People’s Liberation Struggle in Colonial and Semi-Colonial Countries after Second World War


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.

* * *


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.