Proletarian Path, New Issue, December 1991 was published from Patna. It contained articles on 'The stage of the revolution in India'. The first article - The Indian revolution: democratic or socialist was written by Com.Partha Sarkar. The second article - People's Democracy: its irrelevancy today (history and theory) was written by late Com. Moni Guha. The third one - The stage of revolution: Presentation of the question was written by Com. R. Bhattacharya.
The Indian Revolution -
Democratic or Socialist?
I
(India-1947)
Historically
the Indian big bourgeoisie has exhibited the same traits as elsewhere, namely,
that of being a great reserve of reaction. Every revolutionary turn in the
national liberation movement found it scurrying into the arms of the British.
Whether it be 'Chauri Chaura' or mass 'Satyagraha' it did not
hesitate to stem the tide of the mass movements. Discarding mass 'Satyagraha'
for individual 'Satyagraha', showing no compunction in condemning
legitimate mass violence while condoning state terror, the big bourgeoisie
truly revealed its colours. Even scholars like Kosambi have questioned the role
of the Congress leadership, (the party of the big bourgeoisie) during that
great mass movement, QUIT INDIA 1942. Against the backdrop of this movement,
the RIN mutiny, peasant revolts and working class actions came the transfer of
power. A war weakened British imperialism, a special conjunction of
international circumstances (the rise of the tide of the world revolution, the
pressure on Britain against 'imperial preference' during the Bretton Woods
negotiations etc.) made this imperative. This was the highpoint of the betrayal
of the Indian people but all the same it was a significant change. Let us take
an historical example-
"To
continue and intensify that slaughter, Anglo-French imperialist
capital hatched court intrigues and fixed up a complete new government, which in fact did seize
power immediately the proletarian struggle had struck the first blows at
tsarism.
.this
government is not a fortuitous assemblage of persons. They are representative
of the new class that has risen to political power in Russia, the class of
capitalist landlords and bourgeoisie which has long been ruling our country
economically.. was quick to organise itself politically, taking control of the
local govt. bodies, public education, congresses of various types, the Duma,
the war industries committees etc. This new class was already "almost
completely" in power by 1917, and therefore it needed only the first blows
to bring tsarism to the ground and clear the way for the bourgeoisie."
(Lenin/CW/23/Letters from Afar/p.303.)
This
historical analogy though limited in its applicability is important for us to
appreciate the changes in the relations of classes since 1947. (The Indian
bourgeoisie was preparing to take political power through a long time - the
formation of the Congress ministries in 1937 etc.) The politics pursued after
1947 can only be understood in that light. It is futile today to keep quibbling
about the 'modus operandi' of the change in 1947. (The change of government
during the February Revolution in Russia was also imperialist prompted for that
matter) Political independence has its significance precisely because it allows
for a freer, wider, and clearer field for the class-struggle. As Lenin
writes--".it would be absurd to deny that some slight change in the
political and strategic relations of, say, Germany and Britain might today or
tomorrow make the formation of a new Polish, Indian and other similar state
fully 'practicable'finance capital in its drive to expand, can 'freely' buy or bribe
the freest democratic or republican government and the elective officials
of any, even an 'independent' country. The domination of finance capital and of
capital in general is not to be abolished by any reforms in the sphere of
political democracy and self-determination belongs wholly and exclusively to
this sphere. This domination of finance capital, however,
does not in the least nullify the significance of political democracy as a
freer, wider and clearer from of class-struggle."
(Lenin/CW/22/p.144-45.)
India's
economic dependence on imperialism is taken as proof of her 'semi-colonial'
status. Political independence is considered to be a sham. But it is a sham in
the same way as bourgeois democracy is a sham for the toiling masses. Lenin
explains -
"The
democratic republic 'logically' contradicts capitalism because 'officially' it
puts the rich and the poor on an equal footing. That is a contradiction between
the economic system and the political superstructure.
How
then is capitalism reconciled with democracy? By indirect implementation of the
omnipotence of capital. There are two economic means for that: (1) direct
bribery; (2) alliance of government and stock exchange (That is stated in our
theses under a bourgeois system finance capital 'can freely bribe and buy any
government and any official')
"..Laws
are political measures, politics. No political measure can prohibit economic
phenomena. Whatever political form Poland adopts, whether she be part of
tsarist Russia or Germany; or a politically independent state, there is no
prohibiting or repealing her dependence on the finance capital of the
imperialist powers, or preventing that capital from buying up the shares of her
industries". (Lenin/CW/23/p.47-48).
It
would not do therefore to reel off statistics on foreign collaborations,
multinationals, foreign 'aid' etc. to prove that the Indian bourgeoisie is
compradore. The Indian bourgeoisie is part of the world bourgeoisie and we
cannot wish away this aspect. India's dependence on finance capital cannot be
denied. But the real importance of our political independence is that it allows
for a freer, clearer form of class-struggle. Instead of adopting the standpoint
of the class-struggle the Indian left argues about Indian independence
abstractly. It is what Lenin called, "the method of arguing in
professiorial style, from on high, about the path and destiny of the fatherland
and not about specific classes pursuing such and such a
path..(Lenin/CW/1/p-500).
"the
distinctive and basic feature of the petty-bourgeois is to battle against
bourgeoisdom with the instruments of bourgeois society itself." (Lenin/ibid/p-348).
This
description fits our 'communists' well. They look at Indian capitalism, have
heard about its dependence upon foreign capital and conclude that there has
been hardly any development at all as India is not independent. They are
unwilling to understand imperialism, the domination of finance capital and wish
it away. They want to develop 'independent' capitalism away from the high road of
imperialism they want to battle against bourgeoisdom with the instruments of
bourgeois society itself. They reel off statistics to record this fact of
imperialist aided development and conclude that mass ruin and misery can be
removed by going in for independent capitalist development. They are not
willing to note the rise of classes and their changing correlation since 1947.
They are unwilling to reckon with the growth of the working class-essentially
the children of impoverishment and ruin attending India's development (capitalist
development) since 1947.
They
are unwilling to contend that the path traversed by Indian bourgeoisie, the
Prussian Path, the path of slow and gradual severing of pre-capitalist
relations bringing untold misery to the people, is essentially also a path of
capitalist evolution. Today we find a capitalist India. Friends, India has had
enough, the way out of its suffering is the expropriation of the Indian
bourgeoisie who have sucked the working people dry. Only a socialist revolution
is the answer (and not 'independent' capitalist development).
Can
a big bourgeois-landlord counter-revolutionary govt. fulfil the historical aims
of the bourgeois revolution? Let us see what Lenin says:
"If
you want to consider the question 'historically', the example of any European
country will show you that it was a series of governments, that carried out the
historical aims of the bourgeois revolution, that even govts. which defeated
the revolution were nevertheless forced to carry out the historical aims of
that defeated revolution." (Lenin/Two tactics/CW/9/p-42).
The
democracy of the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, truncated and it does not fulfil
all the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. Only the socialist revolution can
finish these tasks.
"And
will not the future socialist revolution in Europe still have to complete a
great deal left undone in the field of democratism?" (ibid, p-85).
II
Imperialism and India's
Development
In
discussing the stage of the Indian revolution the most important question would
be what classes have developed during more than four decades of independence.
What is the coreelation of these classes and the scope of the class-struggle?
But since the very premise of the possibility of capitalist development under
the Indian bourgeoisie (so-called compradore-bureaucrat capital See Note 1) has been questioned
theoretically we shall endavour to answer the question.
We
will begin with the Sixth Comintern Congress deliberations on the colonial
question. We know that the 'decolonization' thesis of M. N. Roy was lambasted
at that Congress and the thesis of limited (or hindered) capitalist development
of colonies by imperialism accepted.
Let
us recall that Lenin distinguished between the old colonial policy and the new
colonial policy. The old colonial policy was of 'primitive' accumulation i.e.
naked loot and plunder of colonies. The distinctive features of the new
colonial policy were export of capital, monopoly, total division of the world.
Lenin wrote -
"The
export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of
capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the
export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the
capital exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the
further development of capitalism throughout the world." (Imperialism,
the highest stage of capitalism/CW/L/22/p-243).
Stalin
also observed,
"In
certain of these (colonial) countries, India for instance, capitalism is
growing very rapidly." (Stalin/CW/7/p-147).
At
the same time the colonial theses of the sixth Comintern Congress states-
"In
any case, the capitalist enterprises created by the imperialists in the
colonies (with the exception of a few enterprises established in case of
military needs) are predominantly or exclusively of an agrarian-capitalist
character and are distinguished by a low organic composition of capital. Real
industrialisation of the colonial country, in particular the building up of a
flourishing engineering industry, which might make possible the independent
development of the productive forces of the country, is not accelerated, but,
on the country, is hindered by the metropolis. This is the essence of its function
of colonial enslavement : the colonial country is compelled to
sacrifice the interests of its independent development and to play the part of
an economic (agrarian-raw material) appendage to foreign capitalism.
Just
as the 'classical capitalism' of the pre-imperialist epoch most clearly
demonstrated its negative features of destruction of the old without an
equivalent creation of the new precisely in its policy of plunder in the
colonies, so also the most characteristic side of the decay of imperialism, its
essential feature of usury and parasitism, is clearly revealed in its colonial
economy. The endeavor of the great imperialist powers to adapt to an ever
increasing degree their monopolised colonies to the needs of the capitalist
economy of the metropolis not only evokes the destruction of the traditional
economic structure of the indigenous colonial population, but, side by side
with this, leads to the destruction of the equilibrium between separae branches
of production, and in the final analysis, leads to an artificial retardation of
the productive forces in the colonies." (Comintern & National &
Colonial Question - CP -Publication, p. 72-73)
What
is being discussed in this passage is 'the characteristic features of colonial
economics and of imperialist colonial policy'. That imperialism compels the
colony to play the part of an agrarian-raw material base, is an observation
made by the theses. It is the concrete analysis of a concrete reality. But this
feature does not exhaust the other characteristics of imperialism. Imperialism exists in its
manifold inter connections: 'mediacies' , Hegel would say. The characteristic
feature (in fact, the quintessence) of imperialism is monopoly and one of the sources of
raw materials by the trusts and the financial oligarchy. Marx first noted the
need for a "common, all-embracing and farsighted control of the production
of raw materials" for rapidly expanding capitalist production required
well-planned and regulated supply of raw materials. Lack of planning and
regulation led to violent convulsions in the capitalist economy (refer 'Effect
of price fluctuations'/K. Marx/Capital vol. III.)
Engels
here noted the formation of the trusts (monopolies) to regulate production (in
the capitalist manner, of course) (ibid). This is just one of the
'needs' of capitalist production and the monopolies answer it by the method
typical of imperialism - seizure of sources of raw materials and subordinating
them to their needs. Thus the quest to convert the colonial countries into
agrarian appendages. But, we cannot turn this into a abstract formula, into a
definition of imperialism-
"Kautsky's
definition is as follows : "Imperialism is a product of highly developed
industrial capitalism. It consists in the striving of every industrial
capitalist nation to bring under its control or to annex all large areas of agrarian (Kautsky's italics)
territory irrespective of what nations inhabit it."
This
definition is of no use at all because it one-sidedly, i.e. arbitrarily,
singles out only the national question (although the latter is extremely
important in itself as well as in its relation to imperialism), it arbitrarily
and inaccurately connects this question only with industrial capital in the
countries which annex other nations and in an equally arbitrary and inaccurate
manner pushes into the forefront the annexation of agrarian regions". (Imperialism
the highest stage of Capitalism/Lenin/CW/p-268).
Our
friends having heard of imperialism and taking a look at the colonial theses
turn this aspect into a dogma, take it to be the essence of imperialism and as
such conclude that countries like India are only agrarian appendages of the metropolis.
What is a concrete analysis of a concrete situation is transformed into a
lifeless formula. We have seen that Stalin observed that capitalism was rapidly
growing in India - he didn't take the matter one sidedly.
Imperialism
is also parasitic capitalism, capitalism which has a tendency to decay -
"Hobson
gives the following economic appraisal of the prospect of the partitioning of
China: "The greater part of Western Europe might then assume the
appearance and character already exhibited by tracts of country in the South of
England.., little clusters of wealthy aristocrats drawing dividends and
pensions from the Far East, with a somewhat large group of professional
retainers and tradesmen and a larger body of personal servants and workers in
the transport trade and in the final stages of production of the more
perishable goods: all the main arterial industries would have disappeared, the
staple food and manufactures flowing in as tribute from Asia and Africa. The
situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to
render this or any other single interpretation of the future very probable; but
the influences which govern the imperialism of Western Europe today are moving
in this direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make, towards some
such consummation."
The
author is quite right : if the forces the imperialism had not been counteracted
they would have led precisely to what he has described".(ibid, p.
279-80)
Thus,
parasitism leads to the above tendency of decay in old countries rich in
capital and 'development' in the new. However, all these characteristics of
imperialism act as tendencies and not absolutely. Imperialism not only
means political reaction and domination, it also awakens in the masses the
striving for liberation. This is what Lenin called an important 'counteracting'
factor. If we are to understand imperialism thoroughly, in its manifold
'mediacies', not one-sidedly, then this factor must be taken into account. The
colonial theses took this factor into account when it added:
"With
the object of buying up definite strata of the bourgeoisie in the colonial and
semi-colonial countries, especially in the period of a rising revolutionary
movement, the metropolis may to a certain degree, weaken its economic pressure.
But, in the measure that the extraordinary and for the most part,
extra-economic circumstances lose their influence the economic policy of the
imperialist power is immediately directed towards repressing and retarding the
economic development of the colonies." (Comintern and National &
Colonial Question, p.78).
Our
friends who one-sidedly cling to one of the characteristics of imperialism, absolutise its tendencies (the tendency of political
reaction and domination in this case) and are unable to analyse the post World
War-II changes. The existence of the powerful socialist camp, the seething
discontent of the masses saw to changes in imperialist policy. This was the
importance of the change of correlation of class forces which prompted the post
World- War-II changes.
Seeing
the industrialisation India has undergone some of our friends believe that
Lenin's description of 'finance capital', as one which can subordinate any
state even the 'politically independent ones' has become outdated (for the Indian
bourgeoisie has asserted its 'independence'). Others just adopt an ostrich-like
attitude and refuse to recognise the changes, theoretically questioning the
capacity of the Indian bourgeoisie to industiralise. 'Independence' is taken to
be the crux of the matter. But we have seen that imperialism has a number of
characteristic features which act as tendencies. And amidst the interaction of
these tendencies only can one find the resultant - the concrete situation. Finance capital can help
industrialisartion (as Lenin vividly describes in the hypothetical case of
China - quoted above) and in fact becomes more parasitic because of it. For all
this it must oppress, exploit and subordinate the masses all the more. It
drains off greater wealth through various means legal and illegal ('subtle'
means). It breeds political reaction and violence (encourages various movements
- imperialism skillfully uses every fissure among the masses for its
reactionary ends. It not only foments fratricidal wars and programs but also
funds, subverts, manipulates all sorts of 'mass' movements in order to weaken
its adversaries, and disorganise, divert and destabilise the working class or
communist movement. Ultimately it displays and uses its jackboots with
impunity).
In
order to strengthen its hegemony finance capital buys up whole strata of the
people, creates dense networks around the world. As Lenin writes -
"The
enormous dimensions of finance capital concentrated in a few hands and creating
an extraordinarily dense and widespread network of relationships and
connections which subordinates not only the small and medium, but also the very
small capitalist and small masters, on the one hand and the increasingly
intense struggle waged against other national state group of financiers for the
division of the world and domination over other countries on the other hand,
cause the propertied classes to go over entirely to the side of
imperialism."(Lenin/CW-22/p.285)
Today
this network spreads far and deep. It draws in the bourgeoisie of the newly
independent countries. The Indian bourgeoisie is tied through a thousand
threads with the interests of finance capital.
Lenin
taught that the struggle against imperialism must be linked up with the
struggle against opportunism. Those of our friends who understand imperialism
in a one-sided manner inadvertently fall into the abyss of opportunism. Let us
take an example: the non-aligned status of India is often touted as proof of
the independence of its bourgeoisie. The Bandung traitors set the ball rolling
for the non-aligned movement. We know that after the October revolution the
national liberation movements were seen as part of the world socialist
revolution. They were seen as reserves of the socialist camp. But the
pernicious doctrine of non-alignment tried to server this link and created a
'non-aligned' camp to hoodwink the masses (while serving one imperialism or the
other). This was the Titoite betrayal of the socialist camp and a vital
surrender to imperialism. The Indian bourgeoisie thus executed its role as part
of the world bourgeoisie very well. Hence glorification of non-alignment
instead of its exposure is falling into the abyss of opportunism.
The
point here is to view any phenomenon (imperialism) in its manifold mediacies
and not one-sidedly. To concretely judge concrete situations and not to make 'a
priori' inferences from abstract formulas of 'national' bourgeoisie,
'independence' and so on. India might have had a caricature of a
bourgeois-democratic national liberation but the point is what is the concrete
reality today. The economic evolution had to take place (Indian capitalism grew
rapidly during the second world war) and it did, transforming India into a
capitalist country though through the Prussian Path (much as we did wish against
it) - slowly, gradually severing the pre-capitalist relations bringing untold
suffering to the masses. The very betrayers of the Indian national liberation
movement had to do it. Remember what Engels remarked in the Preface to the
Italian edition of the Manifesto -
"..as
Karl Marx used to say, the men who suppressed the revolution of 1848, were
nevertheless, its testamentary executors in spite of themselves."
III
The Chinese Revolution
Those
who argue that India is a semi-feudal country often cite this statement of
Stalin as proof :
"..imperialism,
with all its financial and military might is the force in China that supports,
inspires, fosters and preserves the feudal survivals, together with this entire
militarist-bureaucratic superstructure." (The revolution in China &
tasks of the Comintern/p.700/Stalin/'On the Opposition')
They
have heard that imperialism dominates India and conclude from this that there
must be feudalism in India too (as its prop). Queer logic. The colonial theses
of the comintern states that, "Imperialism first allies with the ruling
strata of the previous social structure, against the majority of the people.
Everywhere imperialism attempts to preserve and to perpetuate all those
pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (especially in the villages) which serve
as the basis for the existence of its reactionary allies." (Comintern and
National and Colonial Question, p.69). But this does not exhaust the
characterization of imperialism. It is only one manifestation of its characteristic of
political reaction and domination. To universalise such a concrete analysis of
a particular manifestation of imperialism is to go in for a one-sided view of
imperialism (see Lenin's polemic against Kautsky above). Lenin writes: -
"The
characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories but
even the most highly industrialised regions." (Imperialism, the highest
stage of Capitalism/CW/22/p.268-69)
Would
it not be ridiculous thus to infer from the fact of imperialist would
domination the conclusion that it must be fostering feudalism in India?
The
contention of the imperialist powers for the control of China beginning with
the Opium War of 1840 led to the carving up of the whole country into spheres
of influence by the imperialist powers. It meant the break-up of the Chinese
Empire and the emergence of local warlords. This and the powerful peasant wars
and the revolution of 1911 all led to the counter-revolutionary alliance of the
warlords and the compradore bourgeoisie with imperialism. Only thus could imperialism
maintain its rule. These peculiar circumstances made armed struggle, the
supreme form of struggle in the Chinese revolution. This was realised by
Sun-Yat-Sen in the revolution of 1911. It was these circumstances that led to
the setting up of the Whampoa Military Academy in 1924 with the help of Soviet
military experts to form and train a revolutionary army.
Hence
Stalin's thesis - "in China the armed revolution is fighting the armed
counter-revolution. This is one of the specific features and one of the
advantages of the Chinese revolution". Mao stuck to this thesis,
brilliantly expounding its profound meaning and thus could further the Chinese
revolution.
This
was a fact of cardinal importance which was not grasped by the CPC till Mao
gained ascendancy at the Tsunyi meeting in 1935 when top priority was given to
military questions. To quote Mao :
".we
have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organise the workers to
strike. Basically, the task of the communist party here is not to go through a
long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war, and not to
seize the big cities first and then occupy the countryside but the reverse.
When
imperialism is not making armed attacks on our country, the Chinese Communist
Party either wages civil war jointly with the bourgeoisie against the warlords
(lackeys of imperialism) as in 1924-27 in the wars in Kwangtung province and
the Northern Expedition, or unites with the peasants and the urban
petty-bourgeoisie to wage civil wars against the landlord class and the
compradore (also lackeys of imperialism) as in war of Agrarian Revolution of
1927-36...
All
this shows the difference between China and the capitalist countries. In China war is the main
form of struggle and the army is the main from of organisation. Other forms
such as mass organizations and mass struggles are also extremely important and indeed indispensable
and in no circumstances to be overlooked, but their purpose is to
serve the war
"In
China armed. counter revolution". This thesis of Stalin is perfectly
correct." (Mao/SW-2/pp.220-21)
These
were the special features which made existence of red power in small areas in
China possible. Thus -
"The
long term survival inside a country of one or more small areas under Red
political power completely encircled by a white regime is a phenomenon that has
never occurred anywhere else in the world. There are special reasons for this
unusual phenomenon. It can develop only under certain conditions.
First,
it cannot occur in any imperialist country or in any colony under direct
imperialist rule, but can only occur in China which is economically backward,
and which is semi-colonial and under indirect imperialist rule. For this
unusual phenomenon can occur only in conjunction with another unusual
phenomenon namely, war within the white regime. It is a feature of
semi-colonial China that, since the first year of Republic (1912), the various
cliques of old and new warlords have waged incessant wars against one another,
supported by imperialism from abroad and by the compradore and landlord classes
at home. Such a phenomenon is to be found in none of the imperialist countries
nor for that matter in any country under direct imperialist rule. Two things
account for its occurrence, namely, a localised agricultural economy (not a
unified capitalist economy) and the imperialist policy of marking off spheres
of influence in order to divide and exploit. .If only we realise that splits
and wars will never cease within the white regime in China, we shall have no
doubt about the emergence, survival and daily growth of Red political
power." (Mao/SW-1/pp.64-65)
These
are the specific features of a revolution in a country with very specific and
peculiar politico-economic features. In as mush as one wants to build a
revolutionary party one must try to know and assimilate the 'last word' in the
world communist movement as Lenin put it. But does it mean that one turns a
blind eye to concrete reality? It was Stalin's thesis, which guided the Chinese
revolution, which Mao acknowledges again and again. The same Stalin in his
speech to the 'University of the toilers of the East' put India in a category
by itself (because of its developing capitalist economy). It does not behove us
communists to make a caricature of a great revolution.
(Some
specimens of caricature: - Police actions against revolutionaries are called
'encirclement and suppression' campaigns after Mao. India is a country of
extremely centralisd polity and a centralised economy. But landlords/rich
peasants with private armies are sometimes dubbed as warlords, feudal lords or
something similar. In every country advanced capitalist or not there are armed
white terrorist gangs (the Ku Klux Klan etc. in USA, the 'fascisti' in Italy
and so on). These thugs are fascistic in nature and employed as 'private'
armies or mercenaries to suppress the working class and the toiling masses. But
does that mean military questions become the top priority there (as in China)?
Armed revolution is one thing, the course of the Chinese revolution quite
another).
IV
Pattern of Industrial
Development in Post-Independent India
We
will just briefly outline the pattern of industrial development in
post-independent India.
(i)
Rates no Growth in Industrial Production -
From
table I(a) we can see the faster growth of basic and capital goods industries.
That means faster rate of growth in Department I (production of means of
production) as compared to Department II (articles of consumption).
In
these figures we also find the reflection of the crisis years in the Indian
economy and spasmodic development which is typical of capitalism (e.g. the
figure (-)0.54 for capital goods industry in 1966-71 shows the exceptionally
bad years for Indian industry ('66-'68)).
It
may be mentioned that there was hardly any capital goods industry worth the
name at the time of independence. [A World Bank team in 1975 evaluated the
Indian textile machinery producers. They found them to be competitive and one
firm (which was a joint venture project) produced machinery comparable in
quality to the very best in OECD countries. A 1984 World Bank study team which
studied select sectors (power, cement, sugar, chemicals etc.) found that Indian
firms were capable of setting up plants for manufacturing boilers (power),
cement and sugar. However in the chemical industry it was capable of supplying
only 50% of the equipment required. In all these cases they were of
"competitive international quality".]
Take
two figures - while cotton cloth produced in 1950-51 was 4215 million metres
and 12738 million metres in 1990-91, finished steel production was 1 million
tones in 1950-51 and 13.4 million tonnes in 1990-91 (Source - IEIY, A.N. Agrawal
et. al.).So
while cotton cloth production increased by 3 times, finished steel production
increased by 13.4 times. This shows the typical pattern of capitalist
development that was pointed out by Marx (as we shall see later). Table
I(b) shows the relatively tremendous growth in infrastructural industries.
We
might mention here that -
".Real
industrialisation of the colonial country, in particular the building up of a
flourishing engineering industry, which might make possible the independent
development of the productive forces of the country is not accelerated, but, on
the country is hindered by the metropolis." (Comintern & Colonial
National and Questions, p.73)--- this observation of the colonial theses thus
no longer operates in India today.
(ii)
Table I(c) - productive capital per employee - shows progressive increase. That
is an indicator of the growing capital intensity or what we may call in Marxist
terms the high organic composition of capital in industry. This is again
typical of capitalism as noted by Marx in 'Capital'.
Let
us take as an index the utilisation of electricity per factory worker.
Calculating
from tables II(f) and I(d) & (e) we get the following figures - while
electricity consumption per factory worker was 977 kwh in 1970-71 it increased
to 1592 kwh in 1985-86. This shows the increasing high organic composition of
capital in India.
Again
we find that the development of industry does not correspond to the description
of hindered capitalist development in colonies referred to above -
"In
any case, the capitalist enterprises created by the imperialists in the colonies
(with the exception of a few enterprises established in case of military needs)
are predominantely or exclusively of an agrarian capitalist character and are
distinguished by low organic composition of capital." (ibid/p.72-73)
(iii)
While total production in agriculture is increasing its percentage contribution
to share of the 'gross domestic product' is decreasing (in 89-90 it was 28.4%
of GDP compared to 52.2 % in 1950-51) - that is how it is under capitalism. The
share of industries - manufacturing, mining and infrastructure industries is
increasing.
(iv)
Table I(f) shows sectoral composition of foreign loans and Table I(g) shows the
percentage of external assistance in the total plan investment and outlay. It
also shows the extent of the burden of debt-servicing that the Indian economy
bears. However all these tables can only give a very rough idea of the
dependence of Indian capitalism upon imperialism. Further it is very
difficult to give an accurate picture of the enormous drain of wealth by
imperialism.
(v)
Table I(h) shows the concentration of the factory proletariat. 48.7% of the
factory workers are concentrated in factories with over 500 workers. This is
one of the advantages of the Indian revolution. But the Indian ruling class saw
to repeated splits in the Indian working class movement with the
Social-Democrats (so-called communist parties) playing the role of accomplices.
The
increasing and relatively high organic composition of capital, concentration of
production, faster development of Department I, the presence of a good and
internationally competitive machine-producing sector all markout the
development of capitalism in post-independent India. This development is also
imperialist aided. Let us move to the agrarian sector to see the decisive
growth of the home market for capitalism in India.
TABLE - I(A)
RATES OF GROWTH IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
|
Item
|
1962-66
|
1966-71
|
1971-76
|
1976-81
|
1980-85
|
1988-89
|
1989-90
|
|
General Index
|
8.25
|
4.02
|
4.16
|
4.62
|
5.5
|
7.1
|
8.6
|
|
Basic Industries
|
9.80
|
6.16
|
6.18
|
4.90
|
8.5
|
9.9
|
5.4
|
|
Capital Goods Industries
|
16.65
|
(-)0.54
|
5.14
|
5.82
|
5.1
|
7.0
|
22.4
|
|
Intermediate Goods Industries
|
6.40
|
2.72
|
3.50
|
3.80
|
3.6
|
11.5
|
4.3
|
|
Consumer Goods
|
4.57
|
4.04
|
1.40
|
5.40
|
3.6
|
4.2
|
6.3
|
*Source
;India Economic Information Yearbook, A.N. Agarwal et al, 1991-92
TABLE I(B)
Infrastructure- A Statistical Profile
|
Item
|
Unit
|
1950-51
|
1960-61
|
1970-71
|
1980-81
|
1990-91
|
|
Electricity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Installed Capacity
|
' 000 Mw
|
2.3
|
5.6
|
16.3
|
33.3
|
70.5+
|
|
Generated
|
Bn kwh
|
6.6
|
20.1
|
61.2
|
119.3
|
266.2+
|
|
Villages Electrified
|
' 000 nos.
|
3
|
22
|
107
|
273
|
479
|
|
Coal (Include lignit)
|
Mn. Tonnes
|
32
|
55
|
73
|
114
|
212
|
|
Crude Oil
|
Mn Tonnes
|
0.3
|
0.4
|
6.8
|
10.5
|
33.0
|
|
Surfaced Road
|
'000 Km
|
157
|
263
|
398
|
683
|
960+
|
|
Vehicles on Road
|
'000 nos.
|
306
|
665
|
1865
|
5173
|
16488+
|
|
Railway Route
|
'000Km
|
54
|
56
|
60
|
61
|
62+
|
|
Freight Traffic(Rail)
|
Bn.net Tonne Kms
|
44
|
88
|
127
|
158
|
318+
|
|
Shipping Fleet
|
Number
|
103
|
174
|
255
|
403
|
418
|
|
Shipping Tonnage
|
'000 grt
|
391
|
901
|
2500
|
5889
|
6030
|
|
Aircraft(Civil) Hours Flown
|
'000
|
98
|
138
|
130
|
225
|
191
|
|
Aircraft Km Flown
|
Mn.
|
31
|
44
|
59
|
89
|
117
|
|
Commercial Banks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. Of Branches
|
|
5078
|
n.a.
|
22958
|
35707
|
59388
|
|
Deposit
|
Rs. Crores
|
881
|
1825
|
6451
|
46751
|
192542
|
|
Post Office
|
'000 nos.
|
36
|
77
|
109
|
139
|
147
|
|
Telephones
|
'000 ,,
|
168
|
483
|
1293
|
2785
|
5204
|
(+
Relates to 1989-90)
Source : IEIY, 1991-92
Table - I(C)
|
Productive Capital
|
1970-71
|
1980-81
|
1987-88
|
|
Per Employee(Rs. '000)
|
23
|
55
|
136
|
Source : IEIY, 1991-92
Table - I(D)
Gross Energy Generated : Trends(Mn. kwh)
|
Year
|
UTILITIES
|
Non-Utilities
|
Total
|
Per Capital Consumption(kwh)
|
|
Hydro
|
Thermal
|
Nuclear
|
Total
|
|
1950-51
|
286
|
300
|
--
|
586
|
166
|
751
|
17.9
|
|
1960-61
|
784
|
910
|
--
|
1694
|
319
|
2012
|
38.2
|
|
1970-71
|
2525
|
2816
|
242
|
5583
|
538
|
6121
|
89.8
|
|
1980-81
|
4654
|
6130
|
300
|
11084
|
842
|
11926
|
132.3
|
|
1981-82
|
4957
|
6952
|
302
|
12210
|
902
|
13113
|
141.0
|
|
1982-83
|
4837
|
7987
|
202
|
13026
|
1004
|
14030
|
147.3
|
|
1983-84
|
4995
|
8668
|
355
|
14018
|
1081
|
15099
|
154.5
|
|
1984-85
|
5395
|
9884
|
407
|
15686
|
1235
|
16921
|
168.6
|
|
1985-86
|
5098
|
11434
|
498
|
17030
|
1330
|
18360
|
178.6
|
|
1986-87
|
5376
|
12882
|
502
|
18760
|
1450
|
20210
|
191.7
|
|
1987-88
|
4747
|
14964
|
503
|
20214
|
1530
|
21744
|
201.2
|
|
1988-89
|
5790
|
15770
|
580
|
22110
|
1630
|
23740
|
216.5
|
|
1989-90
|
6210
|
17870
|
460
|
24540
|
2080
|
26620
|
n.a.
|
Source
: IEIY, 1991-92
Table - I(e)
Factory Sector main Features(Value inRs. crores)
|
Item
|
1970-71
|
1980-81
|
1985-86
|
1986-87
|
1987-88
|
|
No. of Factories
|
64565
|
96503
|
101016
|
97957
|
102596
|
|
Fixed Capital
|
8752
|
29900
|
60085
|
67230
|
78475
|
|
No. of Workers('000)
|
4231
|
6047
|
5819
|
5807
|
6062
|
|
Wages & salaries
|
1080
|
3945
|
7092
|
7850
|
8934
|
|
Value of output
|
13768
|
61084
|
119455
|
133044
|
153973
|
|
Input
|
10015
|
47238
|
92488
|
102844
|
119387
|
|
Depreciation
|
604
|
1917
|
4401
|
4647
|
6252
|
|
Net Value Added
|
3149
|
11929
|
22566
|
25552
|
28334
|
Source : IEIY 1991-92
Table - I(f)
Purpose-wise Distribution of Foreign Loans Utilised (Value in Rs. crores)
|
Purpose
|
First Plan
(1951-56)
|
Second Plan
(1956-61)
|
Third Plan
(1961-66)
|
Annual Plan
(1966-69)
|
Fourth Plan
(1969-74)
|
Fifth Plan
(1974-79)
|
Sixth Plan
(1980-85)
|
|
Transport and Communication
|
15.6
|
159.0
|
291.4
|
166.3
|
371.6
|
344.4
|
702.1
|
|
Power Projects
|
12.1
|
29.3
|
152.2
|
145.4
|
105.1
|
261.6
|
1686.0
|
|
Steel & Steel project
|
2.7
|
254.1
|
94.2
|
118.8
|
109.8
|
196.0
|
0.6
|
|
Iron ore Project
|
--
|
--
|
10.4
|
1.3
|
--
|
191.4
|
--
|
|
Industrial Development
|
2.3
|
255.4
|
1270.1
|
1510.8
|
2197.8
|
1744.1
|
2519.4
|
|
Agriculture Development
|
3.4
|
--
|
22.5
|
70.8
|
175.0
|
840.3
|
3121.6
|
|
Food Aid
|
90.3
|
15.7
|
--
|
109.2
|
312.4
|
276.4
|
2.9
|
|
Oil & Petroleum products
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
433.3
|
18.2
|
|
Debt Relief
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
77.2
|
244.9
|
208.0
|
--
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
--
|
--
|
0.2
|
0.6
|
7.1
|
111.3
|
546.3
|
*Source
: IEIY 1991-'92
Table - I(g)
Net Foreign Aid and the Plans(Rs. Crores)
|
Plan Period
|
Gross Aid Utilised
|
Debt Serving
|
Net Aid
|
Net Aid As % of Total Investment
|
Net Aid As % of Total Plan outlay
|
|
Amortisation
|
Interest Payment
|
|
First Plan
(1951-56)
|
201.7
|
10.6
|
13.4
|
177.7
|
5.3
|
4.7
|
|
Second Plan
(1956-61)
|
1430.4
|
55.2
|
64.2
|
1311.0
|
19.2
|
16.9
|
|
Third Plan
(1961-66)
|
2867.7
|
305.6
|
237.0
|
2325.1
|
20.6
|
18.3
|
|
Annual Plan
(1966-69)
|
3145.7
|
606.6
|
375.9
|
2162.2
|
n.a
|
32.6
|
|
Fourth Plan
(1969-74)
|
3837.4
|
1584.2
|
860.8
|
1392.4
|
6.2
|
5.6
|
|
Fifth Plan
(1974-79)
|
5821.9
|
2539.4
|
1236.0
|
1946.5
|
3.1
|
2.9
|
|
Fifth Plan
(1979-80)
|
1138.6
|
503.6
|
296.9
|
337.9
|
n.a.
|
2.8
|
|
Sixth Plan
(1980-85)
|
10321.0
|
2906.0
|
1903.0
|
5512.0
|
4.2
|
3.2
|
|
Seventh Plan
(1985-90)
|
22603.0
|
7116.0
|
5487.0
|
9950.0
|
4.5
|
4.5
|
|
Seventh Plan
(1990-91)
|
6660.0
|
2935.0
|
4955.0
|
2310.0
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
Table - I(h)
Principle Characteristics By Size of Employment : Factory Sector (1987-88)(Value in crores)
|
Employment Size
|
Factories (nos)
|
Employment('000s)
|
Fixed Capital
|
Gross output
|
Net Value Added
|
|
0-49
|
79729
|
1352
|
4201
|
21400
|
2487
|
|
50-99
|
11581
|
791
|
2341
|
12472
|
1735
|
|
100-199
|
5753
|
826
|
5746
|
14644
|
2442
|
|
200-499
|
3338
|
1025
|
6466
|
19815
|
3766
|
|
500-999
|
1249
|
933
|
11126
|
24304
|
4071
|
|
100-1999
|
586
|
844
|
10639
|
23606
|
4797
|
|
2000-4999
|
291
|
849
|
7214
|
19085
|
4238
|
|
5000-above
|
69
|
1166
|
30769
|
18647
|
4798
|
|
Total
|
102596
|
7786
|
78475
|
153973
|
28334
|
Source : IEIY, 1991-92
v
The
Agrarian Scene
(i)
Agriculture
is the mainstay of the feudal economy. It becomes the great preserve of
semi-feudalism under a colonial economy. Let us then examine the agrarian
scene. We have said that the course of Indian agriculture has been that of the
'Prussian Path' (See quote from Lenin below). Let us see what an
astute observer of the early post-independence agrarian scene remarked :
"This
complex of legal, economic and social relations uniquely typical of the Indian
countryside served to produce an effect which I should like to call that of a
build-in 'depressor'. Through the operation of this multi-faceted 'depressor'
Indian agriculture continued to be characterised by low capital intensity and
antiquated method. Few of the actual tillers were left with an efficacious
interest in modernisation, or the prevention of such recognised evils as
fragmentation. The income of the kisans(farmer) and mazdur-log(labourer) (i.e. the overwhelming bulk
of the rural population) remained at or below the subsistence level. For the
newly developing urban sector this in turn constituted a serious handicap in
the form of a severely restricted home-market." (D. Thorner/The Agrarian
Prospect in India/p.12)
We
find this apologist of capital typically worried about two things - (a)
agrarian reforms to remove the 'depressor' i.e. a reform which would allow
greater capital flow and 'progressive' farming; & (b) a restricted
home-market.
(a)
First,
on the character of the agrarian reforms.
In
India, we can say, these reforms were not of a positive character. Though
reforms definitely had to contend with 'pressure from below' they were mainly
tailored to put pressure on the landlords to take up cultivation of land on a
capitalist basis (Zamindari abolition etc. with huge amounts as
compensation). Abolishing intermediaries, it created direct relations with the
state for the owner-cultivators (or raiyats) in the process creating and
encouraging a numerous sub-stratum of rich peasants. By making its intentions
known beforehand and advancing the reforms through the machinery of the
bureaucracy (the state has shown particular abhorrence of any initiative from
below, crushing it with an iron hand - compare Naxalbari under a 'communist'
led government.), the state has actually facilitated the 'clearing of the
estates', Indian fashion - thus we witness the large-scale evictions following
the Zamindari Abolition Act and other reforms. It was pressure on the landlords
to resume their land for self-cultivation (capitalist cultivation). The
agrarian reform laws contained a proviso which excluded capitalist-type
landlord farms and plantations from the purview of reform. Of course, these
reforms did not per se lead to capitalist farming,
but the pressure was there and given other factors could and did lead to this.
E.g. In erstwhile Mumbai 70% and in erstwhile Hyderabad 59.8% of the land from
which the tenants were evicted were resumed for self-cultivation. These figures
vary from state to state. (That it did not sufficiently spur the zamindars of
permanent settlement areas should not be seen as a 'failure' of this policy.
Slow and gradual, away from the high road of mass movements, that is the path
of bourgeois-landlord reforms.)
The
occupancy raiyats, many of them already beginning to grow into rich peasants
were freed from the burden of overlordship. This was a small stratum of peasant
bourgeoisie created in this form of evolution of agricultural capitalism. The
ceiling acts were again a measure intended to act as a spur to change-over to a
landlordism of capitalist type. Thus we find that between every legislation and
its implementation, every announcement and legislation there is a big time-gap
to facilitate this process. It is a pity that this negative feature is taken as
a positive one and we find snivelling complaints against tardiness of land
reforms, ineffective implementation etc. by the 'communists'.
More,
this type of land reform leads to that special feature of reformism which
charactersied a whole trend in Russian Social Democracy following the Stolypin
reforms. If we take these reforms to be positive we get bogged down in
reformism. We complain about the tardiness of reforms and do not grasp the
class essence of this reform. After all the state sponsored reforms are also a
path to capitalist evolution of agriculture - but only a path. To quote Lenin -
"the
famous agrarian legislation introduced by Stolypin under Article 87 is
permeated through and through with the purely bourgeois spirit. There can be no
doubt it follows the line of capitalist evolution, facilities and pushes
forward that evolution hastens the expropriation of the peasantry, the
breaking-up of the village commune and the creation of a peasant bourgeoisie.
Without a doubt that legislation is progressive in the scientific-economic
sense.
But
does that mean that Social-Democrats should 'support' it? It does not. Only
vulgar Marxism can reason in that way, a Marxism whose seeds Plekhanov and the
Mensheviks are so persistently showing when they sign, shout, plead and
proclaim - we must support the bourgeoisie in its struggle against the old
order of things. No. To facilitate the development of the productive forces
(this highest criterion of social progress) we must support not bourgeois
evolution of the landlord type, but bourgeois evolution of the peasant type.
The former implies the utmost preservation of bondage and serfdom (remodelled
on bourgeois lines), the least rapid development of the productive forces, and
the retarded development of capitalism; it implies infinitely greater misery
and suffering, exploitation and oppression for the broad mass of the peasantry
and consequently, also for the proletariat. The second type implies the most
rapid development of the productive forces and the best possible (under
commodity production) conditions for existence for the mass of the peasantry.
The tactics of Social Democracy in the Russian bourgeois revolution are
determined not by the task of supporting the liberal bourgeoisie as the
opportunists think, but by the task if supporting the fighting peasantry."
(Agrarian Programme of S - D, Lenin/CW/13/243-44)
Herein
we can also trace the ideological roots of CPI & CPM's opportunism, its
reformism and support of the liberals (Jawahar Lal Nehru ect.). In as mush as
the agrarian reforms are "progressive" (albeit in the Stolypin sense)
these parties-support it. They find the bourgeoisie 'fulfilling' the tasks of
the democratic revolution and hence support it.
It
has got nothing to do with the characterisation of bourgeoisie as 'national' by
the CPI, CPI(M) as CPI(ML) - Liberation would have us believe -
"The
recognition of the opportunist trend in the Indian communist movement is first
of all related to the characterisation of the Indian bourgeoisiethey [CPI(M)]
basically emphasise the 'national' character of the bourgeoisie and hence its
capacity to led the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle. They tomtom its
capacity to transform indian society ... and as a natural corollary this
oppertunists trend refuses to organise the toiling peasents as the main force
in the democratic transformation". CPI(ML) Liberation."Bharatiya
communisto ki krantikari birasat ka drirha rakshak" P.9-10. Our translation)
Strange,
one would say because the CPI(M) characterises the Indian bourgeoisie as
'national' it refuses to organise the toilers - thus runs the above analysis.
Some logic indeed. If the bourgeoisie is 'national' in character then does it
signify the communists would not organise the toiling masses for the socialist
revolution? The very word 'national' is thought to create miracles - of
opportunism and of revolution. No, whether national or not the imperatives of
economic evolution forces itself through life. Stolypin was no national
bourgeois. Yet his reforms were 'progressive' in the scientific economic sense.
Here it is a question of two paths-capitalist evolution of landlord type and
the peasant type. The first path breeds illusions in the 'progressive'
character of the reforms and hence reformism. (The significance of the
'Naxalite' movement precisely lay in stressing the second path, the path away
from reformism, the path of realising the agrarian demands in a revolutionary
way. It squarely put forth the question of land with state power. Whatever the
ideological cloak that it took - Charu Mazumdar dubbed the emphasis on land seizure
as 'economism' - it was a radical break with the past, away from the path of
rallying around bourgeois-land-lord reforms. Our contention is that after
decades of capitalist evolution of bourgeois-landlord type we have a
predominantly capitalist India. the 'Naxalite' movement was the dying embers of
the possibility of the second path.)
Thus
the 'depressor' was sought to be removed through 'structural' changes of
bourgeois-landlord type. Through evictions and grant of sundry rights to the raiyat the landlord was being
'compelled' to go over to capitalist farming - there was no longer the raiyat or the tenant 'tempting'
him with 'fabulous rental prices'. (Here we are mentioning it only as a trend).
As to the 'low capital intensity', and 'antiquated method' referred to above
the state initiated the 'intensive Agricultural Development Programme' in 1960.
This was the effort at popularising modern inputs and practices in the most
productive areas, where these were more likely to show results, rather than spreading
the limited supply thinly over a large area. In 1965, a 'new strategy' for
agriculture for the 4th five-year plan was
outlined, with the following objectives:
"(1) to supply scientific technique and knowledge of
agricultural production at all stages, particularly in the fields;
(2) to select a few areas with assured rainfall and
irrigation for concentrated application of inputs based on improved varieties
of seed responsive to heavy doses of fertilisers, and on other modern inputs;
(3) to achieve higher production of subsidiary foods both
through intensive production programmes and overall development."
(Govt.
of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Agricultural Production in 4th five-year plan, Delhi,
1965)
In
the 'Green Revolution' it was the same strategy to put in inputs where they are
paying i.e. a profit-oriented strategy. Naturally, those with greater assets
could harness greater capital or credit and go in for 'modernised' or
'progressive' farming. Most suited to this strategy was the rich peasants and
landlords - again the Prussian Path of development in agriculture.
Though
it was argued by the proponents of the new strategy that the new technology was
'scale-neutral' it was only the rich peasants or landlords who could make use
of it. This technology was 'scale-neutral' only in the sense of participation
in the labour process i.e. bereft of the structure of social relations of
production this new technology could be used by anyone. But given the pattern
of relations of production only the landlord-rich peasant could use it for only
these classes could command the 'resources' (read capital) required for it.
Even where this was possible for the small-farmer it was costlier for him. Even
where the state 'stepped-in' it could not reach the small farmer as credit
through Co-operatives etc. Was in the stranglehold of the
landlord-bourgeoisie-rich peasantry, the state could not but favour these
sections given its class-character. The small peasant where he did make use of
this technology either met his ruin or in isolated cases was transformed into a
rich peasant.But this help can only be of a sporadic and meager nature. As
Engels say: -
"The
material sacrifice to be made for this purpose in the interest of the peasants
and to be defrayed out of public funds can, from the point of view of
capitalist economy, be viewed only as money thrown away."
(Marx-Engels/SW/3p.472) This is admitted by the RBI reports but in a
round-about way.
Over
the decades since the advent of the Green Revolution this technology has become
widespread in its use - self-perpetuating itself in an irrational manner
and causing tremendous loss to the small peasant. Capitalist agriculture is
subject to violent price fluctuations and consequently chronic periodic
overproduction and underproduction cycles - something to which the small
peasant economy is increasingly drawn into and subject to ruin. (e.g. The
sensational suicide of A.P. cotton farmers few years back due to this).
"The
greater the development of capitalist production, and consequently, the greater
the means of suddenly and permanently increasing that portion of constant
capital consisting of machinery, etc. and the more rapid the accumulation
(particularly in times of prosperity), so much greater the relative
over-production of machinery and other fixed capital, so much more frequent the
relative under-production of vegetable and animal raw materials, and so much
more pronounced the previously described rise of their prices and attendant
reaction." (K. Marx/Capital.vol.III/p.119).These 'convulsions' and the
crisis in capitalist economy (crisis of overproduction) lead to the greater
ruin of small peasant who cannot cope with this (new technology makes heavy
demand on his 'capital' and he has to stretch this limit). All this leads to
greater differentiation which has been consistently note in the 'Green
revolution' areas. This strategy first relied on the irrigated areas (command
areas). Then with the increasing use of tubewells, electric pump sets etc. it
was felt that groundwater resources are better suited to this type of
technology. Thereafter capital intensive agreeculture spreade rapidly to
non-command areas too. With time there was a general diffusion of this
technology into 'non-target', 'non-progressive' groups too i.e. to all types of
peasantry (whose survival became dependent on it), who could use it only in the
most haphazard, irrational manner. We find the process of sharp differentiation
and increasing use of new technology has become very widespread.
This
differentiation and capital intensive technology has created a vast home market
for capitalism in India. at this point we must deal with the question of the
restricted home market in India and its relation to land reform.
(b)
The
prejudice of a restricted home-market due to non-implementation of reforms:
First
of all let us deal with this theoretically. We will briefly state the Marxist
position on the question of the home-market based on vol.II of Capital (in the
section on reproduction) and delineated by Lenin as follows:
"On
the problem of interest to us, that of the home market, the main conclusion
from Marx's theory of realisation is the following: Capitalist production, and
consequently, the home-market, grow not so much on account of articles of
consumption as on account of means of production. In other words, the increase
in means of production outstrips the increase in articles of consumption.
Indeed, we have seen that constant capital in articles of consumption
(Deptt.II) is exchanged for variable capital + surplus value in means of
production (Deptt.I). According, however, to the general law of capitalist
production, constant capital grows faster than variable capital. Hence,
constant capital in articles of consumption has to increase faster than
variable capital and surplus value in articles of consumption, while constant
capital in means of production has to increase fastest of all, outstripping
both the increase of variable capital (+surplus value) in means of production
and the increase of constant capital in articles of consumption. The department
of social production which produces means of production has, consequently, to
grow faster than that producing articles of consumption. For capitalism,
therefore, the growth of the home-market is to a certain extent 'independent'
of the growth of personal consumption, and takes place mostly on account of
productive consumption. But it would be a mistake to understand this
'independence' as meaning that productive consumption is entirely divorced from
personal consumption: the former can and must increase faster than the latter
(and there its 'independence' ends), but it goes without saying that, in the
last analysis productive consumption is always bound up with personal
consumption." (Lenin/CW/3/p.54-55)
If
we compare the data on the elements of means of production (constant capital)
in agriculture we find a massive increase in production and consumption over
the years both absolutely and relatively (Table-II). This shows that the market
for means of production in agriculture over the years has grown tremendously.
It has grown because of the progressive use of these elements by the strata of
rich peasants and landlords (the rural bourgeoisie) and also other peasant
groups who today cannot dispense with these elements. Thus this signifies the
growth of the home-market precisely in the department described above by Lenin,
in that sector which grows faster and which to a certain extent is
'independent' of the growth of personal consumption ('purchasing power of the
peasantry' as our friends put it) i.e. growth of the home-market on account of
productive consumption. This productive consumption can grow only because of
the concentration of wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other.
("Capitalism is abolished root and branch by the bare assumption that it
is personal consumption and not enrichment that works as the compelling
motive." (K. Marx/Capital/vol.II/p.123)
This
fact, the fact of poverty and pauperisation is a consequence of capitalist
relations of production. It is a prejudice to lebel it as a manifestation of
pre-capitalist relationships (the existence of pre-capitalist relations may
render it more onerous, but about that later). If one compares 'standards' of
poverty between advanced capitalist countries and India (to prove
semi-feudalism etc.) one has most probably not understood Marx's concept of
impoverishment. Marx spoke of this not in the absolute sense - but as a tendency. Further, "poverty
grows not in the physical but in the social sense, i.e. in the sense of the
disparity between the increasing level of consumption by the bourgeoisie and
consumption by society as a whole, and the level of the living standards of the
people." Thus is it not ridiculous to compare the living standards of the
working people of the advanced capitalist countries and India, and to conclude
from this that Indian society is not capitalist? (This apart from the fact that
a section of the working people are thrown crumbs from the imperialist table.)
One might only go over the chapter on the 'General law of Capitalist
Accumulation' in Marx's Capital (vol.I) and draw his own conclusion. Further is
it rationalising poverty in India? No, there is no cause for complacency - one
of the counteracting factors is the organised fight of the working people
against this. Thus the answer is greater organisation and fight.
Now
the question of increasing impoverishment and the home-market. It is argued
that increasing impoverishment of the agricultural producers restricts the
home-market. The ills of the Indian economy are directly traced to this. Let us
see how Lenin treats this question: - "The writers.pose this question
theoretically, i.e., from the mere fact of the ruin of the small producers they
deduce shrinkage of the home-market. This view is absolutely incorrectIt is
forgotten that the 'freeing' of one section of the producers from the means of
production necessarily presumes the passage of the latter into other hands,
their conversion into capital, presumes consequently, that the new owners of
these means of production produce as commodities the products formerly consumed
by the producer himself, i.e. expand the home-market; that in expanding
production the new owners of the means of production present a demand to the
market for new implements, raw materials, means of transport, etc., and also
for articles of consumption (the enrichment of these new owners naturally
presumes an increase in their consumption). It is forgotten that it is by no
means the well-being of the producer that is important for the market but his
possession of money; the decline in the well-being of the patriarchal peasant,
who formerly conducted a mainly natural economy, is quite compatible with an
increase in the amount of money in his possession, for the more such a peasant
is ruined, the more he is compelled to resort to the sale of his labour power,
and the greater is the share of his (albeit scantier) means of subsistence that
he must acquire in the market." (Lenin/CW/3/p.41-42)
Thus
the differentiation of the peasantry has already created a home-market. We have
dealt at length on the question of the home-market, as land reforms are taken
as a key to the solution of the crisis in the India economy. This crisis of
India economy is there no doubt. But can its solution be land reforms? Land
reforms will make over land to the mass of the pauperized peasantry and thus
unleash the productivity of the 'masses', endow them with purchasing power and
create a vast home-market for Indian capitalism, which will mean rapid growth
and industrialisation - thus runs the dogma. What is the Marxist position? We
have already pointed out to the formation of the home-market. The question
remains about the Marxist-Leninist attitude to land redistribution. If we are
not to approach this question from the point of view of creation of the primary
and fundamental conditions for a real development of capitalism (we deal with
this below) then we can only point out to the great fallacy of the above dogma.
(We should at this point remind the reader that capitalism penetrates
agriculture extremely slowly as compared to industry; hence the relative
backwardness of agriculture and its uneven development should not make us
conclude that capitalist relations have not become predominant in agriculture).
Herman
Kriege writing on the 'American General Redistribution' stated: -
"Every
poor man will become a useful member of human society as soon as he is given an
opportunity to engage in productive work. He will be assured such an
opportunity for all time if society gives him a piece of land on which he can
keep himself and his family" and further expatiating upon it wrote of the
contentment and glow of the hearth of the small peasant. To which Marx
sarcastically replied "He might have added, 'this is my dunghill, which I,
my wife, my children, my manservant, and my cattle have produced'." Yes,
small scale agriculture means degradation, poverty, misery and extremely low
cultural level. It can only survive under capitalism because of
'under-consumption and overwork' (Lenin). Do our friends expect that the
home-market for capitalism will expand greatly because of this under
consumption? As Lenin said, "you cannot eat land"; to work out his
land the small peasant must have money. Is it possible for him to arrange for
capital under capitalism - no, as we pointed out that 'it will only mean money
thrown away' (Engels) and hence almost impossible. Marx says: -
"Proprietorship
of land parcels by its very nature excludes the development of social
productive forces of labour, social forms of labour, concentration of capital,
large-scale cattle raising, and the progressive application of science."
"Monstrous
waste of human energy. Progressive deterioration of conditions of production
and increased prices of means of production - an inevitable law of
proprietorship of parcels. Calamity of seasonal abundance for this mode of
production." (K. Marx/Capital/vol.III.p.807)
The
advocates of small-peasant economy argue that small farms have proved to be
more productive in India. In such cases it is well known, that it is because of
putting more labour per unit of land, 'overwork' of the small peasant as we
have pointed out. With the progress of capital intensive agriculture the
tendency of the big farmer to let a part of their land fallow has been noticed
in India. Lenin also noted the tendency towards a reduction of acreage with
growth of capital-intensive agriculture (LENIN/CW/22/p.46). (Marx has shown the
irrationality of capitalist agriculture both small and large.)
In
India these so-called productive small farms are also deficit ones. Those who
tout its productivity conveniently forget the poverty - 'under-consumption' of
the small peasant. Thus such 'productivity' concerns can only inform bourgeois
thinking. It is embellishment of capitalism which is precisely the cause of
ruin of the small peasant. The communists want to rid the peasant of his
poverty and low cultural life. The petty-bourgeois economist embellishes his
conditions. Higher 'Productivity'! At what cost? That is not what they seek to
answer - see what Lenin writes -
"The
small farmer must inevitably make up for the lack of these advantages
(machinery etc. used by large farms-ed.) by greater industry and frugality (he
has no other weapons in his struggle for existence),and for this reason those
qualities are not merely casual but always and inevitably distinguish the small
farmer in capitalist society. The bourgeois economist.call this the virtue of
thrift, perseverance etc.,..ascribing it to the peasant as a merit. The socialist
calls it overwork and underconsumption and holds capitalism
responsible for it; he tries to open the eyes of the peasant to the deception
practised by those who deliver Manilov orations, picturing social degradation
as a virtue and trying to perpetuate it." (Lenin/CW/5/p.206)
We
have shown through the question of the home-market the decisive predominance
of capitalist relations in India (and in agriculture in particular) [See Table II and remarks] . We have a capitalist India
before us. We need not look back, but forward to the socialist revolution which
has come on the agenda of the day.
Then
why do we support redistribution of land (at the stage of democratic
revolution)? Politically, to rally the peasantry behind the proletariat to
fight the pre-capitalist order to break the backbone of the feudal and allied
classes and achieve the most consistent democratic revolution. Economically, it
means confiscation of the feudal landed estates, contending with the lumber of
history and for a wide development of capitalism. It also means doing away at
one stroke with all those pre-capitalist relations which make the peasant's
condition more onerous and hinders the rapid development of capitalism. (see also Lenin's quote on
Stolypin reforms above ) Of the two paths India has already
traversed the bourgeois-landlord path and there cannot be any question of the
option of the second path today.
To
conclude we must state that some distribution of land might also become
necessary from the point of view of success of proletarian revolution, for
rallying around the small and even the middle peasantry, in the interest of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, in the interest of the alliance of the
proletariat and the peasantry, the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This question will arise as and when the course of events during the revolution
raises it (given the actual correlation of class forces at that time). Lenin
states -
"The
Communist International is of the opinion that in the case of the advanced capitalist
countries it would be correct to keep most of the bit agricultural enterprises
intact and to conduct them on the lines of the 'state farm' in Russia."
It
would, however, be grossly erroneous to exaggerate or to stereotype this rule
.the
objection raised to this, namely, that large-scale farming is technically
superior, often amounts to an indisputable theoretical truth being replaced by
the worst kind of opportunism and betrayal of the revolution. To achieve the
success of this revolution, the proletariat should not shrink from a temporary
decline in production, anymore than the bourgeois opponents of slavery in North
America shrank from a temporary decline in cotton production as a consequence
of the civil war of 1863-65. What is most important to the bourgeois is
production for the sake of production; what is important to the working and
exploited population is the overthrow of the exploiters and the creation of
conditions that will permit the working people to work for themselves, and not
for the capitalists. It is the primary and fundamental task of the proletariat
to ensure the proletarian victory and its stability. There can, however, be no
stable proletarian government unless the middle peasantry is neutralised and
the support is secured of a very considerable section of the small peasantry if
not all of them.
Second,
not merely an increase but even the preservation of large-scale production in
agriculture presupposes the existence of a fully developed and revolutionary
conscious rural proletariat with considerable experience of trade union and
political organisation behind it. Where this condition does not yet exist, or
where this work cannot expediently be entrusted to class-conscious and
competent industrial workers, hasty attempts to set up large state conducted
farms can only discredit to proletarian government. Under such conditions the
utmost caution be exercised and the most thorough preparations made when state
farms are set up.
Third,
in all capitalist countries even the most advanced, there still exist survivals
of medieval, semi-feudal exploitation of the neighboring small peasants by the
big landowners. . In such cases it is incumbent on the proletarian state to
grant the small peasants free use of the lands they formerly rented, since no
other economic or technical basis exists, and it cannot be created at one
stroke." (LENIN/CW/31/p.159-61)
Thus,
Lenin mentioned conditional distribution for the success of the
revolution and from no philistine concerns of expanding home-market.
--
Distribution
of land is also advocated on the grounds of the belief that only one form of
land tenure is conducive to the growth of capitalism. It is well-expressed by
Red Star -
"there
is a confusing concept in our revolutionary literature that capitalist
development in agriculture is possible only in a specific type of land tenure
system. It is true that a congenial land tenure system accelerates capitalist
development in agriculture but it is also equally true that no type of land
tenure system can prevent it. In our country this misleading concept provides
tons of arguments to prove the presence of feudal system in agriculture today
and this goes to the extent of closing eyes from the facts." (Red
Star/CLI/ed. Ramnath/ 2 March, 1985)
To
quote Marx -
".the
monopoly of landed property is a historical premise, and continues to remain
the basis of the capitalist mode of production, just as in all previous modes
of production which are based on the exploitation of the masses in one form or
another. But the form of landed property with which the incipient capitalist
mode of production is confronted does not suit it. It first creates for itself
the form required by subordinating agriculture to capital. It thus transforms
feudal landed property, clan property, small peasant property in mark communes
- no matter how divergent their juristic forms may be - into the economic form
corresponding to the requirements of this mode of production." (K.
Marx/Capital/vol.III/p.617)
Again
Red Star writes: -
"Second,
we will now discuss another confusing concept present in the revolutionary
literature. In support of agriculture being essentially feudal, it is full of
these types of statements that there is inhuman exploitation of agricultural
labourers, that poor peasants are being ejected from their lands. It is true
that all this has happened in India, but these are not characteristics of
feudal but of capitalist system. Agricultural labourers and poor peasants fall
prey to inhuman exploitation by capital. The new exploiter sucks every drop of
their blood and marrow and throws them on the road as a helpless slave to
capital. New contradictions get sharpened immediately.
If
seen from the communist point of view, the result of this is that the
class-contradictions became clearer and get sharpened; naturally, the ground is
prepared for the class struggle, class polarisation accentuates and the
alignment of friendly classes becomes easier." (ibid./p.80)
Well
put. The ousting of the peasantry from land, their growing pauperization are the
results of capitalism and not feudalism. The existence of small peasant
agriculture is taken as a sign of feudalism and at the same time concentration
of land is also dubbed feudalism! [Marx in his article 'Socialism and Taxes'
(Marx-Engels/CW/10/p.335) even noted the rotation of concentration and
parcellisation of land in capitalist society]. Let us see what Lenin says
about this. Analysing the agricultural statistics of USA, then the most advanced capitalist
country,
Lenin says: -
"In
effect, the fundamental and principal trend of capitalism is the displacement
of small-scale by large-scale production, both in industry and agriculture. But
this displacement should not be interpreted merely as immediate expropriation.
Displacement also implies the ruin of the small farmers and a worsening of
conditions on their farms, a process that may go on for years and decades. This
deterioration assumes a variety of forms, such as the small farmers overwork or
malnutrition, his heavy debts, worse feed and poorer care of
livestock in general, poorer husbandry-cultivation, fertilization and the like
- as well as technical stagnation an the firm, etc." (Lenin/CW/22/p.70)
Further,
extremely low wages of the agricultural labourer is also seen as a
manifestation of feudalism. Let us see what Marx says about this: -
".the
constant flow towards the towns presupposes, in the country itself, a constant
latent surplus-population, the extent of which becomes evident only when its
channels of outlet open to exceptional width. The agricultural laborer is
therefore reduced to the minimum of wages, and always stands with one foot
already in the swamp of pauperism." (Capital/vol.I/p.602) and this (wages)
many a time even below the physical minimum!
But
then, the law of impoverishment under capitalism is rendered more onerous in
the presence of pre-capitalist fetters. In order not to present a one-sided
picture we must take this into account. (see our section on 'feudal remnants'). Let us note a few points
in order not to confuse capitalism with feudalism and to define our attitude to
the agrarian problem: -
In
his review of Kautsky's book 'Die Agrarfrage' Lenin writes: -
"It
would be absurd to think, says Kautsky, in conclusion, that one part of the
society develops in one direction and another in the opposite direction. In
actual fact 'social development' in agriculture is taking the same direction as
in industry."
Applying
the results of theoretical analysis to question of agrarian policy . The
radical transformation of agriculture by capitalism a process that is only just
beginning, but it is one that is advancing rapidly, bringing about the
transformation of the peasant into a hired laborer and increasing the flight of
the population from the countryside. Attempts to check this process will be
reactionary and harmful; no matter how burdensome the consequences of this
process in present day society, the consequences of checking the process would
be still worse and would place the working population in a still more helpless
and hopeless position. Progressive action in present-day society can only
strive to lessen to harmful effects which capitalist advance exerts on the
population, to increase the consciousness of the people and their capacity for
collective self-defense." (Lenin/CW/4/p.98-99)
The
extremely slow and gradual penetration of capitalism in agriculture and the
varied forms it gives rise to often foster the illusion that it is feudalism
that is dominating agriculture. e.g. :-
"Lastly,
it must be observed that sometimes the labor-service system passes into the
capitalist system and merges with it to such an extent that it becomes almost
impossible to distinguish one from the other. For example, a peasant rents a
plot of land, undertaking in return to perform a definite number of days' work.
How are we to draw a line of demarcation between such a 'peasant' and the
West-European or Ostee 'farm-labourer' who receives a plot of land on
undertaking to work a 'definite number of days'.Life creates forms that unite
in themselves with remarkable gradualness systems of economy whose basic
feature constitute opposites. It becomes impossible to say where
'labor-service' ends and where 'capitalism' begins." (Lenin/CW/3/p.197)
Historically
agriculture always lags behind industry. To quote Marx: -
"This
historical phenomena is the faster development of manufacture (in fact the
truly bourgeois branch of industry). Whereas in manufacture productivity has
increased tenfold, in agriculture it has, perhaps, doubled. Agriculture has
therefore become relatively less productive, although absolutely more
productive. This only proves the very queer development of bourgeois production
and its inherent contradiction." (K. Marx/Theories of Surplus
Value/Part-II/p.18)
This
contradiction between agriculture and industry might foster the illusion that
while there is capitalism in industry, agriculture is predominantly feudal.
Lastly,
let us recall our quote from Lenin that even in the most advanced capitalist
countries semi-feudal remnants can be found. It is in light of all these
observations that we should try to characterise agrarian India.
( ii )
TABLE II AND REMARKS
Table
II (a) shows the percentage of HYV in the total area under food-grains. The use
of HYV seeds as is well known necessarily entails the use of other inputs like
artificial fertilisers, pesticides etc. The all-India and state-wise figures
show the very high percentage of HYV in the total cropped area. This is a sure
indicator of the widespread use of 'modern inputs' (productive consumption).
This shows that not only the upper-bracket makes use of these inputs but its
use is spread over all groups. (This notwithstanding the obvious fact which we
have already noted - the most haphazard, irrational and non-optional use of
these inputs that the small peasant can make).
Table
II(b) shows the great increase in the use of fertilizers (per hectare
consumption) state-wise. The all-India figures show an increase of 606 percent
from 1968-69 to 1989-90.
Tables
II(c) to (h) and (k) show the following percentage growth (All-India figures
concerning the main states) over the years.
|
Item
|
Period
|
Percentage/Growth
|
|
Energisation Of Pump Sets/Tubewells
|
1960-91
|
4458
|
|
Installation Of Diesel Pump Sets
|
1960-85
|
1916
|
|
Tractor In Use
|
1966-85
|
1667
|
|
Electrification - Number Of Villages Electrified In
|
1950-51
1990-91
|
0.5%
82.7%
|
|
Institutional Credit
|
1950-90
|
54258
|
|
Number Of The Rural Branches Of Banks[Table II (i)]
|
1969
1990
|
22.2%
56.6%
|
|
Production Of Quality Seeds
|
1980-84
|
233
|
|
Power Generated In Agriculture Secture[Table II (f)]
|
1950
1989-90
|
4.2%
25%
|
The
relatively tremendous growth of productive consumption over the years shows the
development of capitalism on account of Department I. The tremendous flow of
institutional credit can be seen as an indicator of this growth. This shows the
growth of the home-market as pointed out. The increase in the number of
tractors from 1950-51 to 1970-71, [Table II(j) (17 times)] shows the measure of
increase in productive consumption in post-independent India.
That
nearly all groups of peasants are also drawn into it shows this development is
very widespread (and the extent of this home-market) notwithstanding the tardy
and spasmodic nature of this development. As Lenin points our -
"This
process of transformation must, by the very nature of capitalism, take place in
the midst of much that is uneven and disproportionate: periods of prosperity
alternate with periods of crisis, the development of one industry leads to the
decline of another, there is progress in one aspect of agriculture in one area
and in another aspect in another area, the growth of trade and industry
outstrips the growth of agriculture, etc. A large number of errors
made by Narodnik writers springs from their efforts to prove that this
disproportionate, spasmodic, feverish development is not development." (Lenin/CW/3/p.597)
Further,
it is often contended that -
"The
slogan of industrialisation by the Indian rulers is a kind of evasion from the
problem of having to tackle the colonial economy inherited from British
imperialism, an evasion of direct confrontation with foreign capital and with
the semi-feudal landlord economy. This call "to speed up" the growth
of industrial output -
"In
effect implies the perpetuation of a modernised enclave economy familiar from
colonial economic experience," and "calls for minimal disturbance of
the established institutional framework".., (Gunner Myrdal; Asian Drama)
To
hope to industrialise India under these objective conditions is to build
castles in the air and deception of the worst kind." ('India Mortgaged' -
T. Nagi Reddy, p.45)
This
attempt to show that capitalism has not taken hold of the Indian economy is
useless. We have shown the growth of the home market especially with reference
to agrarian India and its relation with the extensive growth of productive
consumption (However slow and gradual that this transformation has been - that
is not the point).
It
may be noted that even the small peasant today markets his products. That is,
he produces for the market. He is linked to it through this and his productive
(and individual) consumption too. Thus India Capitalism is based on generalised
commodity production. Technical progress is based upon this production. It is
wrong to picturise the advanced sectors of this economy as an 'enclave
economy'. (We have spoken enough about agriculture lagging behind industry
under capitalism). This portrayal wants to show Narodnik-like that this
industry is not part of the Indian economy. It is made out that though
capitalism has developed a few industries it has not taken hold of the economy
as a whole (i.e. no development in breadth) and any thought of industrialisation
is dubbed 'building castles in the air'.
Lenin
criticised this notion, calling it absurd -
"it
is wrong to divide the development of capitalism into development in breadth
and in depth: the entire development proceeds on account of division of labor;
there is no " essential" difference between the two features.
Actually however, the difference between them boils down to different stages of
technical progress."
(Lenin/CW/1/p.105)
The
relatively rapid growth of Department I (branches producing means of Production
- technical progress) on account of agriculture also shows the fallacy of this
argument.
We
might be accused of 'overestimation' of capitalism in India. However we also
decide this in the crucible of agrarian struggles, a description of which
follows. Further we test the portrayal of semi-feudal India by the protagonists
of the democratic revolution on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory.
Table - II (a)
Percentage of HYV in the total area under foodgrains
|
State
|
1988-1990
|
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
74
|
|
Assam
|
51
|
|
Bihar
|
75
|
|
Gujrat
|
68
|
|
Haryana
|
83
|
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
64
|
|
Jammu & Kashmir
|
71
|
|
Karnataka
|
48
|
|
Kerala
|
77
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
49
|
|
Maharastra
|
63
|
|
Orissa
|
51
|
|
Punjab
|
91
|
|
Rajasthan
|
36
|
|
Tamilnadu
|
98
|
|
Utter Pradesh
|
73
|
|
West Bengal
|
50
|
|
All India
|
64
|
Table - II (b)
Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilisers(Kg.)
|
State
|
1968-1969
|
1989-1990
|
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
23.9
|
131.1
|
|
Assam
|
3.2
|
6.1
|
|
Bihar
|
7.3
|
54.1
|
|
Gujrat
|
9.4
|
62.3
|
|
Haryana
|
10.2
|
94.4
|
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
5.3
|
36.6
|
|
Jammu & Kashmir
|
11.2
|
53.6
|
|
Karnataka
|
10.1
|
66.0
|
|
Kerala
|
13.0
|
74.5
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
1.7
|
30.3
|
|
Maharastra
|
6.7
|
59.5
|
|
Orissa
|
3.2
|
19.8
|
|
Punjab
|
34.4
|
158.6
|
|
Rajasthan
|
2.0
|
17.7
|
|
Tamilnadu
|
24.6
|
119.7
|
|
Utter Pradesh
|
15.3
|
83.0
|
|
West Bengal
|
8.1
|
81.7
|
|
All India
|
189.6
|
1149
|
Table - II (c)
Energisation of Pump Sets , cumulative ('000 s)
|
State
|
1960-61
|
1980-81
|
1990-91
|
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
18.0
|
471.6
|
1165.4
|
|
Assam
|
-
|
1.9
|
35.1
|
|
Bihar
|
3.2
|
159.7
|
255.4
|
|
Gujrat
|
7.0
|
231.2
|
460.4
|
|
Haryana
|
3.5
|
281.3
|
358.8
|
|
Karnataka
|
16.9
|
310.9
|
723.0
|
|
Kerala
|
2.7
|
90.4
|
222.2
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
1.8
|
315.4
|
878.7
|
|
Maharastra
|
7.2
|
657.9
|
1607.5
|
|
Orissa
|
-
|
17.4
|
51.3
|
|
Punjab
|
8.6
|
291.0
|
601.8
|
|
Rajasthan
|
1.0
|
204.9
|
389.1
|
|
Tamilnadu
|
117.7
|
912.4
|
1318.7
|
|
Utter Pradesh
|
9.9
|
399.1
|
649.3
|
|
West Bengal
|
-
|
28.8
|
89.2
|
|
All India(Main States)
|
197.5
|
4333.6
|
8818.3
|
Table - II (d)
Installation of Diesel Pump Sets , cumulative (' 000 s)
|
State
|
1960-61
|
1980-81
|
1984-85
|
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
33.9
|
272.0
|
308.0
|
|
Assam
|
-
|
11.1
|
18.7
|
|
Bihar
|
3.2
|
59.1
|
71.5
|
|
Haryana
|
1.2
|
97.5
|
133.5
|
|
Karnataka
|
10.0
|
137.0
|
173.0
|
|
Kerala
|
3.4
|
73.3
|
93.3
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
9.7
|
28.6
|
34.6
|
|
Maharastra
|
63.7
|
596.5
|
732.5
|
|
Orissa
|
1.2
|
50.0
|
58.0
|
|
Punjab
|
7.0
|
220.0
|
248.0
|
|
Rajasthan
|
2.5
|
93.5
|
115.5
|
|
Tamilnadu
|
36.8
|
911.0
|
1231.0
|
|
Utter Pradesh
|
8.4
|
149.3
|
177.3
|
|
West Bengal
|
3.6
|
119.0
|
143.0
|
|
All India(Main States)
|
184.6
|
|
3537.9
|
Table - II (e)
No. of Tractors in use (in Hundreds)
|
State
|
1966
|
1972
|
1982
|
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
29
|
63
|
215
|
|
Assam
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
|
Bihar
|
21
|
56
|
146
|
|
Gujrat
|
32
|
79
|
282
|
|
Haryana
|
49
|
184
|
614
|
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
-
|
3
|
9
|
|
Jammu & Kashmir
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
|
Karnataka
|
26
|
57
|
205
|
|
Kerala
|
4
|
15
|
13
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
25
|
50
|
236
|
|
Maharastra
|
33
|
56
|
215
|
|
Orissa
|
7
|
18
|
12
|
|
Punjab
|
106
|
424
|
1065
|
|
Rajasthan
|
42
|
106
|
547
|
|
Tamilnadu
|
33
|
54
|
144
|
|
Utter Pradesh
|
101
|
276
|
1422
|
|
West Bengal
|
15
|
7
|
19
|
|
All India
|
532
|
1482
|
5185
|
The
Figures for 1984-85 are 8870 (IEIY, 1991-1992)
Table - II (f)
Pattern of power utilisation : Trends (percent)
|
Types of User
|
1951
|
1960-61
|
1980-81
|
1989-90
|
|
Domestic
|
12.4
|
10.7
|
11.2
|
16.1
|
|
Commercial
|
6.9
|
6.1
|
5.7
|
5.8
|
|
Industrial Power
|
63.8
|
69.4
|
58.4
|
46.3
|
|
Railways (Traction)
|
6.9
|
3.3
|
2.7
|
2.4
|
|
Agriculture
|
4.2
|
6.0
|
17.6
|
25.0
|
|
Others
|
5.9
|
4.5
|
4.4
|
4.4
|
Source
for Table II (a) to Table II (e) : Basic Statistics relating to Indian Economy,
Vol. 2; states (September 1991); CMIE, Bombay.
Table - II (g)
Village Electrification
|
Year
|
Villages Electrified
|
|
Number
|
As % Of Total No. of
Villages
|
|
1950-1951
|
3061
|
0.5
|
|
1955-1956
|
7294
|
1.3
|
|
1960-1961
|
21754
|
3.8
|
|
1965-1966
|
45148
|
7.8
|
|
1968-1969
|
73739
|
12.8
|
|
1970-1971
|
106774
|
18.5
|
|
1973-1974
|
156729
|
27.2
|
|
1977-1978
|
216863
|
37.6
|
|
1978-1979
|
232770
|
40.4
|
|
1979-1980
|
249799
|
43.4
|
|
1980-1981
|
272625
|
47.3
|
|
1981-1982
|
296511
|
51.5
|
|
1982-1983
|
323881
|
56.2
|
|
1983-1984
|
347561
|
60.3
|
|
1984-1985
|
370332
|
64.2
|
|
1985-1986
|
390294
|
67.7
|
|
1986-1987
|
414895
|
71.2
|
|
1987-1988
|
435653
|
75.2
|
|
1988-1989
|
455491
|
78.4
|
|
1989-1990
|
470580
|
81.3
|
|
1990-1991
|
478966
|
82.7
|
Table - II (h)
Flow Of Institution Credit For Agriculture(Rs. Crores)
|
Institution
|
1950-51
|
1960-61
|
1970-71
|
1980-81
|
1985-86
|
1988-89
|
1989-90
|
|
Co-operative Credit
Society
|
|
Short Term
|
22.9
|
183
|
519
|
1526
|
2747
|
3833
|
4223
|
|
Medium Term
|
--
|
20
|
69
|
237
|
394
|
381
|
416
|
|
Long Term
|
1.3
|
12
|
101
|
363
|
543
|
731
|
869
|
|
Total
|
24.2
|
214
|
679
|
2126
|
3683
|
4944
|
5508
|
|
Commercial Banks &
Regional Rural Banks
|
|
Total
|
n.a
|
n.a
|
206
|
1263
|
3110
|
6310
|
7515
|
|
Grand Total
|
24
|
24
|
885
|
3389
|
6793
|
11254
|
13022
|
Source
: IEIY, 1991-92
Table - II (i)
Population Groupwise Distribution of Commercial Bank Offices
|
Type Of Area
|
As at the end of June
|
|
1969
|
1971
|
1976
|
1981
|
1985
|
1990
|
|
Rural
|
1833
(22.2%)
|
4279
(35.6%)
|
7687
(36.2%)
|
17656
(49.4%)
|
30185
(58.7%)
|
33640
(57.6%)
|
|
Semi-Urban
|
3342
(40.5%)
|
4016
(33.4%)
|
6387
(30.1%)
|
8471
(23.7%)
|
9816
(19.1%)
|
11201
(19.2%)
|
|
Urban
|
1584
(19.2%)
|
1778
(14.8%)
|
3739
(17.6%)
|
5454
(15.3%)
|
6578
(12.8%)
|
7553
(12.9%)
|
|
Metropolitan/Port Towns
|
1503
(18.1%)
|
1940
(16.2%)
|
3407
(1.61%)
|
4126
(11.6%)
|
4806
(9.4%)
|
6023
(10.3%)
|
|
Total
|
8262
(100.0%)
|
12013
(100.0%)
|
21220
(100.0%)
|
35707
(100.0%)
|
51385
(100.0%)
|
58417
(100.0%)
|
Source
: IEIY, 1991-92
Table - II (j)
|
Agreeculture Implements
& Machinery
|
1951
|
1972
|
|
Oil Engine Pumps
|
83000
|
1546000
|
|
Electric Pumps
|
26000
|
1618000
|
|
Tractors
|
8600
|
148200
|
Source : Statistical Abstract of India, 1978
Table - II (k)
Progress in the use of quality seeds (Lakh Quintals)
|
Item
|
1980-81
|
1981-82
|
1982-83
|
1984-85
|
|
Production of Breeder Seeds.
|
0.05
|
0.04
|
0.17
|
0.29
|
|
Production of Certified Seeds.
|
21.5
|
24.2
|
36.6
|
50.0
|
|
Distribution of Certified Quality Seeds.
|
25.0
|
29.8
|
42.1
|
48.0
|
Source
: IEIY, A.N.Agarwal et al 1991-92
(VI)
The
Class Struggles in Agrarian India
In
order to give a brief appraisal of the agrarian struggles carried out by the
two revisionist communist parties namely the CPI(M) and CPI after independence
we will quote at length from the All-India Kisan Sabha report by H.S. Surjeet -
"Comrades,
land to the tiller and total abolition of landlordism have been basic slogans
of the Kisan Sabha since its inception - let me state here at the outset that
the seizure and distribution of the land of the landlords still remain the
central slogan of the kisan sabha to propagate amoung the peasantry and other
democratic classes. Without a victory of this slogan, there cannot be any
solution to rural poverty, unemployment in the country and so on.
But
the correlation of class forces which existed at the time when the Kisan Sabha
inscribed these aims in its programme are not the same that exist today..
.These
land reforms had only very limited objectives the main one of which was to
reform not abolish the old type feudal landlordism by converting the absentee
feudal landlords into capitalist landlords personally supervising cultivation
in large farms with farm servants and hired agricultural workers. This is the
new type landlord, who combines in himself elements of both feudalism and
capitalism. Another objective was to create a stratum of rich peasants. These
two sections were to constitute the political base of the ruling party in rural
areas.
We
have also to note the phenomena of the magnetization of the entire agrarian
economy. Today, it is not only those who have a surplus who are taking their
produce to the market, even the poor peasant, immediately after the harvest,
for various reasons sells his produce in the market and later buys even his
food-grains requirement from the market..20% of the rural households are poor
peasants possessing one or two acres of wet or 2 to 5 acres of dry land. Apart
from working on their land, they have to frequently hire themselves out to earn
a living.
The
last 50% are those who own no land at all, they earn their livelihood mainly by
hiring themselves out as wage-workers or are engaged in handicrafts, village
services, etc..
What
has to be noted is that unlike in pre-independence days, 25% of peasants - rich
and middle peasants - are not moved any longer by the slogan of seizure of landlord's
lands and its distribution. At the other end the 70% of landless and poor
peasants are not conscious and organised enough to go into action for the
seizure of the landlords lands, even when they are moved into action, it is
only for government waste land, cultivable forest land, etc. Regarding even
surplus land above the ceiling which the landlords are keeping illegally, the
struggles as in Kerala or recently in Andhra Pradesh could not go beyond the
stage or locating such surplus land occupied..
The
ruling class parties, whether Congress or Janata also used their control over
Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads and also cooperatives, rural
banks, etc. to perpetuate the division in the peasantry and the disruption of
their unity.
...Complete
abolition of landlordism and distribution of land to the landless and land-poor
continues to be the central slogan of the agrarian revolution, a slogan which
we have to continue to propagate. But it is a slogan on which we cannot go into
action today in most parts of the country." (Kisan Sabha leads struggles
H.S. Surjeet-General Secretary Report of AIKS, 1979)
(Similar
is the tenor of the report of the General Secretary, All India Kisan Sabha, a
CPI mass front. See 'The Changing Agrarian Scene, Problems and Tasks' -
Indradeep Sinha, June 1979.)
What
is remarkable here is the candour with which the predominance of
capitalist-relations in agriculture is admitted, the differentiation among the
peasantry noted. But with all that Surjeet is not willing to blaspheme. While
admitting that we cannot go into action with the slogan of land (to the
tiller), he again and again reasserts the central slogan - "Land to the
tiller".
It
is almost as if events are forcing the CPI(M) to abandon the slogan 'land to
the tiller' and move from the democratic revolution to the stage of socialist
revolution. But of course that would be sacrilege.
Writing
in "The Marxist", Surjeet says -
"While
working to forge all-in peasant unity to successfully build the people's
democratic front the CPI(M) stresses the Marxist-Leninist teaching that this
unity has to be based on the poor peasant and agricultural worker, the basic
ally of the working class in the rural areas. To forget this and base the
forging of the peasant unity on the more influential rich peasant section will
lead to reformist deviations from which our peasant movement has suffered till
it was given the new orientation of basing on the rural poor. Similarly
Marxism-Leninism is insistent that the agricultural workers should be organised
separately in their own organisation. This is necessary not only for the
victory of the democratic revolution but to advance it as quickly as possible
to the stage of the socialist revolution. To recall the words of Lenin, 'The
object of the Russian Social Democratic Party in all circumstances and
whatever the situation of democratic agrarian reform, is steadily to strive for
the independent class organisation of the rural
proletariat: to explain that its interests are
irreconcilably opposed to those of the peasant bourgeoisie, to warn it against
being tempted by small-scale ownership, which cannot, so long as commodity
production exists, abolish poverty among the masses, and lastly, to urge the
necessity for a complete socialist revolution as the only means of abolishing
all poverty and all exploitation." (CW/10/p.195)". (The Marxist, vol.
one, July-Sept. 1983, p.84)
If
it was a deviation, what is at its root? Partly, it was the class-basis of the
party which was responsible for it - the bulk of its membership came from the
middle and rich peasantry. As the CPI(M) admits in its 1973 Muzaffarpur
resolution -
"The
struggle against revisionism inside the Indian communist movement will neither
be fruitful nor effective unless alien class orientation and work among the
peasantry are completely discarded. No doubt this is not an easy task, since it
is deep rooted and long-accumulated and also because the bulk of our leading
Kisan activists come from rich and middle peasant origin rather than from agricultural
labourers and poor peasantry. Their class origin, social links and the long
training given to them give a reformist ideological political orientation which
is alien to the proletarian class-point.." (C.C. resolution "On
certain agrarian issues and an explanation note" by P. Sundarayya).
This
is the class basis of a party which would subordinate the working class
movement to the bourgeoisie and water-down the fight of the agricultural
workers ensuring the hegemony of the rural bourgeoisie. Its movement has to
remain bogged down in the democratic periphery and cannot advance to the slogan
of socialism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In
the document adopted by C.C. in 1976...it is stated that "the Kisan
movement led by our party while projecting the land seizure and its
distribution slogan as the central propaganda slogan,, will have to channelise
many other agrarian currentsso that all these currents might be harnessed into
one big agrarian stream. Otherwise, the maximum peasant unity, isolating the
handful of landlords and their hirelings cannot be achieved." (The
Marxist, vol. one, July-Sep. 83, p.85)
Again
the concern for maximum unity to achieve the elusive democratic revolution,
threatens to keep the fight within bourgeois bounds. (The CPI & CPM had to
contend with ground realities and were forced to form separate agricultural
workers unions later. But the Naxalite groups still hold that it is a renegade
move to form such unions, for they disrupt 'all-in' peasant unity so essential
for the democratic revolution. We have seen Surjeet's quote from Lenin above.
If one wants to move from the democratic to the socialist stage uninterruptedly
one must subscribe to such a view. But obviously the Naxalites see a Chinese
wall between the 'two-stages' of the revolution.)
We
will take a bird's eye view of the agrarian struggles immediately after
independence and in the seventies and later and compare the difference.
Let
us begin with the heroic Telengana struggle. This struggle which shook the
Nizam's rule, undermined landlordism, waged war on exorbitant rents, usurious
rates of interest and other illegal exactions, 'vetti' (unpaid labour) etc.
ultimately invited the intervention of the Indian army in favour of the
landlords. However, as Sundarayya notes it was only after the 'Police action'
that "strike-struggle or threat of strikes that real increase in wages
took place".
Writing
later Sundarayya notes the difference in the situation thus -
"But
it is also necessary to note the changing socio-economic structure in the areas
of the Old Telengana peasant movement and the consequent changing correlation
of forces in the countryside.
The
landlords who ran away or were driven out of the villages during that movement,
has trekked back and reconsolidate their positions in the rural areas. They
seized back most of their Seri lands and sold most of the anyakrantalu lands under the old tenants
to other rich cultivators and some protected tenants, who got the right of
first purchase under the land law enacted in 1950 and later under the impact of
the Telengana peasant movement. The derive to deprive the peasants and
agricultural labourers of the waste land they have been cultivating is going on
and bitter struggle for 'Patta' right for this land goes on. The Land Ceiling
Acts are only on paper, no land over so-called ceiling is taken over or
distributed.
These
landlords are buttressed by the growth of new strata in the rural areas, the
capitalist farmers, the capitalist landlords
A
considerable section of middle peasants has also grown. This growth of the new
rich and middle peasantry is specially linked with the growth of irrigation
under small river projects and under Nagarjunsagar lands and under lands with
electric pumps.
The
landlords have not only changed their pattern of land-ownership and
cultivation, but also their tactics of fighting the growing people's movements.
They adopt tactics of dividing the ranks of the people's movement, alongwith
their methods of brutal terror and repression. They promise land and actually
give it to certain sections of the rural poor based on castes and
communities.They utilised the community projects, cooperative societies,
electricity for wells, fertilisers etc. to improve their hold over the middle
and rich peasantry. They try to monopolised all the key administrative posts in
various governmental departments. They resorts to every foul method to dominate
the village panchayats, panchayat Samity and Zilla-parishads to garner all
benefits through these local bodies.
Because
of these reasons, today in these 300 villages where our movement and party had
a major position, a considerable section of the rural poor, a large percentage
of the middle and rich peasantry are with the Congress. In fact the agrarian
movement now-a-days is not in such a strong position to take up as a practical
issue the question of land seizure or distribution of the lands of the
landlords over a minimum ceiling which would ensure land to the tiller. The
movement is just forced to defend possession of and the right to continue
cultivation of waste lands; or just take up the same old minimum wages demand
for agricultural labor, which we demanded and enforced over two decades ago.
(Telengana People's struggles and its lessons/pg.437-439)
What
Sundarayya notes here is the growth of capitalist relations of production in
Telengana, the result of the bourgeois-landlord path of capitalist evolution.
The manipulation of various government agencies by the landlord-rich-peasantry
is typical of this path, the Prussian path, it cannot be otherwise. The demands
today are precisely those directed against encroachments of capital (the fight
against semi-feudal relations - 'vetti', illegal exactions etc. have mainly been
settled long ago) - to defend possession of wasteland (the pauperised
peasantry's desire to hold on to his land) and the 'same old' fight for minimum
wages for agricultural labour. Under capitalism, under 'peaceful' conditions
agricultural labour will have to fight for wages whether 'same old' or not. But
what is of importance to note here is the correlation of class-forces - the
rich and middle peasantry ganging up with landlords (as happens in any
'Junker-bourgeois' country) and ranged against the poor-peasantry and
agricultural labourer. More, through the insidious system of state
(bourgeois-landlord state) patronage (something which Marx, Engles and Lenin
warned against), it has been able to devide the agricultural workers. All this
is typical of 'sucessful' evolution of the bourgeois-landlord path, into a
bourgeois economy.
Let
us shift to Srikakulam-Girijan movement. Since 1959, the Girijan Sanghams had
been carrying on struggles and by 1967 the achievements were:
- From 1959 itself the Girijans
gradually reoccupied lands which were illegally seized by
the non-Girijans.. . The landlords' share of the
harvest from lands leased out to share-croppers decreased from two-thirds
to one -third.
- Up to 1967 about 1500 acres of
forest waste lands were occupied and cultivated by the Girijans.
- Up to 1967 the Girijans refused to
clear debts to the tune of about Rs. 2 lakhs .
- They got free timber for their
agricultural uses.
- Even in the beginning, they sold
their forest produce at weekly markets to private merchants and government
corporations. Food-grains produced in the area were not allowed to be
transported till the needs of the people there were met.
- Forced labour had been completely
abolished.
- The nominal rates for palerlu and daily labour were increased.
The rates of palerlu increased from six bags per annum
to fourteen to fifteen bags. Similarly, the daily wage rates increased up
to twelve times. The time for transplanting seedlings or harvesting crops
increased several times. .
- Forest timber had been taken freely
for house construction and daily needs. The petty forest, revenue and
police officials did not dare approach the Girijans for mamools.
- Every adult member of the Girijan
family got himself enrolled in the Girijan Sanghams.
- Apart from the Girijan Sangham,
women were organised in the Mahila Sangams (Women's Association) to fight
against the injustices of the patriarchal system.." (Girijan movement
in Srikakulam 1967-70 - Tarun Kumar in 'Agrarian Struggles in India after
Independence' ed. A.R.Desai).
Here
we find a fine example of attempting to complete the democratic tasks by
'pressure from below'. But the people also realised that the problem of land
etc. could not be solved or consolidated without the establishment of people's
rule (that is, people's democracy). Here again we find the similarity with
Naxalbari, the accent being on consolidating gains through capture of state
power which marked the break with revisionism in the Indian Communist movement.
That an isolated case could not survive in the face of a strong centralised
state is borne out by the fact of the severe repression that broke this
movement. Whatever the ideological cloak this movement took is not so important
as the basic thing - land with state power - that marked it out. We find that by
1967 in the main the democratic tasks had been achieved 'from below' in this
area. Subsequently, life has traversed a long path..
Let
us now focus our attention on the Naxalite movement in Bhojpur (early
seventies)
Bhojpur
(erstwhile Sahabad district) was one of selected areas under IADP described
above. This is a district where 68% of the total land is irrigated. As one
writer put it "Most of the IADP activity has been centred in the 50%
irrigated blocks in the district. Owing to this capital-intensive phenomenon
two distinct trends have emerged in the district: one, increase in
productivity; and, two, sharpening social polarisation flowing from wage-labour
and landlessness. The extremist crucible has emerged in the most productive
region of Bhojpur district, i.e. Sahar, Sandesh, Piro and Jagdishpur, partly
because of the forces let loose and those held on leash by the changing
economic currents released by the IADP"
"Landlords,
in terms of estate-landlordism, are a near extinct category. Empirically speaking,
only 4% of the privately owned land is held by this section. The former landed
estates of Dumroan and Jagdishpur have crumbled over the years and have been
leased out, largely, to share-croppers (bataidars) who cultivate the land with
the help of their family members as well as hired labours ('banihars'). Rich
peasants, though this category is small (1.3%) and owns 11.2% of private owned
land, are emerging. Their advance to the fore of rural society has been aided
by the IADP projects in the area. Medium, small and marginal peasants owning
0.5 to 5.0 acres holdings form the buffer bulk between the rich peasants above
and the landless peasants below." (Peasant unrest in Bhojpur: A Survey by
Manju Kala et al; in 'Agrarian Struggles in India after Independence' ed.
A.R.Desai).
The
main cause of the Naxalite movement in this area has been - social oppression
against the lower castes (who also formed the bulk of agricultural labour) and
the growing economic divide spurred by the IADP Programme. In other words the
growing capitalist relations could bot but sharpen the class struggle fed as it
was by a long tradition of peasant movements and communist propaganda. The
fight against social oppression signaled the fact that with the growth of
capitalist relations the fog of old patriarchal relations had been cleared. The
masses were no longer prepared to take social oppression lying down. (But more
on that later).
Even
as the Bhojpur movement was going on there was another important struggle in
Maharashtra. This movement's peak phase began on "30 January, 1972, when a
big peasants' conference, the Bhu Mukti - Liberation of the land -
conference was held in Shahada". The Shramik Sanghathan, the organisation
of the landless labourers and poor peasants led this movement. Its programme of
action was -
- "Occupation of the lands
which rightfully belong the adivasis.
- Building up the organised pressure
on the government to implement its Employment Guarantee Scheme.
- All adivasi land transfers after
1947 to be cancelled.
- All adivasis debt to govt.
institutions to be cancelled.
- The government to fix a minimum
wage for agricultural workers."
(The
Shahada Movement: A Peasant Movement in Maharashtra - Maria Mies (ibid).)
The
Shramik Sangathan saw in the first month of the year 1972, a series of
victories:
- "In a first phase, the
Sharamik Sangathan had helped the Adivasis to get the land back which had
been alienated by fraudulent methods. The young activists got the
transaction documents the illeterate peasants had signed with their thumb
impression. They went to court with the Adivasis activated them to fight
for their rights. Thus about 4000 acres were recovered.
- In March 1972 the Shramik
Sanghathan called all the poor peasants and landless labourers to boycott
the elections for the state assembly, as elections had only so far
benefited the ruling landlord-money-lender class
- On March 1972, a peasants rally
took place in Shahada. It was attended by 15000 peasants. The demands of
this conference were -
a. a rise in the saldars wage
to Rs. 900 (formerly they were Rs. 300 per year).
b. fixed working hours for saldars and one month's leave.
c. 50 paise more for the day
labourers.
To back these demands, the saldars went to strike. They were
also followed by the day labourers and the share-croppers. The Gujars had to
give in to this organised pressure and to accept the demands -
- In a next step, the Shramik
Sanghathan demanded that the government forest land, on which there were
fewer than 30 trees should be distributed among the landless"
We find this movement was also spurred by the
introduction of the 'Green Revolution'. It had greatly increased the greed for
land (as agriculture had become highly profitable) among the rich farmers
leading to greater expropriation of the Adivasis or eviction of sharecroppers
and consequently these sections came into struggle. It led to the pauperisation
of small peasants and landless labourers. This led to a sharpening of the class
struggle. Thus the advent of relatively rapid development of capitalist methods
of production sparked this movement.
In Tamil Nadu we find the shift from land question to
wage question during 1964-70. It was marked by great militant struggles of
agricultural labourers particularly in the three taluks of Nagapattinam,
Tiruvarur, and Nanuilam. Tanjore witnessed major wage struggles and
consequently increasing atrocities on the scheduled castes. The new
contradiction is essentially between wage labour on the one hand and rich
peasants and capitalist landlords on the other. The growing pauperisation and
proletarianisation is witness to this.
In Gujrat too the agricultural labourers were becoming
restive under the 'Halpati Sevak Sangh'.
On the other hand in Tamilnadu there have been peasant
struggles for lower electricity tariffs, on the issue of co-operative loans,
taxes etc.
Similarly in Andhra Pradesh the peasant movements have
been against betterment levy, remunerative prices, supplies of inputs and
credits, and for land reforms.
Similar has been the peasant movements in Punjab, U.P.,
Maharashtra etc. The organisation of the non-communist peasant unions - B.K.U.,
Shetkari Sangathan etc. has shown the way the wind is blowing.
Thus we find a parallel set of demands - 'remunerative' prices,
increased credits and agricultural input facilities etc. in a word - for
'capital'. This is the demand of capitalist agriculture - of rich peasants,
middle peasants and capitalist landlords - the result of decades of traversing
the Prussian Path of capitalist evolution.
Parallel to this we find demand for wages (recently in
central Bihar ,Bhojpur, the whole area witnessed widespread spontaneous wage
struggles - demand for higher than government fixed
minimum wages. Instead of welcoming this the left parties killed it by a
conspiracy of silence or tried to turn it into a inconsequential fight for
land); the demand for house-sites (goes a long way to end dependence and has
been achieved in the main), share-cropping rights etc.The demand of share-croppers
are also essentially of the capitalist type in general. Following the 'Green
Revolution' we find the tendency towards evictions in order to enable the
capitalist landlords/rich peasant to resume cultivation; for higher rents
(improvements in land lead to higher rents to landlords as Marx noted) etc. The
concrete study of the agrarian movements can only make us conclude that the
relations of production in agriculture are essentially capitalist. The
interests of capital and labour can no longer be 'reconciled'. The peasantry
has disintegrated into a peasant bourgeoisie and a semi-proletarian poor
peasantry. The agricultural labourers' interests are no longer voiced by the
'all-in' peasant unions. Their separate class organisations have to be
'recognised' by the 'communist' parties. A breach has been made in the
interests of rich peasants, middle peasants on the one hand, and poor peasants
and agricultural labourers on the other (at a later stage of the revolution the
middle peasant might be forced to take a different stand but at present they
are hostile to labour).
"As opposed to the old understanding of
concentrating the fight against big landlords the peasant struggle in Bihar is
progressing in those areas which have a rather broad based pattern of landownership.
A considerable section of the kulaks has become its target. Apart from this,
various complex political and economic factors allow the kulaks to organise the
various sections of the middle strata, especially under the caste banner.
Consequently the rural population becomes sharply divided. Under such
circumstances the fight for wages becomes difficult and land seizure appears
impossible. Alongwith this the danger of severe damage to the interests of the
middle strata arises. It was in the presence of such complicated complex of
forces that the old communist parties lost their way. No wonder, the CPI, CPM
and the socialist 'parites' charge us with instigating fights between the
agricultural woekers and poor peasants on the one hand, and middle and rich peasants
on the other thus breaking broad peasant unity.
if this so-called broad peasant unity is to be found
anywhere in practice, it is totally under the leadership of the rich peasants
(If) this is true that the areas of peasant struggle in
Bihar do not correspond to the empirical description of a anti-feudal struggle
from the point of view of class-structure." ('From the Flaming fields of
Bihar' CPI(ML) Liberation - our translation from Hindi).
The CPI(ML) Liberation is apologetic - apologetic about
its new class base, that it is breaking 'all-in' peasant unity so essential for
the democratic revolution. But friends, life forces people to accept reality.
We have noted the new class correlation about. It could not be otherwise in
Bihar. The breach in the peasantry shows the deep differentiation within its
ranks, the predominance of capitalism, the refusal of the poor peasantry and
agricultural labour to follow the kulak! Let the revisionists say what they
will. We have noted the class base of these revisionists above. The Indian
communists have not done anything to change the social composition of the
communist party - essentially the party of the proletariat - which the Sixth
Comintern Congress stressed as far back as 1928! The party could guide itself through
the anti-feudal movements very well with its anti-feudal (peasant) class base.
But it proved utterly revisionist during the next phase when it had to contend
with the emerging reality of sharp polarisation along new lines. Both
C.Rajaeshwara Rao and P.Sundarayya have called the bourgeois-landlord reforms
'progressive'. Ideologically unable to adapt itself with the new reality it
kept on harping on the democratic revolution. Finding the bourgeois-landlord
state fulfilling the 'democratic' tasks it tagged itself on to its
parliamentary processes 'democratic' tasks it tagged itself on to its
parliamentary processes.
Ideologically many of the Naxalite groups run this danger
of state incorporation. The state gives some sops of ceiling, land distribution
and they run at the bait. It is not as yet mediated for them through the
parliamentary processes of the state but through the 'informal' agencies of the
state, the NGOs and Institutes of Social Sciences. The 'land reform unit' of
Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration, Mussoorie has advocated the
incorporation of the 'activist' groups to achieve land reforms in Bihar.
Friends, beware of these insidious attempts.
To many of our friends 'socialist' revolution means
nothing other than admitting the progressive national character of the
bourgeoisie. Well friends, the Prussian Path is the path of the most
reactionary bourgeois-landlord state. But all the same we find today before us
a capitalist India and should not get dazzled either to the right (as the CPI-ML
Liberation has) or the left (holding the impossibility of social development).
Ideologically, if we dogmatically stick to the stage of democratic revolution
and come face to face with reality we will definitely move to the right of the
checkerboard as 'Liberation' has. It means contending with the reality in a
negative manner, giving in to the opposite class (bourgeoisie), moving right
and inevitably accepting the left-democratic front of CPI, CPM, SUCI etc. The
correlation of class forces are such that the call of democratic revolution
clashes violently with life and hence the 'democrats' must (in course of time)
accept the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and act as 'labour-lieutenants' of the
bourgeoisie (as the social democrats do).
VII
Feudal
Remnants
( i )
When our friends are asked to point out the feudal
remnants they usually enumerate features of capitalism as we have noted above.
They might enumerate the exploitation by the pawn broker, the usurer and the
shopkeeper. In many struggles this factor has been a target of attack. But the
presence of these factors does not define a mode of production. Marx calls it
"secondary exploitation which runs parallel to the primary exploitation
taking place in the production process itself."(K.Marx/Cap./vol.III/p.609).
As he writes in the Manifesto -
"No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the
manufacturer, so far at an end that he receives his wages in cash, that he is
set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie the landlord, the shopkeeper,
the pawnbroker etc." (p.53)
They also point out to the feudal 'values' and feudal
'way of life'. Overbearing manners, illtreatment of subordinates, proneness to
violence against lower orders are all dubbed feudal. Our friends only prettify
capitalism - they have in mind an ideal capitalism which is thoroughly
democratic, a capitalism which has never existed anywhere and will never exist
in the future too. They make a fetish of democracy. Lenin observed, "The
big bourgeois is case-hardened, he knows that under capitalism a democratic
republic, like every other form of state is nothing but a machine for the
suppression of the proletariat. The big bourgeois knows this from his most
intimate acquaintance with the real leaders and with the most profound (and
therefore the most concealed) springs of every bourgeois state machine. The
petty-bourgeois owing to his conditions of life generally, is less able to
appreciate this truth.. . The tenacity of these prejudices of the
petty-bourgeois democrats is inevitably due to the fact that he is further
removed from the acute class-struggle, the stock-exchange and 'real politics'
(Lenin/CW/28.p.188-89)
So we pray to our friends not to carry their democratic
aspirations to the level of a prejudice.
Look what CPI(ML) Liberation says -
"These (semi-feudal-ed.) remnants provide the basis
for the existence of medieval obscurantism, caste and communal fanaticism and
barbarity in the whole society and act as a great hindrance to any real
democratic awakening of our people." (Documents of the CPI-ML Liberation,
4th party Congress, 1988/p.42)
Yes, that is why we call the democratic aspirations of
these people a prejudice. They picture a capitalism which is thoroughly
democratic. We all know that all capitalist 'democratic' countries have
deep-seated racist, communal feelings - anti-Semitism in Europe, anti-Negro
feelings in USA etc. So why is communal fanaticism etc. also used as a pretext
for describing Indian society as semi-feudal? (Yes, exactly, the last line in
the above quoted paragraph reads - "The Party (CPI-ML Liberation-ed.) therefore
characterises the Indian society semi-feudal". Clearly, either it is a
prejudice or else deliberate prettification of capitalism and vested interest
in keeping the fight within bourgeois bounds. Look what Lenin writes of
bourgeois democracy -
"The learned Mr. Kautsky has 'forgotten' -
accidentally forgotten, probably - a 'trifle', namely that the ruling party in
a bourgeois democracy extends the protection of the minority only to another
bourgeois party, while the proletariat, on all serious, profound and fundamental
issues, gets martial law of pogroms, instead of the 'protection' of the
'minority'. The more highly developed a democracy is, the more imminent are
pogroms or civil war in connection with any profound political divergence which
is dangerous to the bourgeoisie. The learned Mr. Kautsky could have studied
this law of bourgeois democracy in connection with the Dreyfus case in
republican France, with the lynching of Negroes and internationalists in the
democratic republic of America, with the case of Ireland and Ulster in
democratic Britain, with the baiting of the Bolsheviks and the staging of
pogroms against them in April 1917 in the democratic republic in Russia."
(Lenin/CW/28/pg.245-46)
With the development of capitalist relations and through
the struggle of the working classes most of the semi-feudal relationships -
like vetti, begar, vatan services, illegal exactions like mamool and abwabs
have been mostly eliminated. We have seen that social oppression in one of the
main causes of the struggle in the rural areas. Capitalist relations having
been established this oppression does not appear as 'natural' to the worker,
not something 'given' in his relationship with his master. Naturally he
revolts. This has been one of the most powerful factors of struggle.
With the development of money-wage-commodity relations
the 'jajmani' system (See
Note)has
fallen through. This is particularly true of the utilitarian services - that of
the blacksmith, potter etc. Ritual services of the Brahman etc. remain and will
remain for a long time. Being of a particular caste might facilitate getting
absorbed in a certain division of labour which exists in capitalist society too
but that is different. There has been tremendous horizontal and vertical
movement (The Mandal report takes into account the social mobility statistics
upto 1931 in order to deliberately obfuscate the issue). There is of course a
certain caste-class correlation, but something neither strict not homogeneous.
(Certainly class division is not division of labour as understood by political
economy. Division of labour is the division of the various branches of
production.)
It is lamented that the bulk of the lower castes are
labouring people. It is forgotten that capitalist society is also a
class-divided society and the bulk of the masses are toilers. More, capitalist
society is also privilege perpetuating society (privilege of birth, status and
wealth).
The majority of the lower castes (or for that matter
higher castes) will have to maintain a proletarian or semi-proletarian
existence under capitalism. To show the continuity of the plebeian conditions
of these lower castes does not prove anything. It can only foster the illusion
that their overwhelming majority will become property-holders or that they can better
their conditions under capitalism,. It is deception of the worst sort which
detracts and diverts them from the struggle against capitalism, from the
genuine endeavor to change their living conditions. The overwhelming majority
of these castes (or for that matter the higher castes too) can only become
masters by expropriating the bourgeoisie, by replacing the capitalist order by
the socialist. There remains now the question of caste oppression. Where it is
a prejudice, it can only be fought as a prejudice i.e. at the cultural level;
laws can help in the fight but culture is not something which can be subjected
to laws such. Areas of acute class-struggle in agrarian India have witnessed
slackening of this oppression. It has added to the feeling of dignity to the
lower castes. As to the question of 'caste-struggle' and casteism we will deal
with it briefly in the next section.
"In the Indian society, feudal remnants in the form
of backward small peasant economy, labour-service system, share-cropping,
usury, caste-oppression etc. exist side by side with the bureaucrat capital's
exploitation." (Documents of the CPI-ML Liberation - 4th Party Congress 1988
-General programme, p.42)
The proponents of democratic revolution enumerate the
existence of labour-service system as a semi-feudal remnant. India, it is well
known had no system of 'corvee' as such. So the labour-service system cannot be
of the 'corvee' type. Now, there is a certain incidence of attached labour
(e.g. 'banihari' etc.) which has undergone changes over time. The attachment
has become of a loose type. The organisation and strikes of this type of
labourers has contributed to its dissolution or metamorphosis. This type has
been historically found in most of the capitalist countries. One must not mistake
it for the semi-feudal labour-service system. As Lenin writes -
"It should be added that our literature frequently
contains too stereotyped an understanding that
capitalism requires the free, landless worker. This proposition is quite correct as indicating
the main trend, but capitalism penetrates into agriculture particularly slowly
and in extremely varied forms. The allotment of land to the rural worker is a
type to be found in all capitalist countries. The type assumes different forms
in different countries: the English cottager is not the same as the
small-holding peasant of France or the Rhine provinces and the latter again is
not the same as the knecht in Prussia. Each of these bears traces of a specific
agrarian system, of a specific type of agrarian relations but this does not
prevent the economist from classing them all as one type of agricultural
proletarian. The juridical basis of his right to his plot of land is absolutely
immaterial to such a classification. Whether the land is his full property (as
a small-holding peasant) or whether he is only allowed the use of it by the
landlord or the Ritter gutsbesitzer (Lord of the manor), or, finally, whether
he possesses it as a member of a Great Russian peasant Community - makes no
difference at all". (Lenin/CW/3/p.178-79)
( ii )
CASTE
STRUGGLE AND CASTEISM
Going back into history we find that the tendency to
fight against caste oppression in an organised manner began after the advent of
British rule. It was only after the village community had been rent asunder;
after the 'only social revolution India had ever known' (Marx), had taken place
that this begin. The precondition for this was the beginning of the breakdown
of the 'immutable' old order wherein the castes had been placed in an
'harmonious' order: a division of labour wherein each fell neatly into his
place.
This process has been described by sociologists as
'Sanskritisation'. The fight of the lower castes took the shape of imitating
and emulating the behavior and rituals of the upper castes. Every caste found a
'history' of its own, a history of a bygone golden age. It was the negation of
the old order from 'within'. The movement to climb the caste-hierarchy was
itself indicative of the demolition of the caste-system as it stood then. Later
when Ambedkar came to the scene there was a greater awakening among the lowest
of the lower orders. This too took the shape of 'Sanskritisation' but the
ramifications of this process were far-reaching. The call to the 'outcastes' to
give up eating of carrion-flesh and the disposal of dead-animals signaled the
beginning of the end of what sociologists have called the 'Jajmani' system. For
it was in essence refusal to carry on the caste functions. The criticism of the
old order was breaching the banks. (Note the movement against watan services
etc,) Thus, it was part of the greater democratic movement. It clearly heralded
the fight against the still strong pre-capitalist survivals. The 1942 'Report
of the Depressed Classes Conference' is instructive -
The conference came "to the conclusion that a
radical change must be made in the village system now prevalent in India and
which is the parent of all the ills from which the scheduled castes are
suffering from many centuries at the hands of the Hindus".
But along with 'Sanskritisation' another process was
taking place which was later to become the predominant form. It was the effort
at getting an increasing share of state patronage and administration. The
movement led by the Justice party was representative of the latter process. The
movement expressed the aspirations of the 'dominant' (In an article on a village
in Mysore, published in 1955, M.N.Srinivas defined the 'dominant' caste as
follows - Since then this concept has been widely used with or without certain
variations - "A caste may be said to be 'dominant' when it preponderates
numerically over the other castes, and when it also wields preponderant
economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can more easily
be dominant if its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too low.") castes who having
monopolised the village resources wanted an increasing say in the state and
administration. Power at the village level had to be combined with the power of
the state. The landlords and rich peasants of these castes skilfully used their
caste-associations in manipulating themselves into the power structure. The
non-Brahman Justicite movement thus could never rally around the outcastes -
the 'Adi-Dravids' who were at the receiving end of their exploitation. At this
point we must point out the role of caste associations.
According to one sociologist - "as the processes of
democratic politics began to reach the mass electorate the aims of
caste-associations changed and instead of demanding temple entry, prestigious
caste names and histories in the census, the associations began to press for
places in the new administrative and educational institutions and for political
representation". This latter process is the result of the breakdown of the
old caste-system. These aspirations to power and state patronage are the
consequences of the growth of capitalist relations.
Many have been led to believe that casteism - i.e. the
assertion of caste in politics and the economy, is a semi-feudal survival. Far
from it, the bourgeoisie has skillfully used the older caste social formation
in wielding its power. (It is similar in scope to the use of religion, the
tribe etc. by the bourgeoisie.) Almost all sociologists - 'Marxist' or not
admit the breakdown of the old parameters of caste - the concept of pollution,
caste functions, hierarchy etc. (one of course must point out to the survivals
of untouchability and other forms of caste-oppression which must be fought
actively). With the breakdown of the old caste-system there still seems to be a
reinforcement of caste. But as Rajni Kothari has pointed out "the
interesting thing about the caste-federation is that once formed on the basis
of caste identities, it goes on to acquire non-caste functions." This is
the new role of caste. Thus casteism is a recent development, one that
admirably fits in with bourgeois development. A very notable description has
been provided by A.R.Desai. He calls castes of today 'competing associations' -
"This (capitalist) development has eliminated the
basic gestalt of the caste system and the forces behind them have transformed
castes into associations, each mobilising caste resources, pooling economic and
other caste assets, creating favourable conditions for the education of its
members, supporting caste candidates in elections, enhancing the bargaining
power of the castes and broadening its base by merging sub-castes with it and
organising caste bodies at regional, state and all-India levels, participating
in various economic, political and cultural activities in various sectors of
the emerging economy and in the political processes, can be explained only if
it is understood that castes are becoming competing associations, adapting
themselves to the new pattern of economy and polity emerging in the country.
We thus witness a peculiar dialectical process of
emerging modern capitalist classes utilising caste associations, caste
combinations, caste practices, caste sentiments and caste resources for gaining
their non-caste, class, economic, political, social and educational objectives.
In fact, castes transformed into competing associations as stated at the
opening of the discussion and impregnated with the new bourgeois value system,
have become powerful levers wielded by the proprietary classes to carry on
competition among themselves and to divide the pauperised and proletarianised
classes in rural society. The value system underlying the caste hierarchy, fundamentally
one based on inequality, supplements the value system of the bourgeois order;
and thus provides the bourgeoisie with a powerful ideological weapon against
the advocates of the unity of all toiling, exploited, non-owning classes of all
castes in the struggle against exploitation under the emerging 'capitalist'
politico-economic social order." (From 'Agrarian struggles in India after
independence')
Those who find the bourgeois anti-Brahman movement
'democratic' in as much as it fights caste (as it obtains today) which they
call a 'pre-capitalist' or 'feudal' economic formation would find this
observation of a foreigner instructive -
"Anti-Brahman schemings, although they have a
demagogic and somewhat violent side are a positive aspect in the struggle
against caste. No doubt it takes little courage on the part of a foreigner to
say this, but it must be said all the same, and it must be added that it
follows that Madras State with its Dravidian Association(s), is probably
further advanced on the road to the disappearance of castes than all the other
states in India. [I should add that a recent visit to Madras had done much to shatter my nave confidence
in this respect (1969)]" (Homo-Hierarchicus, Louis
Dumont - p.222-3)
The existence of caste and communal fanaticism,
prejudices and other existing backward ideas among the masses are seen as
semi-feudalism (See quote from General Programme of CPI-ML Liberation
above). Let us see what Lenin says -
"Capitalism would not be capitalism if it did not,
on the one hand, condemn the masses to a downtrodden, crushed and terrified
state of existence, to disunity (the countryside) and ignorance, and if it
(capitalism) did not, on the other hand, place in the hands of the bourgeoisie
a gigantic apparatus of falsehood and deception, to hoodwink the masses of
workers and peasants, to stultify their minds, and so forth".
"In all capitalist countries, besides the
proletariat which is conscious of its revolutionary aims and is capable of fighting
to achieve them, there are numerous politically immature proletarian,
semi-proletarian petty--bourgeois strata which follow the bourgeoisie and
bourgeois democracy (including the 'socialists' of the Second International)
because they have been deceived, have no confidence in their own strength, or
in the strength of the proletariat, are unaware of the possibility of having
their urgent needs satisfied by means of the expropriation of the
exploiters."
"These strata of the working and exploited people provide
the vanguard of the proletariat with allies and give it a stable majority of
the pollution, but the proletariat can win these only with the aid of an
instrument like state power, that is to say, only after it has overthrown the
bourgeoisie and has destroyed the bourgeois state apparatus."
(Lenin/Constituent Assembly Elections and the dictatorship of the proletariat.,
CW; vol.30)
Thus, the conditions engendered by capitalism keep the
masses in a state where they are highly susceptible to backward ideas -
casteism, communalism etc. The way out is for the vanguard to make revolution(That is not to say that the
proletarian revolution is a minority revolution: no, Lenin wrote about the need
to count in millions during revolutionary upheavals. He asked the vanguard to
"merge with the masses", to let the masses learn from their won
experience)
and then 'proceed with seven-league strides to rise the cultural level of the
labouring masses'. That is why we say that revolution is on the agenda of the
day.
( iii )
SEMI-FEUDAL
ACCORDING TO ACADEMICS
Over a long period of time a group of Indian academics
have been regularly writing on semi-feudalism in India. Their theories have
been reinforcing the idea of a semi-feudal India. Two prominent names that crop
up in this context (and we will deal with them) are of Pradhan H.Prasad and
Amit Bhaduri.
Pradhan H.Prasad writes: -
"The characteristic feature of this set-up which we
may call semi-feudal is that an indissoluble bond between the semi-proletariat
and his overlord is maintained by resort to usury (Bhaduri, 1973). It is
precisely because of this fact that the agricultural labourers have been
classified as semi-proletariatOften the loans outstanding exceed the total
value of the assets of the debtors. The enormous economic power which gets
concentrated in the process in the hands of the landowning class And it is this
class which shuns rapid development because it is likely to improve the
economic condition of the semi-proletariat who can thereby free itself from the
bondage" ('Reactionary role of usurer's capital in rural India', in
'Agrarian Relations and Accumulation' ed. Utsa Patnaik, p.228)
"In the case of the lowest asset group, that is
those having total assets of less than Rs. 100, the loans outstanding in most
of the cases, remain more than the value of their total assets." (ibid.,
p.230)
And Bhaduri, -
"An important economic consequence of the existing
semi-feudal relations is that it tends to perpetuate agricultural backwardness.
Since the semi-feudal landowning class derive income both from the
landownership (i.e. owner's share of the produce) and from usury (interest on
consumption loan primarily), they have an economic interest in perpetuating the
economic misery of the tenants. If this, in turn, requires maintaining low
productivity of land to prevent the sharecroppers from becoming economically
better-off the semi-feudal landowners may well do it. For economically
better-off tenants will require less consumption loan and in some situations it
is possible that the loss in income from usury will more than outweigh the gain
from higher productivity to the semi-feudal landowners. In such cases, even on
pure economic grounds, the semi-feudal landowners may restrain the use of
improved agricultural technology." ('An analysis of semi-feudalism in East
India', Frontier, Vol. 6, Sept. 1973)
For the present we will not controvert this on empirical
grounds as Ashok Rudra, Ghanshyam Shah and others have done. Let us examine
this on theoretical grounds.
First of all let us make it clear that usury does not
define a mode of production. From the quotes above it seems that the authors
have endeavored to construct their semi-feudal set-up on the basis of usury.
Usury is the antiquated form of interest-bearing capital. Its formula is M-M,
i.e. money begetting more money. In this we find no trace of the intervening
stage of the process of production or reproduction. Thus we find 'its existence
in the most diverse economic formations of society' (Marx)
"Usury like commerce, exploits a given mode of
production. It does not create it, but is related to it outwardly." (K.
Marx/Cap./III/p. 609-10)
So it is futile to characterise our agriculture as
semi-feudal on the basis of the existence of usury. See the confusion in the
minds of the authors that they fail to distinguish between the usurer's debtor
as producer and as consumer. Hence we find that agricultural landless labourers
are lumped together with those owners of means of production - the poor
peasants.
"The wage-slave, just like the real slave, cannot
become a creditor's slave in his capacity as producer, the wage-slave, it is
true, can become a creditor's slave in his capacity as consumer."
(ibid./p.595)
And under capitalist production relations the worker is
also subject to the pernicious influence of such usury. Thus Marx observed that
"the English working class pay 100% to the pawnshops." (ibid./p.601)
We have already mentioned this 'secondary exploitation' above. Further, the
above assertion of the authors that the usurer does not look towards repayment
of the loan but wants to perpetuate bondage makes it clear that usury in this
from (as consumer) cannot be a source of enrichment to the usurer. (They have
no productive assets, total assets being less than Rs. 100. Hence they cannot
have a surplus from their assets which can be siphoned off by the usurer).
Thus, it would be ridiculous to assume that since money has this channel of
investment, it is not invested in land.
It is argued that, "And it is this class which shuns
rapid development because it is likely to improve the economic condition of the
semi-proletariat who can thereby free itself from the bondage. That is why they
approach the whole process of production and distribution mainly with a view to
perpetuating this semi-feudal bondage rather than allowing rapid rate of
investment and intensive use of available means of production in the rural
areas." (Pradhan H.Prasad, ibid.)
This statement contains a number of fallacies. First and
foremost it accepts that 'per se' the development of agriculture leads to the
improvement in the condition of the wage workers. What are the facts?
Agricultural real wage rates have gone up much faster in Kerala which has a
huge labour market ('surplus' population) and appreciably lower rate of
agricultural production, than in the North West.
"The stranglehold of semi-feudal production
relations has been so strong that even when the index of agricultural
production in Bihar showed an annual compound rate of growth of 2.94% (in per
capita terms it was about 0.97%) during the period 1952-53 to 1964-65, the
benefits did not percolate to the direct producers. The document maintains that
the 'condition of agricultural labour has not changed materially and in some
respects has worsened in spite of land reforms'." (Pradhan H.Prasad,
Lopsided Growth/p.80)
We find that the development of agricultural production
has not resulted in any betterment of the conditions of the agricultural
workers. But again the author assets - "If the decline in the proportion
of the poor in rural India has been low, it is not because the 'trickle-down
modified' thesis is not valid in the Indian situation, but because agricultural
growth has been low." (ibid./p.68)
We are caught in a vicious circle. We are told that
agricultural development will result in the betterment of the conditions of the
workers and breaking of bondage ('semi-feudalism') and yet we learn that there
has been no betterment in the condition of the workers inspite of development
because of the stranglehold of semi-feudalism. Run from pillar to post as we do
the author offers us no solution. Rapid development is shunned due to
semi-feudalism and development does not lead us anywhere due to semi-feudalism.
Inspite of all this the author believes in the pernicious thesis of 'Trickle
down modified which is but a modified version of the arch-imperialist American
ex-President Hoover's doctrine of trickle-down development.
We do not believe in such bogus theories. We know that
poverty is a precondition and a result of capitalism. The very movement of
capital is a contradiction - it creates wealth at one pole and poverty at the
other. But this poverty should be seen in the social sense. We have defined its
movement as a tendency with the working class
movement acting as a powerful counteracting factor. It is precisely this factor
which makes possible the better conditions of the Kerala agricultural worker as
compared to his Punjab counterpart. Thus the authors' arguments take us away
from the living reality of classes and class-struggles into the sphere of
abstract, nay, insidious doctrines. It is only the class struggle of the
working class people which can result in the betterment of the agricultural
worker.
We do not deny the existence of a certain incidence of
debt-bondage among agricultural workers. But the whole of our argument shows
that debt-bondage cannot be used as an explanation of low rate of agricultural
growth whatever its level of incidence. Neither can debt-bondage define a
situation which we can describe as semi-feudalism.
One possible solution offered in order to break the
stranglehold of 'semi-feudal' relations is distribution of ceiling surplus land
and low ceiling on land holdings. (ibid./p.36) The 'Report of the Commissioner
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' shows the miserable amount of land
that can be distributed among the landless. This will only lead to perpetuation
and extension of deficit households and hence usury (semi-feudalism as the
authors say). At this point let us deal with the contention of the authors that
the existence of these deficit households mean semi-feudalism and is a source
of enrichment to the usurer (landowner).
Capitalism as it enters agriculture meets its barrier in
the private ownership of land. Through slow and gradual expropriation of the
direct producers it makes its headway. Thus it implies ruin of the direct
producers, their underconsumption, heavy indebtedness, technical stagnation
etc. (see Lenin's quote above, CW/22/pg.70). Hence the existence of deficit households
which Pradhan H.Prasad, Bhaduri, Chandra et al see as a sign of semi-feudalism
is but part of the overall trend of capitalist agricultural development. If we
are not to fall into the trap of empirical sociology which through elaborate
procedures like field surveys, selected data, questionnaires etc. sets out to
'prove' one thing or the other we should see things in their totality. No
wonder Lenin remarks that "if agricultural statistics are taken in general
and uncritically, it is quite easy to discover in the capitalist mode of
production a tendency to transform modern nations into hunting tribes."
(Lenin/CW/4/pg.135)
We have approached the question of capitalism in
agriculture mainly from the question of the home-market. This approach sums up
the growth of agricultural development. It is within this trend of growth of
agricultural capitalism that we should examine different phenomena.
Take the concrete conditions of India - we had inherited
from the colonial period a pauperized peasantry and extreme pressure on land.
The latter is of such dimension that it has astonished most foreign observers
of Indian agriculture. This historical legacy acts as a burden on Indian
agriculture prolonging its agony. Land reforms coupled with development of
capitalist relations (The 'Prussian Path') has exacerbated the problem for the
mechanisms of 'patriarchal' agriculture are not there to moderate and
'mitigate' the sufferings of the direct producers. The extreme pressure on land
prolongs the pitiable condition of the Indian peasant, who holds on to his
miserable patch in order to eke out a living. It is only a symptom of the
existence of a exceptionally large 'surplus population' under conditions of
capitalism ('disguised unemployment'). Numerous layers are found in all
capitalist societies who somehow make an 'earning' through petty trading etc.
As we said it is a legacy of our colonial past which according to Marx,
"destroyed it (Indian civilisation) by breaking up the native communities,
by uprooting the native industry.." "This loss of his old world, with
no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present
misery of the Hindu" (From 'Future results of British rule in India' and
'British rule in India').
This is the historical premise which explains the
relatively considerable incidence of share-cropping (Compare Engles' remarks on
the Irish sub-division of the soil in the 'Condition of the Working Class in
England' p.272) -
a large number of which are concealed tenancies which only shows that economic
movement takes place despite 'laws' (if we are to believe the figures given
below it is very high). (This condition of Indian agriculture is as much
feudalism as the presence of the 'khomchavalas' (hawkers) in the Indian cities
makes the urban economy feudal.) Since the said figures are that of one of the
protagonists of the thesis of 'semi-feudalism' namely, Pradhan H. Prasad let us
examine sharecropping in the light of this table: -
Caste,Class
and Landownership in the Plains of Rural Bihar
|
CASTE
|
Percentage of Persons to Total in Each of the
Caste Groups
|
Per Capita Cultivated land owned(in Acres)
|
|
Landowning Category (Acres)
|
Class
|
|
0
|
0-5
|
5-10
|
10+
|
ALL
(100)
|
Landlord & Rich Peasant
|
Middle Peasant
|
Poor Peasant
|
|
Upper
|
5.7
|
62.1
|
17.9
|
14.3
|
22.2
|
89.5
|
2.9
|
5.5
|
0.54
|
|
Upper Middle
|
25.9
|
66.4
|
5.5
|
2.2
|
21.7
|
27.8
|
35.1
|
27.6
|
0.33
|
|
Other Middle
|
60.9
|
37.6
|
0.0
|
1.5
|
16.3
|
7.5
|
9.2
|
77.9
|
0.17
|
|
Scheduled
|
69.5
|
30.4
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
27.2
|
2.0
|
4.4
|
92.0
|
0.12
|
|
Hindus
|
40.9
|
48.7
|
5.9
|
4.5
|
87.4
|
31.6
|
12.5
|
51.5
|
0.31
|
|
Muslims
|
58.6
|
35.4
|
4.4
|
1.6
|
12.6
|
21.0
|
10.3
|
58.3
|
0.25
|
|
All
|
43.1
|
47.0
|
5.8
|
4.1
|
100
|
30.3
|
12.2
|
52.3
|
0.30
|
Note :Figures in parentheses refer to percentage
distribution with referance to row total.
Source of Data :An empirical research study by International Labour
Office, Geneva, and ANS Institute of Social Studies, Patna, on 'Dynamic of
Employment and Proverty' in Bihar in 1981. See P.H. Prasad and G.B. Rodgers, Class, Caste and
Landholding in the analysis of the Rural Economy, World Employment Programme
Research, Population and Labour Policies Programme, Working Paper Number 140,
August 1983, ILO, Geneva.(Economic and Political Weekly, August 17, 1991)
In the upper bracket (that of the upper castes) we find
that thought the percentage of all landowners above 5 acres is 34.2, the
percentage of landlords is 89.5 and per capita cultivated land owned is only
0.54 acres. Similarly compare the figures for the other groups and see the
astonishing discrepancy. It means that the term 'landlord' can only be explained
here in terms of leasing out of land and has no correlation with size. This
incidence is so high for all groups that it can only mean that landowners with
meagre landholdings (and consequently hardly any 'resources' we suppose) rent
out their land. This only confirms our above-mentioned explanation that the
pressure upon land and the size of the 'surplus population' is so high that the
peasant has to eke out his living under the most miserable conditions. That the
landowners renting out land are mostly of meagre means themselves shows that
the correlation between the incidence of share-cropping (According to the report of
'Land Reforms Unit' of the 'Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of
Administration' presented at the workship on 'Land reforms in Bihar' (February
1991) 9.9% of the arable land is under various forms of tenancy of which a
certain percentage is under share-cropping.) and the vested interest of usurer-landlords
in maintaining share-cropping (with consequent low growth) can hardly be borne
out (as the bulk of the landlords (!) being poor landowners can hardly be
usurers).
Take the worst case of usury i.e. say the sharecropper is
depressed below his physical minimum wage and all his surplus is siphoned off
by the usurer. That means the usurer has a very high rate of interest (or what
is analogous in capitalist society a very high rate of profit). But the total
volume of produce (and hence total profit) will be very low given the miserable
conditions of reproduction which 'usury renders more pitiable' (Marx). Whereas
we find that the given level of development of productive forces (HYV seeds,
fertilizers etc.) can give rise to substantial growth of produce. So if the
usurer's money is diverted to productive investment i.e. invested as capital in
land, the high productivity of the given technology will result in a greater
produce as surplus. So even if the sharecropper receives a decent share the
consequent loss to the landlord can be more than offset through the greater
produce. It acts in a way which is similar to the offsetting of the loss due to
the falling rate of profit by the increased mass of profit (which is a law of
capitalism). Therefore Bhaduri is wrong in contending that even on purely
economic grounds it is in the interests of the landlord-usurer to perpetuate
backwardness.
Further, we know that returns from improvements in land
flow back as rent into the pocket of the landlord even under conditions of
capitalist ground rent (refer K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III). So, it is wrong to
make the assumption that the landlord's interest is in maintaining backwardness
in the above given conditions. Concretely, the very systems of 'bataidari'
(sharecropping) also testify to the fact that there is a sharing of inputs by
both parties.
Historically under conditions of capitalism domestic
industry complements machine production. Marx describes this in his first
volume of 'Capital'. But this aspect is overlooked by those who describe
domestic industry as essentially pre-capitalist. The same is applicable to
agriculture. The extreme variety of transitional and mixed forms should not
make us conclude that agriculture is semi-feudal. Let us take an example. The
peculiar form of share-cropping prevalent under so-called cash-cropping - take
for instance the case of sugarcane production - where all inputs are supplied
by the sugar-mill and the product is 'bought' by the mill, is an example of the
form of combination of 'domestic industry' and 'factory system' in agriculture.
Further it may be mentioned here that "both mortgage and usury are, so to
speak forms of capital's evasion of the difficulties which private ownership
creates for the free penetration of capital into agriculture"
(Lenin/CW/13/p.315). In practice this is borne out by the many forms of usury and
mortgage of land actually prevailing in agrarian India.
That usury is not a marked feature of agrarian India can
also be attested by the fact that there has been tremendous growth of
institution banking in rural India. [Table II(i)] These rural branches also
have a large number of depositors. Had usury been an important channel of
investment money would not have found its way to these banks.
A certain incidence of debt-bondage of an informal nature
might serve the landowner as a means of having an assured and cheap source of
labour supply. The competition among the workers greatly contributes to this.
The growing organisation and militancy of the workers counteracts this and
leads to its dissolution. (Our remarks on 'banihari' etc. are relevant in this respect
too).
Further, the increasing and high incidence of migration
of agricultural workers from one place to another, the object of lamentations
of 'communists', also dissolves all forms of dependence. This is a feature
which should be noted in this context.
VIII
Trotskyism
and the Socialist Revolution
The Indian communists have become so accustomed to
hackneyed slogans that the very mention of the socialist revolution is answered
by charges of Trotskyism. When we had just mentioned the case for the socialist
revolution we were dubbed Trotskyites without further ado and without even any
hearing.
Let us begin with an examination of Trotsky's writings -
"Basing ourselves on the experience of the last revolution, we inquired
into the changes which the last ten years have brought about in the relations
of forces that obtained in 1905 : have these been in favor of democracy (the
bourgeoisie) or against it? Has bourgeois democracy in Russia become stronger
since 1905, or has it still further declined?.. We reply to this question by
saying that a national bourgeois revolution is impossible in Russia because
there is no genuinely revolutionary bourgeois democracy. The time for national
revolutions has passed. Between one and the other there is an inherent connection.
We are living in an epoch of imperialism which is not merely a system of
colonial conquests but implies also a definite regime at home. It does not set
the bourgeois nation in opposition to the old regime, but sets the proletariat
in opposition to the bourgeois nation." ('Results and Prospects',
Pathfinder Press, New York, p. 118-9).
"According to Lenin, their (workers and peasants)
joint uprising against the old society must, if victorious, lead to the
establishment of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
peasantry."
This formula is now repeated in the Communist
International as a sort of supra-historical dogma, with no attempt to analyse
the living historical experiences of the last quarter century - as though we
had not been witness and participants in the revolution of 1905, the February
revolution of 1917, and finally the October revolution. Such a historical
analysis, however, is all the more necessary because never in history has there
been a regime of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
peasantry." (The Permanent Revolution, ibid.)
In both the passages apart from other things, Trotsky is
moved by narrow considerations of 'practicability'. 'There is no genuinely
revolutionary bourgeois democracy in Russia' and therefore a national bourgeois
revolution is impossible. 'The time for national revolutions in Europe has
passed.' 'Never in history has there been a regime of democratic dictatorship
of proletariat and peasantry' - so such a slogan is wrong. It is important to
note that Marxism does not take into account such narrow considerations in the
formulation of its party's programme: -
"Rosa Luxembourg wrote that the demand for Poland's
restoration was inappropriate in the Polish Social-Democrats' practical
programme, since this could not be realised in present-day society. Karl
Kautsky took exception to this, saying that this argument was "based on a
strange misconception of the essence of a socialist programme. Whether they
find direct expression in the programme or are tacitly accepted 'postulated',
our practical demands should be confirmed, not with their being achievable
under the given alignment of forces, but with their compatibility with the
existing social system, and with the consideration whether they can facilitate and
further the proletariat's class struggle, and pave for it the way to the
political rule of the proletariat. In this, we take no account of the current
alignment of forces. The Social-Democratic programme is not written for the
given moment - as far as possible, it should cover all eventualities in
present-day society. It should serve not only for practical action, but for
propaganda as well, in the form of concrete demands, it should indicate, more
vividly than abstract arguments can do, the direction in which we intend to
advance." (Lenin/CW/6/p.123)
So, Trotsky is patently wrong when he questions the
Comintern programme of the 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry' on the basis of his bogus historical analysis. He should have shown
how the slogan is incompatible with the development of society and that it does
not facilitate the establishment of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.
Criticising those who thought self-determination or the national question
impracticable or the national question impracticable under imperialism Lenin
writes: - "it is radically incorrect from the standpoint of theory. First,
in that sense, such things as, for example, labour money, or the abolition of
crises etc. are impracticable under capitalism. It is absolutely untrue that
self-determination of nations is equally impracticable." (Lenin/CW/22/p.
144)
Thus, Trotsky makes the mistake of criticising the Sixth
Comintern on the above grounds. In his brilliant articles during the First
Russian revolution of 1905, Lenin showed the necessity of the 'democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry'. He also showed the need for
the two-stage revolution which Trotsky ridicules.
"What is Martynov's muddle-headedness due to? To the
fact that he confounds democratic revolution with socialist revolution, that he
overlooks the role of the intermediate stratum of the people lying between the
'bourgeoisie' and the 'proletariat' (the petty-bourgeois masses of the urban
and rural poor, the 'semi-proletarians', the semi-proprietors) and that he
fails to understand the true meaning of our immediate programme."
(Lenin/CW/8/p. 286)
In this article - 'Democracy and Revolutionary
Government' Lenin elaborately showed the basis for the slogan of the
'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry'. Apart from the fact
that Trotsky's claims are bogus (there was a 'dictatorship of the proletariat
and peasantry' - refer Lenin's 'Letter on Tactics' and other articles of the
period), the historical failure of this slogan in a few instances does not
invalidate it.
"..the question of the fundamental slogan of the
Party must not be confused with the question of the time and forms of achieving
particular demands arising out of that slogan.
.the strategic slogans of our party must not be appraised
from the point of view of episodically successes or defeats of the
revolutionary movement in any particular period(they) can be appraised only
from the point of view of a Marxist analysis of the class forces and of the correct
disposition of the revolutionary forces on the front of the struggle for the
victory of the revolution, for the concentration of power in the hands of the
new class." (Stalin/Problems of Leninism/p. 239)
The 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
peasantry' slogan had its basis in the immediate programme of the Social Democratic
party - on the basis of an anti-feudal democratic programme. Since
we have shown that India is capitalist and as such a communist party cannot
have an anti-feudal minimum programme. So there cannot be any question of the
slogan of a 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry'. It is
not Trotskyism - it is only not rushing at windmills like Don Quixote.
In fact those who question the practicability of the
slogan of the socialist revolution on the basis of low consciousness of the
Indian masses behave like Trotsky. Their determination of the stage of revolution
is not based on objective correlation of class forces but on practicability
considerations like the subjective preparation of the masses. They confuse the
question of the success of the revolution with its stage.
The very important question in any revolution is the
question of reserves (allies), the question of winning over of the intermediate
strata to the side of the proletariat. This very important aspect of every
revolution has to be grasped in order not to fall into the pit of such 'mistakes'
as Trotsky made.
"What would be the social content of this
dictatorship? First of all, it would have to carry through to the end the
agrarian revolution and the democratic reconstruction of the State.
.Having reached power the proletariat would be compelled
to encroach even more deeply upon the relationships of private property in
general, that is to take the road of socialist measures." (Permanent
Revolution/Pathfinder Press/P. 129)
Trotsky is writing this in 1929, even after the
experience of the Soviet Union. Again here he miserably fails to appreciate
Bolshevik policy. He talks about the compulsion to make "deep in roads
into the relationships of private property". Marx, Engles, Lenin all
taught that the small proprietor, the small peasant is not to be touched. He is
to be helped. It was the brilliant application of Leninist policy, that the
slogan of neutralisation of the middle peasant was changed to alliance with the
middle peasant after the revolution. Is was the policy of the proletariat to
lead the toiling masses, to wrest them from the hegemony of the bourgeoisie.
Look how brilliantly Stalin puts it: -
"Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the
peasantry by virtue of certain conditions of its existence already exhausted,
or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis, for utilising these
potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the peasantry,
the exploited majority of it, from the reserve of the bourgeoisie which it was
during the bourgeois revolution in the West and still even now, into a reserve
of the proletariat into its ally?
"Hence the practical conclusion that the toiling
masses of the peasantry must be supported in their struggle against bondage and
exploitation , in their struggle for deliverance from oppression and poverty.
This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every peasant
movement. What we have in mind here is support for a movement or struggle of
the peasantry which , directly or indirectly, facilitates the emancipation
movement of the proletariat, which, in one way or another, brings grist to the
mill of the proletarian revolution, and which helps to transform the peasantry
into a reserve and ally of the working class". (Stalin/Problems of
Leninism/pg.54)
It is precisely in this way that we have tackled the
question. In our dealing of the agrarian question we have shown how the
peasantry is no homogeneous mass with similar interests, how capitalism has
made deep inroads into the life of the peasant masses, how the rural proletariat
and semi-proletariat are arrayed against the landlord and the rich peasant. It
is on the basis of this that we reject the slogan of the 'dictatorship of the
proletariat and peasantry'. This slogan no longer is of any use, it cannot be
put into any action which would facilitate the emancipation of the proletariat,
the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We reject it because
a complete breach of interests has taken place between the peasant bourgeoisie
on the one hand and the semi-proletarian and proletarian elements on the other.
This breach brings forth new questions on the agrarian
front. The old-type agrarian problem exists no more, we can no longer talk in
terms of a general anti-feudal programme. Cognizing this new reality we can today
only talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat with the poor peasantry and
other semi-proletarian elements as allies. Those who charge us with Trotskyism,
of skipping over the agrarian revolution are turning a blind eye to
reality.
"Some think that the fundamental thing in Leninism
is the peasant question, that the point of departure of Leninism is the
question of the peasantry, of its role, its relative importance. This is
absolutely wrong. The fundamental question of
Leninism, its point of departure, is not the peasant question
but the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under
which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated.
The peasant question, as the question of the ally of the proletariat in its
struggle for power, is a derivative question." (Stalin/Problems of
Leninism/p.52)
The peasant question crops up in the important context of
the question of reserves, of putting forward slogans for the toiling masses of
the peasantry as can facilitate the proletarian revolution, the achievement of
the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is because of this understanding of the
question that Lenin characterised the 'dictatorship of the proletariat and
peasantry' as an 'organisation of war' which in keeping with the strength and
organisation of the proletariat passes over into the dictatorship of the
proletariat. He saw no Chinese wall between the two as our friends do.
IX
Conclusion
Decades of capitalist evolution through the slow,
gradual, painful 'Prussian Path' has transformed India into a predominantly
capitalist country. It has given rise to new antagonisms and new class forces.
Herein lay the importance of formal independence that it allowed for a freer,
clearer field of class-struggle. Let us not whine like old women about the
despicable transfer of power in 1947.
Imperialist domination remained with us but the
capitalist-landlord-bourgeois class could frame its own policies giving
economic evolution the shape they desired. Imperialist domination need not
preclude or exclude capitalist development. It might lead to greater drain of
wealth - capitalism means greater production of wealth as compared to earlier
economic formations - and thus greater exploitation. But it is wrong to assume
that imperialist domination essentially means semi-feudalism. That is why we
focussed our attention on agrarian India, for agriculture is the mainstay of
the feudal economy and the agrarian question, the basis of the democratic
revolution in India.
The growth of the home-market shows the development of
capitalism in agriculture. Thus a synoptic view of the class-struggles in
agrarian India shows that new antagonisms have come to the fore. It has arrayed
the landlord-rich peasant against the proletariat and semi-proletariat.
The whole bourgeoisie including the peasant bourgeoisie
is drawn up in a skein of interests. Marx writes that the development of the
capitalist was speeded up 'hothouse' fashion by primitive accumulation,
protection, the national debt etc. It is much more true of India which became
independent under conditions of the general crisis of capitalism and lacked
capital and markets (no colonies for primitive accumulation). The state met the
needs of the young bourgeoisie through credits, protection, marketing,
co-operative institutions etc. [At the same time the main burden of this
capital formation fell on the shoulders of the toiling masses (taxes, inflation
due to money-creation etc.)] Thus the whole bourgeoisie is tied up thorugh
economic interests with the state fulfilling a major role. More, its economic
interests tie it up with foreign finance capital (even the green revolution and
agricultural development is financed by imperialist agencies). Objectively,
thus the fight against the Indian bourgeoisie goes against imperialism. Thus
the anti-imperialist edge of our revolution is also necessarily directed
against 'our' bourgeoisie. Whoever obscures this helps imperialism.
Our ideologists of the democratic revolution endeavour to
draw fine distinctions (with hair-splitting expertise) between the bourgeoisie
in their search for the national bourgeoisie. Look how Suniti Kumar Ghosh
(ex-editor 'Liberation') portrays the national bourgeoisie: -
Writing about the 'Bengal Chemical and pharmaceutical
Works Ltd.' he says: -
"Its objective was not merely to make profits but to
harness science and technology for productive purposes and science." (The
Indian Big Bourgeoisie/p.10)
This is Ghosh's conception of the national bourgeoisie -
whose concerns are 'not merely profits'. Turn over all three volumes of
Capital, all the three parts of 'the theories of surplus value' and nowhere can
you find Marx describing such a 'altruistic' bourgeoisie (one thought the
bourgeoisie invested in and harnessed science and technology in its drive for
expansion of relative surplus value and thus an extra shared of profit). But in
order to identify their sweet 'national' bourgeoisie our 'communist' ideologues
can indulge in any amount of sophistry. This is how they prettify capitalism.
All their theories of semi-feudalism only serve to shield the bourgeois order
and thus the bourgeoisie no matter of what shade. These theories rein in the
struggle within bourgeois bounds for the supposed uprooting of semi-feudalism
becomes the main concern. For instance, the constant propaganda for
distribution of land serves in practice only to when the appetite of the
landless agricultural laborer for land, for private property something Lenin
expressly warned us against....(as we have seen earlier, p. 53)
That Indian agriculture is no longer semi-feudal finds
its reflection in the theoretical bankruptcy of the 'democratic'
'ideologues' endeavour to describe it in terms of a certain incidence of usury
and debt-bondage. Otherwise the 'democratic' movement tries to draw sustenance
from the unfinished tasks of solving the problem of the self-determination of
nationalities etc. Such left-over 'democratic' (anti-feudal) tasks belong to
the more general question of the socialist revolution. Did Lenin not point out
that the future socialist revolution will have to fulfil many democratic tasks?
It is a sign of the times that while the genuine
activists carrying on the class struggles are hounded and brutally suppressed,
their ideological trappings are embellished by the bourgeois press and the
bourgeois social-scientists. Their slogans which have definitely fallen behind
the times have become a plaything in the hands of the ruling class. Look at the
enthusiasm with which these literary hacks, the paid servants of the
bourgeoisie welcome the slogans against which they carried on a most malicious
and mendacious propaganda at the high point of their struggle. (The fighters
are brutally suppressed in as mush as their struggles are taking on a new
content while not yet bursting out of the old ideological trappings for
cognition of the new reality becomes difficult as capitalist India has emerged
through slow, gradual, painful changes). The transformation of semi-feudal
Germany into Junker-bourgeois Germany witnessed a similar phenomena. The old
slogans which were based on the desire for the victory of the bourgeois order
become a play-thing in the hands of the ruling class. But the German
Social-democrats (communists) took care to revise their programme. Our old
slogans also being grist to the mill of the bourgeoisie. Let the old yield
place to the new. The changed correlation of class forces, the emerging
class-struggles which shows the breach of interests between the peasant
bourgeoisie on the one hand and the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat on
the other, all this impels us to recognise the need for the socialist
revolution. Only power in the hands of the proletariat, only socialist
construction can break the shackles of poverty, stop the ruin of the masses and
unleash their energy for the creation of a new society.
That India became capitalist without a peasant revolution
should not in any way detract from the cause of socialism which is the
proletarian party's goal. The 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
peasantry' is only to facilitate the achievement of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. As Lenin writes -
"Social democracy, the party of the proletariat,
does not in any way link the destiny of socialism with either of the possible
outcomes of the bourgeois revolution." (Lenin/CW/13/p. 347)
"The Germans have before them Junker-bourgeois
(landlord-bourgeois) Germany, there can be no other Germany until socialism is
established." (Lenin/CW/13/p. 343)
"The proletariat must accomplish the socialist
revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of
the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and
to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie."
NOTES
1. Bold letters stand for
emphasis.
2. In quotations from Lenin
read 'Communist' for 'Social-Democrat'.
3. 'Jajmani' System - Briefly
we can describe this system as - A system of exchange of goods and services
within the village community.
"It makes use of hereditary personal relationships
to express the division of labour." It represents a set of relationships
where there is no payment for each particular service or goods. Those providing
these services or goods have the right to a fixed quantity of grain at harvest
time and obligatory presents on certain occasions. It is marked by personal
dependence and a permanent 'patron client' relationship. The institution of the
caste system with its hereditary and hierarchical division of labour is a
prominent feature of this system. This system must presuppose a prevailing natural economy.
4. Compradore-Bureaucrat
Capital -
"Imperialism is able directly to buy up a
considerable portion of them (the native capitalists)., and to create a
definite compradore position, a position of intermediary trader, sub-exploiter
or overseer over the enslaved population." (Colonial theses
"Comintern and National & Colonial Questions" p. 83)
"A compradore, in the original sense of the word,
was the Chinese manager or the senior Chinese employee in a foreign commercial
establishment. The compradore served foreign economic interests and had close
connection with imperialism and foreign capital." (Mao/SW/I/p. 19/notes)
"During their twenty-year rule, the four big
families, Chiang, Soong, Kund and Chen have piled up enormous fortunes valued
at ten to twenty thousand million U.S. dollars and monopolize the economic
lifelines of the whole country. This monopoly capital, combined with state
power, has become state-monopoly capitalism. This monopoly capital, closely
tied up with foreign imperialism, the domestic landlord class and the old-type
rich peasants has become compradore feudal state monopoly capital. .This
capital is popularly known in China as bureaucrat-capital." (Mao/SW-4/FLP,
1975/p. 167)
And for a vivid description -
Formation of Chinese Bureaucrat-Capitalism
After establishing a fascist military dictatorship in
Nanking the Kuomintang reactionaries began to organise an economic monopoly of
bureaucrat-capitalists, represented by the "Four Big Families" of
Chiang Kai-shek, T.V.Soong, H.H.Kung and the Chen brothers (Chen Kuo-fu and
Chen Li-fu).
The monopolist activities of the "Four Big
Families" centred around the four banks : the Central Bank of China, the
Bank of China, the Bank of Communications and the Farmers' Bank of China. The
Central Bank of China was established in November 1928. As the so-called
"state bank", it enjoyed the right to issue bank noted, mint and circulate
the coins of the national currency and to float government bonds, it was also
in charge of the government treasury. From 1928 to 1935, the Chiang government,
by means of increasing government capital, obtained the control of the Bank of
China and the Bank of Communications, formerly the financial pillars of the
Northern warlord government. The Farmers' bank of China was founded in 1935.
The Four Big banks had a monopoly position among all
Chinese Banks. By 1936, they held 59% of all the banking assets in China and
59% of the deposits and issued 78% of the bank notes in the whole country. In
fact, they served as banks for all the other banks and exercised a monopoly
control over China's commerce, industry and agriculture.
In November 1935, the Chiang government, in pursuance of
what it called the "legal tender" policy, issued inconvertible
currency in order to squeeze the people of their wealth and turn it into
private property of the "Four Big Families". This was the most ruthless
form of plunder. Up to the outbreak of the anti-Japanese war in July 1937, the
total issue of "legal tender" amounted to C.N. $ 1400 million.
With the Four Big Banks as the centre of their
activities, the " Four Big Families" began their monopolizing and
looting in the field of commerce. The Soong family organized a large-scale
commercial trust in cotton, rice and other daily necessities and monopolized
the nation's trade.
The year 1935 and 1936 were a period of crisis for
national industry and commerce. After obtaining control of finance, the
"Four Big Families" proceeded to dominate and monopolize industry.
Under the cloak of state management, the "Four Big Families", in
addition to annexing the existing bureaucrat industries, established the
National Resources Commission as their main organisation to monopolize the
nation's industries. Their wolfram mines, steel and engineering works were
jointly run with the imperialists. In the guise of private capitalists and by
such means as making additional capital investment, reorganization and granting
loans at exorbitant interests, the "Four Big Families" seized the
control and ownership of privately owned industries when they were hard pressed
for money. This was particularly evident in the textile industry. In the first
half of 1937, the number of spindles in textile mills annexed or managed by the
"Four Big Families" constituted 13% of the total number of China.
In agriculture, the "Four Big Families" were
the biggest landlords in the country and the most merciless exploiters of the
peasantry. Backed by the reactionary regime, they also imposed heavy taxes upon
the peasants all over the country, press-ganged them into forced labour,
conscripted them for the army and requisitioned their land without
compensation.
Through their monopolist control over finance, commerce,
industry and agriculture, the "Four Big Families" plundered the
people and became known as the biggest vampires of the country.
(From - p. 140-41; A History of the Modern Chinese Revolution - Ho Kan
Chih,/FLP/ Peking, 1959 - Indian Reprint)
5. Collected and other Works
of Marx, Engles; Lenin; and Stalin used in quotations are publications of
progress Publishers or FLPH, Moscow.
Stalin's
'problems of Leninism' and 'On the Opposition' are of FLP, Peking.
2
People's
Democracy : It's Irrelevancy Today (history and Theory)
1. The rise and development of People's democracy should
be examined in concrete historical conditions.
2.
In the 1930s with the rise of fascism the world revolutionary movement received
a setback and the worked proletariat had to take recourse to a defensive line
of struggle. Fascism came as a great threat to mankind. It became the main
obstacle in the path of historical development and unless it was destroyed
mankind could not move forward. The struggle against fascism and the struggle
in defence and restoration of bourgeois democracy determined the direction of
the main blow and the alignment of class forces both in the
international and national arena. Even those countries where the socialist
revolution had been on the agenda, tasks of bourgeois democratic nature came to
the fore. These were anti-imperialist, anti-fascist tasks and the tasks of
national liberation and hence democratic.
3.
The domination and the danger of domination of fascism meant regression in all
fields of public life, whether political, social or national.
Politically,
fascism liquidated even those pitiful democratic rights and liberties which
helped the proletariat to open the gates of class-struggle. Socially, the
domination of fascism meant the restoration of feudal serfdom and even slave
from of exploitation.
Nationally,
fascist domination meant regression on the national question on account of
direct occupation of the nations by fascist forces.
Fascism
meant that history had moved a step backward and the working class and the
people were faced with completely new specific tasks to restore democratic order,
democratic rights and liberties ON A NEW BASIS.
"The
Hitler Party", said Stalin, "is a party of enemies of democratic
liberties, a party of medieval reaction and Black-Hundred pogroms." Stalin
further said: 'The German invaders have enslaved the peoples of the European
Continent - from France to the Soviet Baltic countries, from Norway, Denmark,
Belgium, the Netherlands and Soviet Byelo-Russia to the Balkans and the Soviet
Ukraine. They have robbed them of their elementary democratic liberties. They have
deprived them of the right to order their own destiny, they have taken away
their grain, meat and raw materials; they have converted them into
slaves," (On the Great Patriotic war of the Soviet Union)
4.
At the highest point of the anti-fascist democratic movement in Spain, in
February, 1936, a Popular Front Government came to power,
consisting of all democratic and Communist Parties, which began an anti-fascist
democratic revolution, both from below and above. It at once became an
international class-struggle between democracy and fascism, in which the middle
strata, especially, the middle bourgeoisie, in alliance with the proletariat,
became the active partner of the anti-fascist democratic revolution. The
existence of the Socialist Soviet Union and her help to the Spanish democratic
revolution on the one hand, and the existence of fascist dictatorship in a
number of bourgeois states and their help to the Spanish Fascists on the other, determined the alignment of
class-forces in the world and thus the question of the class-character of the
then Spanish state was posed by the Communist International in different way. The genuinely popular
form of anti-fascist democratic revolution by the Spanish Popular Front
government could not be reduced to a simple antithesis between bourgeois and
proletarian single class democracy. The Government that
emerged in Spain was neither a proletarian one not a bourgeois one. It was,
rather, an intermediary between the two, which was characterised by the
Communist International as "People's democracy" or "New
democracy" under the new historical international condition, when the
growing role of the Soviet Union and the world proletariat became an important
factor in shaping the world scenario against Fascism. Thus People's democracy
was born as an intermediate stage facilitating the passing over to the
dictatorship of the proletariat more or less peacefully without any break, like
that of the 'Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry', on
a broader social base under the leadership of the working class.
5.
During the anti-fascist patriotic war the Soviet Union, routing German and the
Japanese aggressors, released throughout the world, the huge revolutionary
potentialities of the entire democratic forces, that had been so long
suppressed. The direct presence of the Soviet army could foil the evil designs
of Anglo-American imperialism as well as the launching of civil war by the
internal counter-revolutionary forces. As a result, People's democracy, as the
political organisation of society could arise in alliance with all the anti-fascist democratic
forces.
6.
Hence, the rise of People's democracy as a direct connecting link
between the anti-fascist struggle and the struggle for socialism was the result of the
development of world history in a period, when the Soviet Union, the land of
socialism, acquired the unbeaten position of exerting almost a decisive
influence in shaping the international situation, when the relation and
alignment of class forces in the national and international arena had definitely shifted in favour of
socialism, when the general crisis of capitalism reached its zenith and brought
capitalism on the very verge of collapse, when the middle strata was
vacillating between fascism and anti-fascism and finally, when the working
class, in many countries was almost in an exclusive position to lead the
anti-fascist and anti-imperialist straggle.
"Had
there been no Soviet Union", Mao Tse-Tung wrote, "had there been no
victory in the anti-fascist Second World War, had Japanese imperialism not been
defeated (which is particularly important for us), had there been no People's
Democracies in Europe. then the pressure of the international reactionary
forces would, of course, have been much stronger than it is today. Would we
have been able to achieve victory in those circumstances? Of course not. So,
too, it would have been impossible to consolidate victory after it had been
achieved." (On the People's Democratic Dictatorship)
7.
The establishment of People's democracy solved the question of power in the
sense that the big bourgeoisie and landlords were overthrown. However, that was
still not the complete solution of the question of power. In the initial period of
People's democracy, the middle bourgeois and the rich peasants could not be
politically isolated and defeated and the problem of winning over the majority
of the population was not fully solved. The middle bourgeoisie and the rich
peasants were allowed to participate in governing the country side by side with
the working class and the peasantry. The bourgeoisie existed as an independent,
politically organised force, with its own parties, press, representative in the
government, in the legislative bodies and in the state apparatus.
8.
Hence there were two stages of the People's democratic revolution - democratic
and socialist. The task of the preliminary first stage was directed at
eliminating the political and economic bases of the pro-fascist bourgeoisie and
big landlords upon the basis of the political alliance of the working class,
the peasantry as a whole and the anti-fascist middle bourgeoisie including all
the middle strata. In this period, the People's democratic form of the state could not and did not exercise the function of
the dictatorship of the proletariat as power was shared with a
section of the bourgeoisie. As such,People's democracy was not and could not be
synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor the People's
democratic bloc and its mass organisation could be the political organisation
of the dictatorship of the proletariat IN ALL ITS PHASES as propagated by the
revisionists and crypto-revisionists.
9.
The People's democratic regime exercised the function of the dictatorship of
the proletariat only in the second stage of the revolution. This second stage
had to begin before the maturity, before the completion of the exposure,
isolation of the middle bourgeoisie and the rich peasants and before the
consolidation of the working class power, exactly like that of the introduction
of war communism by Lenin. Despite the existence of the mighty Soviet Union,
the middle bourgeoisie and the rich peasants dared to launch subversive
activities in league with the defeated big bourgeoisie and big landlords,
instigated and inspired by the Anglo-American conspiracy of cold and hot war
against the Soviet Union. They sabotaged the implementation of political and
economic reforms, planned one counter-revolutionary conspiracy after another,
energetically organised espionage and wrecking. Not only had this bourgeoisie
no desire to co-operate with the regime of People's democracy, but persistently
sought to overthrow the People's power. Experience showed that the middle
bourgeoisie strove to utilise the participation in the united bloc and government
apparatus in order to hinder the progress of revolution and restore its own
power. The People's democratic regime could exercise the function of the
dictatorship of the proletariat after having exposed, isolated and
expelled the parties of the middle bourgeoisie and the rich peasants from the
government and united bloc and after having expropriated their capital and land. Only on this basis
People's democracy, with the assistance of the Soviet Union - including
military assistance - could initiate the programme for laying of the foundation
of socialism by the policies of industrialisation and establishment, on a
voluntary basis, of agricultural co-operatives.
Experience
of the People's democracies clearly shows that the dictatorship of the
proletariat cannot be exercised by sharing power with a section of the
bourgeoisie or vested interests and laying of foundation of socialism was quite
impossible without the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Unless
one understands this, the classical tasks of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, he can understand neither Titoite brand of socialism nor
Khruschovite brand of modern revisionism nor the CPI(M)'s hollow and abstract
illusion - mongering talk of People's democracy with broader social base.
10.
People's democracy did not triumph in certain countries, though the internal
conditions of those countries were most favourable. The internal conditions of
Greece, France, Italy and Belgium were ripe for the establishment of People's
democracy, but the Anglo-American imperialists sought to land their troops in
Albania and Bulgaria, to break through Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary and
to reach there before the Soviet army. Had the
British and American troops entered those countries before the Soviet army,
they would have done their utmost to prevent the victory of People's democracy.
11.
People's democracy triumphed as a result of the defeat of fascism by the common front of the international
struggle against the common enemy - fascism. Naturally, the
social base of anti-fascism and of the first stage of the People's democratic
revolution was much broader, which was not the case in the second stage.
12.
One must note with care that with the degeneration of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in 1953, its Titoite distortion and with the recognition of
Yugoslavia as a socialist country (though no tasks of the second stage were
completed there), the degeneration of People's democracy and the socialist camp
began.
13.
Today, there is no common enemy like that of fascism nor is there any common
front. There is no socialist country, (which decisively influences world politics) under whose
umbrella People's democracy may develop into the second stage. The genuine
Communists must realise that in the absence of those above-stated conditions
and in the heyday of imperialism, deceptive bourgeois democracy and the much
trumpeted free enjoyment of the 'right' of private property, if a firm and
resolute proletarian policy is not pursued and if the victorious proletariat
does not deal very resolutely with rich peasants, and non-big bourgeoisie, the
cause of the revolution would be severely jeopardised. (Without such a policy
neither would it be possible to exercise hegemony nor stop the vacillation of
the non-proletarian working people already corrupted by profiteering and
proprietary habits.)
14.
Our main article on the stage of the revolution has clearly shown that only the
socialist revolution in India today can solve both the anti-imperialist and the
task of uprooting the vestiges of feudalism. 3
The
Stage of Revolution : The Presentation of the Question
( i )
"Lenin
says that 'the main question of every revolution is the question of state
power.' In the hands of which class or which classes, is power concentrated;
which class or which classes must be overthrown; which class or which classes
must take power - such is 'the main question of every revolution'.
The
Party's fundamental strategic slogans, which retain their validity during the
whole period of any particular stage of the revolution, cannot be called
fundamental slogans if they are not wholly and entirely based on this cardinal
thesis of Lenin's." (Stalin/Problems of Leninism/p. 237)
Clearly,
this is the Marxist methodology of ascertaining the stage of revolution. If we
base ourselves on this we will be able to understand why at different times
Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin gave different strategic slogans ascertaining
stages of revolution to be different under different conditions. After the
bourgeois revolution of 1848 in Germany, Marx and Engles still envisaged of a
petty bourgeois democratic revolution. Why? This was Marx's analysis:
"In
fact it was the bourgeois who, immediately after the March Movement of 1848,
took possession of the state power to force back at once the workers, their
allies in the struggle, into their former oppressed position. Though the
bourgeoisie was not able to accomplish this without uniting with the feudal
party, which had been disposed of in March, without finally even surrendering
power once again to this feudal absolutist party, still it has secured
conditions for itself which, in the long run, owing to the financial
embarrassment of the government, would place power in its hands and would
safeguard all its interests, if it were possible for the revolutionary movement
to assume already now a so-called peaceful development."
(Marx-Engels/SW/I/p. 176) From this analysis it is clear that the feudal forces
still held sway. Marx had further observed,"they (the democratic petty
bourgeoisie-ed.) also demand the establishment of bourgeois property relations
in the countryside by complete abolition of feudalism." (ibid/178). Here
is Engels' observation about Germany in 1872. "In reality however the
state as it exist in Germany is likewise the necessary product of the social
basis out of which it has developed. In Prussia - and Prussia is now decisive -
there exists side by side with a landowning aristocracy; which is still
powerful, a comparatively young and extremely cowardly bourgeoisie, which up to
the present has not won either direct political domination, as in France or
more or less indirect domination as in England." (ME/SW/II/p. 348) From
the above analysis it can be seen that feudal forces dominated in Germany. That
was the basic cause why Marx and Engels considered that Germany was still in
the stage of democratic revolution after 1848. Already Engels had noted the
slow but inevitable embourgeoisment of the feudal forces in Germany through
reforms. (See The Housing question, Prefatory note to the Peasant War in
Germany)
Engels
had further noted that tasks of democratic revolution might be accomplished at
the end of the nineteenth century from above since the process through reforms
had already started.
"Thus
it has been the peculiar fate of Prussia to complete its bourgeois revolution -
begun in 1808 to 1813 and advanced further to some extent in 1848 - in the
pleasant form of Bonapartism at the end of this century." (ME/SW/2/p. 167)
We
have made extensive use of quotations to show that the stage of democratic revolution
is discerned when the feudal forces hold sway in the socio-economic structure
and the polity of the country. In other words which class, or which classes are
to be replaced from state power and by which class or which classes - as Stalin
had pointed out - this is the way of presenting the question. If it is to be a
democratic revolution of anti-feudal type the feudals have to exist as a class
in the true sense of the term - the so-called enumeration of the remnants of
feudalism (to prove that there exists semi-feudalism if not feudalism) is of no
avail. (As a great many 'Marxists' seek to do in India.)
For
instance when towards the end of the 19th Century the bourgeois forces became
predominant in Germany though many relies of feudalism still existed and the
demand of establishing a republic had yet not been fulfilled in Germany, the
then Social-Democratic Party of Germany made a concrete analysis of concrete
conditions and came to conclusion that Germany was in the stage of the
socialist revolution. In 1905 Lenin had pointed out that the countries of
Europe where bourgeois revolutions of a reformist kind had taken place, had
undergone an evolution of capitalist forces, and were at the verge of socialist
revolution.
"And
will not the future socialist revolution in Europe still have to complete a
great deal left undone in the field of democratism?" (Lenin, two tactics,
CW/9/p. 85) We give here in full Lenin's dealing of the problem.
"Concrete
political aims must be set in concrete circumstances. All things are relative,
all things flow and all things change. German Social Democracy does not put
into its programme the demand for a republic. The situation in Germany is such
that this question can in practice hardly be separated from that of socialism (although
with regard to Germany too, Engels in his comments on the draft of the Erfurt
programme in 1891 warned against belittling the importance of a republic and of
the struggle for a republic!). In Russia Social Democracy the question of
eliminating the demand for a republic from its programme and its agitation has
never arisen, for in our country there can be no talk of an indissoluble link
between the question of a republic and that of socialism. It was quite natural
for a German Social-Democrat of 1898 not to place special emphasis on the
question of a republic and this evokes neither surprise nor condemnation. But
in 1848 a German Social Democrat who would have relegated to the background the
question of republic would have been a downright traitor to the revolution.
There is no such thing as abstract truth. Truth is always concrete."
(Lenin/CW//9/p.86) Evidently Lenin had considered that the feudal state in
Germany had grown into a predominantly bourgeois one just as bourgeois
relations of production predominated in the German socio-economy as Engels had
already foreseen in 1874.)
Let
us take the case of Russia. The February 1917 revolution was considered to be a
bourgeois democratic revolution. Why? Because there the people had replaced the
feudals from state power. It may be said why had Lenin given the call for the
proletarian revolution in April 1917 in Russia? Can it be said that in April
1917 Russia was predominantly bourgeois so that the stage of revolution was
discerned to be proletariat socialist? Marxists had considered the possibility
of bourgeois revolutions growing into socialist revolutions. When Marx had
spoken on making the revolution permanent in 1850, he had meant precisely this.
Lenin had elaborated this thesis in his 'Two Tactics' in 1905. In Russia when
in February 1917 the people had made revolution and the feudals had been
replaced from state power they did not establish the determined rule of the
proletariat and peasantry because of their overwhelming petty bourgeois
vacillating nature. They did not proceed further to dispossess the feudals and
sided with the reactionary bourgeoisie ceding real power to them. To further
the revolution a realignment of classes was necessary. Lenin made a concrete
analysis of concrete conditions and gave the call of proletarian revolution,
which had to complete the left-over tasks of the democratic revolution as well.
(See Stalin's - the 'Slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor
peasantry', Lenin's 'Letters on Tactics - 1st letter', Stalin's - 'Three
fundamental Slogans') Marxists have always held that if a country is at the
stage of democratic revolution of anti-feudal type and if the working class is
at the leadership of the revolution there the democratic revolution can
uninterruptedly grow over into a socialist revolution after passing through
some stage of dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry (as in Russia,
1917)
If
we go through Lenin's writings before the October revolution we find that
immediately after the February revolution Lenin did not rule out the
possibility that an agrarian revolution would start afresh since the
bourgeoisie having come to state power was obstructing the realisation of the
people's demand for land (See Lenin's letters on Tactics - 1st letter etc.) If
the party of the proletariat was not able to lead the bourgeois revolution to
grow into a successful proletarian revolution what would have been the task of
the proletarians on that country? In other words, suppose, the bourgeois
revolution in February 1917 just ended in a deal with the monarchist feudal
forces and the reformist bourgeoisie were successful in preventing the people
from going further in revolution, how then the proletarian party would have
decided its aim and tasks? This would be the case similar to that in Germany
after 1848. For a period of time so long as feudal forces existed predominantly
in the economic set up of the country the workers' party would have to decide
the stage of revolution to be still a democratic one as Marx & Engels had
done in the case of Germany. Only when through reforms the bourgeois forces
have become sufficiently dominant in the country the proletarians would decide
the stage of revolution to be socialist as Lenin had pointed out while
analysing the conditions of Germany in 1905. (We have already discussed this.)
In ascertaining the stage of revolution we have the analysis of conditions in
Germany and we have also the analysis of the conditions in Russia.
( ii )
THE STAGE OF REVOLUTION IN
INDIA
In the light of the above discussion we may proceed to
ascertain the stage of revolution in India.
"The
passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal,
the basic sign of a revolution both in the strictly scientific and in the
practical political meaning of the term." (Lenin, Letters on
Tactics/CW/24/p.44). Lenin had observed: "the passing of power into the
hands of the bourgeoisie was a "completed bourgeois revolution of the
usual type". (ibid)
But
in spite of the 'transfer of power', immediately after 1947 the vital tasks of
the national bourgeois democratic revolution were not achieved. Abolition on
the feudal classes and institutions, distribution of land etc. were not put
into effect. The ground for the emergence of a strong anti-feudal agrarian
revolution was still existing in the country. Accordingly, the Cominform and
the International Communist leadership ascertained the stage of revolution in
India to be democratic. And they were perfectly right. Marx and Engels in
Germany after 1848. Lenin in Russia after February 1917 did find the
possibility of emergence of democratic revolution in those countries. In India
in 1948 the SUCI mechanically ascertained the stage of revolution in India to
be proletarian socialist in opposition to the judgement of the International
Communist leadership. Their argument was simple: If the fundamental question of
every revolution is the question of state power, then, since the state power
has passed to the Indian bourgeoisie the stage of revolutions socialist. Their
presentation of the question grossly differs from that of Marx, Engels, Lenin
and Stalin. The SUCI did not take into account the possibility of utilising the
demands of the intermediate classes (peasantry etc.) and achieving a
dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, a consistent democratic rule, in
order to facilitate the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the
growing over of this revolution into a socialist one after 1947. We have
already discussed the analysis of Marx and Engels of the conditions in Germany
after 1848. Lenin also agreed that after February 1917 the agrarian revolution
had not stated in Russia and that a new stage of democratic revolution was
still possible. [Of course only as a possibility not the concrete reality
which owing to then prevailing circumstances (the imperialist war, the question
of peace, voluntary ceding of power by the soviets to the bourgeois provisional
govt. etc.) put the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the order
of the day. (Lenin/Letters on Tactics/CW/24/p.46-47)]. The methodology of SUCI
& R.S.P. etc. parties in ascertaining the stage of revolution in India is
therefore mechanical, not dialectical, is one-sided, does not take many-sided
reality into account.
However
can it be said that the judgement of the International leadership in the early
years after 1947 as regards the stage of revolution in India is still valid
today? Definitely not. Today in India feudalism does not exist. Feudal land
relations do not exist to an extent to give birth to a powerful agrarian
revolution. In the state power feudal forces do no exist to any significance.
The economic and political life lines are under the strict control of the
bourgeoisie. Definitely the stage of revolution in India today is proletarian
socialist. Just as Lenin in 1905 observed that Germany was at the stage of
socialist revolution though it had to complete the tasks of unfinished
democratic revolution, India today is at the stage of Socialist Revolution
which will have to complete the tasks of the unfinished democratic revolution
and solve the leftover problem of feudal remnants.
- END -
