Prussian path of agrarian development landlord-capitalism had been formed which meant that the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution had been completed so that the perspectives of socialist revolution had been opened up. It was U. Roslavlev (R. Ulyanovsky) who pointed out nearly a century ago that whilst imperialism promoted agrarian capitalism it did this on the basis of pre-capitalist sharecropping. In India there was no manorial economy or barshchina as in Prussia or Russia. Prussia, moreover, was one of the three premier industrial powers of the world at the turn of the last century. In India no industrialisation in the Marxist sense took place either under British rule or afterwards. There was, as a result, no basis for the ‘Prussian path’ of ‘capitalist development’ in the subcontinent. The support for socialist revolution rests, further, on the erroneous views of Rosa Luxemburg who argued that the onset of imperialism leads to the destruction of pre-capitalist socio-economic formations. Despite the protestations of the reformists who suggest that the survivals of pre-capitalist relations have ended, the fact remain that a monopoly of land exists; widespread payment of rent in kind persists through sharecropping; labour rent through begar continues; extensive debt slavery prevails; indubitably, profound remnants of the caste system and tribalism remain in force. The advocacy of socialist revolution both yesterday and today in India and elsewhere in the semi-colonial and dependent states is founded on a profound rejection of the views of Marxism-Leninism on imperialism and the colonial question and adoption of the views of Kautsky, Trotsky, Bukharin, Tito and Rosa Luxemburg. The theory of People’s Democracy as developed by Stalin and the CPSU (b) after the victory in the Great Patriotic War, moreover, extended the sphere of operation of People’s Democracy as the preliminary stage of the revolution to the advanced monopoly capitalist states such the United States and Great Britain. Stalin’s views expose the vulgar logic that the imagined development of India as an independent capitalist or even imperialist state mandates the necessity of immediate socialist revolution.The Moscow meetings had representatives of two sections of the CPI: the dominant Andhra Committee line which supported an imagined understanding of the path of the successful revolution in China (Rajeshwara Rao, Basuvapunnaiah) and those CC members associated with the work in the working class and trade unions (Dange, Ajoy Ghosh). Even though the Andhra Committee was in the leadership of the party it was unable to convince the rest of the party leadership of the correctness of its tactical line. This had necessitated the consultation with the Soviet leadership.
In his critique of the Andhra line, Stalin pointed out that China in its revolution had a friendly rear (after the defeat of the Japanese army and the liberation of Manchuria by Soviet troops). This had enabled the CPC and the PLA to take shelter from the reactionary Chinese state. It was an advantage that India did not have and so it had to compensate for it. Stalin was of the view that it would not be possible to ensure victory in India by partisan victory in the rural areas alone. In its place it was necessary to conduct ‘armed struggle’ involving the combination of general strikes and workers uprisings in the towns with the partisan warfare of the peasantry. In China there had been a different position to that in India. The Chinese conducted ‘armed revolution’ which signified the combination of the partisan warfare of the peasantry with the work of the liberation army. When the Kuomintang broke with the communists the latter had the people’s liberation army which took shelter in Manchuria close to the Soviet Union. Indian communists had no stable rear comparable to the Soviet Union. The CPC was prone to blockade and encirclement by the Nationalists until it reached Manchuria. Thereafter it could gather its forces and move southwards for the liberation of the country and end Nationalist rule. India did not have a liberation army nor a rear analogous to the Soviet Union; it required the assistance of working class revolutionary activity, which had not been possible in China, in addition to partisan warfare. It was mandatory for the communist party to intensify its work in the working class so that it could carry out strike activity; and build armed detachments of the workers which were necessary to complement the work of partisan warfare. Stalin considered that the Telengana struggle did not mean that the stage of civil war had begun in India. While land seizures had taken place, it did not mean that partisan warfare was the main form of struggle in the country. That was still a long way off. In his hand-written notes on a letter from Rao (14th February 1951) Stalin noted that the Telengana movement did not need to be withdrawn if the people wanted it. At the same time, he was of the viewpoint that Telengana indicated the beginning of the opening of the struggle but not the main struggle itself. A weak party such as the CPI should not speak of armed struggle as serious difficulties would arise. In both discussions Stalin stressed the need of the peasantry to learn to struggle for the lowering of lease rents and the reduction of the share of the rent taken by the landlord.There was no discussion in Moscow on the parliamentary question. While parts of the left came to the conclusion that the parliamentary path to socialism was inaugurated in India in 1951, the then understanding including all sections of the communist movement was that the Leninist theory of ‘revolutionary parliamentarism’ needed to be utilised as had been done under Comintern leadership in Peru and China. The CPI had successfully used the parliamentary tactic in the colonial elections of 1937 and 1946.
Stalin since 1926 had criticised the use of individual terror by Indian revolutionaries. That dialogue continued in the Moscow discussions. Stalin countered the defence of individual terror by Rajeshwara Rao. He adverted to the arguments of Lenin on this matter. Individual terror continues to be a question in the communist movement amongst sections which are working in the tribal regions and have an exiguous and marginal base in the in the industrial working class and the peasantry. Individual terror and parliamentary cretinism have played a complementary role in the Indian communist movement for decades.The notes reveal some textual changes of the draft programme and the tactical line which were suggested by Stalin and the Soviet delegates. These will be discussed in later issues of this journal.
The CPI representatives in Moscow pledged to support the new CPI Programme and Tactical Line. In the post Stalin period, with exceptions like Sundarayya and Parimal Dasgupta, the communist movement was unable to sustain the revolutionary positions of 1951. One section of the CPI from 1953 went over to the open positions of Khrushchev; another section of the CPI adopted the positions of Khrushchev in a delayed manner while claiming not to do so. Basuvapunnaiah played a remarkable role in doing this by drafting the programme of the CPIM in 1964 which rejected in practice the 1951 positions, and after the death of Sundarayya, who had pointed out the reformist, parliamentary positions of the party in his letter of resignation from the general secretaryship of the CPIM during the emergency, finally made the rupture with the survivals of the 1951 positions in 1986. The adherents of the CPC in India ranging from Charu Majumdar to D.V.Rao also rejected the 1951 revolutionary stands and reverted to the misreading of the Chinese revolution of the Andhra Committee. The only major communist revolutionary who consistently supported the programme and tactical line adopted in 1951, from 1953 to his death was, as his outstanding writings bear witness, Parimal Dasgupta. His essays are a quintessential necessity for comprehending the programmes and tactical lines of the major communist trends after 1953.
Vijay Singh
2nd March 1951
Present: Comrades Molotov, Malenkov, Suslov.
Comrade Stalin: We inserted changes in the 5th section of the Programme – on Foreign Policy, bearing in mind that in the programme it is necessary to speak of the bases of foreign policy. Further it is necessary to underline the role of America not in order to insult her but insofar as the United States of America is the main enemy of world peace. This will facilitate your campaign for the defence of peace.
We expunged the matter on the abolition of all indirect taxes. We excised this as our experience showed the impossibility of ending indirect taxes at a given step of development. Only later on when the revolution is strengthened, when the capitalist classes have been eliminated, may there be a transition to the lowering of prices such as we are doing now in the USSR.
Second observation: practice shows that a revolution which does not have a standing army cannot hold out for long. There are many predators that may attack and subjugate the country. The army must have qualified cadres – artillerists, pilots, tank operators. Without qualified cadres at the present time one cannot exist. If India tries to hold out with only with rifles and machine guns and does not have artillery, aviation and tanks then Pakistan may subjugate India. In Pakistan there are many reactionaries who may wish to conquer India. It is necessary to have your own revolutionary army, we may name it as ‘national’. The present Indian army is one of mercenaries. It is possible that general military conscription will not be popular in India as English traditions are strong and the English army considers it bleakly. I think that you, therefore, omit to mention military conscription but plainly speak of creating, for the purposes of defence, a national army closely related to the people. If you agree you may remain silent on the question of military conscription.
In our corrections we raise a point which is not there in your draft regarding the competition of foreign commodities in India. America, especially when it goes through a crisis – throws many commodities on to the market. In China this happened when Chiang Kai-shek was in power. The Americans flooded the country with textiles and other commodities and thus ravaged the national industry of China. This was the reason why the national bourgeoisie did not give their support to Chiang Kai-shek as they found he was guilty of not defending the interests of national industry. Do you observe this in India?Dange: Dumping takes place in machinery and bicycles. In the current period dumping is not a serious problem.
Comrade Stalin: Then this might not be written into the Programme?
Dange: No, it might be inserted as dumping may in the future occur: Japan may start dumping by sending textile commodities and goods of mass consumption into the country.
Punnaiah: Dumping is currently observed in Pakistan.
Dange: In India very serious dumping from England was noticed in 1930.
Comrade Stalin: And not now? Neither from England nor from America?
Dange: In the last issues of the newspapers I read the complaints of the big ‘Birla’ concern about the dumping of bicycles and about the machine construction concerns which are dumping machinery.
Comrade Stalin: Should this be expunged?
Dange: No, no. The point about the competition in commodities must remain.
Comrade Stalin: Then let us go on to the answers to your questions “from all four of us” which was sent on 16th February.
Question: “Can we say that the Indian big bourgeoisie has finally gone over to the side of imperialism? If this is so, then what objective basis is there to attract it to our side or even neutralize some part of it?”
One part of the big bourgeoisie has finally gone over to the imperialists. But the whole of the big bourgeoisie has not. Indubitably some individuals of the big bourgeoisie will stand for the development of national industry and for this reason they will oppose foreign competition so that their management of the internal market is not hampered.Question: “Can the Indian bourgeoisie or any group of this bourgeoisie still be called ‘oppositional’ in terms of its relations with imperialism”.
They may be designated such as a whole, though the government may ruin the peasantry which will narrow the domestic market. As a whole the national bourgeoisie – minus one part of the big bourgeoisie – is oppositional.
Question: “Does the entire Indian big bourgeoisie or only sections of this bourgeoisie cooperate with imperialism? If only sections then exactly which?”
Like a chemist you want to analyse the bourgeoisie, to analyse the atoms and then get a reply – how many of the bourgeois groups co-operate with and how many are against imperialism. This is not possible. It is necessary to take the national bourgeoisie in its entirety, in its majority. It is obvious that there will always be some loathsome individuals within but this will not be characteristic of the whole bourgeoisie. When you characterise the class take it in its majority. If the national bourgeoisie is oppositional that does not signify that each bourgeois is oppositional. It is necessary to proceed to the question as Marxists by taking the majority of the class into account. If we approach the question in this manner then the national bourgeoisie is oppositional. A section of the big bourgeoisie is reactionary. This does not mean that the entire big bourgeoisie is reactionary. The national bourgeoisie as well as a part of the big bourgeoisie feel hampered by the narrowness of the market and so they would want the land to pass to the peasantry.
Question: “We conclude from the answers of comrade Stalin that the united front which we must try to establish is a united front of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal classes including the national bourgeoisie; moreover the major foundation of this front is the union of the working class and peasantry. Are we right?”
Comrade Stalin: Yes, you are right. Further you ask: “What is the class nature of the present day government of Nehru? We consider that this government is the government of big business and landlords cooperating with imperialism and supporting feudal exploitation; this is why this government must be replaced by a government ofThis is not entirely right. Nehru leans not only on the big bourgeoisie and the landlords but also on the rural capitalist bourgeoisie, on the kulaks. When the government says – I do not impede you from buying the land of the landlords so that when the land is actually transferred to the kulaks and rural capitalists, they value this. The government of Nehru is not as unsteady as it seems. In order to squeeze this government it is necessary to work well against it. Do not think that the government being a sham will fall down. The weakness of the government is that it does not rest on the support of the working class or the majority of the peasantry. It does not have the support of the majority of the peasantry, the workers, or amongst the working intelligentsia. Therefore it is necessary to bombard it from three sides.
Rao: But must we draw the kulaks to our side?
Comrade Stalin: We must draw them on our side just on the one question: that is in the struggle against feudalism. When the struggle against feudalism is completed it will be necessary to take on the kulak as well in turn. Until that time we must make use of these toadies. The manoeuvres of the government of Nehru are to play off American and British imperialism, and it does the same on the question of peace, with the only difference that he plays off Americans and the British on the one side, and the peace-loving peoples – on the other. This is manifested in the foreign policy of Nehru, in his talk against the atom bomb and his denial of support to the resolution of the Americans which wanted to paint China as an aggressor, here we must give him support but it is necessary to expose the shortcomings and indecisiveness of his speeches.
There are also the questions raised by Comrades Ghosh, Dange and Rao concerning partisan war and individual terror. In order to make the question more clear the Russian comrades decided to advise you on this question in a special formulation contained in the document On Tactics. This is point 11 in the document On Tactics
(Comrade Pavlov translates the formulations in the text into the English language.)
Comrade Stalin: Comrade Rao asks: - “I do not understand how the mode of individual terror lowers the level of activity of the masses?” I wish to explain this.
Individual terror is called individual terror not just because it is directed against the individuals of the regime but also because it is practiced by individuals, terrorists, independent of the masses. When they say that it is necessary to strike against sections of the representatives of the regime then it sows illusions in the masses that the basis of evil is not in the regime but in sections of the evil representatives of the regime. Therefore to promote some successful terrorist acts means that such illusions are spread amongst the masses that still more terrorist acts will lead to the fall of the regime. Where will this lead the masses? It will lead to the understanding that with the help of individual terror it is possible to eliminate individuals which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the regime. Then the peasantry might say – we cannot initiate the struggle, our glorious terrorists will start the work for us and they will do everything we need. This will weaken the onslaught of the masses. This is a very perilous and harmful thing. Terrorist acts cannot lead to the conclusion that the main force of the revolution are the good terrorists rather than that the masses free themselves. To consider that the role of the masses consists in standing by and looking at the heroism of the terrorists means that passiveness is cultivated. Marx and Engels said that the freedom of the people is the task of the people themselves. This means that the masses need to raise the struggle, that is to say, that they must emancipate themselves and not the heroes who call for their liberation. That is why we Marxists always stand against individual terror. The reference to Lenin by Rao has no correspondence with actuality. We may give Rao the entire range of the articles and speeches of Lenin. Take the articles of Lenin against the Mensheviks. How he thrashed them for individual terror! In general we need to say that the theory of individual terror flares up high when the revolution is not on the upsurge. Individual terror is an expression of the decline of the revolutionary forces and it reflects the weakness of the revolutionary movement. Only when the revolutionary movement begins to rise up and breaks up the old order does the theory of revolutionary terror vanish and cease to be of interest. This needs to be kept in mind, Comrade Rao.
The comrades ask: is it correct to begin partisan war in regions where the conditions for it have ripened and other rural areas are not prepared to begin this war. In regions where the conditions for partisan warfare have matured – it is necessary to begin it.
You ask – ought we to start partisan warfare only when the peasantry struggle for partial demands and reach the stage of the division of lands, creating committees of peasants or might we begin when the movement is still is found at the stage of struggle for partial demands? This doesnot always depend on us. If the masses are not bursting towards struggle it will be impossible to begin but if the masses are exploding then one may begin such struggle. It all depends on the consciousness and the organisation of the movement. Partisan movement has its own stages. It starts with small demands – the lowering of rental charges or other minor demands. But this is still not partisan warfare. If the enemy denies the peasantry the satisfaction of everyday needs and the peasantry wish to satisfy their requirements, that is already partisan war, appearing as a struggle under its own leadership for its own needs, when the peasants commence an open fight, when they rupture the unwritten agreement between the peasantry and the landlords. The struggle for daily needs – that is the first stage of partisan war. There, where the partisan movement struggles for its basic needs and takes up arms, prepares its strength to break the law - that is already the highest form of partisan struggle. Similarly with the workers, simple strikes, general strikes, struggle for some political demands, insurrection for the overthrow of the government. Such is the basis of the question as to whether or not one may begin partisan warfare; it is necessary to decide depending on the mass movement is organised. If the masses are bursting to engage in struggle then it is necessary to help them.You also ask might partisan warfare, even of an elementary type, be waged in regions where there are well-developed communications. If the masses wish, if the masses are prepared – partisan struggle might be commenced even in such regions where there is peril of encirclement. When encirclement of a region begins, it is better the fighting partisans are brought out of encirclement and taken to another area. Partisan war maybe started anywhere where the people wish it. If the partisan region would be encircled, it is necessary to transfer the armed detachments out of encirclement, in order to unite them with armed detachments in other regions and such a way form accumulated detachments together in order to create out of them your liberation army.
Rao: We have four regions in which we find significant strata of capitalist village rural proprietors. In these regions there is well-developed irrigation. If we do not touch this group we would have little land left in these areas to distribute amongst the peasantry.
Comrade Stalin: In the first stage of the people’s democratic movement in Poland, Rumania, Eastern Germany, the slogan was put forward of the confiscation of all of the land of the landlords, but the big peasants were to be left up to 50 hectares of land; the remainder was to be distributed amongst the peasantry. It could that in these regions of which you speak, you could have a land maximum for this group of landholders, while the remainder is confiscated. But for the time being the village agricultural workers must have good remuneration and their other needs must be fulfilled.Dange: That is correct, it resolves the problem: I have another question: is it necessary to hand over to state property the big plantations which would be confiscated from the English and which now are a key part of the large-scale commercial economy.
Comrade Stalin: In the programme it says that such economic enterprises would be nationalised. Only in extreme cases might some of these be given over to the peasantry. This will depend on the concrete conditions. It is necessary for you to place them at the disposal of the state economy to be organised on the basis of large-scale technique.
Rao: In India we draw a distinction between feudal and landowning capitalists (pomeshchikov-kapitalistov). Do we need to confiscate the land of these landowning-capitalists in parts of the regions?
Comrade Stalin: It is already two years that the Chinese communists are in power, and so far land reform has actually taken place in half of the territory of China, and Comrade Rao, without having his own government, already now wishes to know how to act in parts of specific regions. It is not necessary to be subtle and scientifically settle what is the character of such landlords . The peasants do not want this. In China in the village meetings the peasantry themselves decide many questions. There is one main question: the land of the landowners is taken away and given to the peasantry. This basic slogan sufficed to uplift the peasantry. You do not need to be over-complicated. Take the land of the landowners, and if you have taken extra from someone, then resolve it later.
Amongst the Russians it is said that if you hew the wood the chips will fly. The most important thing is that the basic slogan is correct. And you have a correct one. It will lead you to victory. That slogan is-- confiscate land from the landlords. You will need to have an agrarian programme in which you will take into account the questions relating to diverse and specific provinces. In the general programme which we are discussing today you do not need to occupy yourself with specifics.
The Indian comrades accepted the suggestions of Comrade Stalin to include in the programme the need to have equal pay for equal work regardless of sex; the introduction of a six hour working day for the benefit of those who work underground or who work in occupations harmful to the health of workers, and an eight hour day in all the remaining branches of industry; the nullification of the debts of the artisans to the moneylenders, and the introduction of a progressive income tax, proportionate to income, in industry, agriculture, and in trade
Comrade Stalin: So how will you act? Will you fight amongst yourselves or will you come forward and present a united front in India? Dange, you are not saying anything…
Dange: You cannot direct this question to me. I am always guided by the yearning to engage in joint work.
Ghosh: The differences amongst us were on political questions. Since we return with a clear programme we are now in the situation in which we would work together.
Rao: I speak for myself. I comprehended everything that Comrade Stalin said. I must say that we were much occupied with individual terrorism. I now see that the angle from which we examined our problems was incorrect. With all my power and intensity I will carry out the words of Comrade Stalin.
Comrade Stalin: Only when your revolutionary movement will develop will people cease to be interested in individual terror.
Rao: Concerning joint work. We have now received that weapon which I consider will unite the party. As for the matters that pertain to me I promise to end my own prejudices.
Punnaiah: We have no disagreements now.
Comrade Stalin: Dange is holding his tongue…
Dange: My reply is very simple. The political line is clear for me. If there is to be a speech on political unity then this little concerns me. I have never attacked…
Comrade Stalin: This is like the Gandhian theory of non-resistance (laughs).
Punnaiah: There will be disorder amongst ourselves if after our return to India we discuss our errors of the past, admitting the past and cavil: this was 45% right, another was 35% correct etc. I can assure you that the provinces of Telengana and Andhra would be loyally adherent in their relations to the CC. We have all discussed amongst ourselves and we now feel we have a correct line.
Comrade Stalin: Your party has very rich perspectives. Your country is fine, it may be very wealthy. It may be organized well. A good regime may be created. For the sake of such aims we must remove individual interests. You will have differences of opinion but these will need to be overcome. If they arise the minority must subordinate to the majority. Questions need to be discussed, you must convince each other and at the end the minority must subordinate to the majority. It is necessary to be able to eliminate individual hostility for the sake of the general cause. We, Russian Bolsheviks, always acted in this way.
---------
The Discussion continued for more than three hours
_______________________________
Noted down by V. Grigor”ian. 2.III. 51.RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 11, D. 311, LL. 4-13
Cyclostyled Text
Translated from the Russian by Vijay Singh.
Edited by Tahir Asghar.
This translation Copyright © Revolutionary Democracy
See Three Letters of the Communist Party of India to J.V. Stalin with the Handwritten Comments of the Soviet Leader The letter to J.V. Stalin and his handwritten remarks are included in this text
Click here to return to the April 2021 index.