English

(Extracts from articles, pamphlets etc.)

The Initial Period (1921-25)

1

Excerpts From

Gandhi Vs. Lenin

— by SA Dange

Gandhi and Lenin

Common Aim: To destroy social evils of the day, especially the misery of the poor and to subvert despotism.

Source : Chapter III of the book with the same heading

2

From

Manifesto to the 36th Indian National Congress, Ahmedabad, 1921

You have met in a very critical moment of the history of our country to decide various questions affecting gravely the future of the national life and progress. The Indian nation today stands on the eve of a great revolution, not only political, but economic and social as well. ...

This newly acquired political importance obliges the Congress to change its philosophical background, it must cease to be a subjective body, its deliberations and decisions should be determined by the objective conditions prevailing and not according to the notions, desires and prejudices of its leaders. ... The old Congress landed in political bankruptcy because it could not make the necessities of common people its own, it took for granted that its demands for administrative and fiscal reforms reflected the interests of the man in the street, ... You, leaders of the new Congress, should be careful not to make the same mistake because the same mistake will lead to the same disaster. …

[The new Congress] has discarded the old impotent tactics of securing petty reforms by means of constitutional agitation. Proudly and determinedly, the Congress has raised the standard with “Swaraj within a year” written on it. Under this banner, the people of India are invited to unite, holding this banner high you exhort them to march forward till the goal is reached. ... But the function of the Congress, as leader of the nation, is not only to point out the goal, but to lead the people step by step towards the goal. ... Several thousand of noisy, irresponsible students and a number of middle-class intellectuals followed by an ignorant mob momentarily incited by fanaticism cannot be the social basis of the political organ of a nation. The toiling masses in the cities, the dumb millions in the villages must be brought into the ranks of the movement if it is to be potential. How to realise this mass organisation is the vital problem before the Congress. ... Is it not a fact that hundreds of thousands of workers employed in the mills and factories owned by rich Indians, not a few of whom are leaders of the national movement, live in a condition unbearable and are treated in a manner revolting? Of course by prudent people such discomforting questions would be hushed in the name of the national cause. The argument of these politicians is “let us get rid of the foreign domination first”. Such cautious political acumen may be flattering to the upper classes, but the poor workers and peasants are hungry. If they are to be led on to fight, it must be for the betterment of their material condition. The slogan which will correspond to the interest of the majority of the population and consequently will electrify them with enthusiasm to fight consciously is “Land to the Peasant and Bread to the Worker”. The abstract doctrine of national self-determination leaves them passive, personal charms create enthusiasm loose and passing. ...

[The People’s] consciousness must be aroused first of all. They must know what they are fighting for. And the cause for which they fight must include their immediate needs. ... The first signs of the end of their age-long suffering should be brought within their vision. They should be helped in their economic fight. The Congress can no longer defer the formulation of a definite programme of economic and social reconstruction. The formulation of such a constructive programme advocating the redress of the immediate grievances of the suffering masses, demanding the improvement of their present miserable condition, is the principal task of the 36th Congress.

Mr. Gandhi was right in declaring that “The Congress must cease to be a debating society of talented lawyers”, but if it is to be, as he prescribes in the same breath, an organ of the “merchants and manufacturers”, no change will have been made in its character, in so far as the interests of the majority of the people are concerned. ... If the Congress makes the mistake of becoming the political apparatus of the propertied class, it must forfeit the title to the leadership of the nation. Unfailing social forces are constantly at work, they will make the workers and peasants conscious of their economic and social interests, and ere long the latter will develop their own political party which will refuse to be led astray by the upper class politicians.

Non-cooperation cannot unify the nation. If we dare to look the facts in the face, it has failed. It is bound to fail because it does not take the economic laws into consideration. The only social class in whose hand non-cooperation can prove to be a powerful weapon, that is the working class, has not only been left out of the programme, but the prophet of non-cooperation himself declared “it is dangerous to make political use of the factory workers” ...

For the defence and furtherance of the interests of the native manufacturers, the programme of swadeshi and boycott is plausible. It may succeed in harming the British capitalist government, though being based on wrong economics, the chances of its ultimate success are very problematical. Rut as a slogan for uniting the people under the banner of the Congress, the boycott is doomed to failure, because it does not correspond, nay it is positively contrary, to the economic condition of the vast majority of the population. ...

It is simply deluding oneself to think that the great ferment of popular energy expressed by the strikes in cities and agrarian riots in the country is the result of the Congress, or, better said of the non-cooperation agitation. ... The cause of this awakening, which is the only factor that has added real vigour and a show of majesty to the national struggle, is to be looked for in their age-long economic exploitation and social slavery. The mass revolt is directed against the propertied class, irrespective of nationality. This exploitation had become intense long since but the economic crisis during the war period accentuated, it. The seething discontent among the masses which broke out is open revolt on the morrow of the war was not, as the Congress would have it, because the government betrayed all its promises, but because the abnormal trade boom in the aftermath of the war intensified the economic exploitation to such an extent that the people were desperate and all bonds of patience were broken ...

What has the Congress done to lead the workers and peasants in their economic struggle? It has tried so far only to exploit the mass movement for its political ends. ... Of course it should not be forgotten that with or without the leadership of the Congress, the workers and peasants will continue their own economic and social struggle and eventually conquer what they need. They do not need so much the leadership of the Congress but the latter’s political success depends entirely on the conscious support of the masses. Let not the Congress believe that it has won the unconditional leadership of the masses without having done anything to defend their material interests.

His personal character may lead the masses to worship the Mahatmaji, strikers engaged in a struggle for securing a few pice increase of wages may shout “Mahatmaji ki jai”, the first fury of rebellion may lead them to do many things without any conceivable connection with what they are really fighting for; their newly aroused enthusiasm, choked for ages by starvation, may make them burn their last piece of loin cloth; but in their sober moments what do they ask for? It is not political autonomy nor is it the redemption of the Khilafat. It is the petty but imperative necessities of everyday life that egg them on to the fight. ... They rebel against exploitation, social and economic, it does not make any difference to them to which nationality the exploiter belongs ...

Words cannot make people fight, they have to be impelled by irresistible objective forces. The oppressed, pauperised, miserable workers and peasants are bound to fight because there is no hope left for them. The Congress must have the workers and peasants behind it, and it can win their lasting confidence only when it ceases to fight because there is no hope left for them. The Congress must have the workers and peasants behind it, and it can win their lasting confidence only when it ceases to sacrifice them ostensibly for a higher cause, namely the so-called national interest but really for the material prosperity of the merchants and manufacturers. If the Congress would lead the revolution which is shaking India to the very foundation, let it not put its faith in mere demonstrations and temporary wild enthusiasm. Let it make the immediate demands of the trade unions, as summarised by the Cawnpore workers, its own demands, let it make the programme of the kisan sabhas its own programme, and the time will soon come when the Congress will not stop before any obstacle, it will not have to lament that swaraj cannot be declared on a fixed date because the people have not made enough sacrifice. It will be backed by irresistible strength of the entire people consciously fighting for their material interest. ...

While the Congress under the banner of noncooperation has been dissipating the revolutionary forces, a counter- revolutionary element has appeared in the field to misled the latter. Look out! The revolutionary zeal of-the workers is subsiding, as shown by the slackening of the strike movement, the trade unions are falling in the hands of reformists, adventurers and government agents, the aman sabhas are captivating the attention of the poor peasants by administering to their immediate grievances. The government knows where lies the strength of the movement, it is trying to divorce the masses from the Congress. ... The consciousness of the masses must be awakened; that is the only way of keeping them steady in the fight.

Fellow countrymen, a few words about Hindu-Moslem unity which has been given such a prominent place in the Congress programme. The people of India are divided by vertical lines, into innumerable sects, religions, creeds and castes. To seek to cement these cleavages by artificial and sentimental propaganda is a hopeless task. But fortunately, and perhaps to the great discomfiture of the orthodox-. patriots, who believe that India is a special creation of providence, there is one mighty force that spontaneously divides all these innumerable sections horizontally into two homogeneous parts. This is the economic force, the exploitation of the disinherited by the propertied class. This force is in operation in India, and is effacing the innumerable vertical lines of social cleavage, while divorcing the two great classes further apart. The inexorable working of this force is drawing the Hindu workers and peasants closer and closer to their Moslem comrades. This is the only agency of Hindu-Moslem unity... it is being realised practically by the development of economic forces.

Fellow countrymen, let the Congress reflect the needs of the nation and not the ambition of a small class. Let the Congress cease to engage in, political gambling and vibrate in response to the social forces developing in the country. Let it prove by deeds that it wants to end foreign exploitation not to secure the monopoly to the native propertied class, but to liberate the Indian people from all exploitation — political, economic and social. Let it show that it really represents the people and can lead them in their struggle in every stage of it. Then the Congress will secure the leadership of the nation, and swaraj will be won, not on a particular day selected according to the caprice of some individuals, but by the conscious and concerted action of the masses.

MANABENDRA NATH ROY
ABANIMUKHERJI
1 December 1921

Source: One year of Noncooperation, Chapter I.

3

From

The Indian Trade Union Congress

- MN ROY

“One of the most interesting features of the Congress was that the same Mineowners’ Association which asked the government to break up the Congress ended by requesting a hearing before the assembly of the organised workers. Permission to speak before the Congress was granted to the president of the association who declared the intention of reducing the working week to 44 hours, and invited the representatives of the striking miners to open immediate negotiations. Promises were made in the name of the owners that decent houses would be built and schools provided for the workers’ children. Still more, a deputation from the owners publicly apologised for having attempted to suppress the Congress and presented a resolution condemning their own action. This incident shows the strength acquired by the organised workers of India in the short period of their activity.”

Finally it mentions that “Two resolutions were unanimously passed: one appeals to the workers of the world to secure peace and bread for Russia” and the second declaring that “wars can be avoided only by the united efforts of the working class of the world”. ...

Source: Inprecor, Vol. II, No.l, 3 January, 1922.

 

4

From

The Revolt of Labour In India

— Shramendra Karsan^[1]

“It is a happy augury for India that labourers are taking a leading part in the political movement. For it is they who will make India free. Mahatma Gandhi, ‘professor of pacifistology, has been able to become the leading figure in India today due to the masses’ confidence in him. The moment he betrays them in the attainment of their political-economic and social aspirations he will at once lose his influence over them. Beneath the political agitation is concealed the weapon of labour, which will be used at the opportune moment for the emancipation of the masses.

“The study of Indian labour problems then suggests that if the principal object of the labour movements in the world today be collective bargaining with the capitalists then their only recourse is a ‘mollycoddling’ method to force arbitration. But if labour is conscious of the fact that it produces all wealth and it should dictate the methods of distribution, then there can be no other way to establish the principle but the seizure of the control of the government. The government in such cases will undoubtedly be controlled by the majority which is the labouring masses. That is what the revolt of labour in India means. This is its positive, real and full meaning. And as the cause of labour is one, its International significance is quite evident.”

Source:  Inprecor, Vol. II, No. 12,14 February, 1922

Note:

1.   Most probably this was a pseudonym of MN Roy.

 

5

From

“The Awakening of India”

— By Evelyn Roy

... the arrest of Gandhi marks a temporary setback to the progress of the revolution in India. However badly, he has steered the unwieldy mass of Indian energy and opinion into one broad channel of ceaseless agitation against the existing system during the last two years. If his leadership was confused, it was because the movement itself was a chaos which bred confusion; though he has made blunders of first magnitude, he at the same time groped a way for the people out of the blind alley of political stagnation and government repression into the roaring tide of a national upheaval. The Indian movement is ready for a new leader because it is becoming every day more clarified, its inherent contradictions are becoming palpable even to its component parts, but this very clarification spells disintegration, unless some new leaders are hurled into the breach ...

May there soon arise from the ranks of Indian labour, or from the intellectual proletariat at war with foreign rule, a class conscious Gandhi who will crystallise the political confusion that reigns in the Indian movement by formulating a clear and definite programme based upon the needs and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of the Indian people by boldly raising the standard of the working class, and by declaring that only through the energy and lives of the Indian proletariat and peasantry can swaraj ever be attained.

Source: Inprecor, Vol. II, No. 32-33,5 May 1922.

 

6

Extracts from the Editorial of The Vanguard,
vol. 1, no. 1, 15 May 1922

Our Object

... The Indian movement, like all other political movements in history, is the expression of the urge for social progress. It is a revolt of the oppressed against all that has kept them in subjugation and stagnation. ...

It is a mistake to think that the movement is the creation of great personalities. On the contrary, leaders are created by the movement. The greatness of the leader comes in where he can understand the forces behind him and can guide the movement in accordance with the natural trend of these forces. The compromising politics of the moderates, those venerable fathers of Indian nationalism, brought the extremists, who under the leadership of Gandhi assumed the title of non-cooperators, into power. But the outstanding leaders of the non-cooperation movement have so far failed to appreciate the real magnitude of the forces they are called upon to marshal on the arena of national struggle. Believers in the false philosophy which teaches that a few great men can shape the destinies of a nation, these leaders neglected to look deep into the causes which brought about the gigantic popular upheaval. They failed to understand the forces which infused fighting spirit in the hitherto inert masses. Instead of leading the rebellious masses in accordance with their immediate demands, these leaders sought to impose on them their own will and idiosyncrasies. ...

However, the movement cannot always be either betrayed by the moderates or misled by the visionary non-cooperators. The masses, who are the backbone of the struggle for national liberation, are learning to find their own way. Bitter experience gained in hard struggles is clarifying their vision ... we are entering a new phase in our struggle for freedom. We will no longer grope in the dark. We will no longer exhort the hungry people to suffer for some visionary swaraj to be attained by “soul-force” purified in the fire of poverty. Although it will be stupid to talk of premature violence, we are, nevertheless, of the opinion that non-violent revolution is an impossibility. The Indian masses — the workers organised in trade unions, the peasants forming their own fighting organs in the form of the Akali Dal, kisan sabhas, aikya sabhas etc. — call for a realist orientation in our political struggle. To help the formation of this much-needed realist orientation is the object of THE VANGUARD.

 

7

Extracts From An Article In Vanguard, 75 May 1922

Mr. Gandhi: An Analysis — I

— by Santi Devi

And so, Mahatma Gandhi, variously described as “the greatest apostle of non-violence since the days of Buddha and Jesus”, “the prophet of spiritualised democracy”, and “the greatest man of the world”, is in jail, condemned to six year’s incarceration by the very judge who in passing sentence paid tribute to him as “a great patriot and a great leader, and even those who differed from you in politics look up to you as a man of high ideals and a leading noble and even saintly like”. ...

... it [the present article — Ed.) is aimed to estimate as carefully and impartially as may be the essential qualities of Gandhi the saint, philosopher, politician and patriot as applied to present-day Indian conditions and to derive what valuable lessons we may from his failures as well as successes of the past three years.

Gandhi The Saint

No one can know of the life and personality of Mr. Gandhi and fail to render tribute to him as “a saintly man who purifies us at sight”. ...

... Six years’ simple imprisonment, “with everything possible to make him comfortable”, is the utmost they [the British imperialists] dare attempt, and this merely to remove him from the arena of active politics. When the storm dies down a little, they will let him free. For they will soon learn, if they do not already know, that Gandhi the saint in prison becomes to India's adoring millions Gandhi the martyr. ... It is well and truly said that, “Mahatma in jail is more powerful than Mahatma free”, not alone for the constant impetus it gives to Indian nationalism by working upon the sympathetic indignation of the masses, but because in jail his qualities of sainthood can radiate at their fullest and best uncongested by the exercise of those more worldly faculties of political leadership in which Mr. Gandhi is not so conspicuously successful.

Gandhi the Philosopher

As a philosopher, Mr. Gandhi is neither original nor unique. He merely reiterates, in an age peculiarly out of tune with his teachings, the ancient doctrine of Hinduism whose ramifications are spread through the world and which are spread at various times to inspire the prophets and saints of other lands. ...

... Is it because Mr. Gandhi sees his people disarmed and bleeding, helpless and hopeless before the superior might of the conqueror, that he counsels the philosophy of non-violence with is after all a philosophy of despair when by analysis it is patent that no one believes in its ultimate fulfilment ? For thousands of years the Indian people have listened to such counsels; for thousands of years they have heeded them, bowing their broken lives before the inscrutable working of providence, accepting their earthly lot without complaint and looking to death willingly for their deliverance. Non-violence, resignation, perfect love and the release from the pain of living — this is the substance of Indian philosophy handed down through the ages by a powerful caste of kings, priests and philosophers who found it good to keep the people in subjection. Mr. Gandhi is nothing but the heir of this long line of ghostly ancestors — he is the perfect product of heredity and environment. His philosophy of satyagraha is the inevitable fruit of the spiritual forebears. What is unfortunate is that Mr. Gandhi’s revived philosophy of other-worldliness coincides with a most unprecedented growth in Indian national life — the growth of a spirit of revolt against material privation on the part of the Indian masses. His time-honoured doctrines of orthodox Hinduism have conflicted with this news spirit of rebellion, have temporarily controlled and arrested its development, thanks to his saintly personality, which has more hold on the imagination of the Indian people than his outworn doctrines of self-annihilation. For this involuntary service, the British government has every reason to be grateful to him and it was a dim realisation of his pacific influence upon the unruly masses as well as a very wholesome fear of rousing the fury of the people to the breaking point, that made the government stay its hand so long before arresting him. It was only when Mr. Gandhi had himself prepared the way to his own arrest by schooling the masses to calmness and had stemmed the flood tide of the spontaneous upheaval of social and economic emancipation by rebuking every outbreak of mass energy, every manifestation of force on the part of the people, and by throwing the entire weight of his loved personality on the side of peace, non-violence and non-resistance that the bureaucracy dared to arrest him. The story of his political career is best studied in a separate chapter which we will title “Gandhi, the Politician and Patriot”.

 

Extracts from an article in Vanguard, 15 June 1922

Mr. Gandhi: An Analysis — II

— By Santi Devi

Mr. Gandhi is in jail, but Gandhism as a force in Indian politics lives on, influencing the course of the movement for good or ill ... A careful survey of his speeches and writings, as well as of his programme and tactics is enough to convince anyone that his personal and political life are merely an application of his philosophical doctrines of soul-force, self-abnegation and non-violence — of the ultimate triumph of spirit over matter. The result has been to create as the dominating force in Indian nationalism for the past three years, what has cleverly been dubbed “transcendental politics”...

Gandhi as a politician

“Swaraj by non-violence must be a progressively peaceful revolution such that the transference of power from a closed corporation to the people’s representatives will be as natural as the dropping of a fully-ripe fruit from a well nurtured tree. I say again, that such a thing will be quite impossible of attainment but I know that nothing less is the implication of non-violence” (MK Gandhi).

Here is Mr. Gandhi’s political philosophy in a nutshell. On reading it one is tempted to enquire in what way does this differ from the conception of sincere British imperialist, who openly declares the civilising mission to be to fit the Indian people for self-government by an evolutionary process of gradual, progressive stages. ... There is no contrast between his and Mr. Gandhi’s professed mode and the means to attain it. To find a contrast we must turn to the histories of past revolutions, which were made not by love and peace but by blood and iron. The English revolution of 1640; the French revolutions of 1789, of 1848 and 1870; the German, Italian and Hungarian revolutions of 1848; the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, to cite only a few of the great liberation movements of modern times. Was there ever a revolution in the history of the world which was not ushered by force? Gandhism would learn something by a study of the past. But no, it declares, “India is a special creation of providence, she has a spiritual heritage to transmit to the world; she has evolved a spiritual civilisation like to none ever witnessed ...”

... while India’s starving millions are rioting, striking, looting and killing — in a word, behaving exactly like other normal people under the stress of hunger, overwork and privations — the burden of proof as to India’s spiritual heritage rests upon Indians themselves. ... We venture to suggest that India's spirituality is merely the remnant of medievalism clinging to the new organism about to be ushered into being as Indian nationhood. And in this connection we can but quote the profound saying of Marx — “Force is the midwife of revolutions.”

So much for the philosophy — Now for the programme and practice of Gandhism ... what swaraj is, what kind of government it implies, what definite benefit it will confer on the various classes of the Indian people, remains a vague undecided uncertainty. We know what swaraj is not only since the Ahmedabad Congress of December 1921, full three years after the movement was under way, swaraj is not “outside the British empire”, as the rejection of Hasrat Mohani's resolution definitely snowed. Swaraj is therefore some form of dominion home rule, as Mr. Gandhi himself reluctantly defined it, based upon “four anna franchise” — i.e., the right to vote being limited to those who had obtained the membership m the Congress Party by paying the regular dues ...

... The awakenings of both the peasants and proletariat were independent of the nationalist movement for swaraj; one was economic, the other political. But the nationalist movement, which needed the support of the masses immediately stepped into the leadership of this economic revolt; it sought to guide and control the activities of the people to enforce its own demands; it called hartals or strikes and suspended them at pleasure; announced boycott of foreign cloth and liquor shops, the universal use of the charkha and commanded the masses to obey. In return for this usurpation of a popular upheaval for economic betterment, what did the Congress give the masses? ... Did it hold up the banner of a material swaraj within the comprehension and necessities of the rebellious Indian people ?

No, on the contrary, it held before the eyes of the famished workers a fabulous “spiritual” swaraj, to be attained not by the brief, energetic and wholesome birth-pangs of a revolution but by the old, familiar method of suffering, sacrifice, nonresistance, repentance and prayer. The Indian masses, who had come to the end of their capacity to suffer and endure, must “purify” themselves and become perfectly nonviolent in thought, word and deed before the swaraj of the rishis, the swaraj of a handspinning, handweaving, beast-of-burden India would descent upon them like a boon from heaven. Swaraj will come, next week, next month, next year, when the hungry, naked Indian toilers had transcend-dentalised themselves. Mahatma Gandhi said so; Mahatma Gandhi was a great saint, a great sage, an incarnation of god himself, whom the white rulers could not harm, did not dare to touch; therefore, simple, ignorant men must trust, believe and blindly obey ...

Swaraj never came. One by one, then in dozens and hundreds, the national leaders went to jail. Every attempt at self-defence, at aggressive action by the masses met with sharp reproof from Mr. Gandhi — with worse than reproof, with public lamentations, fasting and prayer. The golden promise of swaraj was growing dimmer. The daily misery of the people grew ever worse; government repression, machine-guns and jails killed all the spontaneity and enthusiasm of the early struggle. Every chance for direct action was curbed by the mandate of the Mahatma; after Bardoli, the very non-payment of taxes that had swept the peasants with a thrill of hope, as well as all forms of aggressive mass actions were called off. The bewildered people were told to spin and pray for swaraj. Then came the final blow. The Mahatma, the divine incarnation, all wise, all powerful, was arrested by the white infidels, tried and sentenced to six years in jail. The heavens did not fall, neither the earth yawn at this blasphemy, doors of the jail remained locked upon the saviour of the people who remained peaceful, mute and unresisting, as he had bidden them, his expectation that the miracle justified their obedience. There came no miracle to reward their faith. British raj remained securely enthroned, swaraj was locked in the cell of the Mahatma. Waiting masses were told from behind the bars to “spin and pray”.

Mr. Gandhi as political leader cannot escape responsibility for the lamentable state of chaos that besets the Indian movement today. Gandhism must be held accountable for its mistakes as well as honour for its achievements. Constructive contribution of Gandhism in national movement as a whole are : (1) the use of mass action for the enforcement of political demands; (2) the building up of a nation-wide organisation such as the Congress Party; (3) the liberation of the national forces from governmental repression by the slogan of non-violence; (4) the adoption of noncooperation and civil disobedience, especially nonpayment of taxes as tactics in the struggle against foreign rule. Non-cooperation and civil disobedience, if property wielded, are powerful weapons in the hands of a disarmed people against machine-guns and bombing planes. But Mr. Gandhi has always shrunk from putting his brilliantly conceived tactics to proper use. The boycott was not an original contribution of Gandhism; it had been used in the partition of Bengal crisis in 1906, and Gandhism spoiled the possibility of its successful application by stressing homespun khaddar at the expense of mill-made swadeshi instead of encouraging Indian industrialism by every means.

The shortcomings and failures of Gandhism may be summarised succinctly. The most glaring defect was lack of an economic programme to win the interests and allegiance of the masses, and to make swaraj intelligible to them. Next, and closely related to this omission, was the obstinate and futile desire to unite all the Indian people, landlords and peasants, capitalists and proletariat, moderates and extremists, in a common struggle for an undefined goal. Oil and water cannot remain mixed; lion and the lamb do not lie side by side; each man follows his own material interests, in the fight for a spiritual swaraj. At the slightest danger to their property and profits these zamindars and mill-owners rally to the side of the government of law and order. If it was desired to change this government for the benefit of the majority of the people, it was necessary to sacrifice the interests of the handful of landlords and capitalists to the needs of the hungry stomachs and the naked bodies of the Indian workers and peasants. This the Congress never had the courage to do, and we cannot see that it had even the desire. ...

The third great defect of Gandhism was the intrusion of metaphysics into the realm of politics; the confusing of spiritual with temporal aims; ... Revolution is not a religion, neither is swaraj “a mental state”. To undermine, overthrow British imperialism is a material problem and to build up a national state in which the condition of the people will be improved is a question of economics, not metaphysics. ...

The fourth great defect of Gandhism is its reactionary economics. ... To go “back to the Vedas” back to the charkha, is to put away the progress of two thousand years and all the bright hopes of a future age when all will be free to cultivate their spiritual side because they have conquered, not run away from, the tyranny of material laws ....

The fifth grave error of Gandhism was its vacillations and inconsistencies, its lack of steady driving power towards a given goal. To declare non-cooperation with a satanic government, and then to seek compromise with its viceroy, to pronounce modern civilisation to be rotten to the core and “Parliaments are the emblem of slavery”, and at the same time to define swaraj as "home rule within the empire", to promise swaraj on a given date and then postpone it; to declare mass civil disobedience and then postpone it — these are a few of the innumerable and bewildering contradictions of Gandhism, which lost for it the confidence of the. masses and respect of all thinking people. ... Gandhism is not revolutionism, but a weak and watery reformism, which shrinks at every turn from the realities of the struggle for freedom. ...

Gandhi the Patriot

In closing what has been a dispassionate analysis of Mr. Gandhi’s influence upon the Indian movement, a heartfelt tribute must be paid to Gandhi the politician. We believe that Mr. Gandhi’s political career is inspired by a deep love for his suffering countrymen, a love nonetheless noble for having made great tactical mistakes ...

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi will live in the annals of his country as one of its saints and patriots, long after his political failures are forgotten.

 

8

A note appearing in The Socialist, 21 October, 1922

Fall In Union Membership

— a Comment

The Labour Gazette publishes a quarterly review of trade union activities in the Bombay Presidency. The third quarter of 1922 shows a decrease in the membership of the Bombay unions. The decrease is mainly found in the number of members of the BB & CI and GIP Railwaymen’s Unions in Bombay. The secretary of these unions states that it has been necessary to remove the names of a number of members from the rolls, as in spite of numerous reminders, subscriptions were not forthcoming,

For the cause of this we must dive even deeper. The union men cease to take interest and pay subscriptions because the union ceases to interest them. Union leaders forget that a union is a fighting weapon and not a banking institution to build up “fixed deposits” and “reserves”. Union leaders seem to be more actuated by a desire to please union men with the bank-reserves at their credit and naturally the worker comes to the conclusion with his instinctive logic that his own pocket or stomach-bank is as good as any other chosen by the secretary for the sums of his subscription money.

 

9

An article in the same issue of The Socialist

“Frame The Demand”

— by SA Dange

The Akali arrests have gone up over 2,500 and the Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee deserves unstinted praise for its highly efficient organisation and conduct of the campaign. The reason for this is ascribed to many things and as usual the non-cooperator philosopher is ready with his deduction that his non-violent satyagraha has proved its superiority because the Akalis have remained non-violent and some philosophers have gone to the length of saying that it has proved successful, though the end is not in sight as yet.

However, if we excuse this hastiness of an impatient philosophy to install herself in a position of acceptance and look to the striking point in the Akalis, we shall find that the efficiency of the whole movement is due to the military discipline of the community. It is not the philosophic faith in the creed of non-violence that makes the Akali sacrifice himself so nobly. A few days back he marched with as much heroism and joy to cut the heads of his enemies on the war front. Violence or non-violence to him is the same. To him matters only word of superior command, as far as methods of fighting are concerned, for he has been bred to it. For himself he determines to fight and leaves the tactics, methods and means to the best judge. ...

But what is going to be the solution of the Akali tangle? In the hurry and confusion of the fight it is likely that the real issues, on which the struggle began, may be lost sight of and a false issue may occupy the ground leaving the source of the evil as it is. Anyone can see that the press of the country while speaking of the Akalis now is concerned mainly with the question whether government was cruel or not in the handling of the jathas, and the Congress Inquiry Committee too is engrossed in proving from thousands of witnesses that government was hard-hearted, and everything else that militarism can be accused of ...

What we mean to drive at is that the aim of the Akalis should be formulated and immediate demands outlined. The whole community should be made conscious of the aim of its fighting, which is not simple cutting of trees at Guru-ka-baug or removal of a few mahants. The evil of it is still deeper.

The Akalis are tillers of the soil, which is administered by the mahants in the interests of wheat speculators and exporters. During war time a great many Akalis were drawn off from the land. Demand for wheat in the foreign market raised the price of wheat and the Akali peasant was for a time prosperous. The high prices were so tempting that the Akali sold almost every grain, with the result that a shortage and wheat famine followed and Punjab was obliged to import wheat for consumption.

The prosperity of the war time soon faded away. The peasant became pauper as before and the return of disbanded men burdened the soil with more mouths and thus enhanced the evil; but the high rate of expropriation with which they were saddled by the mahants was not reduced. The Akalis looked for the source and found it in the mahant, who is merely the tool in the hands of higher expropriating organisations.

Simple removal of the mahant will not benefit the Akalis. It cannot free them from the high land tax, and the scourge of wheat cornering and speculation carried on by high finance like that of the Rallies. Only the freedom of the land from the high tax, common holding and equitable distribution will end the Akalis’ expropriation.

 

10

from

Message Of The Communist International To The Gaya Congress

To the All India National Congress, Gaya, India.
Representative of the Indian People !

The Fourth Congress of the Communist International sends to you its heartiest greetings. We are chiefly interested in the struggle of the Indians to free themselves from British domination. In this historic struggle you have the fullest sympathy and support of the revolutionary proletarian masses of the imperialist countries including Great Britain.

We communists are quite aware of the predatory nature of western imperialism, which brutally exploits the peoples of the East and has held them forcibly in a backward economic state, in order that the insatiable greed of capitalism can be satisfied. ... We are [not ?] in favour of resorting to violence if it can be helped; but for self-defence, the people of India must adopt violent means, without which the foreign domination based upon violence cannot be ended. The people of India are engaged in this great revolutionary struggle. The Communist International is wholeheartedly with them.

The economic, social and cultural progress of the Indian people demands the complete separation of India from imperialist Britain. To realise this separation is the goal of revolutionary nationalism. ...

Dislocation of world capitalist economy, coupled with the strengthening of the world revolutionary nationalist movement caused by the awakening of the expropriated masses, is forcing imperialism to change its old methods of exploitation. It endeavours to win over the cooperation of the propertied upper classes by making them concessions. From the very beginning of its history the British government found a reliable ally in the feudal landowning class, whose dissolution was prevented by obstructing the growth of higher means of production. Feudalism and its relics are the bulwarks of reaction; economic forces, that give rise to the national consciousness of the people, cannot be developed without undermining their social foundation. So the forces that are inimical to British imperialism are, at the same time, dangerous to the security of the feudal lords and modern landed aristocracy. Hence the loyalty of the latter to the foreign ruler.

The immediate economic interests of the propertied upper classes, as well as the prosperous intellectuals engaged either in liberal professions or high government offices are too closely interlinked with the established order to permit them to favour a revolutionary change. Therefore, they preach evolutionary nationalism whose programme is “self-government within the empire” to be realised gradually by peaceful and legal means.

This programme of constitutional democracy will not be opposed by the British government for ever, since it does not interfere with the final authority of imperialism. On the contrary its protagonists are the potential pillars of imperial domination. ...

The social basis of a revolutionary nationalist movement cannot be all inclusive, because economic reasons do not permit all the classes to participate in it. Only those sections of the people, therefore, whose economic interests cannot be reconciled with imperialist exploitation under any makeshift arrangement, constitute the backbone of your movement. These sections embrace the overwhelming majority of the nation, since they include the bankrupt middle classes, pauperised peasantry and the exploited workers. To the extent that these objectively revolutionary elements are led away from the influences of social reaction, and are free from vacillating and compromising leadership, tied up spiritually and materially with the feudal aristocracy and capitalist upper classes, to that extent grows the strength of the nationalist movement.

The last two years were a period of mighty revolutionary upheaval in India. The awakening of the peasantry and of the proletariat struck terror in the heart of the British. But the leadership of the National Congress failed the movement in the intensely revolutionary situation. ...

In leading the struggle for national liberation the Indian National Congress should keep the following points always in view :

• 1) that the normal development of the people cannot be assured unless imperialist domination is completely destroyed,
• 2)  that no compromise with the British rulers will improve the position of the majority of the nation
• 3)  that the British domination cannot be overthrown without a violent revolution, and
• 4)  that the workers and peasants are alone capable of carrying the revolution to victory. ...

In conclusion we express our confidence in the ultimate success of your cause which is the destruction of British imperialism by the revolutionary might of the masses.

Let us assure you again of the support and cooperation of the advanced proletariat of the world in this historic struggle of the Indian people.

Down With British Imperialism !
Long Live The Free People Of India !
With Fraternal Greetings,

Humbert-Droz
Secretary,
Presidium of the Fourth Congress
of the Communist International.

 

11

From

The Programme^[1]

Our movement has reached a stage when the adoption of a definite programme of national liberation as well as of action can no longer be deferred. ... The ambiguous term swaraj is open to many definitions, and in fact it has been defined in various ways according to the interests and desires of the different elements participating in our movement. ... Therefore a militant programme of action has become indispensable. ...

Programme of National Liberation

... The first and foremost objective of the national struggle is to secure the control of the national government by the elected representatives of the people. But this cannot be achieved with the sanction and benevolent protection of the imperialist overlords, ... Any measure of self-government or home rule or swaraj under the imperial hegemony of Britain will not amount to anything. Such steps are calculated only to deceive the people. ... The Congress must boldly challenge such measures and declare in unmistakable terms that its goal is nothing short of a completely independent national government based on the democratic principle of universal suf: rage.

Theory of Equal Partnership a Myth

The theory of “equal partnership in the British commonwealth” is but a gilded version of imperialism. Only the upper classes of our society can find any consolation in it, because the motive behind this theory is to secure the support of the native landowning and capitalist classes by means of economic and political concessions, allowing them a junior partnership in the exploitation of the country. Such concessions will promote the interests, though in a limited way, of the upper classes, leaving the vast majority of the people in political subjugation and economic servitude. The apostles of “peaceful and constitutional” means are nothing but accomplices of the British in keeping the Indian nation in perpetual enslavement. ...

No Change of Heart

Those preaching the doctrine of “change of heart” on the part of the British rulers fail to dissociate themselves clearly from such halfway measures. ... A determined fight which is required to conquer national independence for the Indian people is conditional upon a clearly defined programme, and only such a programme will draw the masses of the people into the national struggle as takes into consideration the vital factors affecting the lives of the people.

Therefore, the Indian National Congress declares the following to be its PROGRAMME OF NATIONAL LIBERATION AND RECONSTRUCTION :

• (1)  Complete national independence, separated from all imperial connection and free from all foreign supervision
• (2)  Election of the national assembly by universal suffrage. The sovereignty of the people will be vested in the national assembly which will be the supreme authority.
• (3)  Establishment of the federated republic of India.

Social and Economic Programme

The principles which will guide the economic and social life of the liberated nation are as follows :

• (1)  Abolition of landlordism. All large estates will be confiscated without any compensation. Ultimate proprietorship of the land will be vested in the national state. Only those actually engaged in agricultural industry will be allowed to hold land. No tax farming will be allowed.
• (2)  Land rent will be reduced to a fixed minimum with the object to improving the economic condition of the cultivator. State agricultural cooperative banks will be established to provide credit to the peasant and to free him from the clutches of the moneylender and speculating trader.
• (3) State aid will be given to introduce modern methods in agriculture. Through the state cooperative banks agricultural machineries will be sold or lent to the cultivator on easy terms.
• (4) All indirect taxes will be abolished and a progressive income tax will be imposed upon incomes exceeding 500 rupees a month.
• (5) Nationalisation of public utilities. Mines, railways, telegraphs and inland waterways will be owned and operated by the state under the control of workers’ committees, not for profit, but for the use and benefit of the nation.
• (6)  Modern industries will be developed with aid and under the supervision of the state.
• (7)  Minimum wages in all the industries will be fixed by legislation.
• (8)  Eight-hour day. Eight hours a day for five and half days a week will be fixed by law as the maximum duration of work for male adults. Special conditions will be laid down for the woman and child labour.
• (9) Employers will be obliged by law to provide for a certain standard of comfort as regards housing, working conditions, medical aid, etc. for the workers.
• (10) Protective legislation will be passed about old age, sickness and unemployment insurance in all the industries.
• (11) Labour organisations will be given a legal status and the workers’ right to strike to enforce their demands will be recognised.
• (12)  Workers’ councils will be formed in all the big industries to defend the rights of labour. These councils will have the protection of the state in exercising their functions.
• (13)  Profit sharing will be introduced in all big industries.
• (14)  Free and compulsory education. Education for both boys and girls will be free and compulsory in the primary grades and free as far as the secondary. Technical and vocational schools will be established with state aid.
• (15)  The state will be be separated from all religious creeds, and the freedom of belief and worship will be guaranteed.
• (16)  Full social, economic and political rights will be enjoyed by the women.
• (17)  No standing army will be maintained, but the entire people will be armed to defend the national freedom. A national militia will be organised and every citizen will be obliged to undergo a certain period of military training. ...

Analysis of Our Forces

... With the purpose of developing all the forces oppressed and exploited under the present order and to lead them in the struggle for national liberation, the Indian National Congress adopts the following

ACTION PROGRAMME :

• (1)  To lead the rebellious poor peasantry in their struggle against the excesses of landlordism and high rents. This task will be accomplished by organising militant peasants’ unions which will demand : (a) abolition of feudal rights and dues; repeal of the permanent settlement and talukdari system; (b) confiscation of large estates; (c) management of the confiscated estates by councils of the cultivators; (d) reduction of land rent, irrigation tax, road cess, etc.; (e) fixed tenures; (f) no ejection; (g) abolition of indirect taxation; (h) low prices; (i) annulment of all the mortgages held by moneylenders etc.
• (2) To back the demands of the peasantry by organising countrywide mass demonstrations with the slogan of “non-payment of rent and taxes”.
• (3) To organise mass resistance against high prices, increase of railway fare, postage, salt tax and other indirect taxation.
• (4) To struggle for the recognition of labour unions and the workers' right to strike in order to enforce their demands.
• (5)  To secure an eight-hour day, minimum wage and better housing for the industrial workers.
• (6)  To back up these demands by mass strikes to be developed into a general strike at every available opportunity.
• (7)  To support all strikes politically and financially out of the Congress fund.
• (8)  To agitate for the freedom of press, platform and assembly.
• (9)  To organise tenants’ strikes against high house rents in the cities.
• (10)  To build up a countrywide organisation of national volunteers.
• (11)  To organise strikes of the clerks and employees in the government and commercial offices for higher salaries.
• (12)  To enter the councils with the object of wrecking them.
• (13) To organise mass demonstrations for the release of political prisoners. ...

December 1922

Source: One Year of Non-cooperation, Chapter X.

Note:

1.   Better known as Roy’s Programme for the Indian National Congress.

 

12

Excerpts from an article published in Vanguard, Double Number, 15 October — 1 November, 1923

The Next Step

Now that the liquidation of the non-cooperation campaign can no longer be obscured by phrases, the question that faces those who are not in conformity with this liquidation is.: “what next ?” ...

... The revolutionary significance of the non-cooperation programme lay in the fact that its realisation demanded mass action. The programme of paralysing the government could not be realised by the efforts, however sincere and determined they might be, of the educated few, ... the determination to paralyse the government by withholding all support presupposed the necessity of eventually falling back upon ether social forces — forces that are more vital for the existence of the government and even the shortest period of non-cooperation which can seriously injure the government. These are the productive forces of society, namely, the workers and peasants. The profit that British imperialism makes out of its domination over India is not produced by the lawyers and students. Clerks contribute but little to it. The toil of the workers and peasants, who constitute more than 90 per cent of the population, goes into the accumulation of this profit. Any act that will cut into the source of this profit will weaken the position of the government.

... The refusal of the Indians to enlist in the army and that of the troops to fight will be the beginning of the end. Nearly 40 per cent of the entire revenue comes from the peasantry only in the form of direct land rent. If this source of income is disturbed the whole structure of the state will crack.

... The idea of paralysing the government by withholding popular cooperation evolved out of the objective situation which did not permit any other form of direct fight with the established order. This spontaneously evolved form of struggle was taken up by the Congress under the leadership of Gandhi whose subjective limitations, however, hedged in the revolutionary programme of non-cooperation. The wave of revolutionary mass movement, which alone could have led to the realisation of the non-cooperation programme, precipitated the clash between the objective and subjective factors that went into the making of the non-cooperation campaign. The Congress succumbed in this fatal clash. The journey towards Delhi, then the councils, the negotiation with the bureaucracy and finally compromise with imperialism was begun.

... Those revolutionary patriots who are not satisfied with the turn the Congress has taken at Delhi should not waste their time in recrimination. Their slogan should be “Forward !” ... They should invoke by all means those forces of revolution which were shunned by the Congress. The next step therefore is the organisation of a People’s Party comprising all the exploited elements of our society. Such a party alone will carry the non-cooperation to its logical consequences.

September 1923.

13

Excerpts from an article published in Vanguard, Vol.3, No. 4.

Manifesto On The Hindu-moslem Unity And Swaraj

1 October 1923

Hindu-Moslem unity has been justly regarded as the chief pillar on which the future swaraj of India is going to be built. Much enthusiasm was shown on the question and indeed good deal of work was done in the direction during the apparently triumphant march of the non-cooperation movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and his lieutenants Ali brothers. Cooperation between Mahatma Gandhi as the leader on one hand and AH brothers and his followers on the other was regarded as an emblem of unity. But this union was not very desirable to many people. Some revolutionary thinkers believed that the union was artificial. A number of Hindu politicians had the opinion that the Musalmans were exploiting the Mahatma's popularity to further their pan- Islamic plans which were always looked upon by the Hindus with suspicion, while the reactionaries in the Moslem camp held this submission of the Ali brothers as the leaders of Indian Moslems (to the authority of the Mahatma) contrary to Islamic laws. How can a believer follow the lead of an unbeliever? This was the question on the lips of many a maulvi. The apparent triumphal progress of the movement however obliged these maulvis and pandits to keep their tongues in control. But as soon as the popular movement subsided and the Mahatma and his lieutenants were shut up in jails, these reactionary elements came out in the open and by their mischievous propaganda created disturbances among two communities.

The scene of Jallianwala Bagh and other bloody struggles, the Punjab, first of all became the scene of civil war between the Hindus and Musalmans. The troubles originated in this unhappy province spread to other prbvinces of India. ...

The root cause of all these troubles occurring in the country after the immediate collapse of the movement is that religion was allowed to play the chief part in the movement. It may be comparatively easy to fire politically backward people with religious fanaticism; but it is impossible, even dangerous, to base a political movement on such unreliable ground. The recent occurrences amply prove this impossibility and dangerousness. If the hostility against the British imperialism is made a religious issue, the hostility thus aroused can at any moment turn into antagonism among the two great Indian communities as they do not profess the same religion. It is precisely what happened now …

The khilafat demands constituted one of the principal planks of the non-cooperation platform. The khilafat movement however was essentially a political movement based on religious principles. The Ali brothers and other Moslem leaders succeeded in convincing Mahatma that the Khilafat problem was to Indian Moslems a question of life and death. Mahatma being himself a religious man assumed the championship of the khilafat movement, and a bargain was struck — Hindus to support the khilafat agitation and Moslems to take active part in swaraj movement and perhaps by and by give up cow-killing to spare the religious sentiments of their Hindu countrymen. This was the basis of the union. It was artificial in that it did not take into account operation of the material forces which alone could bring about a solid and durable national unity. It was built on the unreliable foundation of religious sentimentalism. The present debacle was a foregone conclusion of such an ill started movement.

Now to improve the situation those causes which had so much grave dangers should be eliminated. In this connection the announcement of Mushir Hossain Kidwai, that the khilafat committees should be dissolved and their activities transferred to the field of Indian politics, is valuable. The proposal has not been accepted by other leaders of the khilafat movement. The suggestion of Mr. Kidwai is useful in the way of improving the relations between the Hindus and Moslems. Action taken along the lines of the proposal will make for the growth of homogeneousness of the Indian national movement. The just complaint of most of the Hindu patriots that the Musalmans do not take an active part in the Indian affairs would be removed and the religious character of the movement would be replaced by a predominating political character. The Hindu Mahasabha movement which is a reaction to separate Moslem political organisations, especially the khilafat conference — would ultimately die down. ...

The Indian Moslems should take lesson from the decision of the grand national assembly of Angora which has declared the separating of the Khilafat from the sultanate, i.e. separating of the religion from politics. No protests from the ulemas of India will induce the progressive elements of the Turkish nation to change their decisions. Turkey has entered a new era of progress by separating religion from politics. The example of nationalist Turkey should help the Indian Moslems to decide in which direction their politics should go. Let them liberate themselves from the yoke of the British before they think of liberating other Musalmans of the world. This cannot be done until and unless they unite heart and soul with their countrymen, Hindu and other communities of India. ...

Have the Hindus and Moslem masses nothing in common in India? Are both of them not suffering equally under the ruthless exploitation of British imperialism? Are they not economically ruined by the British and Indian capitalists and landlords? ... The masses — the common workers and peasants — are however as a matter of fact already united by virtue of their common economic interests, only the consciousness of this union is interfered with by large doses of conflicting religious dogmas administered by interested parties. Religious propaganda is an indigenous method of exploitation of the ignorant masses by the able doctors of divinity. This they have to do in order to preserve feudal rights of the upper classes, without whose support they cannot live and prosper.

The lower-middle-class intellectuals who sincerely desire the freedom of their country should free themselves form these religious and communal disputes. ... They have to replace the religious propaganda and metaphysical abstractions by economic slogans to make the masses conscious and subsequently to lead them to the fight for national independence without which their own economic emancipation is impossible. When the cry of “land to the peasants and bread to the workers” is raised the masses whether Hindus or Moslems will rally to their standard.

The problem of national freedom cannot be solved unless a new programme is adopted and new tactics employed. ... Our work is to agitate and organise the masses on an economic programme and finally to lead them to a general strike or you may call it civil disobedience. Let us have no negotiation with the enemy on the eve of civil disobedience, let us carry the fight to the finish. The police and military recruited from poor peasants and workers, who have to sell themselves to the British in order to earn their livelihood, will ultimately be won to our side.

So let our programme be the economic emancipation of the masses, which must have the national freedom as its prerequisite.

One may think that this is a wrong method, as by doing so we will alienate the sympathies of the upper classes — our own capitalists, landlords and religious leaders. ... Some people will say that all Indian landlords and capitalists are not aiding the British, on the contrary, they are participating in the national struggle. So far so good, let us launch the fight on an economic programme in the interest of the masses, and if these landlords and capitalists still fight against the British imperialists the sincerity of their patriotism will be proved. Why sacrifice the interests of 98 per cent in order to please the remaining 2 per cent and especially when we know that no national freedom can be obtained without uniting the masses on economic grounds. If these 2 per cent are honestly fighting for the masses, they will continue to fight even if we adopt more concrete programme and more militant tactics.

The country is in a state of confusion now. The Congress is split into factions engaged in bitter recriminations on petty question. One is after council entry hoping thereby to obtain perhaps another installment of precious reforms. The other is in a hopeless bewilderment, not knowing what to do. ... The khilafat conference does not know where to go …

In order to clear off this confusion and to put a new life in the movement a party subordinating all religious and communal questions to the great politico economic question should be organised. The programme of the party should be neither going to the golden age of vedas, nor saving the empire of the khalifa but to free the Indian people from the political and economic serfdom. The party should speak to the Indian masses in terms of their daily needs — land, bread, housing, clothing etc. Its immediate goal would be to free India from the domination of England. The ultimate goal would be economic emancipation of the people, to create a society having no blood-suckers and wage slaves — a classless society. ...

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA.

14

Excerpts from a commentary published in Labour Kisan Gazette, Vol. 1, No. 4.

Comrade Nikolai Lenin In Memoriam

31 January 1924.

Lenin, the great, has passed away and joined the choir invisible. The world, the worker's world is today poorer by the passing away of its great teacher and redeemer. ... It is the worker — the true salt of the earth — that mourns or ought to mourn for him who showed him the path of deliverance from bondage, privatian and misery. Teachers and prophets, statesmen and scientists, philosophers and metaphysicians equally great and equally learned have appeared from time to time, and tried to redeem the worker’s humanity from its age-long suffering and serfdom, but it was reserved to Nikolai Lenin to apply the only true and correct method of removing the great ills of life which the great capitalist interests of the world have brought upon the once happy human race.

It was his great master Karl Marx who found the great truth of historical materialism trodden underfoot, reviled and ridiculed by the powerful and the ignorant among mankind, but he lived long enough to see the great worker’s philosophy understood by the thoughtful and accepted as the method of ridding poverty and misery from this mundane existence. It was for the first time in the history of the world demonstrated with scientific precision and accuracy that most of the misery with which the majority of the world have become affected were due to the selfish aggrandisement of a few among the powerful over the toiling many. And he taught further that it was only by rendering the few powerless to continue the evil that the suffering workers will have to get rid of their misery, and attain to the life of knowledge, labour and ease, which today is the monopoly of a very few among mortals. Today Nikolai Lenin stands unrivalled among the sons of men who have tried to alleviate human sufferings and it is now left to the workers to follow his method. ...

The great revolution in political thought and philosophy which Nikolai Lenin brought in his own country may be destroyed, may even be swept away by the selfish nature of a few among men, but it will revive again and again and ultimately encompass the world, and finally render the life of the worker tolerable and pleasant throughout the world. To him who has done so much and who has given the worker a clear vision of his glorious realm in which every human being shall have the right to labour and to live like all his fellows, we lift up our hands in love, devotion and reverence.

 

15

Excerpts from an article published in The Socialist, 31 January 1924

Lenin Is Dead

The Russian revolution was an accomplished fact in 1917. For four years the capitalist press of the world was overthrowing the bolsheviks and killing Lenin. He could not be killed and they have never succeeded in killing him. Lenin is dead. We are afraid, this time, the wires have flashed a sad truth.

…    …    …    …    …    …    …

Lenin was introduced to the Indians by Reuter and the capitalist press as a monster who reveiled in massacres. The present writer tried, with what scanty information he could collect, at that time (April 1921) to present a faithful picture of the Russian revolution, of Marxism and the man, who was fighting for Marxism in Russia. The book Gandhi vs Lenin was meant to apprise Indians of the inherent fallacies of pacifism and the certain failure of pacifist methods in accomplishing a revolution in capitalist economy and political structure. But at that time pacifism was at its height of power in India. In 1921, we quoted the hero of pacifism thus, "We shall continue patiently to educate them (the masses) politically till we are ready for safe action. ... As soon as we feel reasonably confident of non-violence continuing among them in spite of provoking executions, we shall certainly call upon the sepoy to lay down his arms and the peasantry to suspend payment of taxes. We are hoping that the time may never have to be reached. ... But we will not flinch when the movement has come and the need has arisen.”

The time came and went. And ultra pacifism looked on and waited. When one of the greatest personalities in the world was thus experimenting with fallacies, Lenin with an unerring eye grasped the key of the Russian revolution. ...

Lenin and his followers possessed that single virtue that alone brings success in social upheavals. That single virtue was lacking in the class and the men that led the Indian movement. The highest spirit of revolution was absent in the class that led India from 1918 to 1923. ...

 

16

Excerpts from an article in Inprecor, Vol4, No. 19.13 March 1924.

The Abolition of The Khilafat

- MN Roy

The news of the abolition of the khilafat by the Turkish national assembly has burst upon the world as a bombshell. Ample space has been devoted to this topic in the bourgeois press of Europe. ...

Every imperialist country is weighing the event in the scale of its own interest. All are visibly disturbed, because it looks as- if the days when they all considered Turkey as legitimate prey are over. Nationalist Turkey has plunged herself into a revolution which will transform her so as to make European imperialism, which never gave up the hope of keeping her under perpetual domination, very uncomfortable.

It need not be said that the revolution of the Turkey national assembly is a great revolutionary step. ... The boldness of the step becomes evident when it is remembered that the position of Turkey has been morally fortified by the fact that 240 millions of Moslems in the surrounding countries owed her allegiance as the custodian of the holy sea. She has been looked upon as the leader of the Moslem world because of this fact. Her latest struggle for national liberation was interpreted by the Moslems in other lands as the struggle for the defence of the faith. Turkey was supposed to be defending the khilafat. So it can be easily imagined what a tremendous shock the news that the Turks hove abolished the khilafat will be to the Moslem world. Not only the present khalif who divested of temporal power only a few months ago is deposed, but the time-honoured institution itself is abolished. It is going farther than any other people has gone before. Neither the papacy of the Roman church, nor the patriarchate of the Greek church was ever abolished by any bourgeois revolution. They were only deprived of all influence over the state. ...

Turkey today sends a new message to the Moslems of other countries. Her message is that the struggle for national liberation cannot be fought within the bounds of theocratic tradition and the social institution that accompany it: that nationalism cannot be circumvented by religion. The revolutionary significance of this message is incalculable. This message has been given a graphic form in these words of Ismet Pasha : “If Constantinople is today in our hand, it is because we have fought to the death the Greeks and the khalif. If other Moslems have shown sympathy for us, this was not because we had the khalif, but because we have been strong.” The implication of these words is clear. Turkey now bids for the leadership of the Moslem world, not on the ground of a religious mission, but as a secularised state which has not only warded off foreign attack, but has successfully grappled with reaction at home. She faces the Islamic world, not in the supposed role of the defender of the khilafat, but as the grave-digger of that antiquated institution which for a long time has become the instrument of foreign imperialism.

As a matter of fact, the so-called-khilafat movement, which has been more evident in India than in any other country, becomes an anomaly in consequence of the action of nationalist Turkey. Although they somehow managed to reconcile themselves with a republican Turkey liberated from theocratic control, the Indian khilafatists will find it hard to swallow the wholesome words of Ismet Pasha. ... the revolutionary action of the Turkish nationalists is sure to rebound upon the Indian political horizon. There must be much searching of hearts among the Indian Moslems. There too the days of religious nationalism and extraterritorial patriotism must come to an end.

If the Indian Moslems still persist in their notion of a religious confederation, they will surely land in the camp of reaction and all their anti-British talk will ridicule them in the face. But the real grievance of the Moslem masses of India was not concerning the khilafat, it was not of a religious character. The grievance lies much nearer home and is essentially mundane by nature. Therefore the only way to prevent the Indian Moslems from falling into the snares of scheming reaction will be to abandon the treacherous ground of extraterritorial religious patriotism in favour of a healthy nationalism more concerned with material well-being than the spiritual salvation of the people. ...

The liberation of the premier Moslem country from the age-long traditions of religion opens up a new era in the history of the entire east as far as the Indian archipelago; this concerns particularly the Islamic people. The fond belief of the orthodox Indian nationalists, both Hindu and Musalman, that their country is immune from the so-called western civilisation is going to be shattered. In the course of normal progress the social and political institutions of every human community must be secularised. Civilisation is a stage of human progress which makes for the dissipation of ignorance upon which religion is based. It does not assume a different form at different points of the compass. The epoch-making character of the event with which the Turkish national assembly entered upon its fifth year of existence is graphically brought home by an editorial article in the official organ Ileri. The article, published the day after the memorable resolution was taken, was entitled, “Goodbye, Orient”.

 

17

From an item published in The Masses, 10 October 1926

The Communal Strife

The most outstanding and at the same time the most deplorable feature of the present situation in India is the communal strife. Communal riots are spreading all over the country. ...

Causes

There is a class of people whose mission is to go on adding fuel to the fire. They keep up the conflagration of internecine strife to gain some definite political and economic ends. This class consists of the following elements : (1) Parasitic class of priests who masquerade as maulanas and mahatmas and whose influence among the masses tends to decrease in proportion as the country goes more and more through the capitalist exploitation. It is to their material interest to kindle and to feed the flame of religious fanaticism. Faced with the menace of unemployment, so to say, they are creating work for themselves. (2) Reactionary politicians who lost ground during the nationalist movement of non-cooperation. (3) Unemployed intelligentia. The hitherto weak and less numerous muslim intellectuals are struggling against their powerful hindu rivals to get administrative posts in the country. (4) The petty-bourgeois elements engaged in trading business in the town and village. Here again the young muslim bourgeoisie in entering into a keen competition with their strong hindu compatriots. (5) Lumpen proletariat and goondas who are used by the police to start the affray. They are paid for it. …

The Hidden Hand

There is another agency which is interested to see that the civil war is kept going on. This is the hidden hand of imperialism. AH kinds of diplomatic and ingenious methods are used to encourage the communal strife, with a double purpose. ...

The British diplomats adapt their harangue according to the community which they wish to please at a particular time in order to enforce their “divide and rule” policy. When muslims are destined to be the “favourite wife” the British empire is represented to be the biggest muslim empire in the world as it counts millions of mussulmans under its yoke. ... The muslims who are sometimes called “virile” by flattery, are led to think that they must have special consideration in any scheme of swaraj because as predecessors of British rulers they have a “special status”. It is on the basis of the “special status” that the muslims demand a greater percentage of the seats than in proportion to their actual number. On the other hand when the muslims are “conspiring with his majesty’s enemies outside India” and it is desired to placate hindu feelings, it is discovered that the British are as pure Aryans in origin as the hindus. At the same time the bogey of pan-is-lamism with all its dangers to hinduism is made a subject of propaganda in the imperialist press. It is preached that if law and order are set at naught in India, if the Britishers are forced to withdraw, the Afghans would invade the country and would ensalve and loot the hindus with the support of the Indian muslims. ...

The mixing of religion with politics is another factor which leads to resuscitation of communal bickerings. A political movement based on religion cannot but lead to religious aggressiveness and thus defeat its own purpose. There can only be a temporary cooperation among the different religious communities who join hands in the struggle against a common enemy. Once this struggle is slackened the allies fall foul of one another, and the weapon used against the third party is employed more vigorously among each other. The people of India may have any number of religions, but politically and economically they find themselves in the same situation. Therefore it is on this basis only that a permanent union among the people can be effected. The movement for national emancipation must be divorced uncompromisingly from religion, otherwise it will bring ruin and disaster in its wake. There lies the only hope for the success of the struggle. ...

18

Agricultural Policy of British Imperialism in India

(Abridged)

GAK Luhani

Recently, Lord Reading, the outgoing viceroy of India, announced the appointment of a commission to study the agricultural condition of the country. This comes after a series of official statements, both in India and England, that agriculture is the greatest problem confronting India today. ...

It is significant that this discovery of the importance of agriculture has been made now. Many of the swarajist critics of the British government’s new agricultural policy have, however, missed the significance. They have run away with the hasty assumption that it is meant to divert the “attention of the public from the political problems (namely agitation for autonomy etc.) which alone are important”.

Now, the new agricultural policy of the British government is not designed to take attention away from the “political problems”. That may or may not be one of its effects in the sense of the swarajist interpretation. On the other hand it is clear that it is designed as a further overhauling and modernisation of the mechanism of oppression.

... Till the beginning of the last imperialist war, India was used by the British capitalists as a vast reservoir of raw materials, and in the second place as a dumping ground for the industrial products of England. There was undoubtedly here and there a considerable amount of British capital “working” on the spot in India, invested in the nascent industries. There was also developing an active participation of native capital in these industries.

But the economic characteristics of pre-war India remained, in spite of the commencing processes of industrialism, those of an industrially backward country. The proletariat consisted, for the most part, of the vast masses of the miserably paid agricultural workers and the coolies on the plantations, with a fringe of industrial workers, properly so called, in the large cities like Bombay, Kanpur, Calcutta and Madras. The function of these labouring masses was to produce raw materials and to prepare them for export to England and in the second place to absorb, according to their buying capacity, the industrial imports from England. The surplus-value from this process had been shared between the foreign and the native bourgeoisie, the lion’s share of course going to the former.

Already during the war, a start was made with a more extensive development of Industries, for the immediate purpose of supplying the war needs of British imperialism in the Near and the Middle East. Since then the industrialisation of India has become the accepted policy of British imperialism, as laid down by the industrial commission 1916-1917. There is now a constant flow of capital from London to various industrial areas in India where, in collaboration with capital supplied by the native bourgeoisie, the foundations have been laid for what is practically an industrial revolution after the model of that which happened in Europe generally in the 19th century in the period of transition from the economy of guild and craft industries to the higher economy of high scale industrialism.

As is well known, the industrialisation of a country must have in the beginning, as its basis, a “protected” home-market. This is the necessary condition of its growth. It means that the competition of foreign countries for the supply of goods to India must be regulated, controlled and, if necessary, made to cease. This is precisely what is being done in India now by a system of protective tariffs, "discriminate protection" and bounties. The large firm of steel manufacturers in India, namely, Tata and Co, has received large bounties. Many other industries are “protected”.

But the absence of foreign competition is only one of the factors in the creation of a home-market. Another and a more important factor is the buying capacity of the population concerned; because protected industries means higher prices. The second phase of the industrial policy of the British government is precisely to take measures to increase the buying capacity of the Indian peasants, who as the overwhelming majority of the population, are responsible for the greatest consumption of goods.

The appointment of the agricultural commission is a step towards estimating the actual economic position of the Indian peasantry with a view to increase its power of absorbing the products of the new industrialism. ... The labours of the commission will leave the Indian peasants, in the future as in the past, completely at the mercy of the landlords, the hierarchy of rent-collecting intermediaries, and the sahukar (moneylender) to whom the indebtedness of the peasant has assumed colossal proportions.

Nor will there by any attempt to abolish the system of minute fragmentation of holdings which obtains in many parts of India. No measures are to be taken to improve the position of the small holders. As a matter of fact, legislation is being proposed in some provinces to buy out the large number of small holders with the double purpose of facilitating large capitalist farming and pauperising vast masses of the peasants for their eventual employment as necessary manpower in the new intensive industrialism. ...

Source: Inprecor, 22 April 1926

 

19

Gandhi And Labour Organisation

The growing urgency of the labour question in India, reflected in the greater attention now paid to it in the nationalist press and in nationalist speeches, has compelled Gandhi also to define more clearly his attitude in respect of it. In particular, the open letter addressed to him by comrade Saklatvala has made it necessary for him to declare himself. It has, of cource, been obvious for a long time past, in practice if not admittedly, that he is on the side of the employers in the class struggle, if only by the denial of its existence, but his recent admissions in defining his attitude towards labour organisation bring out his class position very clearly and are therefore worthy of some notice. In the first place, it is to be noticed that Gandhi is not opposed to labour organisation, but as he says, “as in everything else, I want its organisation on Indian lines, or if you will my lines”. What then are the distinguishing features of Gandhi’s specifically “Indian” type of labour organisation. The kind of organisation that he advocates appears from his statements and practice to be characterised by four features. Firstly, it is built up on the lines of class harmony:

“I do not regard capital to be the enemy of labour. I hold their coordination to be perfectly possible” (Reply to Saklatvala, 17 March 1927).

“We should not begin by blaming the capitalists” (Interview, 24 March 1927).

“One word as to policy. It is not anti capitalistic. The idea is to take from capital labour’s due share and no more, and this not by paralysing capital. (Letter to Saklatvala, 10 May 1927).

Secondly, the primary object is to free the worker from his vices and to make him a better workman. At the annual meeting of the Communist Movement in India Ahmedabad Labour Union last October, Gandhi advised the workers to work in the mills as if they were the owners. In the interview above mentioned he declared : “I should begin by real education of the worker in making him feel his own dignity and power and persuade him to give up the vices of drink, etc to which he is addicted.” Thirdly, Gandhi's labour organisation is to be kept away from contact with the independent labour and trade-union movement, because “the labourers have no mind of their own when it comes to matters of national policy or even the general welfare of labour itself”, and the existing movement is disunited and often “under selfish and highly unscrupulous guidance”. Thus, he is convinced that “an all-India union can only exist on paper”. Finally, his labour organisations must be kept away from politics:

“Its direct aim is not in the least degree political. I have not therefore the remotest idea of exploiting labour or organising it for any direct political end. It will be of itself a political power of first-class importance when it becomes a self existing unit. Labour in my opinion must not become a pawn in the hands of the politician on the political chess-board” (Letter to Saklatvala).

These characteristics give a fairly clear idea of what Gandhi conceives to be a specially Indian form of labour organisation. It is interesting to compare them with the features exhibited by the so-called company unions or yellow unions organised by the employers in the United States and in Europe in order to counteract the power of the independent labour unions and to prevent the workers from joining the latter. In the first character, of class-collaboration, the two are identical. Strangely enough, the same thing applies to all the other features. In both cases, the unions are organised on welfare lines in order to get the most out of the workers, they are carefully kept aloof from the wicked socialistic or bolshevistic trade unions, and they are also strictly forbidden to middle with politics. By what miracle have all the characteristically Indian or, if you like, Gandhist features been already anticipated and adopted by the capitalists of western civilisation ? Can it really be true that Gandhi's ideas of labour organisation, instead of being specially Indian, are simply the ordinary ideas of the capitalist employer who is ready enough to give the workers what he considers their “due share” (as long as it leaves handsome profits for himself) but anxious above all to prevent his wage-slaves from acting for themselves? The question must be asked as to what is the difference between Mahatma Gandhi’s labour organisation and that of the most anti labour capitalist employer. In externals they are both exactly alike, and that is in itself the most damning indictment of Gandhi's views.

Source: The Masses of India, Vol. 3, No. 6, June 1927

 

20

Extracts from

Manifesto Of The Workers’ And Peasants’ Party To The Indian National Congress

The appointment of the Statutory Commission, by the attention it has attracted and the passion it has aroused, is likely to dominate the attention of the Indian public for some time to come. ...

The vocal section of the nation is practically unanimous in advocating boycott of the Commission, as at present constituted, and there is no doubt that the silent masses will be found eager to supper’, an attitude of boycott. The rally of all sections, including many representatives of the bourgeoisie, (Liberal and Moderate politicians) to trie idea of boycott is to be welcomed, and their co-operation on a common platform with the National Congress, if that is possible, is desirable.

But it seems to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party necessary to utter a warning as to the dangers of such co-operation. The majority of the moderate leaders enter the Boycott campaign with motives different from those which animate the mass of the people and their popular representatives. Their protest is against the personnel of the commission, not against its functions and the imperialist policy which it is designed to carry out. Their participation in the propaganda of boycott will tend to lead India into the futile demand for representation on the Commission (in one form or another, either by actual Indian membership, or in a parallel Indian Commission, or in a “Round Table conference”) instead of along the fruitful path of mass protest against, and boycott of, any and every Commission responsible to the British Government.

It is essential that in its desire to retain the support of moderate sections, the Congress should not be led to sacrifice its principles or to modify its campaign.

First, it must be made clear that the Congress boycotts the Commission, not because of its personnel, or any accidental circumstance of its appointment, but on principle. The Congress does not recognise the right of the British Government, or of any Commission appointed by it, whether containing Indian members or not, to determine the nature of the future Government of India. The Indian richer classes, because of their own sectional interests, are unwilling to break the British connection, and are forced to admit Britain’s right to political dictatorship in India. The mass of the people, represented in the congress, whose interests are opposed to those of the richer classes, cannot agree to this position. They stand for complete national independence.

Second, it is necessary that the Boycott campaign should not be confined to the futile and unrepresentative Legislatures. ...

But such a campaign, which should aim at the eventual Non-Payment of Taxes, and the declaration of General Strike, will not receive the support of the landowners and commercial and industrial capitalists, whose sectional interests are directly threatened thereby. The experience of the Non-Cooperation movement clearly shows this fact. But the peasants and the working class, who form the great majority of the nation, with the “intellectual” and middle classes, whose fundamental interests are with the masses, cannot hold their hand for fear of frightening the upper strata, who have so often in the past led them astray. The Indian bourgeois class, with its political spokesmen, has again and again proved to be a broken reed. The masses must learn to stand without their support.

A “Round Table Conference” ?

It must be said that the Swaraj Party itself cannot be exempted from this charge. Organised as it is solely for Assembly and Council work, in which it represents part of a thin upper crust of less than five per cent of the population, it inevitably tends to voice the views of the upper classes, and with few exceptions its members are to be looked upon as equally guilty with the bourgeois Liberals, Moderates and Responsivists.

The official demand, which the Swaraj Party, supported by other sections, has often made in the Assembly, is for a “Round Table Conference”. This idea is superficially more attractive than the demand for Indian membership of the Commission, since it permits India's representatives to be appointed nominally by India, instead of by the British Government. But it is fundamentally a demand of the same type. A Round Table Conference is essentially an instrument of compromise, and the issue is one which permits of no compromise. India requires strength, and the demand for a Round Table Conference, a demand which appeals merely to those classes which can gain from a possible compromise with Imperialism, in no way adds to India’s strength. …

 

A Constitution For India

It has been often suggested that the Congress should officially prepare a Draft Constitution, which should be presented to the Government as the minimum demand with which it can be satisfied. It is clearly necessary that the demands of the people must be put forward in an authoritative form by the National Congress, and such sanctions as it is within the power of the people to adopt must then be used to gain those demands. And among the demands to be presented, a constitution drafted by representatives of the Indian people will take an important place. ...

Thus India must demand an absolutely unrestricted National Constituent Assembly, elected by universal adult suffrage, which shall be the supreme organ for expressing the will of the people. Nothing short of that can be accepted. India must become a democratic country.

But, while it is necessary to put forward the demand for a constitution drafted by the representatives of the people, and establishing a Constituent Assembly, such a demand by itself does not more than touch the fringe of the real needs which the masses feel and suffer. It is a necessity, but only a preliminary. It is required to provide the means whereby the needs of the people can be expressed and remedied. And these needs are primarily social and economic.

The National Government must guarantee to the peasants:

• The land belongs to the toiler.
• Reduction of land rents.
• Exemption from rent for poor peasants.
• Protection against the avarice of money-lenders.
• Assistance by means of credits to the cultivator.

For the industrial workers there must be guaranteed :
The eight-hour day.

• A minimum living wage.
• Legislation in regard to working conditions and housing.
• State provision for the unemployed.

Public utilities must be the property of the nation. Railways,

Telegraphs, Waterways, etc. must be run for the public use.

Workers and peasants must be given full rights of combination and of strike.

There must be free primary education for all.

Freedom of religion and worship, freedom of the press and of speech.

These are the main points of a programme which will unite the overwhelming majority of the people and set them in irresistible action. ...

A NATIONAL CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, guaranteeing complete national independence and the democratisation of national life in every respect — this must be the main plank of the Congress platform. The battle to realise this programme must be fought with the slogan “Land, Bread, and Education”.

The appointment of the Statutory Commission gives us an opportunity to start this battle in right earnest. This insulting demonstration that Imperialism is still in the saddle and intends to remain on our backs, has stirred the nation as it has not been stirred for many years. The reaction of public opinion has been healthy and vigorous. The Congress must seize its chance, place its popular democratic programme before the people, and transform the Boycott of the Statutory Commission, in spite of doubtfyl friends and timid allies, from a mere parliamentary demonstration into the final nation-wide fight for Swaraj.

Calcutta,
The 22nd December, 1927.

21

An Open Letter To The All Parties Conference

(abridged)

Gentlemen,

The All Parties Conference meets at a momentous hour and faces a momentous task. The nation has shown by its reception of the Simon commission that it wants swaraj and is able and willing to fight for it. Its has fought the first engagement, and won. It now waits expectantly for the next steps. What that step is to be, whether it will lead us on to victory, or to defeat, or worse, to an ignoble compromise, depends upon you.

The nation demands what the British government will not grant — independence, democracy, and the abolition of the evils of poverty and ignorance. Nothing but our strength will win these for us. Our aim must be political, power, our strategy to rally and organise the whole might of the nation to bear upon the subject.

Our chief need is therefore a programme, an authoritative statement of our aims and methods, that each man may know how and for what he is to fight and sacrifice. The time has gone when we can be satisfied with vague words. We must know that what we aim at is worth our efforts to attain it. You propose to draft a constitution. We feel that far more is required. A programme for the nation must have many planks, of which its future constitution may be one. And we must know how our programme and constitution are to be put into practice. ...

We shall raise a further question. Your conference consists of representatives of political parties, communal, commercial and similar organisations, and elected members of legislatures. We venture to say that it is no fit body to draft the nation's constitution or to lead its campaign for freedom. It is almost as unrepresentative as the legislatures, which speak for 2 per cent in the name of the whole. Your conference will not even be able to achieve unity among the national institutions. The National Congress has voted for complete independence. If the decision is a serious one, how is agreement possible with those who will not demand separation from the British empire ?...

The nation requires a really representative and authoritative leading organ, which can rouse and organise the population as a whole, can draft its constitution, and begin the solution of the pressing economic and social problems which confront it. The All Parties Conference, or the National Congress, must decide to convene a national constituent assembly which shall undertake these tasks.

The national constituent assembly must be elected by universal adult suffrage. ... It is deplorable that some of the draft constitutions already prepared contemplate a far more limited suffrage. If the people as a whole take part in the movement for independence and that is a condition for its success, their interests cannot be neglected. They must be guaranteed a democratic state completely free from foreign control, and full political rights including universal adult suffrage. They need freedom to organise and to express their views, by speech and in the press, the abolition of racial, caste and other discrimination, equality of the sexes, universal primary education, and further, guarantees of such elementary economic rights as a working day legally limited to eight hours, a legal minimum wage, nationalisation of the chief services and basic industries, and the abolition of feudal institutions, the despotic native states and the uneconomic system of landlordism. ...

We are, gentlemen, your allies in the cause of complete independence.

9 February 1928                                                                                                             EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Workers and Peasants Party  

Source:   Meerut Record, P 1831

 

22

All India Conference Of All Genuine Anti-imperialists To Launch The Anti Imperialist League

For The Overthrow pf British Imperialism In India.
For The Victory of The National Democratic Revolution.
For The Revolutionary Anti Imperialist United Front of The Toiling Masses Of India.

COMRADES, Brothers and Sisters !

The overthrow of British Imperialist rule in India and the establishment of COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE has become the most urgent necessity for the exploited and oppressed masses of the country.

... The workers and peasants and revolutionary section of middle classes must combine to fight against British Imperialism and its native ALLIES. The revolutionary anti-Imperialist united front of the workers and peasants and the revolutionary sections of the middle classes must be our answer to the counter- revolutionary united front of British Imperialism and Indian princes, landlords and capitalists.

Here comes the question of organisation. Is it necessary to set up a new anti-Imperialist united front organisation ? Does not such an organisation exist already ?

Many genuine revolutionaries think that the Indian National congress is such an organisation. Let us survey the history of the congress Does it show that the Congress is anti-imperialist? Arising out of the needs of the young capitalist class in India to put itself on a basis of understanding and good-will with British Imperialism, the Congress has consistently pursued the interests of the capitalist class. The growing strength of British Imperialism necessitated effective pressure being brought to bear against it for extorting concessions from it, and so the masses had gradually to be drawn into the movement which was primarily meant to safeguard the interests of the native exploiting classes. This made it further necessary that while the energy of the masses was utilised for the interests of the capitalists, it should be held completely in check and prevented from finding revolutionary channels. That is why for the last several years the capitalist leadership of the Congress has been following the policy of wearing a revolutionary mask in order to deceive the masses. Behind this mask the capitalist Congress leadership is pursuing unhampered its efforts to strike a bargain with British Imperialism. The Madras Resolution in favour of COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE followed by the Calcutta session’s support to the “Dominion Status” constitution drawn up and agreed upon by all sections of the capitalist class and still later the Delhi manifesto accepting the Viceroy's offer for a Round Table Conference — these leave no doubt that the capitalist Congress leadership will never support the ANTI-IMPERIALIST REVOLUTION. The inevitable disillusionment of the revolutionary middle class rank and file of the Congress was averted and postponed at Lahore by the Congress leadership again accepting the slogan of COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE. But what does the subsequent history of the Congress show ? The masses demonstrated on the 26th of January their readiness to WAGE A REAL FIGHT AGAINST BRITISH IMPERIALISM, but the Congress leadership put forward the eleven demands of compromise and surrender, and these demands were nowhere repudiated except by the revolutionary sections outside the Congress. The Congress leadership led the revolutionary masses into the morass of the Salt Law campaign in order to divert their energy into futile channels. While the masses fought heroically the Congress leadership carried on the most abject negotiations for “peace” with British Imperialism. When the GIP workers came out on strike against the Imperialist administration, the congress leadership instead of supporting them asked them to surrender immediately. The congress leadership is holding in check the No-Tax and No-Rent campaign of the peasantry everywhere. The Congress leadership has nothing to say against British Imperialism sending the brave revolutionary youths of Lahore to the gallows, provided the-ordinary legal procedure is followed.

There ought to be no doubt in the mind of any genuine revolutionary in India about the counter-revolutionary role of the congress and its capitalist leadership. The Congress machinery is so framed as to assure the hegemony of the capitalist class within it. Whenever there is a revolt in the anti-imperialist rank and file of the Congress against the treacherous leadership, revolutionary phrases and revolutionary gestures are immediately devised to delude the masses and maintain their loyalty. But they are no more than phrases and gestures. The Congress leadership will never put a genuine Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Programme before the masses.

The idea of overthrowing the counter-revolutionary leadership in the Congress and replacing it by a Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist leadership is an illusion. There will always be found enough leaders in the congress to wear the mask of revolution more successfully than their predecessors and thus to deceive the masses more effectively. In December 1929 Jawaharlal Nehru appeared as a Revolutionary, while his father has to recede in the background; in September 1930 Jawaharlal is able to say “father and I are in complete agreement”. The capitalist leadership of the congress could play its role more effectively through Jawaharlal than through Motilal and others at Lahore. When Jawaharlal is exposed, other “left” phrase-mongers will be serviceable enough to carry out the same task.

Therefore, it is an ideal dream to think of “capturing” the congress and converting it into a genuine anti-imperialist body. The capitalists and their allies and agents only can consciously join the Congress. The workers and peasants and revolutionary middle class youth must combine on an INDEPENDENT united front platform to organise the fight against British Imperialism and one of the main task of the united front will be to expose and counteract the treacherous manoeuvers of the congress and its leadership.

We, therefore, propose that as a preliminary step towards launching an ALL-INDIA ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE into existence for fhe purpose of carrying out the united front programme of the NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION, the genuine anti-imperialist revolutionaries in Bombay should meet in a Conference at an early date and discuss and settle the immediate organisational and political tasks.

1. (Miss) Pramila Ranadive
2. (Miss) Krishna Kumari Sardesai
3. (Mrs) N Nargolkar
4. VSS Shanbag
5. MG Sampat
6. GK Shaligram
7. BS Kamat
8. MP Joshi
9. Mangaldas Goradia
10. PM Karkhannis
11. DV Pradhan
12. HG Dabholkar
13. V Gupte
14. J Mehta
15. BT Asher
16. SS Jadhav
17. DV Deshpande 18. MI Bhat 19. DV Solanki 20. GK Sohani 21. RA Jagtap 22. HK Nargolkar 23. GP Patankar
24. MG Hajirnis 25. PK Ashar 26. HA Veerkar
27. LG Mankarni 28. VN Arwani 29. GN Jambhekar
30. CR Choubal 31. M Joshi 32. VB Khale 33. IH Jani
34. SS Dave 35. PS Taskar 36. K Roy 37. KM Desai
38. K Karnik 39. P Prabhakar 40. SK Donde 41. YB Gupte
42. YV Mokashi 43. K Ganesh 44. G Dinkar 45. GP Pradhan
46. Shivroop Singh 47. BP Gharpure 48. J Adhikari
49. AA Kanekar 50. KP Karnik 51. AK Sohani
52. Abdul Rashid, etc., etc.

Please add your signatures here and send your names and addresses to the Honorary Secretaries, Organising Committee, Anti-Imperialist Conference, Patel Buildings, Poibawdi, Parel, BOMBAY.

 

23

Manifesto on the Round Table Conference.^[1]

[Issued by the Communist Party of India to the Rank & File of the Indian National Congress.]

The Round Table Conference has achieved its purpose. A formula has been hit upon to betray the anti-imperialist struggle that has been going on in India for the last nine months. The socialist-imperialist MacDonald has given a clarion call to the most faithful allies of Imperialism to rally round the new slogan of a Dominion Federal Constitution. The Military chiefs of Bikaner and Bhopal reecho this call. The Liberal Bourgeoisie, the Shastris and Saprus enthusiastically support the new slogan as heralding a new era pf liberty, ... And the congress leaders, who only the other day talked about a fight to the finish, and vociferously demanded complete independence for India, who posed to the rank and file of the congress as anti-imperialist fighters by refusing to participate in the Round Table Conference proceedings, are now talking about a suspension of the civil disobedience campaign and even total withdrawal of it, only if political prisoners are released and a few changes are made in the proposed Dominion Constitution. In the mean while heads continue to be broken. Young revolutionaries continue to be hanged; those who condemn the proposed betrayal continue to be imprisoned and the anti-imperialist rank and file of the congress who will not compromise unless definitely betrayed by the leaders, continues to be shot, beaten and tortured in imperialist jails; and the press gag which prevents a correct and revolutionary mobilisation of anti-imperialist opinion continues as strong as ever.

... Besides Imperialism, the Round Table Conference was composed of the most die-hard enemies of Indian Independence, the Indian bourgeoisie as represented by the liberals, the military chiefs and the landed capitalists. ...

An analysis of the fundamental basis of the proposed new constitution clearly reveals its conspiratorial character. The corner stone of the new constitution is its Federal character, under which the imperialist bloc of native capitalists, Zamindars and imperialists is to be reinforced and solidified by the mobilisation of the Princes, Highnesses and Maharajahs, the most subservient flunkeys of Imperialism.

... Simultaneously with this mobilisation of all imperialist elements in the central legislature, care is taken to prevent the extension of the anti-imperialist front by guaranteeing autonomy to the states under the caption of a Federal Government with autonomous units and thus preventing a unification of the anti- imperialist forces in British India and the states. The new constitution thus has for its basis only a consolidation of imperialist forces to fight the rising tide of the anti-imperialist mass movement in India.

Along with this consolidation on the political field by the formation of a bloc with the native vested interests, Imperialism is consolidating itself on the economic field by creating a Reserve Bank under its full control. The mobilisation of the capital resources of India in the interests of British Finance Capital will guarantee imperialist hegemony of India's economic policy, even if the transference of the Finance portfolio on which a certain section of the Indian bourgeoisie is laying so much stress is realised. It will inaugurate the era of Finance Capital in all its fullness and will put all the departments of the State at the complete mercy of the central apparatus of Imperialist exploitation. It will also ensure that Imperialist debts will not be repudiated.

... But what is the attitude of the Congress leaders, of the working committee of the Indian National Congress, which was supposed to be at the head of the struggle for independence ? ...

... According to the newspaper reports of the 3rd February, the working committee has decided to call off the Civil Disobedience movement if petty concessions such as freedom to boycott British goods etc. are given.

These are facts which should clearly reveal to the rank and file of the Congress the class affiliations of the Congress leadership. ... The fact that they are negotiating for a compromise with imperialism on the basis of RTC proposals clearly reveals them as agents of the Indian bourgeoisie doing their job of betraying the struggle for independence.

... What is the duty of the rank and file of the Congress at this critical moment ? The rank and file should reiterate its faith in complete independence. They must make it clear that complete independence can only mean the overthrow of British Imperialism. They must make it plain to all, that the fight for complete independence involves not only a bitter struggle against imperialism but also against the native allies of imperialism — the Indian bourgeoisie, the princes and the Zamindars. Without this extension of the anti-imperialist front to the workers, peasants and the exploited subjects of the native states, without this mobilisation of all the anti-imperialist forces under a revolutionary leadership, it will not be possible to carry on ruthless struggle against imperialism. Without this centralisation of the anti-imperialist forces, throughout India, the leadership of the Congress will safely be able to betray the struggle for independence.

The rank and file of the Congress should not develop a defeatist attitude because of the temporary break up of the petty bourgeois front in the cities. ... On the other hand despite the Congress leaders, unknown to the city petty bourgeoisie, the struggle in now being carried on an extensive front in the villages. At many places peasant masses are rising in open revolt against money lenders, zamindars and other sections of the villages, and imperialism is using all its might to crush the growing peasant revolt throughout India. At many places the peasants have started confiscating the Zamindars’ lands and repudiating the money lenders’ debts. But unorganised and isolated as they are, they are being easily crushed by imperialist repression; and the big newspapers are either refusing to publish this news or openly asking Imperialism (in Berar) to put down this revolt with a firm hand.

The treachery of the negotiators is all the more heinous in face of the growing peasant revolt in the villages. But how can the rank and file stop this betrayal of the struggle for Indian Independence? As has been pointed out this can only be done by organising all the anti-imperialist forces in India and centralising them to carry on a most ruthless struggle against Imperialism. For this purpose the rank and file of the Congress should proceed to revive the anti-imperialist League — a league of all anti-imperialist elements in India to chalk out a common programme for intensifying the anti-imperialist struggle. Tremendous propaganda for this Conference should be made in all the anti-imperialist sections. The Conference should meet before the Karachi session of the Indian National Congress so that the negotiators can gauge the extent of the anti-imperialist discontent in India.

In the meantime the rank and file of the Congress must immediately go to the villages, form revolutionary peasant committees (soviets), summon local conferences of the peasantry and organise the peasant revolt the basic programme of total repudiation of debts and rents, inevitably leading to confiscation of the zamindars’ lands, and removal of other local grievances. In the cities the rank and file should immediately organise the unorganised workers and the unemployed on a class basis wherever there are no anti-Imperialist organisation in the cities. Thus and thus alone India’s triumphant march towards Independence can be secured, and all efforts at arriving at a treacherous compromise can be defeated. Therefore,

Forward to the anti-imperialist Conference. Forward to a revolutionary alliance of the workers and peasants and the rank and file of the Congress. Organise the peasant revolt. Long live the revolutionary toilers and the rank and file of the Congress. Down with the conspirators against Indian Independence.

The Executive Committee of the
Communist Party of India
(a section of the Communist International)

Note:

1.   The undated Manifesto was published in February 1931

 

24

The Karachi Congress and the Struggle Against Imperialism^[1]

The Karachi Session of the National Congress meets at the time of a new defeat of the movement which it has been leading. This defeat is the result of a stab in the back of the toiling masses of India from the hands of those who pretended to lead the struggle of the masses. THE GANDHI-IRWIN AGREEMENT, planned and approved of by the leadership of the National Congress, is a shameful betrayal of the Indian people unheard of in the history of the Indian Struggle for Independence. ...

The National Congress betrayed to British Imperialists thousands of workers, peasants and revolutionary youths — even those who fought in the ranks of the National Congress movement. The revolutionary workers of Bombay, Calcutta, Peshawar and Sholapur who organised resistance to the violence of the English authorities, have been sold out by the National Congress. Gandhi agreed with Lord Irwin that they must continue to rot in prisons. The revolutionary youths and Meerut prisoners are handed over to British hangmen by the National Congress: Gandhi declared it was “unjust” to ask their liberation. The heroic revolutionary youths of Bengal, by the agreement of the National Congress, must face death sentences or life imprisonment : Gandhi agreed with Lord Irwin that they must remain in prison. Those peasants who, fighting against the yoke of British Imperialism and its agents the zamindars, landowners and moneylenders, had refused to pay taxes, are betrayed by the Congress. Gandhi agreed with Lord Irwin that they will not get back their land sold by the authorities. The National Congress approves of this new robbery of the Indian peasants. ...

... No one gained anything from this agreement except the leaders of the National Congress who are preparing to betray the Indian masses on an even larger scale. Their policy was (to seek) permission to participate in the continuation of the Round Table Conference, to collaborate with the imperialists in working out the new scheme for the British exploitation of India.

This scheme is already established by the Round Table Conference in London. The scheme means the strengthening of British rule in India, concentration in the hands of the Viceroy of even greater military and financial power than he had before. This scheme gives the Viceroy the right to control autocratically seventy percent of the Indian budget. This scheme proclaims the amputation of Burma from India, the separation of Sind, Orissa and the North Western Provinces. This scheme provides for the direct participation of reactionary princes in the exploitation not only of their own people but of the whole of India. This scheme establishes a thoroughly anti-democratic fake legislature, controlled by the nominees of the imperialists and reactionary princes. To assist the realisation of this scheme, to receive its portion of the exploitation of India by British capital, the National Congress has again betrayed the movement, has formed a bloc with British capitalists against the toiling masses of India.

Why this shameful betrayal such as has never been known in the history of India ? It was possible because the National Congress is an organisation led by and representing those classes who are interested in the greater exploitation of the toiling masses. ... It cannot and will not lead a real revolutionary struggle of the toiling masses because the National Congress is more afraid of the masses than of British imperialism. Gandhi & Co. have no less fear of revolution than has Lord Irwin.

... Leaders of the National Congress try to scare people by exaggerating the forces of British in India, and the power of British capitalism. ...

We, representatives of the All-India Communist Party in this tragic moment of the Indian national revolutionary movement, appeal to the Indian workers, peasants and all sincere revolutionary elements of the city and country, over the heads of the bourgeois traitors of the National Congress and call them to struggle for :

• 1.  Complete independence of the country through revolutionary fight against Imperialism.
• 2.  Confiscation of land of the Government and its agents zamindars, big landowners, moneylenders, capitalist planters. Abolition of peasant rents and cancellation of all peasant debts to the saukars.
• 3.  Confiscation of factories, banks, rail-roads, and all enterprises belonging to the imperialists and those bourgeoisie who defend and support them. Annulment of all State debts to imperialists.
• 4.  Eight hour day for workers. State minimum wage. Unemployment, sickness, old age and maternity insurance through the expropriation of the employers and the Government. Equal wages for equal labour without sex or race discrimination. Freedom of press, speech, assembly, organisation, strike, picketing and demonstrations. Unrestricted recognition of trade unions, factory committees, unemployed associations.
• 5.  Abolition of all caste, religious and national privileges. Complete equality regardless of race, caste, sex or religion.
• 6.  Unconditional release of all political prisoners including those imprisoned for uses of violence.

We, COMMUNISTS, address the Karachi Session of the National Congress with this Manifesto not because we could hope to improve this organisation or because we hope to be able to replace its present leadership with another composed of the so-called “left” elements of the National Congress. ...

We, COMMUNISTS, address this Congress in order to call the workers, peasants, and sincere middle class revolutionary elements, especially the revolutionary youth to protest against the treachery of the National Congress, to denounce its counter- revolutionary role, and to leave this organisation and organise themselves outside the National Congress in a revolutionary opposition to it.

We call the workers to protest against the betrayal by the National Congress, denounce the reformist agents of the National Congress in the trade union movement, join the Communist Party, join the revolutionary trade unions, from factory, shop, mill, pithead, dockyard, harbour, plantation committees and to prepare and organise the Central Strike.

We call the peasants not to believe the National Congress and not to carry out its invitation to abandon the struggle, but to refuse to be taxed, to refuse to pay rent, to organise peasant committees for the seizure of the land of the zamindars, and landowners which belongs to the people.

We call all sincere revolutionary rank and files of the National Congress to protest against the Gandhi-Irwin agreement, to denounce the National Congress, which carries out this agreement, to leave the National Congress, organise themselves outside of it, and join a revolutionary anti-imperialist united front of Indian workers and peasants. We must not be afraid of the traitors of the National Congress if they hypocritically accuse us of breaking their unity. There can be no unity between those who fight for the victory of Indian Independence and those who betray it.

Against the traitors of the National Congress and over their heades, we call the masses to continue the revolutionary struggle for the political and social liberation of India.

Down With The Gandhi-irwin Agreement.
Down With The Treacherous bourgeois National Congress
Betraying The Indian Revolution.
Long Live The Indian Revolution.

The Central Committee of
the Communist Party of India
(A Section of the Communist International)

Note:

1.   The pamphlet was distributed at the Karachi session of Congress (end of March 1931).

 

25

Meerut Communist Conspiracy Case  1929-1933

The General Statement of 18 Communist Accused

(Excerpts)

[ This is a large document containing eight chapters each subdivided into several sections and subsections. We have completely omitted Chapters II, III and VIII entitled Capitalism, Socialism and the Soviet Union, and, Communism and Bourgeois Social Institutions respectively. Many sections and subsections of the chapters excerpted have also been totally left out. The full document is published by National Book Agency, Calcutta, under the name Communists Challenge Imperialism from the Dock, with an introduction by Muzaffar Ahmad. The 18 Communists accused were G Adhikari, Ajudhia Prasad, G Basak, BF Bradley, G Chakravarty, Shamsul Huda, D Goswami, SV Ghate, KN Joglekar, PC Joshi, MA Majid, RR Mitra, P Spratt, Muzaffar Ahmad, Sohan Singh Josh, SS Mirajkar, Shaukat Usmani and RS Nimbkar. -Ed. ]

The General Statement

This is a case which will/have political and historical significance. It is not merely a case launched in the ordinary course of its duties by the police against 31 criminals. It is an episode in the class-struggle. It is launched and conducted as part of a definite political policy. It is an attempt on the part of the Imperialist British Government of India to strike a blow at that force which it recognises as the real enemy which will ultimately bring about its overthrow, which has already taken up an attitude of irreconcilable hostility towards it, and has already shown a very menacing strength — the masses of the poor and exploited population of this country. It is an attempt by the Imperialist Government to strike a blow at its enemy, not only by removing from the field the mere 31 individuals, but by reading a lesson to all who would follow the line of the mass revolutionary struggle in future, and by establishing a number of convenient legal precedents, which will facilitate the smashing of the workers’ and peasants’ movement by ‘lawful’ and ‘constitutional’ means. This case, in spite of the denials of the Prosecution, is an attack upon the workers' Trade Union Movement, an attack upon the peasants’ movement and an attack upon the movement for the Independence of India from British Imperialism.

In this statement we shall be concerned principally with the case in this aspect, i.e., in its real aspect. With the legal side of the case we shall have little to do. We are concerned with historical processes and changes in which legal systems and Penal Codes are only by-products. When we are trying to set up an entirely new system of laws we cannot be expected to pay very much respect to the existing one.

We do not plead for mercy, or even for justice, before this Court. This is a class court, and in relation to an offence directed against the ruling class itself, the conception of justice has no meaning. We know that this court will not give us justice, but nevertheless we do not passively offer ourselves as a sacrifice to the cruelty of Imperialism. We challenge imperialism that it will not dare to provoke the oppressed classes and the oppressed people of the whole of its empire, by wreaking its revenge upon us.

In a Communist conspiracy case it is expected of the accused that they will show whether or not they profess to be Communists. So at the outset of our statement we want to inform the Court and through it the world especially the world of capitalism and imperialism, and the world of the land owners and feudal lords of India, that we are Communists. We repeat the words of Marx and Engels, “Communists scorn to hide their views and aims. They openly declare that their purposes can only be achieved by the forcible overthrow of the extant social order.”

Our party, the Communist party of India, was not at the time of our arrest duly affiliated to the Communist International, and we were not all members of any Communist Party. But nevertheless we fully subscribe to the system of thought and the well-thought and scientific political programme laid down for the world revolution by that most powerful world-wide revolutionary organisation, the Communist International.

From the study of historical facts we have no doubt that India will play its part in the development of the world. We have no doubt that ultimately the proletarian revolution will take place in India, resulting in the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which organising society on the principles of Socialism, will gradually eliminate classes and prepare the way for the evolution to the stage of Communist society, wherein everybody will work according to his capacity and will share the social product according to his needs.

We are equally convinced by the same study, that in a colonial country, such as India is, the revolution which will precede the proletarian revolution, will be of the nature of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This will achieve the complete freedom of India from the control of British Imperialism, and the complete abolition of all feudal and pre-feudal forms of social organisation and will result in the establishment of an Independent Democratic Republic. This is the revolution for which we were working, and we are convinced that the programme which we put before the country, the programme of the united anti-Imperialist front of all those classes capable of carrying through the revolution, was the only correct programme for attaining it.

Our programme and the activity which we undertook in our efforts to put it into effect, have been much misunderstood and also intentionally misrepresented by the Prosecution and by the Magistrate who committed us. We think it necessary both for the court and for the assessors that the chief particulars in which the Prosecution has tried to lead them astray should be corrected by us. This is the main purpose of our statement.

Our Social Theory

Our statement is made in terms of the theory of Marxism and Leninism. It is a matter of experience that this theory and the attitude of mind which it involves is very difficult of comprehension to members of the bourgeois class, and particularly so, we gather, to members of the British Bourgeoisie. The Prosecution have clearly failed to understand it. They have shown this not merely by the abuse — “grotesque”, “fantastic”, “antiquated” — which they have levelled at it, but by their attempt to explain it to the Court. ...

We were arrested and tried because we were considered a danger to the State, that is, to the British rule in India. And we were a danger to the State, not because of anything we did or could do ourselves, but because we represented powerful historical forces, which are changing the whole world, and are incidentally making for the overthrow of the present regime in India. It is a conspiracy, not of 31 men, nor even of the whole of the Communist International, but of objective conditions and processes,  and it is these  alone which  determine  historical events. ...

... Our actions, therefore, and the movement in which we took part, are no arbitrary inventions of ourselves, or even of “Moscow”. The revolutionary movement arises from the conditions of the present period of the world generally and India particularly. Our actions as individuals were in accordance with the necessities of the periods as we saw them. We saw the line of the historical forces, and followed it. ...

The Indian National Revolution Inevitable

Our attitude to Indian affairs accords with the general views here described. We shall deal with the matter a little more fully afterwards. We consider that the way in which the economic and political life of the world generally and of India in particular have developed make it certain that the Indian national revolution now developing, will culminate fairly soon in the revolutionary overthrow of British imperialist rule.

India has been under political subjection for a long time. Its economic and political evolution has been held back. Its industrialism is still backward and ill-balanced and dependent to a very great extent on foreign supplies of the means of production. Its agrarian relations are still mostly in various stages of feudalism, its agricultural technique extremely primitive. Politically it has yet taken hardly any steps towards the establishment of bourgeois democracy. The country is not only held back in its development but is economically exploited for the benefit of the British bourgeoisie. In consequence of all this the position of the masses of the people is one of extreme poverty and social backwardness while even the bourgeois class as a whole is seriously hampered in its development. This position cannot be remedied within the system of Imperialism, and consequently the situation is objectively revolutionary, and actually these conditions have for some time been giving rise to various kinds of movements of protest of increasing intensity.

India has been under Imperialist domination for a long time. But capitalist large scale industry, the great ferment and revolutionary agent, which wherever it has gone, has quickly upset the old order, has entered only recently. This is the reason for the rapid revolutionising of the situation in the present period. But the world outside India is also developing.

The system of capitalism generally has reached in recent years a condition of acute crisis. Whether or not Lenin’s diagnosis is accepted, it must be admitted as the fact that at any rate since the year 1914 we have seen an uninterrupted series of wars and revolutions of absolutely unprecedented magnitude and universality, accompanied by general economic crisis and other political disturbances, extending throughout the world. And one at any rate of these revolutions has succeeded in establishing a radically new social order, which is looked up to all over the world by the oppressed classes and people as a model for the new order for which they are striving. Now this condition of universal change and unsettlement has its reactions upon India and cannot but have the effect of hastening and intensifying the revolutionary movement which in any case is bound to develop by reason of India's internal circumstances. This is a short sketch of what we mean by the objective necessity or inevitability of the Indian national revolution, and why we cannot but laugh at the Prosecution's picture of a placid and contented India disturbed by the efforts of Moscow to goad it into an unwilling revolution. We have no objection to the help of the Communist International and the Russian working class; in fact we consider that India should welcome such help. But the Indian revolution will be due, not to anything which the Communist International may do but to British Imperialistic exploitation and oppression, and the poverty and misery of the masses of the people of India. ...

The National Revolution

The Indian Bourgeoisie In Relation To The Revolution

... Although the revolution maybe of bourgeois democratic type it does not necessarily follow that it will be carried through or led by the bourgeois class itself. The situation in India and the position of the bourgeoisie leads us to conclude that this is the case here : the bourgeoisie will not lead the national revolution.

Our discussion of the policy of Imperialism in relation to Indian industry led to the conclusion that that policy was on the whole one of discouragement of industrialisation, and hence the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie and the British clash fairly sharply. This is certainly the fact, as recent political events have shown, and in order to get a correct perspective it is necessary to bear this fact in mind. Nevertheless we consider that the Indian bourgeoisie is not objectively capable of pursuing a revolutionary policy. The main reasons for this are as follows:

• 1) The close association of British and Indian capital in Indian industry. ... The British policy is to increase the association of British and Indian capital, under the domination of the former, so that conflict will become increasingly difficult.
• (2) The dependence of Indian merchant capital on export and import, which is largely concerned with British goods or is controlled by British interests. This section, the so-called “comprador” bourgeoisie is as in China normally very “loyal” to the foreign interests. Some section of it however has been penalised by the recent alteration of the exchange ratio, and simultaneously hit by the general trade crisis and has become discontented. Its consequent participation in the Civil Disobedience Movement has caused some surprise.
• (3) The close connection between the Indian bourgeoisie and the indisputably loyalist landowning interests. The source of the “primitive accumulation” of a good deal of Indian industrial capital is land. A number of leading princes are partaking in industrial activity both in British India and in their states. The lower ranks of the Indian bourgeoisie also are connected with agrarian exploiting interests, as a great deal of capital unable to find remunerative Investment in industry is applied to money-lending, the acquisition of land, and retail trade. In view of the explosive nature of agrarian relation such interests are necessarily politically reactionary.
• (4) The general weakness and backwardness and the deeply divided character of Indian capitalism. It has not even a single united political party. Its forces are divided among the Congress, the Liberal Federation, and various communal and other organisations, which reflect real differences of interest in some cases, though they are able to come together on certain issues, namely in the All Parties Conference and the boycott of the Simon Commission. The bourgeois class split (though the split was only temporary) over the issue of the Round Table Conference and the Civil Disobedience Programme. In view of this weakness, which is realised by the bourgeoisie, and the growing and already very sharp clash of class interests in both industry and agriculture it is clear that a revolutionary policy and movement, which would necessarily have to involve the masses, could not be kept under control by the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeois class in short is too weak, and its interests are bound up too closely with both British imperialism and Indian feudalism, while the contradiction between its interests and those of the masses, its only possible revolutionary allies, is too direct to enable it to embark upon a policy of revolutionary overthrow of British rule.

The Bourgeois Nationalist Movement

This analysis is confirmed, and the non-revolutionary character of bourgeois nationalism shown, by its history. It is unnecessary to follow that history in detail. It is enough to consider the two occasions on which the Indian national bourgeoisie have been driven to organise open mass movements against British Imperialism (the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1919-1922 and the Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930-1931). On both these occasions the bourgeois groups who have financed and actually controlled the movements, and bourgeois and petty-bourgeois politicians who have actively led them, have been extremely careful to restrain their followers and prevent them from becoming revolutionary. It is a fundamental mistake to consider either the Non-Cooperation Movement or the Civil Disobedience Movement as revolutionary. They of course both contained certain revolutionary elements and possibilities of development, but these have not been allowed to develop. ...

A section of the so-called “left” leaders of the Congress (principally Messrs. Jawaharlal Nehru, Srinivas Iyengar and Subhas Chandra Bose) launched the Independence League, which purported to be a serious Independence Party. But as is shown conclusively in p 56 (“Political Resolution” of the All India Workers’, and Peasants’ Party Conference, December 1928 ) from a study of the actions and published programme of the League, the formation of this organisation was simply a demagogic device, having no serious purpose to secure Independence behind it. The conclusions of the AIWPP Conference were confirmed completely when many of the leaders of the Independence League accepted the Congress resolution, which went back to Dominion Status, making Independence contingent on the compliance by the Government with certain conditions by the end of this year. Others of the Independence League leaders abstained from voting, while only a small section put up in a fight against this disgraceful retreat. After that nothing more was heard of the Independence League. At the end of the year (1929) the conditions had of course not been fulfilled, and Independence had to be reaffirmed, though the leaders were obviously very unwilling. None the less when the Civil Disobedience campaign began, Independence, even as a demand to be put forward for bargaining purposes was dropped, practically without any dissent from the members who had voted for it. During the negotiations between the Government and the imprisoned leaders in 1930 Independence was not the demand put forward by the latter. ...

... The Indian bourgeoisie cannot pursue a revolutionary policy. It may act for a time in more or less vigorous opposition to Imperialism but it can never go to the point of revolution against Imperialism. In its actual political activity it is normally as much concerned to check the beginnings of the revolutionary movement of the masses as it is to oppose the Government; and when seriously threatened by the mass revolution, it will become directly and actively counter-revolutionary, and will join with Imperialism against the masses. The claims of the bourgeoisie to represent and lead the whole of the nation are untenable. The bourgeoisie represents for a time a force wavering and vacillating between the counter-revolutionary bloc of Imperialism and its allies, the princes and landlords and the loyal upper classes, and the revolutionary bloc of the workers and peasants and the town poor, the petty bourgeoisie and the revolutionary youths. It vacillates for a time between the two great camps of revolution and counter-revolution, assisting to a certain extent, especially in the early stages, in the growth of the revolutionary movement, but later coming more and more to hamper its growth, to confuse the issue and mislead it, and eventually, as the revolution gathers strength, finding itself forced to line up more and more definitely with the forces of counter-revolution. ...

The Revolutionary Anti-imperialist Front

The workers and peasants

Among the masses we have always held a view that the industrial working-class must take the leading place. This has caused the Prosecution some amusement, but we insist that it is natural and correct. In spite of comparatively small numbers, the working-class inevitably will take the lead of the peasantry in the revolutionary struggle.

The principal motive power of social progress in the modern period lies in large-scale industry. The industrial town is the leader in society today. The village can only follow. The peasantry represents a backward reactionary mode of production, which is doomed to disappear. Such a, class can hardly take the lead in a movement of social advance.

In consequence of its mode of production and life, the peasantry is culturally more backward than the working class. The working class, being directly confronted with capitalism, achieves a more thorough understanding of the nature of the modern society than the peasantry. It acquires further a more complete class consciousness. It can form general ideas and policies and fight for them. The peasantry on the contrary is condemned to a relatively narrow range of interests. General political policies will not readily penetrate its understanding. This narrowness was shown for example during the civil war and intervention in Russia. The working class knew what it was fighting for and was consistently “Red”. The peasantry on the other hand, in many areas after seizing the land, would accept the rule locally of whichever side was temporarily successful, and rose again to fight only when the “whites” attempted to re-establish landlordism. The local narrowness of the interests of the peasantry is also well known. They will readily join together and fight against their own exploiter, moneylender or landlord, but only with much greater difficulty will they organise over large areas, as a class, to fight the landlords as a class. The working class, on the other hand, very easily acquires a national and even an international class consciousness. In view of its more developed culture, if the two classes are associated, the working class inevitably takes the lead.

Further, in contrast to the peasantry, the working class is a more homogeneous class. There is very little clash of interests between different strata of the working class. The working class is concentrated and disciplined to act as a united force by the conditions of its life and work, in a way that neither the peasantry nor any other class can be. It is given by its experience of exploitation a more complete understanding of the nature of the economic and political system. It therefore comes to be imbued with a more thorough revolutionary outlook than any other class. Its position is one of consistent and obvious exploitation. The poverty of the peasantry however is not always obviously due to the exploitation of other classes. It may appear to be due as much to the general parsimony of nature or to some particular natural catastrophe. The individual of the peasant class may hope to a certain extent by hard work and good fortune to rise to a position of comfort. Such prospects for the workers are comparatively slight. All these considerations go to show that the consciousness, understanding and revolutionary determination of the working class must be superior to those of the peasantry.

Finally, the working class is placed in such a position, in control of strategic points, the big towns, the decisive parts of the productive system, the transport and lines of communication etc. of society, that the force of its attack is immensely greater than the relative weight of its numbers.

The peasantry has existed as a class for many centuries, and since the days of Jack Cade and John Ball has from time to time risen in revolution against its oppressors. But its revolutionary movement has never been successful. In the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, it succeeded, because in both cases it was led by another revolutionary class, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat respectively, which concentrated on the political achievements of the revolution, leaving the peasantry to its own concern, the land. In the “green revolution” in Eastern Europe after the war, the peasantry has achieved in some countries a partial success, by allying with the bourgeoisie against the landowners on the one hand and the working class on the other. As would be expected in such circumstances, the success of the peasantry has been only partial and temporary. The bourgeoisie having crushed the working class with the aid of the peasant armies, and secured its political power, has begun to re-establish landlordism.

In India at the present day the difference between the two classes is to be seen. Though backward the organisation of the working class is far in advance of that of the peasantry, as are also its political experience and consciousness. The working class is becoming rapidly an active and conscious revolutionary class. Then peasantry indulges spasmodically in local insurrectionary movements, but as a whole it is still only potentially revolutionary.

The working class in India, in the sense of an organisable active force, apart from the agricultural proletariat, numbers some five millions. It is a small class compared with the peasantry. But the working class in China, which has played and is playing a definitely leading part in the revolution, is relatively and absolutely smaller than the Indian working class. Even the number of the Russian working class was at the time of the revolution a relatively small fraction of that of the peasantry.

We conclude therefore that the working class can and will be the leading class in the Indian revolution. While the peasantry will establish for the revolution the indispensable base in the country by seizing the land and overthrowing the feudal-capitalist system of exploitation in operation there, the working class, assisted by auxiliaries form various sections of the town poor, artisans and the petty bourgeoisie, will conduct the decisive attack upon the centres of the State power, and will be principally concerned in establishing the new State and the new order. The working class and the working class party will be the deciding and directing force.

The Programme of the National Revolution

We have said that the Indian revolution must be essentially a bourgeois democratic revolution, modified by the conditions of a colonial country. This is the case, although we have also concluded that the classes which will carry through the revolution are the working class and the peasantry, supported by the petty bourgeoisie, and although the bourgeoisie will inevitably oppose the revolution.

The prosecution and the Magistrate have stated repeatedly that we aimed immediately at setting up “a workers’ republic on Soviet Lines”, (Committal Order, page 7), or aimed immediately at the Dictatorship of Proletariat (Committal Order, page 88). That is, we are said to look upon the Indian revolution as being not confined to the bourgeois democratic stage but as going immediately beyond it to the socialist revolution, as was the case in Russia. ...

... It [the immediate conquest of the revolution] will be in essence a typical bourgeois democratic revolution, achieving at the same time independence from Imperialist rule and establishing, not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie but the rule of the masses.

A popular workers’ and peasants’ army will be created, and the prohibition on the carrying of arms by the masses reversed. ...

The State which will be set up will be democratic, participated in by all except those who definitely support the counter-revolution. Freedom of association and discussion will be instituted for the masses for the first time in the history of the country. In short, the programme outlined in the publications of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party (p 523 “Call to Action” Appendix) will be put in force. ...

The Workers’ And Peasants’ Party, The Party Of The National Revolution

The policy of carrying through the national democratic revolution will be conducted, as we have shown, by united front of three main classes, the working class, the peasants and that miscellaneous group which we call the petty bourgeoisies. In the period when we were working in the movement, we conceived of the Workers' and Peasants' Party as the organisational form of that united front. Its publications show that it regarded itself as a party representing these three classes and that its policy was essentially the attainment of the national democratic revolution. It did not aim immediately at the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor did it put forward socialism as part of its programme. The propaganda of its individual members may at times have mentioned these things as ultimately to be attained, but its policy and programme as such demanded only independence and democracy and described only the way to get them by carrying through the national revolution. We have outlined already the programme of the national democratic revolution, and shown that it coincides with that of the WPP. The constitution of the WPP of Bengal (p 523: “Call to Action”) states that the aim of the Party is : The attainment of Complete Independence from British Imperialism and thorough democratisation of India, based on economic and social emancipation and political freedom of men and women. ...

... We repeat that the WPP was not a Communist Party, it was the Party of Independence and of the national democratic revolution, and nothing more.

The Communists And The Nationalists

... As for the next point, there is no doubt that on questions of policy we are strongly opposed to all the gentlemen whom the Prosecution named — Messrs. Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose etc. But the reason why we oppose them is that we stand for national revolution and they do not. All our propaganda and publications contain this theme, that these leaders of “nationalism” are not leaders of the national revolution but leaders of a national reformist movement, They are not “striving for Independence in India” as the Prosecution says of them. In fact that is our complaint against them. They are striving for Dominion Status in India, or something even less than Dominion Status. They want a compromise with Imperialism in accordance with the interests of the bourgeoisie, as we have just explained. They want a compromise with Imperialism, we are against a compromise with Imperialism, but on the contrary want to overthrow it. We are therefore entitled to ask, which are the better nationalists, we or they ? ...

We claim that Communists can take part in the national revolution. We go further and say that the Communist Party of India will play a leading part in the national revolution. We have declared that we believe that the working class will be the leading class in the national revolution. It follows that the working-class party, the Communist Party, will play a part of great importance as the leading and organising force in the national revolution, just as the Communist Parties of China, of Indonesia, of Korea, and other colonies are doing.

Our simultaneous support of nationalism and internationalism involves no contradiction. The ultimate equalitarian federal union of free peoples' States at which we aim cannot be attained on the basis of national oppression. It would be impossible, as the Social Democrats profess to think, for any Empire to pass directly into the union. The first step is that such a national unit must attain freedom. It can then enter the union freely on an equal basis. From this point of view then the attainment of freedom from Imperialist oppression is a step forward towards Internationalism. And as we have shown the national revolution means an essential advance not only in this respect but in many others also. Hence we support it. ...

 

The Agrarian Problem
Class Struggle The Fulcrum Of The Whole Issue

The apologists of Imperialism as well as of nationalism persist in denying the class nature of the agrarian problem. Technical improvements, liberalisation of the bureaucratic machinery and the partial transfer of the financial control into the hands of the indigenous bourgeoisie is all that they think is necessary for the solution of this problem. The Imperialists are never tired of the “civilising and cultural mission”, of the era of technical improvements they have opened. They wax eloquent over their duty “to educate the backward races for prosperity, progress and culture”. The same hypocritical lies have been repeated parrot-like by the Labour lackeys of Imperialism from their Cabinet seats. ...

The denial of class conflict in agrarian conditions is based on a wilful misunderstanding of the economics of agrarian production and appropriation. The Imperialists however deny class struggle in words only. The agrarian policy of Imperialism is based on its own class interests, which are directed towards the monopolisation of the raw material resources of its colonies and towards preserving its monopolist hold of the colonial markets. Similarly the agrarian demands of the nationalist movement can never go beyond the circle of the class interests of its friends and financiers, the capitalists and the zamindars.

When we say that the agrarian problem is not merely one of improving agricultural technique, we do not in any way deny the importance of these improvements; on the other hand, we maintain that if the improvements of agricultural technique are to be universal — and they cannot be of any use to the broad masses of the peasantry without being universal — they will immediately come up against the barriers set up by the given distribution of private property in land. This would immediately bring up the question of vested interests, of landlordism and of class struggle. Class struggle therefore, is the fulcrum of the whole issue. ...

Agrarian Revolution — The Only Solution

We have seen that Imperialism in spite of its past administrative reforms as well as its proposed technical improvements will not be able to solve the agrarian problem. The administrative reforms have not been anything more than weak palliatives, which did not, and cannot, go to the root of the question — the rights and powers of intermediate parasitic classes. Imperialism \S no doubt interested in granting stability to the actual cultivators, in order to secure a stable agrarian production. But it must at the same time not displease the zamindars, moneylenders and intermediaries, whose support it must enlist as bulwarks of reaction and counter-revolution. Thus these administrative changes cannot touch the property rights of the zamindars and intermediaries. It cannot touch the capitalist relations obtaining in the countryside. If occupancy rights are granted to a section of the raiyats, these again tend to become non-cultivating sub-landlords, and a class of under-raiyats with the same difficulties of insecurity grows up under them. ...

The misery and poverty of the poor peasantry who form the overwhelming bulk of the entire population of India remains untouched. Any scheme of agricultural development which keeps the existing social order with its peculiar inter-mixture of feudal-capitalist relations, must, as we have pointed out, necessarily lead to the aggravation of the problem, through mass evictions and mass increase in the number of landless labourers. ...

 

The Peasant Programme Of The Workers’ And Peasants’ Party

A Programme of Agrarian Revolution

This revolutionary demand — land to the peasant: abolition of the entire parasitic landlord class — is the kernel of a programme of agrarian revolution. Before we deal with the other implications of the agrarian revolution, before we deal with the classes that will carry it out, and with its future perspectives, we shall first answer the question how the overthrow of the parasitic landlordism is the essential and inevitable precondition of any real development of agriculture — of any substantial bettering of the economic condition of the broad masses of the peasantry.

The cancellation of all zamindari rights in land as well as of all unproductive intermediary tenures, will remove the greatest obstacle in the way of satisfying the land-hunger of the millions of poor peasants. A rational redistribution of holdings will then be possible. ...

This is the guiding thought in the clear and concrete formulation of the programme of Agrarian Revolution which was made by the CPI recently in its “Draft Platform of Action”. The peasant demands formulated by the CPI are as follows :

• (1) The confiscation without compensation of all lands and estates, forests and pastures of the native princes, landlords, moneylenders and the British Government and its transference to peasant Committees for use by the toiling masses of the peasantry. The complete wiping out of the medieval system of landholding.
• (2) The immediate confiscation of all plantations and their transference to revolutionary Committees elected by the plantation workers. The formulation of the demand in the case of plantations is twofold. With reference to plantations which are parcelled out in small allotments, worked by contract workers with more or less primitive methods, the demand is that these allotments and the land belonging to the plantation and not in cultivation, should be handed over to the labourers and poor peasants as their property. In the case of large scale mechanically equipped plantations and workshops connected there with, the demand put forward is the nationalisation of the plantation in the interests of the whole Indian people.
• (3) The immediate nationalisation of the whole system of irrigation, complete cancellation of indebtedness and taxes, and the transference of the control and supervision of the work of irrigation to revolutionary peasant  Committees,   elected   by   the working peasantry. ...

Agrarian Revolution, The Axis of The National Revolution

... The national revolution is often described in our literature as a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The reason for this is that the democratic tasks ... have still to be achieved in India. These tasks are: (1) abolition of landlordism; (2) elimination of all pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (serfdom, feudal cesses and services etc.); (3) end of the autocratic rule of the Princes; (4) substitution for the imperialist-feudal state by a republic based on adult suffrage. ...

... What we wish to emphasise is this, that until this class struggle assumes a conscious form, becomes nationwide, until it rises to the pitch of an agrarian revolution, and until it is linked up with the political struggle for national liberation led by the proletariat, until then the success of the national-democratic revolution will not be guaranteed. It is in this sense that we say that the agrarian revolution has been and remains the axis of the national revolution. ...

The Proletariat The National Ally of The Peasantry In India

... The fighting alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry has a further basis in India. The Indian proletariat is to a considerable extent a floating population. A substantial section of it oscillates between the city and the countryside. Many poor peasants wander into the city in search of a short-time employment to earn a little cash, and then return to their villages. This floating section of the working class forms the living link between the stable, permanently settled proletariat of the cities, and the poor peasants and land labourers of the countryside. The stable proletarian too is the poor peasant of yesterday, and he knows the plight and misery of the poor peasantry full well. Thus the proletariat alone is the truest and best ally of the peasantry in its fight against its oppressors.

The Organisation And Tactics Of The Agrarian Revolution

... The party of the proletariat cannot discharge its task as the ally of the peasantry merely by issuing paper programmes of agrarian revolution. The proletariat must come forward and show the peasantry the way to form their own class organisation, to fight for their immediate economic demands, organisations somewhat similar to those which the proletariat has built for itself in the cities viz. Trade Unions. The Peasant Unions will include only peasants who cultivate the land with the labour of their own family, as well as, in the initial stages, the land labourers. The peasant unions must on no account contain the village exploiters, the rich peasants, landlords, money-lenders or traders. It is only when this condition is fulfilled that the peasant unions will be a suitable basic organisation for the peasant struggle for partial demands. The preliminary unit of organisation will naturally be the village. But in the event of a struggle for partial demands, such as opposition to an enhancement of tax or rent, or against illegal cesses, official oppression, etc., the union will undoubtedly grow and embrace a number of surrounding villages, or even a taluka. During such a partial struggle the peasants will learn to form an elected executive body of the union, which will make a centralised and proper conduct of the struggle possible. The formation and functioning of such a body, the peasant committee, makes the next step in the organisational training of the peasantry. The peasant thus learns to get his business done through a properly elected representative body of his own class. The peasant will learn the art of self-government through his peasant committees. In fact the peasant committee, as a class organisation, is the nuclear unit of self government on which the future republic of the workers and peasants of India will be based. ...

 

The Trade Union Movement

The evidence and accusations in connection with our work in the Trade Union Movement form a large part of the subject matter of this case. The principal immediate reasons for the institution of this case was our Trade Union activity, and among the effects which the case has had and will have upon public life in India, those in connection with the Trade Union Movement are the most direct and perhaps the most important. ...

The Communist Party is not at all an outside influence in the working class, or even in the Trade Union Movement. It has of course a clearer idea and a more consistent revolutionary consciousness than the Trade Unions, even at their best. But that is its function. It is the leader of the working class and the Trade Union Movement, and aims at drawing into its ranks all the most progressive and conscious men in the Trade Union so that the relations between the two organisations are as close and as natural as possible. Such a body is not ir. any sense an external force, it is an integral part of the movement. ...

Revolutionary Trade Union Movement, As Opposed To Reformist

Social Theory

... The reformist theory that the conditions of the workers will gradually improve under capitalism that the present, or past economic crises of the capitalist system are things that we should assist in patching up, has been utterly smashed by the march of events. The present crisis has exposed the fact that capitalism has become a hindrance to the development of the productive forces of society, that even a partial improvement within the frame-work of capitalism is only possible at the expense of a still further worsening of the conditions of the workers. We look upon these periodical crises of the capitalist system as denoting the approach of its collapse. Our policy is not therefore to assist it to recover and bring it back to health again, but to take advantage of the crisis and assist it out of its misery quickly by ending the present state of society, thus assisting the workers out of their state of misery. ...

Functions And Aims

... The Communist leadership in the Trade Unions does support the policy of fighting for the immediate demands for improvement of the conditions of Labour, of the workers, for social and political reforms. But while this is so, while we support the policy of rallying the workers into the Trade Unions on the basis of their immediate demands for improved conditions, we mention that the most important function is for the overthrow of the capitalist system, it being a fact that there cannot be any real or lasting gains under capitalism. ...

 

Tactics “Making Use Of The Nationalist Bourgeoisie”

... Our relation with the national bourgeoisie is plain and is openly stated. We can maintain a united front with them if they are pursuing a genuinely revolutionary policy, and are willing to allow us freedom of agitation and organisation. If they do not fulfill both of these conditions there is no question of our “using” them.

In India the former of these conditions has never been fulfilled. The bourgeoise have never pursued a revolutionary struggle. And we have never “used” them. We have always tried to win their followers away from them by openly denouncing and exposing them as reformists and putting forward our own revolutionary programme in contrast to theirs. We cannot see any form of “making use” of the nationalist bourgeoisie in this. ...

Revolutionary Mass Action

The method which we propose for the achievement of the revolution is the mass action of the people as a whole. It is a method which arises naturally from the immediate needs of the struggle of the masses. The spontaneous struggle of the masses for demands principally and originally of an economic character, which is doomed to defeat if confined to its elementary and anarchic form, is brought by education and organisation to a higher level, and eventually to the logically inevitable attack upon the state power of Imperialism, the great obstacle in the way of all the struggles of the masses. As we have explained, the organisations which the masses spontaneously form in the course of the struggle, the strike committees, village committees etc., will through the experience of the struggle and the necessities of the position which will confront them, be forced to expand and develop into the organs of the new state power, the Soviets. There is nothing artificial or impossible about this proposal. All popular revolutions in history have followed a path of this kind, only differing in the greater or less distance to which they have been allowed to pursue it. Events have already shown that this is the course which will be followed in India also. ...

The Use of Violence

... We openly declare that we shall have to use violence, the violence of the mass revolutionary movement. But in contrast to Imperialist violence, an ocean which has engulfed the whole world for generations, our violence can be but a drop. As opposed to Imperialist violence, which, while Imperialism lasts, is permanent, our violence is temporary. As opposed to Imperialist violence, which is used to maintain an obsolete, barbarous, exploiting system, our violence is progressive and will be used to attain the next great step forward in the march of the human race. This is our justification of violence.

 

26

Independence or Surrender?

... British Imperialism smites the Independence Movement most mercilessly; it shoots down workers and peasants; it throws into dungeons thousands of young revolutionaries; it closes down popular papers, it punishes with barbarous sentences every speech for Independence. And the Indian National Congress — Messrs Gandhi, Vallabhbhai & co reply with constructive Programme of the Parliamentary Board and the sacred cause of the Harijan campaign. A whole nation of toiling millions is in agony, is groaning, is crushed under the heel of repression and the Indian National Congress replies with a shake-hand of surrender and fawning friendship.

This surrender is neither sudden nor accidental. For the last two years the Congress leaders headed by Gandhi were waiting for a favourable opportunity to repudiate mass-struggle. But they hoped to masquerade their surrender as a compromise or a treaty with British Imperialism as in 1931. The Poona Conference was one of such attempts at looking heroic while surrendering and substituting individual CD for mass CD. But Imperialism refused to tolerate any left gesture and dictated an open surrender and that unconditional surrender was obtained by the Patna Resolution.

... The Indian National Congress meeting in Bombay will endorse this betrayal, this repudiation of the struggle done by the Patna meeting. All leaders are unanimous in blessing Parliamentary activity, the constructive politics of Bhulabhai and his lawyer friends. ...

The open repudiation of mass-struggle is the preliminary step towards an acceptance of the White Paper proposal. Across the bridge of this repudiation the Congress leader want to pass over to the acceptance of the White Paper. ...

Are the Congress leaders in the least purturbed over this betrayal prepared by themselves? Is there any difference of opinion amongst themselves over this question of the betrayal of the Independence struggle? NOT IN THE LEAST. Every leader from Gandhi down-words is blessing this betrayal of the masses as wise and constructive politics.

Gandhi threatens to retire from the Congress, not on the question of opposing the surrender but on the question of the spinning franchise. Vallabhbhai and others support his retirement on the plea that the majority is against the spinning franchise.

And what is this new stunt of Gandhi? How is it that his most faithful lieutenants support the retirement of this Dictator who dominated Congress politics all these years? The stunt of retirement is a studied and calculated manoeuvre of Gandhi to side-track the attention from the question of surrender and to retain his anti-imperialist prestige in the eyes of his rank & file. By seeming to retire from the Congress on the question of spinning franchise and corruption, Gandhi wants to obviate the necessity of openly standing for Parliamentary activity, and thus maintain his Pose of an unbeaten satyagrahi. He wants to make the rank and file believe that he is against Parliamentary activity and that he concedes to it only because the majority wants it.

... In whose interests is this surrender move? ... The Congress leaders are never tired of saying that the mass struggle has been withdrawn because the masses are tired of the struggle. This is the most shameless slander indulged in by these representative of the propertied classes. Is their a lull in activity of the peasants in the rural area? What does the strike-wave sweeping over India demonstrate? What does the last Textile Strike of the Bombay workers show when thousands of workers came out on the street raised political demands, heroically fought for two months, and when police revolvers flashed more often in these two months in Bombay than in the whole CD campaign ? ... Is it not a most shameless lie to say that the masses have given up the fight with the Imperialist Government and the Indian exploiters?

What is then the meaning of this lying propaganda on the part of the Congress? The meaning is clear. Through their own experience of the treacherous Congress leadership in 1930 the masses have become disillusioned of the treacherous CD programme, of meek submission to imperialist terror in the name of non-violence, of class-collaboration with reactionary landlords in the name of unity, and since 1932 they are fighting their anti-imperialist battles out side the Congress fold. The radical masses have thus repudiated the Congress leadership in action.

And this has made the Congress leader panicky. For this drift of the masses towards Militant action, this independent action on the part of the toiling millions, though scattered and unorganised, spells disaster to the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie and landlords whose interests the Congress represents. And that is why Gandhi, Nehru & Co., have since 1932 all the while been planning to come to a compromise with Imperialism to be able to hold this tide of the mass movement in check. ...

So in the end what is the rank & file expected to do in the coming session? To vote for the surrender, to repudiate the masses and to bless the Parliamentary Board and the White Paper? What is going to be the reply of the rank & file?

The immediate task before the anti-imperialist elements is to repudiate the surrender and the betrayal of the mass-struggle, the betrayal of the revolutionaries and to help in building up and consolidating the united front of the workers, peasants and the petti-bourgeois anti-imperialist elements. ...

To mobilise all the anti-imperialist forces on our side of the barricades, to mobilise all the revolutionary forces in India to paralyse British Imperialism, to strike at the very roots of exploitation, at the very nerve-centres of imperialist domination, the only effective programme of action is to organise a country-wide political general strike of all the key-industries — railways-docks-textiles-mines etc. calling on the workers to fight in the name of the workers’ and peasants’, Soviet Republic. This will strike at the very centres of power of British Imperialism, paralysing its trade and commerce. Coupled with this, to organise a movement for a no-tax, no-rent and no-debts campaign of the starving peasants millions. This will complete the paralysis of the enemy. The minimum basic demands of this struggle are:

• (1)   Complete Independence of India and establishment of a Workers’ and Peasants’ Soviet Republic.
• (2)  Confiscation without compensation of all industries, plantations, land etc. at present owned by British Imperialism, and nationalisation of the same.
• (3)  Total repudiation of all debts due to British Imperialism.
• (4)  Confiscation without compensation of all land owned by zamindars and its distribution among the toiling peasantry.
• (5)  Total repudiation of all debts due to the money-lenders.
• (6)   Radical improvement in the conditions of the working-class, e.g., eight hours day, unemployment relief, social insurance at state cost, good housing, etc.
• (7)   Removal of all the Imperialist armed forces in India.
• (8)  Freedom of speech, press, organisation, assembly, strike, etc.
• (9)  Abolition of all racial, sex and communal discrimination.
• (10)  Abolition of Native States.

... Anyone ... who hopes to convert the Congress to the anti-imperialist programme not only commits a political blunder but a party in maintaining the treacherous Congress leadership over the struggle of the anti-imperialist masses. And this is what is being done by the “Congress Socialist Party” now forming within the Congress.

... Those sincere, anti-imperialist revolutionary fighters must refuse any longer to be dragged into counter-revolutionary paths by the Congress. They must boldly accept the revolutionary socialist lead of the working-class and immediately set to work to build up the new organ of struggle, the anti-imperialist united front.

Long Live The Anti-imperialist United Front of Workers, Peasants And Revolutionary Youths.
Down With The Congress With Its Capitulation And Surrender.
Support The Anti-imperialist, Anti-congress Demonstration of The Workers.
Down With Imperialism.
Long Live The Complete Independence of India.
Long Live The Workers’ And Peasants’ Soviet Republic of India.
Long Live The Communist Party of India.
Long Live The Communist International.

CPI of lndia.
Section of CI

27

To All Anti-Imperialist Fighters

Gathering Storm

THE world is on the eve of mighty clashes. Two mighty forces are coming to grips — perhaps — in a final deadly conflict. On the outcome of this conflict hangs the fate of the entire humanity — of all its cultural and social achievements of the past. On the one side stand the forces of Imperialism and fascist reaction, out to crush the revolutionary movement of the working class and its first victory in the Soviet Union, to destroy the democratic liberties of the peoples, to perpetuate the slavery pf the subject races and nations of Asia and Africa. On the other side are ranged the forces of the revolutionary working class and peasantry, fighting for Socialism, of the exploited peoples of the enslaved nations fighting for national emancipation.

WILL, the forces of the proletariat and the toiling peasantry, all the world over, find the path of Unity? WILL they succeed in a forging a mighty United Peoples’ Front with the consistent revolutionary leadership — on a national and international scale? ... Or will they sustain another set-back due to disunity in the ranks and a faltering in the leadership ? That is the question.

ALREADY in the gathering storm of the impending clashes, there are unmistakable signs of hope. Already the proletarian and peoples’ forces are drawing themselves in battle array. ... But speed, and more speed in building up the peoples’ fighting fronts is the crying need of the hour. The situation is tense.

Terror Intensified

THE situation in India is none the less so. British Imperialism weakened by the great crisis, is now menaced by rival imperialism — by the rise of the forces of rebellion at home, and in its colonies. It is preparing to strengthen itself for the coming conflict, by striking at the weakest forces ranged against it — the force of national revolt in the colonies. It is intensifying its brutal terror against the millions of our toiling peasants and workers struggling against starvation unemployment and famine. ...

WILL British Imperialism succeed in its new move? Will it succeed in smothering our national struggle — in disrupting it once-again? ... Or will the national emancipatory struggle of the Indian people rise to the height of a Powerful And-Imperialist Peoples’ Front, uniting the toiling and the exploited masses of our population under a consistent revolutionary-leadership, and inflict a defeat on British Imperialism in India — and foil its designs against the workers of the World ? That is the question and it is more urgent and pressing than over it was. British imperialism, weakened by crisis, and menaced by war and revolution in Europe would be more vulnerable than it ever was. We must prepare to strike and prepare fast.

Lessons of ’30—’32.

... THE struggles of 1930-32, which took place in the shadow of the great world crisis, and which were immediately preceded by the class battles of the Indian working class — making its debt [dealt] in the political arena, brought this conflict once again and more sharply to the fore. The struggle which proceeded with gigantic strides from Dandi, was brought to an ignominous halt at Delhi when the Delhi of its destination was still far off. ...

The criticism of the methods of national struggle which the Communist Party of India and the working class leadership was making for some years past, began now to appear justified to a broader mass of the Congress rank and file. The significance of the class battles of the industrial workers which preceded the national struggle of 1930-32 became clear to them. ... The search for a new path and new leadership resulted in a powerful leftward swing among the Congress rank and file. Determined sections turned their back on Gandhism and class-collaboration. They realised that the new path involved class-struggle-which instead of being antagonistic and destructive of national struggle was a powerful and indispensable ferment, broadening and raising it to higher level. ... This leftward trend found its reflection in the formation of the Congress Socialist Party.

THREE was a searching of hearts in the ranks of the class-conscious workers oft he Communist Party. The reverses in the working class movement (1929-36) its isolation from the national struggle, and the consequent failure to free it from the fetters of the bourgeois leadership — all that called for self-criticism and re-orientation. It was realised that the working class movement could not remain aloof from the National Struggle. I had to proceed from abstract criticism to the building up of a united front of the entire working class against capitalist offensive, to the building up the Joint Anti-Imperialist front of the masses of Indian people for land, bread and Independence. ...

Masses Move Left

THE preconditions for the building up of the Anti-Imperialist Peoples’ Front, for turning a new leaf in the history of our national struggle have been fast maturing in the past four years. Firstly we have the new resurgence in the working class movement. ... Secondly, there is the rise of a new trend in the present movement, represented in the formation of the organisation of the peasantry based on class struggle (Punjab, Bengal, Madras, Maharashtra) and of their growing unification in the all India Kisan Congress (AIKC). Finally we have the growing leftward trend inside the congress ranks which is spreading not only horizontally but seems to spread vertically as well. Large sections of the congress ranks and file are moving away from Gandhism and towards class struggle and towards the class organisations of the workers and peasants as the only effective means of developing the National Struggle. At the same time we are witnessing the unwanted spectacle of a man standing at the head of the Congress high command — who is today perhaps the best exponent of the whole leftward trend inside the Congress. The stage is set for bursting the fetters of the reactionary leadership — for freeing the forces of national struggle for the next advance — for the building up of the Anti-Imperialist Peoples’ Front.

... The United Front is not a vague lining up of allied groups and organisation for passing pious resolutions. The Anti-Imperialist united front is the spearhead formation of all our fighting forces. At the apex of this formation stands a consistently revolutionary leadership while its broad base is made of all the Anti-Imperialist forces in the country. ...

SUCH a united front ... can only be built in the process of the struggle and class struggle at that. It presupposes a broad and a militant organisation of the working classes including its backward sections. ... It means a more rapid class organisation of the peasants throughout the country, ... In short the building of united front does not means the mere bringing together of all the existing left forces. It means more. It means bringing into its orbit, wider masses of the unorganised moving newer sections and sarta of our people — awakening them to political consciousness.

Rally Round The Platform of Action !

..... The Communist Party of India (CPI) has already placed before you such a programme, which should be acceptable to the entire INC and to the organised workers' and peasants’ movements. We want complete national independence - whole and unadulterated — without “buts” and “it’s.^[1] ...

THIS is a moderate programme, and just because it is moderate should it be possible for us to unite the greatest majority of our people IN STRUGGLE to attain it. But what is the attitude of the Congress leadership of this programme ? Has it accepted it? It is no doubt substantially there is cold print in the Karachi resolution, and in the recent election manifesto. But how it undertook and how is it applied in struggle? ... When the workers rise in strike struggle in deference of their existing low standard of life, the pious resolutions are forgotten and the Congress leaders suddenly remember that their organisation consists of all classes and hence it cannot take sides, but they very often end in siding with their capitalists. ... The Congress election propaganda in the villages today, is an usual, restricted to the praise of the ‘constructive propaganda’ of Gandhism, to vague nationalist propaganda. The moderate demands about rent and debt are seldom mentioned let alone the question of struggle to attain them. They are afraid of upsetting their upper class supporters in the rural areas of spoiling their election chances. In short, their purpose is to create an illusion in the minds of the vocal left forces in the cities and in the Congress Sessions, that the Congress has accepted the minimum anti-imperialist programme while the leadership goes on consolidating its present class basis and working against a broader mobilization of the exploited masses so essential for the development of Anti-imperialist struggle.

Down With Compromisers

THIS is exactly where the conscious anti-imperialist rank and file in the Congress and its advance guard the CSP must step in ... The rallying of the toiling masses on the basis of their class demands is the only method of awakening them to political consciousness — of drawing them into the national struggle. The very first step in the building up of the anti-imperialist peoples’ front, means class struggle — means a sharp break with the “constructive programme” of Gandhism class collaboration. That is why, we will meet with a determined opposition from the orthodox Congress leadership at every forward step we take. It is all the more necessary, therefore, for all the left forces to combine to defeat this opposition, ...

DOES this mean that we are out to split the Congress, to split off its left wing and build up a separate organisation by joining it with workers’ and peasants’ organisations? This is not what we propose. The INC as it stands today does not represent an anti-imperialist united front. But it could be used as the basis for the building up one. Its structure and its constitution, as it is today, is quite unsuited even for this latter object. It can at times be effectively used to defeat it. We are therefore proposing the democratisation of its constitution — the widening of its mass basis by the collective affiliation of the workers’ and peasants’ organisations.

... The Congress attitude towards the question of elections as a whole is determined by the class-basis of its present leadership, by their usual reformist attitude towards the question of mass struggle. ... It relies on safe seats, on pacts with elements of reactionary vested interests, on the socio-economic pressure its candidates can bring to bear upon the voters. It is more worried over achieving “joint national front” with reactionary national groups, than over reaching agreement with the CSP or the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) (rejection of Com. Nimbkar and CSP candidates in Bombay and elsewhere) ... The elections manifesto, viewed in the light of all this, appears more as move, as a manoeuvre to-pacify the clamour of the vocal left forces in the cities rather than an effective lead to convert the election campaign into a struggle against the constitution, on the other hand it leaves enough loopholes for the reactionary leadership to pursue their reformist tactics unperturbed.

Advance on The Election Front!

THANKS to the weakness of our forces, to the vacillation in our ranks, the manoeuvre of the Congress leadership has for the most part succeeded. But we can still make amends for the lost time and opportunities. Firstly, all the left forces must formulate a resolution on the “tactics of the election struggle and the struggle against the constitution” — in which we must supplement what is missing in the election manifesto, viz, the presentation of the minimum programme as a programme of anti-imperialist struggle. As a practical measure we must insist on every candidate taking a solemn pledge before his voters that he would loyally support all the items of the same and fight for the attainment of demands of the workers and the peasants laid down therein. We must lay down that the election campaign develops as a series of united front demonstrations and processions in collaboration with the Labour and Peasant organisation — in which all the items of our minimum programme must be aggressively brought forward. All the anti-imperialist groups must unite at Faizpur to exert maximum pressure on the Congress leadership to press the resolution. The CSP should take the initiative in pushing it forward in collaboration with the labour and peasant representatives. Even if we do not succeed in getting the resolution passed, the CSP, and the Labour and Kisan groups should arrive at an agreement to push the policy in action in every localities where the left forces are strong enough to influence the Congress leadership. ...

The Right Prepares For Surrender

The move to accept the ministries on the part of some leaders is the logical outcome of that attitude of the Congress leadership to the whole question of elections which we outlined above. ... It would be the game of the rightists, to pose the issue of the ministries by itself to use it as valve for steam-letting for the left forces and thus sidetrack the main issue of the struggle against the constitution. ...

Democraties The Congress!

There will be two more issues before the Session, which are intimately linked up with the task of building up united front. Firstly, we have the question of the democratisation of the Congress. We have already, placed our concrete proposals about this before you (see the “Communist”). The purpose of these proposals is on the one hand, to activise the primary local committees of the Congress to raise the political consciousness local leading cadres to draw them towards the constructive work of organising the peasants and the toiling masses in their area, on the basis of their class demands. On the other hand, by effecting the collective affiliation of Labour and Peasant organisations, we are seeking to give a definite organisational form to the united front between the INC and the existing class organisations of the toilers. ...

These proposals, although they have the backing of the Congress President, will not have smooth sailing as seen at Lucknow; since Lucknow, however, the support for them in the Congress rank and file is growing ... this pressure must be kept up and increased, by striving to create local united fronts between the INC and the local labour and peasant organisations, ...

Support The Demands of The Peasants !

Secondly, the question of the formulation of the peasant programme will be coming up before the session. ... It is not possible to-day to formulate a genuine programme of peasants’ demands and at the same time gloss over the conflict between the majority of the downtrodden, rack-rented peasant population and the handful of rural exploiters. In fact, it is not possible to take even the first steps of organisation without posing the question of this conflict. We must bring mass pressure on the Congress to take sides in the conflict to come unequivocally in support of abolishing Khoti, Malguzari and Zamindari of the total redemption of debt and of the class organisation of the peasants. Faizpur session has been much advertised as a Present session and it is all more necessary for all the anti-imperialist forces in the Congress to join hands with the All Indian Kisan Congress and convert the Faizpur session into a powerful demonstration in support of their class programme. ...

THE menace of world war is hourly approaching. The Faizpur session will pass the resolution not to participate in the war of British Imperialism — and to utilise the opportunity to win Indian freedom. ... British Imperialism will, of course, use openly the princes and the big Indian vested interest in capital and land, to put forward its war designs. But in the nick of war crisis, it will try to win over that section of the Indian capitalists and merchants, who have influence over the Congress and use them to pacify the mass-unrest in India which is bound to follow on the wheels of war. If by then, we have not succeeded in building up a powerful base of the anti-imperialist front, and in creating a consistently revolutionary leadership for the national struggle we would be powerless to prevent the betrayal of our struggle, and another opportunity would have gone by.

Forge The United Front!

... This Front can only be built on the Solid foundations of the class organisations of Labour and Peasantry. ... This work is secretly foowned upon the Congress leadership and sometimes openly belittled (cf. Sardar Patel’s recent remarks re. Kisan organisations). The cause of this opposition is quite clear. It is an issue between the two paths — the path of class —  collaboration of reformism, which leads to surrender to imperialism and the path of class struggle and of anti-imperialist front which leads to the overthrow of imperialism. You, who are already turning away from the former, must now firmly tread upon the latter. ...

THE work of the organisation of the workers and peasants and of the building up of the anti-imperialist front has to be done under conditions of severe repression. ... As our anti-imperialist movement broadens sharpens, the task of building up its secret sector becomes more and more urgent, the task of supplementing open and legal work with secret work becomes more complex. The leadership of an experienced revolutionary party is required to tackle this problem.

THE working class, who has borne the brunt of this repression, who has learned to build up organisations and conduct strike struggles in the face of police and Government terrorism is the class eminently fitted to be the leader of the rest of the toilers and the initiator of the anti-imperialist peoples’ front. It is the revolutionary political party of the working class the COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA which must step forward as the leader and organiser of the anti-imperialist peoples’ front. It is also the CPI which must act as the guiding centre of all the secret and illegal activities of the AIPF. It must coordinate the legal and secret activities and thus create an invulnerable basis for the continued organisation of the workers and peasants in the face of imperialist repression. ... We call upon the anti-imperialist members of the Congress to develop class [close?] relation with our party, and to march shoulder to shoulder with us in the task of building up the anti-imperialist peoples’ front, for the defeat of imperialism and for the victory of the national struggle.

Forward To The Anti-imperialist Peoples Front!
Convene The Constituent Assembly !
Down With Imperialism !
Long Live The Revolution !

CENTRAL COMMITTEE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
(SECTION OF COMINTERN)
DEC ’36

Note:

1.   Here follows such demands as Constituent Assembly release of political prisoners, various workers' and peasants’ demands and so on. -Ed.

 

28

Draft Election Platform^[1]

We are suggesting below drafts of the three election platforms. We hope they will become the basis of wide discussion.

We have not duplicated the demands unnecessarily. The distinctive demands of Communists are not likely to be adopted by candidates who are contesting the elections on the platform of Socialism and revolutionary Anti-Imperialism, nor are the demands of the latter likely to be accepted by the Indian National Congress (INC) as it is today. The concrete demands suggested in the platform for the INC must however be adopted by the Left candidates. The Left inside the INC should struggle to see that the Platform for the INC is not modified in the direction of Right compromise nor the concrete demands made vague, they should not let any of these demands be deleted but should add on to them other concrete demands embodying the immediate grievances of the toiling people.

Draft Election Platform for Communist Candidates.

• 1.  For Workers and Peasants Soviet Republic.
• 2.  Repeal of all Anti-National, Anti-Peasant and
• Anti-Working class laws.
• 3.  Unconditional release of all political prisoners, State prisoners, Internees and Detenues.
• 4.  Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
• 5.  Withdrawal of army of occupation from India, existing army and police to be replaced by arming the workers, peasants and all toilers
• 6.  Abolition of Native States, property of the Princess to be confiscated.
• 7.  Repudiation of working-class and peasant indebtedness.
• 8.   Confiscation of large estates. Land to the Tillers of the Soil.
• 9.   Repudiation of Imperialist Debts.
• 10. Confiscation of British Capital in India.
• 11. Confiscation and Nationalisation of all key and large Industries, plantations and Banks.
• 12. Revolutionary fraternal support to the British working-class in its struggle against British Capitalism.
• 13. Active opposition to Imperialist Wars.
• 14.  Active support at all costs to the SOVIET UNION, the hope of the toilers of the World.

Draft Election Platform for Socialist and Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Candidates.

• 1.  For Workers and Peasants Republic.
• 2.  Repeal of all anti-national, anti-peasant and anti-working- class laws.
• 3.  Unconditional release of all political prisoners, State prisoners, Detenues and Internees.
• 4.  Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
• 5.  Withdrawal of the army of occupation from India, existing army and police to be replaced by arming the people.
• 6.   Abolition of Native States, properties of the Princes to be confiscated.
• 7.  Repudiation of working class and peasant indebtedness.
• 8.  Confiscation of large estates. Land to the Tillers of the soil.
• 9.  Repudiation of all Imperialist Debts.
• 10. Confiscation of British capital of India.
• 11. Confiscation and Nationalisation of key and large Industries, plantations and Banks.
• 12. Revolutionary fraternal support to the British Working-Class in its struggle against British Capitalism.
• 13.  Active opposition to Imperialist Wars.
• 14.  Active support to the SOVIET UNION, the hope of the toilers of the world.

Draft Election Platform for INC.

• 1.    For Complete National Independence. No compromise with British Imperialism, Wrecking the Slave Constitution.
• 2.     Repeal of all anti-national, anti-peasant and anti-working- class laws.
• 3. Unconditional release of all political prisoners, Detenues, State prisoners and Internees.
• 4.     Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
• 5.     50% reduction in military and police budget.
• 6. Democratic righls for State subjects, their representatives to be elected by the people.
• 7.     Repeal of the Arms Act.
• 8.     Immediate moratorium on all working class and peasant debts. Cancellation of 50 pc of their debts.
• 9.     Compulsory legal rate of interest not to exceed 6 pc.
• 10. No rent and revenue from uneconomic holdings. 50 pc reduction in rent and revenue on all holdings yielding net incomes of 500/- of less. Steeply graduated income-tax on agricultural incomes exceeding Rs. 500/- a year.
• 11.     Irrigation through Elected Peasant Committees.
• 12.    Free grazing ground from Government and landlords, to be managed by Elected Peasant Committees.
• 13. Abolition and Penalisation of all illegal levies, exactions and forced labour.
• 14.     Guaranteed minimum wages of Rs. 30/- a month.
• 15.     Eight hour day.
• 16.    Maternity Benefit, Unemployment and Health Insurance at the cost of Employers and Government.
• 17. Unrestricted Right of workers of strike and picket.
• 18.     No Reduction of wages. No fines. No retrenchment.
• 19. No forced leave. No ejectment of workers from tenements during strikes.

From two small items on National Front, 13 March and 10th April 1938 respectively.

Note:

1. This item, pertaining to the elections to the provincial legislatures held in February 1937, was published in The Communist, July 1936

 

29 A

Towards Left Unity

... In other parts of India, in Behar, in Andhra, in Malabar, for instance, where the Congress Socialist Party has been in close contact with mass struggles and has had the experience the distinction for actually leading them, the Party has felt the need of unity of the entire Left, and has worked shoulder to shoulder with the communists and all genuine anti-imperialists to achieve it. But in Bombay the Congress Socialist Party has kept aloof from the peoples’ struggles and the great waves of the peasant discontent, of the working class struggles have passed, for the most part, over its head, beyond its folded hands. And precisely in Bombay there has been the greatest opposition of Left unity — not towards unity or united front in theory - but hostility towards every concrete expression of unity or united front in action. But the pressure of events, the irresistible pressure of the mass movements in the country has driven the Congress Socialist Party as a whole, and now even the Bombay section, towards Left Unity. This is a heartening sign of the times. ...

 

29 B

Strengthen Socialist Unity

We heartily greet Congress Socialists assembled in their Annual Conference of Lahore.  ...

The Congress Socialists and the Communists represent two trends inside the Socialist movement, the former has arisen from within the national movement as a result of the experience of the mass struggles against imperialism. The latter mainly from within the proletarian movement as a result of the daily experience of the struggle in the class-battles of the proletariat. These two are not mutually antagonistic but really complementary to each other, they together are the socialist movement in India. The problem of socialist unity is to achieve the conscious unification of these two trends, and get them to coalesce. The Congress Socialists, for historical reasons, continue to be isolated from the working-class and therefore from the creative class energy of the proletariat. The Communists are embedded in the working-class and despite their recent successes have not yet succeeded in battering down the walls that isolate them from the general national movement. It is the role of the Socialists to be the living core of Left unity which is the real driving force of our national front; the proletariat in the final analysis is the most consistent builder of the united national front. The unity of the Congress Socialists and Communists takes us forward in these directions — nearer the goal to be reached.

Further, between the Congress Socialists and Communists ideological and practical agreement over immediate issue, i.e., over the policy of the United National Front already exists. We need Socialist Unity to carry out the Policy. The CSP is the party under whose banner this immediate unity must be achieved and all obstacles removed. ...

Our Congress Socialist comrades are meting at a time when the fate of the world, and of the Indian people together with it, hangs in the balance, would we, Indian Socialists, play our part worthily and intelligently? It depends to a considerable extent upon the decisions of the CSP — the practical steps it takes to cement and forge Socialist Unity.

All Socialists Inside The CSP.
Long Live The CSP.

 

30

Congress Ministers And Recognition of Unions

By Deven Sen

Some confusion and alarm has arisen in the ranks of trade unionists and Left forces generally, as a result of the recommendations of the Conference of Congress Labour Ministries regarding Government recognition to Labour Unions.

The following article on this subject has been sent to us by Comrade Deven Sen, Secretary of the Bengal Labour Association and a leading CSP member. The comrade makes the following points :

• 1. The recognition of trade unions is a pivotal demand in the workers’ struggle and this has been acceded to by the Karachi resolution and the more recent resolutions of the Congress.
• 2.  The attaching of conditions for recognition of trade unions by the government is a departure from the Congress position, and is motivated by the fear of the capitalist interests inside the Congress. These interests are afraid of the militancy of the workers and the growing influence of communist and socialist doctrines amongst them.
• 3. The Congress has already given concessions to violences in self-defence by its acceptance of the existence of a police force and armies. It is, therefore, not inconsistent with the Congress creed to extend the concessions to Labour Unions, which are organisations of the workers in self-defence.
• 4.  The Congress by its present policy is in danger of losing the support of the working class and the younger generation of the petty bourgeoisie. This will hamper, if not make impossible, the United Front in the struggle against Imperialism.

While not agreeing entirely with the formulations of Comrade Sen, we put his thesis forward as a welcome contribution to the discussion on the building up of the United Anti-Imperialist Front, which he himself recognizes as the prime necessity today.

We have not joined the congress as a matter of grace but as a part of our policy to develop it into the United National Front of the Indian people. We demand Unity of Congress and labour organisations and we know that we have to struggle for it. We realise that this conditional recognition of Trade Unions is anti-democratic and evidence of the owners’ greater pressure on the Congress Ministers. ... We would win

unconditional recognition of Trade Unions from the Congress Ministers themselves by mobilising the working class masses to assert this demand and by forging unity with the Congress masses themselves to actively support it. ... Ed.^[1]

Source:  New Age, January 1938.

Note:

1.   This refers to the editor of New Age; after this editorial note follows Deven Sen's article.

 

31

Tripuri Must Sound The War Drum

The re-election of Subhas Chandra Bose as the President of the National Congress has created a grave and critical situation. Never before in the history of the National Congress was the presidential election fought round burning political issues. ... Immediately after Subhas’s victory came the sensational news of the resignation of the seven leading members of the Working Committee, who had issued a statement opposing Bose’s re-election. This was promptly contradicted. But on the heels of this denial came Gandhiji’s articles which interpreted Bose’s election as a defeat for this principles and policy and foreshadowed the resignation of the present Working Committee members by asking Bose to chose a “homogeneous Cabinet.” Political speculation is rife in the daily press. How will this conflict between the Right and Left develop? Who will win at Tripuri ? Will there be a split ?...

All this is happening against the background of a serious and menacing international situation. If the rapid advance of Franco leads to the collapse of Republican Spain, Europe would be in the throes of an acute war crisis in the two months’ time .... To-day more than ever British Imperialism is vulnerable. If we hit out now, we win. An all round people’s offensive is the need of the hour. But this demands unity, unity of National leadership, unity of the Congress, unity of the entire people for a decisive struggle. To achieve this unity at Tripuri is the supreme task before us. Our enemies expect battle royal at Tripuri. ... They want the Congress to crack through the pressure of inner conflict. ... We have to foil this game. We have to evolve unity out of this very conflict which has arisen. This necessitates an analysis of the issues around which the controversy raged ...

Vote For Bose — A Vote For Struggle

Thus there were two issues before the delegates when they went to the polls on the 29th January: (1) A militant plan of action to fight the Federation and (2) the bureaucratic manipulation of certain members of the Working Committees who wanted to prevent the election of leftist President. The majority vote for Subhash was a vote on both these points. Personal as well as provincial considerations might have swayed a certain section of the voters; but on the whole it was a political vote. It was a vote for a militant policy in fighting the Federation. It was a rank and file vote against bureaucratic manipulation of certain Working Committee members. It was a vote for a democratic functioning of the Congress. The majority vote cast in favour of Subhash gets added significance because of the following factors

(1) seven leading members of the Working Committee had deprecated Subhash’s candidature and the raising of political issues in the presidential election
(2) Rajendra Babu had criticised Subhash’s views on Federation stating that they were “not crystallised enough.” (3) Jawaharlal Nehru had, in a sense supported the contention of the Right wingers that the issue of the Federation was irrelevant as there was no difference among Congressemen on that score.
(4) Gandhiji had not spoken, but the fact that he had not prevailed upon Dr. Pattabhi to withdraw in favour of Subhash and thus avoid a contest was a pointer in itself. That the delegates voted for Subhash in spite of these factors shows clearly that the vote is a definite indication of a swing towards the left. ...

Gandhiji’s Warning Finger

Can we therefore say that it was 100% left vote? Can be celebrate it as a left victory? We cannot and must not. It is not a vote against the present leadership; nor can it be interpreted as a vote for an alternative leadership. They have voted for militant action and a democratic functioning. They want the present leadership to implement their verdict. Gandhiji knows the weakness of this majority. A considerable section of it Kas implicit faith in Gandhiji. His sensational statement after Subhash’s victory is aimed at them :

“Since I was instrumental in inducing Dr Pattabhi not to withdraw his name as a candidate when Maulana Sahib had retired, the defeat is more mine than his. I am nothing if i do not represent definite principles and policy. Therefore it is plain to me that the delegates do not approve of the principles and policy for which I stand.”

Gandhiji points his warning finger to the rank and file delegates who has voted for Subhash and says — In voting for Subhash you have voted against me. To Subhash he says, you have won. From your own “homogeneous Cabinet” and carry out your programme. You think yours is “the most forward and boldest policy and programme.” Carry it out. You have my blessings. But I am afraid “the minority if it cannot keep pace with it must come out of the Congress” and the ministries too may have to resign if you make “changes in the parliamentary programme as fixed by the erstwhile majority.”

Subhash’s Plea For Unity

Gandhiji’s statement open’s up a disastrous perspective. It is a challenge to unity as well as democracy within the Congress. ... Sri Subhash Bose in his reply to Gandhiji has taken the correct line : — “Assuming for argument’s sake that the result implies a victory of the left, we should stop to consider what the Leftist’s programme is. For the immediate future the leftists stand for National unity and on unrelenting opposition to the Federal Scheme. In addition to this, they stand for democratic principles. The Leftists will not take the responsibility of creating a split within the Congress; if a split does come it will come about not because of them but in spite of them.” (Times of India 4-2-39).

Our Reply — Ultimatum

... the time is ripe for grasping the initiate for an offensive for giving an ultimatum of 6 months to the British Government demanding complete independence, all power to the people, through the Constituent Assembly. ...

Six Month’s Preparation

This draft resolution must also include the following points which lay down the policy and programme of action to be followed during the intervening 6 months.

• (1)  Agitation for the dissolution of the present Central Assembly.
• (2)  A uniform programme for the states. ... All India demonstrations, organisation of relief etc. organised by the National Congress in solidarity with the States people’s cause.
• (3)  A 6 months programme of preparation for struggle.
• A unified All-India Volunteer Corps, as nucleus of the national Army. ...
• (4)  An essential condition for the preparation of the struggle is the liquidation of all conflict between the ministries and the labour and Kisan organizations ...
• (5)  Similarly the state of tension between the Congress Committees and the Trade Unions and the Kisan Sabhas must be replaced by fraternal relations.
• (6)  Unity with communal minorities especially the Muslims and the untouchables, through appeal for joint struggle against the Federation. Coalition Ministries wherever necessary and possible on the basis of the congress programme of struggles, ...

Tripuri’s Battle Call

We have outlined the main points of a draft omnibus resolution on the basis of which we want Subhash Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru to achieve unity between the Right and the Left. ... The Left will ever be willing to make sacrifices in the interest of national unity and for joint national struggle. If such an agreement results in an agreed resolution of the Working Committee in the next few. days, then Tripuri would be an unprecedented demonstration of nation’s unity and militant Strength. ...

Source:  The New Age, February, 1939.

 

32

In Aid of China

China, who has been fighting her own battles with such heroic determination does not beg for alms. But she appeals for the solidarity and support of all who stand for freedom, for democracy, for bread and for peace. ...

It was last year that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, then President of the Congress, received a touching letter from General Chu Deh, the Commander of the Red Armies fighting against Japanese invaders in North China. That letter sent a thrill through the youth of India. Everywhere, it was felt that it behove our national honour to do something, in reply to that letter.

The students took up the cry. In Bombay, in Calcutta and elsewhere they began holding meetings. In the city, the students forfeited their annual College dinner and sent the proceeds to China. The working class and peasant organisations too, passed resolutions supporting China. But everyone wailed for the Congress to give a lead.

At the last Session of the Congress, at Haripura, a resolution supporting the Chinese people and asking Indians to refrain from buying Japanese goods, was passed. But nothing further was done.

Now, at last, the Working Committee has come out with a practical proposal to send an Ambulance Unit to China, which will appeal to all.

The President of the Congress has called for funds. He has said that Rs 30,000 must be raised immediately to purchase and despatch the Unit. It is then, clearly our duty, in our individual capacity and through all the organisations that we work in, to raise this money in the shortest possible time. But it is also clear that this is by no means all. This sum will not suffice to maintain the Unit, and that more money will be required.

Again, the sending of this Ambulance Unit, admirable as a very concrete expression of our solidarity with China, is but a drop in the ocean. Around it and around the campaign for China must grown a new consciousness amongst the people, a living vivid consciousness of the fellowship between these two peoples, between all people, of the dastardly character of imperialist aggression and war; of the common foes that we all have to fight.

The thousands of pice collected from the people at mass meetings; from people made aware of Japanese imperialism and Chinese national unity, will be immeasurably more valuable to China and to us, than the hundred rupee notes donated by a few philanthropic wealthy gentlemen.

Source: National Front, 5 June, 1938

 

33

Communist Resolution for Tripuri

Unity and Struggle

RD Bharadwaj, Bankim Mukerji, Somnath Lahiri, N Dutt Mazumdar. SC Sardesai, YD Chitule and other Communist members of the AICC have sent the following draft resolution:

The Congress reiterates the inalienable right of the Indian people to complete national independence. The Congress declares that no constitution except one framed by the freely elected Constituent Assembly shall be accepted by the nation.

... because of the rapidly developing crisis in the international arena and because of the growing power of the Congress, British Imperialism fears to precipitate conflict with the united national forces. Its present policy is therefore of
(1) consolidating its international position by alliance with Fascist Powers

(2) making conciliatory gestures in order to win over a section of the national forces, split the Congress and weaken it

(3) extending the life of the present Central Legislature indefinitely

(4) encouraging communal and other disruptive forces, ...

National resentment against the sham constitution which transfers no real power to the Indian people is increasing. The Congress has grown more powerful than ever, workers and peasants, even the most backward sections of them, have entered the political arena, have developed powerful organisations and have rallied in ever increasing numbers round the Congress.

In the States the tremendous awakening of the people has evoked the wrath of the Princes and their ally imperialism, and the popular movement for Responsible Government is being sought to be drowned in blood. Imperialist intervention against the States’ people and in favour of the Princess is increasing. ...

IN VIEW OF THE TREMENDOUS STRENGTH THAT THE POPULAR FORCES HAVE ATTAINED, IN VIEW OF THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL SITUATION AND IN VIEW OF THE CONTINUED DEFIANCE OF THE POPULAR WILL BY BRITISH IMPERIALISM, THE CONGRESS FEELS THAT THE TIME IS RIPE FOR PASSING ON TO THE OFFENSIVE. ...

The Congress, therefore, reiterates the national demands for complete independence, immediate withdrawal of the Army of Occupation, complete control over Defence, Foreign Affairs and Finance by the Indian people. The Congress calls upon the British Government to concede these demands immediately and in their entirety.

In case of non-acceptance of these demands within six months the Working Committee shall review the situation as it exists then and shall take whatever steps are necessary to enforce the people’s will.

With the object of preparing the country for mass struggle on a national scale and for mobilising the entire people for active participation in the battle for independence the Congress adopts the following Plan of Action.

• (a) Intensive campaign throughout the country against the Federal Scheme, against the existing autocratic Central Government against the limitations imposed on Provincial Governments under the Government of India Act, against the entire slave Constitution.
• (b)    Extensive popularisation of the demand for the Constituent Assembly as expressing the sovereign right of the Indian people to self-determination.
• (c) Incorporation of the basic demands of the toiling masses the concrete and specific form in the Congress programme.
• (d) Elimination of corruption from Congress ranks by strict supervision of membership rolls, by vigorous functioning of Congress Committees and by ensuring active participation of the rank and file in the work-of the Congress.
• (e) Creation of an All-India Volunteer Corps of at least a million members as the nucleus of the national militia; arrangement for political and technical training of the Congress workers.
• (f) Rapid implementing of the Election Programme by the Congress Ministries with regard to social legislation and establishment of democratic liberties.
• (g) Establishment of close United Front relations between the Congress and the workers and peasants organisations; active support by the Congress to workers and peasants in their struggle for economic and democratic demands,
• (h) Unity with communal minorities especially Muslims and untouchables through appeal for joint struggles, through negotiations with their organisations and through direct work among the masses of the minority communities, granting of all minority demands consistent with basic principles of national unity,
• (i) Formation of Coalition Ministries wherever possible of the basis of the Congress Election programme,
• (j)  Coordination of the States’ people’s struggles and developing them as an integral part of the national liberation movement, through a Committee appointed by the Congress. Formation of Congress Committees, in the States to conduct the States people’s movement for Responsible Government and Civil Liberties. Adoption of a Charter of Demands of the States’ people defining Responsible Government and mobilisation of mass support throughout the country in its favour. Solidarity demonstrations and organisation of relief for the States’ people in British India.

Source:  National Front, 12 March 1939

34

A Peace Policy for India

P Sundarayya

In a previous article we published a profit and loss account relating to the Great War. In it we showed that at a total cost of more than a hundred and twenty thousand crores of rupees the world purchased the deaths of twenty six million people and had to its credit about fifty million more whose health, homes and happiness were shattered. Then we made an estimate showing some of the possible results had this expenditure been put to more constructive use. Finally we showed by references to the League of Nations Year Book that the world's military expenditure on preparations for the next war had reached by 1937 almost double the amount spent in 1914 in preparations for the last.

In India our National Debt today amounts to more then four times as much as it was before the Great War (Rs 1236 crore).

While we spend annually Rs 65 crore on maintaining the instruments of our own exploitation ( Army, Navy, Police and Jails) we are only able to spend one third of this sum on Public Health, Education, and Scientific Research all combined. ...

... it is not only true to say that at the present time there is no foreign menace to India other than the British menace, but also there could scarcely be any combination of circumstances more favourable to the building up of India's status and prestige in the international arena then the world situation at the present time.

Japan is fully occupied in China and is likely to remain preoccupied with her own internal and external affairs for some time to come. Similarly Germany and Italy will be kept equally occupied in Europe and Africa. Strategically India is more favourably situated for purposes of defence against modern methods of attack than almost any other country in the world, protected as she is on the North East, North and North West by deserts and well-nigh insuperable mountain barriers and to the South by thousands of miles of sea from all the likely centres of conflict in the war that lies ahead.

Under these circumstances a foreign policy for India which would reflect her true interests would be concerned here and now in building up trade agreements, cultural relations and non-aggression pacts with her immediate or near neighbours, with Turkey and Iran, with Russia, Afghanistan, Tibet and China. Thus she would be a party to the Near Eastern Little Entente and with regard to the border tribes on her North-West Frontier she would seek not to deliberately antagonise them but in agreement with Afghanistan, to win their friendship and provide for their economic improvement.

Until, however, we have successfully countered the proposed Federation and assumed responsibility for our own foreign relations we cannot pursue any such policy of peace and friendship with our neighbours but must inevitably be dragged into the European arena to strengthen the hands of British Imperialism’s reactionary policy in Europe, and in so doing strengthen the bonds which secure our own condition of servitude.

It must be obvious, then, to every Indian who was the welfare of his country and his people at heart that so far from Britain affording protection to India (blackouts or no blackouts) she is in fact dragging Indian along with herself to the edge of the European abyss. ...

The immediate issue before us in India is not the fight against fascism nor yet the preservation of European and American democracy through the agency of British Imperialism, but the fight for a true democracy in our own country. The only way we can serve the cause of freedom in the world is by securing the right ourselves to conclude pacts of non-aggression or even mutual assistance with our neighbours in their defence against aggressor States.

In the same way National Defence for us must not mean merely footing the bill for the privilege of being “protected” by British Imperialism but self-defence through the agency of our own Peoples’ Militias against British Imperialism itself.

To sum up then, India’s part in the coming international struggle for power is the struggle for her own freedom.

Only in so far as she consistently pursues this will she be able to weaken the forces of reaction in the world.

If it is true that a country which exploits another cannot itself be free, it is equally true that a country which is itself exploited cannot secure the freedom of another at the expense of its own. ...

... Only as a free agent herself can she give effective expression to her solidarity with the freedom loving peoples of the world. And, therefore, the best way that India can help the progressive democratic forces in Britain and elsewhere in the world at this critical hour is by the overthrow of imperialism, and the winning of her own independence. ...

Source:  National Front, 3 April, 1938.

 

35

News from China

Strengthen United Front in India

— Says Mao Tse Tung

(From our Correspondent with the Indian Medical Unit) On arrival at Yenan in the middle of last month we were informed that the people over here used to get “National Front” regularly but they don't know why it has stopped coming for the last seven months. All who know English showed great interest in reading this Indian paper. ...

Just prior to departure to our respective places of duty, Comrade Mao Tse Tung invited us for an exclusive interview. We met him together with Wang Ming and other leaders in several “Wang ways” or evening meetings in “Soirees”. This time besides other conversation he asked us to minute detail about the trend of Indian politics and its leaders. He was very glad to hear that the Communists of India were now working in Indian National Congress. He hoped that the National United Anti-Imperialist Front in India would become as strong as the united front of Communists and Komintang Parties in China in then-war of resistances and national liberation.

Source: National Front, 14 May, 1939

APPENDIX TO TEXT  VI

(Samles of mazazines, cover pages etc.)

1

The Action Programme of The Labour And Kisan Party of India

Labour

• (1)  To devise means and methods to save the labour fighters and their families put to suffering while in discharge of their class duties.
• (2)   Right to form union.
• (3)   Recognition of right to strike as a lawful weapon in the hands of labour for their self-protection.
• (4) Formation of arbitration courts to deal with labour disputes composed of labour-union representatives, capitalists and state officials or neutrals in equal number.
• (5)  Improved housing condition.
• (6)  Minimum wages guaranteeing the value of 350 lb. of rice or wheat according to the custom of the provinces per month and 10 pairs of dhotis per year.
• (7)   State insurance against accident, old age, ill health and unemployment.
• (8)   Provident fund for workers.
• (9)   Privilege and casual leave with full pay similar to that of state officials.
• (10)   Reduced tramway and railway fare to labour and poor kisans.
• (11)   Eight hours law, 6 hours for miners and nursing women and 4 hours for children.
• (12)   Free medical aid.
• (13)   Four months’ delivery leave with full pay.
• (14)   Maternity protection.
• (15)   Abolition of labour recruitment by sardars under whom they work and who take a percentage of their earnings and whose interest coincides with that of capitalists.
• (16)   Adoption of labour recruitment free or through labour union.

Peasant

• (1) Protection against ejection.
• (2) Twenty per cent reduction on all economic rent in ryotwari settlement.
• (3) Equal standard of rent for small holders in zamindari area as in ryotwari.
• (4) Eventual abolition of permanent settlement.
• (5) Extraction by zamindars, their servants or state officials as extras, be it in cash, kind or labour, should be made punishable by law.
• (6) Protection against oppression of zamindars.
• (7) Abolition of “salami”, that is a large sum of cash payment extracted by the zamindars (also jenmies) while transferring the land from one to other tenants.
• (8)  Free irrigation.
• (9)  Abolition of dowry etc.

Common

• (1)  Universal suffrage.
• (2) Easy access for the producing masses in state institutions, that is, lowering the standard of qualifications for candidature in local self-government and provincial of central government institutions. The position as official in trade unions or labour party should be considered qualification enough to sit on those bodies representing labour and kisans.
• (3)  Free and compulsory education till 16th year.
• (4)  Abolition of taxes like salt tax, chaukidari tax, road cess etc.
• (5)  Sharing the industrial profit by labour together with the capitalists.
• (6)  Establishment of cooperative credit, consumers’ and marketing societies to help the needy labour and kisans by loans and supply of their material needs at cheaper rate and to gather, preserve and sell their produce in proper time and market to fetch highest price for the small producers’ benefit.
• (7)  Differential railway tariff to such cooperatives.
• (8)  Protection of untouchables by legislation giving them equal political and religious rights.
• (9)  Universal suffrage in Congress election.

 

2

A New Party

(From Our Own Correspondent)

Bombay, April 11th. A new party has been formed under the leadership of M Singaravelu of Madras known as “The Labour and Kisan Party of Hindustan”. The object is two fold : (1) To secure economic relief to the masses; (2) to win labour swaraj. The method is non-violent non-cooperation, including civil resistance, defiance of law courts, etc. The tactics are all available tactics which will secure more food for the masses. They include council-entry, whether national, provincial or local, as an organised party to form a government opposition; non-cooperation and passive resistance wherever possible, strikes and other forms of mass action. All the existing political institutions in the country will be made use of which will in any way further the party ends. Membership is strictly limited to workers by hand or brain, excluding the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie include the big landowners, mill or factory proprietors, lawyers, medical men and all those who make use of labour to amass fortune. This is a rough classification, but all those who accept on principle the relinquishment of large private properties will be admitted to membership on a year's probation. Membership will be by party card. The manifesto will be issued to the country in a few days.

Source: Vanguard, 1 June 1928

 

3

The Workers’ And Peasants’ Party

Whereas the government of India, representing the interest of imperialism, exist to maintain the exploitation and political subjection of all classes of India, 95 per cent of whom are peasants, workers and middle classes of India, and has shown itself to be in opposition to the promotion of their interests; and Whereas the National Congress and the Parties within it, as well as, the liberals, independents, and other non-congress parties, while at times advocating the improvement of the conditions of the masses, have shown in practice a complete lack of interest in the political, economic and social needs of the peasantry and working class, and by their actions have proved themselves to be parties promoting the interests of imperial and Indian capitalism; and
Whereas the peasantry, constituting the bulk of the population, suffer exploitation in three main directions, by excessive taxation, by high rents, and by the exactions of usurious moneylenders, and in consequence of the illiteracy, and the dual character of their oppression, are incapable of taking the steps towards their emancipation from these evils; and

Whereas the industrial working class, subjected to intense exploitation, in the absence of adequate protective legislation, and the lack of means to enforce that which exists, has failed to organize effectively its own struggle, against these conditions, and has allowed its trade-union movement to fall largely under the leadership of middle class elements which exploit it for their own communal, political or personal ends; and

Whereas the overwhelming majority of the population, consisting of classes whose interests, though not identical, are not fundamentally opposed, is economically exploited and denied educational and social advancement both by the Indian capitalists and foreign government and held in political subjection by the said government with indirect and unconscious help of Indian capitalist class; and

Whereas the exploitation and subjection of the workers and peasants cannot finally cease until economic and political power have been taken from the present rulers and transferred to the workers and peasants.

It is hereby resolved that:

(1) A political party of workers and peasants be established to voice the demands of these classes within the National Con-gress,to promote the organisation of trade unions, to wrest them from their present alien control, to advance the organisation of peasants on the basis of their economic and social requirements, and to present a determined and pertinent opposition to the government and thus secure the social, economic and political emancipation of these classes.

(2) Since an essential condition for the fulfillment of this programme is the attainment of complete national independence, the party will cooperate for that end with other organisations which profess to desire it and are willing to struggle for its realisation.

(3) It shall therefore be the ultimate object of the party to obtain swaraj wherein the means of production, distribution and exchange are publicly owned and socially controlled.

Party’s demands

(a) Immediate Political Demands

• (1)  Universal adult suffrage and responsible government.
• (2)  Abolition of communalism.
• (3)  Freedom of speech, press and the right of association.
• (4)  Removal of all restriction on trade unions.

(b) Economic Demands

• (1) The abolition of indirect taxation and the introduction of graded income-tax on all income exceeding Rs 250 per mensem.
• (2) Nationalisation of land wherein all cultivable land will be leased by government direct to the cultivator.
• (3)  Nationalisation of means of production, distribution and exchange.
• (4)  Rent on landholdings not to be excessive.
• (5)  Establishment by the government of state-aided cooperative banks, controlled by local organisation for the provision of credit to peasants at interest not exceeding 7 per cent.
• (6)  Establishment by law of the 8-hour day and 6-day week for industrial workers.
• (7)  Establishment by law of minimum living wage.
• (8) Establishment of schemes of insurance for sickness, unemployment, old-age pension and maternity benefits.
• (9)  Improvement of laws regarding workmen’s compensation and employer's liability.
• (10)  Legal enactments providing for installation of modern safety appliances in factories, mines etc.
• (11)  Weekly payment of wages.

(c) Social Demands

• (1) Complete elimination of illiteracy and the provision of adequate facilities for free and compulsory, liberal and vocational education for all up to the age of 18.
• (2)  Establishment of hospitals, health centres, free medical treatment and maternity benefits.
• (3)  Training and education in the principles of hygiene and sanitation.
• (4)  Provision of adequate housing for workers and peasantry at rents within their means.
• (5)  Legal prohibition of all employment of women in dangerous occupation.
• (6)  Legal prevention of employment below the age of 18.

Office-bearers

President: Dhundiraj Thengdi; Secretary: SS Mirajkar; Executive Committee : SH Jhabvala, SV Ghate, Lalji Pende (Congress), KN Joglekar (trade union), RS Nimbkar (education), JB Patel (peasants).

Source: Meerut Record, p 1017

 

4

WPP Programme For AICC

The present congress activity and programme are completely divorced from the everyday life of the masses, and in consequence the bulk of the population, the disenfranchised 98 per cent, have lost all interest in and sympathy for the congress, which has become a feeble body. The present leadership of the congress has tied itself and the congress machinery to a programme of work which is of benefit only to an insignificant section of the people, the big capitalists and their allies, the intellectual and professional upper classes. As a consequence, on the one hand, congress circles are divided by personal ends, and on the other, the masses are allowed and even encouraged to express their indignation against their hard lot in the form of communal fights.

In the interest of the vast majority of the people it is urgently necessary to free the congress from the narrow shackles of class interests, and to yoke it to the task of attaining national freedom from the imperialist bondage, as a step towards complete emancipation of the masses from exploitation and oppression.

This meeting of the All Indian Congress committee therefore resolves that:
(1) The aim of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of complete national independence from imperialism and the establishment of a swaraj based upon universal adult suffrage.

(2) It reiterates its faith in civil disobedience, i.e. direct action, as the only effective weapon that will ultimately free the people of India from their subject position but realises that a great general awakening will have to be brought about before this weapon of direct action can be effectively used.

All efforts must be directed to the attainment with the least possible delay of the general awakening, and for this purpose the congress adopts the following programme :

• (i) 70 per cent of the population which is engaged in agriculture is to be organised into peasants’ societies, by district, taluka and village, on the lines of village, panchayats, based on universal suffrage, aiming to secure control of the economic life of the rural areas.
• (ii)  Agricultural cooperative banks to be established by the state for the provision of cheap credit for the peasants, whereby they will be enabled to free themselves from the grip of the saukars, and to purchase modern machinery and other equipment,
• (iii) Limitation by law of the rate of interest on loans to 7 per cent per annum.
• (iv)  Limitation of rent to 10 per cent of the total produce, to be paid direct to the state.
• (v)  Bringing into cultivation by state aid of cultivable land at present unused.
• (vi)  The industrial working class to be organised into trade unions in order to increase their control over the working conditions. In order to guarantee a human existence, the following legal provisions to be made; (a) eight-hour duty, (b) a minimum living wage, (c) abolition of child labour under the age of 18, (d) a scheme of old-age, health and unemployment insurance for industrial and clerical workers, similar provision being made for agricultural labourers through village organisations,
• (e) employers’ liability and workmen’s compensation acts, (f) full freedom for trade union activity, (g) to make all necessary provisions for adequate housing.
• (vii) Free and compulsory education both for boys and girls will be enforced in the primary grades and full facilities will be created for the secondary grades. Provision will also be made to give free technical and vocational training. ...
• (viii)  Woman shall enjoy full social, economic and political life on equal status with man.
• (ix)  All indirect taxation will be abolished so also will feudal rights and dues from the cultivator. Land rent will be fixed to a minimum.
• (x)  A progressive income tax shall be imposed upon all incomes exceeding Rs 250 per mensem.
• (xi)  Full freedom of speech, press, and association will be ensured for all.
• (xii) Full freedom of religion and faith will be established for all and it shall be absolutely an individual concern,
• (xiii) While distinctly reiterating the opinion that the reforms and the political machinery created there under are unsatisfactory and inadequate, this congress holds that whatever advantage could be secured from existing political machinery must be utilised in the interest of the masses.
• (xiv) ... In the elementary and initial stages of the above work all legal protection and conditions of direct help will have to be created under the existing political machinery and with this definite purpose alone the councils and all other political bodies will be worked and utilised by all congressmen whenever and wherever possible.
• (xv) ... While thus utilising the existing machinery for the fur­therance of the cause of the control of the masses over the same, congressmen will continue the policy of continuous, consistant and uniform obstruction to all governemnt measures wherby the bureaucracy intends to or is likely to strengthen its position, ...

Source: Meerut Record, p 843

5

Extracts from President’s Speech at the

First All India Workers And Peasants Party Conference

Our Enemies : ... They dub us as bolsheviks and comunists and the like, but we must not lose heart. Is it not a matter of pride to be called a bolshevik ? Because bolshevik is one who replaces the present rotten order of things by a new and just system, in which the wealth is distributed justly, where there are no poor and no rich classes, where there is no unemployment, in which there is an end of the ruler and the ruled, oppressor and the oppressed, employer and the employee, landlord and peasant, where every one is prosperous and gets all he needs, where all live a happy and prosperous life.

To speak my mind freely I am working to bring about such an order of things and because the bolsheviks of Russia have shown us the way in this respect — we are thankful to them. If our enemies call us bolsheviks, we accept the epithet, because we know that bolshevism stands for liberty, equality and fraternity.

Need of Central Organisation : So far our parties have been working in their respective provinces and I am glad to see that in almost all cases our point of view has been the same. In our respective provinces we have gained power that is to count with. But in this working province-wise not only is there a danger of differences rising among us but also there is disadvantage of our power being divided. By uniting all parties into one central body we shall acquire a power that will carry weight. This central body has long been overdue, ...

I make bold to suggest that in order to place our view point before the country and to educate our members we should start a weekly organ, for this will keep us in touch with the work going on in different provinces. Besides many persons who misunderstand us will come to know our ideas and aims and have sympathy for us.

Tasks of the Party : ... a few points need special emphasis:

First, that whatever programme may be, it should be based on class struggle. We should work for 100 per cent organisation, we must see that all our members become class conscious. ... We must again face the bourgeois reformist leaders who have betrayed many strikes and agrarian movements. We should encourage hartals and strikes.

Secondly, our watchword should be complete independence ... Besides this we should carry on an active propaganda to call a constituent assembly where representatives will be sent by universal adult suffrage. This assembly will frame a programme for the masses, because All-Parties Conference has failed to safeguard the interest of all and has proved to be an agent of the capitalists.

Thirdly, we should include in our programme the abolition of landlordism and the Indian states. And we should propagate for distributing the wealth justly, because this just demand appeals strongly to the masses and will help us in organising them soon.

Fourthly, we should look sharp to secure International affiliations, with all those parties who are bent upon destroying imperialism.

Fifthly, we should try our level best to disseminate our ideas among the youngmen, ...

Sixthly, we should carry on an active propaganda against the coming war and should preach among the masses not to supply recruits and other assistance to the government if war come about.

Last, but not the least, I remind you once again to look to your organisation and solidarity of rank and file.

 

6

Political Resolution

The political situation in the past year, while conforming generally to the lines described a year ago, has undergone important developments. The following are its main features:

• (1) Continuance of the firm policy of imperialism towards the bourgeois nationalist movement, and increasingly reactionary attitude towards the masses.
• (2)  Consequent retreat of almost all parties of the bourgeoisie, including the Congress, in support of a timid liberal programme of constitutional demands, and communal reconciliation.
• (3)  Considerable increase in the strength and militancy of the mass movement, workers, peasants and petty bourgeoisie.
• (4)  An effort on the part of the wing of the bourgeoisie to threaten imperialism with the mass movement and at the same time to regain the control over the petty bourgeoisie and the masses which they are losing ...

 

7

Constitution Of The All-India Workers And Peasants Party^[1]

1. Name

The name of the party shall be “The All-India Workers and Peasants Party.

2. Object

The object of the party is the attainment of complete independence from imperialism in general and British imperialism in particular and thorough democratisation of India based on economic, social and political emancipation of the masses.

3. Means

The means shall be the party programme adopted from year to year at the annual session of the party or at any extraordinary congress called for the same purpose.

4. Extent

The jurisdiction of the party shall extend over the territories including Indian states, known as India proper, adjoining territories-under the influence of British imperialism.

5. Membership

(A) The membership or the party shall be of two kinds :

• 1. Individual.
• 2. Affiliated body.

(B) Any person who will subscribe to the object, constitution and programme of the party may be taken in as an individual member of the party subject to the approval of the national executive committee. Every individual member, except students and women will have to become a member of some workers or .peasants union within two months of his becoming a member of the party. Special exception may be made by executive committee provincial or central.

(C) Candidates and members shall not be members of any communal organisation or take part in communal propaganda.

(D) The national executive committee of the party shall have power to affiliate with it any workers or peasants union which is in sympathy with the object and programme of the party. The party shall undertake the work of giving the members of affiliated unions class-conscious education in trade-unionism and politics, and shall assist the work of the unions by advice and propaganda.

(E) Members will have to pay party dues regularly and perform the organised work of the party assigned to them.

6. Subscription

• (a) Each individual member of the party shall pay Rs 3 per annum to be collected by quarterly installments. The executive committee may exempt or suspend anybody from subscription if it thinks so desirable.
• (b) Affiliated organisations : The affiliated organisations shall pay subscription at the rate of Rs 3 per thousand or part there of per annum.
• (c)  Donation of any amount will be received by the party from sympathisers.

7. Management

The work of the party shall be conducted as follows:

• (a) There shall be an annual congress of the party. This congress or any special congress of the Workers and Peasants Party of India shall direct and control the policy and programme of the party.
• (b) The annual congress of the party shall be held with all individual members and representatives of affiliated organisations on the basis of one per thousand or part there of.
• (c) Special congress: In case of emergency the national executive committee shall have power to summon a special Congress.
• (d) National executive committee : There shall be an executive committee of the party elected every year at the annual congress from amongst the members (individual and affiliated). ...

11. Discipline

It is essential for party work that individuals^[2] should observe the requirements of a party discipline. Decisions once taken by the appropriate organ of the party must be obeyed.

Any member found acting against the interests of the party or violating its decisions can be expelled by the provincial executive committees. Such members shall have the right of appeal to the central executive committee.

12. Organisation

Provincial committee should be elected under the direction of the national executive committee of the party.

Branches should be set up in towns, talukas and villages under the direction of provincial committees.
Groups set up in factories, railways, mines, etc. should work on factory committees.

Fraction or groups should be set up in trade-union branches management committees, executive committees etc.; and also in provincial congress committees. This applies to the Trade Union Congress and All-India Congress Committee.

A definite youth organisation should be brought into being to work in the existing youth movements,trade unions and congress committees etc.

A women section must be set up to work among women.

Operation of organisation

Study circles must be started forthwith in order that members may understand and correctly interpret party policy, and most important the application.

It is essential that all committees, branches and fractions should meet regularly, and keep up to date with current events. Therefore provincial executive committees must meet at least once per month. Branches and fractions or groups every week.

The entire branch membership shall be grouped in accordance with their special party work e.g. in trade union group, congress group, peasants group etc. Each member must belong to at least one group ...

Fractions or working groups must elect a group leader, who shall be responsible to the provincial or branch committee. These fractions must carry out decisions of an higher body. These decisions will be conveyed to the group by the group leader. After discussion and decision by the group or fraction on a resolution or nominations for official position etc.; the decision of the group must be binding on the whole of the group. The work of the party groups within the trade unions and congress committees shall be guided by the programme and policy of the party. ...

Branch committees : The branch committee shall coordinate the entire work of the town or village, and be responsible to the provincial committee. ...

The branch committee must get reports or work from group leaders.

Provincial committees : These committees when elected shall coordinate the party activity in the province. They will receive instructions and policy on current affairs from the national executive committee. ...

The provincial committee shall have power to deal with immediate problems, issue urgent manifestos and leads in the name of the provincial committee, Workers and Peasants Party, and shall be responsible/or the same to the national executive committee. ...

The Provincial Committees : This committee shall be elected by an annual meeting of representatives, elected by party branches and groups and affiliated organisations throughout the province.

Source : Meerut Record, p 549

Notes:

1.  Slightly abridged. Emphases added by us to rules regarding affiliated organisation. —Ed

2.  It may be noted that the “Discipline” section do not cover the affiliated bodies. -Ed

 

8

To The All-Indian Conference of Workers And Peasants Parties

(Abridged)

The Communist International supporting everywhere the revolutionary movement of the toilers and the oppressed, through your organisation, albeit not part of our international body, send its greetings to the workers and peasants of India now waging a heroic struggle against imperialist oppression and feudal reaction upon one of the most important sections of the world front. The victorious progress of this struggles demands in our opinion above all, the creation of an independent class party of the proletariat, the uniting and raising of the isolated actions of the peasants to the highest political level, and the formations of a real revolutionary bloc of workers and peasants, under the leadership of the proletariat not in the form of a united workers and peasants party, but on the basis of cooperation in deeds between the mass organisations of the proletariat on the one hand, and peasant leagues and committees on the other, for the overthrow of the imperialists and the destruction of the political and economic basis of colonial exploitation and slavery. The growing influence of the workers and peasants parties, and particularly the attendance of thousands of peasants’ at your provincial conferences, proves that the understanding of the necessity for this militant bloc is penetrating among ever larger masses of toilers.

Your conference is taking place at a moment which may become the turning point in the history of the national revolution. The furious preparations of the British bourgeoisie for a new imperialistic slaughter, and the intensification of all forms of colonial plunder and terror, place the peoples of India in a position from which there is no other way out, but open and determined fight for the overthrow of the alien yoke.

The revolutionary crisis in the country is maturing. In the strike movements various detachment of the working class (particularly the textile workers of Bombay) begin to come out as an independent force, conscious of the irreconcilability of its interests with imperialism and the chaffering bourgeoisie, and of its historic role as the champion of the national revolution. More painfully, and slowly, but with equal certainty, the oppressed, ruined and disunited peasantry is entering the path of organised struggle. Growing unemployment, ruin and hopelessness stir also the town petty bourgeoisie to revolutionary activity. The pent-up discontent of the masses, the despair, and the sub-line hatred for the oppression, is already breaking forth to transform these isolated and defensive actions, attempt an aggressive fight against British imperialism and its native allies, that is the fundamental task before your conference.

The main obstacle to the victorious organised struggle against British imperialism and its feudal allies in the period of increasing terrorism and bloody repression is the influence of opportunist bourgeois nationalism. Each day brings and will bring fresh proof of the treachery of the bourgeoisie. ...

Lately this treachery has assumed the character of the most cynical toying with the slogan of “independence” which the swarajists now throw out to deceive the masses, now tucked away in their pocket (the Motilal Nehru report), in order to penetrate into the Simon commission through the back stairs, and now raise again in a distorted shape, simultaneously with the “dominion status” slogan. ... The struggle against this fraud compels you not only to determined and relentless exposure of the bourgeois treachery, but also through systematic every day activity to bring home this exposure, to the masses of the workers and peasants. ...

The greatest danger to the organisation of the masses, to the creation of a revolutionary bloc of the proletariat and the peasantry and to the proletarian leadership in this bloc, consists not only in bourgeois nationalism as such, but comes from the organisations and groups of “prominent” petty-bourgeois intellectuals actually influenced by the form of the “Independence League”. The wavering and oscillating petty-bourgeois intellectuals of India are either tied up with the system of landlordism and usury and preached the return to obsolete forms of pre-capitalist exploitation or they reflect the interests of capitalist exploitation being the agents of the bourgeoisie within the national movement. In either case they deny the importance of the class struggle, and whilst claiming to be “at the head” of the workers and peasants movement, they are .fit in reality only to behead it. The better elements alone of the petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals with a revolutionary frame of mind may rise to the proletarian class viewpoint, and become a positive factor in the national revolutionary struggle.

The “Independence League” at least in its present shape in fact assists official swarajism in its nefarious play with the slogans of “Independence” and “dominion status”. Duly appreciating the very fact of the organisation of this League as proof that at the present time one cannot approach the masses without demanding independence and the overthrow of imperialism, your conference at the same time cannot fail to dissociate itself from the confusion and twaddle which characterises the advertised League platform with its lavish promises.

... The more determined and outspoken your criticism,the sooner the League will either expose itself as the left-wing of bourgeois nationalism, or having shaken off the politicians at the head, will join, for a certain period and within certain limits, the national-revolutionary camp (retaining, however, even in this case their incorrigible half-heartedness, chronic wavering, and inevitable confusion in the whole of their politics and tactics). ...

The organisation of the workers and peasants bloc is based upon the common interest of the workers, peasants and the town poor, in the fight against imperialism and feudal reaction. Nevertheless, it does not eliminate the class deferences, and therefore, it does not imply by any means the fusion of the workers and peasants into the party. In the Great October revolution the proletariat gained the following of the peasantry of all the nations which inhabited the former tzarist Russia just because it was organised into the independent Bolshevik Party, into a party armed with the Marxist-Leninist theory, irreconcilable to petty-bourgeois wavering, disciplined, self-sacrificing, capable of screening itself underground from the blows of the tzarist terror, at the same time never ceasing to take advantage of all the legal possibilities. The Indian proletariat, we feel sure, will follow this path.

The Indian proletariat will be the champion of the national- revolutionary fight and lead to victory of the peasantry, the town poor, and all the toilers, if it organises and consolidates the vanguard the Communist Party, which will educate the working masses in the spirit of a clear and unmistakable class policy in the realisation of the need for tremendous sacrifices in order to overthrow imperialism and bourgeoisie. The existing (only on paper) Communist Party of India, since it does not show any signs of revolutionary life, has no grounds to consider and even to call itself communist, although there are individual communists among its members. ... the task of building a genuine Communist Party will be considerably facilitated if at the same time broad revolutionary organisations of the workers are formed with the active participation of communists, or a broad left wing created in the trade-union movement upon the platform of consistent class struggle.

We expect that your conference will raise the question of participating in the building of such broad revolutionary mass organisation of the workers. These can be built only in the irreconcilable everyday struggle against imperialism and bourgeoisie, as well as against reformism and the petty-bourgeois groups under the cloak of socialism. The heroic steadfastness of the Indian proletariat in the strikes, the rapidity with which it gathers its forces although as yet only locally, the persistent endeavours to promote strike leaders from its own ranks — leaves no room, no doubt that the elements for revolutionary mass organisations of the workers have matured.

We are convinced that your conference will discuss, and severely condemn the grave opportunistic blunders committed by the representative of the workers and peasants parties in the leadership of the strike movement, particularly in connection with the heroic struggle of the textile workers of Bombay. The source of these mistakes is the insufficiently clear stand against the reformist blacklegs (Joshi) the relentless exposure of whom is an indispensable condition for every victorious strike (and for strengthening the organisation of the proletariat in the course of its development). Having yielded to the demand of the trade-union bureaucrats at the commencement of the strike to refrain from exposing to the working masses the reformist treachery, the members of the workers and peasants parties had thus disarmed themselves also for the further struggle. Surrender to the reformists led inevitably to surrender to the employers, to the signing of the demands which Were dictated by the chairman of the Arbitration commission, the flunkey of the Anglo-Indian bourgeoisie, a surrender all the more inadmissible since, as partial strikes which subsequently broke out proved the workers refused to give up the fight in spite of all their hardships. Only by learning from the severe lessons of the past struggle the working class will promote from its midst a consistent class leadership for the imminent, even more decisive strikes of the textile workers, railwaymen, miners and metal workers. With the growing intensity, of the revolutionary activity of the proletariat on one hand and the bloody onslaught of imperialism against the workers’ organisation on the other (the Trade Disputes bill), the preparation and organisation of the general strike becomes the most urgent task of the current struggle. The Indian workers who performed wonders of endurance during the defensive fights in the fights of 1928, will show similar wonders of valour in the forthcoming aggressive fights.

In the work among the peasants the task is to pass from general slogans and to draw in the peasants to the real revolutionary struggle in the defence of the everyday interests of the masses. …

In view of the tremendous variety of forms of land tenure in India, and the multitude of forms of pre-capitalist and semi-feudal bondage, the best way to embrace the peasant-movement in the various districts and localities is to organise from below peasant leagues led wherever possible by agricultural labourers and poor peasantry proved in the fight. It is necessary, not only in words, but in deeds, to endeavour to raise the isolated actions of the peasants to the level of an agrarian revolution. Under the slogans of abolition of every form and vestige of feudalism and semi-feudalism, of confiscation of the land of zamindars, usurers, priests and its transfer to the toiling peasantry while accuring in the first place the interest of the poor peasants, the agrarian revolution has been and remains the pivot of the national-revolutionary struggle in India.

In purging the leading bodies of your organisations from suspicious and unreliable elements, you will, of course, above all, be guided by the criterion of loyalty and devotion to the cause of the workers and peasants, remembering that the petty- bourgeoisie, not to speak of the bourgeois intellectuals, are closely tied up with the system of big landownership so that they must by all means combat the developing agrarian revolution.

Concerning organisational forms, your conference will have to discuss the question of separating the workers’ organisations from the peasants’ organisations, so that the former be ensured a clear-cut and consistent class development, and the latter the full embracing qf the struggling peasantry. Provincial workers and peasants parties, after an appropriate distribution of their branches and members upon this class basis, are bound to develop in the future in revolutionary mass organisations of the workers on the one hand, into peasants leagues, and committees on the other, which in turn will strive to gain the leadership inside existing peasant bodies or will build new peasants organisations. The periodical conferences and meetings of these mass organisations, called from time to time should constitute one of the forms expressing the militant bloc of the worker and peasant masses. If your conference accepts this point of view, it will put before itself the question of forming a committee for the coordination of the activities of the local workers and peasants organisations, having in mind chiefly their independent revolutionary development upon the class basis ...

Down With British Imperialism !
Long Live The Revolutionary Fight of The Workers And
Peasants of India!
Long Live The Revolutionary Rising of The Colonies !
Long Live Emancipated Soviet India !

Executive Committee of the
Communist International

9

Some Observations on WPP

(Also see documents of sixth Congress of CI)

A

By MN Roy

(i) The WPP is not and should not be merely a legal cover for the Communist Party ... We propose the formation of WPP as a much broader organisation.

It should be the rallying ground of all the exploited social elements (proletariat, peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie), which must unite themselves in a revolutionary struggle against foreign imperialism and native reaction.

(Cited by Aditya Mukherjee in “The WPPs, 1926-30 :

An Aspect of Communism in India” included in Indian Left — Critical Appraisals Ed. By Bipan Chandra (Vikas, 1983) pp 6-7)

(ii) ... 20. The National Revolutionary Party will not be a party only of the workers and peasants. The petty bourgeois masses (as distinct from the consciously reactionary intelligentsia) must participate in the struggle for national freedom. The proletariat must help them to overcome their reactionary tendencies and push them on the road to national revolution. In spite of their political radicalism, the petty bourgeois masses will not enter in the party of the working class. Nor is it desirable that the working class Party should be flooded by the petty bourgeois elements (excluding the peasantry). The National Revolutionary party should be the rallying ground for all the classes that still carry on and must carry on the struggle for the complete overthrow of imperialism and the establishment of revolutionary democratic power. These are, primarily, the proletariat, peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie.

21. The workers and peasants parties (which have now been federated into a national organisation) are in reality more petty bourgeois than working class parties. In Bengal, for example, a number of small landlords are to be found among the leaders of the party. The individual members (excepting the communists’ trade unions and peasant unions can enter the party as collective members) are mostly petty bourgeois intellectuals. Nevertheless, the leadership of the workers and peasants parties is controlled by the communists.

This state of affairs stamps the party with a communist colour and the petty bourgeois masses stay away from it. If the Workers and Peasants Party is meant to be the Communist Party in disguised form, then its class character must be clearer — small landlords must be expelled from its leadership; but if it is to become the national revolutionary mass party, it should abandon its working class appearance and it should not be so much identified openly with the Communist Party. Its very name is an obstacle to its development in that direction.

The Workers and Peasants Party cannot be the substitute for the Communist Party. As the driving force of the national revolution the proletariat must have its own party; but still there is ample room for a revolutionary nationalist party. The proletariat must enter it and actively participate in its leadership. In the present Indian conditions the proletariat, operating through the Communist Party, must take the initiative to hasten the rise of a national revolutionary mass party.

(From DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE INDIAN QUESTION
prepared by Roy for the Sixth Congress of CI.
This draft was not placed before the
congress, not published by the CI.
For full text, see G Adhikari, Vol. IIIc, pp 572 – 606)

B

By R Page Arnot

This is a two-class party, a party of a nature which is bound to represent one and not both: in a non-revolutionary moment certainly, and may be also in a revolutionary moment, it will tend to fall into the hands of the petty-bourgeois politicians who have set themselves up as peasant leaders. A party serves the interests of a class, and of old it has been said, “No party can serve two masters.” As a form of organisation it was expressly condemned in the Colonial Theses of the Sixth Congress of the Communist International as one which Communists should not attempt to build. But this Workers’ and Peasants’ Congress, the speeches at it, and its decisions, its resolutions, all give an unmistakable feeling of a real conscious mass movement for the first time in India, a real proletarian awakening. True, it is still only a handful of people. But in the tones of the Congress speeches there can be heard overtones, the rolling of the thunder, the noise of a great mass in motion.

... in the growth of the leadership of the proletariat the emergence of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party represents a very important stage. It marks the stage when some sort of leadership is being sought by the worker, away and apart from the bourgeoisie. ...

What are the main errors? First there is the theoretically wrong form of organisation, and as we will find, this theoretical weakness comes out in practice also. Secondly, it is quite clear that our Communist comrades, who are in this organisation, are in this movement as a faction, leading it, regard it as the Communist Party in an Indian shape, and do not see the need for the creation of a separate Communist Party. This is an impossible position. Then there is a wrong attitude to the peasantry in this Congress, when they say that peasant proprietorship is the ultimate aim. As a transitional aim it would pass, but then only if the ultimate aim were also put in. Again, they treat the peasantry as completely undifferentiated. It is clear that once the whole of the Communist programme is omitted, once attention is fixed on national independence, even with all that that entails in the way of economic emancipation, such an organisation can seriously hinder the growth of the Communist Party.

[From How Britain Rules India by R Page Arnot
published by CPGB, (London in 1929)]

1

Analysis of Bardoli

The heroic struggle of the Bardoli peasantry has come to a close with the Government consenting to reduce the amount of increase in assessments from 20% to 5%. This climb down of the Government has been hailed as a political victory of the Bardoli peasantry and the personal victory of Sardar Vallabhai Patel. It is glorified as the acme of the triumph of the principle of Satyagraha, of the political intelligence and strategic ability of the astute Sardar. While admitting that for various political reasons the Government has thought it tactical and wise (the principal reason being the Government's desire to win over the sympathy and support of the Indian politicians for the imminent Simon Commission report) to yield to the popular demand, we desire to point out that the actual achievement falls short of what could have been achieved by the militant Bardoli peasantry if it had been led by more representative, courageous and able leadership. Sardar Vallabhai who led the struggle represented the outlook and interests of the wealthy farmer class and as such the whole strategy and conception of the Bardoli struggle led by him were dominated by that outlook and those interests .... whatever has been achieved is due to the militancy and solidarity of the Bardoli peasantry and what could be achieved but had not been achieved is due to the wrong leadership.

... Since even the normal rents which the Bordoli peasantry has to pay to the State are so heavy as to leave poor and middle peasants in a chronic state of want and semi-starvation the proposed increase stood self-condemned. It could only occur to the mind of the wealthy farmer and landlord in the Bardoli district, himself thriving on the exploitation of the hired labour of agricultural labourers “Dublas”, to make this increase a matter of controversy and re-inquiry. At the very outset Vallabhai and Co., the leaders of the Bardoli struggle, behaved as the representatives of the wealthy farmer class and instead of rejecting the imposition of the increase of land assessment demanded only a judicial re-inquiry into the proposed increase.

... Recently when a section of the “Dublas”, the agricultural labourers of Bardoli, manifested signs of discontent against the social and other disabilities imposed on them by the thriving landlord class, the heroic Sardar of Bardoli, instead of leading the social revolt of the “Dublas”, capitulated before the big men of the countryside ...

Unless this supine leadership working in the interests of and for the perpetuation of the wealthy agrarian population is not replaced by another type of leadership which stands for the liberation of the exploited peasant masses and hired land- labourers not only from Imperialist exploitation but also from the clutches of predatory landlords and moneylenders, no strong peasant movement can develop in the country.

The social basis of the peasant movement should be shifted from the wealthy farmer (as it is at present) to the broad masses of poor and middle peasantry and agricultural labourers. The interests, political and economic, of these sections should determine the peasant programme of the political party which desires to see the the real exploited of the rural area free. ...

Source: The New Spark, 26 May and 2 June, 1929

2

The Peasant Uprising in Kishoreganj

- August 1930

Comrades,

A wave of peasant uprising against the money lenders, Zamindars and the agents of British Imperialism had just passed through Kishoreganj, sub-division of Mymensingh in Bengal. This uprising is being crushed by fire and sword by British Imperialism TOGETHER WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS.

The working class and the peasants of India must learn the full truth of Kishoreganj. This will help the masses understand who are their friends and who are their enemies.

The peasants could not stand the oppression any longer:

... The peasantry of Kishoreganj, which covers an area of several hundred square miles, have never been able to recover from the effects of last year’s famine. As a result of this famine, they have gone still deeper into debt to the money-lenders who have been charging the peasants a rate of interest of 60, 100 and 120 per cent. The peasants were unable to pay it. The money lenders, who in many cases are also zamindars, proceeded TO TAKE THE LAND AWAY FROM THE PEASANTS.

On the top of this came the present economic crisis. Kishoreganj is predominantly a jute area. As the price of jute was falling the miserable income of the peasants was dwindling away until there was practically no income. The landless agricultural workers found themselves unemployed. Sheer naked starvation become the lot of the peasantry and labourers in Kishoreganj.

This desperate situation was utilised by the money-lenders and Zamindars to squeeze the peasantry some more. As usual, the so-called DOCUMENTS manipulated by fraud and swindle to sell the peasants’ indebtedness and to tighten the grip of the money-lender upon the peasants’ land and income. Seeing the economic helplessness and bankruptcy of the peasants the moneylenders and zamindars began to appropriate TO THEMSELVES THE LAND HOLDING OF THE PEASANTS. The bankrupt peasants of Kishoreganj were being transformed into virtual slaves of the moneylenders and zamindars. All this was being done with the help of the courts and police of British Imperialism.

The outraged and angry peasantry had reached the limit of endurance. Seeing in the so-called DOCUMENTS the symbol of the slavery the peasants of KISHOREGANJ started a mass movement to recover these fraudulent documents from the moneylenders and to destroy them. The moneylenders and zamindars resisted the peasants, with guns in many cases. The police and military were soon called in to crush the peasant uprising. Subsequently a veritable hell of terror had been institute against the peasants of KISHOREGANJ.

The leaders of the National Congress demand more repression against the peasants

The leaders of the Indian National Congress, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose are telling the masses that they are the friends of the workers and peasants. WE THE COMMUNISTS, say that this is a swindle to fool the masses.

The agents of the Congress in the Labour Unions and among the peasants are calling upon the masses to support the Congress. Others, who are expelled from the Communist movement because they betrayed the interests of the masses, are going around the workers — specially in Bombay — trying to fool the workers into supporting the Congress by the slogan of “capture the Congress”. But these deceivers of the masses do not tell us that in Kishoreganj the Congress has joined hands with British Imperialism to crush the uprising of the peasants against moneylenders and zamindars.

The Congress organs in Calcutta, such as the “LIBERTY”, “ADVANCE”, etc. were trying to represent the peasant uprising in Kishoreganj as an attack of MUSLIMS upon HINDUS, as a communal “riot” and on that ground the nationalist press was demanding from British Imperialism “more stern measures” of repression. ...

The papers of the “left” nationalist Subhas Bose — The Liberty-wrote on July 28th, as follows :

“In spite of the Governor’s readiness to strengthen the hands of the local officials, looting and arson is still going on to the discredit of those charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order in KISHOREGANJ”. The “Liberty” praises the Governor and demands more repression “whatever may be the nature of the crimes” IN KISHOREGANJ. ...

The agrarian revolution is the backbone of the Indian National Revolution

... The peasantry needs land which is held by the zamindars, the moneylenders and the British Imperialism. THE PEASANTRY MUST SEIZE LAND. The peasantry must free itself from the burden of debt and taxation. THE PEASANTRY MUST REPUDIATE THEIR DEBTS, STOP PAYING RENT TO THE ZAMINDARS AND TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT. The peasantry must overthrow the rule of the landlords and moneylenders, abolishing all remnants of feudal slavery. The peasants must overthrow British Imperialism in India which supports and maintain the present system. ...

It is the duty of the Communists, and of the revolutionary elements who follow the leadership of the All India Communist Party, to help organise the peasants and bring to them the programme of the revolution. THE COMMUNIST PARTY CALLS UPON ITS MEMBERS AND SYMPATHISERS TO CONCENTRATE UPON THE WORK AMONG THE PEASANTRY ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES :

• 1. Organise Revolutionary Peasant Committees in the villages elected by the mass of the revolutionary peasants in each village. It is highly important that the leadership of the Committees should be in the hands of poor peasants, landless labourers and revolutionary peasant youth.
• 2. The Revolutionary Peasant Committees should initiate mass movements FOR THE SEIZURE OF THE LAND from the rich zamindars, landlords, moneylenders and the Government. The peasantry should be organised to refuse PAYMENT OF RENT, TAXES AND LAND REVENUE. The main slogan of the struggle must be : LAND TO THE PEASANTS, OVERTHROW THE RULE OF MONEYLENDERS, ZAMINDARS AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM, REPUDIATE YOUR DEBTS TO THE EXPLOITERS, FOR FULL AND COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE, AGAINST THE BETRAYAL OF THE MASSES BY THE CONGRESS LEADERSHIP, FOR ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS, FOR A WORKERS' AND PEASANTS' REPUBLIC.
• 3. Organise the more conscious and revolutionary elements, especially the agricultural workers, into the village nuclei of the Communist Party.
• 4. Organise the agricultural workers into labour unions.
• 5. Organise and send worker delegations from the mills into neighbouring villages to carry out this work. Mobilise the revolutionary students and youth for this work under the leadership of the Communist Party.

The National Congress is also sending students into the villages. But the policy of the Congress is not to arouse the peasants for revolutionary struggle but to PREVENT THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE from developing. ... Without systematically exposing the treachery and counter revolutionary character of the Congress leadership we cannot successfully promote the revolution.

The deepening economic and political crisis, is arousing the masses to action. Kishoreganj is symptomatic of the readiness of the masses all over the country to engage in decisive revolutionary action. But the masses lack programme, organisation and leadership. The masses are being demoralised by the ideology of GANDHI and the arising revolutionary movements are being crushed as in Kishoreganj by the combined forces of British Imperialism, and the nationalist bourgeoisie.

No time can be lost for putting into effect the above programme of work in the villages. Delay and hesitation are playing into the hands of British Imperialism and of the National Congress leadership which is betraying the struggle. ... MAKE THE LESSON OF KISHOREGANJ KNOWN TO THE WIDEST SECTION OF THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS. BUILD THE REVOLUTIONARY ALLIANCE OF THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE WORKING CLASS ! FIGHT FOR THE HEGEMONY OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE NATIONALIST REVOLUTION !

3

The All India Kisan Manifesto

As adopted by the All-India Kisan Committee on 21 August 1936

Kisans’ charter of rights

The object and main task of the Kisan movement are stated in the following resolution passed at the first All-India Kisan Congress held at Lucknow on the llth April 1936 :

“The object of the Kisan movement is to secure complete freedom from economic exploitation and the achievement of full economic and political power for the peasants and workers and all other exploited classes.

“The main task of the Kisan movement shall be the organisation of peasants and fight for their immediate political and economic demands in order to prepare them for their emancipation from every form of exploitation.

“The Kisan movement stands for the achievement of ultimate economic and political power for the producing masses through its active participation in the national struggle for winning complete independence.”

In as much as the Indian National Congress is today the only effective political body with country-wide organisation claiming to champion the cause of the masses it must necessarily make the solutions of the problems of the peasantry the chief plank of its political and economic policy.

The terrible conditions of the Indian peasants is too well-known to need repetition. The tenants are oppressed by Zamindars, Taluk-dars and Malguzars, Inamdars and other landlords. The peasant proprietors have to bear the yoke of a harsh system of land Revenue. The agricultural labour receive, if at all, starvation wages and work and live in conditions bordering on slavery.

But unfortunately while the condition of the peasantry dominates the whole political and economic life of the country, the peasants themselves have been most backward politically and organisationally. The results are two fold; firstly the peasants have been deprived of all the ameliorative legislation, that could have been passed during the last 16 years, even by the present legislative, if the legislators had felt obliged to satisfy the peasants; and secondly, the political movement itself in the country has remained more or less unconcerned with both the immediate and basic problems of the peasantry.

Our objectives may not be possible of realisation under the present system of Government. Yet the peasants if they are to save themselves from utter ruin, must fight to secure them. The system of Government must go if it stands in the way as it undoubtedly does ...

Under these circumstances it is essential that a political movement must be developed in our country as to draw its main strength and inspiration from the peasantry. It must also strive for the removal of all those obstacles that stand in the way of a true and lasting solution conducive to the fullest well-being of the agricultural masses of the country. The peasants' fight for bread and land is linked up with the national fight for political freedom.

Fortunately, the Kisans all over the country are becoming more and more conscious, politically and economically, of their basic problems. The All-India Kisan Committee is an expression of this awakening among the peasantry. They have at last realised that they must fashion out their own militant class organisations if they are to make any sustained advance towards their goal. The Kisan Sabha represents not only the ryots, the tenants and the landless labourers but in some places the petty Zamindars. In other words it represents and speaks and fights for all those who live by the cultivation of the soil. ... They must fight for complete National, Socio-economic Independence. India, a Dependency of Britain, must be transformed into free, progressive and Democratic India of the masses. The fight for such an India can only effectively be conducted on a programme based on the grievances and demands of the Kisans of India.

While the fight for these basic changes goes on, the peasants must also fight for all that can be gained within the framework of the existing economic order. Only in this manner can they prepare themselves for the bigger struggle, the objective of which must be kept ever present in the minds of the kisans.

To this end, we frame the following charter of fundamental and minimum demands of our Kisans, the Provincial Kisan Sabhas having the right to supplement it by a list of their local needs :

Fundamental demands

1. Whereas the present system of Zamindari (UP, Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Madras and Assam), Talukdari (UP and Gujarat), Malguzari (CP), Ishtimardari (Ajmer), Khotes (Deccan), Zanmis (Malbar), Inamdars, involving as they do in the vesting of ownership of vast areas of land and of the right of collecting and enjoying enormous rent income, is iniquitous, unjust, burdensome and oppressive to the Kisans,

And whereas the Zamindars, etc., rack-rent their crores of tenants while neglecting the irrigation sources,

All such systems of landlordism shall be abolished, and all the right over such lands be vested in the cultivators and these Kisans made to pay income tax like the Ryotwari ryots.

2. Whereas the present systems of land-revenue and resettlement imposed by Government is Ryotwari areas have proved too vexations and resulted in the progressive pauperization of peasants, all such systems of land revenue and resettlement shall be abolished and replaced by a graduated land-tax upon net incomes of Rs 500 and more (for a family not exceeding five) (as also recommended by the Taxation Enquiry Committee).

3. Whereas the peasants have been over-burdened by oppressive rural indebtedness and the usurious rates of interest, Whereas the lands of most of the peasants have cither passed or are passing into the hands of absentee landlords, sowcars and urban classes,

The peasants shall be completely relieved from all liability to pay their old debts or interest thereon and the State shall immediately put into operation the necessary machinery to provide agricultural credit for peasants’ current needs.

4. This Committee demands that landless peasants and those having less than five acres each be provided with land to cultivate on the basis of cooperative farming (without the right of alienation) and since one-third of the total cultivated land is still unoccupied and vested in Government and landlords, this Committee resolves that all such lands be granted to the landless Kisans.

Minimum demand

The peasants will immediately take all possible steps to achieve the following minimum demands: —

• 1. Cancellation of all arears of rent and revenue.
• 2. Abolition of all Land Revenue Assessment and rent from uneconomic holdings.
• 3. Reduction by at least 50 per cent of rent and revenue and also of water rates; and in no case shall the rent charged by landlords be more than what the Ryotwari ryots have to pay to Government.
• 4. Immediate grant of the right of permanent cultivation without the right of alienation to all tenants and actual cultivators of the lands Zamindars, Talukdars, Inamdars, Malguzars, Istimardars, Zanmis, Khotes, etc.
• 5. To grant the right of remission of rent for all tenants of landlords whenever crops fail and to stop all resettlement operations and all kinds of enhancements of the rent or land revenue and to survey and settle all the Zamindari, etc., lands.
• 6. To immediately impose an adequate and graduated income-tax, death duty and inheritance tax upon all the agricultural revenues of landlords and merchants.
• 7.Abolition and penalisation of all feudal and customary dues and forced labour, including Begar and illegal exactions.
• 8. The declaration of a 5 years’ moratorium for all agrarian indebtedness ...
• 10. Freedom from arrest and imprisonment for inability to pay debts, rents and revenue. ...
• 22. A Peasants’ Union Act must be enacted to safeguard their fundamental rights by collective action.
• 23. Minimum Wage shall be assured and the Workmen’s Cmpen-sation Act be extended to all agricultural workers ....

 

4

Comilla Kisan Congress

PC Joshi

“Tlie surging tide of the Kisan Movement has been gradually gaining strength. It is no longer easy for any one to check this surging tide of awakening [among] the Kisans. Utmost care is necessary to prevent any misdirection of the movement of the Kisans for a single false step may result is further strengthening of their shackles”

— Swami Sahajanand President of the Kisan Congress.

Twenty five thousand peasants attended the Comilla Congress in Fazlul Huq's own province and proved the truth that lay behind the assertion of their reversed President, Swami Sahajanand, “Hunger made class war and made communal differences.” An overwhelming majority of them were Muslims. They came marching on foot, from long distances, behind Red banners. Muslim Leaguers blocked the way of marching peasants, strewing Qurans where they had to tread. Peasants lifted up the Qurans, asked the Leaguers to mind their own business and marched on.. More harm was done, however, by some Right Wing Congressmen, who reached far into the villages with their false propaganda and prevented large numbers of peasants, who were already on the march, from attending. Unknown agents distributed lying pamphlets all over the place, seeking to create panic of rioting. Scuffles did take place; the police were benevolently neutral, but the overwhelming numbers of peaceful and determined peasants soon sent the hooligans into hiding.

The cowardly mean efforts of the communal reactionaries and the police agents failed as ignominiously to break up the Conference as the arrests and conviction of N Dutt-Mazumdar and Ananta Mukerji had failed to impede the preliminary work for the Congress.

This was the third session of the All-India Kisan Sabha, but in reality it was the first Congress of the organised Kisans. The Comilla Session was held with properly elected delegates from functioning Provincial Kisan Sabhas, accepting the discipline of and owing loyalty to one central organisation-the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS).

The last two and a half years have witnessed the meteoric rise of the Kisan movement and its growth into a vital political force in our land. At Lucknow (March 1936) the leading Kisan workers from the various provinces came together. At Faizpur (Dec. ’36) the movement was yet in its agitational stage, it evolved a common agitational platform and gave the call for organising local Sabhas as the constituent units of the AIKS. The year following led to great organisational work and heroically fought local struggles which endeared these local Kisan Sabhas to vast masses of the peasantry. The Camilla Session represented the organised strength of five and a half lacs paying membership. The figures (upto Feb. ’38) for the different provinces being, Bihar 2,50000, Punjab 73000, UP 60,000, Andhra 53,000, Bengal 34,000, Utkal 18,000, Surma Valley 15,000, Gujrat 2,500, CP (Hindi) 2000, CP marathi 2000, Maharashtra 1300, a total of 546,800, members for the AIKS whose accredited representatives attended the Comilla session.

In 32 resolutions the session sought to clarify the fundamental aims of the Kisan Movement and guide its further course ...

Fundamental aim

The session decisively rejected the theory of class collaboration and proclaimed class-struggle to be the basis of the Kisan movement. Through another historic resolution it declared “the goal of the peasant movement can be nothing short of an agrarian revolution, meaning a fundamental change in the agrarian economic relationships including the abolition of the present land revenue, Zamindari, and Sahukari system, vesting ownership of land in the tillers of the soil and freeing them from all manner of exploitation. An agrarian revolution in India cannot be completed within the frame work of imperialist rule and therefore the session declares that the fundamental task of the peasants of the country requires that while fighting for their class demands through their class organisations, they should also fight in alliance with other sections of the people and work through the Indian National Congress against Imperialism and replace it with a full democratic Swaraj. “The basic demands of the abolition of landlordism and cancellation of all debts,” was retained.

Political aim

The session saw in the Federation “a future enslavement of our nation” and exhorted “the Kisans to prepare themselves to fight the imposition of the Federation and to convene the Constituent Assembly based on adult suffrage.” ...

Immediate demands

The session expressed itself on the inadequacy of the agrarian reforms so far proposed by the various Provincial Governments and demanded land-tax on income-tax basis, exposed the hoax and burdens of the present Co-operative Credit System, demanded facilities for agricultural marketing on a co-operative basis under popular control, irrigation reforms and concessions.

Peasant struggle

The session congratulated the peasants of Burdwan, Surma Valley, 24 Parganas and Mansa on their heroic partial struggles and declared that the further growth of the Kisan movement depended on initiating and developing such partial struggles. The Kisan movement has entered the phase of struggles which are to be widened and deepened.

New organisational lead

The Session appointed a sub-committee to evolve a scheme for the organisation of a Volunteer Corps, by another resolution it welcomed the emergence of agricultural labourers’ movement and associations, declared solidarity with them and called upon the Kisans to concede and jointly fight for the demands of the agricultural labourers and thus “pave the way for a united peasant front.”

Theoretical confusion

Some of the resolutions betray a mechanical understanding of the concept of class-struggle which expresses itself in the inability to see the difference and the inter-relations between the immediate and the more remote demands; between demands which can and should be made the basis of immediate action and the more remote demands which will in their turn arise as slogans of action in the next stage of the struggle. This criticism would apply for example, to the resolutions on landlordism and cancellation of debts. After the recent offensive against the Kisan Sabhas there has been a tendency to go “more left”. This led to the lamentable failure to formulate really immediate demands about rent and debt relief and tenancy reforms, which are possible within the framework of the present constitution itself, which the popular ministries in Congress Provinces are already pledged to implement, and evolve a plan of action parliamentary and extra-parliamentary which would get peasants these demands and fill them with courage and confidence to fight for more. This is the line of real class-struggle. The Provincial Kisan Sabhas are already on this track, we naturally looked forward to the AIKS to clear the track, put up the signals and not whistle from far away.

This raises the big issue of the relation of the Kisan Sabhas to the Congress.

Kisans and Congress

There has been a systematic campaign of calumny against and hardly veiled hostility to the Kisan Sabhas from some leading elements inside the Congress. The resolution of the Session however is “This Sabha declares that it has never done anything to weaken the Congress but on the other hand has sought and still endeavours to strengthen the freedom movement as represented by the National Congress”.

The Kisans have thus once again proved themselves to be the best sons of the people who would not be provoked to fight their own kith and kin, who would on no account weaken the people’s own organisation. Some of the speeches by Kisan leaders at Comilla disclosed that their patience is fraying and they are striking off at a sectarian tangent. Their speeches boiled down to this: they want unity with the Congress but the Congress leadership demands their head, such national leadership must go and if it has its way the consequent split will weaken the Congress and not the Kisan Sabhas. This may be a righteous course but it is not sound politics. The Kisans are not apart from the people and their existing leadership. They have not only to jealously guard their class-independence and the right to form kisan organisations but also to demonstrate to the rest of the people that the strength of the Kisans is only used to strengthen and forge national unity without any conditions, without equivocation. Advancing national struggle is furthering class struggle and weakening the class enemies of the kisans.

After Comilla

The sectarian traits in the kisan movement are the direct products of the recently started offensive against the Kisan Sabhas and the failure of some of the Congress Ministries to push forward with speed and determination the Faizpore agrarian programme and the inability of the Left inside the Congress to decisively turn the scale. It is the task of the Communists and Socialists to bridge the gulf between the Kisan Sabhas and the Congress by doing not less but more Congress work so as to demonstrate to every honest Congressman that the existence of and unity with the Kisan Sabha strengthens the Congress cause, by participating with redoubled energy in Kisan work and proving to every kisan worker that unity with the Congress leads to the strengthening of the kisan movement and disunity to its weakness and isolation. An intense ideological campaign for the policy of the United National Front as being the only policy for the Kisans and for the whole of the Indian people and all round practical organisational work to implement that policy is the imperative call from Comilla and after Haripura. Cawnpore workers, supported by the peasants of the country side and the whole Congress in UP are proving this very hour that the policy of United National Front is the only way out, and is possible of being carried out here and now. Sands of time are running out, Federation conies closer, the menace of world war grows more imminent. The round of events is running faster and faster. The Kisan workers are undergoing their first practical disillusionment with the policy of reformism. The Communists and Socialists must light their path and show that it is their task, as the representatives of the kisans — one of the exploited and revolutionary classes, which is an overwhelming majority of our people — to come out as the boldest champions of national unity.

Source: National Front, 5 June, 1938

 

5

Agrarian Crisis in India

By Bhowani Sen

Nature of the problem

The world economic crisis has exposed the danger to which Imperialism has delivered the people. There is no corner of the earth left untouched by its tentacles. The world economic crisis is a crisis of Imperialism. In all its phases, agricultural countries have been most hard hit by this devastating plague and it is in colonial countries that it has staged the most horrible death drama. ... In order to realise its meaning, to grasp the seriousness of its extent and to find out the proper solution in so far as the present condition of India is concerned, we must first of all understand the specific nature of India’s social economy and its bearing upon the present crisis.

Indian Society is dominated by remnants of feudalism. There is a belated appearance of capitalist production but only an insignificant part of the population is dependent upon capitalist industries. The great majority of the people earn their living by agriculture and greater part of cultivated land is engaged in the production of food crops. Inspite of this, food grain production is insufficient from the point of view of national need, but this insufficiency, instead of raising economic demand and thereby the price level, had been accompanied by relative over-production and falling price. Landlordism by its medieval exploitation, has extremely impoverished the peasant and is depressing the productivity of land to an alarming degree. Primitive method of cultivation, feudal form of land-ownership and capitalist mode of exchange are combined in agricultural production and leading the peasant to an inescapable ruin.

... Indian agriculture has been so besieged on all sides, that there remains no specific way out, no automatic remedy, no capitalist solution of our agrarian crisis. The only solution lies in a successful agrarian revolution that will completely sweep away the colonial character of our national economy. There is only one way, the revolutionary way, out of the crisis.

This conclusion does not rule out the value of concrete relief measures. When a ship crashes in the mid sea, another ship becomes necessary to save her crew but before the rescue ship arrives, the captain of the sinking ship never withholds life belts from the terrified passengers. Concrete relief measures like life belts will give temporary relief to the people, thereby strengthening their fight for final solution.

Out of 36 crores of India's population, 67% live by agricultural occupation. Besides, there are almost 11% of the population who are engaged in partly agriculture and partly domestic service. ... The total cultivated area amounts to almost 228 million acre, 85% of this area is engaged in the production of food crops. From the nature of the case, the peasantry consumes the greater part of these crops and from this it might be assumed that only the surplus over consumption is sold in the market. Had it been so, the crisis would not have affected the peasantry in such a serious scale as it has actually done. But the record of abnormal slump in prices tells a different story. Between September 1929 and March 1934, the prices of rice and oil seeds fell by 52% and 55% respectively. The seriousness of the situation will be more easily grasped by an analysis of the conditions under which the peasant raises and sells his products. The holdings of 80% of the peasants are uneconomic. For these peasants it is impossible to earn their living by the sale of their products. Out of the proceeds of his commodity sale, the peasant has to pay rent to the landlord in zamindari area, to the Imperialist Government in ryotwari area. If he fails to pay up his dues, his holding will be confiscated and sold in auction. During the period of economic crisis there has been an abnormal increase of auction sales in lands. ... The total amount of peasant indebtedness amounted to Rs. 900 crores at the time of Banking Enquiry Committee’s investigation. The enormous burden of rent, debt and interest together with government taxes and other assessments of the landlords have impoverished the peasant to an alarming extent. The degree of this impoverishment can be imagined by the fact that between 1921 and 1931 the number of landless labourers has increased from 21 million to 31 million, the number of landowning peasants has diminished and the number of cultivating tenants i.e., of peasants with subordinate titles in land increased. The confiscation of peasants’ land by landlords, moneylenders and the state and its resale by them has increased subdivision and fragmentation of landholdings. Primitive method of cultivation, uneconomic size of the holdings, constant fragmentation and subdivision, and want of proper irrigation, all these factors are combined to deteriorate agricultural productivity. The degree of this decline can be estimated from the following figures:

Imperialist exploitation and agrarian crisis

We have seen that under the existing mode of production in India, economic conditions of the country largely depend upon the condition of our foreign trade. Our imports mostly consist of primary products such as raw materials and food grains. Besides export of merchandise, we have to export treasure as tributes to imperialism in the form of profits, interests, and home charges. Our export of merchandise are ordinarily greater than imports; so under normal conditions there should have been net imports of treasure but our forced exports of treasure create a different situation. From the point of view of national finance, Indian- export-commodities have less elasticity of supply; any shortage or delay in selling our commodities to the foreign market will put a severe drain on our national treasure for realisation of our tributes to imperialism. Likewise the peasant producer's tributes to feudalism have, as we have seen, played an important role in making the supply of our export commodities almost inelastic. On the other hand, the demand for our commodities mainly comes from the monopoly capitalist industries of other countries, crisis of these industries (falling profit, declining production and closing of factories) has made the demand extremely elastic, i.e., they can refuse to purchase our products unless prices are abnormally cut down. Thus our commodities are sold under conditions of elastic demand and inelastic supply. Concretely speaking, India has weaker bargaining power in her foreign trade. This is one of the reasons why India has been so hard hit in the crisis, why prices have so sharply fallen below value ...

Immediate relief for the peasants

In order to mitigate the sufferings of the peasants we must vigorously fight for the reduction of land rent by fifty percent. Prices have fallen more than that ratio, so the landlords must not be allowed to make extraordinary gains at the cost of the peasants, rather the peasants must mitigate their sufferings at the cost of the landlords, who have built up their fortunes by exploiting the peasants. We must redouble our energy to diminish the tax burdens on the peasants and get new Tenancy Acts to protect the actual tillers of the soil from expropriation by landlords and moneylenders. ... Uneconomic holdings must be rent free and debts be liquidated through state action by declaring the poorest peasants absolved of all liability, and re-writing the debts of well-to-do peasants on the basis of the latter’s capacity to pay. We must redouble our energy to compel the state to regulate the prices of agricultural products by legislation in order to raise them to the pre-crisis level. In order to eradicate the middle man’s exploitation, legislation must be introduced by the provincial legislatures for compulsory registration of trading agencies dealing in agricultural products, by making it obligatory on the latter to pay the statutory price to the peasant for his commodities, as a condition for granting registration. We must strongly put forward the demand for the levying of an emergency tax on the firms dealings in export of primary products by specified rates on their annual gross profits and a specified processing tax on the native capitalist firms using raw materials. ...

Agrarian revolution

It must be remembered that the above measures are only relief measures and that relief is not the solution of the crisis. Only a successful agrarian revolution can go a long way to eradicate the causes responsible for the crisis. It means that landlordism must be abolished, land must belong to the tillers of the soil, rents must be abolished, and in its place, a system of income tax instituted on the basis of exempting uneconomic holding from all taxes. It further means that a comprehensive plan of industrialisation must be adopted to reduce the agricultural population, raise the amount of average holding and thereby to increase the productivity of land. These tasks cannot be fulfilled unless India is free from Imperialist rule and a national revolutionary democratic Government is established through a Constituent Assembly. Agrarian revolution, therefore, means the achievement of complete independence, establishment of a national revolutionary democratic Government, nationalisation of mercantile marine, foreign trade, and the key Industries, planned industrial development under state measures and state bounty, removal from land of all remnants of feudalism, confiscation of the properties of landlords, princess, imperialist state and the churches without any compensation and encouragement to develop co-operative farming.

Source: New age, October 1938

6

The UP Kisan Movement

PC Joshi

The UP has given us the word Kisan. This is no accident but are reflection of the role that the Kisan has played in its political life. In the past, agrarian and national upheavals have coincided in time: the Kisan participated in the Congress movement and Congressmen made Kisan demands their own.

When the All-India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) was formed, the UP was found to offer complications of its own which offered difficulties in forming straight way and going ahead with a UP Kisan Committee (UPKC) as a branch of the AIKS, the UP Kisan Sangh, formed in 1934, under the leadership of B Purshottam Das Tandon, a veteran Congress leader and the present Speaker of the Assembly, existed. He accepted the minimum Charter of Kisan Rights but not the abolition of Landlordism without compensation. He stood for compensation. He did not oppose the Red Flag but would not accept it as the official flag of the Kisan movement. Because of these differences he was not for affiliation to the AIKS. He accepted the need for independent Kisan Sabhas. He represented the Kisan orientation within the Congress, a link with the past, a progressive force for the future. ...

The majority of Congressmen were sympathetic to Kisan demands, but considered Kisan Sabhas uncalled for, owing to the danger of their becoming “rivals to the Congress.”

The UPKC and the kisan sangh

In July, 1937, the UPKC was formed with Left Congress, Socialists and Communists. They offered a unity formula that all Kisan workers work through the UP Kisan Sangh, the questions of Flag, landlordism and affiliation to the AIKS be decided democratically, by a representative Kisan Conference. It was thought this would keep unity of leadership in the critical times that were ahead, maintain and strengthen links with the Congress, be in line with the policy of United National Front and lead the Kisan workers, through their own experience, in to the AIKS. At this stage hardly any local Kisan Sabhas existed. The UPKC by bringing out the fortnightly “Kisan”, by sending out organisers, by the participation of its members in Kisan Conferences prepared the ground for them.

The Kisan on his feet

When the Congress Ministry announced its interim relief measures, suspending the arrears of rent and execution of debt decrees, the Kisan got up on his feet, inspired with confidence and hope. The zamindars began resorting to legal and illegal tricks to evade these measures. Congress workers were commanded to propagate payment of current rents, waiting for the Tenancy Bill, trusting the Ministry, and keeping the peace. The infant Kisan Sabhas took up the fight against zamindar evasions and harassment and won a base for themselves. More and more Congress workers became kisan workers. The Kisan looked up to the Congress Ministry and looked after himself collectively, militant demonstrations and marches became common wherever any lead was given. In December, the Pilibhit Kisan Conference was held through which the united Kisan movement formulated its demands (a provincial adaptation of the AIKS Charter) for being incorporated in the legislation of the Ministry. All organizational issues were postponed. The agrarian resolutions of the Harduaganj Provincial Political Conference closely followed these demands.

When the Tenancy Bill was published this spring, it was found to be more pro-Kisan than that of any other Ministry though falling far short of the Congress Election Manifesto. The Premier and the Revenue Minister wished it be more far-reaching but were held back by the desire to win the co-operation of the zamindars. The Bill, however, met with virulent opposition from the zamindars. From within the Congress Assembly Party, they began pressing the Ministry. The Non-Congress zamindars began organising the petty zamindars against the congress through a series of conferences and threatened Satyagraha. Against their own Kisans, they let loose a reign of terror, and resorted to large-scale ejectments to get round conferment of tenancy rights. The Tenancy Bill was disappointing but the zamindars’ offensive was intolerable. The Kisan Sabhas grew rapidly by taking the initiative in organising Kisan resistance to ejectments. The struggles were local and partial and took the form of collective Satyagraha. Kisans flocked to the Sabhas as the organisers of their struggles. Congress workers became Kisan workers for Kisan Sabhas were defenders of and fighters for all that had been promised the Kisans. In several places, Congress Committees themselves took up the organisation of Kisan Satyagraha.

A Conspiracy of vested interests

Zamindar opposition grew and during and through the Cawnpore general strike it was disclosed as a part of the general conspiracy of the vested interests to pull down the Congress Ministry. The Cawnpore strike hammered other lessons too into the consciousness of Congressmen as a whole : the anti-national vested interests cannot be reconciled to the Congress, they have to be and could be beaten down. The Congress to defend its own programme had to unite the workers’ organisation, the Mazdoor Sabha. How could the Kisan Sabha be its rival, was it not a true ally, instead? The day-to-day work of Kisan workers, themselves Congressmen, the rapid growth of the Kisan Sabhas, their repeated declarations of loyalty to the Congress, turned the scale ...

The UPKC - A platform

The Kisan had made the UP Congress the most Left Congress, the UP Congress Ministry the most advanced, and created the most far-flung Kisan movement than probably exists anywhere. There are about 30 District Kisan Sabhas in the 48 [?] districts of the Provinces. They have been built on local initiative and work in solution from each other. The only help and guidance they get is from the UP Kisan Committee comrades, but the UPKC cannot affiliate them for it is pledged to remain only a platform to popularise the full line of the AIKS and work through the UP Kisan Sangh as the leading provincial organisation of all Kisans.

The tasks facing the Kisan movement today are :

• (1) The Tenancy Committee, appointed by the UP Congress Committee to remain in session alongside the Select Committee on the Bill and to advise the Ministry, must be made the mechanism of scotching all modifications of the Bill in favour of the zamindars and for radicalising it in Kisan interests, and for evolving agreed proposals which will be practical and unite the Congress and Kisan Sabhas behind the Ministry.
• (2) This unified lead on the Tenancy Bill must be made the basis of a mass campaign, through a series of conferences to popularise the Bill and defeat zamindar opposition.
• (3) Immediate organisation, by the Kisan Sabhas in unity with the local Congress units, of resistance to ejectment and all illegal harassment. Application of security sections against recalcitrant zamindars, full freedom to Congress and Kisan workers.
• (4) Immediate organisation of the Kisan headquarters, the UP Kisan Sangh, as a functioning centre guiding and coordinating the activities of local Sabhas. What is unity worth if the leading organisation does not function as a united centre? The UP Kisan Sangh continues to be as defunct as before. The UP Kisan Conference which was to elect a new Executive is being postponed from month to month. It is now fixed for the 11th September but this must be the last and final date. To call for a movement and deny it leadership is to perpetuate a fraud. It is a crime which no leadership can be forgiven.

A Congress-Mazdoor united front has already been achieved. If the above tasks are fulfilled Congress-Kisan unity as well will get forged. The UP Congress then as our foremost united national front unit would become the spear-head of the struggle against the Federation. The UP Kisan-workers and the Socialists have in their hands not only the responsibility of their provincial sectional movement but the fate of our national movement itself.

Source:   National Front, September, 1938

7

Kisan Movement

By PC Joshi

THE elected representatives of about 8 lac organised Kisans meet at Gaya. The AH India Kisan Sabha has became the second biggest mass organisation in our country after the National Congress.

Kisan struggles

The Kisans have forged new weapons, effectively used older ones, and reshaped new to suit their own purposes.

The March has been a specific Kisan contribution to our national armoury. It has been used with remarkable success to achieve different ends. It has been initiated by the most militant locality in a district to gather the rest of their brethren and approach the District Magistrate with their common grievance — may be remission, extortion, or the demand for taccavi and to bring the local officials face to take with their united strength. It has taken the form of a cross-country march initiated from the Provincial Kisan headquarters as in Behar, Andhra, Maharashtra to forge the sanctions behind their demands before the Congress Ministeries and mobilise the Kisan behind his organisation and get him into it too. It has been used for fraternisation with and paying homage to the Congress. A Kisan March has been organised to every session of the Congress. By now almost every province has had its Kisan march which has put the Kisan Sabha on its political map.

In the actual struggles against rack-renting, ejectments, sowcars frauds, forced labour and other feudal grievances the technique used by the Congress during Satyagraha days has been employed and further enriched by assimilating the experiences of the strike struggles of the industrial workers. The old collective traditions of the village have been used to advance the cause of struggle, e.g., collective sowing and harvesting in the bakasht struggle in Behar, a man per homestead delegated for the struggle in Mandvi and so on.

These partial struggles have by now been fought in every provinces, they herald a new chapter in the life of the Indian Kisan — no more a victim of fate but a maker of history. Not only the lone Kisan but his whole family, women and children have undergone the baptism of struggle. There have been whole villages that have participated to a man in these struggles; not one black sheep was there. Prison, lathi, bayonet, bullets, arson, rape, attachment of house-hold goods — all have been tried to break the Kisan struggle but in vain. The movement has already become sanctified with the blood of unknown martyrs, and the deeds of nameless heroes headed by one of the greatest sons of the soil, Swami Sahajanand.

These partial struggles have enriched our revolutionary movement and strengthen its core. They have made the Kisans crack battalions of our National army.

Offensive from the right

After the acceptance of Ministries by the Congress an offensive against the Kisan Sabha movement was launched by the Right-wing on the ground that the Kisan Marches were unnecessary and demonstrations against the Ministries and Kisan Sabhas rivals to the Congress. These arguments were not only palpably wrong but served as a smokescreen to be able to follow a constitutional policy to which the rising Kisan movement was proving the greatest hindrance. The upsurge of the Kisans meant extra-parliamentary pressure from a sector where the real mass basis of the Congress lay and it was irresistible by arguments for it demanded nothing more than the rapid implementing of the promises made to the Kisan in the Election Manifesto. It had therefore to be damned as anti-Congress! A poisonous propaganda was set afoot against the Kisan Sabha in every locality by the supporters of the Right. A split in the national forces seemed imminent; the battle raged for months. The Haripura resolution, (restating) that Kisans could form their Sabha and Congressmen help it if it did not carry out an anti-Congress policy, settled the issue as a national controversy, a nation-wide frontal offensive against the Kisan Sabha was given up, but pin-pricks in the localities have continued and also desperate efforts to isolate the Kisan Sabha from the local Congress.

Line of isolation

The offensive from the Right coupled with, political and objective inability to defeat it by successfully implementing the policy of unity has led to the emergence of a sectarian trend within the movement. It finds expression in the following three slogans :

• (1) Let us strengthen our Sabha now and later when we are stronger, it will be time to have united front with the Congress.
• (2) We want unity but the Congress does not. Let the Congress come to us, we are willing. In the meanwhile, we carry on with our Kisan work.
• (3) There can be no unity between the exploiters and the exploited. National Front is a chimera, toilers front alone is the real anti-imperialist front.

These appear to be different but they are variants of one common line. They conceive of the Kisan as unrelated to the rest of the people. By idealising the Kisan, they isolate him from real life and the society in which he lives. These slogans appear Left but in reality they make the Kisan politically ineffective and confine his actual movement within the economic sphere alone. The major class division is between Imperialism on the one hand and the Indian people on the other, the greatest class struggle today is our national struggle, the main organ of our struggle in the National Congress. Any course that takes the Kisan away from this straight course separates him from the anti-imperialist struggle that is actually raging, divides and weakens the whole national movement. Such is not the line of unity but of disruption, of economism and not anti-imperialism.

... General political agitation is no longer enough, practical steps are needed to build the actual unity of the local Congress Committee and the Kisan Sabha.

It is this Congress-Kisan unity which will move the Congress itself forward. Unity will not force the Kisan movement to a lower stage but take the whole national movement to a higher stage. ...

Organisational leadership

During the last year, when the movement assumed the character of a mass movement; all its problems became organisational and ceased being agitational. But lack of organisational leadership has been another failure of the movement. The movement has grown much faster than the leadership has been able to cope with and thus the movement has tended to be rudderless, spontaneous and elemental and the growth of the movement has not been truly reflected in the rising strength of the Kisan Sabhas. It is not that the Kisan leaders have not known what to do but the crux of the problem is that there has been too little of what was demanded by the needs of the movement.

The Provincial and All India Headquarters do not function as the General Staff, of a million strong mass organisation which moves millions and has yet to organise millions more. This is borne out by the uneven growth of membership. A few provinces contribute almost the entire membership, most struggling behind with a couple of thousands alone.

Local struggles break out, local comrades sink their all in them and [search] in vain for help from above. Some individual leading comrade may go to their rescue or he may not. There is no cadre of senior experienced comrades who would act as organisers and inspectors on behalf of the All-India or provincial organisation and concentrate the resources of the whole movement on the fighting front where the fortunes of the whole movement may be at stake.

Newer Kisan comrades are hardly given any training. They educate themselves as best as they can, learn whatever they can from their own immediate experience. Living and working as they do, they naturally lack ideological-political maturity and serve as an excellent base for sectarianism. This is a grave danger. There have been Schools but they have hardly touched the fringe of the problem. We need Schools and more Schools, for the workers of different grades, organised by the District Sabhas for the rank and file, by the Provincial Committees for the local organisers and by the AIKC for the provincial leaders.

The movement has acquired a status and faces problems that need a Department to carry on serious economic and political investigations and research work. As yet the excellent Bulletin devotedly edited by Comrade Yajnik is the only activity in this direction besides the various memorandums by the Provincial Sabhas drawn up, at the eleventh hour, on the proposals that have been on the legislative anvil. Collection of Fund earmarked for this purpose and delegation of a team of intellectuals exclusively for this purpose is an urgent necessity if the movement is not to be called upon to follow its historic course almost blind.

Once again the prime responsibility for the organisational shortcomings falls upon the Socialist and Communist leaderships who have failed to strain their utmost to supply the remedies, give necessary relative importance to different tasks and fulfil first tasks first. According to any standards that can be applied to them as Marxists, they too have worked almost blindly in the movement.

At Gaya

The Kisan movement can consolidate its present strength and march to greater strength only to the extent the Gaya session helps to evolve a practical political line for the movement, simple slogans are no more enough, and to the extent it tackles the major organisational issues facing it and which its own growth has created, mere agitators’ methods won’t help the movement any more. Unity of the Kisan front has been its pride, Gaya must preserve, broaden, strengthen it. ...

IT IS THUS THAT THE INDIAN KISAN WILL REALISE HIS OWN DESTINY — A TRUE SON OF THE SOIL. SUBSERVIENT TO NONE, BROTHER OF ALL. FRONT-TRENCH FIGHTER FOR FREEDOM !

Source: National Front, 2 April, 1939

1

The Capitalist Offensive In India

The capitalist offensive in Europe is naturally followed by an offensive of the Indian capital against native labour. The European offensive was the result of capital's resolve to smash the strong position to which labour had reached during the war. European offensive is partially successful. The success of imperial capital of Europe means bad days for the half-developed, unconsolidated bourgeoisie of Indian and other semi-capitalised countries like India. A reduction of wages on the European labour front means cheapening of products and flooding of colonial and semi-colonial markets with white goods. If, in this competition, the Indian bourgeoisie means to hold its head, ... either it must become less greedy of profits, to which it become accustomed in the war period, or it must pull labour down to the pit-level from the position to which it had reached in the days of war. The Indian bourgeoisie has decided to follow the second course. The first skirmishes of the fight will be between Ahmedabad mill-owners and workers. The mill-owners have decided upon a 20 per cent reduction in wages and refuse to decide matters by arbitration. The workers however mean to give a fight straight, in spite of the advice of some treacherous labour leaders.

When the All-India Trade Union Congress was held there was high talk of giving the Indian Labour movement a “character distinctly its own”. The aristocratic Mrs. Naidu scornfully talked of traditions of western labour, with whom she would have nothing to do, as she did not want class war out here. Can this aristocratic lady say whether the Ahemedabad mill-owners themselves are not beginning the class war? ... Babu Shyamsundar, at the Bengal labour conference, very paternally advised labour to look more to the collective good than to class interests. Surely, Babooji, labour means to do the same. The collective good is the good of the greatest number. Labour forms the majority of the nation and so it is going to look to its interests i.e. collective interests! Will the heroic non-cooperator tell us if the mill-owners of Bombay and Ahmedabad are looking to the good of the nation by creating troubles in the textile industry, when in the interests of the boycott movement there ought to be no trouble in this branch at least ?

We advise labour leaders and workers not to heed these soft words and philosophic phrases of bourgeois intellectuals. Only by class war, to which the Ahmedabad workers are slowly drifting unconsciously, can labour hope to win. Defeats may come once or twice, but final victory is of the workers.

Source: The Socialist, March 1923

 

2

All-India Trade Union Congress

The All-India Trade Union Congress held its eighth annual session at Kanpur in the last week of November 1927. Out of fifty-seven affiliated trade unions, with total membership of 125,000, only twenty-seven were represented at the congress by about 100 delegates.

... Of the 57 affiliated unions, 13 were railway unions, 11 textile, 10 general labour, transport (other than rail), and 4 seamen's unions. ...

The proceedings of the congress showed the presence of an active leftwing group, mainly representatives of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party, who succeeded in getting discussed to Simon Commission, the threat of war to the USSR, the League against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression, etc. The influence of the delegates from the British Trades Union Congress, Purcell and Hallsworth, was actively exerted on the side of the right wing and they obtained the support even of Chamanlal. The Purcell-Chamanlal group, together with Joshi, the general secretary, opposed the resolutions on the League against Imperialism, on war danger and on the Pan-Pacific Conference, but they failed to secure a vote in support of the IFTU, the congress reaffirming  its detision to press for unity between the IFTU   and RILU. …

Source: Labour Monthly, April 1928

 

3

Manifesto of the AITUC

(The new General Secretary of the AITUC, SV Deshpande has issued the following manifesto on the Nagpur Session on behalf of the AITUC as an answer of the militant working class to the splitting party of the Right-Wing leaders.)

“The existence, life and growth of trade unions in India is of the most vital importance to the Indian workers to fight against the oppression of foreign imperialists and our own capitalists, mill-owners and others, ...

The textile workers of Bombay suffered a temporary defeat because of the united brutal effort of the Indian mill-owners and British imperialism and also the fact that the textile workers of Bombay stood alone without the assistance of other textile centres. The Jute workers of Bengal suffered defeat in their local strikes because they were disorganised. The same is true about the railway workers.

Strong trade union are vital to the very existence of the-working class, to the success of their many struggles to better their condition. And in spite of that, a section of the so-called leaders arranged a split at the last Trade Union Congress at Nagpur.

The Right-Wing leaders split away because the Trade Union Congress decided to boycott the Whitley Commission. This every worker must remember and understand. The task of the Whitley Commission appointed by British Imperialism is to fool the workers and help to stabilise and strengthen the exploitation of the workers. This commission is dominated by capitalists like the Bombay mill-owner, Sir Victor Sasson, who, by starvation plus brutal force temporarily defeated the textile workers of Bombay, is not going to help the workers. Its sole purpose is to help imperialism and the mill-owners and other capitalists. The workers will not allow themselves to be fooled again by promises of the imperialist commission into giving support to imperialism by participating in the commission. The workers can improve their lot only by fighting for freedom, for independence, and by organising their own forces. This must be clear to every rank and file worker.

The Trade Union Congress was correct in deciding to boycott this commission and taking a stand of militant struggle. And the Right-Wing leaders, lawyers, and bar-at-laws, Chamanlal, Joshi & Co, who never suffered as the workers in the mill suffered, joined the Whitley Commission, became members of it, thus betraying the struggle for the betterment of the condition of Indian workers. ...

The Nagpur Session of TUC has shown again the necessity of developing militant working class, leadership from the rank of the workers themselves, true to the interests of the workers. The Right-Wing leaders, with the ease of intellectuals caring only for their own ambitions, split the Trade Union Congress. …

... Short-sighted reformists, assistants of British imperialism, your efforts are futile! The militant Indian Working class understands your machinations judges you by your deeds. The textiles workers of Bombay repudiated Joshi and created a powerful textile union — The Girni Kamgar Union — which you are slandering and condemning in chorus with British imperialism and the mill-owners for its militant working class stand. But the same fate awaits the rest of the reformist leaders who are now trying to weaken and split labour ranks. They will find themselves in the garbage can of history. The militant Indian working class will triumph. ...

Source: Labour Monthly, March 1930

 

4

Current News

Red Trade Union Congress

White Paper strongly condemned

A meeting of the representatives of the various unions registered under the Trade Union Act was held at Calcutta on the 12th August, under the Presidency of comrade Abdul Halim, and the following were among the resolutions passed at the meeting :

1. This meeting of the representatives of the various registered Trade Union of Bengal affiliated to the Red Trade Union Congress emphatically condemns and rejects the White Paper proposals which are going to be imposed upon the starving millions of Indian people by British Imperialism. The Constitution is meant for safeguarding the interests of Imperialism by strengthening the reactionary alliance of it with Princes, landlords and propertied classes and for perpetuating the slavery of the Indian masses, therefore this meeting calls upon all unions to organise workers’ protest meetings and demonstrations all over India.

2. This meeting of the Unions of the Red Trade Union Congress vehemently opposes the proposal of the Government of Bengal to the effect that one seat is allotted to the Railway workers (registered unions) and one to the water transport workers (registered unions) only in the council. The meeting is of opinion that the major number of seats should as recommended by the Lothian Committee be allocated to the working masses, moreover all the seats for labour should be given to the registered workers’ unions and other workers who are still unorganised. The present proposal is quite in contravention of all these. This meeting further protests against the system of election as has been proposed because such a system only facilitates the reformists in their being returned in the council by easy means and it demands that the election should be by means of ballot papers so that every worker will have individual right to vote directly.

3. This meeting of the trade unions protests against the arrest of many labour leader’s of Calcutta, during anti-Gandhi agitation, by the Calcutta police and demands their immediate and unconditional release as by this and by binding them down under various conditions the workers' movement is being sabotaged, though some of them are released on bail.

 Source: Indian Front, September 1934.

 

5

For Trade Union Unity in India

Working men and women of India

The working class of India is on the eve of new struggles for its existence. The British imperialists, spreading terror and oppression, have drained, with the aid of the landowners, princes, and usurers, two thousand million rupees of gold out of the country in the course of the last two years. All this gold drained is the result of the exploitation of the workers and the ruin of millions of peasants who have been driven off their land and are now dying of hunger.

The lot of the workers is no better. During the last few months of 1933 a further 30,000 textile workers of Bombay, 10,000 workers of Ahmedabad, 3,000 of Coimbatore, etc., have been thrown out from the mills into the streets. ...
Unemployment is growing, wages are being slashed, but the workers are compelled to work more. Weavers are forced to work on four looms instead of two, and the same is true all over the contry. …

The struggle for bread and the struggle for freedom

The Indian worker suffer from the yoke of the British imperialism, which is the basis of the unbearable slavery and misery of the people. Not one worker should stand the foreign imperialist oppression and slavery.

The All-Indian Congress Committee of the National Congress called upon the workers not to fight against their own capitalists, but to support the bourgeois National Congress in a pseudo civil disobedience campaign against the imperialists.

Hundreds of thousands of workers believed the National Congress and went with it. They thought the National Congress would defend the interests of the people, would fight against the imperialists. They were told by Bose, Kandalkar, Ruikar, Roy, Karnik, and other similar leaders of the labour movement that the INC will fight for the toiling masses. In the summer of 1930 Kandalkar and Roy appealed during the notorious “Labour Week” campaign to the workers to stand by the common national front with the bourgeoisie and remain as “arms and feet of the Congress” i.e., to remain a submissive appendage to the capitalists, and not to fight against the bourgeoisie and not to organise strikes. However, the result proved to be bad. The workers were deceived. The leaders of the National Congress (Gandhi and co.) went to London to negotiate with the imperialists. And now in 1933 the National Congress has called off the mass civil disobedience campaign, shamelessly throwing the blame on the people, claiming that the masses have no desire to fight. The National Congress disorganised the ranks of the toiling masses and prepared in this way the conditions for a new offensive on the part of the imperialists and the mill-owners against the workers and peasants. And now Karnik, Kandalkar, Ruikar and Alve, who joined their ranks, in order to divert the attention of the workers from the political struggle, state that they are prepared to fight only for wages, and call upon the workers to abandon for the time being the struggle for independence.

The advice of such leaders at the present time, just as before, only helps the enemies of the working class. The workers of India do not want to be slaves. ... The class-conscious workers will not follow these reformists, who say: Fight for bread and don't mix up, don’t join the struggle for independence. The workers will not follow the reformists, because the struggle for bread cannot be separated from the struggle for independence. The working class will reject with contempt the false statements of Karnik (see “Mahratta”, October 15, 1933), that the working class is politically unconscious and that the masses “are not able to grasp big political issues ... national independence ...” etc.

The working class will fight for bread, for every pice, and at the same time help the peasantry to overthrow the yoke of landlords and usurers, and will gather its forces and, attracting along side it the peasantry, will fight for independence. These tasks are inseparable. Only enemies of the proletariat, only national-reformists, the concealed assistants and liberal-assitants of British imperialism, can separate them. ...

What the past experiences of workers’ strike teaches us

The experience of the workers’ strikes during the last few years shows us that:

The trouble is that most of the workers are not organised, not united, do not have a revolutionary Marxian Proletarian Party and mass class trade unions, and quite a number of the workers follow the reformists and the national-reformists, who have split the ranks of the proletariat and, with the aid of reformist policy of arbitration and class collaboration, are carrying on harmful activity.

The results of this policy of the reformists can be easily seen from the experiences of the railway and textile workers.

In 1930 the workers of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway came out on strike. Ruikar and Co. insisted on arbitration and appealed to the Viceroy and to Gandhi for help. The Railwaymen's Federation, led by Giri and Mehta, instead of organising strikes on other railways in support of the GIP, joined hands with Ruikar and compelled the workers to submit to an agreement, the result of which was that thousands of workers were discharged and the strike was defeated.

They did the same thing in 1932 on the SM Railway, despite the fact that the workers throughout the country were demanding a general railway strike. A ballot taken among the railway workers by the reformist Railwaymen’s Federation in 1932 showed that the great majority of the men voted in favour of a strike.

However, Mehta, Ruikar, Giri and Co. while adopting, under the pressure of the masses, a resolution for a general strike, sabotaged its being carried into effect. ...

Working men and women, the policy of the national-reformists is the policy of arbitration and class-collaboration, covered up by phrases about the defence of the interests of the workers, leading to the defeat of the proletariat. It is time to finish with such a policy and oust such leaders out of the labour movement.

The only path of successful struggle, even for the partial demands of the workers is the path or class solidarity and mass struggle, the path of strikes and revolutionary actions, the path of a consistent class struggle. But to carry out this struggle the working class must form its militant class trade union orgnisations, that will be capable of defending the interests of the workers.

What Trade Union do workers need ?

Without an all-Indian revolutionary Marxian proletarian political Party, the leading orgainsation of the working class, able to work under any conditions, without concealing its face, and mass trade unions and other proletarian organisations, the working class cannot attain the independence of the country and the improvement of the workers’ conditions.

Organisation — that is the only weapon in the hands of the proletariat in the struggle against the imperialists and their own capitalists.

It is time to form mass trade unions in every branch of industry, trade unions that will fight under the banner of the class struggle. The trade unions must base themselves upon the mill and shop committees. Mill committees, elected by the workers in every factory to defend the daily interests of the workers and protect their rights, must become the powerful base of the working-class movement.

“Every worker should join a class trade union.”

“In every factory a factory committee, elected by all working men and women.”

These are the slogans for everyday work among the workers. It is time to put through a determined struggle against the practice of forming bureaucratic, small trade unions, controlled by a handful of leaders, where the president and the secretary manage affairs against the interests of the workers and replace the organisation with themselves.

In every trade union it is necessary to elect a management committee mainly composed of the workers from the bench, a committee which will meet regularly and decide upon the business of the union. It is necessary to hold often regular meetings of the trade union membership to discuss and decide upon the most important trade union and political problems of the given industry, as well as problems that agitate the entire country. ...

Struggle for Trade Union unity

Unity in the ranks of the workers is a necessary condition for the successful struggle of the workers for their daily interests and for their total liberation from exploitation. The factory owners, the landowners and the imperialists fear this unity as they do death. Through their agents — the reformists — they split the ranks of the proletariat and disorganise its resistance to the capitalists, hinder the development of the strike movement and the workers’ leading participation in the struggle for independence. During the past years the agents of the exploiting classes succeeded in splitting and disorganising the workers’ movement in our country. Such a situation can no longer be tolerated. We must attain the unity of the ranks of the workers. It is necessary to throw out from the ranks of the working-class movement all agents of the exploiting classes. Among the workers the movement for the unification of their ranks to fight the offensive of the imperialists and the millowners is growing. And that is one of the most important events at the present time.

Seeing the moods of the workers, the reformists are trying to utilise the slogan of unity in such a way as to strengthen their influence, isolate revolutionary workers, and retard the development of the strike movement. ...

Kandalkar, Ruikar, Roy and Co. split in 1931 the Bombay Unity Committee, which was organised to prepare the All-Indian Trades Union Congress. It included the Red Trade Unions and the representatives from the national-reformist trade unions. But the latter split this committee because the revolutionary workers come out for a class platform and policy and protested against the reformist proposal to allow affiliation with the Amsterdam International, in which there are labour organisations that support the bourgeoisie and the imperialists.

And so we see that the reformists and the national reformists, while using phrases about unity, in actual life split up the trade unions so as not to let the workers start a determined fight against the imperialists and millowners. ...

Our Proposal for Joint Struggle

The supporters of class trade unions, seeing that during the last few years the conditions of life of the workers have been constantly becoming worse, have considered the steps that have to be taken to help the working class to organise resistance to the offensive of the imperialists and capitalists, and decided to appeal to all workers and trade union organisations to come together to organise and jointly carry out defence of the workers' interests.

The supporters of class trade unions propose to all the trade unions to organise a united front, on the basis of the following points taken from the platform of the class trade union movement :

(1) To prepare, organise and carry out the resistance of the workers to the insolent and brutal attack of the owners and develop it into a fight to raise the wages and improve the labour conditions.

(2) To consolidate and organise the unemployed workers for the struggle against hunger, misery, and unemployment. ...

In order to organise the struggles of the unemployed, the supporters of the class trade unions propose to all trade unions to come together and jointly organise unemployed committees, linking up their work with the other workers' organisations, and start a widespread campaign by means of meetings, demonstrations, hunger marches, etc., and getting support of the employed workers, demand aid from the municipalities, millowners, and the government. To prepare and carry through the struggles of the unemployed under the following slogans :

• (1) Immediate payment of a grant to every unemployed worker to the amount of 50 rupees; free rent, heat, light, and free transportation on railways while looking for work.
• (2) Introduction of State unemployment insurance at the expense of the government and the employers.

In order to carry out all these proposals directed to organise resistance to the employers, the supporters of the class trade unions appeal to all workers and trade union organisations who are ready to accept these proposals of united struggle against the employers, to come together and jointly form strike committees, elected by workers, and other organs to prepare for strikes and carry them through.

If the joint struggle assumes genuine forms and will be carried into practice, the supporters of the class trade unions are prepared to unite with other trade unions and form united trade unions by way of calling conferences of workers’ delegates from the mills and workshops.

The supporters of the class trade union movement fought and will fight for the unity of the workers’ ranks. The Girni-Kamgar and GIF trade unions were split through no fault of the revolutionary trade union movement; the initiative of the split belongs to the national reformists. Our weakness — i.e., the supporters of the revolutionary trade union movement — was that we did not try energetically enough to prevent the split and did not succeed sufficiently enough to explain to the wide masses of the proletariat the essence of the splitting policy of the national reformists and liberal reformists.

The supporters of the class trade unions are prepared in the course of joint struggle to unite our class trade unions with the parallel trade unions which split off, and form united trade unions, by way of calling joint conferences of worker — delegates elected from the mills for the purpose of uniting the trade unions and electing management committees. ...

Long live the fighting united front of the workers to defeat the attacks of the employers !

Forward To The Creation Of Class Mass Trade Unions !
Forward To The Defence Of The Interests Of The Proletariat!
Long Live The Independence Of India !

Source: Inprecor, May 25,1934

 

6

The AITUC Proposes Unity

What Must We Do ?

(December 1934)

…    …    …    …    …    …    …

We are now in a position to examine the grand idea or Mr. Ruikar and his friends in its proper perspective. The idea has been thought out as one-stroke solution of all the problems arising out of the complex situation described above. Ruikar & Co. are out to kill not two but four birds with one stone. While merging into the right and swallowing the left, they desire at the same time, the credit due to unity-makers and the halo due to radical. That is the essence of Mr. Ruikar’s proposals. The merging with the right is effectively achieved by the rejection, or principle, of affiliation to any “foreign” organisation (term No. 2 of the proposals) and by leaving the question of sending delegates to the ILO open to decision every year but making the decision binding on all affiliated unions (term No.3). With the re-entry of Mr. Joshi and his associates with their huge contingents into the AITUC, this annual decision is a foregone conclusion. Mr. Ruikar has no worry on that account. The radicalist appearance (Mr. Ruikar, in the past, has abused Joshi & Mehta only a little less perhaps than he has abused communists) is kept up by the payment of a lip homage to the principle of class struggle (term No. 1) and by the formality that the AITUC is to be accepted by the amalgamating units as “the Central Organisation of the Indian Working Class” implying thereby that the process of unification is to be construed as the home-coming of the prodigals, the “parent” (Mr. Ruikar’s own word) AITUC agreeing, as befits a loving father, to forgive the Red. TUC its contumacy and the NFTU its sluggishness. The laurels of achieving the almost superhuman task of bringing about the fusion of the warring camps in Indian trade unionism are to be won on the purely numerical logic that right, left and, centre all are to be herded into a single TUC. That their unity proposals do not refer concretely either to any fundamental principle or to any positive programme for common action is trifle not worthy of the attention of  Mr. Ruikar and his colleagues. The slogan of unity and the show of not breaking with their own past, besides being independent objectives in themselves also serve as a masquerade for camouflaging the actual desertion of Ruikar & Co. to the camp of the extreme right, and the fettering and muzzling of the left. It now remains to show how the AITUC proposals have been calculated to achieve the latter end.

If reformists are afraid to face the masses shoulder to shoulder with communists, if they split working-class organisations and attempt to isolate communists from the masses, if they carry on an incessant campaign of vilification, misrepresentation and lies against communists, it is because they know that when flung into the furnace of the class struggle, communist gold always wins the esteem and support of the masses in preference to reformist copper. The strength of the communist lies in the street, in the actual struggle of life, in direct action. But this precisely is the weak spot of the reformist. The further removed he is from mass action, the more bookish and pedantic the issues involved, the greater the scope for quibbling, hair-splitting and obscurantism, the more is the reformist in his element. “On paper” he is prepared to stand his ground against communist attacks. In committees that shun the masses like the plague, that waste hours together on unreal problems of their own creation, he engages in the most valiant duels with the communists. If, therefore, the reformists get a fair assurance that the law, by the brutal suppression of revolutionary propaganda in any shape or form, and by nipping all militant working class organisations in the bud, would prevent communists from, getting an upper hand over reformists in open work, then the main source of the letters’ fear of working in the company of the former, is considerably allayed. They feel assured that if the communists were to jeopardise their position by overstepping the legal-reformist limits of ideological propaganda, the police would always be waiting to clear them out of the way. Moreover, when on account of their substantial and increasing influence among workers, and their suffering at the hands of imperialism, it seems impossible — as now in India — to direct against communists a frontal or vulgar attack of the kind earlier described, the course of dishing them under the laudable plea of unity, naturally suggests itself to the reformists. Of course that this manoeuvre may not turn against themselves, reformists have to fortify their own position in a number of ways. They require, to use a term now made famous by the political genius of British Imperialism, certain “safeguards” for the protection of their “legitimate” interests. Among other things, they require a bureaucratically controlled voting strength, large enough, under any conditions, to overwhelm the red element, as also the binding and unalterable acceptance of a set of reactionary aims and objects, of rules of organisation and procedure, with which to rule out of court any attempt that might be made by the radical element to utilise the united organisation for intensifying the struggle of the masses. Mr. Ruikar ensures the fulfillment of the former condition by bringing the forces of the NFTU to outweigh the forces of the RTUC, and of the latter, by his proposed terms of unity. If with all these precautions and safeguards, the refractory element persists in making revolutionary appeals to the workers, or criticising the treachery of the reformists, the latter would always be armed with a host of “constitutional” powers for punishing such “disruptive” and “indisciplinary” conduct. Indeed, having once liquidated the independent organisational existence of revolutionary trade unionism, it would be a deliberate policy of Ruikar & Co. to provoke and often compel the representatives of red unions to commit technical breaches of discipline, with a view to isolate them from one another, and thus crush each one individually and separately. This mode of attacking communists has the super added advantage that it makes the genuine ideological differences for which a reformist attack is really launched.

 

7

Regarding Unity Moves Between AITUC, RAITUC, NFTU

The Proposal : We are prepared for immediate amalgamation if you accept the following conditions :

(1) Complete freedom of revolutionary propaganda inside amalgamated unions. (No union should be split because of differences of opinion as to the line of ideology and action. Genuine Trade Union democracy. One should not be expelled from the executives simply because one professes a revolutionary line; e.g. the split in the GIF Railway Workers’ Union. The doctor and his associate and you were expelled because you professed the communist line; you were also charged of following the discipline of an outside body etc.)

(2) As a precondition to amalgamation of the Central AI Organisations the NFTU, the AITUC and the Red TUC must accept the amalgamation of rival unions wherever they exist; (The GIF and the BB and CI Unions are the only rival unions) on the basis of equal representation and on the basis of beginning their amalgamated existence by immediately undertaking to develop a struggle on the basis of concrete programmatic demands — in the case of these Railway Unions an all-India General Strike within a specified period.

(3) Wherever there are single unions in particular industries we give them equal representation and they give us equal representation in the executives to jointly further the development of the struggle on the basis of bringing about General Strikes within specified periods for specified demands.

(4) In order to guarantee genuineness the NFTU, the AITUC and the Red TUC issues a joint declaration calling upon their affiliated unions to amalgamate where there are rival unions, on the basis above given and also calling upon them to undertake immediate propaganda for struggles within specified periods for specified demands.

(5) As a culmination of this process of amalgamating the unions, The Central AI Organisations finally amalgamate into one powerful all-India TUC. ...

Source:  Unity moves between - AITUC, RA1TUC, NFTU

8

Towards Trade Union Unity in India

— By Ben Bradley and R Palme Dutt

The growing determination of the Indian working class to struggle for unity in the trade union field is a most significant and welcome feature of the present situation in India. To establish one united centralised trade union movement constitutes the most important immediate task facing the Indian working class. That this task is not easy was shown by the events which took place when the Trade Union Congress and National Trades Unions Federation met at the end of last year at Nagpur. Credit is, however, due to the persistence of the militant section in the trade union movement for consistently pursuing a number of steps towards unification. These steps, taken by the militant section of the trade union movement of India, have resulted in the achievement of a number of successes in the struggle for the consolidation of the forces of the working class in the country.

... Nevertheless, we cannot fail to recognise that with all the determination of the workers these struggles have been seriously impaired by the breaches in the ranks of the movement. This is clear if we take some of the outstanding struggles; such as the GIF Railwaymen’s strike of 1930; from the very beginning the position of the railway workers was considerably weakened by their ranks being divided. Similarly, with the Bengal Jute workers’ strike of 1930, and the many textile workers’ strikes in the years following in Bombay, Nagpur and elsewhere. The more recent examples are shown with the dock workers’ strike in 1934, in Bombay, and the dock workers’ strike in 1934-35, in Calcutta.

All these struggles were conducted with determination, vigour and sacrifice, but without unity in the face of the enemy. With their ranks broken the workers can put up but feeble resistance to the continued attacks upon their economic standards; at the same time they are unable to present to the employers united commands for better conditions. The determination of the working class of India to establish a united working class movement springs from these experiences and this situation.

The advance of unity

Already steps of tremendous importance have been taken to achieve this unity. The first struggle to obtain unity was in connection with the All-India Textile Workers’ strike of 1934. This was followed by the unification, on the basis of the class struggle and trade union democracy, of the Red Trade Union and the All-India Trade Union Congress in April, 1935.

... an effective and powerful trade union movement requires all-embracing class solidarity of the workers. At the same time the representatives of different view points within the trade unions should be free to conduct propaganda for their viewpoints and policy on the issues that arise, always avoiding all disruptive conflicts and loyally maintaining discipline in the common struggle. Here we feel that the importance can not be overestimated of the acceptance at Calcutta of the two points as the necessary basis of trade union unity; (1) acceptance of the class struggle and, (2) internal trade union democracy. These two points must be emphasised and form the corner stone of the future trade union movement; they will help to ensure a vital, fighting, mass trade union movement in India. ...

The establishment of the, Joint Labour Board was the next step taken towards the further extension of the workers united front. The Joint Labour Board was established to co-ordinate the activities of the amalgamated TUC and the national Trade Union Federation, and to draw the mass of the trade union workers and local organisations of the right reformist unions closer to the workers in other unions towards trade union unity and to participate in the class struggle.

Alongside the establishment of the Joint Labour Boards there were organised in Bombay, Calcutta, Nagpur and elsewhere joint mass meetings and demonstrations against the new slave constitution, against the ban on militant workers’ organisations, against the fascist aggressive war on Abyssinia, and joint demonstrations on May Day. ...

It is necessary also to place on record the fact of the active participation of the adherents of the militant trade union movement in the Radical Political Conference both in Bombay and Nagpur (November, 1935). All these are indications of the increasing activity of the masses in the struggle against war and imperialism, and testify to the fact that the Communists and the adherents of the militant trade union movement are steadily overcoming the remnants of sectarianism, and the isolation of the trade union movement from the anti-imperialist front.

Opposition to Trade Union unity

The intense desire of the workers for unity manifested itself at Nagpur towards the end of last year when the All-India Trade Union Congress and the National Trades Union Federation met simultaneously. Yet, despite the efforts made, particularly by the militant section, to bring the TU movement under one head, this was not achieved.

The Executive Committee of the AITUC formulated certain proposals for unity, and it appears that the most important of these were : (1) The name of the organisation shall be the All-India Trade Union Congress; (2) The constitution shall be that of the national Trade Union Federation, with modifications if necessary; and (3) that the first working committee shall consist of an equal number of officials from both organisations. To which a couple of sub-points were added; (a) No affiliation to any foreign organisation, (b) The amalgamated central working class organisation to accept the principle of sending delegates to Geneva.

It is quite reasonable to draw the conclusion from the above that the Executive of the AlTUC were prepared to sink everything in the interests of trade union unity. But it is amazing, in view of the principles accepted at Calcutta, that the important question of trade union democracy does not appear at all, while it was not thought necessary to stress the principle of the class struggle, the reason being, according to RS Ruikar, that the principle of class struggle was acceptable to both groups.

The tremendous demand for working class unity had its repercussion in the discussions in the General Council of the National Trades Union Federation. In fact reports show that there was majority in the body who favoured immediate structural unity, and a section of the members favoured “Unity by stages.” This opposition to immediate unity was led by NM Joshi, whose demand was equivalent to a call for capitulation of the AITUC, and it should unconditionally enter the National Federation, the federation leadership reserving the right to accept whom it thought fit and to reject those with whom it did not see eye to eye. To have accepted such a position would have been to have betrayed the fundamental principles of the working class. The working class members of the National Federation and the AITUC demand unity not capitulation, unity based upon the recognition of the principles of the class struggle in practice and complete trade union democracy.

Despite the majority in favour, the resolution for immediate unity was withdrawn and a resolution giving wider powers to the Joint Board, and extending the principle of such Joint Boards to the Provinces, was agreed to. Unity for the moment is sidetracked, nevertheless, the policy of NM Joshi must be fought and the struggle the achieve one united trade union movement must go on with redoubled energy.

Weaknesses in carrying through the struggle for unity

While we can place on record a number of successes achieved by the adherents of the militant section of the trade union movement, it is necessary at the same time to emphasise that certain incorrect approaches have been made in their activities in actual struggle. One of the most striking examples was the refusal of the adherents of the militant TU movement from the Nagpur amalgamated textile workers' union to let the national reformist leaders and officials of this union participate in the leadership of the Hingangat textile workers’ strike. So far was this carried that the national reformist leaders of the amalgamated textile workers’ unions and of the TUC were refused the floor at the strikers' meetings etc. This policy made it easier for the reformist leaders to apply their policy of expelling the adherents of the militant trade union movement, with the result that the struggle for trade union unity was hampered.

Further examples are that of the organisation by the Lal Bavta Press Kamgar Union of a provincial press workers’ conference, and also an All-India Conference — an excellent piece of work, but done without the participation of the nationalist reformist unions which are in existence. Another example of surviving sectarianism is that of the decision of the Calcutta Tramwaymen’s Union, to remain an independent union and not to affiliate to the amalgamated Trade Union Congress; to this extent our forces inside the Trade Union Congress struggling for TU unity are weakened. We recognise the difficulties of our comrades, but these must not prevent us taking the lead always and every time on the question of trade union unity. ...

Next steps for Trade Union unity

We feel that the adherents of the militant trade union movement, working in the trade unions of India, will be able to greatly strengthen their position and place themselves in the forefront of the struggle provided they are able to concentrate their attention on and carry through the following suggestions:

It is necessary to carry through at the earliest possible moment the amalgamation of the parallel Lal Bavta and national-reformist trade unions still existing in a number of centres and industries. This should be immediately applied to the unions on the GIF Railway, to the press workers, to the textile workers in all centres — linking up these centres, and to a number of unions in Bengal. The next step would be the transformation of the amalgamated trade unions into powerful mass organisations. This would constitute the major task in the struggle for the elimination of the split in the trade union movement. When we recognise that only a very small percentage of the industrial workers of India are organised in the trade union movement and what tremendous possibilities there are, the next task obviously is to achieve powerful mass organisations. To do this every amalgamated union should declare a “recruitment month” and make the recruiting of the new members one of the most important tasks of the trade union. ...

Unity of action between the trade unions of the TUC and unions of the National Trade Union Federation can be greatly facilitated by full use being taken of the proposal to extend the principle of Joint Labour Boards to the provinces. By our joint work and action with the workers in the unions under the National Trade Union Federation we should greatly strengthen the demand for trade union unity. The struggle for the amalgamation of the TU Congress and the national TU Federation, on the basis of class struggle and trade union democracy, necessitates a strengthening of business-like, concrete criticism of the policy of class collaboration, pursued by reformist leaders, and an exposure before the working class of all the opponents of trade union unity, of all reformist leaders who endeavour to replace unity on the basis of class struggle by unity on the basis of class collaboration and expulsion of the militant forces from the amalgamated unions.

The development of united struggle

The struggle for the united front and trade union unity will not achieve its aim if it remains isolated and divorced from the developing struggle of the working class for its immediate economic and political demands. The united front and trade union unity should become a mighty weapon for strengthening the working class struggle against the ever continuing and, in some centres, intensified offensive of capital, against the anti-labour and emergency laws of the Imperialist Government, aiming to deprive still further the workers of their remnants of political rights.

The task of the adherents of the militant trade union movement should be to show the greatest possible activity and initiative in developing and extending the struggle of the working class for its vital economic demands, taking into account the situation in various industries, and mobilising the masses for the struggle around urgent slogans and demands, based upon the vital needs of the masses and the degree of the their fighting capacity.

Question such as the fight against wage cuts, for the restoration of the cuts effected in the past period, for insurance against sickness and accidents, for the reinstatement of dismissed workers, for non-contributory unemployment insurance, against the anti-working class laws, etc., are the question agitating at present the broadest masses of workers. These are the slogans around which the workers should be rallied for a counter-offensive fight against capitalism and imperialism. All these issues should be linked up with the struggle for the workers’ elementary political rights; (the right to strike, freedom of organisation, freedom of the workers’ press and assembly, freedom of political prisoners, universal suffrage, etc. ...

Work in reformist Trade Unions

Persistent, systematic work inside the reformist trade unions is among the most important conditions of a successful struggle for the everyday economic and political demands of the working masses. It is necessary to develop systematic, painstaking, everyday work in all the reformist and amalgamated trade unions. While it would be a mistake to aim at crystallising in a fixed organisational form a trade union opposition, it is necessary to carry on independent work of militant education and mobilisation of the masses, in defence of their economic and political interests, tirelessly combating all tendencies of class collaboration, and explaining that the policy and practice of Gandhist non-violence objectively aids British imperialism for the enslavement of the toiling masses of India.

The more determinedly the adherents of the militant trade union movement lay stress on the consolidation of the trade unions, on the recruitment of new members to the amalgamated trade unions from among the unorganised, the more actively they join in the day-to-day work and life of the trade union organisation, always remembering the specific features of every mass union and every industry, the more boldly they will be able to come out in the defence of the workers' demands — the more successful they will prove in strengthening their positions in the reformist trade unions, in gaining the confidence of the workers and leading positions in the unions, and turning the latter into organs of the class struggle. The question of developing work in the railwaymen’s, textile workers’, dockers; seamen and municipal workers' unions, of which some are very large and have increasingly militant membership — is acquiring particular and growing significance. ...

Strengthening militant Trade Unionism

To strengthen and broaden the whole of our work in the trade union movement the adherents of the militant trade union movement should consider in the nearest future the possibilities of issuing a militant labour press, carrying propaganda through such a press from the viewpoint of the militant labour movement, publishing material on all the question of current life in India and abroad, developing a determined struggle against the reformist ideology and policy as well as the practice of class collaboration, concretely criticising the opponents of the united front and trade union unity on the basis of class struggle and trade union democracy, and rallying and organising the masses for the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

The question of assisting in the development of and bringing forward new militant working-class leaders is a problem facing acutely the militant section of the Indian trade union movement, and one which requires immediate solution. The promotion of leaders from the midst of the workers devoted to the cause of the working class, from those connected with the masses and steeled in [storm] of the class struggle, should become the main concern of the militant trade union movement. The proper allocation of those leaders, their protection, the careful and comradely notification of any shortcomings and mistakes, concrete everyday leadership and political education of cadres should not bear a casual character, but becoming a living part of the work and struggle of the adherents of the militant trade union movement. It is therefore imperative that Marxist literature be issued, short-term courses organised, etc.

... The tremendous experience over these years has shown with ever greater clearness that the Indian working class, drawing in its wake the great mass of peasantry and all the exploited mass, is destined to lead to a finish and to final victory the fight against imperialism. The bourgeois-landlord class have proved themselves incapable of leading the struggle; they move towards co-operation with imperialism and bitterly oppose every sign of mass struggle of the workers and peasants for fear of the menace to their own private interests. ... The Indian working class has a decisive role to play in the anti-imperialist people’s front as the strongest driving force.

For the working class of India to realise this important role one thing is indispensable — the development of a united trade union movement, organising the main body of the workers on the basis of their common class interests in the daily struggle. In this manner the united working class will not merely be able to pull its full weight in successful economic struggles, but will be able to bring its full strength to bear in the powerful anti-imperialist people’s front and this will be decisive for the future victory in the struggle against British imperialism.

Source: Inprecor, March 7,1936

9

Unity at Last — But with Reservations

And yet the struggle for Trade Union Unity is not over. The United Session at Nagpur constitutes a new beginning of this struggle. The advance marked by Nagpur consists only in giving a concrete organisational form to this fight. With Nagpur the struggle now emerges from the realm of discussions and negotiations into a question of practical working. And though the affiliation of the NFTU is a distinct step forward from the ineffective joint Board of 1936, still by itself it does not solve the problem of unity.

For there are a number of reservations. In the first place the NFTU affiliates as a unit and that too for one year, after which the position will be reviewed: Then there are further reservations regarding strike and political questions. The unity resolution passed by the Calcutta Session stated “with regard to political questions and strikes, individual unions will be free to take any action they please in the absence of any mandate given by the three-fourths majority of the central organisation”. The AITUC though dissatisfied,, with these reservations, accepted them as the basis for future structural unity.

These reservations serve to demonstrate the weakness of the present stage of the unity struggle. Driven by their own experience, organisations and individuals are strongly feeling the urge for a united movement. Yet they are not able to cast of their old prejudices and outlook completely. Distrust and suspicion among co-workers which in the past did irrepairable harm to the TU movement, yet holds strong sway in the minds of the moderate leaders. Otherwise one can not explain the clause demanding a three-fourths majority for strikes and political questions.

With the recognition of the NFTU as a unit and the three-fourths majority provision for strikes and political questions, a sort of second chamber is created inside the Trade Union Congress. These provisions make it impossible to have co-ordinated working class action in the TU field, or give a centralised political lead, if a majority of the NFTU unions do not favour such a step. On such occasions the central organisation will be left without direction, a ship without the rudder. The basic purpose of Trade Union Unity, namely, stronger pressure on employers through co-ordinated and simultaneous action, is negated under the present provisions. However these provisions must be considered to be transitional measures designed to bring about final unity. The danger will become acute if they are perpetuated and a second chamber with powers of veto, becomes a permanent feature of the TU movement.

Political currents within the united TUC

These reservations arising from differences in outlook and approach, emphasise the fact that a number of currents and cross currents will be at play inside the TUC. Even if the safeguards are removed, the ship of the TUC will receive sudden jerks, resulting from pulls in different directions. The new orientations of various groups and individuals will make strange combinations, till a common outlook and approach is developed. Mr. NM Joshi with his conservative politics of the Liberal Federation, will not see eye to eye with those who stand for strengthening the National Congress. He is likely to oppose collective affiliation in the name of working class independence. His orientation towards the conception of class struggle is confined to the day to day struggle of the workers. The broader problems of National Front and the role of the working class as initiator and builder of this front, are entirely lacking in his outlook. He would be opposed to the participation of the TUC in the political struggle. However Mr. Joshi, if one is to judge him by his utterances, is likely to take a strong stand on the question of arbitration and imperialist conciliation which threatens to drown the free Trade Unions. In fighting the avalanche of rival unions and arbitration bills, launched under the inspiration of the Gandhi Seva Sangha, Mr. Joshi, who in the past caused immense embarrassment to the Central Government, will prove a great asset to the united TUC.

The national orientation of a section of the NFTU leadership, led by Mr. Giri, will be another important current in the shaping of the united organisation. How far the nationalism of the Madras Minister is a product of his radical orientation and how far it is due to the parliamentary orientation of the Congress, are questions which cai only be answered by the Hon'ble Minister himself. As matters stand Mr. Giri and his followers will act as standing counsels, justifying the policy of the extreme right wing of the National Congress and holding an able brief for depending all on ministerial measures. Collective affiliation will be opposed, though the policy of strengthening the INC will receive passive support. Direct action will meet with active opposition, to avoid "embarrassment" to the Congress Ministries. This identification of Mr. Giri with the ministerial section of the INC creating another danger spot for the TU movement. Recently the Madras Labour Minister went into ruptures over the Ahmedabad Majur Mahajan, and paid glowing tributes to Gandhiji's arbitration principle. If Mr. Giri continues to be enchanted by the policy of the Gandhi Seva Sangha, he will cause immense embarrassment to the United TUC and weaken the struggle against the shackles of arbitration.

Source: National Front, April 17,1938.

 

10

Indian Working Class in Action

May Day, 1938, sees the Indian Working Class in full action in every trade and industry. The action takes various forms and ranges from conferences, huge mass-meetings, mass enrollment of union membership to mass-demonstrations and big strike-battles. ...
… Cities like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Ahmedabad, Sholapur, Cawnpore, had already come into prominence as “strike-cities”. The jute and textile workers were already branded by opponents as ‘irrepressible’ strikers. The new strike-wave brought into prominence cities and categories of workers unknown before. Far more widespread in its dimensions and intensity than the 1928-29 strike-wave, the present movement engulfed the backward trades and industries, though the workers did not possess the advantage of concentration and large numbers.

Backward workers join the fray

Tobacco workers, bidi workers, match factory workers — all one by one joined the ranks of the strikers and rallied under the Red banner of the international working class. ...

The economic basis of the strike wave

... Even a cursory glance at economic developments clearly demonstrates that the present strike-wave is the direct result of the new industrial boom through which India is passing. Thanks to the war preparations and the armaments boom, prices are looking up, stock-exchange quotations have risen, shares in iron and steel, textile, jute, have registered a heavy increase. ... The number of employed workers in Bombay reached the colossal figure of 180,000, a figure never reached before. This unprecedented increase took place in spite of the most brutal rationalisation drive, embodied in the six, three and four looms systems in the weaving sections and the increase of spindles per man in the spinning sections. ... Ahmedabad was on night-shift long before this. Even small centres like Khandesh started night-shifts.

The Sino-Japanese war not only cut off Japanese competition in the home market but also secured a large foreign market for the Bombay mill magnates. Up-country mills increased their production, quite a number started night-shifts thus demonstrating an all-round prosperity in the mill industry. The jute industry discontinued short-time as far back as 1936 and the production of sacking and Hessians rose from 2,122 million yards in 1931 to 3,500 million yards in 1936, an increase of 65%. Railway earnings continually increased and output in manganese, iron and coal registered a steady rising curve. Simultaneously with this prosperity, prices of foodstuffs began to rise and the Cost of Living Index Number of the Bombay Labour Office showed an increase of nine points over the 1934 figure. Thus the main basis of the strike struggles is the returning industrial prosperity which the owners tried to monopolise, which fact the workers were not slow to grasp. The success of the Congress at the polls and the consequent formation of popular ministries no doubt added to the enthusiasm and determination of the workers. But any attempt to trace the mighty struggles either to the machinations of the Reds or to the mere enthusiasm of the workers over the Congress ministries, misses the main basic cause — the expansion of industry and the rise in profits. ...

The working class of the offensive

In this background of rising prosperity and increased employment the strike-struggle of the Indian workers undergoes a sudden transformation. Till last year the workers were on the defensive, fighting with their backs to the wall against continued wage-cuts and attacks on their standard of living. ... Between the last and this year’s May Day, the workers pass to the offensive. Throughout India, in every industry and factory, in small and big cities, resounds the one war-cry : “Restore wages to the pre-depression level.” Restoration of old wage-cuts, increase in wages, constitute the invariable demand of the present strike-battles. The confidence and determination of the workers in putting forward this demand can be gathered from the fact that between 1933—37 wages had gone down by nearly 25%. Now the workers demand the full restoration of this monstrous wage-cut effected 5 years back, and take to the streets to gather the fruits of industrial prosperity. ... The owners are on the defensive : they seek to maintain the status quo. The workers demand a change in their own favour.

Workers demand Trade Union recognition

The working-class offensive finds expression on a still higher level. Along with the wage-increase, comes the demand for Trade Union Recognition, that mighty symbol of working-class unity and organisation. In almost every strike this democratic demand becomes a resounding war-cry for rallying thousands of workers. ... Victimisation of union officials and active workers invoke united resistance and strike-action on the part of the workers. ...

A year of progressive triumph

The Election Manifesto of the Congress and the formation of Congress ministries in seven provinces have introduced a new feature in the working class struggle. The strike-struggle wins allies from the non-proletarian sections; Congress committees support it and bring pressure on the vacillating ministries. Strikes cease to be the isolated fights of the factory workers; more and more they come to be regarded as a part of the great democratic movement, led by the National Congress. Volunteers picket mill-gates; small shop-keepers organise relief measures for starving strikers. The challenge to the workers is taken as a challenge to the Congress and the employing class gets more and more isolated. Nowhere was this tremendous urge for national unity more in evidence than at Cawnpore. The local Congress Committee lent its full support to the strike. The Provincial Congress Committee followed suit and the large mass of Congress volunteers moved to action and fought shoulder to shoulder with the workers. In the Khandesh districts of the Bombay Presidency the same story was repeated to the complete discomfiture of the recalcitrant owners. The owners here refused to grant the increase recommended by the Jairam Das Committee. The workers held out a threat of strike. The local Congress Committee denounced the owners. The MPCC urged the owners to put the recommendations into effect. Anticipating a prolonged strike the local municipality passed a resolution for organising relief measures. They came down and granted the increase recommended by the Committee.

The new strike-wave is therefore distinguished from the 1928-29 wave by the following basic features. (1) It is far more widespread in its character and embraces even backward workers. (2) In contrast to the 1928-29 struggle the present strike- battles show the working class on the offensive. (3) The fight for Trade Union Rights is far more determined than nine years back. (4) The isolation of the working class, which was a patent feature of the earlier struggles, is breaking down and strikes come to be regarded as part of the democratic movement. ...

The tasks ahead

The new working class offensive and the success scored by it bring new tasks to the forefront. The efficacy of the strike as a weapon to win basic demands has been effectively demonstrated in the past year. It has been conclusively proved that neither the Congress Ministries nor the workers can achieve anything without direct action. To sharpen this weapon and lead the working class to fresh victories — that forms the basic task of the present period.

But the Congress Ministries, inspired by the false ideology of the Gandhi Seva Sangh, are seeking to curtail the workers' right, just when it is absolutely necessary to keep it intact. The recent Bombay Bill threatens to extinguish the right to strike. The Madras proposals go one step further and openly deny the workers' right to resort to direct action. The same ideology makes Trade Union recognition become conditional on rejection of direct action, thus reducing it to a farce. To wage an irreconcilable fight against these false and reactionary proposals, to compel the Ministries to stick to the spirit of the manifesto, [such are the main tasks confronting us today.]

Source: New Age, May 1938.

 

11

New Chains for Indian Workers

BT Ranadive

Through the present amendment imperialism is extending its attack on the national struggle by still further restricting the political rights of the Indian working class. Under the amended Act provincial governments have been given the right to include Tramways and Inland Water Transport Services in the definition of public utility services. Mr. MM Joshi's amendment to exclude the Tramways was defeated by 454 votes to 5. The Congress and Independent Parties remained neutral. Thanks to this “improvement” tramways and water transport workers will be penalised for organising mass-hartals without notice. Lightning strikes for economic purposes will also be penalised. The neutrality of the Congress Party on this question is simply amazing. No Congressman, unless he wants to repudiate the whole history of the Congress can afford to remain neutral on an issue which vitally concerns the freedom of the national movement and affects the rights of the workers.

The Government sought to replace clause 16 of the old Act by an entirely new clause. The Government were not satisfied with banning every big strike, even though it might be confined to a particular industry or a particular place. In introducing the amendments in 1936 Sir Frank Noyce referred to the Bombay Textile Strike which was confined to one industry alone. With this aim in view, the Government tried to remove the words “prolonged, general and severe” from the clause. Fortunately for the workers and the people the Government were not entirely successful. The dogged fight put up by NM Joshi, Prof. Ranga, NN Gadgil and Abdul Qayyum resulted in the retention of these words, which restrict the scope of the new clause. Once more the conduct of Bhulabhai Desai, the leader of the Congress was amazing, to say the least. He agreed to the deletion of the word “prolonged” and thereby to the broadening of the scope of the new section. Mass-hartals of all industries would thus be effectively banned in future. The leader of the Congress Party has failed to protect the rights of the workers and the national movement.

The new section constitutes a further encroachment on the rights of the workers to participate in the national struggle. The old section penalises a prolonged general strike of all industries when undertaken for political purposes. The new section goes further and seeks to ban protest-strikes and demonstrations which last for a day or two. The case for political strikes was effectively put by Mr. Abdul Qayyum from the floor of the Assembly. He said: “The attempt to make political strikes illegal was dangerous because a general political strike was the only weapon in the hands of the people to wrest power. Such a strike therefore, was a necessity, and a patriotic act.” Prof. Ranga with equal force declared : “It is only through a nation-wide political strike that we are going to get any grievance redressed. ... And when such strike was called no hands could stand in the way”.

The new section does not stop here. Under it, according to Prof. Ranga, “it is open to the police to declare a strike illegal even if one of the strike-leaders used certain political phrases in the course of his address to the strikers. The danger arising frora this was greater because those who were interested in Labour were also interested in the emancipation of the country and believed that it was impossible to do anything real for Labour without getting political power”.

Source: National Front, 3 April 1938.

 

12

On Trade Union Policy

By BT Ranadive

(1) The proletariat, led by its party, must play a decisive role in the struggle for national and social emancipation. ... Disunity in its ranks, and political immaturity, are invariably attended by disastrous consequences — the triumph of Fascism and reaction. The maturity of the working class to shoulder its historic responsibility and unify the people in action at any given stage of the struggle is the one condition of its success.

(2) The task before the Marxist Party, therefore, has always been to win the majority of the Working class for its programme, policy and tactics ..... Before the party can lead the people, it must learn to lead the proletariat.

(3) ... The establishment of a permanent living link between the party and the majority of the working class is ensured only through mass trade unions, which lead the overwhelming numbers in their day-to-day conflicts, with the established order. The strength of the revolutionary party lies in the trade unions and the influence it exercises, through them to activise the entire mass of proletarians. The weakness of the German CP in the TU proved fatal not only to the working class but to the entire mass of German people.

(4) Trade unions and the economic struggle led by them thus constitute the main lever to move the working class as a class. They form the basic condition of its political unification and offer the only training ground for workers to gradually realize the political responsibility resting on their shoulders. ...

(5) This rise of trade unions in post war India and strike struggles round which they centered marked the beginning of a new chapter. Their significance lay in the fact that the class which is historically destined to play a decisive role in the anti-imperialist struggle, had started moving and laying a basic foundation for fulfilling that role ...

Where other parties saw mere economic struggles or a diversion from the main stream of the national struggle, the Communists saw a new class coming to the forefront, a class on whose political maturity depended the outcome of national struggle itself.

(6) The steadily growing strength 'of the trade unions in India, despite heavy repression and intimidation, despite the misery through which the workers have waded before even a semblance of organization could be created, works the beginning of a new era in post-war India. In 1918 no organized trade unions existed. Within a decade there were 29 registered trade unions with a membership of 1,00,619. In 1935-36 there were 236 unions, with a membership of 268,326. ...

Though the number of organized-workers (268,326) appears very small in relation to the total number (18,000,000) employed in some branch of industry or another, or even in relation to those (5,000,000) engaged in organized and regulated industries, yet it would be a mistake to deduce the actual influence and strength from the playing membership alone. ... In 1936 alone not less than 600,000 workers struck work, and the overwhelming majority carried on their struggles under the leadership of their unions.

(7) The increasing membership and influence, in different industries, the establishment of a united central organ — the TUC, — the gradual replacing of the local conflicts by nation-wide conflicts (Textile strike of 1934) —all these be taken that the working class is gradually becoming more and more unified in the day-to-day struggles and developing a co-ordinated and unified leadership. Thus the precondition laid down by Marx for the political unification of the working class namely “that a previous organization of the working class itself arising itself from the economic struggles, should have been developed up to a certain point” is being rapidly fulfilled.

(8) ... The main achievement of the last two decades may, therefore, be summarised as follows : — The trade union struggle has increased in its scope, the trade unions have become a force claiming the allegiance of thousands; every year increasing number of workers are realising the necessity of a permanent organisation to defend their own interest; the workers everywhere have overcome the resistance of the reformist leadership to direct action; the present day organizations are mostly born in the process of strike struggles. “Pure Trade Unionism” or “economism” which-at one time split the TU movement (in 1929) is no longer able to stay the march of the workers towards unification and politicalisation — freedom of political propaganda is allowed inside the TUC. Individual unions and their members freely participate in political activities without a danger of split in the TU ranks. ...

(9) With all this, the trade union movement has yet to achieve its basic task — the task of winning the entire class in the struggle for partial demands. Real class unity can be achieved only if the central organ of the TU movement plays the role of a guide, leader and unifier. The united Trade Union Congress, however, keeps to the old traditions and plays the role of a passive spectator, of gigantic struggles. It does not study the industrial situation and refuses to forewarn the workers. It has no plan for offering guidance to local unions. It makes no effort to co-ordinate the scattered struggles or make special efforts to organise the unorganized. Its unions are left to their own fate when engaged in struggles. Its existence is never felt by the workers in their hour of need. Its decisions are not known to the workers. They remain the special treasure of union officials. The TUC which must appear to every worker, as the embodiment of class unity, as the embodiment of the fighting resources of the entire proletariat, is to-day only a platform. It does not serve as a leader and co-ordinator of struggles.

The result has been that the worker looks only to his local union, and his trade union consciousness does not go beyond his immediate industrial surroundings. ...

The first step towards class unity, therefore lies in activising the TUC into a genuine leader of the working-class in its partial struggles. The TUC must seriously study problems of different industries, and be able to give its guidance to the workers. It must appeal to the workers in its own name and not only through the local unions. It should seize initiative on matters affecting the entire working class and carry on a vigorous agitation in its own name. ... The revolutionaries inside the TUC must see that the central organ discharges its responsibility in this direction.

The revolutionaries inside the TUC must be the first to carry out the mandates of the TUC and popularise them among the workers. They should be foremost in observing TUC discipline in matters which are primarily the concerns of the TU movement. ... The unity at the centre is yet to be followed by amalgamation of rival unions. This useless division in the ranks of the workers has to be ended once for all. Once more the central organ has failed to give a lead on this question. The Left must persistently demand such unification as the logical conclusion of the unity registered at Nagpur. ...

(10) ... Trade unions have become more than leaders of spontaneous strikes. They are rapidly becoming an integral part of working class life. Even though the removal of individual grievances is rendered difficult because of non-recognition of unions, still there exists a wide field open to the unions. The Acts of the central and local Govt., have never been utilised to the full by trade unions. Special agencies have developed in Bombay to secure compensation to the workers under the Workers’ Compensation Act. J he initiative thus passes out of the hands of the unions and the workers are defrauded. A close study of these Acts, the possibility of relief under these, education of the workers in connection with them, agitation for amending them, all these must be utilised by individual unions if they are to retain the loyalty of an ever-growing number.

(11) ... Since 1929, the Government of India, followed by local Governments is making strenuous efforts to attack the right of strike and organisation. Misguided legislation by some Congress Ministries is leading to the same result. Measures like the Bombay Trade Disputes Act, which endanger the freedom of the TU movement, must be combated with the full strength and the resources of working class. ... It is just because they not only disrupt the ranks of the working class, but disrupt national unity, that they have to be combated most ruthlessly. ...

(12) Defending the economic interests of the working class, struggling for TU and class unity, the revolutionaries should be able to bring larger and larger sections face to face with their political responsibilities. The main task that faces the proletariat to-day is that of national unification under the banner of the Congress. The working class as a class does not to-day strive for this task consciously and effectively. Neglect of the trade union struggle by national leaders, the prejudices which hitherto existed against it among the bulk of Congressmen, its consequent development as an exclusive struggle, coupled with the old traditions of “economism”, have been responsible for a certain estrangement and apathy towards the Congress. ... The fact that the backward section of workers still continue to be swayed by anti-Congress Communal leaders (Muslim League, Ambedkar in Bombay) and the fact that a section of the TU leadership itself is hostile to the national organisation, complicates the problem still further.
It is under these difficult circumstances that the task of drawing the workers into the Indian National Congress has to be carried forward. The estrangement and the apathy of the workers has to be overcome; the consciousness that the National Congress is the organ of national unification, that it is their task to make it more effective has to be created.

(13) This task has to be achieved without splitting trade union unity, without turning the backward workers away from the union. Trade union unity and mass mobilisation under individual unions, form the very basis of the task. Any attempt, therefore, to impose high-sounding resolutions by means of a majority vote (Socialist resolution at Cawnpore) asking the reformist leadership to accept the political line of the revolutionary wing is nothing short of disruption.

(14) ... By joining the Congress in their thousands, by participating in all political meetings and demonstrations organised by the Congress, the working class shall be able to increasingly influence the Congress and strengthen those forces inside it that stand for the policy of unity and struggle, for support by the Congress to the struggles of workers.

At the same time efforts must be made to move the Congress towards the working class, to make the Congress organisations take such stand as will enable it to increase its influence over the entire working class including even its backward sections. ...

(15) To carry out this task successfully, the revolutionary leadership should be able to appeal effectively to the people, the Congressmen; this means that the appeal from the TU platform must be replaced by an appeal to the democratic conscience and aspirations of the non-working class sections. The criticism of reactionary ministerial actions must be turned to the consciousness of the public, even strike strategy and tactics will have to be decided with a view to win public sympathy and Congress support. In short in conducting struggles and the trade union movement in general, the revolutionaries must never forget that they are a part of the people's struggle and their success depends not only on working class unity, but on the united resistance of the entire population.

(16) Developing the trade union struggle as a part of the people's struggle, the revolutionary leadership will be able to make it more effective and thereby over-come the resistance of TU sections. Its success will bring even the most backward workers under the TU banner and pave the way for complete class unity. The main demands of the working class such as minimum living wage, and right of trade union organization etc., will for the first time be considered as part of the people’s demands and the working class will secure strong sanctions to enforce them. ... The TU movement will be recognised as a limb of the national movement and the working class as its powerful arm. ...

(17) To develop the TUC into an active leader of the partial struggles, to wage a vigorous fight for immediate demands, and to develop every struggle in close co-operation with the Congress, without splitting trade union unity — these to-day form the basic tasks before the revolutionaries. They will achieve the political unification of the working class, enabling it to fulfil its decisive role, only to the extent they succeed in achieving the above tasks.

Source: New Age, May 1939

1

Letter To CPT Regarding Formation of CPI

No. 638                                                                                                                           20 XII 1920

TURKESTAN BUREAU                                                                                                  Tashkent

To : The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkestan

It is hereby testified that the Communist Party of India has been organised here in accordance with the principles of the Third International. The Indian Communist Party is working under the political guidance of the Turkestan Bureau of the Comintern.

Seal                                                        Secretary in-charge
(who writes the minutes)                        (Turkestan Bureau)
                                                               Roy Tech^[1] Secretary sd. (illegible)

Note:

1.   who writes the minutes
 

2

Minutes of The Meeting Held On l7 October 1920

The Communist Party of India founded at Tashkent on 17 October 1920 consists of the following members :

(1) M N Roy, (2) Evelyn Trent-Roy, (3) AN Mukherji, (4) Rosa Fitingov, (5) Mohd. Ali (Ahmed Hasan), (6) Mohd. Shafiq Siddiqi, (7) Acharya (M Prativadi Bhayankar).

It adopted a resolution establishing the condition of, 3 months’ probation period (as candidate member) for those persons who wished to join the party.

Comrade Shafiq is elected as secretary.
The Indian Communist Party adopts principles proclaimed by the Third International and undertakes to work out a programme suited to the conditions in India.

Seal
                                      Chairman: M Acharya
                                      Secretary: Roy

 

3

Minutes Of The Meeting Of The Communist Party Of India

Dated 15 December 1920 At Tashkent

The following three persons are admitted to the party as candidate members: (1) Abdul Qadir Sehrai, (2) Masood Ali Shah Kazi, (3) AkbarShah(Salim).

After that a resolution to elect an Executive Committee of three members of the party (was passed). Comrades Roy, Shafiq and Acharya were elected (as the executive). Shafiq was elected the secretary and Acharya the chairman of the Executive Committee.

It was decided that the party be registered in Turkestan and Acharya is entrusted with this task ... [The document is torn below this.]

 

4

Should The Communist Party Be A Secret Society ?

(Abridged)

To,
The Editor, The Socialist, Bombay.

Dear Sir,

May I have the use of your journal to answer the Open letter addressed to me by Mr Bagerhatta, member, All India Congress Committee? This letter was published in the Socialist of 24 September.

Mr. Bagerhatta raises two questions: (I) The necessity of organising a communist party; and (2) how this party should function. On the first question there is no difference, ... On the second point however he labours under some misunderstanding. He appears to think that we prefer an illegal existence to open political activity. ... But the fact of the matter is that on many an occasion we have deprecated the organisation of secret societies for conducting a great political movement, and we have registered our opinion unmistakably against the futile terrorism advocated by the nationalist secret societies, ...

Nevertheless the fact remains that so far communist propaganda has had an illegal character in India. Now the question is, whether this illegality has been of our own choice or has been forced upon us. Undoubtedly the latter is the case; we were forced underground, because we were denied the freedom to act openly ... the first stage of the communist party is bound to be marked by a bitter struggle for the right to a legal existence. The moment has arrived to begin this struggle.

When we talk of a communist party, what we have in mind is a political party reflecting essentially the interests of the working class, in which category the masses of the poor peasantry are included. Therefore our party will be a party representing the overwhelming majority of the nation. There is no constitutional pretext on which such a party can be denied the right to a legal existence. But precisely for this reason that we propose not to organise study-circles or a small sect preaching fanatically a novel socio-economic philosophy, but to mobilise the masses of the people under the banner of our party for a gigantic political struggle, we have been subjected to determined persecution from the very beginning. In the Kanpur Case, the judge as well as the prosecution counsel declared that communism or a communist party, as such, did not constitute a criminal offence ... what does it mean ? It means that the government would not consider us dangerous if we lived in the height of theoretical isolation; but applied communism is not tolerable ...

We must struggle for legal existence. The findings of the Kanpur court provide the starting point. A communist party is not criminal. Let it be organised; but there should be no illusion. The government will demand that it be a “communist party as such”, that is, a party which indulges in a dream which will be realised in some distant future, and which leaves the present alone. Our reply will be that the communist party must exist, not by the sanction of the government, but as a historic necessity — by its own power. All suggestions to trim our sails for the sake of legality should be dismissed. Illegal existence is bad; it places us under great disadvantages. But legality, which is attained at the sacrifice of our political demands, is worse; it will render us an impotent sect. In the advocacy of the much-needed legalisation, this highly dangerous tendency is discernible. This tendency is to be found in Mr. Bagcrhatla when he says, “It (communism) is purely an economic movement, and we will bring success at our feet without pains.” I am sure that Mr. Bagerhatta does not fully comprehend what this sentence implies. It contains the germs of “economism”, which ignores the fact that that without political power no economic change or social transformation can be realised. The so-called Labour Kisan Party of Mr. Singaravelu Chettiar of Madras was born under this evil star and, consequently, was suffocated in its own impotency. The programme of the above party was to secure “labour swaraj” and economic amelioration of the masses. It started out on This ambitious task, totally ignoring the realities of the situation. It was simply ridiculous to talk of labour swaraj while the burning question of national swaraj was still unsolved; it was equally ridiculous to suggest any way of ameliorating the economic conditions of the masses without challenging the political institutions which created those conditions. Yet the Labour Kisan Party, which chose to call itself communist, put forth this ridiculous programme to insure its legal existence. This inordinate zeal for a legal existence cost the party its existence altogether. Shall we make the same mistake ?

The question of the legalisation of the communist party should not be a diplomatic question. It is a broad political issue, and should be dealt with as such ...

... I affirm once more that the communist party stands upon too broad a political platform to fit into the narrow limits of "secret societies". But it will" be suicidal to buy legality at the sacrifice of the cardinal points of the communist programme as applied to the present situation in India.

M N Roy

Source: Meerut Conspiracy Case, Exhibit, p 1138

 

5

Constitution Of The Communist Party Of India

(Adopted on 27 December, 1925)

Article 1 : Object

The establishment of a workers’ and peasants’ republic based on the socialisation of the means of production and distribution, by the liberation of India from British imperialist domination.

Article 2 : Sessions of the CP India

(a) The Communist Party of India shall ordinarily hold its conference every year during the month of October at a place that may have been determined by the central executive hereinafter referred to.
(b) An extraordinary session shall be summoned by the central executive on a requisition of a majority of the provincial committees or of its own motion in case of grave emergencies.

Article 3 : The component parts of the CPI

The Communist Party of India shall consist of the following:

(a) central executive
(b) provincial committees
(c) district committees
(d) Other working-class unions as may be affiliated to it from time to time.

Article 4: Membership

No one shall be eligible to be a member of any of the committees or unions referred to in the forgoing article unless he or she has attained the age of 18 and has expressed his or her acceptance of the object as laid down in article 1 of this constitution of the Communist Party of India.

Article 5 : Provincial organisation

(a) Each provincial committee, district or other committee referred to in the article 3, shall have the power to frame rules laying down conditions of membership and for the conduct of business not inconsistent with this constitution.

(b) Each provincial committee shall consist of representatives elected annually by members of the district organisations in the province in accordance with its number.

(c) An annual report shall be submitted by each provincial committee of the work done by the end of each year.

Article 6: Delegates

Any bonafide worker or peasant shall be eligible for election as delegate for the annual conference.

Article 7: Fee

The delegation fee shall be fixed at a minimum of eight jnnas.

Article 8 : Election of the president

The several provincial committees shall suggest by the end of — to the central executive the names of persons who are in their opinion eligible for presidentship of the conference and the central executive shall submit these names to the provincial committees for final recommendations.

Article 9 : Central executive

Every union or committee referred to in article 3 will be authorised to send one representative for every 25 members. The election of the central executive shall take place at least a month before the annual conference.

The central executive shall meet as often as may be necessary for the discharge of its obligation and every time upon the requisition by 10 members thereof who shall state therein the purpose for which they desire a meeting of the central executive. The quorum shall be 1/3 of its whole strength.

Article 10: Function

The central executive shall be committee of the party to carry out the programme of work laid down by the conference from year to year and deal with new matters that may arise during the year and may not be provided for by the conference itself.

Article 11: President of the CE

The president of the conference shall be the chairman of the central executive for the following year.

Article 12: Office-bearers of the CE

The CE shall have three general secretaries and two treasurers who shall be annually elected by the CE.

6

Election of Office-Bearers

Proceedings of the meeting of the central executive held on 28 December at 10 am. in the president’s camp, Kanpur.

The first meeting of the central executive of the Communist Party of India was held today dated 28 December 1925. The following business was transacted:

Comrades Hasrat Mohani, Azad Sobhani, S Satyabhakta, SD Hassan, Muzaffar Ahmad, KN Joglckar, SV Ghate, Baba Rana Choube, Radha Mohan Gokulji, and JP Bagerhatta were present. Comrade M Singaravelu was in the chair.

1. The first item on the agenda i.e., the election of office-bearers and organisers was taken and the following elections were unanimously declared:

• JP Bagerhatta, KN Joglekar, SV Ghate and RS Nimbkar (Bombay)
• Hasrat Mohani, Azad Sobhani, S Satyabhakta and Baba Rana Choube (UP)
• Muzaffar Ahmad and Radha Mohan Gokulji (Calcutta)
• Kameswara Rao and Krishnaswamy Ayyangar (Madras)
• SD Hassan, Ram chandra and Abdul Majid (Lahore)

Item no 2: Election of the vice-president: Comrade Azad Sobhani was unanimously elected as the vice-president of the CE for the coming year.

Item no 3 : Comrades JP Bagerhatta and SV Ghate were elected general secretaries of the CE.

Item no 4: Comrade Krishnaswamy Ayyangar (Madras), S Satyabhakta (Kanpur) Muzaffar Ahmad (Calcutta) and SD Hassan (Lahore) were appointed secretaries for the circles noted against their names to undertake committee's work in the provinces so long as no committees were formed by the people there.

Item no 5: The central office of the committee was resolved to be transferred to Bombay for the ensuing year.

Item no 6 : Resolved, comrade Ghate be paid Rs 60 a month for his own private expenses and be placed in charge of the head-office at Bombay.

General Secretary
Communist Party of India

7
Resolutions

The following resolutions were put from the chair and carried unanimously :

(1) That this conference sympathises with the communist sufferers all over the world and expresses its strong indignant disapproval of the imprisonment of the communist comrades in Great Britain as opposed to liberty of thought and speech.

(2) That this conference emphatically condemns the action of the USA in preventing Mr. Saklatvala from entering the States.

(3) That this conference, while holding undermentioned comrades as not being guilty of the offences with which they are wrongly charged, places on record its high appreciation of the sacrifices undergone by them in the cause of communism

(4) That the conference resolves that the Labour-Kisan party of Hindustan be dissolved and the Labour and Kisan Gazette be the organ of the Party.

(5) That this conference appreciated the protest made by the French Communists against the war waged by the French government against Riffs and Druses.

M Singaravelu
President

8

Declaration Form

(To be signed by the members of the Communist Party of India.) Whereas the workers and peasants of India are unable to live a human life on account of their being exploited both by the foreign and native capitalists and landlords in India. And whereas the existing political parties in this country are dominated by bourgeois interests which are diametrically opposed by the well-being of Indian workers and peasants, I, the undersigned, aged ___, hereby accept and sign the creed of the COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA which stands for the establishment of a workers’ and peasants’ republic in India. I have carefully gone through the resolutions of the first communist conference printed on the back and fully agree with the immediate object of the party which is the securing of a living wage for the workers and peasants by means of nationalisation of public services, namely land, mines, factories, houses, telegraphs and telephones, railways and such other public utilities which require common ownership. I belong to no such communal organisation which can debar me from joining this party.

I herewith pay eight annas — the subscription for my membership for the ensuing year.

Signature

Address in full:

(The declarant is requested to sign two such forms one of which is to be kept with the enrolling secretary and the other one should be sent to the general secretaries of the central executive).

(On the back)

The resolutions of the first Communist Conference held at kanpur on the 26th day of December 1925 for the establishment and formation of the COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA.

Whereas the workers and peasants of India are unable to live a human life on account of being exploited both by foreign and native capitalists and landlords in India. And whereas the existing political parties in India are dominated by bourgeois interests which are diametrically opposed to the well-being of the Indian workers and peasants. This conference of the Indian communists resolves that a party be formed for the purpose of the emancipation of the workers and peasants of India. This party shall be known as the COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA and the ultimate aim of the party shall be the establishment of a republican swaraj of workers and peasants, and the immediate object of the party shall be the securing of a living wage to the workers and peasants by means of nationalisation and municipalisation of public services namely land, mines, factories, houses, telegraphs and telephones, and railways and such other public utilities which require public ownership.

For the purpose of achieving these objectives, the party shall form labour and peasants' unions in rural and urban areas, enter district and taluk boards, municipalities and assemblies, and by such other means and methods carry out the ideal and immediate programme of the party with or without the cooperation of the existing political bodies in India.

The party shall have a central office, with two general secretaries for conducting its business and the president of the conference shall be the president of the party for the year before the next conference. The party shall consist of communists only, who should pledge themselves to carry out the object of the party.

No one who is a member of any communal organisation in India shall be admitted as a member of the Communist Party.

The Communist Party of India shall ordinarily hold its congress session every year during the X’mas week.

The party shall have a central executive committee consisting of 30 members elected by various provincial organisations.

The EC shall have the following five provincial centres with Calcutta, Bombay, Kanpur, Madras and Lahore as their head-offices under its supervision to carry on the work in these circles.

The central executive shall have a council of seven members, with the president as its ex-officio member, to execute all emergency matters that may arise from time to time which come within its scope.

Every member shall pay eight annas as subscription for his membership to the enrolling secretary, 25 per cent of which will be sent to the CE as quota and the remaining part of its will remain with the provincial secretaries.

All the provincial organisations shall submit their working report to the secretaries of the central executive every quarter.

General Secretaries
CE, Communist Party of India

9

Excerpts from a Press Communique

Communist Party of India Aims And Objects

As a result of the session of the First Communist Conference at Kanpur the provisional Indian Communist Party was dissolved and a formal party with its name as the Communist party of India has been formed. The ultimate goal of the party will be the establishment of a workers' and peasants' republic in India. And the immediate object of the party shall be the securing of a living wage for the workers and peasants by means of nationalisation and municipalisation of public services; namely land, mines, factories, houses, telegraphs, telephones, railways and such other public utilities which require public ownership. The party shall for the attainment of the above object form labour and peasants’ union in urban and rural areas, enter district and taluk boards, municipalities and assemblies and by such other means and methods carry out the ideal and programme of the party with or without the cooperation of the existing political parties in the country.

The party shall have a central executive of 30 members returned by provincial committees and a council of seven members to execute all emergency matters.

The party shall consist of communists only who will pledge themselves to carry out its objects and no one who is a member of any communal organisation can be admitted as a member of this party.

Every member shall pay eight annas annually as subscription for his membership to the enrolling secretaries.

The office of the central executive shall be in Bombay with comrades Janaki Prasad Bagerhatta and SV Ghate as general secretaries for the year. Maulana Azad Sobhani of Kanpur has been elected as its vice-president and Comrade M Singaravelu the president of the conference will preside on the central executive for the ensuing year. Comrade Krishnaswamy Ayyangar (Madras), S Satyabhakta (Kanpur), Radha Mohan Gokulji and Muzaffar Ahmad (Calcutta) and SD Hassan (Lahore) will be working as provincial secretaries to organise provincial committees in their respective provinces. The next meeting of the central executive will meet early in April to begin effective work and formulate a scheme of work for the year.

 

10

Working Council of the CEC Resolutions

(1) This meeting of the council of the central executive accepts the invitation of second communist congress form Lahore and resolves that the congress be held in the month of March between 17 and 20 March.

The committee further authorises the reception committee to organise funds for the conference and requests the committee to send to the general secretaries a copy of their bylaws immediately.

(2) The general secretaries be authorised to issue the agenda of the conference, with the consent of the president-elect, to the members of the executive of the present year and to the newly-elected members by the provincial centres. The provincial secretaries be requested to send the list of the members authorised by their centres to join the subjects committee which will make the executive for the coming year.

(3) Whereas the Communist Party of India has now established itself formally, though the organisational work must still continue, it is necessary that the party adopts a more complete constitution for its guidance for the coming year, and appoints the following gentlemen to draft a constitution to be placed before the next congress. The committee will invite suggestions from other members also. The following were elected members of the above committee: (a) the president, (b) both the general secretaries, (c) Muzaffar Ahmad, (d) SD Hassan.

(4) Whereas in the opinion of this committee the internment of Comrade M Shafiq immediately after his release form 3 years’ imprisonment by the Frontier government is a repression unparalleled in the history of civilised government, this committee strongly condemns the action of the North-West Frontier government and places on record the services rendered by Comrade Shafiq to the cause of communism in India and foreign lands.

(5) The committee further condemns the action of the North-West Frontier government in restricting the liberty of Comrade Gauhar Rahaman, and treating-him as an ordinary criminal.

(6) The committee expresses its full sympathy with the popular movement for liberty in China and Dutch Indies. The committee further congratulates the British miners on their heroic struggle and historical role they are playing in the cause of a proletarian revolution in England.

(7) Whereas in the opinion of this committee the action of Comrade Saklatvala in sending the copy of his letter to the secretary of reception committee to the press is quite objectionable and a great blow to the cause of communism in India, this committee strongly protests against his action.

The committee further repudiates the allegations made by him against the party.

(8) Comrade Muzaffar Ahmad was finally elected unanimously for the presidentship of the ensuing congress.

16 Januaiy 1927

Source:   Indian Quarterly Register, 1927.

 

11

Extended Meeting of the Central Executive of the CPI

Excerpts from

Executive’s Annual Report, 1927

We have the pleasure to submit to you the following report of the work done by us during the year ending 31May 1927 and before we proceed to discuss other points, it is, in our opinion, necessary to give you a short history of the Communist Party of India which will go a long way to clear the misunderstanding prevailing in some quarters about us. Our movement, as all of you know, is neither one imported from abroad, nor a group maintained by Russia for its propaganda in India, as the vested interests say, to unpopularise Soviet in this country. Really speaking, it is the development of the social forces that have brought us all together, and have helped the formation of this party. [After a brief description of the political scene in the early twenties, the report continues:]

Immediately after we parted fromKanpur, a meeting was called by Muzaffar Ahmad at Calcutta of all the provincial organisers and other members with the idea of changing the headquarters of the party from Bombay to Delhi, since it was found difficult to go on with it at Bombay, as was decided at Kanpur. At the same time a manifesto on the hindu-muslim problem which had become very tense at the time was issued suggesting that only an organisation of the masses based on an economic program would unite the different communities on a common platform. Subsequently the manifesto was proscribed by the Burma and Central Provinces government. About seven hundred rupees were promised out of which 600 were collected.

Later a regular office was started at Delhi with Bagerhatta in charge. He was later joined by Ghate and organisation work was started.

It was then decided to hold a propaganda conference at Delhi in November last. The general secretaries went on a propaganda tour all over the country but the conference could not be held because of an unexpected raid on the office of HA Nasim, the general secretary of the reception committee, and we have reasons to believe that our correspondence was interfered with, in spite of the home member's assurance to the contrary that our correspondence, including that with foreign organisations, was legal. All this gave a strong blow to the young party and it took another two or three months to recover from the attack ...

Record of Work Done During the period [Work done in Bengal, Lahore (Punjab) and Bombay having been already covered by us, the description of progress in these places is omitted here. — Ed.]

Rajputana: In the province of Rajputana, Bagerhatta, the general secretary, with the help of Pundit Arjunlal Sethi, has been able to have an effective majority in the provincial congress committee. This provincial congress committee has returned 3 members, two republicans, out of the 7 seats allotted to the all-India congress committee. Trade union activities could not be started because Bagerhatta had to devote a great part of his time and energies to the all-India organisation of our party. Recently a W and P organisation has been started and efforts are being made to organise industrial labour.

Madras: Singaravelu has been doing good propaganda work and has been devoting greater portion of his time to trade-union and strike activities. There is no other organisation excepting the Labour and Kisan Party. In his position as a member of the municipal corporation, Singaravelu has been doing propaganda there.

UP and other Provinces : Efforts were made to organise work in other provinces, but owing to lack of sufficient financial resources, we have not been able to organise any effective left wing, though desire has been expressed by a few communists in certain provinces. In the United Provinces particularly, Azad Sobhani has been able to create a favourable atmosphere for labour activities and we hope that young men would come forward and take up the work.

General Support

We have not been able to enlist that support which we expected while forming this party. Our handicaps in the way of carrying on propaganda amongst the students and young intelligentsia which could have given us a number of conscious workers for the party and also in the way of approaching all labour and peasants’ organisations, at this stage, for the purpose of promoting the party’s program, were mainly caused by lack of funds. It is very essential that energies are directed towards raising at least that small amount of money which is necessary for enabling our comrades to visit all important industrial centres for the purpose of taking stock of the situation in the different provinces and for coming into direct contact with the proletariat. It will only be then that we can promote the program of the party and give the masses a right understanding about our own party. Efforts were made to start a central organ of the party and in spite of the little help that we could get from our comrades, it was found difficult to start a party organ without our own press, as no press was prepared to suffer, if it came to that.

Government’s Attitude Towards the Party

Though the rulers have in no way directly come into a collision and nothing can, as yet, be said about their attitude towards us, yet the interference with our correspondence, and proscribing of our Calcutta manifesto and the publications of the Communist Party of Great Britain and recently of the 3rd International with all those of other communist parties, etc., will leave no doubts regarding their efforts to stifle our propaganda. Last year we were given to understand by the government of India that our correspondence was quite legal, but this does not seem to have held good in practice, and we are afraid that many letters meant for us have never reached their destinations. ...

Before parting with the responsibilities given to us last year, and while making it over to you, we wish a great success to the cause which we have tried to serve to the best of our abilities.

The constitution of the Communist Party of India

l. Name — The name of the party is the Communist Party of India.

2. Membership — Only those subscribing to the program laid down by the Communist International will be eligible for its membership.

3. Subscription — Each member of the party shall pay not less than Rs. 12 annually or in four installments as may be decided by the executive, the default in which will cause a lapse in membership.

4. Admission Fee — Will be Re 1 payable on signing the membership form. Every applicant for membership shall be required to get his form countersigned by at least two members of the party executive.

5. Annual Session — The Communist Party of India shall hold an annual meeting of all the members which shall be the highest authority to discuss and adopt the report of the retiring executive, congress and trade-union groups and shall, on the basis of the same, form a program for the ensuing year. Election of the office bearers and a central executive, discussing of the audited statement of accounts, and other resolutions on the agenda shall be the main business of the annual session.

6. Responsibility for Administration — The affairs of the party when not in session, shall be regulated and administered by the executive council, which will be elected on the principle of centralisation not territorially; it will be elected from the floor of the entire party membership and which will not act in any manner inconsistent with the resolution of the party.

7. The party, shall have the following executive offices — presidium of 5 members, one general secretary, one treasurer. There will be no president of the party and every meeting shall elect its own president during its sittings.

8. The Central Executive — The central executive of the party shall consist of the 5 member of the presidium, the general secretary and the treasurer and eight other members elected by the party. The executive shall ordinarily meet three times in a year at such time and place as the general secretary in consultation with the presidium may decide.

9. Notice for the Central Executive — The general secretary will issue the agenda of the central executive mentioning the date, time, and place of the meeting not later than 20 clear days before the meeting.

10. When no meeting of the central executive can be called, the general secretary in consultation with the presidium may circulate to the members for opinion such matters as require immediate action and the opinion of the majority of the members shall have the same force as they were passed at the meeting of the central executive.

11. Presidium — The party shall elect a presidium for the following purposes : (a) To investigate complaints which may be referred to it by the central executive and to make suggestions for dealing with the same, (b) To investigate complaints of individuals against disciplinary measures taken against them by other party organs and submit their opinion on the same to the central committee for definite action, (c) Supervise and organise small party groups in all other political institutions like the Trade Union Congress and the Indian National Congress. (d) To receive the reports of the group leaders, working in different political bodies and to circulate them among the executive members. (e) To deal with all foreign affairs with the sanction of the executive.

12. The candidates for membership of the presidium must be the party members of the highest possible standing. They must be active workers in the political field for at least five years.

13. Foreign Bureau — The presidium with the sanction of the CE will maintain a foreign bureau as an ideological centre, composed of comrades who are not in a position to work inside the country. The foreign bureau will be representative of the CE and will act as the organ through which the international relations of the party will be maintained. But it will not in any way work inconsistent with the party's program and resolutions. The foreign bureau will have a regular office at a place of their convenience and will keep a constant touch with all the CPs and the Comintern and will give publicity to Indian affairs.

14. Party Discipline — Strict party discipline is demanded from all members and party organisations. Discussion on all questions is completely open so long as no decision is taken. When a decision has been taken it must be promptly operated by all members and organs.

15. Breach of party discipline calls for action by responsible party organs. Action against party organs includes censure, suspension, or even dissolution of the organisation with re-registering of membership.
Against individual membership, action may be censure, dismissal from office or expulsion. In matters of emergency, action can be taken by the presidium and appeal will be allowed before the executive and the party.

16. Fractions — In all working classes, political and national organisations, where there are two or more communists, a party fraction must be organised for the purpose of increasing the influence of the party and applying its policy. These fractions will not be independent when formed and will be subordinate to party discipline and program.

17. In all bodies like the National Congress executive i.e., the All-India Congress Committee and the executive of the Trade Union Congress, the party will form fractions, which will be placed under the control of the presidium, where the fraction leaders, who will be appointed by the executive committee, will have to submit reports of the work done in the respective bodies. In all such matters, where the opinion of the members in the fraction may differ, it will be guided by the presidium until the executive meets.

18. Every question to be decided by the organisation or branch in which the fraction is working, should be discussed beforehand by the fraction meeting, and a report of their decision should be sent to the general secretary who will circulate it to the presidium. On every question on which a decision is reached, the fraction members must act unitedly and vote solidly in the meeting of the organisation hi question. Failure to do this constitutes a serious breach of party discipline.

19. Minimum Program — The Communist Party of India at its annual sessions will formulate a regular program and policy to be worked through the National Congress and the Trade Union Congress and form party groups called the comrades' fractions to work there on behalf of the party. The party will also form minimum programs on the lines of which it will seek cooperation with the existing workers ^nd political parties.
20. The central executive shall have powers to frame laws for the conduct of the communists in other political groups but they will not be inconsistent with those laid down by this constitution.

21. The Central Office — The place of the central office will be decided by the executive committee where the records of the party will be kept and publications issued.

Resolutions on the Party programme, elections, etc.
……….

Imperialism condemned

The following resolutions were unanimously passed:

1. The Communist Party of India looks up to the communist parties of the world, as well as the International, for lead and guidance, in the work undertaken by this party in this country.

2. The Communist Party of India desires that a delegation composed of JP Bagerhatta, Muzaffar Ahmad, RS Nimbkar do travel Great Britain and the continent to study labour conditions in those countries. The delegation shall submit a report to the party.

3. This Party emphatically condemns the imperialist designs on China and sympathises with the Chines in their struggle for securing economic salvation.

4. This meeting of the Communist Party of India condemns the Anglo-Soviet rupture, brought about by the conservative government, as one of the many attempts of imperialism to drive Russia on the verge of a war.

5: This party considers the present trade-union bill, introduced in Great Britain, as a direct challenge to the rights of labour to unite against capitalists and assures the working classes of Great Britain of its fullest sympathy in their struggle against capitalist aggression.

Programme

6. Whereas, in the opinion of the Communist Party of India it is only the dynamic energies of the toiling masses that can bring swaraj to India, and whereas the present bourgeois leadership in the Congress has proved itself to be gradually compromising with imperialism, and as such is directly in opposition to the interests of the masses, this party calls upon all its members to enroll themselves as members of the Indian National Congress, and form a strong left wing in all its organs for the purpose of wresting them from the present alien control.

This party further calls upon the communists to cooperate with the radical-nationalists there, to formulate a common program on the lines of the following minimum program laid down by this party:

(a) (i) Complete national independence, and the establishment of a democratic republic based on universal adult suffrage, (ii) Abolition of landlordism, (iii) Reduction of land rent and indirect taxation, higher incidence of graduated income-tax, (iv) Modernisation of agriculture with state aid. (v) Nationalisation of public utilities, (vi) Industrialisation of the country with state aid. (vii) 8 hour-day and minimum wage.

(b) For the promotion of the above program, the communist members of the Congress shall contemplate to form a republican wing in the All-India Congress Committee with the cooperation of the left wing of the Congress.

(c) That all the activities regarding elections to legislatures, municipalities, local boards, etc. shall be decided upon by the central executive from time to time.

(d) All important issues coming before the All-India Congress Committee shall first be discussed in the party group and instructions issued to its representatives in the All India Congress Committee to that effect.

(e) The members of the party shall not be members of any communal organisation and shall always try to expose the class character of such movements.

Trade Union Congress

7. Whereas it is found that the middle class leadership in the All-India Trade Union Congress has solely been responsible for keeping itself isolated form the proletariat, it is necessary that the communist members do enter the Trade Union Congress, and organise labour unions and get them affiliated to the Trade Union Congress, with a view to wrest it from its present bourgeois leadership. The comrades’ section in the Trade Union Congress will put up the following minimum program as the immediate demands of the working class: (a) Legal limitation of work to eight hours a day, (b) legal minimum wage, (c) abolition of employment of women and children under the age of 18, (d) abolition of employment of women underground, at night and in dangerous occupations, (e) schemes of maternity benefits, old age, sickness and unemployment insurance, (f) workmen’s compensation and employers’ liability, (g) freedom of organisation of trade unions, exemption from liability, for the acts of individual members and freedom to take part in political activities, (h) weekly payment of wages and (i) legislation providing for adequate safety devices in factories and mines.

8. The Communist Party of India approves of the program laid down by the workers’ and peasants’ parties of Bengal, Bombay and Rajputana, and enjoins the members to work out this program. The members shall try to form similar organisations where such do not exist.

9. This party congratulates Awari and his colleagues who are trying to establish their right to carry arms by “satyagraha” against the arms act.

10. This meeting emphatically condemns the recent order of the government of India, in proscribing all advanced literature from entering into this country, as an attempt to stifle the legitimate growth of free thought.

11. This meeting condemns the unjust terms that have been forced upon GR. Darveshi by the North-West Frontier Province government.

12. This meeting condemns the action of the North-West Frontier Provincial government in interning Shafiq who was to have presided over the proposed conference of this party in November last.

13. This meeting sympathises with Usmani and Akbar Khan in their sufferings in jail.

14. The Communist Party of India welcomes Dange back from jail and hopes that he will be able to resume his activities immediately he revives his health.

15. The Communist Party of India congratulates Babu Subhas Bose on the courage he has shown in not accepting the terms of government at the sacrifice of his principle.

Office-bearers

 

12

 

Excerpts from

Manifesto of CPI To All Workers

Comrades,

The working class is now entering upon a period of trouble and suffering, of great dangers and great opportunities, which it will have to face solidly as a class if it is to avoid many further years of slavery and degradations. We have recently passed through big strikes, and we shall soon have to fight many more. A big crisis is coming in industry and the government is showing in the TD bill and PS bill what sort of reception it is preparing. The political events of the last few months, constituting a series of demonstrations by the masses of the people and of answering acts of repression by the government, show that a crisis in the struggle for national freedom is also approaching. The news from Afghanistan, from China, from America and from Europe, all go to show that a big world-war is coming in the near future. Then we shall see probably a great attack by all imperialist powers to crush the Workers' Republics of Russia. Or one group of imperialist robbers will fight another group, and there will be a hideous slaughter of the masses of the people by war, by disease and by famine, and awful suffering, through high prices and low wages, hunger and slave-driving for the remainder, all for the selfish purposes of the capitalist masters of the world. ...

Comrades! the crisis is approaching. Very soon we shall be crushed under the new Trade Disputes act. Very soon war will again be upon us. Again the bourgeois nationalists of the congress are putting themselves at the head of the mass movement, as they did seven years ago, simply in order to betray it. Why did the great mass movement of that time collapse, leaving imperialism still victorious and the masses still in the depths of degradation of poverty? Because the leadership was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, who were drawn by their class interests towards imperialism and betrayed and deceived the masses.

Yet still today bourgeois ‘leaders’ are controlling the movement. In spite of all their talk of “the Masses” they are still burning foreign cloth as if that will get independence! They are still giving imperialism ‘another chance’ as if they are not certain that imperialism is their enemy! The bourgeois labour leaders are still trying to enter into cooperation with imperialism, through the Whitely commission. They still hold back the development of the labour movement splitting and disorganising it for their own class purposes.

How can we stop this nonsense ? How can we see that the masses are properly led to the struggle ? Only by taking the lead from our own hands into the hands of the working class. Only by pressing the real policy of the working class i.e., workers’ political party, the Communist Party.

Communism is based on the class-struggle. In society now we see more and more clearly two classes — owners and workers.

The owners are few, rich, powerful and educated, they control the government, the police, the law courts, the prisons, the army and navy, the newspapers, the industries. The workers are many, poor, weak and ignorant, they are always oppressed by the forces at the disposal of the capitalists. ...

The policy of the Communist Party to end this struggle, which brings with it so much misery and degradation, is for the workers to fight and win it. The workers must defeat the capitalists decisively, must out them, and become themselves the owners of industry, and possessors of state power, controlling education, health policy, the police-force and law courts, the army and navy, and all the apparatus of society. Then, and only then, when there have been established workers' rule, socialism, will the working class be properly cared for, properly paid, not exploited, educated free.

The working class must conquer power, as the working class of Russia has done and establish its own dictatorship, when the efforts of the capitalists to get back what they have lost, will be suppressed with all the power of the state. Then the wealth and power wielded today by the capitalists will be used, not as new for selfish purposes, but for the advancement of civilisation, the feeding of the poor, the education of the ignorant, the healing of the sick. Then under the dictatorship of the workers, will be established that socialism which all progressive thinkers for centuries have imagined when all men and women will really be equal, when “from each will be taken by society according to his ability, and to each will be given according to his need”.

Will the workers' trade unions do this? No, they cannot. The Communist Party calls upon all workers to Join trade union and build them up as strongly as possible, and take part in their fight for improvements. It is necessary that the union be freed from bourgeois Congressmen and imbued with the militant policy and theory of communism. But the unions alone cannot conduct the fight for political power, cannot establish the dictatorship of the workers, nor bring about socialism.

Will the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party do these things? No; again, the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party is a necessary stage. It gathers together all forces for the first fight against imperialism for the independence of the county. The workers and the unions must support the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party and help take the lead in the policy for which it stands — the fight of the poor, the peasants, the clerks, the shopkeepers, as well as the workers, against imperialism and for national independence.

But the workers’ own party, the Communist Party is also needed — is needed most of all. The working class is the most important factor in the struggle of the poor masses. The workers are the only section which will fight determinedly and consciously, and the section which can fight most effectively. The peasants will be but passive followers of the working class; the petty bourgeoisie will vacillate from side to side. Only the workers, drilled and disciplined in factory life and exploitation, in command of the vital industrial forces and lines of communism of society, can and will fight to the end ...

… The Communist Party is still very small and very young. It has a great and difficult task to perform. It is the special object of the repressive measures of the enemy. It has little time in which to prepare itself. Big crises are coming in the very near future, in which the working class must act decisively if it is to be saved. The workers must organise now their vanguard the Communist Party, if they are to emerge victorious. We call upon all workers to join the Communist Party, and help forward the great cause of the exploited and oppressed throughout the world.

“Down With Imperialism”!
Up With Communism!
Join The Communist Party Today!

Source: Meerut Record, p 527(8)

 

13

Communist Party of India Constitution

(1929)

1. Name : The name of the Party shall be the Communist Party of India (Section of the Communist International).

2. Object : The object of the Party is the attainment of Socialism through the overthrow of imperialist and capitalist rule, the seizure of power by the working class, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat; in accordance with the programme of the Communist International and the Policy adopted from time to time by the Party with the agreement of the Communist International.

3. Membership : Those shall be members who shall subscribe to the object, programme and discipline of the Party, shall pay membership dues, and shall perform organised work under the direction of the Party.

Candidates for admission who shall signify their willingness to observe these conditions, and shall be recommended by two Party members, shall be considered by Branch Committees, and if approved shall be admitted as members, subject to scrutiny, within one month, by the Provincial Committee.

4. Dues: All members, unless exempted by Branch Committees on grounds of unemployment, shall pay subscription of Rs. 3 per year, payable quarterly.

5. Annual Session : The Party shall hold an annual meeting representative of all branches, to discuss and adopt the report of the retiring executive, and to form a programme for the ensuing year. Election of office bearers and a Central Executive, discussion of the statement of accounts, and other resolutions shall be the main business of the annual session, which shall be the highest authority for deciding party affairs.

The basis of representation at the annual session shall be decided by the CEC. The annual session shall be called by the CEC which shall give at least one month’s notice to all Party organisations.

6. Administration : The annual session shall elect a Central Executive Committee which shall be responsible to the session and shall administer the affairs of the Party between sessions. The CEC shall hold full meetings at least quarterly. The General Secretary shall give at least two week’s notice of CEC meetings.

7. Officers : The CEC shall appoint from among its number a General Secretary, who shall be empowered to act on behalf of the CEC between its meetings, and shall be responsible to it.

8. Provincial Committees : In each province or other suitable’ division (political, linguistic or economic) of the country, shall be established a Provincial Party Committee, elected annually by a representative Conference of branches within the area. The Provincial-Committees under the direction of the CEC shall conduct and be responsible for the conduct of the Party work within the provinces.

9. Branch Committees : In towns and suitable urban and rural2 areas shall be established branches, which annually appoint Branch Committees.

In factories, mills, mines, railway stations, etc., shall be established factory groups, each of which shall elect a leader, who shall to a member of the Branch Committee.

In addition, subordinate to the branch shall be formed Area Groups, each of which shall appoint a leader, who shall be a member of the Branch Committee.

All members of the Party shall ordinarily be members of either factory or area groups.

10. Fractions : In such other organisations (Trade Unions and Federations, Peasants’ Unions, Workers’ and Peasant’s Parties, National Congress, etc., and their committees) as the Party shall decide, fractions shall be formed by Party members. Fractions shall be directed by and shall report to, appropriate Party Committees. Each Fraction shall appoint a leader, whose decision on questions which have not been decided on by the Fraction or by some superior Party organisation, shall be accepted by the members.

11. Discipline : Discipline must be observed within the Party. Decisions taken by appropriate organisations of the Party must be obeyed and carried out by all members.

Breach of discipline consists in (i) action or propaganda contrary to the Party Programme rules or policy (2) failure to carry out the reasonable instructions of properly appointed Party organisations or officials (3) breach of confidence in regard to Party affairs (4) repeated failure to attend meetings of Party or other organisations at which Party work is to be done (5) other actions or omissions which may do harm to the Party.

For breaches of discipline, action may be taken against members who may be censured, removed from positions, or expelled. Censure or removal from position, in regard to members in organisations subordinate to the Branch Committee, may be taken by the Branch Committee. Branch Committees may also recommend expulsion, which may be carried out by the Provincial Committees. During the period when the case is being considered by the Provincial Committee, the member shall be regarded as suspended. In all cases appeal is allowed to the superior organs of the Party.

12. Foreign Bureau : The CEC will maintain a Foreign Bureau as an ideological centre, composed of comrades who are not in a position to work inside the country. The Foreign Bureau will be representative of the CEC and will act as the organ through which the international relations of the Party will be maintained. It will not work in any way inconsistent with the Party Programme and resolutions. The Foreign Bureau will maintain an office at a place of its convenience and will keep touch with other Communist Parties and with the Communist International, and will give publicity to Indian affairs.

 

14

(These Statutes were framed and approved of by the Communist International in 1934, after the reorganisation of the Party and the formation of the Provisional Central Committee in December 1933)

The Statutes of The Communist Party of India

(Section Of The Communist International)

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, being a section of the Communist International, is the most advanced organised section of the proletariat of India, the highest form of the class organisation. ...

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA demands from its members active and self-sacrificing work for carrying out the programme of the CI and the draft platform of action of the CPI. It demands also the carrying out of the statutes of the party and fulfilling all the decisions of the party and its organs, the guarantee of the unity of the ranks of the party and the strengthening of the fraternal international relations both between the toilers of the various nationalities of India and with the proletariat of all countries of the world. The party works in all the mass organisations of the toilers, including the most reactionary organisations, seeking to win over the toiling masses of members of these organisations to its side and to isolate the reformist, the national reformist, and socialist reformist leaders.

I. Party members and their duties

1. A member of the Party is any person who accepts the programme of the CI, the draft platform of the Communist Party, and who works in one of the party organisations, obeys the decisions of the Party and the Communist International, and regularly pays the membership dues.

2. A member of the Farty must :

(a) Observe the strictest discipline and maintain reticence with regard to secret matters, actively participate in the political life of the Party and the country, carry on in practice the decisions of the Communist International and the Party organs.

(b) Tirelessly work to raise his ideological attainments, to master the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism and the chief political and organisational decisions of the Party and explain them to the non-party masses.

(c) Be a member of the mass organisation (Trade Union etc.) and carry on tireless work there under the leadership of the Party Committee for strengthening the political and organisational influence of the Party.

(d) Job mass organisation of toilers (Trade Unions etc.) which are under the influence and the leadership of the reformist and the national reformist and other opponents, and carry on there a tireless everyday ideological and organisational struggle for liberating the toiling masses from the influence of the class enemies, winning these masses to the side of the Communist Party and thus isolating the reformist and the national reformist opponents from the toiling masses.

(e) Besides participating, organising and leading everyday struggles of workers and peasants for practical demands, to carry on Kb tireless agitation and propaganda among the workers and other V: toilers and spreading the ideas of the anti-imperialist and agrarian revolution and the ideas of Communism.

3. Members are accepted into the Party only as individuals and through the Party Cells. Newly recruited Party members must be confirmed by the city committee or local committee.

4. If whole groups from other political organisations join the Communist Party, or if whole political organisations want to join the CP, a proper decision of the Central Committee is required for their acceptance.

• Note: If leading members from other political parties come over to the party, in addition to the sanctions of the town committee or local committee, it is necessary to have the sanction of the Central Committee.

5. When accepting a new Party member, he must be vouched for by at least two members of the Party who know him well both at his place of work and his place of residence. The comrades recommending him are responsible for him, and in case of improper recommendations, will be subject to Party disciplinary measures, to the point of exclusion from the Party. When a member of a Communist Youth organisation is accepted, a recommendation is required from the corresponding committee of this organisation of which he was a member before joining the Party.

6. A member of the Party can go from one district to another only according to the rules laid down by the Central Committee for the purpose. The consent of the Central Committee of the Party is required to go to another country.

7. Every member of the Party who works in some local organization and is going to work in the area of another local organisation, will be registered by the latter as one of its members.

8. The question of the expulsion of anyone from the Party is decided by a General Meeting of the Cell of which the given person is a member, and is confirmed by the town or local committee. Pending the decision of the town committee the person in question can be removed from Party work.

9. The following are expelled from the Party : —

(1) open or concealed supporters of Gandhism, of the Roy Group and other political trends condemned by the CI as enemies of Communism and as disorganisers and betrayers of the struggle for national independence;

(2) open or concealed violators of the iron discipline of the Party;

(3) those who betray in any way secret party affairs (it must be remembered that this leads to a position that the Party can be disorganised and Party workers arrested);

(4) provocateurs, careerists, traitors, morally degenerate people and those who, by their improper conduct, harm the good name and soil the banner of the Party;

(5) class-alien and hostile elements, who have crept into the Party by deception, concealing their counter-revolutionary or criminal past or their previous connections with the police.

II. The organisational structure of the Party

10. The Party is conducted as a strictly underground organisation. The underground organisations of the Party in their work make it their central task to develop most widely mass work to establish its leadership in the mass revolutionary movements and with this aim combine the method of underground work and semi-underground work and open work.

11. The leading principle of the organisational structure of the Party is democratic centralism, which means : —

a) All the leading organs of the Party, from top to bottom, are elected.
b) The Party organs periodically report on their work to their Party organisations.
c) The strictest Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
d) Decisions of the Comintern and higher Party organs are unquestionably obligatory for lower organs and for all members of the Party.

12. The Party is built on the foundations of democratic centralism according to the territorial-industrial principle. Organisations which embrace any district as a whole are considered as higher than organisations which embrace part of the given district.

13. All the Party organisations are autonomous in deciding local questions, provided that these decisions do not conflict with the decisions of the Party and the Comintern.

14. The highest leading organ of every organisation is the general meeting, conference or congress.

15. The general meeting, conference or congress elects a committee, which is its executive organ and guides all the current work of the organisation.

• Note : (1) For reasons of underground work, in accordance with the decisions of higher Party committees, the lower Party committee can be formed without election at the corresponding Party conferences but by appointment or also by combining election with co-options, i.e., only a part of the Party committee is elected at the Party conference and the other part of the Party committee is co-opted; (2) For reasons of underground work, it is also permissible for the elections to take place not at the Party Conference, but by selecting persons from among the best activists who have been selected in advance by the higher Party committee from the cells and fractions in mass organisations, trade unions etc.

16. The organisational scheme of the Party is as follows:

a) Territory of India : All-India Party Congress, which elects the Central Committee of the CP of India.
b) Province : Provincial Party Conference and Provincial Party Committee.
c) Town (by locality): Town (Local) Conference, Town (Local) Committee.
d) Factory, Chawl (Basti) or Village : General Meeting of Cell, Bureau or Organiser of Cells.

17. Order of subordination of Party Organs : All India Party Congress, CC of the CP of India, Provincial Party Committee; General Meeting of Cell, Bureau or Organiser of Cell. ...

III. The central organisations of the Party

18. The highest organ of the Party is the Congress. Congresses are called if possible once a year/Extraordinary Congresses are called by the Central Committee on its own initiative or at the demand of not less than one-third of the total number of members represented at the last Party Congress. ...

The [extraordinary] Congress is to be considered as having full powers if it has representatives from not less than half the members of the Party represented at the last regular Congress. Representation quotas at the Congress and the method of election are decided by the CC.

• Note : If it is impossible to call a Congress of the Party, the CC will call an enlarged session of the Plenum of the CC with the participation of representatives of the provincial committees. Such an enlarged Plenum of the CC has the right by arrangement with the CI to change the composition of the CC.

19. The Congress (a) discusses and confirms the report of the Central Committee (b) reviews and changes the programme and statutes of the Party; (c) decides on the tactical line of the Party. ... (d) elects the Central Committee. During the sittings of the Party Congress, a small auditing commission has to be elected, which looks through the financial affairs of the past period, and at the end of the congress reports the results of the work, and is then dissolved.

20. The Central Committee is elected by the Congress. In case a member of the Central Committees leaves it, he will be replaced by one of the candidates in the order fixed by the Congress.

• Note: The Central Committee has a right to co-opt members to the Central Committee.

21. The Central Committee organises the Politbureau for current work. The Politbureau appoints a Secretary whose task is to guide the proper distribution of the Party functionaries and control the fulfilment of the directives of the CI [and] the decisions of the Party Congress and the Central Committee.

22. The members of the Central Committee are attached as instructors and representatives of the Central Committee to definite provincial organisations and also divide among themselves the various fields of activity of the Central Committee:-

a) Editor of the Central Party Organ.
b) A manager of the Central Technical apparatus and distribution of literature.
c) Treasurer
d) Head of the work of Party fractions in the mass organisations.
e) Head of the special apparatus
f) Head of the Party educational department.

• Note : According to the concrete conditions of work, the Central Committee can combine some of these functions and give to one person, or set up new departments etc. Special work must be entirely separated from the general in    Party work ...

24. With the aim of strengthening the Bolshevik leadership over the work of local Party organisations, the Central Committee has the right to create in some parts of the country Regional Bureau of the Central Committee which would include several provinces, to send representatives and instructors to the localities. The Regional Bureau of the Central Committee, representatives and instructors of the Central Committee must work on the basis of special instructions laid down every time by the CC or the Politbureau.

25. The Central Committee regularly informs the Party organisations of its general work by sending out special information bulletins and also by sending members and representatives of the Central Committee to the localities to give reports on its work.

IV. The provincial organisation of the Party

26. The highest organ of the Provincial Party organisation is the Provincial Party Conference, and in the intervals between Conferences, the highest organ is the Provincial Party Committee. ...

• Note : The Provincial Committee works on the territory included in the administrative boundaries of the province. It might be formed from the town organisation of the main city of the province. When the town organisation of the provincial centre gets strong enough, the town committee, while maintaining the functions of the leading organ for the town Party organisation, takes on for a time, till a proper Provincial Committee is built, the rights and duties the Provincial Committee and develops its work in the administrative limits of the province, beginning with the chief industrial centres.

27. The regular Provincial Conference is called by the Provincial Party Committee if possible once in six months. Extraordinary Conferences are called at the decision of the Provincial Committee or on the decision of one-third pf the total number of members of the Provincial organisation, provided that consent of the Central Committee is given. ...

The Provincial Party Conference discusses and confirms the report of the work of the Provincial Committee and elects the committee of five members and two candidates and delegates to the All-India Communist Party Congress.

28. The Provincial Committee appoints a Secretary and an assistant. The Secretary of the Provincial Committee directs the proper distribution of Party workers and ensures the fulfilment of the decisions of the Provincial Party Conference, the Provincial Committee, and the directives of the Central Committee of the Party. The Secretaries of each Provincial Committee are confirmed by the Central Committee of the Party. ...

29. In order better to carry out the tasks which face the Provincial Committee and to ensure the proper leadership of the work of the local Party organisations, the members of the Provincial Party Committee are attached to definite districts of the province and divide among themselves the functions of the Provincial Committee, such as :

a) Editor of the Provincial organ (confirmed by the CC of the Party)
b) A manager of the provincial technical apparatus and the organiser of the distribution of literature.
c) Treasurer
d) Head of the work of the fractions in mass organisations.
e) Head of the special apparatus.
f) Head of the Party educational department.

• Note: According to the concrete conditions of the work, the provincial committee may combine several of these functions in one comrade, form new functions etc. or appoint comrades outside of the Committee members to carry on such work as of technical apparatus, subordinating him directly to the Secretary. ...

V. The town and local organisations

32. In the town and talukas or firkas, town (or local) organisations are formed, with the confirmation of the Provincial Committee. The highest organ of the town (or local) Party organisation is the town (or local) conference. The town (or local) Party conference is called by the town (or local) Party Committee if possible every six months. Extraordinary Conferences are called on the decisions of the town (or local) Committee, or at the demand of one-third of the total number of members in the town (or local) organisation.

33. The town (or local) committee elects a Secretary (to be confirmed by the Provincial Committee), organises and confirms cells and fractions in mass organisations, organises collection of membership dues, organises various Party institutions and commissions within the limits of the town (or locality) and guides their activity ...

VI. The section committees in the big cities

35. In the big towns with the permission of the Central Committee section organisations are formed under the control of the town committee, and work under its direction. The section organisations of big towns will work according to the rules of the town organisations.

VII. Cells

36. The basis of the Party is the factory cell. These cells are formed in factories, mills, big farms, units, institutions, etc., if there are not less than three party members. Besides the factory cells in the mills, chawl (basti) and street cells are organised from among the Party members who cannot be in factory cells — like small handicraftsmen and traders, housewives etc. In the village, village cells are organised. Special cells act on the basis of special instructions of the Central Committee. The cells are confirmed by the town (or local) committee.

• Note: Each group of class-conscious workers, poor peasants and other toilers can, on their own initiative, organise a Party cell and begin communist work among the masses. Such Party cell which are organised on the initiative of non-party class-conscious workers can be accepted into the Party by the town (or local) party committee, according to the statutes after a careful and personal investigation of the membership both in respect of political views and in respect to honesty and loyalty to the cause of the revolution.

37. In big factories, in order to adapt to conditions of underground existence, separate department cells are organised, and, through cell organisers, a joint unit [is formed].

38. The cell links up the workers, peasants and others with the leading organs of the Party. Its tasks are :

a) Agitational and organisational work among the masses for the Party slogans and decisions.
b) The attraction of sympathisers and new members and their political education.
c) The publication of factory paper or wall-paper.
d) Assistance to the town (or local) committee in its every-day organisational and agitational work.
e) Active participation as a Party unit in the economic and political life of their factory and city, and also of the whole country, active participation in the discussion and solution and carrying out of all general Party decisions.

39. In order to carry out the current work, the cell elects a secretary, who is to be confirmed by the town (or local) committee. ...

VII. Fractions in mass organisations

40. At all congresses, meetings, and in the elected organs of the mass organisations outside the Party — trade unions, factory committees, peasant organisations, co-operative societies, sports clubs, youth organisations, etc. — where there are not less than three Party members, Party fractions are organised which must function in an organised way, strengthen Party discipline, work to increase the influence of the Party, carry Party policy among non-Party masses. For current work the fraction elects a secretary.

41. The fraction is completely controlled by the corresponding Party committee, ... and on all questions must strictly and without vacillation, carry out the decisions of the Party organisations which lead them.

The fractions of the higher bodies of mass organisations, by agreement with the corresponding Party committee, may send directives to the fractions of the lower bodies of the same mass organisations, and the latter must carry them out without fail as directives from a higher Party organ.

IX. Inner-Party democracy and Party discipline

42. The free and businesslike discussion of Party policy in the various organisations or in the Party as a whole is the indefeasible right of every member of the Party, arising from inner-Party democracy. Only on the basis of inner-Party democracy can Bolshevik self-criticism be developed and Party discipline strengthened, as the latter should be conscious and not mechanical. But a discussion on questions of Party policy must be developed in such a way that it should not lead to Party organisations or Party workers being exposed to the police terror or to attempts on the part of an insignificant minority to force their views on the vast majority of Party members and to attempt to form factional groups which will break the unity of the Party, which will lead to splitting the working class. Therefore, wide inner-Party discussion can be recognised as necessary only if: —

a) this necessity is recognised by at least several big provincial organisations;
b) inside the Central Committee, there is not a sufficiently firm majority on the chief questions of Party policy;
c) despite the existence of a firm majority in the CC for a certain point of view, the CC nevertheless considers it necessary to verify the correctness of its policy by discussion in the Party. ...

43. The preservation of the unity of the Party, a merciless struggle against the slightest attempt at factional struggle and splits, the strictest Party discipline are the first duties of all members of the Party and all Party organisations.

In order to bring about the strictest discipline inside the Party and secure the greatest unity, while removing all factions, the Central Committee has the right to apply all Party penalties to the point of expulsion from the Party in cases of violation of discipline or the existence of factions.

44. The decisions of the leading Party organs must be carried out exactly and rapidly, failure to carry out the decisions of higher organisations and other actions which are recognised as crimes against the Party will be dealt with as follows :

For a Local Organisation: Censure and a general reorganisation (disbanding the organisation)

For Individual Party Members: Various forms of censure (public rebuke, reprimand, etc.), public censure, temporary removal from responsible work, expulsion from the Party.

Ail Party organisations from cells upwards have the right to inflict Party penalties. In order to carry on a preliminary investigation of the activity of Party members, Party committees may set up in individual cases, if it be necessary, a temporary investigation committee, whose conclusions later must be confirmed by the Party Committee.

X. The financial resources of the Party

45. The financial resources of the Party and its organisations are comprised of membership dues, income from Party undertakings, and other incomes.

46. The monthly membership dues for Party members are as follows. ... Unemployed members of the Party are exempt from the payment of membership dues.

47. On entering the Party an entrance fee of Rs. 1/- must be paid.

48. The Central Committee decides what proportion of the membership dues will remain at the disposal of the Cell and how much will be put at the disposal of the town or local committees, provincial committees and the CC.

 

15

Introducing “The Communist Bulletin”^[1]

The Provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of India, which has set itself the task of unifying all the genuine communist groups who accept the Draft Platform of Action of the CPI (published in 1931) and who are prepared to overthrow the despotic rule of the British Imperialism and fight for bread, work and freedom and for Communism under the guidance of the ONLY revolutionary World Organisation — The COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, is publishing its Central Organ — “The Communist”. But the abominable Press Act, Ordinances, strict police vigilance, censorship make the printing of the same impossible and irregular. The satanic British Government is doing its best to prevent the function of the Central Committee and isolate the different Provincial Committees from the Centre by putting insurmountable barriers on the way of rapid ideological and organisational unification. ...

The Proletariat is the only consistently revolutionary class capable of solving the great tasks which face the Indian revolution. But unless the proletariat is organised it is no force. If it is solidly organised and led by the Communist Party it becomes an invincible force.

Comrade Lenin says:

“Without a party, steeled in the struggle, without a party which is trusted by all that is honest in the given class, without a party which is able to watch the sentiments of the masses and influence them, it is impossible to carry on such struggle.” ...

At this critical stage of the Indian Working Class movement, we feel the dire necessity of a newspaper through which the Communist Party can enhance its struggle. A paper is not “merely a collective propagandist and collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer” (Lenin). The lack of such paper is one of the reasons of our organisational weakness and to overcome this ideological and organisational weakness and to give the masses a correct ideology and programme of revolution, we have decided to fill up that gap. We are issuing “The Communist Bulletin” as the Organ of The Calcutta Committee of the Communist Party of India. ...

“Draft Platform of Action” has been adopted by the CPI as the programme of the Indian revolution. The programme correctly points out the character of the Indian revolution as an Anti- Imperialist Revolution — a Soviet Revolution. ... We are therefore devoting the entire issue of the 'Communist Bulletin' to the publication of the “Draft Platform of Action” with a foreword. The Communist Bulletin will print all important decisions of the Communist International on Indian question, it will print documents, theses, organisational theses, programmes of CPI and CI and at the same time it will unleash persistent struggle against the reformists, pseudo-socialists of the type of renegade Roy and the labour parties and ail other socialist parties and it will open up a new path of revolution for the proletariat. We invite all genuine communist groups, who are isolatedly functioning, to come to our assistance and build up the paper and strengthen the party.

Note:

1. What follows is the untilled editorial (abridged) of the first issue (July 1934) of a cyclostyled paper published by the Calcutta Committee of CPI. The title has been supplied by us.

16

Unite Under The Banner Of The Communist Party

STRENUOUSLY OPPOSE THE NAKED DANGER OF THE CZARIST RULE STARTED BY THE BRITISH IMPERIALIST

The British Imperialist Government has been carrying on a terrible repression against the Communist Party in India since several years past. Government has just published an announcement declaring the Communist Party of India and all its branches as unlawful. ... Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel and others are assisting in the suppression of the Communist movement. On the one hand the Communist Party of the workers is being crushed, and on the other hand the National Congress of the capitalists is increasing its friendship with British Imperialism.

What lesson will the workers learn from this ? ...

The chief problem in India is to overthrow the rule of British Imperialism, to achieve independence, and to establish the workers’ and peasants’ rule. The native capitalists, zamindars, and sawkars assist British Imperialism, because it is with the assistance of British Imperialism that they are able to exploit the workers and peasants. It is with the assistance of the police of the British Imperialists that mill-owners like Sessons and Modi have been able to impose wage-cuts and rationalisation on the workers. It is with the help of the British police and courts that the Khots and Sawkars are able to exploit the peasants. ...

The workers’ struggle will strengthen and end in success only if a powerful Communist Party of the workers is brought into existence. In the last general strike the leadership was with the Communist Party, and it was on this account that the strike could occur and could be conducted for so many days on a proper policy. ... Thousands of workers thus spontaneously cried BRAVO to the Communist Party, and in the Azad Maidan meeting thousands of workers declared that they are Communists. Thus when representatives were to be elected to the strike committee, every mill returned only those who were members of the Communist Party.

At the time of the last strike the Communist Party organisation was very small, and still it was able to do so much work. If communist party cells had existed in every mill and chawl, and if thousands of workers had been members of the communist party, the strike would certainly have proved successful. ... It is therefore very necessary to bring into existence a powerful communist party. ...

The Communist International is the working class party of the whole world, and the Communist Party of India is a branch of the Communist International. It will not be possible to deliver a final attack against capitalism unless the workers of the world unite. The Communist Party of India has all along been doing its work secretly, because British Imperialism has been trying to crush it even from its inception. ...

Instead of sitting quiet or surrendering to imperialism by this repression, the Communist Party has accepted the policy of spreading the tentacles of its movement wider and wider by resorting to secret organisation. Besides this secret work, the Communist Party is trying its best to carry on open agitation through open organisations. You can see therefore that the Communist Party alone has got the power to face this attack of imperialism. The same thing is experienced in all other countries. In Germany, it is the secret communist party that is doing the work of carrying attacks against Hitlerism. ...

Wage-cuts, rationalisation, and unemployment are increasing day by day. The oppression against the workers and peasants is becoming unbearable. New repressive laws are coming into force. The capitalists of different countries are trying to declare war against each other on account of internal competition, and at the same time are looking out for an opportunity to declare a common war against Russia. Like the Great War of 20 years past, India will be involved in this war also, and the workers and peasants of India will have to suffer immense hardships. It is the duty of every worker to strengthen the communist party to oppose this possibility. The daily fights of the workers will be successful only under the leadership of the communists. The foundation of imperialism will be shaken by having recourse in the political weapon of general strike, and in the end, imperialism, capitalism and zamindarism will be administered the final rites by raising the standard of armed rebellion.

Therefore, brother workers! become members of the Communist Party, understand the programmes and rules of the Communist Party, and establish secret groups of the Communist Party in every mill and chawl ...

Communist Party of India
(Bombay Provincial Committee)
Branch of The Communist International

17

Manifesto Of The CC Of CPI On Party Unity

AT ALL COSTS :                                                                                                       AGAINST ALL ODDS :

FORWARD TO A UNITED PARTY:

To all Party Members! To all Communists and Communist groups outside the Party!

Comrades,

The present Central Committee was formed by uniting most of the isolated communist groups existing in our country into a Centralised All-India Party. Since then the Party has grown all round, in every way. Today we have functioning party organisations in all the major provinces, our political influence is far greater than our organisational strength, we are bending all our energies to become a political force in the country. In achieving our revolutionary tasks the first and one of the most important impediments is the fact that we are not yet a United Party, individual communists and communist groups exist outside the Party.

The communist individuals and groups we have in mind are eager and willing to work under the leadership of the CC, they are entirely loyal to the Communist International, whole-heartedly accept the direction of the Seventh World Congress, The Central Committee throws open the doors of the Party to them and expects all Party members to give these comrades ready revolutionary welcome into our ranks and assimilate them in our Party organisation. ...

The central committee declares that it is improper for a communist to remain outside the Party and impermissible to form an independent group. Such comrades have thereby created unbolshevik traditions for the party, hindered the possible growth of the party, ... These comrades put forward the state of inner-party life or the mistakes of local and provincial party organisations as their justification for remaining out of the party. ...

The central committee calls upon all communists to cease forthwith all carping criticism of each other, give up the hunt for imaginary deviations, and the delightful pastime of discovering the “mistakes” of others. In our struggle for Party unity we must concentrate on finding out our point of agreement which will enable us to see our remaining differences in their true perspective. Let us, after this stage is reached, decide together and also separately whether our few remaining differences (political and otherwise) are of a type which could be discussed and decided upon inside the party in the usual way, or so fundamental and far-reaching as to make Party unity impossible. The central committee does not desire to smother criticism either of itself or of the party as a whole or of other independent groups, but suggests the means whereby discussion could be fruitful. Everything must be discussed and all serious differences liquidated BEFORE party unity is achieved ; but in all our discussions let us not lose sight of our aim — party unity — let us not degenerate into an endless debating society ...

The central committee states that there are groups and parties with whom party unity is not immediately possible, but the successful working out of the united front line in collaboration with such groups would create conditions when party unity with them would be feasible and proper. ...

A united Communist Party of India as the lever of building up the United Anti-Imperialist People's Front and through the successful experience of the united front struggle a still stronger CP worthy of its historical leaders and teachers, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Such is the prospect today, and it is a realisable prospect. Let us realise it all together.

Central Committee
Communist Party of India
(Section of the Communist International)

Source:  The Communist, June 1936.

 

18

Circular No. 13.

On Party Reorganisation

1. The representatives delegated by the Central Committee have concluded their investigation or inspection of work in four provinces and the state of affairs revealed is such of which none of us could be proud and this is putting it very mildly ...

2. Formerly the P.^[1] was organised on a local group basis. In a town where we had only a few comrades they all met together and functioned as group, discussed all local matters and took decisions, and when instructions from a higher committee came the same procedure was followed. ... This form of organisation with all its limitations had one advantage that we functioned is some way, there was a sense of homogeneity and solidarity (which came from working together from day to day) and we ... thought we were working as best as we could, for our leading comrades were always available to us for advice and guidance.

3. Early last winter we decided to reorganise ourselves on the basis of our new statutes. We fondly hoped that when cells were formed at the base and P. elections are held we will start functioning according to the new statutes, as properly functioning illegal CP. Nothing of the sort happened in practice, our reorganisation “according to statutes” was on paper only, the new state of affairs were in several respects worse than the old.

How did this happen ?

(a) Cells were not properly cells at all either on territorial basis or on a factory basis. They were merely groups of individuals, 3-5, instead of the old larger groups. The old thing continued in a new form. ...

(b) Factionalism had not been finally liquidated ... This spring when the new line began to be discussed and adopted and particularly the sudden publication of Com. Dutt and Bradley’s article produced great confusion in our ranks, those factional elements at once seized the opportunity to canalise the theoretical confusion and the sectarian prejudices of the rank and file for their own factional ends, at first as opponents of the new line and when they found that in its nakedness this political attitude could not be defended for long, they came out as defenders of “inner-party democracy” (to prevent the adoption of the new line), as critics of the P. leadership, which they called “bureaucratic”, “cliquish”, etc., but really as disrupters of the whole party. Investigation has revealed that this was not a sudden outburst of a few individuals but that the factional disrupters had been slowly but gradually pursuing their factional game for a long time in an underhand way, they only utilised the opportunity created by the first confusion which naturally arose when the new line was adopted and the thoroughly justifiable dissatisfaction of the rank and file which arose from the absence of proper functioning of P. machinery, the causes of which they themselves did not understand nor any pains were taken to explain things to them. The factional elements have succeeded thus in creating a base for themselves inside the Party : in some places they have captured the Party machinery, in others they have organised a fairly effective opposition which is spreading itself out and sabotaging P. activity and discrediting the existing P. leadership ...

(c) In the old form of P. organisation every thing was centralized in the hands of a few leading comrades, we accepted them as a matter of course as sole custodians of P. experience, work, contacts, plans and secrets. No attempt was made to train up an alternative leading cadre and to save the existing leading cadre. When imperialist repression was intensified we lost not only our leaders but with them almost all that we have been able to do so far ...
(d) ... we had failed to create even a rudimentary technical apparatus which could have been used as a base for building up an illegal apparatus, which could have afforded us some protection from imperialist attacks ...

(e) It was in this background that our Party elections were held. No organisational or political preparations (except factional) were made for holding the elections ... The conferences did hardly anything more than election of new committees which were either composed of factionalists or of comrades who were not at all competent for their jobs. ... We elected an Editor and expected him to write out the whole issue himself, we elected an Organiser and expected him to organise the Party for us, we elected a secretary whom we expected to do everything and so on ...

4. Our tasks thus stand out clearly as :

An end to the attitude of smug self-satisfaction with the present, crushing out factionalism, activising the whole Party apparatus, in short a sharp break with our unbolshevik present.

5. How are these general tasks to be achieved ?

(A) Of course, the first task is to root out factionalism, take disciplinary action against incorrigible factionalists and reorganise the top committees.

(B) Then reorganise the whole Party and activise entire P. cadre in the following way :

While retaining the principle of individual responsibility for each task appoint committees for each Dept. in the province e.g., Party Organisation, Mass work (which may be sub-divided into TU, Peasant, Political United Front, etc. or it may be composed of the one most competent comrade from each of these fronts, the actual composition, sub-division, etc. of this committee to depend upon the number and quality of the cadre available), Agit- Prop (to be in charge of the legal and illegal publications, preparing lecture notes, translating or rewriting in popular way articles from the Central Organ, translating the most important inner-party political documents for the rank and file, writing out very simple study-courses), Tech. Committee (for producing and distributing illegal literature, finding addresses and collecting dak [mails], keeping Documents and literature safe, arranging for meeting places and shelter for illegal underground comrades, etc.).

... The Secy, single-handed is out-burdened with work and even if he means to work whole-heartedly he can do nothing more than cope with the day to day work and that with great difficulty. It is therefore suggested, as has already been done in some places, that the PCs appoint a PB of comrades who can meet at least once a week. Political and organisational guidance to the Distts. and the different fronts and systematic checking of their work, coordination of the activities of the different departmental committees would be the function of the PB. ...

Having reorganised the Provincial and Distt. top in this way the entire Party membership should be reorganised into functional cells e.g., mass cells (consisting of mass agitators and those doing basic mass organisational work like organising semi-secret or secret factory committees or engaged in organising workers’ clubs, bustee and chawl committees, grievance committees etc.). Agit-Prop cells, Tech. cells (consisting of new or entirely unexposed comrades — all old technical contacts to be scrapped at least for some time) and P. organisation cells. These cells to be placed at the disposal of the Departmental committees of their respective fronts as their immediately available cadre. ...

An overwhelming majority of the party cadre particularly that which is exposed should be put into mass cells unless there are any exceptional reasons ...

There is no doubt that our above plan is an organisational retreat but there is no other alternative if we mean to be honest with ourselves and are honest about building up an underground CP on a strictly cell basis i.e., if we are bolsheviks. The above plan is a nominal retreat for we are all the while building up the real basis ...

The above plan is, it will be further noted, only a transitional plan, for 3-4 months at the most, ...

(c) Having activised the whole party and apportioned tasks for individuals we should key up the level of Party discipline so far as our rank and file is concerned on the basis of work entrusted to individuals, done or not done by them, the quality of work etc. and if necessary have a Party Purge on this basis ...

(6) It is very necessary indeed in the case of a small and illegal Party like ours to have auxiliary cells. ... in the following forms which are certainly possible even today.

Sympathisers' cells : fairly widespread sympathy for the Party is not lacking but we have been so far unable to organise it. We maintain contacts with sympathisers through individual Party members who occasionally ask them to do some odd jobs and that is all ... we must organise the existing symapthisers into cells and if there is none among them who could make the sympathisers’ cell function, we should delegate a P. member for the task who could just give them a start. These cells must be secret ...

Student and youth cells : ... All students and young petty-bourgeois P. members, unless there are strong reasons for making an exception in individual cases should be sent into these auxiliary cells and made to function as student or youth cells of the party. Similarly all young workers who are not or cannot be as active as they should be as Party members should be sent into the youth cells (By “young” we mean the YCL age — 18-24 years) ... these also would be secret cells.

Besides their own students and youth work the other work which these cells could do would be to work inside the INC, CSP and what is very important among Congress volunteers. ... These cells would form the basis of a proper YCL organisation ...

Transferring young comrades from Party cells into youth or student cells should not be accomplished by just issuing a circular to this effect. They will think they are being degraded (no more full-fledged members of the CPI) and dub this change as being bureaucratic, they may even say that it is cliquish! We must patiently discuss the whole issue with our young comrades, show them the supreme and urgent importance of the task they are being asked to undertake and which they alone can discharge most effectively and that in opposing this scheme they are not being reasonable but childish (young people resent the most being called childish!). We must win over our young comrades to this course of change. ...

(10) We should be kept regularly informed about the progress made in the task of reorganisation and in putting this circular into practice.

(11) It may be considered that this circular is painting an unnecessarily gloomy picture of inner-party life. It may be gloomy but it is real. It is true that we have not recounted our achievements but emphasised our failings. ... Ruthless self- criticism, honestly conducted; ceaseless activity untiring in its efforts with all the force of our revolutionary self-sacrifice behind it; such should be daily life of a Party which claims to stand for Bolshevism; deeds must correspond to words.

PBCC
3rd August, 1936

Note:

1.   Throughout the document, P. denotes the Party - Editor.

 

19

Stop Press

Swami Sahajanand’s Message For “Communist Party Day”

I hasten to endorse whole-heartedly the appeal issued by comrades Jaiprakash Narayan and PC Joshi to observe the 20th March as the “ALL INDIA DAY” for the legalisation of the Communist Party of India. It is most irritating to the true lover of civil liberties to find that a certain school of thought is sought to be suffocated and gagged by any individual institution or the Govt. calling themselves civilised. It is because of the clash of ideologies that we find this world of ours so advanced and forward. I am firmly of the opinion that to try to crush or stifle ideas is the greatest crime in the world and if it is allowed to go unchallenged and is not combatted by the combined effort of humanity there can be no hope for the salvation of mankind.

It is no doubt an irony of fate that the Communist Party, which represents certain school of thought and which is legal everywhere throughout the world, is illegal here in India even in the provinces administered by the Congress Ministries. The Congress has all along been trying for civil liberties and the freedom to propagate various ideologies is one of the main items of civil liberties. Therefore it passes one’s comprehension how Congress Ministries have tolerated this ban on the Communist Party so long. It is their bounden duty to lift it forthwith and thus to show the way for the non-Congress Ministries. And by our agitation we must force the hands of the authorities if we are true to our profession. Let the “All India Day” be a real foundation of that agitation and let us make it a complete success.

TUC President’s Appeal to Unions.

Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee, President of the ALL-India Trade Union Congress, has issued a press statement, in which he appeals to all unions affiliated to the AITUC to celebrate March 20th as the All-India Anti-Repression Day.

Source: National Front, 20 March, 1938.

 

 

20

Plan of Work

In view of the changed situation inside the CSP, the attitude of the CSP leadership and our tasks of working for socialist unity, the following plan of work is adopted:

1. The composition and character of the All India Contact Committee should be changed. It should consist of five members from each side. This would be a purely political committee and must meet every three months; it would take a review of the political situation and endeavour to evolve through its deliberations a united lead on the major issues facing the movement. These agreed decisions would become the basis not only of joint agitation and work but also be considered the official line of the two organisations unless they are over-ruled by the Executive of either organisation. ...

We hope such an All India Committee would become one of the transitional forms of achieving a United Executive and the deliberations of this body would lead in growing measure, the ideological political unification of the socialist movement and give concrete guidance to the national movement.

2. In Bombay, Calcutta and Cawnpore, where our differences are the most acute we should take the initiative to form contact committees which should not be of less than three comrades from either side. The functions of this committee would not be only political but it will take initiative to propose and carry out joint actions. ...

4. As the most suitable mechanism to give an organisational form to our UF work and to supply it the necessary driving force we should seriously endeavour to form informal Activists' Groups. These should consist of all the active elements from our CSP, TU, and Congress ranks who are easily available at the place of their work or residence. These ad hoc groups through their periodical meetings should take the responsibility for carrying through joint actions, e.g., organising a demonstration, helping or guiding strike, running mass campaigns. …

5. To inspire confidence in the CSP leadership to keep the unity of the CSP, to be able to enlarge it, we would not, from outside, for the time being press the demand “All Socialists inside the CSP”. We would tell the CSP leadership, who is scared away by this slogan, that since you yet mistrust us and lack confidence in our bonafides and construct [construe?] our attempt in working for socialist unity to be a partisan move to capture your organisation, we do not advocate [this] slogan. … [We] take you seriously at your own word and expect you to implement the slogan of “Joint Action with the CSP” and thereby create the preconditions of closer unity.

Our comrades within the CSP would continue to popularise the slogan. ... In those localities and provinces where it is possible to include all socialists inside the CSP it should be done without fail and without making much noise about it. ...

6. Our work inside the CSP must be guided by the considerations that we are conscious builders of socialist unity, it is our task to keep up the unity of the CSP. ...

The exact nature of our work inside the CSP depends upon our present position inside the CSP units.

In those provinces and places where we are in a majority: Here we must immediately begin to work in the new way and interpret and act upon the Faizpur thesis, on the lines of Zaheer-Batliwalla-Dinkar thesis^[1] without giving any chance for technical breaches of discipline. We should defend this as being the logical working out of the Faizpur thesis. On the basis of our practical work and ideological campaign we should be able to win over the whole CSP to accept this draft thesis and recognise us as the best CSPers. Systematic efforts must be made to recruit the advanced elements of the CSP who begin to accept our line into our own organisation. We should take particular care not to let other CSP members be banded into a group against us or create the impression that we are rushing [ruining ?] the CSP or exploiting our majority in any other cause except in strengthening of the CSP itself. ...

In places where we are in a minority great vigilance and elasticity in day to day work is needed. We should endeavour to get as many of our new and unmarked comrades or sympathisers as possible inside the CSP promptly undertake to liquidate all sectarian mistakes and silently work towards a majority. ...

7. The specific tasks in the provinces where we are a majority are the following :

Andhra. Membership 480. Entirely under our influence. No rival group. Provincial CSP headquarters and District Executives function effectively. ... Andhra can and must become a model CSP Unit.

Tamilnadu. Membership 220. Entirely under our influence. Leadership united. No rival group. Madras city and Provincial head-quarters function as living units; in the other districts only agitational influence. Ideological level very low, ...

Madras. Membership 200. Entirely our influence and no rival group. ... The CSP as an organisation is lagging behind its agitational achievements. The comrades have failed to give up Congress methods of organisation and agitation. Individuals function for units.

The foremost task of the leadership is to make the district branches function and during the course of this organisational drive itself double the membership on the basis of a special recruitment campaign from the active workers and peasants. They have recently started a weekly of their own. ...

Orissa. Membership 40 (forty). Majority of members with us, an assured majority in the Provincial Executive. Naba Chowdhary who follows IP's lead is the only other element and is considered as a reactionary by our comrades! The membership must be doubled in the course of the next three months by drawing upon students and kisan cadres. Sectarian attitude towards Chowdhary must be immediately liquidated and the danger of his being used as agent by Massani is [to be] circumvented. Efforts must be made not to let any rival group to be consolidated inside the CSP and draw N Chowdhary nearer and nearer.

Bengal. Membership 250. Though we are a majority inside the Party we are not a majority inside the Executive (8 ours and 9 centre and Right). Owing to our inability to afford to send all our delegates to the Provincial conference. There are Right and Centre elements and both have begun to function as a united fraction against us. ...

The labour party should be made to speed up unity with the CSP. ... If the CSP agrees to have the effective membership of 30-40 of the LP we should have unity and dissolve the LP.

If the CSP refuses to accept the proposal we should continue to activise (sic!) the LP, work out United Front with the CSP without any half-heartedness or dilatoriness on our part with a view to bringing about unity on the above minimum conditions as soon as possible.

LP is not an alternative to CSP nor do we look upon it as a permanent organisation. We retain and activise it only to be able to achieve socialist unity and as a transitional measure. The slogan of the LP as a necessary political party of the working class and also the slogan of the All India Workers’ Party separate from the CSP is categorically rejected by us.

The activisation of the LP does not mean that is should be extended to the Distt. [level]. It should remain confined to Calcutta and be looked upon as our own political platform till unity with the CSP is achieved. Again, as many new comrades as can enter the CSP in Calcutta should continue to do so. Inside our own ranks all old prejudice against the LP must be cast aside.

The Anushilan is joining the CSP and is likely to join the Right and Centre fraction in opposition to us and take initiative to start local CSPs. We should not oppose their entry into the CSP but endeavour to work with them to strengthen the CSP itself.

Punjab. Membership 700. Though it would be correct to say that our policy would command an overwhelming majority yet this majority is not stable because of acute factional fights among the socialists as a whole. The biggest (sic!) problem so far has been the non-understanding and non-acceptance by our own comrades of our policy towards the CSP. This coupled with their own fractional attitude and the fact that the other faction was identified with the CSP has led them to commit a whole series of sectarian and opportunist mistakes. A big forward step has however been taken with the liquidation of the Socialist Party and the unification of all socialists under the CSP. This organisational unity of the socialists can be immediately made to yield serious political results only if sectarianism and factionalism are rooted out from our ranks in the Punjab. The proletarian movement is rising in the Punjab, headed by the socialists themselves and the rapid proletarianisation of the party can alone lead to a permanent solution of the Punjab problems which have so far defied solution.

The two groups within the CSP — Kirtiand the Nawajawan Bharat Sabha — are grovelling among themselves. They are likely to seek our support for factional ends. It is our task not to ally with any faction, keep the unity of the CSP and develop-'it as a homogeneous party.

Within the Congress the CSP must function as a unit and not ally with either of the Congress factions.

The provinces where we are in a minority are the following :

Bombay. Has problems of its own. Membership 200. Leadership rightist]. We are rigidly excluded. The local units of the CSP do not function. Immediate steps should be for us, to send as many unmarked comrades as possible inside the CSP and they should take the initiative to form local units and press for united action from within ...

CP. The CSP was in our hands but was dissolved, the passivity of our responsible comrades and their inability to build up a CSP was used by Masani and others not only to dislodge us by dissolving the Party but also to attack our political bonafides.

Later on, our comrades started a Radical Workers' League. The CSP is again being reorganised.

All comrades who were formerly in the CSP must demand admission into the CSP as a matter of right. We should dissolve the Radical Workers League and ask its members to join the CSP.

Constant contact with the new CSP members must be kept and all steps taken to influence them. The danger of Masani using the CSP in CP as his closed preserve must be tactfully circumvented. ...

Maharashtra. Membership 200. The local do not function at all, nor provincial headquarters. The leadership is definitely hostile.

We must get our comrades to make the locals function, enrol as many members as possible and establish new locals. These steps must be carefully camouflaged. ...

UP. Nominal membership 450. Majority of organised membership with us. All functioning locals ours. The leadership is Centrist and at present suspicious and hostile. Except at Cawnpore all our comrades are inside the CSP.

Our immediate tasks are rapid improvement in our local work, start CSP locals where they do not exist, seriously carrying on joint work at Cawnpore. Our top must keep constant touch with the CSP leaders and endeavour to influence them politically.

Karnataka. Membership 200. Bogus. Our isolated contacts must be asked to join the CSP and form locals. The existing CSP leadership would be unable to prevent this ...

Sind. The CSP was disbanded. A complete report should be demanded from our comrades and steps taken to find out the exact position of the CSP and investigate about Bachar’s corrupt opportunism.

Gujarat. 100. We were in majority. A part of the leadership had come over to us, but they [our comrades] lost it owing to their own inactivity. The other group has gone over to Masani. In Ahmedabad we are a majority. Our group is the very opposite of Andhra comrades — the growing inactivity has completely paralysed and demoralised them. Today they have to begin all over again, from the most elementary stage. ...

Behar. 200. Solidly with JP. Provincial headquarters function, but no district units. They supply cadres and political leadership to the Kisan Sabhas but function as a loose group of individual agitators. The party is not built through kisan work, not attempted to draw in new cadres. If we could send a good organiser a first-rate CSP could be organised but we cannot afford to send any. We have contacts with some recently released Andaman prisoners and they are working inside the CSP.

Delhi. Membership 70. Torn with factionalism. The left section is with us but they are really nothing more than left CSPers. ... Since we cannot afford to send a whole time organiser there, comrades on then-way to and from Punjab should drop down at Delhi.

NW Frontier. Punjab CSPers have contact with them and they go along with them. They are generally left. Our CSP comrades should get in direct touch with them through the Punjab comrades.

Ajmer. There are ex-terrorists, Left Congressmen working among the states peoples and some advanced workers and with them all a good local CSP can be formed. The BBCI Union comrades should get in touch with all these contacts in Ajmer and help to organise a CSP.

Note:

1. This refers to a draft thesis for the CSP conference (Lahore, early 1938) prepared by the three communists named here, the first one being a joint secretary of the CSP.

Extracts From Second Congress Documents

1

Excerpts from

Lenin’s Theses On National And Colonial Questions^[1]

4. ... the entire policy of the Communist International on the national and colonial question must be based primarily on bringing together the proletariat and working classes of all nations and countries for the common revolutionary struggle for the over-throw of the landowners and the bourgeoisie. For only such united action will ensure victory over capitalism, without which it is impossible to abolish national oppression and inequality of rights.

5. The world political situation has now placed the proletarian dictatorship on the order of the day, and all events hi world politics are necessarily concentrated on one central point, the struggle of the world bourgeoisie against the Russian Soviet Republic, which is rallying round itself both the Soviet movements among the advanced workers in all countries, and all the national liberation movements in the colonies and among oppressed people, convinced by bitter experience that there is no salvation for them except in union with the revolutionary proletariat and in the victory of the Soviet power over world
imperialism.

6. At the present time, therefore, we should not restrict ourselves to a mere recognition or declaration of the need to bring the working people of various countries closer together; our policy must be to bring into being a close alliance of all national and colonial liberation movements with Soviet Russia; the forms taken by this alliance will be determined by the stage of development reached by the communist movement among the proletariat of each country or by the revolutionary liberation movement in the undeveloped countries and among the backward nationalities. ...

11. In regard to the more backward states and nations, primarily feudal or patriarchal or patriarchal-peasant in character, the following considerations must be kept specially in mind :

(a) All communist parties must support by action the revolutionary liberation movements in these countries. The form which this support shall take should be discussed with the communist party of the country in question, if there is one. This obligation refers in the first place to the active support of the workers in that country on which the backward nation is financially, or as a colony, dependent.

(b) It is essential to struggle against the reactionary and medieval influence of the priesthood, the Christian missions, and similar elements. ...

(d) It is particularly important to support the peasant movement in the backward countries against the landlords and all forms and survivals of feudalism. Above all, efforts must be made to give the peasant movement as revolutionary a character as possible, organising the peasants and all the exploited wherever possible in Soviets, and thus establish as close a tie as possible between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies and backward countries.

(e) A resolute struggle must be waged against the attempt to clothe the revolutionary liberation movements in the backward countries which are not genuinely communist in communist colours. The Communist International has the duty of supporting the revolutionary movement in the colonies and backward countries only with the object of rallying the constituent elements of the future proletarian parties — which will be truly communist and not only in name — in all the backward countries and educating them to a consciousness of their special task, namely, that of fighting against the bourgeois-democratic trend in their own nation. The Communist International should collaborate provisionally with the revolutionary movement of the colonies and backward countries, and even form an alliance with it, but it must not amalgamate with it; it must unconditionally maintain the independence of the proletarian movement, even if it is only in an embryonic stage.

(f) It is essential constantly to expose and to explain to the widest masses of the working people everywhere, and particularly in the backward countries, the deception practised by the imperialist powers with the help of the privileged classes in the oppressed countries in creating ostensibly politically independent states which are in reality completely dependent on them economically, financially, and militarily. ...

12. The centuries-old enslavement of the colonial and weak peoples by the great imperialist powers has left behind among the working masses of the enslaved countries not only feelings of bitterness but also feelings of distrust of the oppressing nations as a whole, including the proletariat of these nations. The despicable treachery to socialism committed by the majority of the official leaders of that proletariat in the years 1914-19, when the social-patriots concealed behind the slogan of “defence of the fatherland”, the defence of the “right” of “their” bourgeoisie to enslave the colonies and plunder the financially dependent countries — such treachery could only strengthen that quite natural distrust. Since this distrust and national prejudice can only be eradicated after the destruction of imperialism in the advanced countries and after the radical transformation of the entire foundations of economic life in the backward countries, the removal of these prejudices can proceed only very slowly. From this it follows that it is the duty of the class-conscious communist proletariat of all countries to be especially cautious and particularly attentive to the national feelings, in themselves out of date, in countries and peoples that have been long enslaved; it is also their duty to make concessions in order to remove this distrust and prejudice the more quickly. Unless the proletariat, and all the working masses of all countries and nations of the entire world themselves strive towards alliance, and unite as one, the victory over capitalism cannot be pursued to a completely successful end.

Note:

1.  The full text is available in G Adhikari, Vol. I. We have used that version and added our own emphases.

 

2

Excerpts from

Roy’s Supplementary Colonial Theses^[1]

1. To determine more especially the relation of CI to the revolutionary movements in the countries dominated by capitalistic imperialism, for instance China and India, is one of the most important questions before the Second Congress of the Third International. ...

2. One of the main sources from which^[2] European capitalism draws its chief strength is to be found in the colonial possessions and dependencies. ... England, the stronghold of imperialism, has been suffering from overproduction since more than a century ago. But for the extensive colonial possessions acquired for the sale of her surplus products and as a source of raw materials for her ever growing industries, the capitalistic structure of England would have been crushed under its own weight long ago ...

3.  Superprofit gained in the colonies is the mainstay of the modern capitalism — and so long as the latter is not deprived of this source of superprofit, it will not be easy for the European working class to overthrow the capitalist order ...

4. The breaking up of the colonial empire, together with the proletarian revolution in the home country, will overthrow the capitalist system in Europe^[3]...

6. Foreign imperialism, imposed on the eastern peoples, prevented them from developing socially and economically side by side with their fellows in Europe and America. Owing to the imperialist policy of preventing industrial development in the colonies, a proletarian class, in the strict sense of the word, could not come into existence here until recently. The indigenous craft industries were destroyed to make room for the products of the centralised industries in the imperialistic countries — consequently a majority of the population was driven to the land to produce foodgrains and raw materials for export to foreign lands. On the other hand, there followed a rapid concentration of land in the hands of the big landowners, of financial capitalists and the state, thus creating a huge landless peasantry ...

Foreign domination has obstructed the free development of the social forces, therefore its overthrow is the first step towards a revolution in the colonies. So to help overthrow the foreign rule in the colonies is not to endorse the nationalist aspirations of the native bourgeoisie, but to open the way to the smothered proletariat there.

7.^[4] There are to be found in the dependent countries two distinct movements which every day grow further apart from each other. One is the bourgeois democratic nationalist movement, with a programme of political independence under the bourgeois order, and the other is the mass action of the poor and ignorant peasants and workers for their liberation from all sorts of exploitation. The former endeavours to control the latter, and often succeeds to a certain extent, but the CI and the parties affected must struggle against such control and help to develop class consciousness in the working masses of the colonies^[5]. For the overthrow of foreign capitalism which is the first step toward revolution in the colonies the cooperation of the bourgeois nationalist revolutionary elements is6 useful.

But the foremost and necessary task is the formation of communist parties which will organise the peasants and workers and lead them to the revolution and to the establishment of Soviet republics. Thus the masses in the backward countries may reach communism, not through capitalistic development, but led by the class conscious proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries^[7].

8. The real strength of the liberation movements in the colonies is no longer confined to the narrow circle of bourgeois democratic nationalists. In most of the colonies there already exist organised revolutionary parties which strive to be in close connection with the working masses^[8]. The relation of CI with the revolutionary movement in the colonies should be realised through the medium of these parties or groups, because they are the vanguard of the working class in their respective countries. They are not^[9] very large today, but they reflect the aspirations of the masses and the latter will follow them to the revolution. The communist parties of the different imperialistic countries must work in conjunction with these proletarian parties of the colonies and, through them, give all moral and material support to the revolutionary movement in general.

9.^[10] The revolution in the colonies is not going to be a communist revolution in its first stage. But if from the outset the leadership is in the hands of a communist vanguard, the revolutionary masses will not be led astray, but may go ahead through the successive periods of development of revolutionary experience. Indeed, it would be extremely erroneous^[11] in many of the oriental countries to try to solve^[12] the agrarian problem according to pure communist principles. In its first stages, the revolution in the colonies must be carried on with a programme which will include many petty bourgeois reform clauses, such as division of land, etc. But from this it does not follow at all that the leadership of the revolution will have to be surrendered to the bourgeois democrats. On the contrary, the proletarian parties must carry on vigorous and systematic propaganda of the Soviet idea and organise the peasants’ and workers’ Soviets as soon as possible. These Soviets will work in cooperation with the Soviet republics in the advanced capitalistic countries for the ultimate overthrow of the capitalist order throughout the world^[13].

Lastly, the original draft contained two more paragraphs as follows:

10. The bourgeois national democrats in the colonies strive for the establishment of a free national state, whereas the masses of workers and poor peasants are revolting, even though in many cases unconsciously, against the system which permits such brutal exploitation. Consequently, in the colonies, we have two contradictory forces; they cannot develop together. To support the colonial bourgeois democratic movements would amount to helping the growth of the national spirit which will surely obstruct the awakening of class consciousness in the masses; whereas to encourage and support the revolutionary mass action through the medium of a communist party of the proletarians will bring the real revolutionary forces to action which will not only overthrow the foreign imperialism, but lead progressively to the development of Soviet power, thus preventing the rise of a native capitalism in place of the vanquished foreign capitalism, to further oppress and exploit the people.

11. To initiate at as early a stage as possible the class struggle in the colonies means to awaken the people to the danger of a transplanted European capitalism which, overthrown in Europe, may seek refuge in Asia, and to defeat such an eventuality before its beginning.

MN Roy
India.

Notes:
1. These extracts are from the full text given in G Adhikari, Vol. I, where Roy’s original draft (before amendments by Lenin and the Colonial Commission) is also given in full. We have indicated some major differences between the adopted text and the original draft by way of italicising the relevant portions and of numbered notes at the end of this document. This will help clarify Roy's original position, the political correctives introduced by Lenin and the Colonial Commission and thus throw light on the content of the Lenin-Roy debate.

2. Roy’s original draft reads here: The fountainhead from which
 
3. Here the original draft reads : Without the breaking up of the colonial empire, the overthrow of the capitalist system in Europe does not appear possible.
 
4. In the original draft, this paragraph started with a few sentences which have been deleted in the final version : The revolutionary movements in the colonies are essentially an economic struggle. The bourgeois-democratic nationalist movements are limited to the small middle class which does not reflect the aspirations of the masses. Without the active support of the masses, the national freedom of the colonies will never be attained. But in many countries, especially in India, the masses are not with the bourgeois nationalist leaders — they are moving towards revolution independently of the bourgeois nationalist movement.
 
5. In Roy’s draft, in place of the italicised clause we find : but it would be a mistake to assume that the bourgeois nationalist movement expresses the sentiments and aspirations of the general population.

6. Roy had written : may be

7. In place of this paragraph, the original draft had : But the Communist International must not find in them the media through which the revolutionary movement in the colonies should be helped. The mass movements in the colonies are growing independently of the nationalist movements. The masses distrust the political leaders who always lead them astray and prevent them from revolutionary action.

8. Roy had written : socialist or communist parties, in close relation to the mass movement.

9. The original draft reads : may not be

10. In the original draft this paragraph begins with a pair of sentences that are deleted in the final version : The supposition that, owing to the economic and industrial backwardness, the peoples in the colonies are bound to go through the stages of bourgeois democracy is wrong. The events and conditions in many of the colonies do not corroborate such a supposition. It is true that

11. In the original: very difficult

12. In the original: to solve

13. These two sentences were not there in the original.

 

3

Report Of Comrade Roy (India)^[1]

“Since the 1880s, the nationalist movement in India has begun to assume more or less definite forms and has found its expression in the National Congress.

“In the course of its development this movement has embraced broad circles of the student, youth and the middle classes, but the call of nationalists to fight for India’s independence has not struck a response among the masses.

“The masses of India are not infected by the national spirit. They are interested solely in questions of a socio-economic nature. The condition of India's population is extremely grave.

“Ever since British capitalism entrenched itself in India, 80 per cent of the country's population who draw their subsistence from agriculture have lost their property and turned into agricultural labourers. These millions of people are beggars. Though they till the soil they starve because everything produced by their labour is shipped abroad. These tens of millions of people are absolutely not interested in bourgeois nationalist slogans; only one slogan can interest them — land to the tiller of the soil.

“As compared with the rural proletariat the industrial proletariat of India is small. Altogether there are up to 5 million workers in India. The trade union movement is swiftly spreading among these workers. The strike movement has strongly developed among the working class of India in recent years. The first important strike occurred in 1906. It involved railwaymen and assumed the nature of a real uprising.

“India has elements for the creation of a strong communist party. But the revolutionary movement in India, in as much as the broad masses are concerned, has nothing in common with the national liberation movement.

“Proceeding from this analysis, Comrade Roy arrived at the conclusion that it was necessary to delete from the 11th thesis (of Lenin's preliminary draft) on the national question the paragraph about the need for all the communist parties to help bourgeois democratic liberation movement in eastern countries. The Communist International should help solely to create and develop the communist movement in India, and the Communist Party of India must concern itself only with organising the broad masses to fight for their class interests.

“Comrade Roy defended the idea that the fate of the revolutionary movement in Europe entirely depended on the course of the revolution in East ...”

“Comrade Quelch of the British Communist Party replied to Comrade Roy. Comrade Quelch proved that communists must help any movement against imperialism. So far the national liberation movement in India perhaps did not enjoy the sympathies of the broad masses, but this did not mean that it would not enjoy it in the immediate future. ...

“Comrade Lenin also challenged Roy’s viewpoint. ‘In Russia we supported the liberal liberation movement during the attack on Tsar-ism. Communists of India must support the bourgeois democratic movement without merging with it. Comrade Roy went too far, alleging that the fate of the West depended solely on the degree of development and strength of the revolutionary movement in the eastern countries. Though India had 5 million proletarians and 37 million landless peasants, Indian communists so far had not succeeded in founding a communist party in the country and for this  reason alone the views of comrade Roy were largely unsubstantiated.’ ” ...

Note:
1.   Cited by G Adhikari (Vol. I, pp 161-63) from an article by A Reznikov in Kommunlst, the theoretical organ of CPSU.

 

4

Excerpts from

Report Of The Commission On The National And Colonial Question^[1]

... Our commission have unanimously adopted both the preliminary theses, as amended, and the supplementary theses. We have thus reached complete unanimity on all major issues. I shall now make a few brief remarks.

First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. Unlike the Second International and bourgeois democracy, we emphasise this distinction......

... This idea of distinction, of dividing the nations into oppressor and oppressed, runs through the theses, not only the first theses published earlier over my signature, but also those submitted by Comrade Roy. The latter were framed chiefly from the standpoint of the situation in India and other big Asian countries oppressed by Britain. Herein lies their great importance to us.

The second basic idea in our theses is that, in the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia. ...

Third, I should like especially to emphasise the question of the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. This is a question that has given rise to certain differences. We have discussed whether it would be right or wrong, in principle and in theory, to state that the Communist International and the communist parties must support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of our discussion, we have arrived at the unanimous decision to speak of the national-revolutionary movement rather than of the "bourgeois-democratic" movement. It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consists of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relationships. It would be Utopian to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can emerge in them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without giving it effective support. However, the objections have been raised that, if we speak of the bourgeois-democratic movement we shall be obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in the backward and colonial countries, since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the — bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often — perhaps even in most cases — the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in foil accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term “national-revolutionary” for the terms “bourgeois-democratic”. The significance of this change is that we, as communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in-the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong. Reformist parties already exist in the colonial countries, and in some cases their spokesmen call themselves Social-Democrats and socialists. The distinction I have referred to has been made in all the theses with the result, I think, that our view is now formulated much more precisely.

... the debate in the commission, in which several representatives from colonial countries participated, demonstrated convincingly that the Communist International’s theses should point out that peasants’ Soviets, Soviets of the exploited, are a weapon which can be employed, not only in capitalist countries but also in countries with pre-capitalist relations, and that it is the absolute duty of communist parties and of elements prepared to form communist parties, everywhere to conduct propaganda in favour of peasants’ Soviets or of working people’s Soviets, this to include backward and colonial countries. ...

There was quite a lively debate on this question in the commission, not only in connection with the theses I signed, but still more in connection with Comrade Roy's theses, which he will defend here, and certain amendments to which were unanimously adopted.

The question was posed as follows : are we to consider as correct the assertion that the capitalist stage of economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance towards progress is to be seen since the war? We replied in the negative. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal — in that event it will be mistaken to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of development. Not only should we create independent contingents of fighters and party organisations in the colonies and the backward countries, not only at once launch propaganda for the organisation of peasants’ Soviets and strive to adapt them to the pre-capitalist conditions, but the Communist International should advance the proposition, with the appropriate theoretical grounding, that with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage.

Note:

1.   Source : Lenin, CW, Vol. 31. pp 240-44

 

5

Excerpts from

Roy’s Speech Defending His Supplementary Theses And Discussion On It^[1]

Certain of the alterations which the commission has made in my theses have been accepted by me. ... I am most pleased that I have the opportunity for the first time to take part in the serious discussion of the colonial question at the congress of the revolutionary proletariat. Until the present time, the European parties did not pay sufficient attention to this question; they were too busy with their own affairs and ignored the colonial question. ... Until lately there were in the colonies only bourgeois national revolutionary movements, whose only aim it has been to replace the foreign exploiters in order to be able to do the exploiting themselves.

During the war and immediately after it great changes have taken place in India. While formerly English capitalism had always hindered the development of Indian industry, of late it has changed that policy. The growth of industry in* British India has gone on at such a pace as can hardly be imagined here in Europe. Taking into consideration that during recent times the industrial proletariat of British India has increased by 15 per cent and that the capital employed in British Indian industry has risen 2000 per cent, one gets an idea of the rapid development of the capitalist system in British India. The same also applies to Egypt, the Dutch Indies and China.

At the same time a new movement among the exploited masses has started in India, which has spread rapidly and found expression in a gigantic strike movement. This mass movement is not controlled by the revolutionary nationalists, but is developing independently in spite of the fact that the nationalists are endeavouring to make use of it for their own purposes. This movement of the masses is of a revolutionary character, although it cannot be said that the workers and peasants constituting it are class conscious. But they are nevertheless revolutionary. This is evident by their daily activity. This state of the revolutionary movement of the masses opens a new field of activity for the Communist International, and it is only a question of finding the proper methods for gathering the fruits of that activity ...

Serrati : ... In the theses proposed to the congress on the national and colonial questions by Comrade Roy and Lenin, I find not only some contradictions but also a grave danger for the communist proletariat of the advanced countries, for the proletariat which should be constantly opposed to every class compromise especially in the pre-revolutionary period. ... The movement for national liberation can be revolutionary only when the working class maintains its own class lines.

The class struggle in the so-called backward countries can be carried on only when the proletariat preserves its independence of the exploiters, even of those bourgeois democrats calling themselves revolutionary nationalists.

Only by means of a proletarian revolution and through the Soviet regime can the subject nations obtain their freedom. This cannot be done by temporary alliances of the communists with the bourgeois parties called nationalist revolutionists.

These alliances only demoralise the class consciousness of the proletariat, especially in the countries where the proletariat has not been tempered in the struggle against capitalism. ...

Note:

1. See G Adhikari, Vol. I. Pp 190-193.

 

6

Extract From A Third Congress Document

Excerpts from

Theses On World Situation And The Tasks Of The Communist International^[1]

... The vigorous development of capitalism in the East, particularly in India and China, has created new social bases there for the revolutionary struggle. The bourgeoisie of these countries tightened their bonds with foreign capital, and so became an important instrument of its rule. Their struggle against foreign imperialism, the struggle of a very weak rival, is essentially half-hearted and feeble in character. The growth of the indigenous proletariat paralyses the national revolutionary tendencies of the capitalist bourgeoisie, but at the same time the vast peasant masses are finding revolutionary leaders in the person of the conscious communist vanguard. The combination of military oppression by foreign bourgeoisie, and the survival of feudal servitude creates favourable conditions for the young proletariat of the colonies to develop rapidly and to take its place at the head of the revolutionary peasant movement. The popular revolutionary movement in India and in other colonies has now become an integral part of the world revolution as the uprising of the proletariat in the capitalist countries of the Old and New World.

Note:

1.  Cited by G Adhikari (Vol. I, pp 265-66) from Communist International, 1919-43, Documents, Vol. 1, by Jane Degras; Oxford University Press, London, 1936, p 234.

 

7

Extracts From Fourth Congress Documents

Excerpts from

Theses On The Eastern Question

I.     The growth of the revolutionary movement in the East

... Since that time (the Second Comintern Congress — Ed.) the struggle against imperialist oppression in the colonies and semi-colonial countries has become considerably more acute as a consequence of the deepening post-war political and economic crises of imperialism.

Evidence of this is served by: (1) the collapse of the Sevres Treaty on the partition of Turkey and the possibility of the complete restoration of the national and political independence of the latter; (2) the stormy growth of a national-revolutionary movement in India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Morocco, China and Korea; (3) the hopeless internal crisis of Japanese imperialism giving rise to the rapid growth of elements of a bourgeois-democratic revolution in the country and the transition by the Japanese proletariat to independent class struggle; (4) the awakening of the labour movement in all countries of the East and the formation of communist parties almost in all parts of the East.

The facts enumerated above indicate a change in the social basis of the revolutionary movement in the colonies. This change leads to the anti-imperialist-struggle becoming more acute; this struggle is no longer being led exclusively by the feudal classes and the national bourgeoisie which is preparing to compromise with imperialism.

The imperialist war of 1914-18 and the prolonged crisis which followed it, particularly in Europe, have weakened the power of the great powers over the colonies. On the other hand, these same circumstances are narrowing the economic bases and spheres of influence of world capitalism, have rendered imperialist rivalry for the colonies more acute and in this way have disturbed the equilibrium of the whole world imperialist system (the fight for oil, Anglo-French conflict in Asia Minor, the Japanese-American rivalry for the domination of the Pacific Ocean, etc.).

It is precisely this weakening of imperialist pressure in the colonies, together with the increasing rivalry between various imperialist groups, that has facilitated the development of native capitalism in the colonies and semi-colonial countries which are outgrowing the narrow framework of the domination of the imperialist great powers. Hitherto the capitalists of the great powers in maintaining their monopoly rights to secure superprofits from trade, industry and the taxation of backward countries have striven to isolate these from world economic intercourse. The demand for national and economic independence put forward by the national movements in the colonies serves to express the needs of bourgeois development in these countries. The growth of native productive forces in these colonies, therefore, causes an irreconcilable antagonism of interests between them and world imperialism, for the essence of imperialism consists in using the varying levels of development of productive forces in various parts of the economic world for the purpose of extracting monopoly superprofits.

II.     Conditions of the struggle

... To the extent that capitalism in the colonial countries arises and develops from feudal bases in hybrid, imperfect and intermediary forms, which give predominance above all to merchant capitalism, the rise of bourgeois democracy from feudal-bureaucratic and feudal-agrarian elements proceeds often by devious and protracted paths. This represents the chief obstacle for successful mass struggles against imperialist oppression as the foreign imperialists in all the backward countries convert the feudal (and partly also the semi-feudal semi-bourgeois) upper classes of native society into agents of their domination. ...

For that reason the dominant classes in the colonies and the semi-colonial countries are incapable and unwilling to lead the struggle against imperialism in so far as this struggle tends to become a revolutionary mass movement. Only where the feudal-patriarchal system has not decayed to such an extent as to completely separate the native aristocracy from the mass of the people, as among the nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples, can those upper classes take up the active leadership of the struggle against imperialist violence (Mesopotamia, Morocco, Mongolia). ...

This main task common to all national revolutionary movements is to bring about national unity and achieve political independence. The real and consistent solution of this depends on the extent to which the national movement in any particular country is capable of attracting to itself the toiling masses and break off all connections with the reactionary feudal elements and include in its programme the social demands of the masses ...

III.     Agrarian question

In the majority of countries in the East (India, Persia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia) the agrarian question is of primary importance in the struggle for emancipation from the domination of the despotism of the great powers. ... While in the advanced countries prior to the war, industrial crises served as regulators of social production, this function in the colonies is performed by famine. Vitally interested in securing the greatest profits with the least expenditure of capital, imperialism strives all it can to maintain in the backward countries the feudal usurious form of exploiting labour power. In some countries like India, it assumes the monopoly rights of the native feudal state to the land and converts the land tribute into feudal dues and the zamindars and talukdars into its agents. ...

Only the agrarian revolution aiming at the expropriation of the large landowners can rouse the vast peasant masses destined to have a decisive influence in the struggles against imperialism. The fear of agrarian watchwords on the part of the bourgeois nationalists (India, Persia, Egypt) is evidence of the close ties existing between the native bourgeoisie with the large feudal and feudal-bourgeois land-owners and their ideological and political dependence upon the latter. The hesitation and wavering of this class must be used by the revolutionary elements for systematic criticism and exposure of the lack of resolution of the bourgeois leaders of the national movement. It is precisely this lack of resolution that hinders the organisation of the toiling masses as is proved by the bankruptcy of the tactics of non-cooperation in India. ...

... the revolutionary parties in all Eastern countries must define their agrarian programme which should demand the complete abolition of feudalism and its survivals expressed in the forms of large landownership and tax farming. In order that the peasant masses may be drawn into active participation in the struggle for national liberation, it is necessary to proclaim the radical reform on the basis of landownership. It is necessary also to compel the bourgeois nationalist parties to the greatest extent possible to adopt this revolutionary agrarian programme.

IV.     The labour movement in the East

The young labour movement in the East is a product of the development of native capitalism during the last few years. ... In the first stages, these movements do not extend beyond the limits of the “common national” interests of bourgeois democracy (strikes against imperialist bureaucracy and administration in China and India). Frequently, as was already shown at the Second Congress of the Comintern, representatives of bourgeois nationalism exploiting the moral and political authority of Soviet Russia, and playing to the class instincts of the workers, clothed their bourgeois democratic strivings in “socialist” and “communist” forms, in order by these means, sometimes unconsciously, to divert the embryonic proletarian organisations from the direct tasks of class organisations. ...

... In spite of this, the trade union and political movement of the working class in the backward countries has made considerable progress in recent years. The formation of independent proletarian class parties in almost all the eastern countries is a remarkable fact, although the overwhelming majority of these parties must still undergo considerable internal reorganisation in order to free themselves from amateurity, sectarianism and other defects. ...

V.     The general tasks of the communist parties in the East

While the bourgeois nationalists regard the labour movement merely from the point of view of its importance as a means for securing victory for themselves, the international proletariat regards the young labour movement of the East from the point of view of its revolutionary future ...

The objective tasks of colonial revolutions exceed the limit of bourgeois democracy by the very fact that a decisive victory is incompatible with the domination of world imperialism. While the native bourgeoisie and bourgeois intelligentsia are the pioneers of colonial revolutionary movements, with the entry of proletarian and semi-proletarian peasant masses into these movements, however, the rich bourgeoisie and bourgeois landlords begin to leave it as the social interests of the masses assume prominence. The young proletariat of the colonies is still confronted by a prolonged struggle over a whole historical epoch, a struggle against imperialist exploitation and against its own ruling classes ...

The struggle to secure influence over the peasant masses should prepare the native proletariat for the role of political leadership. Only after having accomplished this preparatory work on its own training and-that of the social classes closely allied to itself will it be possible to advance against bourgeois democracy which, amidst the conditions of the backward East, bears a more hypocritical character than the West.

The refusal of the communists in the colonies to participate against imperialist oppression on the pretext of alleged “defence” of independent class interests is opportunism of the worst kind calculated only to discredit the proletarian revolution in the East. No less harmful must be recognised the attempt to isolate oneself from the immediate and everyday interests of the working class for the sake of “national unity” or “civil peace” with bourgeois democracy. The communist and working class parties in the colonies and semi-colonial countries are confronted by a two-fold task: on the one hand to fight for the most radical solutions of the problems of bourgeois democratic revolution, directed to the conquest of political independence, and on the other to organise the workers and peasants to fight for their special class interests and to take advantage of the antagonism existing in the nationalist bourgeois democratic camp. In putting forward special demands, these parties stimulate and release revolutionary energy which finds no outlet in bourgeois liberal demands ...

The communist parties in the colonies and semi-colonial countries in the East, which are still in a more or less embryonic stage, must take part in every movement that gives them access to the masses. At the same time, however, they must conduct an energetic campaign against the patriarchal and craft prejudices and bourgeois influences in the labour unions, in order to protect these embryonic organisations from reformist tendencies and in order to convert them into mass fighting organisations. They must exert all their efforts to organise the numerous agricultural labourers and artisans of both sexes on the basis of defending their immediate everyday interests.

VI.     The united anti-imperialist front

While in the West amidst the conditions of the transition period, which is a period of organised accumulation of strength, the watchword of the united labour front was put forward, in the colonial East it is at present necessary to put forward the watchword of a united anti-imperialist front ...

The labour movement in the colonies and semi-colonial countries must first of all secure for itself the positions of an independent factor in the common anti-imperialist front. Only on the basis of the recognition of this independence and the maintenance of complete independence is a temporary agreement with bourgeois democracy permissible and necessary. The proletariat must support and put forward partial demands such as independent democratic republic, abolition of all feudal rights and privileges, and enfranchisement of women, etc. in view of the fact that the present correlation of forces does not permit it to carry out its Soviet programme ...

Source:   Inprecor, Vol. II, Nb. 118, 30 December 1922

 

8

Excerpts from

Report On The Eastern Question

By Roy (India)

The countries in the East can be divided into three categories. First, those countries which are nearing to most highly developed capitalism. Countries where not only the import of capital from the metropolis has developed industry, but a native capitalism has grown, leading to the rise of a bourgeoisie with a developed class consciousness, and its counterpart, the proletariat, which is also developing its class consciousness, and is engaged in an economic struggle which is gradually coming into its political stage. Second, those countries in which capitalist development has taken place but is still at the lower level, and in which feudalism is still the backbone of society. Then we have the third grade, where primitive conditions still prevail, where feudal-patriarchalism is the social order. ...

The task before us today in this Fourth Congress is to elaborate those fundamental principles that were laid down by the Second Congress of the Communist International. ...

With this in view all the eastern delegations present at this Congress in cooperation with the Eastern Section of the Communist International have prepared theses which have been submitted to the Congress. In these theses the general situation in the East has been laid down and the development in the movement since the Second Congress has been pointed out and the general line which should determine the development of the movement in those countries has also been formulated ...

We find today that the elements which were active participants in those (national revolutionary — Ed.) movements two years ago are gradually leaving them if they have not already left them. For example, in the countries which are more developed capitalistically, the upper level of the bourgeoisie, that is that part of the bourgeoisie which has already what may be called a stake in the country, which has a large amount of capital invested, and which has built up an industry, is finding that today it is more convenient for its development to have imperialist protection. Because, when the great social upheaval that took place at the end of the war developed into its revolutionary sweep it was not only the foreign imperialists but the native bourgeoisie as well who were terrified by its possibilities. The bourgeoisie in none of those countries is developed enough as yet to have the confidence of being able to take the place of foreign imperialism and to preserve law and order after the overthrow of imperialism ... the industrial development of the bourgeoisie needs peace and order which was given to most of these countries by foreign imperialists. The threat to this peace and order, the possibility of disturbance and revolutionary upheaval, has made it more convenient for the native bourgeoisie to compromise with the imperial overlord ...

In order to maintain its hold in those countries imperialism must look for some local help, must have some social basis, must have the support of one or other of the classes of native society. Today it has found it necessary to repudiate the old methods of imperialist exploitation and it has given the native bourgeoisie or a certain part of the native bourgeoisie certain concessions in the political or economic sphere. These concessions have reconciled the native bourgeoisie temporally, but they have opened a bigger vision before it. They have permitted a test of economic development and brought into existence a capitalist rivalry, because in so far as industry grows in the colonial countries it undermines the basis of the monopoly of imperial capital.

Therefore, the temporary compromise between native and imperial bourgeoisie cannot be everlasting. In this compromise we can find the development of future conflict. …

... The bourgeoisie becomes a revolutionary factor when it raises the standard of revolt against backward, antiquated forms of society — that is, when the struggle is fundamentally against the feudal order, the bourgeoisie leading the people. Then the bourgeoisie is the vanguard of the revolution.

But this cannot be said of the new bourgeoisie in the eastern countries, or most of them. Although the bourgeoisie is leading the struggle there, it is at the same time not leading it against feudalism. ... it is a struggle of the weak and suppressed and undeveloped bourgeoisie against a stronger and more developed bourgeoisie. Instead of being a class war it is an internecine war, so to say, and as such contains the elements of compromise ...

And this is the fundamental issue of the thing that we have to find out — How the native bourgeoisie and the native upper class, whose interest conflicts with imperialism or whose economic development is obstructed by imperial domination, can be encouraged and helped to undertake a fight ? ... they will go to a certain extent and then they try to stop the revolution. We have already seen this in practical experience in almost all the countries ...

The bourgeoisie was divided into two parts — the upper layer, which was developed industrially and owning big industrial and commercial interests interlinked with imperial capital, found it dangerous for their extension, and therefore went over to the imperialists thus constituting itself a positive obstruction to the revolutionary nationalist movement. The other section with its weak social background did not have the determination, the courage, to put itself at the head of this big revolutionary movement to lead it forward, and the movement consequently, betrayed and misled by these elements, has come to its present period of depression ...

Therefore we find the necessity of these communist parties, which at the present moment cannot be called more than nuclei, are destined to play a big role in so far as they will assume the leadership of the national revolutionary struggle when it is deserted and betrayed by the bourgeoisie. ...

These parties are historically destined for and socially capable of this task because they are based on the objectively most revolutionary factor, viz., the peasants and workers — the factor which has no interest in common with imperialism and whose social position and economic conditions cannot be improved in any way so long as these countries are under capitalist imperialism ...

During the war imperialism, particularly British imperialism, found it necessary to slacken its monopoly rights over the economic and industrial life of the backward colonial countries. So, a country like India, which was maintained as an agricultural reserve, as a source of raw material for British industries for more than 150 years, was allowed sufficient industrial development during the war. The dislocation of the capitalist equilibrium in Europe forces imperialism to look out for new markets by which the equilibrium of world capitalism can be re-established. They are trying to find this in the colonial countries by developing industrially countries like India and China: they are trying to find the solution of the problem that way. Depending on the resources in the colonial countries, imperialism tries to carry its offensive against the European proletariat to a crushing victory.

We must not lose sight of this tendency. We may argue this way : Well, this cannot be done because imperialism means that colonial countries should be left in a backward state economically so that the goods manufactured in the metropolitan countries can be sold there. Yes, but that is a very mechanical way of looking on these things. We must not forget that if the coat tail of the Chinaman is lengthened by a few inches the textile production of the world will have to be doubled. By industrial development the standard of living of 400 million Chinese can be raised and thus the textile production of the world doubled Industrial development of China does not necessarily mean the contraction of production in the home countries. These countries when they are industrially developing must have machinery, etc. which they cannot produce by themselves, and so while perhaps in certain kind of goods the colonial market can be limited and reduced, yet so far as machinery is concerned they must be extended. ...

So, you see the readjustment of imperial capital with the native capital in the colonial and semi-colonial countries will play a big part in the wide scheme of capitalist offensive. ...

Side by side with the united labour front in the western countries we must organise the united anti-imperialist front in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. The object of this anti-imperialist united front is to organise all the available revolutionary forces in a big united front against imperialism. The organisation of this front, the experience of the last two years has shown us, could not be realised under the leadership of the bourgeois parties. So we have to develop our parties in these countries in order to take the lead in the organisation ot this front. ... the campaign of the united anti-imperialist front in the colonial countries [will] liberate the leadership of the movement from the timid and hesitating bourgeoisie and bring the masses more actively in the forefront, through the most revolutionary social elements which constitute the basis of the movement, thereby securing the final victory.

Source: Inprecor, Vol. II, No. 116.

 

 

Extracts From Fifth Congress Documents

9

Excerpts from

The Resolution On The Report Of The ECCI

17. On the nationality question the executive had ample cause to remind many sections, for which this question is of the utmost importance, of their inadequate execution of the decisions of the Second Congress. One of the basic principles of Leninism, requiring resolute and constant advocacy by communists of the right of national self-determination (secession and the formation of an independent state), has not yet been applied by all sections of the CI as it should be.

18. In addition to winning the support of the peasant masses and of the oppressed national minorities, the Comintern has to win the revolutionary movements of liberation, among the colonial peoples and all Eastern peoples, as allies of the revolutionary proletariat of the capitalist countries. This requires not only the further development of direct links between the Executive and the national liberation movements of the East, but also closer contacts between the sections in the imperialist countries and the colonies of those countries, and above all an unceasing and relentless struggle in every country against the imperialist colonial policy of the bourgeoisie. In this respect communist work everywhere is still very weak.

Source :  The Communist International, 1919-43, Documents — Ed. by Jane Degras, Vol. II, Oxford University Press, p 106.

 

10

Excerpts from

National Question In The Communist International

(We reproduce a part of the debate on the national and colonial question as discussed in the recent Fifth World Congress. A complete report will be published as soon as it is available, below we give excerpts from the report of MN Roy who was called on to open the debate and who, together with Manuilsky, was the principal reporter on the subject in this year’s congress — Editor.)^[1]

... I must first point out that in the resolution on the report of the executive there is a clause which does not correspond with the theses passed by the Second Congress.

My amendment was rejected on the ground that it was not in accord with these same theses, but I want to prove that it is the resolution which does not correspond with the theses, and which is totally mistaken when considered in the light of the events that have taken place since the Second Congress. The resolution says, that in order to win over the people of colonial and semi-colonial countries, there must be a “further development of the direct contact of the executive with the national movement for emancipation,” It is true that we must always have a connection with these national movements, but it seems to have been overlooked that these connections have not always been successful. To quote again from the theses of the Second Congress : “All communist parties must give active support to the revolutionary movement of liberation, their form of support to be determined by a study of existing conditions.”^[2] For instance, a movement which might have had a revolutionary significance in 1920 is not in the same position in 1924. Classes which might have been allies of the revolutionary proletariat in 1920 will not be allies in 1924. Here is the danger of a rigid formula and the cause of our inefficiency, futility and lamentable lack of any activity in this sphere. If we are to improve we must rectify this fundamental error. ...

As Marxists we know that in the colonial countries capitalism is not well-developed (and it is mere romanticism to speak of a revolutionary proletariat there). But there are masses of peasants and the importance of the revolutionary movement is there. The united front must be extended beyond capitalist countries to the peasants in exploited countries. ... The theses of the Second Congress also stated that it was the duty of the International to support the revolutionary movement in the colonies and in backward countries for the exclusive purpose of uniting the various units of the future proletarian parties and educating them to the consciousness of their specific tasks, that is to the tasks of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic tendencies within their respective nationalities.
If this is our task, then we must have direct connection with the masses but the resolution says, that we must have a direct connection with the national-liberation movement. These include all sorts of classes and aims. We shall never progress if we stand by this vague formula, our failure hitherto has been due to [this] theoretical confusion.

What practical result has our connection with the national-liberation movement had hitherto ? None, except in one or two cases where a nationalist state government has had friendly relations with the Soviet state. But we are not talking of such relations but of the revolutionary movement and the connection between the east and west. To understand this, we must analyse the social composition of all the different classes in all these different countries, and then lay down a general law. ...

It is necessary to clear up a misunderstanding on one point before going further. It is not true to say that I am in favour of self-determination of the toiling masses and not self-determination of nationalities. ...

... All classes have a right to it. But we must analyse social conditions in order to understand what class is going to play the most important part in obtaining it. The Communist International must support national-liberation movement, but for practical purposes it must find out what class is leading them, and must have its direct contacts with that class.

Manuilsky said that in the last year there had been a great revival of the national movement in British India. As matter of fact last year was a period of the worst depression in the nationalist movement there. In 1920 and 1921 this movement led by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaders struck terror into the hearts of British imperialists but that period is now past. It is misleading to suggest otherwise or to quote the Bombay strike as a proof of the power of the nationalist movement.

What was the Bombay strike? In any other country it would have been considered as of the first revolutionary importance, but because it happens in a colonial country no one knows anything about it. 150,000 men and 30,000 women struck for three months against Indian and British capitalist imperialism — it was a true revolutionary movement, and had nothing whatever to do with the national movement. Its origin lies in the conflict between Indian and British capitalistic interests in the textile trade. During the war and afterwards, under pressure from the government which desired peace, some small wage increases were given to the workers. When the owners tried to take this away, the workers refused to accept their conditions. In came the nationalist leaders — petty-bourgeois humanitarians, radicals and Fabians who still lead the trade unions — and told the workers to accept the starvation wage offered for the sake of national interest. If they did not, Lancashire cotton would come in and undersell Indian cotton. But for the first time in history the Indian workers repudiated their leaders and went on with the fight. Yet this is quoted to illustrate the recrudescence of nationalism. …

Manuilsky also quoted the struggle of the peasants. But these are signs of decomposition in the national movement the form of which — the united front against foreign domination — is dead. The struggle of the peasantry is the class struggle of the exploited peasantry against Indian landlords. It is parallel to the struggle of the Indian town workers against Indian capitalists. Thus the national movement is split. In 1920-21 the revolting peasantry and proletariat were led by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois who, however, failed to understand the significance of the revolutionary forces they have called into action. Now this nationalist movement is split by a class struggle. With which class are we to have our “direct contacts” ?

The petty-bourgeois are still linked in thought with feudalism and landlordism and are separated from the masses, but if we organise the peasantry and the workers they will force the pace for the petty-bourgeois who are now ready to compromise with imperialism for the sake of peace and money. If they find that by fighting for more they gain support from the masses in their fight, they will grow bolder and less inclined to compromise. No foreign country can dominate another unless it first wins over a section of the people. This imperialism has always done, choosing sometimes one class and sometimes another. In India, where national capitalism is growing rapidly, the national bourgeoisie has been won over to support the empire and has even demanded in a recent manifesto that military power and foreign relations should remain in the hands of the British government. Why military power? Because the Indian bourgeoisie knows better than any one else that the discontent of the masses is economic and not nationalistic, and the exploiting class in India demands protection from the exploited. Indian capitalism is running straight into the arms of the British imperialism and the same tendency will soon be seen in other countries.

... The direct contact of the Comintern must he with the social class which is most revolutionary, and the separate condition of each country must be analysed from this point of view. Every section of the International must be given its special task, in order that national sections may not be reproached again with negligence which has not been their fault.

Notes:

1,  This editorial note is by Vanguard, Vol. 5, No. 2, 15 August 1924, from which we reproduce these extracts from an article by MN Roy.

2.  Para 11 (a) of the said theses actually reads : “should be discussed with the communist party in question, if there is one.” - Ed.

 

11

More From Roy’s Speech On The National Question

In some of the colonies native capitalism has developed quite significantly. It is true that following this development, the conflict between the native and foreign bourgeoisie has sharpened. But the question has another aspect. The class contradiction in the native society too has sharpened. This leads to unrest among the masses. Following the War, this primitive expression of class contradiction, together with unrest, constitutes the foundation of an acute nationalist movement. Earlier, the nationalist movement centred around the intellectuals and the petty bourgeoisie. After the War, this has spread all over the country. The bourgeoisie placed itself at the peak of this discontent, without grasping its class-character. By utilising the forces of this mass-insurrection, it however put forward the demands of its own class. But imperialism immediately made it a point to split the national front by giving concessions through colonial capital. The present crisis of world capitalism has made it possible for imperialism to pursue this new policy. In Egypt as well as India, this policy has had remarkable success. The bourgeois leaders have turned against the participation of the masses in the movement. They withdrew support to revolutionary mass-action and went back to the old method of constitutional opposition. Consequently, the nationalist movement has collapsed even in India, where it had gained tremendous strength. In India there exists a developed bourgeoisie and the capitalism there is far more developed than in any other colonial country. Nevertheless, the bourgeoisie has put forward the programme of freeing itself from the Empire. In reality, it does not have any such programme. The nationalist bourgeoisie pleads for Dominion Status. Why? Because the new economic policy of imperialism leads to industrialisation of colonies. This is exactly what the nationalist bourgeoisie today demands. As soon as its political rights are conceded, it gets itself reconciled with imperialism fully.

Source:
Cited by Sobhanlal Dutta Gupta in Comintern, India And The Colonial Question, 1920-37, KP Bagchi & Co., (Calcutta, 1980). Sri Datta Gupta has taken this extract from Minutes of the Fifth Congress of the Comintern, published from Hamburg in German.

 

12

Excerpts from

Concluding Speech Of Manuilsky On The National Question

Some deviations were recorded by the commission. Roy at the Second Congress exaggerated the social movement in the colonies to the detriment of the national movement. He thinks that the year 1922 was characterised by the decomposition of the national movement. We have nevertheless witnessed the success of this movement in Turkey and in Egypt. He goes so far as to say that the national movement has lost its character of the united front of all classes of an oppressed country, the new period was beginning in which the class struggle is being transported into the colonies.

Let us grant that in India there has been relative development of the class struggle. But to generalise this to all the colonies would mean to lose sense of reality. During last year in Tunis and Algier we had altogether no more than 8 strikes, involving 800 workers!

Roy wants to dissociate himself from the old error of Bukharin who recognises only the right of self-determination for the working class and not for the nationalities. In reality, he falls into a similar error, and even in an aggravated form because it is a question of the backward countries. He admits for instance that in Central Africa the national movement has not even started. Under these conditions, how could he maintain that the first stage of the struggle was terminated and that we were now entering upon a period similar to that of the European countries where class struggle exists.

In regard to the colonial question Roy reflects the nihilism of Rosa Luxemburg. The truth is that a just proportion should be looked for between the social movement and national movement. Can the right of self-determination be in contradiction to the interest of the revolution? Had Roy put the question in this manner, one could discuss with him.

Source:   Inprecor, 12 August 1924

 

 

Extracts From Documents Of the Fifth Plenum And From Stalin’s Speech (1925)

13

Excerpts from

Resolution Of The Fifth Plenum Adopted On 6 April, 1925

In India the reports of the delegates show that the movement is now in the process of transition, finding new forms and tactics to correspond with the real basic revolutionary nationalism in India. The old Gandhi movement of nonviolence and noncooperation has col lapsed and was followed by the Swaraj Party with its policy of parliamentary obstruction. This party has come to the point of collapse and is now tending to decompose into small centre groups between the big bourgeois parties on the one side and the revolutionary mass movement on the other. The masses of India are discontented with swarajist programme of self- government. They are demanding separation from the British government.

The commission proposes the following policy for India : “The commission is of the opinion that it is now necessary for the communists to continue work in the National Congress and in the left wing of the Swaraj Party. All nationalist organisations should be formed into a mass revolutionary party and an all-India anti-imperialist bloc. The slogan of the people’s party having for the main points in its programme separation from the empire, a democratic republic, universal suffrage and the abolition of feudalism — slogans put forward and popularised by the Indian communists — is correct.”

In its resolution, the commission instructs Indian communists to direct their efforts towards securing the leadership over the masses of the peasantry and to facilitate and encourage the organisation and amalgamation of trade unions and to take over the leadership of all their struggles.

Source: Bolshevising the Communist International — a report on the Fifth Plenum published by Communist Party of Great Britain, (Lon-don,1925); pp 135-36
 

 

14

Excerpts from

Political Tasks Of The University Of The Peoples Of The East^[1]

Somewhat different is the situation of affairs in a country like Hindustan. Here we find not only that the native bourgeoisie is severed into a revolutionary fraction and a compromising or reformist fraction, but, in addition, that on all important issues the reformist fraction has already rallied to the side of imperialism. This section of the native bourgeoisie dreads revolution more than it hates imperialism, it is more concerned about its money-bags than about the interests of the fatherland; it is the wealthiest and most influential class in the national community, and it has wholeheartedly thrown in its lot with the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, has made common cause with the imperialists against the workers and peasants of its native land. The revolution cannot be victorious unless this alliance is broken. If we are to break it, we must concentrate our attack upon the reformist section of the native bourgeoisie, must expose its treachery, must withdraw the toiling masses from its influence, and must systematically prepare the way for the leadership of the proletariat. In other words, the proletariat of such lands as Hindustan must be trained to become the leader in the movement for national emancipation, whilst the bourgeoisie and its spokesmen must gradually be dislodged from the leadership. The aim therefore, must be to create a revolutionary, anti-imperialist coalition, and to ensure that, within this coalition, the role of leader shall be played by the proletariat. The coalition may (there are alternative possibilities) take the form of a single, united party of workers and peasants voicing a joint programme. But the advanced communist elements will need to insist upon the independence of the communist party in such lands, for the proletariat cannot be prepared for its last as leader, nor can the proletarian leadership be realised, by any other than the communist party. Yet the communist party may, nay must openly cooperate with the revolutionary section of the native bourgeoisie, if it is to succeed in isolating the compromising and reformis section, and in rallying the masses of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie to the fight against imperialism.

To sum up. The immediate tasks confronting the revolutionary movement in colonial and vassal lands where capitalism is well developed are as follows:

• (1) To win over the best elements among the workers to the cause of communism and to form independent communist parties.
• (2) To set up a nationalist and revolutionary coalition of workers, peasants and revolutionary intellectuals, as a counterpoise to the coalition of the great bourgeoisie with the imperialists.
• (3) To guarantee that the leadership of the revolutionary coalition shall be in the hands of the proletariat.
• (4) To free the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie from the influence of the reformist native bourgeoisie.
• (5) To secure the linking up of the national-liberationist movement with the proletarian movement of advanced countries.

Source:   Leninism by Joseph Stalin, Vol. 1; Modern Books (London, 1928);  pp 279-80.

Note:

1.   This is the title of a lengthy speech delivered by Stalin at the University of the Peoples of the East (Moscow) on 18 May, 1925.

 

 

Extracts From Documents of The Sixth Congress

15

Excerpts from

The Revolutionary Movement In The Colonies

Report of Comrade Kuusinen

I.    Preliminary remarks

Dear Comrades, I do not want you to consider my report on the subject of today’s session, the revolutionary movement in the colonies and semi-colonies, as a coherent report on the whole subject, but only as a supplement and concrete illustration of what is said on this subject in the draft theses. As you know, I do not possess the necessary knowledge to deal with the whole subject. Moreover, I have endeavoured to explain to you in the draft theses some parts, especially the tactical parts, even in greater detail than it will be necessary in the final theses, in order to make my main argument clear to you. But I think that one should — and I consider it my duty — endeavour also in my report to give this a more concrete form, or at least to illustrate it. ...

II.     India — the classical colonial country

I assume that many comrades in our parties and perhaps even a good many comrades here at our Congress are not much better informed about Indian conditions than I was a few weeks ago when the executive instructed me to report on this question. Therefore I will give with your permission, a few general facts concerning conditions in India, with the help of which I hope to bring India a little nearer to our parties. Relatively much has already been said about China. China has been popularised. But very little is known about India.

What is India? Is it a rich or a poor country? A petty-bourgeois German writer who visited India lately, Bernhard Kellermann, has said that India is a beggar. This is a wrong description, but a far more wrong description is that of the imperialists who say that India is a wealthy and well-developed country. Somewhere in Capital Marx reproduced a saying by a bourgeois economist that land is rich where the people is poor. In this sense India is truly rich. ... One gets a lopsided picture if one takes only the absolute figures about Indian export: what India has achieved in regard to various branches of production, that India occupies first place in the world in the production of rice and jute, second place in the production of cane-sugar, tea and cotton, and third place in the production of wheat, or if one hears about the truly rapid rate of the industrial development in India during the last decade. All this can give a semblance of truth to the assertion that India is one of the greatest industrial countries in the world. Everyone knows, for instance, that the International Labour Office of the League of Nations has “recognized” India as one of the 8 leading industrial countries of the world.

But this is not in keeping with the actual situation. If one was to carry this logic a little further, one would come to utterly absurd conclusions. The yearly military expenditure in India, including indirect military expenditure, is twice as high as that of imperialist Japan. India exports even capital to other countries. On the strength of this one might assert with a certain amount of justification that India is on the way to becoming an imperialist country. This is approximately how the situation is represented in the official reports of the British imperialists. ... This is of course only an imperialist lie. ...

The industrial development of India and the British colonial policy

... As I have already said, the industrial development of India has progressed rapidly in the last 20 years. But if even several communist comrades have been induced, on the strength of this fact, to assume that British policy is following an entirely new course in regard to the industrial development in India, I must say that they have gone too far. A semblance of this was possible in the boom years 1921-23. Actually, no change has taken place in the course of the British colonial policy. Some of these comrades went even to the length of holding out the prospect of a decolonisation of India by British imperialism. This was a dangerous term. The comrades who have represented and partly still represent this — in my opinion — false theory are comrades who otherwise deal very seriously with the problems of our movement — comrades Palme Dutt, Roy and Rathbone. A certain relic of this wrong conception made its appearance even in comrade Rajani’s speech in the discussion on the first item of the agenda. I consider it my duty to elucidate this question. If it were really true that British imperialism has adopted the course of the industrialisation of India which leads to its decolonisation, we would have to revise our entire conception of the character of the imperialist colonial policy. I think that facts show that this is not the case.

The decolonisation theory

I will give you a few quotations from the works of these comrades. Comrade Palme Dutt writes as follows in his book Modem India :

• “In the 19th century India was the most important outlet for the British manufacturers. In the 20th century India became rapidly industrialised under the control of British capital; by means of a colossal and irresponsible bureaucratic apparatus and owing to a semi-slave position of the workers, this capital has more profitable investment possibilities than at home.”

Another quotation:

• “The industrialisation of India under British control — at present India is recognised officially as one of the eight leading industrial countries of the world — means that as the situation gets worse in Britain, British capital exercises its power over the cheap labour power in India and establishes here enterprises which, by their competition are to reduce wages in Britain.”

(Retranslated from the German)

In his theses at the II Congress, comrade Roy represented utterly different views. In these theses, which had been perused by Lenin, comrade Roy wrote at that time :

• “Foreign imperialism which has been forced on the Eastern peoples has no doubt impeded their social and economic development and has deprived them of the possibility of reaching the stage of development which has been reached in Europe and America. Owing to the imperialist policy which endeavours to retard industrial development in the colonies the native proletariat has, in fact, begun only lately to exist.”

But comrade Roy holds different views now. In the draft resolution of October 1927 on the Indian question, comrade Roy makes the following statement:

• “The new imperialist policy implies a gradual ‘decolonisation’ of India which, must be allowed to take its course so that India might develop from a ‘Dependency’ into a ‘Dominion’. The Indian bourgeoisie, instead of being kept down as a powerful rival, will be conceded participation in the economic development of the country under the hegemony of imperialism. From a backward agrarian colonial possession India will become a modern industrial country — ‘a member of the British Commonwealth of free nations’. India is in a state of ‘decolonisation’ in as far as the policy forced on the British imperialism through the capitalist post-war crisis has done away with the obsolete forms and methods of colonial exploitation in favour of new forms and new methods.”

The description in comrade Roy’s draft resolution goes on in the same strain. But I must point out to the comrades that comrade Roy has probably an inkling of the consequences of this theory. He says:

• “This change in the economic sphere has also political consequences. The inevitable process of gradual decolonisation is fraught with the embryo of the dissolution of the empire. In fact, the new policy adopted for the consolidation of the empire, a policy which wants to ward off the danger of an immediate collapse, shows that the foundations of the empire have been shaken. Imperialism is a powerful demonstration of capitalist prosperity. In the present period of capitalist decline its basis is undermined.”

Thus comrade Roy sees that the decolonisation policy of British imperialism would lead to the weakening and dissolution of the British empire. But he nevertheless believes that British imperialism is determined to pursue this policy. I will give you now a quotation from comrade Rathbone’s article “The Industrialisation of India” where he uses a new argument:

• “... In the war period British finance capital recognised the mistake which was made by preventing the industrial development of the colonies, for the latter were unable to supply the mother country with munitions during the war. ... This was one of the main reasons for the industrialisation of the colonies.”

(All quotations retranslated from the German)

Now comrades, it is certainly very nice for the mother country if its colonies supply it during the war with munitions for war purposes. But if British imperialism should industrialise India for the purpose of getting munitions from it during the war, the danger will certainly arise that during the coming war these colonies might use these munitions first of all for the acceleration of their decolonisation. Engineering works, even if they be big, such as Tata in India, can be after all restricted in every possible way and controlled by British imperialism so as to prevent it becoming a danger. A few railway workshops, etc., can also be controlled, but comrades, the existence of a few such enterprises does not yet mean the industrialisation of India. Industrialisation means the transformation of an agrarian into an industrial country, it means general, thorough, industrial development, above all development of the production of means of production, of the engineering industry. This is not a question if any industrial development has taken place in India — this has certainly been the case — it is rather a question if it is the policy of British imperialism to industrialise India.

What do the facts show ?

It is true that after the war British imperialism has made a few more or less important economic concessions in favour of the industrial development in India. The most important among them were the 15 per cent protective tariffs for the cotton industry. But what is the explanation of these concessions? ... Mutinies in the army, a big peasant insurrection in the Punjab, development of the national movement of the bourgeoisie, for the first time, unification of the Moslem League with the Indian National Congress. Then there was also Japanese competition on the Indian market and partly also the competition of the United States, — both endeavoured to make use of the war period for the consolidation of their position on the Indian market. There was also the Khilafat movement, the Gandhi movement, etc. All this combined placed the British government before the alternative : either to lose India as a colony or to make certain concessions for the pacification of the Indian bourgeoisie and to take measures for protection against foreign competition. The necessity to do this dictated at that time to the British imperialism the economic concessions (raising the protective tariffs for the textile industry to 15 per cent) and also the constitutional reform of 1919. The objective consequence of the facilities for industrial production in India was an acceleration of industrial development. These concessions were in themselves small enough ... But even these small concessions are being gradually reduced all along the line...

... In the last years preceding the war the export of British capital to India amounted approximately to 13-16 million pound sterling per annum; then as I already said, the export of capital was very small in the first years after the war; in 1921-23 it rose to 25-30 and even 36 million pound sterling per annum; i.e., a fifth or a quarter of the entire export of British capital to India. After that the export of British [capital] to India fell again to 2 and subsequently to 3 million, and in the last year (1927) it amounted only to 0.8 million pound sterling — a very small sum. ... If one takes the trouble to investigate for what purposes the capital exported from Great Britain to India in the exceptional years, 1921-23, was invested one sees that most of it was certainly not invested for productive purposes, and by no means for industry. Of the whole amount (94,400,000 pound sterling) 70,000,000 pound sterling went to government loans. One can say that 10 per cent at the utmost of the British export capital was invested in India in industry during and after the war ...

If one considers the growth of capital, of the foreign joint stock companies (mainly British) in India, in the period between 1913-24, one must say that it was very considerable (452 million pound sterling, i.e., an almost treble increase), but most of these investments of capital went not to industry, but above all to banks, insurance and trading companies (405 million pound sterling). On the other hand, a much greater share of the increased capital of joint stock companies registered in India, in which probably more Indian than British capital is invested, went to industry : out of 1900 million rupees over one thousand million.

After the war native capital has gained ground in India in various spheres where prior to the war British capital had almost a monopoly (the jute industry and tea plantations). ... It is but natural that British imperialism is not inclined to be a passive spectator of this trend of development. Thus we witness lately various counter-measures on its part against the industrialisation tendencies of India. I draw your attention for instance to the currency policy of the British government, to the artificial rise of the rate of the rupee to 1/6 d. (instead of 1/4 d.), which in practice means a premium of 12.5 per cent for import. This means in fact that the existing protective tariffs lose a great deal of their value. ...

Comrades, I of course do not mean to assert that we are face to face with a complete throttling of industrial development in India by the British imperialists. Even if it wanted to try this, it would not be possible. The industrial development of India will continue, although probably very slowly. But the further it gets the more it comes into conflict with the most important colonial interests of British imperialism. ...

The question of the extension of the internal market

Comrade Roy says that the Indian bourgeoisie will be granted “participation” in the economic power together with the British imperialists. There is no doubt that efforts are made towards a compromise between them. ... Various agreements between them are quite possible in certain spheres, but they will be provisional and partial. Such an agreement has been, for instance, effected between the Lancashire and Bombay cotton manufacturers : the latter are to produce only the coarser and the former only the finer qualities.

But is this kind of thing possible all along the line? Certainly not. Comrades, it would be perhaps possible only in one case: if the internal market in India were to extend at a rapid rate. In such a case exploitation by the Indian bourgeoisie and also by British imperialism could for a time develop in India parallel and to a certain extent without friction. ... But facts show that the internal Indian market is not extending ...

Potentially, the Indian peasantry constitutes a powerful factor of the internal market, but in reality its purchasing capacity is infinitesimal owing to the three-fold exploitation under which it is groaning. By British imperialism and its tax collectors, by the landlords and by trade and usurious capital. As pointed out by comrade Bukharin when dealing with the first item on the agenda, industry in India is unable to absorb the mass of the pauperised peasants, and instead of proletarianisation we witness there an ever-increasing process of pauperisation in the rural district ...

Why does the Indian bourgeoisie raise a hue and cry ?

It is no wonder that in the face of this situation the Indian bourgeoisie is sounding the alarm. Pressure from below makes the bourgeoisie indulge in oppositional gestures. ... The hue and cry of the Indian bourgeoisie is a sign that something serious and important is maturing behind it.

There is an economic crisis at present almost in all the spheres of production in India, and by no means for lack of capital, for there is an abundance of capital in India. With the help of the British imperialists, the Indian capitalists endeavour to get rid of their superabundance of capital. They buy up state bonds and shares (but much more bonds than shares of industrial companies), they deposit their money in savings banks, they export capital to Brazil as recommended by the British chancellor of the exchequer in India, they purchase enormous quantities of gold and silver as treasure, etc. Why is not most of this Indian capital invested in industry ? Because the British colonial system is an enormous obstacle to the industrialisation of India. For this reason most of the engineering works established after the war have gone into liquidation in the last few years. ...

National reformism

That the national bourgeoisie is raising a hue and cry is quite true. But it is important to understand the political character of the Indian bourgeoisie, its national reformist policy. …

Of course, in this connection one must not forget that the objective conditions of the national-revolutionary movement do not depend on the subjective will of the bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie is, of course, also aiming at unlimited rule; it wants, so to speak, to achieve power like a thief. However its opposition has in the present epoch a certain objective importance for the unchaining of the mass movement. More important still is a correct understanding of the importance which bourgeois leadership still has in India owing to the national-reformist deterioration of the mass movement. For the time being its importance is far greater in India than in China. One cannot simply deny the fact that the national-reformist parties have the greatest influence over the masses in India, not so much among the workers but certainly among the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry. To undermine this influence, to overcome it, to get away the masses from the national reformists and the treacherous bourgeois opposition, such is our most important immediate task. ...

Through what forces will the real liberation of India be achieved ?

The liberation of India is a mission for which history has destined the Indian proletariat and peasantry. The Communist Party of India is to play the leading role in this struggle, and its foremost task in the preparation of this liberation struggle is — to disperse any illusion in regard to decolonisation through imperialism, to expose and combat any illusions of this kind spread by the responsivists, Swarajists and others before the eyes of the masses. In this manner it will be able to do justice to its present task. ...

Immediate tasks of the communist movement in India

In my draft theses I pointed out the special difficulties of Party construction in India. The Labour and Peasant Parties which exist there are not parties which can constitute the basis of our communist parties. Lenin’s theses at the Second Congress contain the following important direction:

“It is essential to carry on an energetic struggle against any attempt to give a communist label to the not really communist revolutionary liberation movement in the backward countries.”

This danger of giving a communist label to parties which are in reality not communist parties at all, would exist if we wanted to replace in India the construction of an independent communist party by any labour and peasant parties. Modestly and yet perseveringly, must we begin in India with work in trade unions and during strikes, with the education of Party workers. ...

The Indian workers have not yet been able to do such a simple thing as establishing a labour newspaper. One should really have their labour organs in three to four vernaculars. All that Lenin has said about the importance of a revolutionary newspaper as collective agitator, propagandist and organiser, applies particularly to such countries as India.

Source:   Inprecor, 4 October, 1928

 

16

Excerpts from

The Theses On The Revolutionary Movement In Colonial And Semi-Colonial Countries

I.   Introduction

1. The sixth congress of the Communist International declares that the theses on the national and colonial question drawn up by Lenin and adopted at the second congress still have full validity, and should serve as a guiding line for the further work of the communist parties. Since the time of the second congress the significance of the colonies and semi-colonies, as factors of crisis in the imperialist world system, has become much more topical. ...

2. ... The insurrection in Shanghai in April 1927 raised the question of the hegemony of the proletariat in the national-revolutionary movement, and finally pushed the native bourgeoisie into the camp of reaction, provoking the counter-revolutionary coup d’etat of Chiang Kai-shek.

The independent activity of the workers in the struggle for power, and above all the growth of the peasant movement, into agrarian revolution, also impelled the Wuhan Government, which had been established under the leadership of the petty-bourgeois wing of the Kuomintang, to go over to the camp of counter-revolution. The revolutionary wave, however, was already beginning to ebb. ... Its last powerful onslaught was the insurrection of the heroic Canton proletariat which under the slogan of Soviets attempted to link up the agrarian revolution with the overthrow of the Kuomintang and the establishment of the dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

3. In India, the policy of British imperialism, which retarded the development of native industry, evoked great dissatisfaction among the Indian bourgeoisie. Their class consolidation, replacing the former division into religious sects and castes ... confronted British imperialism with a national united front. Fear of the revolutionary movement during the war compelled British imperialism to make concessions to the native bourgeoisie, as shown, in the economic sphere, in higher duties on imported goods, and, in the political sphere, in insignificant parliamentary reforms introduced in 1919.

Nevertheless a strong ferment, expressed in a series of revolutionary outbreaks against British imperialism, was produced among the Indian masses as a result of the ruinous consequences of the imperialist war (famine and epidemics, 1918), the catastrophic deterioration of the position of wide sections of the working population, the influence of the Russian October revolution and of a series of insurrections in other colonial countries (as for example the struggle of the Turkish people for independence).

This first great anti-imperialist movement in India (1919-22) ended with the betrayal by the Indian bourgeoisie of the cause of national revolution. The chief reason for this was the fear of the growing wave of peasant risings, and of the strikes against native employers.

The collapse of the national-revolutionary movement and the gradual decline of bourgeois nationalism enabled British imperialism once more to revert to its policy of hindering India’s industrial development. Recent British measures in India show that the objective contradiction between British colonial monopoly and the tendencies towards independent Indian economic development are becoming more accentuated from year to year and are leading to a new deep revolutionary crisis. ...

II. The characteristic features of colonial economy and of imperialist colonial policy

9. The recent history of the colonies can only be understood if it is looked upon as an organic part of the development of capitalist world economy as a whole. ...

10. It is necessary to distinguish between those colonies which have served the capitalist countries as colonising regions for their surplus population, and which in this way have become extensions of the capitalist system (Australia, Canada, etc.), and those which are exploited by the imperialists primarily as markets for their commodities, as sources of raw material, and as spheres for capital investment. ...

Colonies of the first type became Dominions, that is, members of the given imperialist system with equal or nearly equal rights ...

11. ... In its function as colonial exploiter, the ruling imperialism is related to the colonial country primarily as a parasite, sucking the blood from its economic organisms. The fact that this parasite, in comparison to its victim, represents a highly developed civilization makes it a so much more powerful and dangerous exploiter, but this does not alter the parasitic character of its functions.

Capitalist exploitation in every imperialist country has proceeded by developing productive forces. The specific colonial forms of capitalist exploitation, however, whether operated by the British, French, or any other bourgeoisie, in the final analysis hinder the development of the productive forces of the colonies. The only construction undertaken (railways, harbours, etc.) is what is indispensable for military control of the country, for guaranteeing the uninterrupted operation of the taxation machine, and for the commercial needs of the imperialist country. ...

12. Since, however, colonial exploitation presupposes some encouragement of colonial production, this is directed on such lines and promoted only in such a degree as correspond to the interests of the metropolis, and, in particular, to the interests of the preservation of its colonial monopoly. Part of the peasantry, for example, may be encouraged to turn from grain cultivation to the production of cotton, sugar, or rubber (Sudan, Cuba, Java, Egypt), but this is done in such a way that it not only does not promote the independent economic development of the colonial country, but, on the contrary, reinforces its dependence on the imperialist metropolis. ...

Real industrialisation of the colonial country, in particular the building up of a flourishing engineering industry which would promote the independent development of its productive forces, is not encouraged but, on the contrary, 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. ...

13. Since the overwhelming mass of the colonial population is connected with the land and lives in the countryside, the plundering character of the exploitation of the peasantry by imperialism and its allies (the class of landowners, merchants, and money-lenders) acquires special significance. Because of imperialist intervention (imposition of taxes, import of industrial products from the metropolis, etc.), the drawing of the village into a money and commodity economy is accompanied by the pauperisation of the peasantry, the destruction of village handicraft industry, etc., and proceeds much more rapidly than was the case in the leading capitalist countries. On the other hand, the retarded industrial development puts narrow limits to the process of proletarianisation.

This enormous disproportion between the rapid rate of destruction of the old forms of economy and the slow development of the new has given rise in China, India, Indonesia, Egypt, etc., to an extreme ‘land hunger’, to agrarian overpopulation, rack-renting, and extreme fragmentation of the land cultivated by the peasantry. ...

The pitiful attempts to introduce agrarian reforms without damaging the colonial regime are intended to facilitate the gradual conversion of the semi-feudal landowner into a capitalist landlord, and in certain cases to create a thin stratum of kulak peasants. In practice, this only leads to greater pauperisation of the overwhelming majority of the peasants, which in its turn paralyses the development of the home market. It is on the basis of these contradictory economic processes that the most important social forces of the colonial movements are developing.

14. ... The export of capital to the colonies accelerates the development of capitalist relations there. The part which is invested in production does to some extent accelerate industrial development; but this is not done in ways which promote independence; the intention is rather to strengthen the dependence of the colonial economy on the finance-capital of the imperialist country. ...

15. The entire economic policy of imperialism towards the colonies is determined by its anxiety to preserve and increase their dependence, to intensify their exploitation and, as far as possible, to impede their independent development. Only under the pressure of special circumstances may the bourgeoisie of the imperialist States find themselves compelled to encourage the development of large-scale industry in the colonies. ...

All the twaddle of the imperialists and their lackeys about the policy of decolonisation being pursued by the imperialist powers, about encouraging the 'free development of the colonies’ is nothing but an imperialist lie. It is of the utmost importance for communists in the imperialist and the colonial countries to expose these lies.

III.   On communist strategy and tactics in China, India, and similar colonial countries

16. As in all colonies and semi-colonies, so also in China and India the development of productive forces and the socialisation of labour stand at a comparatively low level. This circumstance, together with foreign domination and the presence of strong survivals of feudalism and pre-capitalist relations, determine the character of the next stage of the revolution in these countries. The revolutionary movement there is at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, i.e., the stage when the pre-requisites for proletarian dictatorship and socialist revolution are being prepared. Corresponding to this, the general basic tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies may be laid down as follows :

• (a) A shifting in the relationship of forces in favour of the proletariat; emancipation of the country from the yoke of imperialism (nationalisation of foreign concessions, railways, banks, etc.) and the establishment of national unity where this has not yet been attained; overthrow of the power of the exploiting classes at whose back imperialism stands; organisation of Soviets of workers and peasants and of a Red Army; establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry; consolidation of the hegemony of the proletariat;
• (b) The carrying through of the agrarian revolution; freeing the peasants from all pre-capitalist and colonial forms of exploitation and bondage; nationalisation of the land; radical measures for alleviating the position of the peasantry with the object of establishing the closest possible economic and political union between town and country;
• (c) Parallel with the further development of industry, transport, etc., and with the corresponding growth of the proletariat, the extension of trade unions, strengthening of the communist party and its conquest of a solid leading position among the working masses, the eight-hour working day. ...

18. The national bourgeoisie in these colonial countries do not adopt a uniform attitude to imperialism. One part, more especially the commercial bourgeoisie, directly serves the interests of imperialist capital (the so-called compradore bourgeoisie). In general, they maintain, more or less consistently, an anti-national, imperialist point of view, directed against the whole nationalist movement, as do the feudal allies of imperialism and the more highly paid native officials. The other parts of the native bourgeoisie, especially those representing the interests of native industry, support the national movement; this tendency, vacillating and inclined to compromise, may be called national reformism. ...

In order to strengthen its position in relation to imperialism, bourgeois nationalism in these colonies tries to win the support of the petty-bourgeoisie, of the peasantry, and in part also of the working class. Since it has little prospect of success among the workers (once they have become politically awake), it becomes the more important for it to obtain support from the peasantry.

Here precisely is the weakest point of the colonial bourgeoisie. The unbearable exploitation of the colonial peasantry can only be ended by the agrarian revolution. The bourgeoisie of China, India, and Egypt are by their immediate interests so closely bound up with landlordism, usury capital, and the exploitation of the peasant masses in general, that they oppose not only the agrarian revolution but also every decisive agrarian reform. They fear, and not without reason, that even the open formulation of the agrarian question will stimulate and accelerate the revolutionary ferment in the peasant masses. Thus, the reformist bourgeoisie cannot bring themslves to approach practically this urgent question. ...

19. An incorrect appraisal of the national-reformist tendency of the bourgeoisie in these colonial countries may give rise to serious errors in the strategy and tactics of the communist parties concerned. ...

20. The petty-bourgeoisie in the colonial and semi-colonial countries play a very important role. They consist of various strata, which in different stages of the national-revolutionary movement play very diverse roles. ...

The petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, the students, and others are very frequently the most determined representatives not only of the specific interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, but also of the general objective interests of the entire national bourgeoisie. ... In general, they cannot represent peasant interests, for the social strata from which they come are connected with landlordism. The advance of the revolutionary wave may drive them into the labour movement, into which they carry their hesitating and irresolute petty-bourgeois ideology. Only a few of them in the course of the struggle are able to break with their own class and rise to an understanding of the tasks of the class struggle of the proletariat, and to become active defenders of proletarian interests. Frequently the petty-bourgeois intellectuals give to their ideology a socialist or even communist colour. In the struggle against imperialism they have played, and in such countries as India and Egypt still play, a revolutionary role. The mass movement may draw them in, but may also push them into the camp of extreme reaction, or encourage the spread of Utopian reactionary tendencies in their ranks. ...

The peasantry, as well as the proletariat and as its ally, is a driving force of the revolution. ...

The process of class differentiation among the peasants in the colonies and semi-colonies where feudal and pre-capitalist survivals are widespread proceeds at a comparatively slow rate. Nevertheless, market relationships in these countries have developed to such a degree that the peasants are no longer a homogeneous mass as to their class. In the villages of China and India, particularly in certain parts of these countries, it is already possible to find exploiting elements, originally peasants, who exploit the peasants and village labourers through usury, trade, employment of hired labour, the sale or leasing of land, the lending of cattle or agricultural implements, etc., etc. ...

21. ... The greater part of the colonial proletariat comes from the pauperised village, with which the worker retains his connection even when engaged in industry. In the majority of colonies (with the exception of some large industrial towns such as Shanghai, Bombay, Calcutta, etc.) we find, as a general rule, only the first generation of a proletariat engaged in large-scale production. The rest is made up of ruined artisans driven from the decaying handicrafts, which are widespread even in the most advanced colonies. The ruined artisan, the small property-owner, carries with him into the working class the narrow craft sentiments and ideology through which national-reformist influence can penetrate the colonial labour movement. ...

22. ... At first the interests of the struggle for their class rule compel the most important bourgeois parties in India and Egypt (Swarajists, Wafdists) to demonstrate their opposition to the ruling imperialist-feudal bloc. Although this opposition is not revolutionary, but reformist and opportunist, this does not mean that it has no special significance. The national bourgeoisie are not significant as a force in the struggle against imperialism. Nevertheless, this bourgeois-reformist opposition has a real and specific significance for the development of the revolutionary movement — and this in both a negative and a positive sense — in so far as it has any mass influence at all.

What is important about it is that it obstructs and retards the development of the revolutionary movement, in so far as it secures a following among the working masses and holds them back from the revolutionary struggle. On the other hand, bourgeois opposition to the ruling imperialist-feudal bloc, even if it does not go very far, can accelerate the political awakening of the broad working masses; open conflicts between the national-reformist bourgeoisie and imperialism, although of little significance in themselves, may, under certain conditions, indirectly serve as the starting-point of great revolutionary mass actions.

It is true the reformist bourgeoisie try to check any such outcome to their oppositional activities, and in one way or another to prevent it in advance. But wherever the objective conditions exist for a deep political crisis, the activities of the national-reformist opposition, even their insignificant conflicts with imperialism which have virtually no connection with revolution, may acquire serious importance.

Communists must learn how to utilise each and every conflict, to expand such conflicts and to broaden their significance, to link them with the agitation for revolutionary slogans, to spread the news of these conflicts among the masses, to arouse these masses to independent, open manifestations in support of their own demands, etc.

23. The correct tactics in the struggle against such parties as the Swarajists and Wafdists during this stage consist in the successful exposure of their real national-reformist character. These parties have more than once betrayed the national-liberation struggle, but they have not yet finally passed over, like the Kuomintang, to the counter-revolutionary camp. There is no doubt that they will do this later on, but at present they are particularly dangerous precisely because their real physiognomy has not yet been exposed in the eyes of the masses. ... If the communists do not succeed at this stage in shaking the faith of the masses in the bourgeois national-reformist leadership of the national movement, then in the next advance of the revolutionary wave this leadership will represent an enormous danger for the revolution. ... It is necessary to expose the half-heartedness and vacillation of these leaders in the national struggle, their bargainings and attempts to reach a compromise with British imperialism, their previous capitulations and counter-revolutionary advances, their reactionary resistance to the class demands of the proletariat and peasantry, their empty nationalist phraseology, their dissemination of harmful illusions about the peaceful decolonisation of the country and their sabotage of the application of revolutionary methods in the national struggle for liberation.

The formation of any kind of bloc between the communist party and the national-reformist opposition must be rejected; this does not exclude temporary agreements and the co-ordination of activities in particular anti-imperialist actions, provided that the activities of the bourgeois opposition can be utilised to develop the mass movement, and that these agreements do not in any way restrict communist freedom of agitation among the masses and their organisations. Of course, in this work the communists must at the same time carry on the most relentless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois nationalism and against the slightest signs of its influence inside the labour movement. ...

24. An incorrect understanding of the basic character of the party of the big national bourgeoisie gives rise to the danger of an incorrect appraisal of the character and role of the petty-bourgeois parties. The development of these parties, as a general rule, follows a course from the national-revolutionary to the national-reformist position. Even such movements as Sun Yatsenism in China, Gandhism in India, Sarekat Islam in Indonesia, were originally in their ideology radical petty-bourgeois movements which, however, were later converted by service to the big bourgeoisie into bourgeois national-reformist movements. Since then, in India, Egypt, and Indonesia, a radical wing has again arisen among the petty-bourgeois groups (e.g., the Republican Party, Watanists, Sarekat Rakjat), which stand for a more or less consistent national-revolutionary point of view. In such a country as India, the rise of some such radical petty-bourgeois parties and groups is possible. ...

It is absolutely essential that the communist parties in these countries should from the very outset demarcate themselves in the most clear-cut fashion both politically and organisationally, from all petty-bourgeois groups and parties. In so far as the needs of the revolutionary struggle demand it, temporary co-operation is permissible, and in certain circumstances even a temporary alliance between the communist party and the national-revolutionary movement, provided that the latter is a genuine revolutionary movement, that it genuinely struggles against the ruling power, and that its representatives do not hamper the communists in their work of revolutionary education among the peasants and the working masses. In all such co-operation, however, it is essential to take the most careful precautions against its degenerating into a fusion of the communist movement with the petty-bourgeois-revolutionary movement. ...

IV.     The immediate tasks of the communists

28. ... The communist parties in the colonial and semi-colonial countries must make every effort to create a cadre of party functionaries from the ranks of the working class itself, utilising intellectuals in the party as directors and lecturers for propagandist circles and legal and illegal party schools, to train the advanced workers as agitators, propagandists, organisers, and leaders permeated by the spirit of Leninism. The communist parties in the colonial countries must also become genuinely communist parties in their social composition. While drawing into their ranks the best elements of the revolutionary intelligentsia, becoming steeled in the daily struggle and in great revolutionary battles, the communist parties must give their chief attention to strengthening the party organisation in the factories and mines, among transport workers, and among the semi-slaves in the plantations. ...

29. ... Communists must conduct revolutionary propaganda in reactionary trade unions' with mass working-class membership. In those countries where circumstance dictate the need to establish separate revolutionary trade unions (because the reactionary trade union leadership hinders the organisation of the unorganised workers, acts in opposition to the most elementary demands of trade union democracy, and converts the trade unions into strike-breaking organisations), the leadership of the RILU must be consulted. Special attention need to be given to the intrigues of the Amsterdam International in the colonial countries (China, India, North Africa) and to the exposure of its reactionary character before the masses. ...

30. Where peasant organisations exist — regardless of their character, as long as they are real mass organisations — the communist party must take steps to penetrate into these organisations. One of the most urgent tasks of the party is to present the agrarian question correctly to the working class, explaining the importance and decisive role of the agrarian revolution, and making members of the party familiar with methods of agitation, propaganda, and organisational work among the peasantry. ... Communists must everywhere attempt to give a revolutionary character to the existing peasant movement. They must also organise new revolutionary peasant unions and peasant committees, and maintain regular contact with them. ...

Special workers’ and peasants’ parties, however revolutionary their character may be at particular periods, may all too easily change into ordinary petty-bourgeois parties; hence it is not advisable to organise such parties. The communist party should never build its organisation on the basis of a fusion of two classes; as little should it make use of this basis, characteristic of petty-bourgeois groups, in its task of organising other parties. ...

34. The basic tasks of the Indian communists consist in the struggle against British imperialism for the emancipation of the country, the destruction of all survivals of feudalism, the agrarian revolution, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry in the form of a Soviet republic. These tasks can be successfully carried out only if a powerful communist party is created, able to place itself at the head of the broad masses of the working class, the peasantry, and all the toilers, and to lead them in armed insurrection against the feudal-imperialist bloc. ...

The union of all communist groups and individual communists -scattered throughout the country into a single, independent and centralised party is the first task of Indian communists. While rejecting the principle of building the party on a two-class basis, communists must utilise the connections of the existing workers’ and peasants’ parties with the- labouring masses to strengthen their own party, bearing in mind that the hegemony of the proletariat cannot be realised without the existence of a consolidated steadfast communist party, armed with the theory of Marxism. ...

The communists must unmask the national-reformism of the Indian National Congress and, in opposition to all the talk of the Swarajists, Gandhists, etc., about passive resistance, advance the irreconcilable slogan of armed struggle for the emancipation of the country and the expulsion of the imperialists.

In relation to the peasantry and peasant organisations the Indian communists are faced first and foremost with the task of informing the peasant masses about the general demands of the party on the agrarian question, for which purpose the party must work out an agrarian programme of action. Through workers connected with the village, as well as directly, the communists must stimulate the struggle of the peasantry for partial demands, and in the process of the struggle organise peasant unions. It is essential to make sure that the newly created peasant organisations do not fall under the influence of exploiting strata in the village. ...

It must be remembered that in no circumstances can communists relinquish their right to open criticism of the opportunist and reformist tactics of the leadership of those mass organisations in which they work.

Source: Communist International 1919-1943 Documents, Vol. II, Edited by Jane Degras, Oxford University Press (London, 1936), pp 526-48.

 

17

The Industrial Development Of India Deepens Its Contradictions With British Imperialism

Concluding Speech of Comrade Kuusinen

While trade capital is fast developing in a colony, the counter-forces against the subjugating imperialism are still very weak. The tendency toward economic independence obtains a greater force only where native industry is developing. The effort toward independence grows parallel with the industrial development of the country. However, this process of industrialisation in these countries goes on against great difficulties, because the pressure of the imperialist colonial monopoly resists the tendencies toward industrialisation. In spite of this, in such great colonial countries as India, the industrial development forges ahead, even if it proceeds with very great difficulty, and at a very retarded pace. I am not at all asserting that British imperialism is in a position to stop this advance. No. On the contrary, I conclude from the fact that this development makes headway despite everything, the deepening of the revolutionary contradictions between imperialist England and India. This is the question put in the draft theses. As against this, the formulation of comrade Bennett and others, “industrialisation of the colonies under the control of imperialism”, is an impossibility. This is somewhat similar as if we would say “the growth of independence of the labour movement under the control of the bourgeoisie.” These are two conceptions that cannot be brought into agreement. First of all, the development of the heavy industry and the machine industry in the colonies is being checked by imperialist monopoly. I requested a few comrades to draw up a list, on the basis of the official government reports, of all the legislative measures that have been taken in regard to India after the world war and which have any significance, so that we can see quite concretely how English imperialism hinders or promotes the industrialisation of India.

This list gives us the following picture :

A. Measures favouring the industrial development of India.

1. The 3 per cent assessment on the cotton consumption of the Indian textile mills was abolished (as a result of a textile workers’ strike).

2. The tariffs of the lower qualities of textile products were raised from 11 per cent to 16 per cent (England does not import textile goods of low quality to India, so this measure was directed against the fast growing Japanese import).

B. Measures to hinder the industrial development of the country.

1. In the year of 1920 : A law on the Imperial bank by which the bank is forbidden to give credit to industrial undertakings.

2. In the year of 1922 : railway construction plans with a capital expenditure of 1500 million rupees. The Indian bourgeoisie demands the orders for the Indian metallurgical industries. The orders were given to an English concern, since the English offer was pretty near 50 per cent cheaper.

3. In the year of 1923 : orders for 3132 railway cars given to England.

4. In the years of 1926-27 :

• a) the export duty fixed at 12 percent in the year of 1919, on leather and skins (for the purpose of creating a leather industry) has been reduced to 3 per cent (thus raw material will be exported).
• b) The rupee exchange has been set at 1.6, even though all the industries were against it and demanded an exchange at 1.4.
• c) Instead of increasing the tariff duty on iron and steel, as demanded by the Indian bourgeoisie, preferential tariffs were fixed for British iron and steel goods.
• d) The increase in the coal tariff demanded by the Indian bourgeoisie was rejected in order that the South African coal industry should be protected and promoted (South Africa imports to India).
• e) Capital is being exported from India to Brazil and the minister of finance approves of it.
• f) More order given away to England.
• g) Duties on automobiles tyres were lowered.
• h) The Royal commission on agriculture carries on its work in a sense that Indian capital (and the wealth after mobilisation) be directed to agriculture.

Here we see two rather insignificant measures regarding which one could say that by them the industrialisation of India has been promoted; all of the remaining measures aim directly at retarding the process of industrialisation. I have stated already in my report, what the temporary circumstances were that forced the English government, during the war and in the first years following the war, to grant the respective concessions.

Comrade Losovsky took exception to the expression used in the draft theses which describes the colonies as the “agrarian hinterland” of imperialism, and instead proposed the expression of “raw material hinterland”. I cannot see, in this, an important difference. We, of course, do not mean by the expression “agrarian” agriculture alone, but use it in its wider sense, as Marx also used it, by the inclusion of primary production.

Source: Inprecor, 21 November 1928

 

18

Excerpts from

Theses Of The Agitprop Of The ECCI

I.   Historic significance of the Sixth Congress

The Sixth Congress met at the time of the opening of a new period. Behind it lies the period of a certain peaceful
co-habitation of the imperialist powers; that of a certain peaceful co-habitation of the capitalist world and the USSR; that of some partial struggles between labour and capital in the imperialist countries; that of the first wave of colonial revolutions. Before it lies the new period, the period of sharp and bitter imperialist antagonisms, that of the imminent war danger between the imperialist giants : America and England; the period of particularly acute tension in the struggle between capitalism and the USSR; that of the completion of preparations for a war against the USSR; the period of the maturing of decisive class battles in a number of the leading countries (Germany, etc.); that of the rapid fusion of reformism with fascism; that of the decisive clash between reformism and communism over the leadership of the majority of the working class; the period of the deepening of the antagonism between the colonies and imperialism and the maturing of a new and still mightier wave of colonial revolutions. ...

IV.   The colonial question

... 25. Since the time of the Second Congress, when in the Theses of Comrade Lenin the fundamental and strategical directions were given upon the colonial question, there have occurred considerable changes and a tremendous fund of experiences has been accumulated.

First of all, during these years the proletariat has entered upon the arena of the class struggle in the colonies, having become in a number of colonial countries the fundamental revolutionary force which is leading considerable elements of the peasantry in the revolutionary struggle.

Secondly, during these years a number of colonial insurrections and movements have occurred, e.g., the agrarian riots in India, the insurrection in Indonesia, the national wars in Morocco, Syria, Nicaragua, etc.

Thirdly, during these years the great Chinese revolution has developed which has aroused tens of millions of workers and peasants to the struggle and has bestirred all the oppressed peoples.

Fourthly, during these years the “South American” problem has matured, the national revolutionary movement has begun in the semi-colonial countries of South America.

26. The Second Congress gave a general analysis of the colonial question. The Sixth Congress has supplemented it by a study of the tactical problems in regard to the individual colonial countries and groups. ...

Summing up the results of recent years and surveying the present situation, the Congress observed that Lenin's prediction about the unfoldment of the colonial revolutions has been fully borne out.

In China (where the first wave of the revolution aroused the proletariat and the peasantry of a number of provinces to take part in the struggle) although the bloc of the imperialists, the feudal elements and the bourgeoisie has been temporarily triumphant, there are still isolated fights going on even today. The general situation may be characterised as “the period of the preparation of the mass forces for a new rise of the revolution” (Para 27, The Political Theses).

In India we see the revival of the national-revolutionary movement, a revival which bids fair to develop eventually into a veritable workers’ and peasants’ revolution.

27. Both in China and in India there can be observed two tendencies as regards solving the colonial and agrarian question : the bourgeoisie considers it to be its historic task to create a bourgeois state by means of reform and compromise with imperialism and the feudal elements (at the same time, as properly pointed out by the representative of the Indian Communist Party, Comrade Sikander, it is not averse to “utilising the workers and peasants as cannon-fodder”). ...

28. The Congress has given a clear-cut analysis of the role of imperialism in the colonies. In connection with the discussion upon this question number of comrades in their speeches criticised the assertion that India and other colonial countries constitute a “world village”, that the colonial countries constitute a sort of “agrarian appendage” of the imperialist industrial countries. The comrades who criticised these views pointed out that, for instance, in India there is industrialisation going on, albeit under the control of British imperialism, and that imperialism has the tendency to shift the centre of production to the colonies.

The logical development of such assertions is to lead up to the theory of “decolonization”. But to recognise the “decolonization” and industrialisation of the colonies would essentially mean to give up Lenin’s thesis concerning the nature of colonial exploitation. To be sure, there is a certain industrial development going on in the colonies. But this industrial development does not yet signify industrialisation. The industrialisation of a country means the development of the production of the means of production (machinery, etc.) in that country, whereas imperialism allows in the colonies only the development of small manufacturing industries engaged in the conversion of agricultural produce. It deliberately hinders the development of the production of the means of production ... it checks progress by the whole of Its policy of supporting the survivals of feudalism in the village and by the innumerable taxes which ruin the already impoverished peasantry.

The road of independence and self-reliance for the colonies leads across the revolution of the workers and peasants which establishes the democratic dictatorship — the layer of industrialisation and the non-capitalist development of the country, and by the further merging of the democratic into the socialist revolution. Industrialisation of the present colonies is possible only along the path of their non-capitalist development.

29. The second big problem confronting the Congress was the question of the attitude towards the bourgeoisie. It was necessary to sum up the lessons of the Chinese revolution and to map out the tactics of the communist party in the forthcoming Indian revolution. In the political theses the basic advices were given to the Indian comrades. What are the peculiar features of the class struggle in India, particularly the struggle for hegemony between the Indian bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the national-revolutionary movement, which distinguishes India, for instance, from the China of prior to 1927? These peculiar features may be described as follows : the Indian bourgeoisie as a class is no doubt mere consolidated economically and politically, and more mature than was the Chinese bourgeoisie; whereas the proletariat, although more numerous than in China, is politically still under the influence of bourgeois nationalism.

A section of the Indian bourgeoisie — and the most influential one — has already taken to the path of compromise with British imperialism; another section (the Swarajists), as pointed out in the Political Theses of the Congress, is “substantially looking for an understanding with imperialism at the expense of the toilers”. All the tendencies of the Indian bourgeoisie have already betrayed the agrarian revolution of the peasantry in the past, and in the future they are only likely to play a counter-revolutionary role.

“The combination of the communist elements and groups into a strong communist party, the combination of the proletarian masses in the trade unions, the systematic struggle within the latter with a view to the complete exposure and expulsion of the social-treacherous leaders from all the tradeunion organisations is the most indispensable task of the working class in India, and the indispensable condition for the revolutionary mass struggle for the independence of India” (Para 28 of the Political Theses). Such is the first task of the Indian Communist Party. The struggle for the proletarian hegemony in the national struggle against imperialism and the remnants of feudalism, such is the second task of the Indian Communist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat, because “only under the leadership of the proletariat will the bloc of the workers, peasants and the revolutionary portion of the intelligentsia be in a position to smash the bloc of the imperialists, landlords and the compromising bourgeoisie, to unfold the agrarian revolution and to break through the imperialist front itt India.” (Para 28 of the Political Theses.)

Hence it is clear — and this was pointed out by comrade Stalin, already in 1925, in his address on the political tasks of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East — that in order to smash this bloc it will be necessary “to concentrate our fire against the compromising national bourgeoisie, expose its treachery and emancipate the toiling masses from under its influence.” (cf. Questions of Leninism, p 265.) Such is the general tactical line of the Indian Communist Party. ...

Source:  Inprecor, 16 November 1928.

 

 

19

Excerpts from

On The Indian Question In The Sixth World Congress

- M N Roy

The polemic against the so-called theory of “de-colonisation” casts a shadow of unreality over the otherwise high class discussion of the Indian question in the Sixth World Congress. Therefore it is necessary to begin with a few remarks about this theory: more correctly, about the scare-crow of this so-called theory.

I do not propose to answer the polemics of comrade Kuusinen and others. It will not be possible to correct the inaccuracies of facts cited in comrade Kuusinen’s report within the limits of an article. If necessary I will be prepared to do so in a future occasion. For the present it is sufficient to observe that comrade Kuusinen was not well advised as regards facts. It is not the picture of the India of 1928, but of a quarter of a century ago that he drew before the congress. This he was bound to do because of his admitted “lack of the necessary knowledge of the entire subject” ... The very passages quoted by comrade Kuusinen to condemn me as an apologist of imperialism, prove that I do not hold the opinion that British imperialism will lead the Indian people by the hand to freedom. What I pointed out is that owing to the decay of capitalism in the metropolis, imperialism is obliged to find means and methods of exploiting India more intensively, and is thereby creating a situation which weakens its very foundation. Comrade Kuusinen asks: if it is so, why is British imperialism doing such a thing? This is a very simple way of looking at the situation. It is trying to understand the operation of capitalism (in its highest stage of imperialism) separated from its inner contradictions. In the light of such simple logic Marx also becomes ridiculous by virtue of having said that capitalism creates its own grave-digger in the form of the proletariat. If capitalist mode of production lays down the conditions for socialism why did the bourgeoisie introduce it in society? These apparent contradictions are explained by Marxian dialectics. To have a correct appreciation of the situation it is necessary to distinguish between the subjective and objective forces operating upon it. British imperialism does not wish to lose an iota of its power in India. This is the subjective factor which has very great significance; but it alone is not decisive. The objective factor, that is, what, in the given situation, is possible for the British bourgeoisie to do to maintain their domination in India and the effects of what they do, react upon the subjective force. ...

As is evident from the very passages quoted by comrade Kuusinen, I used the term “de-colonisation” (within inverted commas, because it is not my creation) in the sense that imperialist power is undermined in India creating conditions for its successful revolutionary overthrow. India is a colony of the classical type. She will never cease to be a colony until the British power is overthrown by revolutionary means. No compromise (however far-reaching) between the Indian bourgeoisie and the British imperialists will give real freedom to the Indian people. These are all truism. But it is also true that India of today is not the India of a quarter of a century ago. ... To recognise the fact that, simultaneously in spite of and with the satiation of imperialism, India now travels on a path of economic development closed to her previously, is not a violation of Marxist and Leninist conception of the nature of imperialism. On the contrary, such developments are not foreign to this nature. Indeed Lenin did presage such developments in the colonies towards the latest stages of imperialist domination. In showing the ever-growing parasitic character of imperialism he approvingly quoted the following from Schulze-Gaevernit's book : “Europe will shift the burden of physical toil first agricultural and mining, then of heavy industry — on the black races and will remain itself at leisure in the occupation of bondholder, thus paving the way for the economic and later, the political emancipation of the coloured races.” (Imperialism) ...

Obviously, the crux of the question is the internal condition of British capitalism. This was hardly touched in the discussion of the Indian question in the Congress. Colonial politics suitable to the interests of British capitalism before the war, cannot meet the situation in which British capitalism finds itself as result of the war. Modern empires are built on capital exported from the metropolis. Britain’s ability to export capital depends primarily on the conditions of her industries at home. Therefore, an analysis of the economic situation in Britain should be the starting point of a serious discussion of the Indian question.

Capital is exported from a country when it is “over developed”, that is, when all the accumulated surplus cannot be invested there at sufficient profit. Investment in countries where capital is scarce, price of land relatively small, wages are low and raw materials are cheap, brings higher profits (Lenin, Imperialism). How is the position of Britain today as regards export of capital ? ...

... Britain produces much less than she could produce. This forced limitation of production has been caused by shrinkage of market as result of the war and growth of industries in other countries. Since the conclusion of the war the total volume of British exports has never exceeded 80 per cent of the pre-war level. In contrast to this the British export trade expanded uninterruptedly during the period between 1880 and 1913. And it was in this period of trade prosperity that the empire was built up and consolidated. An expanding export of manufactured goods (and by far the largest portion of Britain's export has always been manufactured goods) was the main channel for the export of capital which, in its turn, founded and cemented the empire. Therefore, a decline of the export trade is bound to affect the solidity of the empire, unless some other means were found to counteract the weakness resulting there from. ... The point here at issue is that changed conditions in the metropolis render the continuation of the old methods of colonial exploitation disadvantageous, and force upon the imperialist bourgeoisie a new policy irrespective of what they would rather prefer. On the question of the ultimate consequence of this policy, my contention is and has been that the new policy will create conditions which will facilitate the disruption of the empire. To deduce from this clearly Marxist contention that I am of the opinion that the British bourgeoisie will willingly “de-colonise” India is simply absurd. What I said ... is that what undermines imperialist monopoly and absolutism, inevitably operates as a “de-colonising” force as far as India is concerned. ...

Although the determining factor is the dynamics of the situation, and it has been proved that the dynamics of the situation tend unmistakably and unwaveringly towards industrialisation, the case might be still further strengthened by giving some facts about the actual growth of the leading industries. Figures about the growth of the production of iron and steel, the basis of modern industry, have already been given. Interpreted in relative terms those figures indicate that the production of pig-iron increased by 163 per cent between 1922 (when the protection was introduced) and 1926 in contrast with the growth of 67 per cent during the years 1913 to 1922 — the period of excessive war-production; and steel production in the latter period grew by 200 per cent as compared to 170 per cent in the preceding period. In the end of 1926 the British board of trade journal foresaw continued increase in the production of steel in India and observed that the consumption of the steel produced would require erection of new industrial plant. So, the beginning of the production of the means of production in India is in view. In 1927, the rate of protection to the iron and steel industry was again increased, obviously to accelerate the process of its growth. In addition to the considerably increased production in the country, structural steel imported in 1928 was 64 per cent more than in 1913. The value of the modern means of production (machinery, mill-works, railway-plants, electric-prime-movers, etc.), as distinct from the means of transportation, as railway materials, in 1924 was four times as much as in 1913; after a slight downward curb in the following year, it regained the level in 1926 and exceeded it in the last year.

Further, the iron-ore extracted in 1926 was three times as much as in 1919, and most of them were subjected to manufacturing process inside the country. Indian mills now produce finished cloth more than double of what they did in 1913. India's export of finished textile materials increased simultaneously with the decrease in half-manufactured goods, namely yarns. This shows that the cotton industry has grown not only in expansion, but, what is much more important, in its internal composition. It is no longer an auxiliary to the industrial system in the imperialist metropolis supplying semi-finished raw materials. It has become an independent productive factor, self-sufficient and competitive. Manufacture of tin-plates is not a basic industry. But its growth in India graphically illustrates the trend of new economic policy of imperialism. The production of this industry has increased more than four times since 1923 when it received the shelter of the tariff wall. A further increase of not quite a 100 percent, and the level of present consumption in the country will be reached. Now, the manufacture of tin-plate requires very highly skilled labour, which is not available in India. Nevertheless, by the adoption of the American method of mass production, as against the old British system of production with skilled labour, the industry in India has developed with amazing rapidity. The disparity in the wage-cost in Britain and India is so great that the Indian industry is expected to enter the world market with a very high competitive power even without protection after three years. The protection to this industry in India was granted in the teeth of strenuous opposition from the Welsh Tin-Plate Manufacture’s Association which controls the industry throughout Great Britain. But the influence of the British Petroleum Trust was decisive. The tin-plate industry in India now serves as the connecting link between the British Petroleum Trust and the Indian iron and steel producers, Tata and Co.

Indeed, compared with the vast expanse and population of India, the absolute significance of these figures is not very great, India still remains overwhelmingly an agricultural country. The historic significance of these figures is that they indicate the tendency. ...

The theory that colonies can serve the interests of imperialism only and exclusively as source of raw-material is the corroboration of Kautsky’s definition of imperialism as the annexation of agricultural territories by advanced capitalist countries, a definition severely criticised by Lenin. So long as mercantilist and industrial capital remains the dominating factor in the metropolis, economic backwardness of the colonies corresponds to the interest of imperialism. But the situation ceases to be so, as a rule, with the rise of finance capital. And as modern imperialism coincides with the rise of finance capital,

it is not possible to assert that colonies must necessarily always remain in an industrially backward state as source of raw material production. The growth of the parasitic character of finance capital and the decay of production in the metropolis render industrial development of the colonies not only possible, but necessary for the existence of imperialism. ...

The “de-colonising” effect of the new policy touches only the bourgeoisie. The masses of India will remain in the state of colonial slavery even after the process of “de-colonisation” culminates in the grant of dominion status. But parallel to the economic concessions made to Indian capitalism, there has been a transformation in the political position of the Indian bourgeoisie, and still further transformation is going to take place in the near future. It is still an open question how near to their covered dominion status will the Indian bourgeoisie arrive in consequence of the constitutional tug-of-war at present in play. But there is no doubt that the result will be a further advance towards the goal. ...

In his report, comrade Kuusinen purposely did not touch the self-governing colonies like Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. because, in his opinion, they are practically independent capitalist countries. If the self-governing colonies are not to be reckoned as colonies proper, then it is but logical to infer that in proportion as India approaches the status of a self-governing colony, she undergoes a process of “de-colonisation”, in limited sense, as far as the bourgeoisie are concerned. Now let us chronicle some facts illustrating the success [succession? —Ed.] of political right, even some power, to the Indian bourgeoisie since the war. ...

So, the immediate perspective of the present situation in India is the grant of further political rights to the bourgeoisie. Only in the light of this perspective, it becomes “inconceivable that the Indian bourgeoisie will play a revolutionary role for any length of time”. A gradual advance of the Indian bourgeoisie from the state of absolute colonial oppression to self-government within the British empire is taking place. Therefore, it is not necessary for them to travel the risky path of revolution. In other words, progressive “de-colonisation” of their economic and political status makes the Indian bourgeoisie averse to revolution, and in the near future, when “de-colonisation” of their class has gone further, it will make them positively counter-revolutionary. Transfer of some political power to the colonial bourgeoisie does not weaken imperialism; because the native bourgeoisie wield this power, not to further develop the struggle against imperialism, but to suppress the revolutionary movement. This has been demonstrated by the experience in other colonial countries.

“De-colonisation” of the Indian bourgeoisie, thus, is not an “illusion”. It is a fact which is the key to the situation. By estimating the situation in the light of this fact can we establish what comrade Kuusinen very correctly said in his report:

“The mission of freeing India has been conferred by history on the Indian workers and peasants.” The worker and peasant masses cannot be mobilised to undertake their historic mission consciously only on the slogan — “the sahib is a robber”.

They must know that the native bourgeoisie are the accomplices of the foreign sahib, and therefore, will never carry on a revolutionary fight for national liberation. “The sahib will never decolonise India” of the workers and peasants; but nor will the Indian bourgeoisie lead the people to national freedom. And this must be courageously told and clearly demonstrated to make the workers and peasants conscious of their historic mission. Comrade Kuusinen or any other comrade will search in vain to detect me ever spreading the illusion among the workers and peasants that “the sahib will decolonize” them. On the contrary what comrade Kuusinen today says about the historic mission of the Indian workers and peasants, I began propagating years ago when not a few leading comrades entertained illusions about the role of the nationalist bourgeoisie.

Finally, I am completely in agreement with comrade Kuusinen’s opinion about the immediate task and organisational problems of the Communist Party of India. This agreement reveals the unreality of the row raised on the theory of “de-colonisation”. A deep divergence in the appreciation of the situation must lead to equally great difference in determining our task in the given situation. The conclusions drawn by comrade Kuusinen can be correct when the situation indicates a transformation in the relation between imperialism and the native bourgeoisie; in other words, when there is a process of “de-colonisation” as far as the bourgeoisie are concerned. Should comrade Kuusinen or any other comrade challenge the correctness of the analysis of the situation as given above, he could not logically draw the conclusions as regards our tasks, as he did. Looking at the matter dispassionately comrade Kuusinen will admit that I have not committed such a crime as he sought to depict in his report.

Source: Meerut Record, p 1007 (6)

 

Extracts From Documents Of The Seventh Congress

20

From Resolution On Fascism, Working-Class Unity And The Tasks Of The Comintern

V. The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front in the colonial countries

In the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the most important task facing the communists consists in working to establish an anti-imperialist people’s front. For this purpose it is necessary to draw the widest masses into the national liberation movement against growing imperialist exploitation, against cruel enslavement, for the driving out of the imperialists, for the independence of the country; to take an active part in the mass anti-imperialist movements headed by the national reformists and strive to bring about joint action with the national-revolutionary and national-reformist organisations on the basis of a definite anti-imperialist platform. ...

In the interests of its own struggle for emancipation, the proletariat of the imperialist countries must give its unstinted support to the liberation struggle of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples against the imperialist pirates.

Source: Communist International 1919-1943. Documents, edited by Jane Degras, Vol. III, p 376

 

21

From Wang Ming’s Speech

“The Revolutionary Movement in Colonial Countries”

“Our comrades in India have suffered for a long time from ‘left’ sectarian errors : they did not participate in all the mass demonstrations organised by the National Congress. ... The Indian communists until very recently were to a considerable extent isolated from the mass of the people, from the mass anti-imperialist struggle ... for a long time the small scattered groups of communists could not become a united mass all-India CP. ... It was only recently that the all-India CP, which has already taken shape the (reference perhaps is to the setting up of a provisional CC in December 1934), began to rid itself of its sectarian errors and made the first steps towards the creation of an anti-imperialist united front. Nevertheless our young Indian comrades, having taken this road, showed a great lack of understanding of the UF tactics. This may be borne out even by the fact that our Indian comrades in attempting to establish a united anti-imperialist front with the National Congress in December last year put before the latter such demands as ‘the establishment of an Indian workers’ and peasants’ soviet republic’ ‘confiscation of all lands belonging to the zamindars without compensation’ ‘a general strike as the only effective programme of action’, etc. Such demands on the part of our Indian comrades can serve as an example of how not to carry on the tactics of the anti-imperialist united front. True, the Indian communists somewhat corrected their line later on and achieved, on the one hand, the unification of the revolutionary and reformist trade unions and on the other hand an agreement with the so-called congress-socialists for a struggle against the new slavish constitution. ...

“Both within and without the National Congress the Indian communists must consolidate all the genuine anti-imperialist forces of the country, broadening and leading the struggle of the masses against the imperialist oppressors.

“The Indian communists must formulate a programme of popular demands which could serve as a platform for a broad anti-imperialist united front ... this programme for struggle in the immediate future should include approximately the following demands : (1) against the slavish constitution, (2) for the immediate liberation of all political prisoners, (3) for the abolition of all extraordinary laws etc., (4) against the lowering of wages, the lengthening of working day and discharge of workers, (5) against burdensome taxes, high land rents and against confiscation of peasants’ lands for nonpayment of debts and obligations, and (6) for the establishment of democratic rights.”

Source: Guidelines of the History of the Communist Party of India (CPI Publication), pp 44-45
 

1

Excerpts from

The British Rule In India

London, Friday, June 10,1853

... Hindustan is an Italy of Asiatic dimensions, the Himalayas for the Alps, the plains of Bengal for the plains of Lombardy, the Deccan for the Appenines, and the Isle of Ceylon for the Island of Sicily. The same rich variety in the products of the soil, and the same dismemberment in the political configuration. Just as Italy has, from time to time, been compressed by the conqueror’s sword into different national masses, so do we find Hindustan, when not under the pressure of the Mohammedan, or the Mogul, or the "Briton, dissolved into as many independent and conflicting States as it numbered towns, or even villages. Yet, in a social point of view, Hindustan is not the Italy, but the Ireland of the East. And this strange combination of Italy and of Ireland, of a world of voluptuousness and of a world of woes, is anticipated in the ancient traditions of the religion of Hindustan. That religion is at once a religion of sensualist exuberance, and a religion of self-torturing asceticism; a religion of the Lingam and of the Juggernaut; the religion of the Monk, and of the Bayadere.

I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindustan. ...

There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindustan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindustan had to suffer before. ...

All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines, strangely complex, rapid and destructive as the successive action in Hindustan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. 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 Hindoo, and separates Hindustan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.

There have been in Asia, generally, from immemorial times, but three departments of Government: that of Finance, or the plunder of the interior; that of War or the plunder of the exterior; and, finally, the department of Public Works. Climate and territorial conditions, especially the vast tracts of desert, extending from the Sahara, through Arabia, Persia, India and Tartary, to the most elevated Asiatic highlands, constituted artificial irrigation by canals and waterworks the basis of Oriental agriculture. As in Egypt and India, inundations are used for fertilising the soil of Mesopotamia, Persia, etc.; advantage is taken of a high level for feeding irrigative canals. This prime necessity of an economical and common use of water, which in the Occident, drove private enterprise to voluntary association, as in Flanders and Italy, necessitated, in the Orient where civilisation was too low and the territorial extent too vast to call into life voluntary association, the interference of the centralising power of Government. Hence an economical function devolved upon all Asiatic Governments, the function of providing public works. This artificial fertilisation of the soil, dependent on a Central Government, and immediately decaying with the neglect of irrigation and drainage, explains the otherwise strange fact that we now find whole territories barren and desert that were once brilliantly cultivated, as Palmyra, Petra, the ruins in Yemen, and large provinces of Egypt, Persia and Hindustan; it also explains how a single war of devastation has been able to depopulate a country for centuries, and to strip it of all its civilisation.

Now, the British in East India accepted from their predecessors the department of finance and of war, but they have neglected entirely that of public works. Hence the deterioration of an agriculture which is not capable of being conducted on the British principle of free competition, of laissez-faire and laissezaller^[1]. But in Asiatic empires we are quite accustomed to see agriculture deteriorating under one government and reviving again under some other government. There the harvests correspond to good or bad government as they change in Europe with good or bad seasons. Thus the oppression and neglect of agriculture, bad as it is, could not be looked upon as the final blow dealt to Indian society by the British intruder, had it not been attended by a circumstance of quite different importance, a novelty in the annals of the whole Asiatic world. However changing the political aspect of India's past must appear, its social condition has remained unaltered since its remotest antiquity until the first decennium of the 19th century. The handloom and the spinning wheel, producing their regular myriads of spinners and weavers, were the pivots of the structure of that society. ... It was the British intruder who broke up the Indian handloom and destroyed the spinning wheel. England began with depriving the Indian cottons from the European market; it then introduced twist into Hindostan and in the end inundated the very mother country of cotton with cottons. From 1818 to 1836 the export of twist from Great Britain to India rose in the proportion of 1 to 5,200. In 1824 the export of British muslins to India hardly amounted to 1,000,000 yards, while in 1837 it surpassed 64,000,000 of yards. But at the same time the population of Dacca decreased from 150,000 inhabitants to 20,000. This decline of Indian towns celebrated for their fabrics was by no means the worst consequence. British steam and science uprooted, over the whole surface of Hindostan, the union between agriculture and manufacturing industry.

These two circumstances — the Hindoo, on the one hand, leaving, like all Oriental peoples, to the central government the care of the great public works, the prime condition of his agriculture and commerce, dispersed, on the other hand, over the surface of the country, and agglomerated in small centres by the domestic union of agricultural and manufacturing pursuits — these two circumstances had brought about, since the remotest times, a social system of particular features the so-called village system, which gave to each of these small unions their independent organisation and distinct life. ...

These small stereotype forms of social organism have been to the greater part dissolved, and are disappearing, not so much through the brutal interference of the British tax-gatherer and the British soldier, as to the working of English steam and English Free Trade. Those family-communities were based on domestic industry, in that peculiar combination of hand- weaving, hand-spinning and hand-tilling agriculture which gave them self-supporting power. English interference having placed the spinner in Lancashire and the weaver in Bengal, or sweeping away both Hindoo spinner and weaver, dissolved these small semi-barbarian, semi-civilised communities, by blowing up their economical basis, and thus produced the greatest, and to speak the truth, the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia.

Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organisations disorganised and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilisation, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution b the social state of Asia ? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. ...

Source : K Marx and F Engels, Selected Works in Three Volumes, Vol. I, pp 488-93

Note:

1. “Grant freedom of action” (the motto of the bourgeois economists, free traders, who insisted on free trade and non-interference by the state in the sphere of economic relations).

 

2

Excerpts from

The Future Results Of British Rule In India

London, Friday, July 22,1853

I propose in this letter to conclude my observations on India.

How came it that English supremacy was established in India ?

The paramount power of the Great Mogul was broken by the Mogul Viceroys. The power of the Viceroys was broken by the Mahrattas. The power of the Mahrattas was broken by the Afghans, and while all were struggling against all, the Briton rushed in and was enabled to subdue them all. A country not only divided between Mohammedan and Hindoo, but between tribe and tribe, between caste and caste; a society whose framework was based on a sort of equilibrium, resulting from a general repulsion and constitutional exclusiveness between all its members. Such a country and such a society, were they not the predestined prey of conquest? If we knew nothing of the past history of Hindustan, would there not be the one great and incontestable fact, that even at this moment India is held in English thraldom by an Indian army maintained at the cost of India? India, then could not escape the fate of being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it be anything, is a history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. The question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.

England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating — the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in Asia.

Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooised, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilisation of their subjects. The British were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to Hindoo civilisation. They destroyed it by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction. The work of regeneration hardly transpires through a heap of ruins. Nevertheless it has begun.

The political unity of India, more consolidated, and extending farther than it ever did under the Great Moguls, was the first condition of its regeneration. That unity, imposed by the British sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph. The native army, organised and trained by the British drill-sergeant, was the sine qua non of Indian self-emancipation, and of India ceasing to be the prey of the first foreign intruder. The free press, introduced for the first time into Asiatic society, and managed principally by the common offspring of Hindoo and Europeans, is a new and powerful agent of reconstruction. The Zemindaree and Ryotwar themselves, abominable as they are, involve two distinct forms of private property in land — the great desideratum of Asiatic society. From the Indian natives, reluc tantly and sparingly educated at Calcutta, under English superintendence, a fresh class is springing up, endowed with the requirements for government and imbued with European science. Steam has brought India into regular and rapid communication .with Europe, has connected its chief ports with those of the whole south-eastern ocean, and has re-vindicated it from the isolated position which was the prime law of its stagnation. The day is not far distant when, by a combination of railways and steam vessels, the distance between England and India, measured by time, will be shortened to eight days, and when that once fabulous country will thus be actually annexed to the Western world.

The ruling classes of Great Britain have had, till now, but an accidental, transitory and exceptional interest in the progress of India. The aristocracy wanted to conquer it, the moneyocracy to plunder it, and the millocracy to undersell it. But now the tables are turned. The millocracy have discovered that the transformation of India into a reproductive country has become of vital importance to them, and that, to that end, it is necessary, above all, to gift her with means of irrigation and of internal communication. They intend now drawing a net of railways over India. And they will do it. The results must be inappreciable.

It is notorious that the productive powers of India are paralysed by the utter want of means for conveying and exchanging its various produce. Nowhere, more than in India, do we meet with social destitution in the midst of natural plenty, for want of the means of exchange. It was proved before a Committee of the British House of Commons, which sat in 1848, that

• “when grain was selling from 6s. to 8s. a quarter at Kandeish, it was sold at 64s. to 70s. at Poonah, where the people were dying in the streets of famine, without the possibility of gaining supplies from Kandeish, because the clay-roads were impracticable.”

The introduction of railways may be easily made to sub-serve agricultural purposes by the formation of tanks, where ground is required for embankment, and by the conveyance of water along the different lines. Thus irrigation, the sine qua non of farming in the East, might be greatly extended, and the frequently recurring local famines, arising from the want of water, would be averted. ...

Railways will afford the means of diminishing the amount and the cost of the military establishments. ...

... The village isolation produced the absence of roads in India, and the absence of roads perpetuated the village isolation. On this plan a community existed with a given scale of low conveniences, almost without intercourse with other villages, without the desires and efforts indispensable to social advance. The British having broken up this self-sufficient inertia of the village, railways will provide the new want of communication and intercourse. ...

I know that the English millocracy intend to endow India with railways with the exclusive view of extracting at diminished expenses the cotton and other raw materials for their manufactures. But when you have once introduced machinery into the locomotion of a country, which possesses iron and coals, you are unable to withhold it form its fabrication. You cannot maintain a net of railways over an immense country without introducing all those industrial processes necessary to meet the immediate and current wants of railway locomotion, and out of which there must grow the application of machinery to those branches of industry not immediately connected with railways. The railway system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of modem industry. ...

Modern industry, resulting from the railway system, will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour, upon which rest the Indian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power.

All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and peoples through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation ?

The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. At all events, we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country. ...

The devastating effects of English industry, when contemplated with regard to India, a country as vast as Europe, and containing 150 millions of acres, are palpable and confounding. But we must not forget that they are only the organic results of the whole system of production as it is now constituted. That production rests on the supreme rule of capital. The centralisation of capital is essential to the existence of capital as an independent power. The destructive influence of that centralisation upon the markets of the world does but reveal, in the most gigantic dimensions, the inherent organic laws of political economy now at work in every civilised town. The bourgeois period of history has to create the material basis of the new world — on the one hand the universal intercourse founded upon the mutual dependency of mankind, and the means of that intercourse; on the other hand the development of the productive powers of man and the transformation of material production into a scientific domination of natural agencies. Bourgeois industry and commerce create these material conditions of a new world in the same way as geological revolutions have created the surface of the earth. When a great social revolution shall have mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch, the market of the world and the modern powers of production, and subjected them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, then only will human progress cease to resemble that hideous pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain. Source: Ibid. pp 494-99

Role of CPI on worker, peasant and other fronts
(Early ’20s-1939)

While formulating its general political line for different periods in history (as discussed in Parts II to V), the CPI also sought to develop specific policies for particular fields of work. Whereas it played a consistently active and often commendable role in the working class movement, on the crucial peasant front it began to pay serious attention only towards the end of the period. The communist movement did provide a great impetus to the development of cultural and youth movements, but as regards developing the Party’s cultural, youth and other wings, only the ground work had been done in our period, that is the formative years of the CPI.

CPI Leads Workers’ Struggle
The Neglected Peasant Movement
CPI on Other Fronts

 

CPI Leads Workers’ Struggles

In this chapter we shall briefly examine the metamorphosis of the Indian working class from a 'class in itself to a 'class for itself in the process of continued struggle against the imperialist regime and the rule of capital with particular reference to the role of the CPI in this process.

The working class and trade union movement during 1921-25

Amidst the nation-wide mass upsurge of 1921 as discussed earlier, thousands of Indian workers assembled in Jharia, which was then pulsating with coal miners’ strike, for the second congress of AITUC. In respect of mass enthusiasm, mass participation and political maturity this historic gathering of the Indian workers from all branches of industries in India and from all parts of the country deserves special mention. Even at a conservative estimate, more than fifty thousand delegates participated in this trade union session which began on 30 November, 1921. The session was marked by the participation of a large number of women delegates breaking all feudal shyness in this early part of the century. The first resolution on swaraj echoed the tone of the Congress left wingers who dominated the session politically. The session declared “... The time has now arrived for the attainment of swaraj by the people.” Swaraj not for those who rolled in luxury, drove in motor cars or dined at government houses, but for those millions of human beings who by their labour filled the pockets of the rich and the wealthy, set the tone of the swaraj to be achieved. While the first congress of the AITUC remained silent on this vital issue of the period, the second congress came out strongly with the demand of independence, which was coined in swarajist terms ‘swaraj for the people’.

The second resolution brought out the political maturity and international brotkerhood of the Indian working class. The session expressed deep sympathy with the starving millions of Russia which was rocked with famine and draught. The session resolved to send token aid and appealed to the Indian workers to donate one day’s wage for the famine-stricken people of Lenin's Russia. The session also adopted a resolution on the coal miners’ demands, but the failure of the swarajist leadership in passing resolutions on the ongoing (Eka movement, 1921) or the just-suppressed peasant movements marked a chronic weakness of the working class movement in expressing solidarity with the struggles of their consistent and solid friends — the peasantry.

No known early communists were present in this Jharia session, though Singaravelu Chettiar sent a message of greetings to the session. In the early Congresses of the AITUC the stage was dominated by Congress stalwarts, mainly Swarajists, like Lala Lajpat Rai, Chittaran-jan Das, Motilal Nehru, Annie Besant, and even Jinnah. Gandhi never sent a message nor was interested in the functioning of the AITUC. Even when the AITUC was mainly dominated by Congress politicians, Gandhi’s brain-child — the Ahmadabad Majoor Mahajan — never sought affiliation to the AITUC.

Meanwhile, the emigre Communist Party of India tried to intervene ; in the ongoing labour movement in India. Their main methods were sending manifestoes or appeals to the leadership of the National Congress or directly to the worker and peasant masses, thereby trying to influence their course of activities, though with nominal success. Thus the manifesto sent to the Ahmadabad session of INC upheld the role of the workers and peasants in the national liberation struggle. The principal slogan was “Land to the Peasants and Bread to the Workers”.

The earliest articulated expression of Communists working in India on the working class movement appeared in March, 1923 in The Socialist. An article entitled “The capitalist offensive in India”, (Text IV A₁) instead of giving mere philosophic advice a la the reformist labour leaders, of for ‘collective good’ as propagated by the Gandhian followers in the labour front, appealed to the workers to wage class struggle against the ensuing capitalist offensive. Similar class approach was evident also in the appeal by the emigre communists in February, 1923. The Indian labour unions were urged to force the authorities, under the threat of a general strike, to remit the death sentences of the 172 peasants convicted in the Chauri-Chaura incident.

When these two trends of labour movement — the old one of class peace and ‘collective good’ and the new one of class struggle — were contending amongst themselves, workers of the Tata Iron and Steel Works, Jamshedpur, were forced to go on a strike with the demands of reinstatement of two of their dismissed comrades, recognition of their union, eight hour general shift and payment of bonus. But this struggle ended in a failure amidst the overall lull of 1923. In this period of lull, the 3rd Congress of AITUC (26-27 March, 1923) in Lahore failed to make any headway. Similar was the case with the 4th Congress in March, 1924 in Calcutta. The two consecutive AITUC Congresses were thinly attended (100 and 150 delegates respectively), failed to evolve the proper tactics to resist the capitalist offensives like retrenchment of Railway workers, deployment of police and military forces in disputes between capital and labour etc. However, though the number of industrial disputes was only 213 in 1923 and 133 in 1924, the magnitude was greater in 1924, showing stubborn resistance by the mass of workers. One instance was the Bombay textile workers' movement in 1924 against the textile barons' refusal to pay bonus. 1,60,00 workers of 81 mills moved into strike resulting 7.75 million man days lost. Though the movement failed, the birth of future militant TU centres (GKU, Red Flag) and their success in the strike movement of 1928 was rooted in this struggle.

But the British authorities made a pre-emptive strike on the labour leaders who were trying to organise the workers on class- lines. SA Dange, Muzaffar Ahmad, Shaukat Usmani were rounded up in the year 1924 in the Kanpur Bolshevik conspiracy case, thereby causing a major jolt in the early communist initiatives in organising the workers in militant struggles.

Amidst this capitalist onslaught, the fifth Congress of the AITUC was held in Bombay on 14 February in the year 1925, while the Kanpur trial was going on. It was a poorly attended session with only 66 delegates present. It was presided over by Mr DR Thengdi, who was later associated with the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party of Bombay. Apart from adopting resolutions on minimum living wages, representation in Central and provincial legislatures, it also adopted a revised constitution of the AITUC which widened the scope of joint activities with other like-minded trade 'unions at home and abroad.

The year 1925 saw a further intensification of class struggle. The workers resisted the combined attack of foreign and indigenous capitalists and the British authorities with utmost determination. One such heroic resistance was the strike movement of the North Western Railway workers in March, 1925. The movement was sparked off by a disciplinary action against a union activist, with gradual inclusion of other demands like eight-hour working day, wage-rise, stoppage of retrenchment and reinstatement of dismissed workers. 22,000 railway workers participated in the strike, but it failed, resulting in dismissal of 8,000 railwaymen. London Weekly in its 4 July, 25 issue wrote, “Last month the strikers on the North Western Railway marched in procession as a protest against a press statement that the strike had collapsed. They carried a red flag. Nothing unusual. But that the flag was once white. It was stained by the blood of the workers”. The other heroic resistance was that of the Bombay textile workers’ strike in the year 1925 against the 11.5% wage-cut. Popularly known as ‘Bonus strike’, it continued for two-and-half months. About 56,000 workers participated in the struggle which finally ended when the government was forced to withdraw the 3.5% cotton-excise duty that was used by the millowners as an excuse for the wage-cut. The important feature of this movement, apart from receiving international fraternal assistance, was the new elements introduced by the communists in conducting the strike struggle. ‘Strike Committees’ were formed consisting of rank and file workers which helped maintain the unity of the workers. KN Joglekar, who was associated with this movement, wrote, “I was cooperating with the strike committees and was helping and advising the Girni Kamgar Mahamandal to keep the unity of-the workers during the strike. We planned for the workers to go to their home villages and collected relief for the purpose”.^[1] Upto this period the communist intervention in the working class movement did not surpass the dominance of the reformist policies of the early trade union leaders. But the period did initiate a change in the prevailing politics in the labour movement.

Communist intervention: 1926-29

The emergence of Workers' and Peasants’ Parties in different political centres of India, viz., Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Lahore in the year 1926-27 helped the communist labour leaders in organising the Indian workers from the standpoint of class struggle. They also tried to intervene in INC politics by raising questions relating to labour in its sessions.

In the Gauhati Session of the INC (December 1962), two known communist labour leaders, KN Joglekar and RS Nimbkar moved a resolution on labour demands : “The Indian National Congress should sponsor and support the class-struggle of the workers and peasants in India against the employers and the landlords. It was not accepted by the Congress official”, wrote KN Joglekar in his Reminiscences (Adhikari, Vol. III A, p-47). But the principal weapon the communists used was the mass political organisation — the WPPs in different provinces — to organise and lead workers’ struggle against the rule of capital.

Meanwhile, the sixth congress of the AITUC, held on 7-10 January, 1926 in the industrial city of Madras, passed off peacefully. The beaten track of reformism followed by the established labour leaders could not be reversed in this session. Even the Bombay Chronicle, a capitalist newspaper, in a lead article pointed out the need for more energetic work on the part of leaders of Indian labour in organising the trade unions. This session, presided over by W Giri, again rolled back to take the resolution of dominion status for India within the British empire. But the gathering storm of the workers against the foreign and native capitalist offensive burst forth in the unprecedented working class upsurge during 1927 and climaxed in 1928-29. The Rationalisation drive, i.e., speeding up, lower wages, longer hours of work and retremchment imposed by the capitalists was fought back by the workers in different industrial centres. Bombay witnessed 54 strikes with 1,28,078 workers participating, this accounted for 1,65,061 mandays lost in the year 1927. These strikes were mainly in the native-owned textile mills. This was followed by Bengal with 34 strikes where although the total strength was half that of Bombay, there was three-fold increase in mandays lost (roughly 4,64,889 days). The jute mills of Bengal were the most affected. Madras witnessed 19 strikes involving 17,905 work-ingmen and causing 1,87,441 mandays lost. Strike movements also spread to the industrial town of Jamshedpur and in the Railway sector. Philip Spratt in one estimate in 1927 showed that the number of trade unionists active in different cities were as follows : Bombay 76,000, Bengal 50,000, Madras 25,000 and in other places a few thousands and in all, a total of 1,25,000 members were there, hi the affiliated trade unions of AITUC (Philip Spratt, The Indian Trade Union Movement, Adhikari, Vol. IIIB, p.251).

Before coming to the 7th congress of the AITUC, let us have a glance at the ongoing struggles of the workers. Thus we have two successive protracted strikes in the BN Railway at Kharagpur. Defying the ‘whips, lathis and butt ends of rifles and indiscriminate shooting’, in the words of KN Joglekar in his Meerut defence argument, 40,000 Railway workers resisted the retrenchment policy of State Railway Workshop Committee in February, 1927. Though the first phase of the movement ended on 10 March, 1927 after receiving some assurances from the railway authorities, it again sparked off in the month of September the same year. The authorities declared lock-out. The young communist and left leaning TU leaders who were associated with the first phase of the movement, immediately rushed to the spot and stood solidly behind the striking workers. Notable among them were Muzaffar Ahmad, Bhupendra Nath Dutta, Singaravelu Chettiar, Dharani Goswami and Sibnath Banerjee. The second phase of the movement ended in failure (8 December, 1927), But the defeat was overshadowed by the striking class solidarity and stubborn resistance shown by the railways workers.

After gaining valuable experiences from the BN Railway strike, the Communist trade union leaders took active role in Lilooah rail workshop strike (January to July, 1928), in the scavengers’ strike in Calcutta Corporation and also in the jute mills strikes of Chengail and Bauria (July, 1929). Ganabani, the Bengali weekly organ of WPP of Bengal, wrote in its 26 July, 1928 issue about the tense situation in Bengal jute mills and urged the workers to resist the onslaught of jute barons — “In most of the jute mills, zulum is committed upon them, and all mill-owners suck out their heart’s blood. Hence the labourers of all jute mills will have to combine and offer fight at one time and in all places. ... A strike here today, another there tomorrow will hardly be of much avail. It is only when the labourers will combine and bring to standstill the jute mills of Bengal that they will be greeted with shouts of triumphs from all sides”_[2].

The seventh congress of AITUC was held in March, 1927 in Delhi, when the historic B N Railway strike had just concluded. But the heat of the movemnt could not be felt inside the congress room, it was altogether a dull affair. Though the session discussed in detail the withdrawal of the BN Railway strike, the leadership took a reformist stand on it. A group of communists, comprising Muzaffar Ahmad, SV Ghate, KN Joglekar, SS Mirajkar and RS Nimbkar, participated in the session. Commenting on the proceedings Philip Spratt wrote, “Two wings were present in nearly equal strength and the “left” was able to effect favourable compromises on a number of points, though it could not do without the right. The “left” derives mainly from Bombay and Punjab. The Bengal “left” owing to the circumstances related above (i.e. pandemonium in the session — Editor) and to other quarrels decided to boycott the session, which it did, with the exception of Aftab Ali. This youngman left the meeting almost in tears on the last day threatening loudly to found a new congress. This threat was also repeated from Punjab ... it indicates a view which seems to be fairly widespread, that the congress is simply a bogus affair which it is not worth joining” (G Adhikari, Vol. IIIB, p 182).

Saklatwala who was present in this AITUC session made some concrete suggestions for the Indian trade union movement : (i) A standing committee for international negotiations, (ii) A labour research bureau, (iii) District organisers, (iv) Stricter rules for affiliation of trade unions to the AITUC, (v) A permanent office of the trade union congress which could supply informations to the trade unions in the country and abroad, (vi) A central fund to enable the delegates to attend the trade union congress.

Another important resolution taken at the session was on the paramount need for establishing Workers’ and Pasants’ Parties and the session pledged to work for the creation of such a party at an all-India basis. It was accepted unanimously. SV Ghate was elected as one of its assistant secretaries. Commenting on the whole proceedings of the session, Masses of India (May 1927) wrote under the caption The All India Trade Union Congress’, “It indicates that through the left-wing representatives the congress is at last being brought a little closer to the actual revolutionary struggle of the masses” (G Adhikari, Vol. IIIB, p 151).

Meanwhile; the Extended Meeting of the Central Executive of CPI in its Annual Report, 1927, adopted a resolution on “Trade Union Congress” which urged the communist members to enter the AITUC and wrest the organisation from its present bourgeois leadership (Text IVA₂).

Just like the seventh congress session, the eighth congress of AITUC, held in Kanpur on 26-27 November, 1927 was also marked with the growing presence of an active left-wing group, mainly coming from the WPPs. They succeeded in getting discussed the issues like boycott of Simon Commission, the threat of war against USSR by the imperialists, the question of joining the League Against Imperialism etc. Communists also managed to get elected to some offices: Jhabvala became the organising secretary of the Council of Action and Dange became the assistant secretary of the AITUC.

But 1928 was the year of fresh workers’ upsurge. In February, Bombay witnessed a massive demonstration on the day of Simon's arrival in Bombay. 20,000 workers came out in the streets in protest against the all-white Simon Commission. The second incident took place in December, in Calcutta. Thousands of workers led by WPP of Bengal moved into the Congress session, occupied the central pandal and took resolution on Puma Swaraj (Total independence). If these two incidents marked the growing anti-imperialist mood of the Indian workers and their ever-growing involvement in national politics, the Bombay textile workers' strike movement of 1928 and 1929 revealed the persistent class struggle of the Indian labouring class. These movements were started against the notorious rationalisation drive with concomitant wage-cuts by the textile millowners. These movements can be viewed as the continuation of the unfinished struggle of 1924. The first strike of 1928 was of six months duration. During the course of the movement the communists came out of the Girni Kamgar Mahamandal which was by then practically defunct. The communists formed the Girni Kamgar Union (Red Flag) and developed it as a radical alternative to the moderate Textile Labour Union led by veteran TU leader, MM Joshi. This Red Flag TU was not simply another traditional TU. The communists introduced new elements of workers’ control by forming Gimi Samitis (or Mill Committees) at the grassroots level. At least 42 mill committees were actively functioning during the strikes, which helped not only in conducting it vigorously against all sorts of provocations by the mill-owners, but also helped in enrolling new worker members to the Red Flag Union, which rose to 60,000 in six months in comparison to Joshi's union which had only 9,800 members. Even the well-established Gandhian Ahmadabad Textile labour union had only 27,000 members. This strike was so peaceful, massive and total that the governor of Bombay had to admit that, “I have been considerably disturbed by the fact that the mill owners opened a section of their mills on several occasions, and although adequate police protection was given, not a single man returned to work.”^[3] The strike ended only when the mill-owners agreed to restore the 1927 wages pending the report of an official enquiry committee. The second general strike was organised in April-August, 1929 when the Faweett Committee report proved unfavourable to the workers and the mill-owners started large scale dismissal of workers. The mill-committees became ever more militant but the strike ended in failure because it was stretched too far. This failure greatly weakened the GKU which was then led by new incumbents in TU movement like S V Deshpande, BT Ranadive etc. The communist influence also spread to GIF Railway and oil depot workers. This spread of communist activities in 1928-29 in the vital sectors of Indian industry was immediately met with counter-offensive from the mill-owners and the British authorities. The government passed one bill after another, viz., the Public Safety Bill (which gave them power to summarily deport Philip Spratt and Ben Bradley, who were helping the Indian Communists in organising labour in Bombay and Bengal) and the Trade Disputes Act of April, 1923 (which had the avowed objective of banning strikes). The mill owners tried to spread casteist and communal fanaticism against the communist trade union leaders who happened to be of a Brahmin origin. The non-Brahmin Minister of Bombay, Bhaskar Rao Yadav, took the lead on this score. Not satisfied merely with these acts, the government then moved to crush the growing communist activities in the labour front by arresting all the communist and left trade union leaders and started a case against them under section 121IPC, which is known as the Meerut Conspiracy Case of 1929 (see part III).

Not daunted by the arrests, the communists tried to resist the capitalist onslaughts against the workers. The second strike in Bombay textile mills or the first general strike in jute mills (in July-August, 1929) under the banner of Bengal Jute workers union, which was then largely controlled by communists, were the testimonies of the undaunted spirit of the communists in the face of severe repression. Though the Bombay strike failed, in Bengal the workers successfully beat back the employers’ bid to extend the working hours from 54 to 60 hours per week.

In this backdrop, the ninth congress of AITUC was held at Jharia on 18-20 December, 1928. The enthusiasm and political fervour of the second session had already evaporated from Jharia, thanks to the reformist TU leaders of the Gandhian variety. This session was attended by 200 delegates only, representing 42 affiliated unions with a membership of 98,000.

Two important foreign dignatof ies, Mr JW Johnstone of League against Imperialism and Mr JF Ryan of Pan Pacific Trade Union Secretariat, both communist dominated organisations, were present in this session.

The important resolutions taken in this session were on

• a) Aim of AITUC — To transform India into a Socialist Republic of workers.
• b) 50 delegates were to be sent to the ensuing All Parties Conference to be held in Calcutta on 20 December, 1928.
• c) An application was to be made for affiliation of AITUC to the League Against Imperialism. A delegation comprising DR Thengdi and KN Joglekar was to be sent to its coming Paris session in July, 1929.
• d) This session also took resolution condemning the Trades

Dispute Bill, urged to resist it at any cost and called for one day’s general strike as a protest.

This Jharia Session witnessed the marked consolidation of communist trade union leaders as a compact and organised bloc. In one estimate of the Red International of Labour Union, out of 4,00,000 organised workers in India in 1929,1,50,000 were judged to be under the organised leadership of the Left, for which GKU (Red Flag) alone contributed 40,000-60,000 membership (RP Dutt, Inprecor 1931). Jawaharlal Nehru was elected as President, Muzaffar Ahmad as Vice President, S A Dange as one of its assistant secretaries.

This growing communist presence inside the AITUC sharpened the two-line struggle, which came to the forefront in tenth session in Nagpur held on 28-29 November 1929.
An intense debate started mainly on the following questions:

• i)   The political involvement of workers in the national polity.
• ii)  International affiliation of the AITUC.
• iii) Attitude to be taken by the AITUC on Royal Commission on labour in India, popularly known as Whitley Commission.
• iv)  The path to be taken in the labour movement etc.

A section of veteran TU leadership led by NM Joshi, Shiva Rao, Chaman Lal, VV Giri, Bakhale etc., generally known as the right reformist group, were of the view that the workers should not be involved in political actions and they wanted to follow the constitutionalist, reformist path of avoiding struggle. The communists, on the other hand, held just the opposite view.

The sharpened two-lines struggle saw the first split of the AITUC in the Nagpur Congress.

Though the session was held when all the important communist leaders were behind the bars in Meerut Conspiracy Case, the communists led by S V Deshpande moved certain resolutions in the executive council meeting just before the open session of the tenth congress. The resolutions, which were accepted in the executive council meeting, were on questions like boycotting the Whitley Commission; affiliation of AITUC to the Pan Pacific Trade Unions Secretariat, as a counter to its affiliation to International Federation of Trade Unions (Amsterdam); no representation, henceforth, to ILO, rejection of Nehru Report which was identified as a ‘continuation of British rule in India’.

When the said resolutions were moved by Deshpande in the open session, the group led by NM Joshi opposed it tooth and nail. The president of the session, Nehru, failed to pacify the situation, and this group led by Joshi then walked out of the open session. After their walk-out the open session was held on 1 December under the presidentship of Nehru and the resolutions, except the one on affiliation to Pan Pacific TU Secretariat which was dropped, was accepted unanimously. The session elected Subhas Chandra Bose as the new president and SV Deshpande as general secretary! Just after the conclusion of the tenth congress, a manifesto signed by the new general secretary was issued to the general workers condemning the splitting activity of the right reformist group (Text IV A₃).

The group under NM Joshi immediately after their walk-out met at the residence of Mr. Joshi and formed the parallel organisation on 1 December 1929, which was provisionally named Indian Trade Union Federation with V V Giri as provisional chairman.

The period of great economic crisis (’30-early ’34) of the capitalists was marked by the following salient features :

• By 1932, capitalist economy reached its all-time low. During 1930-33, the industrial output in the capitalist world shrunk by 38%.
• Imperial preference followed by the British rulers caused a severe blow to Indian steel and cotton textile industries in Bombay rendering 61,000 workers jobless.
• By 1934, 83,000 workers in jute mills in Bengal were made surplus due to the introduction of one shift from the previous two shifts operation in different mills.
• Mass retrenchment occurred in different railways affecting 51,569 workers.
• Under Emergency Reduction Rule of wages, 12%-20% wages were reduced in different industries of Bombay, Ahmedabad, Sholapur, Madras, Nagpur, Kanpur, Bengal and Jamshedpur.

Splits and setbacks : 1930-34

After the split in the mother organisation, a few but unsuccessful strike movements were launched by militant trade union leaders in different parts of the country, such as the GIP railway strike in February-March, 1930, though the carters’ strike in Calcutta led by communist TU leader Abdul Momin won the battle. Then came the Sholapur textile strike of 7 May, 1930 popularly known as “Sholapur Commune”, though a misnomer. The entire town of Sholapur came under workers’ control from 7-16 May, which returned to ‘normalcy’ only after imposing martial law in the town. This higher form of struggle of the workers, despite its failure due to absence of any conscious and organised leadership, absence of any strategic programme and under heavy repression, marked a higher political maturity of the Indian working class.

But in 1930, labour militancy saw a declining trend and most of the struggles, even though defensive in nature, were mostly unsuccessful. Three factors can be enumerated here as basic causes of this declining trend. Firstly, the onset of the great depression. Though the workers were greatly affected, the employed workers were comparatively less discontent. In their case struggles broke out only when the capitalists tried to shift the burden of the crisis onto them through rationalisation drives. Rather the unemployed workers, whose number greatly increased, were affected more. So, the number of functioning trade unions, the number of affiliated unions and their membership sharply decreased during this phase (1930-33). Secondly, vertical division in the national premier trade union organisation, the AITUC. While the right reformists moved more rightwards with the onset of the crisis; in the face of capitalist onslaught, the Left and communist trade union leaders moved to more ‘left’ sectarian position. They started fighting the right reformist and left nationalist trade union leaders in a partisan way. The left sectarian line of the Sixth Comintern Congress contributed much to increase and consolidate the left sectarian tendency of the communist trade union leaders. Added to this the disruptionist activities of the Roy-Kandalkar-Karnik (known as Royists in political circles) made the situation worse. They splitted the famous GKU (Red Flag) and in collaboration with the left nationalists tried to drive out the communists from the AITUC which was reflected in the eleventh session of AITUC. The ultra-left line of the communists led them to isolation and aloofness from the anti-imperialist mass political struggle of the 1930s resulting in self-isolation and pessimism. A considerable section of the communists then thought that reaction (i.e. reactionary ideology) is prevailing over the working class, so workers could not be mobilised in struggle.

In this situation the 11th session of AITUC was held on 3-7 July, 1931 in Calcutta under the presidentship of Subhas Chandra Bose. This session saw the second split in the AITUC. The initial debate started in the executive council on the question of representation of GKU (Bombay). While the Kandalkar group demanded the sole representation of GKU, it was opposed vehemently by SV Deshpande-led GKU delegates. The matter was settled in the credentials committee, where S Bose cast two votes — one as member of credentials committee and the other as president of executive council and he voted in favour of the Kandalkar group. The second debate was on the representative of Golmuri Tin Plate Workers’ Union. The president gave a ruling in favour of a person who was not at all a member of the union and bore no credential of his union, while Mr. Sethi, the delegate authorised by the union secretary, was debarred from attending the conference. The third debate was on the question of exemption of a part of affiliation fee of the GIF railway union. The GIF, a communist stronghold, was not allowed to cast its vote on a matter concerning exemption of its fees.

There occurred a pandemonium in the congress hall (Albert Hall, Calcutta). The group led by the communist Trade Union leader SV Deshpande boycotted the session and held a separate session at Metiabruz (an industrial centre near Calcutta) on 6 July, 1931 and formed the All India Red Trade Union Congress (AIRTUC). This conference elected DB Kulkarni as president, Messrs. SV Deshpande, Bankim Mukherjee and SG Sardesai as three general secretaries and Dr. Bhupendra Nath Dutta as treasurer. The parent body of AITUC held their conference on 7 July, 1931 under S Bose’s presidentship. They elected RS Ruikar as president, GL Kandalkar, VH Joshi, JN Mitra as vice-presidents, Mukunda Lal Sarkar as general secretary and S Bose as treasurer.

For the unwarranted second split in the AITUC both sides were responsible. While the Left nationalists and Royists in collaboration tried to get the AITUC rid of the communists, the communists on their part made some serious mistakes. Valia rightly said in an article in Inprecor (February and March, 1933) : “Many Indian communists identify the trade unions and the political parties. This, to some extent, is explained by the history of the labour movement in India. The first mass trade union in India — the Bombay Girni Kamgar Union — was formed before the rise of the political party of the working class. In the course of events it stood at the head of the political actions of Bombay workers in 1920-30. As a result, it happened that the splits in the labour movement were transferred to the trade unions mechanically. The communists forgot the distinction between the ptrty and the trade union and therefore succumbed tp the provocations of the national reformists with exceptional ease who successfully carried on the policy of splitting in the trade union movement. ... The national reformists taking advantage of the mistaken position of the communists were able to split the trade unions and the congress of trade unions in Calcutta hiding behind the phrases of unity.”

About a year ago, the Open Letter from the communist parties of China, Great Britain and Germany had reminded the Indian communists of the rudimentary duties of TU work. In particular, it criticised the tendency of the "passive attitude of the Indian communists to the question of the all India trade union movement and repudiate the special theory that “the trade union congress is not something living and concrete for the workers, for this, as in other questions, there is shown lack of faith in the working class and local tasks are counter-posed to all-India tasks, the GKU is counter-posed to the trade union congress.”

While the national reformists were able to carry on “Unity” campaign, organised a number of All-India campaigns like Labour Day, formed a textile federation, seized the initiative on the rail roads, formed trade union councils etc., the role of the communists were very much lacking except a young workers’ league formed by the middle of 1930 and the unemployment day in Bombay and Anti-War Day observed on 15 August, 1933. This was the criticism of the three-parties to the Indian communists. But it was only partially true. Because in 1932, against the newer capitalist onslaught the Red TUC organised jute mill workers of Kelvin, Standard, Kinison and Howrah jute nulls to a successful strike movement. Similarly, the GI Railway workers in 1930 and SM Railway workers (1934) were led to strike movements.

During this period (August-September 1934) the Red TU Centre delegates met in Calcutta under the presidentship of Abdul Halim. The Bengal trade unions of Red TUC rejected the White Paper proposals of the proposed constitution by the British imperialists (Text IV A4). It criticised the proposed constitution as a safeguard of “the interests of imperialism by strengthening the reactionary alliance of it with princes, landlords and propertied classes and for perpetuating the slavery of the Indian masses” and they urged the workers to organise “protest meetings and demonstrations all over India”. The meeting also condemned the Bengal government’s policy of allocating only two seats in the legislative council and that too only for registered unions. The meeting opined that the government should implement the Lothian Committee recommendation of “major number of seats be allocated to the working masses, moreover all the seats for labour should be given to the registered workers’ unions and other workers who are still unorganized”. They also urged that the elections should be made by secret ballot. The meeting also lodged protests against the arrests of many labour leaders of Calcutta during the anti-Gandhi agitations and urged their unconditional release.

Towards TU unity: 1935-39

With the change in the overall economic and political situation during the later part of 1934, there was greater scope of united actions by different trade union centres. It must be noted here that the pressure of the rank and file workers over the leadership facilitated this process of unity as more and more workers were becoming involved in the trade union activities during this period. One such example of united actions of the workers belonging to different trade union centres was the All-India Textile Workers’ Conference held at Kanpur in 1933. The conference, attended by national reformist (moderate section) and militant communist trade union leaders, decided to organise a textile strike throughout the country under the banner of “Council of Actions” against the direct and indirect wage-cut through rationalisation. In Sholapur the strike (February-May, 1934) caused 4,60,000 man-days lost. In Nagpur, 60,000 textile workers under the banner of Nagpur Textile Union (May-July 1934) participated in textile strikes. But the Bombay textile workers' strike which involved 90,000 workers was much more organised. A new element in this strike was the picketing of the mill gates by women workers. Beside mass picketings, regular meetings, demonstrations and other mass activities greatly enlivened the strike. But this strike had to face prohibitory orders against holding of meetings and demonstrations and in one case the police fired upon the workers and arrested a number of leaders of the movement. The united strike committee had to call off the strike. The government then took one after another repressive measures. They introduced amendments of Trade Disputes Act with arbitrary powers to declare any strike illegal (1936 and 1938). In 1937 even the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was amended to entitle the employers to deduct wages of workers for participating in “stay-in-strikes”.

We were talking about the process of unity efforts.

The rank and file pressures, change of communist tactics to national united front in the face of growing threat of fascism, release of the Meerut prisoners, above all, the changed economic-political situation helped bringing together the splinter trade unions groups under one umbrella. The process of unity was an arduous one. An appeal was made by the Red TUC in late 1933 for trade union unity (Text IVA₅). The proposal said, “The supporters of class trade unions, seeing that during the last few years the conditions of life of the workers have been constantly becoming worse, have considered the steps that have to be taken to help the working class to organise resistance to the offensive of the imperialist and capitalist, and decided to appeal to all workers and trade union organisations to come together to organise and jointly carry out defence of the workers’ interest.

The supporters of class trade unions propose to all trade unions to organise a united front, on the basis of the following points taken from the platform of the class TU movement:

a) To prepare, organise and carry out the resistance of the workers to the insolent and brutal attacks of the owners and develop it into a fight to raise the wages and improve the labour conditions.
b) To consolidate and organise the unemployed workers for the struggle against hunger, misery and unemployment. [Inprecor, May 25,1934]

A similar proposal was made by Ruikar after the Nagpur executive committee meeting of the AITUC in January, 1935. The 5-point proposal ran thus:

1. Unequivocal acceptance of the principle of class struggle;
2. No affiliation to any international organisation;
3. The question of India's labour representation to the ILO to be decided annually and to be binding on the unions;
4. Acceptance of the principle of one union in one industry; and,
5. Acceptance of AITUC as the central trade union organization of Indian working class.

Initially, the response of Red TUC was very bitter : “Ruikar and Co. are out to kill not two but four birds with one stone. While merging into the right and swallowing the left, they desire at the same time, the credit due to unity-makers and the halo due to radicals. This is the essence of Mr Ruikar’s proposals.” (Text IVA6 Emphasis hi the original). But there were differences even among the Red TUC leadership. However, a second proposal (see Text IV A₇) was put forward by them which highlighted complete freedom of revolutionary propaganda inside amalgamated unions, amalgamation of rival unions, a joint declaration made to the workers of rival unions to undertake immediate propaganda for struggles within specific periods on specific demands, and finally, amalgamation of NFTU, AITUC and Red TUC into a powerful all-India TUC.

In March, 1935, two representatives of AITUC held discussions with NFTU leadership. Both parties issued a joint statement deploring the split in the trade union movement and appealed for unity as far as practicable. But at first unity was achieved between Red TUC and AITUC in the 14th Calcutta congress session of AITUC (19-21 April, 1935). In this session the Red TUC merged with the AITUC into a single organisation. After this merger, the process of unity got further momentum. A joint Labour Board was formed between AITUC and NFTU in 1936 for united action at grassroots level. While highlighting the unity achieved so far, certain weaknesses of the militant section in joint TU activities were criticised in an article by RP Dutt and Ben Bradley (Text IV A8). It pointed out that the communists should not neglect the systematic and consistent work inside the reformist trade unions which is one of the best methods for achieving unity at grassroots level and then advised them to organise a labour press for conducting propaganda en all important questions of the prevailing situation in India from the standpoint of communist ideology and politics.

The amalgamation of NFTU with the parent body of AITUC took place on 17 April, Nagpur session (1938). The conditions of unity this time were as follows :

1. NFTU as a unit would be affiliated to AITUC.
2. AITUC would accept the constitution of NFTU.
3. The affiliation of NFTU to AITUC would remain in force for one year.
4. AITUC would not be affiliated to any international organisations but its affiliated units would be free to do so.
5. All political questions and the questions of strikes would be decided by 3/4 majority of the general council or executive committee.
6. The official flag of AITUC would be ordinary red flag with TUC unscribed in it.

This unity move was a clear swing in favour of NFTU — both in respect of principles and organisational composition. All the important posts of office bearers went to the erstwhile NFTU leaders. Commenting on this amalgamation BT Ranadive rightly said, “... there are a number of reservations. In the first place, the NFTU affiliates as a unit, that too for one year, ... one cannot explain the clause demanding a three-fourths majority for strikes and political questions.” (Text IV A₉). While the NFTU as a unit would be able to maintain relations with the Amsterdam International of Trade Unions, the AITUC would be debarred from affiliation to any international organisation, specially with the Profintern or Red TU International. This negotiation reached at Nagpur joint session resulted in a 88-member general council with each having 44 members. Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee (NFTU) became president and RR Bakhale (NFTU) general secretary. Three communist leaders held office-bearers’ posts : RS Nimbkar as treasurer, Bankim Mukherjee and SV Parulekar as assistant secretaries. However, the unity achieved at such a high price contained the germ of the future split in the post-war situation.

Unity at the top invigorated the TU movement in the country. Among the strikes occurring in 1935-36, those in Keshoram Cotton Mill (Bengal) and Ahmedabad Cotton Mill claimed the lion's share of the total mandays lost. 5000 workers in Keshoram and 23,000 textile workers of Ahmedabad participated in these movements. In 1935-36, 63% of the strikes occured on the question of wages. In 1936,20,000 workers of Naihati, Jagaddal, Hooghly jute mills joined hi strike movement against police repression over the striking jute workers of Hukum-chand jute mill. In Beawar Cotton mills at Ajmer-Merwara, 4,000 workers struck work against wage reduction in July 1937. The biggest strike of the time occured in

BN Railways which was joined by 26,500 workers. It started on 13 December and ended on 10 February, 1937 resulting in one million mandays lost. In one estimate it is seen that in 1935,145 strikes occured involving 1,44, 217 workers and in 1936, the number of strikes were 157 which involved 1,68,029 workers despite attempts to declare strikes illegal through ordinances and enactments.

A new surge of working class movements occurred with the formation of Congress ministries in different States after a restricted provincial autonomy was granted by the British rulers. On one side, “there was natural unrest everywhere as workers had high hopes that these governments would take up important questions for the protection of their interests”, says the Report of the General Secretary of AITUC (April 1938-September 1940). But contrary to expectations, when the Employers’ Association of Kanpur textile mills rejected the recommendations of an enquiry committee, 50,000 operatives struck work in Cawnpore Mills in May-June, 1938 in a general strike. In Bengal 2,50,000 workers plunged into a prolonged strike in 1936-37 when the Fazlul Haque ministry enforced a jute ordinance in support of the Jute Mills Association, resulting in a cut down of the already low. wages by 16%. Immediately after its promulgation, 25,000 workers belonging to various jute mills in Bengal lost their jobs. To break this strike a rival union was launched by the labour ministry. “The government operated as the willing tool of the European capitalists and directed merciless repression against the strikers and their leader” — reports the New Age (May 1938, Vol. IV, No. 12). Strikers were beaten and clapped into jail. There was firing on unarmed crowd of workers. Police entered workers’ tents and harrassed them, as reported in the same New Age. Curiously, this movement gained the support of INC, specially when the same Congress-ruled State of Assam under NC Bordoli acted in connivance with the British owned company management during the Digboi oil strike of 1939. The government also allowed the authorities to freely use the newly introduced war-time Defence of India Rules to smash the strike. No sympathy was shown to the workers by the same INC (for greater detail of workers’ movements during 1936-39. see Text IVA₁₀).

Before proceeding, let us take a look at the nature of the workers’ movements of 1938-39. They had the following characteristics:

a) These were far more widespread in character and embraced even the backward workers.
b) In contrast to 1928-29 struggles, these struggles showed the working class on the offensive.
c) The fight for TU rights was far more determined than nine years back.
d) The isolation of the working class, which was a patent feature of the earlier struggles, was breaking down and strikes came to be regarded as part of the democratic movement (New Age, May, 1938).

As regards the response of the Congress ministries, we begin with the draconian Trade Disputes bill of 1936 passed by the Bombay government. Though the National Congress in its 1937 election manifesto had promised that it would take suitable steps in the settlement of labour disputes and would also take effective measures for the protection of workers’ rights for trade union formation in strike struggles, under the pressure of their capitalist mentors they introduced the Bombay Trade Disputes Bill to curb the ‘unruly scenes’ in the labour front (1938). But this time the whole AICC remained silent over this draconian bill. This bill was even more repressive than the imperialist Trade Dispute Act of 1929. The basic reason behind the introduction of this bill was not far to seek. “Birla complained of the rampant ‘indiscipline’ in the Congress provinces (letter to Mahadev Desai, 4 September, 1937, In the Shadow of Mahatma p 227), and there were threats of a flight of capital from the Congress-ruled Bombay and UP to the princely states where labour laws hardly existed”.^[4] The principal anti-labour features of the proposed bill were (i) to impart a compulsory character to the arbitration machinery in a labour dispute, (ii) to illegalise the strikes occurring without exhausting the arbitration machinery, (iii) to make recognition of the union conditional on the acceptance of the arbitration machinery, 1(iv) to provide more stringent punitive measures for participation in illegal strike than that was provided for in the Trade Disputes Act of 1929, i.e., the three-months’ imprisonment as provided in the 1929 Act was extended to six months in the Act of 1939. Governor Lumley described the bill as “admirable”, while Jawaharlal described it as “on the whole ... a good one”.^[5]

Just as in the Bengal jute workers' strike, the communists took leading role in opposing this draconian bill (Text IV A¹¹). When the provincial legislature was debating hotly for 33 consecutive days over the bill, communists brought out protest demonstrations of 80-90 thousands workers in the streets of Bombay. This huge workers’ rally was addressed, among others, by SA Dange, Indulal Yagnik, Dr. BR Ambedkar. Even Muslim League activists joined the protest rally. But the Congress ministry did not retract in the face of heavy protests, instead the poice fired upon the worker’s, killing two workers and injuring many. One day's general strike was observed in Bombay in protest against the police firing. Similar protest ralllies were organised by the communists in Calcutta, Madras, Kanpur, Ahmedabad and in several other places.

The Communist Party of India took note of the working class upsurge and formulated a 17-points trade union policy for the future advancement of the working class movement (Text IV A₁₂). The policy aimed to win over the majority of the working class under its fold. It highlighted the need of daily work amongst the broadest mass of workers for their “economic interests”. Fighting the trend of sheer “economism” or “pure trade unionism”, the CPI stressed the growing needs of politicisation of the workers and their involvement in the national polity. In the prevailing situation the policy stressed the tasks of bringing the Congress and the trade unions closer to one another and forging unity among them.

Notes:

1.   Quoted in G Adhikari, Vol. IIIA, p 3

2.   Quoted in Working Class of India : History of Emergence and Movement 1830-1970 by Sukomal Sen, KP Bagchi and Co. (Calcutta, 1977), pp 266).]

3.   Quoted in Modern India, op. cH., p 271.

4.    Modern India, Sumit Sarkar, pp 361-362.

5.   Markovits, p 218, quoted in Modern India, S Sarkar, p 362.

The Neglected Peasant Movement

In this chapter we shall give an outline sketch of the peasant movements in our period and try to understand the communists’ efforts and weaknesses in this most crucial front.

National reformist vs. communist approach

Champaran in Bihar (1917-18) and Kheda and Bardoli in Gujarat (1918 and 1928 respectively) mark the three early milestones in the Gandhian or Congress stream of peasant struggle based primarily on middle and rich peasants. In Champaran, local mahajans and traders who were resentful against competition from British plantation authorities in money lending and trade were in the forefront of the movement. In Kheda relatively prosperous Kanbi-Patidar peasant proprietors producing food-grains, cotton and tobacco were involved in the no-revenue movement. In Bardoli the no-revenue movement against 22% revenue hike by the Bombay government in 1927 was mostly a rich peasant-landlord movement. Gandhi in his Fyzabad speech in 1921 “deprecated all attempts to create discord between landlords and tenants and advised the tenants to suffer rather than fight, for they had to join all forces for fighting against the most powerful zamindar, namely the government.”^[1] The Gandhian reaction to peasant militancy as recorded in Chauri-Chaura has already been discussed.

By contrast, the communists in their first-ever formulation of agrarian programme stressed the revolutionary class demands of the toiling peasantry, with elimination of the whole parasitic landlord class and land to the tiller as its main thrust. Keeping in mind the provincial variations, the WPPs formulated the demands of the peasantry as follows:

(1) Abolition of intermediate tenures,
(2)  reduction of rents and fixing a minimum scale of rental,
(3) abolition of all ‘nazrana’, ‘Bhent’ etc.,
(4)  illegal cesses (abwabs) to be declared cognisable offences,
(5)  fixed rate of interest,
(6)  stopping of the transfer of land to non-agriculturists,
(7)  abolition of ‘batai’, ‘barga’ systems etc^[2] .

In the first document of Text IVB, we reproduce an early communist assessment of a typical peasant struggle under Gandhian leadership : the Bardoli satyagraha. Certainly this was a rather immature write-up, but the main thrust is clearly put: “The social basis of the peasant movement should be shifted from the wealthy farmer (as it is at present) to the broad masses of poor and middle peasantry and agricultural labourers.” This was written in mid 1929; a little more than a year later the CPI officially presented its agrarian programme in the Draft Platform of Action (1930-31), which we have discussed earlier (Text VII2). Describing the agrarian revolution as the axis of the national liberation movement, the CPI from the very outset stressed the fighting worker-peasant alliance.

Regarding organisational forms, the communist pbn was to develop “peasant unions which will include only peasants who cultivate their land ...as well as, in the initial phase, the land labourers. The peasant unions must on no account contain the village exploiters, the rich peasants, landlords, money lenders or traders.” During the course of struggle peasant committees should be formed which would act as the training centres of the peasantry. The relation of the peasant committees to the peasant unions/associations was just like the relations of strike committee with the trade union. (See the General Statement of 18 Meerut prisoners).

An important struggle that brought the clash between the bourgeois and proletarian approaches regarding peasant movement to the fore was the Kishoreganj uprising in Maymensingh district of Bengal (now in Bangladesh). Here the famine-striken peasants revolted against 60 to 120 percent interest rate and fake loan documents. Whereas the Congress-dominated nationalist press depicted the struggle as a communal riot of Muslim peasants against Hindu zamindars, a communist pamphlet revealed the truth in the clearest terms. We do not give here a description of the struggle because that is availabe in our excerpts from this pamphlet (Text IV B2). Taking lessons from this and other struggles, the CPI called upon its memebers to work energetically among the peasantry along the following lines :

• (1)  Organise revolutionary peasant committees in the villages, elected by the mass of the revolutionary peasants in each village. It is highly important that the leadership of the committee should be in the hands of poor peasants, landless labourers and revolutionary peasant youths.
• (2)  The revolutionary peasant committees should initiate mass movements for the seizure of land from the rich landlords, moneylenders and the government. The peasantry should be organised to refuse payment of rent, taxes and land revnue,
• (3)  Organise the more conscious and revolutionary elements, especially the agricultural workers in the village nuclei of the Communist Party.
• (4)  Organise the agricultural workers into labour unions.
• (5)  Organise and send workers’ delegations from the mills into the neighbouring villages to carry out this work. Mobilise the revolutionary students and youths for this work under the leadership of the Communist Party.

The AIKS : movemental and organisational backdrop

It was in course of the struggle between the two tendencies of peasant movement that the ground was prepared for the emergence of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) in the second half of 1930s. Let us trace the process in some major provinces/regions in India.

Bengal
The efforts of the first batch of communists in the early and mid-twenties have already been noted in Parts II and III. Langal and Ganavani devoted much attention to the study of peasant problems. The All Bengal Peasants’ Conference (Nadia, February 1923) and the All Bengal Tenants’ Conference (Bagura, February 1925) formulated the immediate demands as follows:

(1)     permanency of tenure of the tenant,
(2)     right of transfer of land,
(3) reduction of the rate of interest charged by the moneylenders, and
(4)     remunerative price for jute growers etc.

In 1932, the tenants’ associations formed in different districts took the lead in the tenants’ unrests in Nadia, Barisal, Bankura, Hoogly, Midnapore, Noakhali and Tripura. According to Md. Abdulla Rasul, by 1933 Krishak Samitis sprang up in Tripura, Burdwan and Noakhali. In 1934, when the communist party was banned, local communist cadres worked in these Krishak Samitis. By 1936, Krishak Samitis spread to other districts of Bengal such as Faridpur, Chittagong, Rangpur etc.

In 1935, when Bengal was in the grip of severe food crisis, peasant mass meetings were held in many places where formation of debt conciliation boards were urged upon. In a confidential report “On the political situation of Bengal, January-September 1936”, it is reported that Congressmen and men of “communist persuasions” took active part in these mass peasant meetings.

Madras (including Andhra)

In 1928, the Andhra Provincial Ryots Association formed in Guntur took up such issues as reduction of revenue, agricultural indebtedness, internal social reforms etc. Later, the Andhra Zamindari Ryots Association, with NG Ranga and EMS Namboodiripad among its leaders, took up the demands of the tenants. Organised peasant movement spread to different regions of Madras province during 1930s. With the depression of 1930s all categories of peasants, specially the rich peasants were drawn into peasant struggles which were directed mainly against landlords. During 1931-32, peasant agitations took place throughout the Krishna and Godavari deltas. Mass meetings were held in which demands of withholding revenue payments were raised. By late 1931, grain seizures by poor peasants had started almost spontaneously in these areas. For instance, in September about 400 peasants attacked the house of a rich moneylender in Krishna district and looted his granary.

A similar struggle occured in Guntur in which 3000 peasants clashed with the police.

By 1934, agrarian clashes had occured in Bellary, Madura, Nellore, Salem and Coimbatore. At the Peasants Protection Conference, Ranga pleaded for a moratorium on debt. He warned that peasants were forced to cherish “ideas of violent rising against the Sahukars and banks as well as the government”. The attacks on moneylenders, although sporadic, represented a new type of peasant struggle. In April 1935, the South Indian Federation of Peasants and Agricultural Labour was formed with NG Ranga as general secretary and EMS Namboodiripad as a joint secretary. The federation in its October 1935 conference first raised the question of immediate formation of an all India Kisan organisation.

An important feature of the Andhra movement was the early institutionalisation of theoretical study and practical training of peasant cadres. From 1933 NG Ranga had been running the Indian Peasants Institute in Guntur district. In late 1930s, summer schools for peasants activists were organised and these were addressed by communist leaders like PC Joshi and Ajoy Ghosh.

Malabar, Cochin, Travancore

In early 1930s Karshaka Sanghams (peasant unions) were formed in the villages of this region. The Sanghams used to take out jathas and peasants marches and organised peasant meetings which raised the demands of poor peasants, non-occupancy tenants and agricultural labourers who came mostly from scheduled castes. Exemption of tax for poor peasants, moratorium on debts and introduction of graded tax were the main demands. The Karshaka Sanghams tried to organise all categories of tenants, particularly the Tiyas, against the enhancement of rents, illegal exaction and tenancy renewal fees.

Special mention must be made of the peasant movement of Malabar built up by CSP leaders and cadres, most of whom later became prominent communists (e.g., P Krishna Pillai, A K Gopalan, EMS Namboodiripad). Starting from 1934, the movement reached its peak in 1938 with a very widespread as well as intense campaign demanding abolition of feudal levies and thoroughgoing amendments to the Malabar Tenancy Act of 1929. The Congress ministry was then in power in the State, and many important concessions were snatched from it by means of persistent mass pressure in spite of stiff rightist resistance.

The CPI as such did not have any guiding role in the movement, but certainly the experience its future leaders gathered in Malabar would prove invaluable in the years to come.^[3]

Bihar

While NG Ranga became the figurehead of peasant struggles in South India, Swami Sahajanand emerged as the undisputed leader of the Bihar movement. During the depression years when agricultural prices fell, branches of provincial Kisan Sabhas were formed in Gaya, Patna and Sahabad districts and a provincial peasant conference was held which set up a committee to enquire into tenants’ complaints regarding the Danabandi system (an arbitrary form of produce rent). Kalyan Dutta notes that in 1931, the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha launched a movement of the tenants in Tekari estate for the reduction of rent which was linked up with the canal tax movements in other districts.^[4] As a counter to the moves of the loyalist zamidar-dominated United Party, a section of Congress leadership initially encouraged Sahajanand in 1933 to revive the Provincial Kisan Sabha. While the United Party kept silent on the much more important question of rent remission, efforts to increase zerait (private holdings), and bakast, Sahajanand was able to quickly mobilise large sections of peasants of central and north bihar around such issues and the membership of the Kisan Sabha shot up to 80,000 by 1935.

In 1934, the Provincial Kisan Sabha held its second conference in Gaya. It discussed the question of abolition of zamindari in detail, but failed to take any resolution on it. In 1936, on the eve of bakast land movement, the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha was wedded to a radical programme which included the demand of abolition of zamindari.

The movement for restoration of bakast lands (i.e., those lost by occupancy tenants to zamindars, generally during depression years for failure to pay rent) spread from Monghyr to Gaya and other districts. Armed clashes with landlords’ goons and the police became a regular feature of the movement which reached its peak in late 1938 and 1939. Ruthless repression combined with some conciliatory measures (restoration of a total of few thousand bighas of bakast land in separate cases and the passage of the “Restoration of Bakast Land Act” and the “Bihar Tenancy Act”) finally brought the movement to an end, but not before it gave birth to prominent leaders like Karyanand Sharma, Panchanan Sharma, Rahul Sankritayan.

Punjab

Generally speaking Jullundur, Amritsar, Hoshiarpur, Lyallpur and Sheikhpura were the most important districts of peasant struggle in Punjab. The Riyasti Praja Mondal mobilised the Sikh peasantry during the Civil Disobedience Movement on the question of nonpayment of land-taxes in the Phulkian states against the Patiala Maharaja. Peasants in Hisar district refused to pay rent and forcibly seized the crops of landlords, defied forest grazing regulations in Kangra, and in Rohtak Jats assisted by other lower castes attacked moneylenders and grain dealers.

Formation of All India Kisan Sabha

The October 1935 conference of South Indian Federation of Peasants and Workers first voiced the need for holding a conference to form an all-India peasant organisation. The communists and Congress-socialists took up the idea in the Meerut conference of CSP in January, 1936. A preparatory conference was first held in Meerut on 16 January 1936 under the presidentship of Kamala Devi Chattopadhyay, which was attended by representatives of peasant organisations of different provinces of the country. The preparatory conference resolved to hold the All India Kisan Congress and appointed an organising committee for this purpose.

The first All India Kisan Congress was held in Lucknow under the presidentship of Swami Sahajanand on 11 April, 1936. Though the Kisan Congress from its inception tried to maintain a close link with the Indian National Congress, it failed to receive the blessings of the Congress which declared in its Haripura session (February 1938) that the “Congress itself is in the main a Kisan organization”.

The inaugural session prepared the All India Kisan Manifesto (Text IVB3) which contained the Fundamental and Minimum Demands. In its manifesto, the Kisan Congress declared its object as “To secure complete freedom from economic exploitation and acheivement of full economic and political power for the peasants and workers and all other exploited classes.” The Lucknow session decided to publish the All India Kisan Bulletin with Indulal Yagnik as its editor. Swami Sahajanand was elected the president and NG Ranga the general secretary.

The second session of AIKC was held from 26 December, 1936 at Faizpur. Before the opening of the session about 500 kisan marchers under the leadership of VN Bhuskute and J Bukari marched 200 miles to reach the session site. Bankim Mukherjee and SA Dange were present in this session. The most important political resolution of this session was on the new constitution contained in the Government of India Act, 1935. The Kisan Congress emphatically condemned and totally rejected it and called upon the peasants and workers to launch a vigorous movement to smash this slave constitution. A kisan rally of about 15000 was held on the last day of the conference.

By now Provincial Kisan Committees had come into existance in Andhra, Tamilnadu, Maharastra, Malabar, Karanataka, Central Provinces, Gujarat, Punjab, Delhi, UP, Bihar, Bengal, Utkal and Assam. In 1937, the Bengal communists took the lead in organising the first Provincial Kisan Conference in Bankura.

In autumn 1937, the Intelligence Bureau prepared a note on the activities of kisan sabha in different States and said, "Mention must also be made of recent developments in the awakened political consciousness among the peasantry and the organisations in sanghs or unions of peasants, noticeably in Bihar, Bengal, the UP, and Madras. ... Although as yet little general success has been achieved in organising a mass peasant movement in India, it is significant that leading communists have turned their energies towards directing and organising the unrest. ...”^[5] NG Ranga complained bitterly that the CPI captured one third of the 2000 peasant youths he had trained at Nidubrolu, and no less than 90% of the original Andhra CSP membership.^[6]

The third session was held in May 1938 in Comilla (Bengal, now in Bangladesh) in the context of large-scale peasant mobilisation in many parts of the country as mentioned earlier. Particularly notable was the 20,000-strong peasant demonstration in Patna on 24 August, 1937. “Give us bread, we are hungry; give us water, we are thirsty, remit all our agricultural loans; down with zamindars” — demanded the peasants. Big peasant mobilisations were also held on 1 September and 26 November at Patna.

At the time of the third session, the AIKS represented the organised strength of five and a half lakh paying membership. “In as many as 32 resolutions, the session sought to clarify the fundamental aims of the kisan movement and guide its further course”, wrote PC Joshi in National Front, 5 June, 1938 (see Text IV B₄). This session also adopted the constitution of AIKS. Joshi correctly pointed out that “this session decisively rejected the theory of class-collaboration and proclaimed class-struggle to be the basis of kisan movement. Through another historical resolution it declared 'the goal of the peasant movement, can be nothing short of an agrarian revolution ...’. In another resolution the session welcomed the emergence of agricultural labourers’ movement and organisation and declared solidarity with them ...”

In early 1939 the Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha (BPKS) launched satyagraha movement against exorbitant tax rates. The poor peasants who had been particularly effected by the tax joined the satyagraha and lent it a militant mass character. It faced severe repression by the Fazlul Haque ministry. In 1939 the BPKS submitted a memorandum to the Land Revenue Commission in which the permanent settlement was held responsible for the deplorable condition of the peasants.

The fourth session of AIKS was held at Gaya (Bihar) on 9-10 April, 1939. The main part in drafting the political resolution was played by PC Joshi and JP Narayan. Many prominent communists like Muzaffar Ahmad, MA Rasul etc. attended the conference and took a leading role in various committees. The Programme of Action adopted at the session included the following:

• i) Campaigning for the coming nation-wide struggle and fighting uncompromisingly against the Federation.
• ii)  Intensification and integration of the partial struggles of peasants.
• iii) Establishing a united front between the Congress and the AIKS, the AITUC and other anti-imperialist organisations,
• iv)  Insisting upon acceptance and implementation of the immediate demands of the AIKS.
• v) Liquidation of the forces of communal disruption through common struggle of the masses for their economic and political demands and through fighting for scrupulous observance of minority rights.
• vi)  Organisation of a strong Kisan Volunteer Corps,
• vii) Solidarity demonstration for and active help to the States peoples’ struggles.

The onset of World war II, increasing repression and the resignation of the Congress ministries created a new and difficult situation for the peasant movement. But precisely at this juncture the Communists Party’s role in it — both theoretical and practical — began to reach a new stage. This will be evident from a host of articles and reports in Party papers, of which we reproduce extracts from three — one by Bhowani Sen (Text IV B₅) and two by PC Joshi (Texts IV B_{6 and 7}). It is on the basis of this new seriousness on the peasant question that the glorious communist-led peasant movements of the 1940s would take shape.

Notes:

1. See Modern India, op.cit, p 209

2.   Quoted in Communists Challenge Imperialism From the Dock, op. cit., p196

3. For a very interesting account of the movement see K Gopalankuttys article “Integration of Anti-Landlord Movement Against Imperialism - Malabar 1935-39” in Indian Left — Critical Appraisals by Bipan Chandra, op.clt.

4.   History of Freedom Movement In Bihar, Vol. 2, pp 235-36.

5.   See Peasant Movement In India, Sunil Sen, p 80

6.   See Revolutionary Peasants, pp 75-6.

 

CPI on Other Fronts

In the formative period the Party could take very little planned initiative to organise the following fronts, though from time to time it would issue calls to students and youth, cultural workers, working women etc. After 1936 there was some notable progress, but this could reach fruition only during and after the Second World War.

Students and youth

The first important document on this front is A Manifesto of the Young Communist International to the Bengal Revolutionary Organisation of Youth. Published in Masses of India of July 1925 (see Text IX A₁ for a short excerpt). In the era of WPPs, when there was an upsurge in mass youth movement (particularly around the anti-Simon agitation — see the first chapter in Part III), the Bhatpara conference of the WPP of Bengal (March-April, 1928) passed a “Resolution on Youth” (Text IX A₂). A notable feature here was that young communist cadres active on the working class front themselves took the initiative in forming a “Young Comrades’ League”. As Text IXA₃ would reveal, the League’s Programme was of a high political level.

A Draft Platform of Action of the Young Communist League of India was issued from abroad during the heyday of left sectarianism. Published in the Inprecor (10 March, 1932), it was a lengthy shadow document of the Draft Platform of Action of CPI (1930-31). It put forward the task of organising “the YCL — Vanguards of the Toiling Youth”, but contained very little that was particularly relevant for India. In Text IXA₄ we reproduce small sections dealing with the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and formulating specific student demands.

In mid-’30s the communists succeeded in setting up a few local and provincial-level student organisations such as the Bengal Provincial Students League (founded in December 1935). The student leaders who emerged from these organisations took an active role along with other democratic forces, in setting up the "All India Student Federation" (AISF) in August 1936. In some provinces it was under communist influence from the very start —'as in Bengal where vigorous political campaigns (for release of political prisoners, for expressing solidarity with the Spanish Republic and China etc.) were very successfully combined with struggles for elected students unions, adult literacy drives etc. Gradually the entire organisation came under increasing communist influence, but that is a story to be dealt with in the next volume of the present series.

Cultural front

It was no coincidence that the “All-India Progressive Writers’ Association” (AIPWA, or PWA for short) was formed in 1936, the same year when the AISF was founded. Both organisations reflected the all-pervasive advance of leftism in Indian society and polity during this period. As in the case of AISF, the initiative in founding the PWA also came not directly from the Party organisation, but from left-leaning intellectuals and writers like Prem Chand. The PWA mobilised a good number of progressive writers, poets etc, many of whom later joined the CPI and/or provided the base for the CPI-sponsored Indian Peoples’ Theatre Association (IPTA) founded in 1943.

Independent  initiative  and united  front
(1935-39)

During 1930-34, the CPI proved to be much less mature in dealing with the Congress, its traditional contender for leadership in the freedom movement, than the situation and national mood demanded and so remained a peripheral force. In the period we are entering upon, this weakness was largely overcome — now it was the turn of the communists to grow apace, drawing nourishment from the national mainstream, thanks to a new UF line.

Rise of Fascism and the
Seventh Comintern Congress
The Congress And Parliamentarism
Growing Leftism in National Politics
And the UF Line
Agitprop And Party Building
During the Countdown to Second World War

 

Rise of Fascism And the Seventh Comintern Congress

If the early 1930s saw a high tide in the class struggle of workers directed against the bourgeois attempt to shift the burden of the “Great Depression” on to their shoulders, it also saw the most heinous imperialist reaction to both the workers’ struggle and the capitalist crisis. This was fascism, the undisguised terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most aggressive elements of finance capital. By 1935 it was firmly saddled in power in Germany and Italy and became a major threat in France, Austria, Spain etc. The fascists in every country spearheaded their attack, both at home and at the international level, against the working class, the communist party and Bolshevism. On October 25, 1936 the war-lords of Japan joined the Nazi Reich in signing the
anti-Comintern pact. The, need was increasingly being felt to develop, as an antithesis to fascism, a broad unity of all political forces threatened by it — most notably the communists, social-democrats (S-Ds) and bourgeois liberals. In France workers under the influence of S-Ds joined forces with the followers of the French Communist Party in repulsing the first major attacks of fascism in 1934. By contract in Austria, where the communists were numerically insignificant compared to the S-Ds who ignored the former's calls for joint action and took initiative too late, the fascists drenched a heroic workers’ resistance in blood. The experiences in Spain and other countries also underscored the need for a united proletarian front as the basis of broader alliance of all working people against fascism. While endeavours along these lines were going on, the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations in September 1934, marking an advance in the unity of anti-fascist forces at international level.

Simultaneously with this anti-fascist polarisation in the advanced capitalist countries, a process in which communists took a leading part, in the colonial world also realisation was dawning on the communist parties that the line of absolute denunciation of the nationalist leadership, particularly its left wing, had paid no dividends.

The communist movement was in a sorry state in such countries as Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia etc. and even in China it suffered greatly from left sectarian mistakes. In the case of India we have seen how a process of rethinking and reversal of policies (starting with, as in Europe, TU unity) was proceeding haltingly within the limits of the Draft Platform of Action of the CPI and the Colonial Theses of the Sixth Comintern Congress.

These objective developments and lessons of class struggle naturally led to a distinct shift in the general line of international communist movement from left sectarianism to UF policy. The shift, beginning from 1933-34, assumed a complete shape in the historic Seventh Congress of the CI, held between July 25 and, August 21, 1935. The Congress discussed the achievements and mistakes or lackings of the post-Sixth Congress period, gave a detailed theoretical analysis of the genesis and class essence of fascism and put forward the slogans of a broad popular anti-fascist front on the basis of the proletarian united front in every capitalist country and a wide anti-imperialist united front in every colonial or semi-colonial country. Among the many speakers who elaborated on various aspects of this new line, the most distinguished was Bulgeria’s Georgi Dimitrov, the main architect of the Comintern’s new position, who spoke on “The offensive of Fascism and the Tasks of the CI in the Fight for the Unity of the Working class Against Fascism”. Together with his concluding speech, this became the most important document of the Seventh Congress. About India, Dimitrov had this to say :

• “In India the communists have to support, extend and participate in anti-imperialist mass activities, not excluding those which are under national reformist leadership. While maintaining their political and organisational independence, they must carry on active work inside the organisations which take part in the Indian National Congress, facilitating the process of crystallisation of a national revolutionary wing among them, for the purpose of further developing the national liberation movement of the Indian peoples against British Imperialism.”^[1]

The “Resolution on Fascism, Working Class Unity and the Tasks of the Comintern” adopted at the Congress contained a small section on “The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front in the Colonial Countries” (Text II₂₀). The CPC leader Wang Ming in his speech entitled “The Revolutionary Movement in Colonial Countries” dealt with the Indian question in some detail. Though himself responsible for the continuation of a left-sectarian line in China after the disastrous Li Li-san line, he criticised the CPI for the same mistake. Apart from repeating what Dimitrov had said, he suggested a six-point outline of immediate programme for anti-imperialist struggle (see Text II₂₁). Like Dimitrov, he also stressed the long-term ami of achieving proletarian hegemony in the national liberation movement. However, since there was no official delegate sent by the CPI!^[2] to return home just after the Congress and explain the great change in line to the comrades there, the impact of the shift was felt in India quite late. It was only in mid-1936, when the famous “Dutt-Bradley Thesis” reached India through the Inprecor of 29 February that the communist movement in our country woke up to it and began to readjust its policies accordingly. But before we come to that, we should see what was happening in the country’s national politics around this time.

Notes:

1. See Inprecor, 2 August 1935, p 971

2. General Secretary SS Mirajkar and SV Deshpande were arrested at Singapore en route to Moscow. The Comintern papers show one “Tambe” representing India. According to Saroj Mukherjee (see Bharater Communist Party O Amra, meaning the CPI And Ourselves; NBA, (Calcutta 1985); p 95) and some other sources, Tambe was Ben Bradley who had gone over to London after being released from Meerut jail.

 

The Congress And Parliamentarism

Just as the termination of the Non-Cooperation Movement had been followed by an intense debate over council entry, so the phased withdrawal of the CDM during 1933-34 led to a similar polemics within the Congress and outside it. Like the Swarajists of 1920s, leaders like MA Ansari, C Rajagopalachari, Bhulabhai Desai, Satyamurthi and BC Roy advocated work in the legislature not, as they claimed, from any constitutional illusions, but for preparing the people and the Congress organisation for the next phase of mass struggle. The opposition, though much milder this time, came from Gandhi, Sardar Patel and others who were for satyagrahas and reform work in villages. But unlike in the 1920s a third, left alternative pronounced itself — firm rejection of the the British trap to absorb the nationalist movement in that very colonial state machinery which it purported to overthrow, and continuation of extra-parliamentary mass struggle.

Thanks to Gandhi’s efforts, before the end of 1934 a patch-up was effected between the two sections of the Congress and the party decided to contest elections unitedly, as we have already seen. Then in August 1935 the British parliament imposed on the nation the notorious Government of India Act. The Act had two components. One, the “Federal Plan”, was an All-India Federation in the shape of a bicameral Central Legislature with representatives from (a) British Indian provinces — elected by about one-sixth of adult population there; (b) Princely States — nominated by their rulers; (c) Muslims and other minorities in British India — elected by these special electorates. Defence, foreign affairs, the Reserve Bank and railways were kept entirely outside the control of the Federal Legislature, while on other subjects too the Viceroy retained special control. The other component was — elected ministries in British Indian provinces controlling what nowadays we call “state subjects”. But here also, the Governors would retain special powers including vetoes. Even the indefinite promise of Dominion Status contained in Irwin's offer of November 1929 was conspicuous by its absence in the Act of 1935. As Linlithgow later commented, this Act was considered to be “the best way ... of maintaining British Influence in India.”^[1]

The first component of the Act — the Federal Plan — fell through because the princes and the Muslims League declined to share power with the Congress as minority partners in the Central Government; as for the Congress, it rejected the proposal as a sham. But the other component was implemented by declaration of elections to provincial assemblies to be held in early 1937. With this the aforesaid debate reached a new stage: contesting the elections for propaganda purpose etc. was OK, but should the Congress form ministries if they got majority in some provinces? Nehru, Bose and the CSP leaders firmly opposed this and recommended council-entry for creating obstructions and making the working of the Act impossible. Rajendra Prasad, Vallabbhai, Rajagopalachari and others argued that since provincial ministries shall be elected anyway, it would be wise not to leave the field for the Liberals, the Muslim League and others but to form and utilise the ministries, as best as possible, in the cause of Swaraj. Once again there was patch-up at the instance of Gandhi: the Congress sessions at Lucknow and Faizpur (April and December, 1936) decided to go in for elections and to put off a decision on office-acceptance for the post-election period.

Even as the tactical debate of 1934-36 progressed from the question of poll-participation to that of ministry-making, a definite rightist consolidation was silently taking place in the Congress leadership as a reaction to the growing leftward shift in the national politics which could not but be reflected in the Congress itself (See Text VI₂₇ for a CPI pamphlet “To All Anti-Imperialist Fighters” (December 1936) which correctly catches the mood of “Gathering Storm”). Gandhi the great tactician got Nehru elected to Congress presidentship both at Lucknow and Faizpur and himself stood aloof from electoral politics, concentrating rather on “constructive wor”. Nehru was then at the peak of his socialist rhetoric and he gave vent to it in numerous public speeches and writings. The Working Committee nominated by him included three known socialists — JP, Narendra Dev and Patwardhan. His call for a “joint popular front” against imperialism and many of his others proposals (e.g., collective affiliation of TUs and Kisan Sabhas to the Congress) were welcomed by the CPI. The election manifesto and provisional agrarian programme drafted under his guidance did contain some progressive demands, such as reductions in revenue and rent, agricultural income tax, partial waiver of loans, fixity of tenure etc. All these invoked a protest manifesto signed by 21 big guns of business led by Walchand Hirachand (May 1936, i.e., just after Nehru’s Lucknow address), as well as a resignation threat from seven Working Committee members headed by Patel, Rajagopalachari and Rajendra Prasad (June 1936).

But there were saner people both in politics and in business. Gandhi moved in to diffuse the crisis in the Working Committee by forcing a compromise on Jawaharlal, while in the business community this role was discharged by the most far-sighted of Indian businessmen — GD Birla. The above-mentioned manifesto denounced socialism as a threat to property, religion and personal liberty, but Birla sharply criticised this in a letter to Walchand: “It is curious how we businessmen are so short-sighted. ... It looks very crude for a man with property to say that he is opposed to expropriation in the wider interest of the country ...”; so this should be left to “those (like Gandhi — Ed.) who have given up property” and to help themselves the business community should strengthen those opposed to Jawaharlal within the Congress. To Thakurdas he wrote just after the Lucknow session : “Mahatmaji kept his promise ... he saw that no new commitments were made. Jawaharlalji’s speech in a way was thrown into the waste-paper basket because all the resolutions that were passed were against the spirit of his speech ... Jawaharlalji seems to be like a typical English democrat who takes defeat in a sporting spirit. He seems to be out for giving expression to his ideology, but he realises that action is impossible and so does not press for it.”^[2]

Thus it was that the Indian capitalist class, growing “In the Shadow of the Mahatma” (to borrow the title of an excellent book by GD Birla), learned to appreciate the limits as well as the value of Jawaharlal’s socialism, which would draw very large crowds in the election meetings the latter conducted throughout the country. Nehru soon emerged as the most popular Congress leader after Gandhi. Though he was still against office-acceptance and the Congress was still undecided about it, Birla knew what was what. As early as in April 1936, he assured an anxious Thakurdas : “The elections which will take place will be controlled by ‘Vallabbhai Group’, and if Lord Linlithgow handles the situation properly, there is every likelihood of the Congressmen coming into office.”^[3]

And this was exactly what happened about a year later. The tremendous success of the Congress in the February 1937 elections (absolute majority in five provinces, near-majority in one and quite a good standing in two others) created great pressure on Nehru and Gandhi and made them acquiesce to the popular demand for government formation. In the AICC session of March 1937, JP proposed total rejection of office, but was badly outvoted. Congress ministries were formed in Central Provinces, Orissa, Bihar, UP, Madras and Bombay in July 1937 and later in NEFA and Assam. Thus started a unique experiment in the history of national movement in India : combining movemental with the governing role; working the 1935 parliamentary with extra-parliamentary work and the constitution in deed while rejecting it (in favour of Puma Swaraj) in words; governing the provinces with very limited powers while opposing the Central Government, the real seat of power; and balancing various class interests and other (communal, regional, casteist etc.) interest groups while ultimately representing and consolidating a definite class base. And if the contradictory parameters of this experiment and of the entire course of debates leading upto it conjures in the reader’s mind a comparable experiment in the communist movement that started two and three decades later, that only proves the blood relation between nationalism and communism in India.

Congress becomes the junior Raj

To start with, the Congress ministries evoked tremendous mass enthusiasm. The national flag, the national anthem and the nationalist leaders in State assemblies and secretariats — the latter now giving orders to bureaucrats and police officials who tortured and imprisoned them only the other day — greatly boosted the morale of the freedom movement. The Congress ministries curbed the arbitrary powers of the police and CID, promoted freedom of the press, expanded civil liberties and democratic rights, released political prisoners including many patriotic terrorists. Communists enjoyed somewhat greater freedom for their activities though the Congress ministries and leaders did nothing to put pressure on the Central Government to lift the ban on the CPI. Despite regional variations (for examples, the Madras and Bombay governments arrested and harassed socialist and communist leaders from the very beginning), this was the general picture during the first few months. Congress membership rose several times within a year and there was a great advance, as we shall see, in workers’, peasants’, youth and cultural movements and organisations. The positive impact of the Congress capturing office also included a massive growth in the movements against princely autocracy and for responsible government, agrarian reform and other reforms in most of the Princely States.^[4]

But it was not for these that Birla had contributed Rs 5 lakhs to the Congress election fund, with others of his tribe also making handsome donations. At the initial phase, certain measures of the Congress ministries, such as the urban property tax and sales tax on cloth levied in Bombay to compensate for the loss of excise duty caused by prohibition of alcohol and the recommendations of Labour Enquiry Committees in UP and Bihar in favour of extended TU rights and improved labour welfare did create some apprehensions in the minds of industrialists, but only for a short while. As soon as the workers in Bombay, Madras and elsewhere came forward to snatch their just demands, the Congress ministries came up definitely on the side of the capitalists, just as they did to protect zamindars from a new high tide in peasant militancy. About these we shall discuss under separate subheadings, here we take only a broad overview of the contradictory tendencies through which the Congress rediscovered itself in the new role of the British Raj’s junior partner.

The first and primary basis of this metamorphosis lay in the emergence of the Congress as expert managers of the affairs of the future ruling classes from the corridors of political power. In the agrarian sector, the role of Congress ministries lay not only in protecting landlords from increasing peasant militancy by the free use of Section 144, police pickets and police firing etc., but more importantly, in a moderate reform programme that would safeguard the zamindari system in return for small concessions (like security of tenure and reduction/stability of rent) to appease mainly the rich and middle peasants. Nehru and others who often clamoured about zamindari abolition did not press for it when the party was in power. It was, however, in the industrial sector and in the realm of overall economic management that the Congress held out a great promise even with its very limited powers. While some simple steps like the policy of placing government orders, as far as possible, with swadeshi concerns brought in higher profits, there were other, more important long-term measures too. Thus when the sugar industry (like many others) faced the crisis of over-production around the year 1937, the UP and Bihar governments not only recommended but also ensured the formation of a syndicate by putting pressure to bear on some dissenting manufacturers of sugar. Again Gandhi's Harijan carried a series of articles against what it called “the menace of India Limited”, i.e., the subsidiaries of foreign companies (as mentioned at the beginning of Part IV) which put up a very tough competition; and in April 1939 VN Gadgil moved a resolution in the Central Legislature echoing the protests of FICCI on this issue. But the most important of all was the conceptual advance that was started in this period towards ‘socialistic’ planned economy. When Subhas Bose as the Congress president set up in late 1938 the National Planning Committee (NPC) headed by Nehru, leading industrialists warmly, welcomed it, and closely associated themselves with its work. From the capitalists’ point of view, the economic rationale was quite strong. A point had already been reached in the country’s industrialisation where no further progress was possible without huge investments in basic industries and infrastructural facilities - for which the Indian bourgeoisie was as yet neither capable nor willing (because of the risks involved, the long gestation period etc.) - and which could therefore be set up only under “state planning”, i.e., with people’s money for the capitalists’ benefit. Thus started, along with the political experiment of ministry-making under British paramountcy, the economic experiment of utilising ‘socialist’ steroids for a flabby colonial capitalism. The conceptual foundation was now being laid for the famous Bombay Plan of 1944 and then the “Mixed Economy” of independent India and in the process, Nehru the ‘socialist’, Nehru the visionary of modern, industrialised India, was emerging as the capitalists’ pet even more than the aging, saintly Bapu,

A modern political party, however, does not come to power merely by serving the dominant classes. To be sure, the Congress did much to broaden its own social base. Extension of democratic rights has already been mentioned; social welfare measures for advancement of the conditions of untouchables, betterment of health and sanitation facilities, expansion of primary education etc. were also taken care of by the Congress ministries. But there was at least one constituency where the Congress lost much of its support base — the Muslims. The factors responsible for this included : strained relations with the Muslim League following the rejection of its offer for a coalition government in UP, which the League utilised in a barrage of anti-Congress propaganda; the total failure of Congress ministries to check communal riots; the active involvement of many Congressmen with organisations like the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha during the 1930s whereas they were debarred from membership of the Muslim League; and so on. But the loss in Muslim support was partly compensated in another field. As we have just seen, during this period the party made a bold bid to expand its influence to the Princely States — not by head-on collisions with their repressive rulers, but by satyagrahas and bargainings from a new position of strength. All these constituted the second element in the process of the Congress becoming a ruling party.

A third element, and one that posed the most difficult dilemma for the provincial ministries, involved the question of how to deal with the growing popular movements fanned by economic hardships as well as by enhanced but rarely fulfilled expectations. In many cases popular intervention indeed took up novel and “intolerable” forms (to cite just one example — soon after the formation of the Bihar ministry, a peasant rally at Patna marched Straight into the assembly house and occupied it for some time, with the security forces helplessly looking on). After some initial hesitations, particularly in those cases where the Congress activists and mass base were involved, the new rulers hardened their stance. An AICC resolution in September 1938 condemned those, “including a few Congressmen”, who “have been found in the name of civil liberty to advocate murder, arson, looting and class war by violent means”. Nehru and Gandhi saw the danger of alienation associated with free use of the repressive machinery. So they sought, in private, to restrict it while discouraging popular militancy — but with little success on both counts.

The inherent contradictions of the Congress’ new status were thus getting intensified with every month in office. Clearer identification with bourgeois and landlord interests were alienating workers and peasants, the initial zeal for welfare programmes and mass contact campaigns soon petered out, and the tough stance on law and order was leading to a rapid disillusionment and a further leftward shift of the genuine pro-people forces within the movement. Finally, corruption and privilege-seeking spread like anything. Gandhi and Nehru, visibly perturbed over all this^[5], were looking for a honourable way out, and that was provided by the world war which broke out in September 1939. The CWC requested Viceroy Linlithgow to clarify Britain’s war aims relating to India and to immediately establish full democracy in India as a pre-condition for the Indian people’s support to the war efforts of the allied powers. But the Viceroy promised nothing more than a consultative committee. This was construed, and rightly so, as a national humiliation and in protest, the CWC on October 23 asked the Congress ministries to resign. Many of those in office were not prepared for this, but sensing the people’s mood they too fell in line. All the Congress ministries quitted office without delay.

The curtain was thus brought down on a historical dress rehearsal: for the Congress, to emerge as India’s ‘natural and legitimate’ rulers and for the British, to effect a smooth transition to neo-colonialism; the actual show would commence in a decade. But was the people of India mere spectators?

Far from it. During the period (1935-39) when the Congress was busy entering councils and making ministries, they forged ahead on all fronts of anti-imperialist movement — in many cases under the leadership, or at least influence, of a reinvigorated Communist Party of India.

Notes:

1.   See Modern India, op. cit., p 338

2 For details of the Birla letters, see Jawaharlal Nehru A Biography Vol. I 1889-1947 by Sarvepalli Gopal; Oxford University Press (Bombay, 1975) pp 209-12 and Modern India, op. cit., pp 345-46.

3.   Modern India, op. eft., p 348

4.  It was these movements, developing from below, that brought the States within the ambit of the national mainstream in spite of both the British policy of nurturing these citadels of feudal autocracy as counter-weights against the nationalist movement and the complimentary Congress policy of non-interference in the affairs of these States. Although praja mandals had come up in the early twenties under the impact of Non-Cooperation and Khilafat Movement and the All India States” People”s Conference (AISPC) had been set up in 1927 as a body seeking to coordinate civil libertarian activities, these remained largely cut off from basic peasant and tribal grievances. Neither the AISPC nor the Congress demanded abolition of privy purses and integration of all States with the rest of India. Even as late as in the Haripura session (February 1938), the Congress ‘expressed only moral support and sympathy to the States’ people’s movements and refused to be directly involved with them. But with militant movements (details later) developing in Mysore, Hyderabad, Travancore and some other States during late 1937 through 1938, the Congress could wait no longer. From the end of 1938, Gandhi, Vallabbhai and Jamnalal rushed to Rajkot and Jaipur to try out peaceful satyagraha. In 1939, the Tripuri session of the Congress formally declared its changed policy of “increasing identification ... with the States’ peoples” and Nehru was elected president for the Ludhiana session of the AISPC.

5.   Nehru wrote to Gandhi in April 1938, i.e., even before the completion of a year in office : “... the Congress ministries are working inefficiently. ... They are adapting themselves far too much to the old order and trying to justify it. ... What is far worse is that we are losing the high position that we have built up, with so much labour, in the hearts of people. We are sinking to the level of ordinary politicians who have no principles to stand by and whose work is governed by a day to day opportunism. ...” About a year later, Gandhi told the Gandhi Seva Sangh workers : “I would go to the length of giving the whole Congress organisation a decent burial, rather than put up with the corruption that is rampant.” (Cited in India’s Struggle For Independence, Ed. by Bipan Chandra, op. cit., p 339)

 

Growing Leftism in National Politics And the UF Line

The second half of the 1930s has been widely acclaimed as one of the richest periods in left politics in India. Workers’, peasants’, students' and cultural movements took giant strides in a fine combination of the movement for national emancipation and those for socio-economic emancipation and progress. The general leftward shift was reflected in a remarkable expansion of the INC, the growing militancy of its ranks and local leaders and the consecutive election of the two most known ‘leftists’ — Nehru and Bose — to the presidential chair of the Congress. Nehru’s fiery ‘socialist’ speech at the Lucknow session and his role as Congress president as mentioned earlier both reflected and contributed to the growing left mood. All this found a continuity in Subhas Bose, who even contributed a few write-ups to the communist weekly National Front.

Another mark of the leftward shift was evidenced in the rapid growth of the CSP. At its second conference held in Meerut in January 1936, the party held out a warm invitation to communists to join the CSP. The response was lukewarm at first, but when the new UF line reached India, the CPI enthusiastically grasped the opportunity to develop left unity and at the same time work within the Congress.

It was in this particularly conducive political setting that the communist movement in India finally embarked on a new course of struggle combining national and class demands. The first clear-cut call for the application of the UF tactics in the form of work within the Indian National Congress was put forward in an article in the Inprecor, March 9,1935, that is well before the Seventh Comintern Congress. Criticising the CPI for its isolation from the anti-imperialist struggle, the article recommended that mass organisations under communist influence should obtain “collective membership” in “local organisations of the Congress ... while preserving their independence and face”. This would serve to “counter-balance national-reformism” and provide “a certain field of legal activity”. Of course, slips might occur and there might be tendencies towards renunciation of the struggle against “national-reformist conciliators”, regarding which the Party “must exercise a genuine check-up”. But the crucial need of the hour, as the concluding sentence pointed out, was : “it [the CPI] must learn in Bolshevist fashion how to rally and consolidate the masses who still stand at the crossroads between the revolutionary struggle and the impasse of national-reformist conciliation”. The very next month, The Communist came up with a lead article — “The Present Situation and Our Tasks” — which continuing the attack against “national reformism and its ‘left’ agents”, conveyed the main points of the Inprecor article.

The best-known programmatic document of the period — the Dutt-Bradley thesis — appeared in the Inprecor on February 29,1936 (Text VIIg). basing itself on a ECCI document entitled “Suggestions on the Indian Question”, the thesis put forward the following salient points:

• An Anti-Imperialist People's Front must be forged on the basis of (1) “a line of consistent struggle against imperialism” and (2) “active struggle for the vital needs of the toiling masses.”
• The Congress can play “a foremost part” in realising this Front, or may itself get transformed into one, but at the moment it is miles away from it as regards programme, constitution, leadership and activity.
• To start with, therefore, it is necessary to establish joint bodies of the National Congress with “all the existing ..... TUs, peasants' unions, youth associations” etc. at all levels and also to encourage “collective affiliation” of these anti-imperialist mass organisations with the INC.
• The “Congress machinery” must be thoroughly democratised, so that ordinary members can freely raise issues and move resolutions, all committees and office-bearers are elected, and so on; in short, the organisation should run “on the principles, not of personal dictatorship, but of democratic centralism”.
• “The dogma of ‘non-violence’ should be omitted. The entire emphasis should be placed” on mass movements, class organisations and on linking up the workers’ and peasants' immediate struggles with “the political anti-imperialist struggle”. While a “sharp ideological struggle” was needed for this, that “should not be allowed to split the national front”.
• A left bloc should be immediately formed within the Congress comprising CSP-men, trade unionists, communists and other left Congressmen on the basis of “a minimum programme” of consistent anti-imperialism, development of mass struggle and mass organisation and a “fight for changes in the Congress constitution, policy, organisation and leadership”. The CSP must play “an especially important part in this”.
• In the forthcoming elections, this left bloc or “anti-imperialist bloc” should field its own candidates with the just-mentioned “minimum programme” as its platform. For this purpose it should seek seat-adjustments with the existing Congress leadership or, if possible, contest “as a group with their specific programme within the Congress panel” — in either case “cooperating with the Congress candidates in other constituencies who run on the [Congress’] official programme”
• While continuing the propaganda for Soviet power, communists should put forward the immediate slogan of “a Constituent Assembly based upon a universal and equal franchise and direct and secret ballot.” At the present stage, this should become the “central slogan of action ... of the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front, uniting all the partial and immediate struggles in this central political fight.”

Permeating the entire thesis was a very sincere urge for UF with the national mainstream, having as its core a closer alliance with yesterday’s worst political enemies — the left-wingers. The CPI fully endorsed the thesis^[1] and by the middle of 1936 laid out a meticulously formulated new path of advance. The most instructive concretisation of the new UF line was to be found, as regards the Party’s political tactics, in the electoral policy and, as regards the organisational shape of the Front, in the proposals for collective affiliation and joint bodies. A very well-written PB circular for Party members (Text VII9) and a couple of editorials in the July 1936 issue of the The Communist (Text VII10 and VII₁₁) clarified the Party’s position and proposals in the following terms:

• “The CP considers the slave constitution worth only one thing — blowing it up.” Still, it is against boycott, for thereby “we isolate ourselves from the masses and allow a free hand to our enemies and friends of imperialism.” The banned Party should therefore “use the legal opportunities provided by the elections” for popularising the Party’s slogans and for furthering the extra-parliamentary mass movement against imperialism.
• The CP proposes three draft electoral platforms — one for communist candidates; another for “socialist and revolutionary anti-imperialist candidates; and still another for Congress candidates in general”.
• The electoral UF is to be regarded as one of the building blocs of the anti-imperialist People’s Front. It will be based on “People’s Election Committees”, elected by the masses at local, city and district levels, through which the campaign for the UF platform should be conducted. In all these activities, the local TUs, peasant unions, youth leagues, Congress committees and CSP bodies must be actively mobilised.
• On the controversial question of office-acceptance, the Party feels that wherever possible the Congress should form ministries “to carry through their major election pledges within a stipulated short period of time and actively help the development of the mass movement outside.” In all likelihood this would force the Governors “to assume dictatorial powers, dismiss the ministers, dissolve the legislatures” and this would lay bare the true face of the sham constitution (i.e., the Government of India Act, 1935, under which the provincial governments were to be elected — Editor) before the broad masses and rouse them to higher level of anti-imperialist struggle. But since at the present moment the office-acceptance slogan is being identified with the greedy rightists whereas “the Anti-Imperialist sentiment of politically conscious people is expressing itself as the Anti-Ministry slogan, Anti-Ministry is part of the platform of all left nationalists and other Anti-Imperialist elements”, the CPI does not press for what it considers the correct tactics. In public it endorses the unified left position of anti-ministry and privately urges the CSP and other left friends to consider the possibility of a revolutionary application of the office-acceptance tactics.

Documented here, particularly in the second editorial (Text VII₁₁), is a rare example of a communist party working out and placing before all left elements a correct political tactic and yet withholding it for the sake of broad left unity against the Congress Right. Of course, no surrender of principles was involved. “That the policy outlined by us cannot be pursued is our fault” — the Party frankly admitted — “... if we had formulated our above policy [i.e., ministry-making from a revolutionary perspective — Editor] in time ... we would have succeeded in making it generally acceptable ...” For a Party just emerging out of a prolonged and bitter isolation from the national mainstream, this could be the only correct course. The accent on unity (while not relinquishing friendly debates) helped restore the acceptability of the CPI among the different left-leaning nationalist forces and yielded rich political harvests for the Party in the next few years. As Text VI₂₈ would show, the three draft electoral platforms (see above) prepared by it were also fine examples of UF work.

While the new UF line was enthusiastically accepted in general, an important debate broke out on the particular policy of a campaign for individual enrolment (of workers and others under the influence of the CPI) with the INC. The proposal came from the CSP and was accepted by the CPI as a supplement to the main method of collective affiliation of TUs etc. Some leaders, however, strongly objected to individual enrolment. The logic was that workers can be expected to play a radicalising role inside the Congress only if and when they join it as a body organised in their primary class organisation; otherwise they would only trail behind the bourgeois leadership of the Congress. The best spokesman for this view was “Moonje” (a pseudonym of SG Sardesai) whose “Thesis Against Individual Enrolment” was published in the August 1936 issue of The Communist, along with an article containing the official line^[2] and a rejoinder to Moonje’s thesis by “Ali” (Michael Scott), supporting the official line. A powerful document explaining the official line was presented also by “Nirmal” (PC Joshi). The debate was decisively concluded by a PB circular, which clarified that individual enrolment was being recommended as “only one of the means to intensify the agitation and strengthen the demand for collective affiliation from the inside the INC platform” and gave a detailed explanation of all the ideological as well as practical-political questions involved. To give the readers a fair view of both sides of the debate, we reproduce extracts from Moonje’s thesis, Nirmal’s document and the PB circular on “Individual Enrolment to INC” (Texts VIII_{4, 5 and  6}  respectively).

Beneath this debate there was a more fundamental, though less pronounced, conceptual difference. Starting with the Dutt-Bradley thesis there developed a trend of analysis which, while criticising the Congress programme, constitution and role of restraining mass struggles, avoided specifying the bourgeois class character of the INC, as if that was a thing of the past. This was perfectly understandable in UF appeals, but in documents and write-ups meant for the Party members this omission certainly gave quarters to CSP-like illusions. The Dutt-Bradley thesis had stated that the INC itself might, “by the further transformation (i.e., in addition to the positive transformation which, according to Dutt-Bradley, had already taken place — Editor) of its organisation and programme”, become the anti-imperialist people’s front; and taking the cue from here, a lead article in The Communist, September 1936 (Text VII₁₂) portrayed Nehru and “the whole leftward tendency which his leadership represents in the Congress” as “a tendency which springs up from below, from the mass of exploited workers in towns and villages”. Moonje in his thesis lashed out at the “Royist illusion” of viewing the INC as “essentially a people’s organization” — an illusion “which, due to its supposed acceptance by comrades Dutt and Bradley in their recent article, has assumed serious importance” — and declared : “For us ... there can be no question of broadening the INC into an anti-imperialist organisation.” Moonje fully endorsed the UF tactic in recognition of the fact that “the platform of the INC can be made the means of rallying the masses for a genuine struggle against imperialism” and that “a given appeal from the INC platform inspires and sets in motion a hundred thousand time more persons than what it can from any other platform”, but at the same time warned against “the liquidationist danger inherent in this tactic”.

If the simultaneous publication of Moonje’s thesis and Ali's rejoinder^[3] in the same issue of the Party organ vouched for a healthy inner-party democracy, centralism was enforced with the PB circular No. 4 (Text VIII₆). It rejected Moonje’s opposition to individual enrolment but did not uphold Ali's rejoinder and put forward a whole set of practical guidelines for UF work to suit the varying conditions of different provinces — guidelines which reflected not tailism but a determination to infiltrate the Congress as speedily and effectively as possible. But this was not to be at the cost of independent political assertion : “It is only in proportion of our independent activities that our work inside the INC will prove effective while ... our work inside the INC will become today one of the most potent means of strengthening and extending the base of our independent party and united front work”. Finally, it was clarified that the idea behind individual enrolment was “not to strengthen the Congress as already [the] anti-imperialist front of the people but to strengthen the anti-imperialist wing within the Congress and launch a broad-based revolutionary struggle out of which alone can the People’s Front emerge. ...” (emphasis added).

From early 1937, the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front (AIPF) began to be called the United National Front (UNF) to stress the inclusion of the national bourgeoisie in it. Here again the cue came from an article published in the Inprecor, November 7,1936, entitled “The United National Front” and signed by Harry Politt, RP Dutt and Ben Bradely “For the CC of CPGB”. The writers chose the expression “middle classes” for the Indian bourgeoisie (the euphemism could be justified on the ground that Marx and Engels in many places had used this expression to connote to the bourgeoisie in medieval or backward capitalist conditions) which must be drawn into the UNF and declared : “Every effort must be made to make the INC the pivot of the UNF”. In the March 1937 issue of The Communist was published a PB statement — “For the United National Front” and in June appeared an article strongly defending the PB statement and taking pains to prove that the UNF did not, as some “confused” ranks wrongly (!) believed, mean “something wider in scope than the AIPF” — that both referred to “one and the same thing”. As Text VII13 would reveal, however, this article and another companion article actually sought to show that, “crushed from above (i.e., by British imperialism — Ed.) and pushed from below, the Indian bourgeoisie was swinging leftward” and that, therefore, “the class composition of the UNF is visualised as very broad embracing all classes of the Indian people including large sections of the Indian bourgeoisie barring the small top knot section of the pro-Imperialist bourgeoisie and the big landlords and Princes”, The idea of a “Toilers’ Front” mooted by some comrades was rejected as a “sectarian tendency”.

So this was the shape of the Party’s UF line just on the eve of the Congress assumption of office. How the line was put into practice during the tenure of the Congress ministries, i.e., the little more than two years upto the Second World War, constitutes a new chapter of the story subdivided into two sections : (a) relations with the CSP and other left forces and (b) political tactics vis-a-vis the Congress as a ruling party at provincial level.

Broad left unity as the core of United Front

Shortly after the invitation to join the CSP reached the CPI, the latter prepared a 16-page theoretical “Note on the CSP”. Tracing the historical background of its emergence from the 1920s and analysing the current trends within it, the Note concluded that "The CSP represents today a radical tendency within the Congress and cannot be described as a Party. It is a platform which mobilises elements opposed to the present leadership of the Congress and its policy. ... Briefly, the Party has remained a propagandist body popularising only general anti-imperialist demands ...” The Note recommended “joint mass action on specific demands of toilers”, but resented the “absence of basic organizations” as a hindrance to “building up the United Front.”

When the communists started entering the CSP on individual basis from around the middle of 1936/naturally they put the stress on building up the “basic organizations” at local and district levels. This along with their advanced role in joint struggles began to get them leading positions at all levels despite stiff opposition from some leaders like MR Masani. A political debate developed when in early 1937 the CPI adopted the UNF concept to include the national bourgeoisie. The CSP denounced this as betrayal of Marxism and was in turn accused by the CPI of  “left sectarianism”. It was indeed odd for the CSP, which had from its very inception in practice carried the UF line to the extent of becoming an organic and permanent part of the Congress, to adopt this left posture in theory. Anyway, by early 1938, unity-and-struggle with the CSP became a major plank of the Party’s theoretical and practical work. Editorials and other write-ups in the weekly National Front were frequently devoted to this purpose, as Text VI₂₉ would show. Serious comradely polemics were conducted by both sides. Thus we find both the National Front and the monthly New Age carry on a prolonged “discussion” on Masani's article “A Lesson From France”, where he attacked Dimitrov’s political positions, particularly the latter’s alleged insistence on “domination of the CP” as the basis of communist-socialist unity in Europe. In Text VIII₇ we reproduce extracts from a serialised article by Ajoy Kumar Ghosh, which clarifies the principled basis of the communist approach to unity: “unifying the two major socialist forces that have developed with the national and working class movements and have remained apart because of the mutual isolation of these movements” (emphasis in the original).

As regards practical work within the CSP, the best available document is a business-like “plan of work” dated 9.5.1938 (Text III₂₀). Systematising the UF work through “contact committees” at all-India and some provincial levels, overcoming the sectarianism and other defects of CPI ranks in some places, utilising local organisation like the Labour Party in Calcutta the Radical Workers League in the Central Provinces (both under communist influence) in the broader scheme of left unity, dealing with Masani’s endeavours to weed out the communists — these are some of the question discussed. In all the diverse conditions obtaining in various provinces, the singleness of purpose stands out: develop mass action and promote left unity on that basis, curb the rightist lobby within the CSP, achieve and/or consolidate communist majority in CSP bodies at different levels.

This inner-Party circular fell into the hands of Masani who published it in September under the title “Communist Plot against the CSP”. Masani raised a high alarm but general secretary Jayaprakash Narain (who was mainly responsible for the invitation to communists two years ago) still opted for unity. Relations were, however, getting more and more strained. Already in the Lahore conference of CSP (early 1938) the communists placed an alternative panel for the election of the National Executive which was voted out by a slender margin. IP's panel was carried, which “gave the communists no less than one-third of seats, including a couple of positions as Joint Secretaries”^[4]. After heated discussions the CSP decided not to allow any further entry of communists in its ranks, but did not expel the existing ones. In order to secure the expulsion of communists, Masani, Ashok Mehta, Achyut Patwardhan and Rammanohar Lohia resigned from the CSP executive in May 1939. This demand was to be met, as we would see in Volume II, a year later in the Ramgarh conference of CSP.

The alliance with the CSP earned the communists very high dividends. In the standard literature on the subject, the organisational gains are accorded pride of place — the placement of communists on “vantage positions” of the CSP — e.g., Sajjad Zaheer (Joint Secretary of the CSP and later General Secretary of the Pakistan Communist Party), EMS Namboodiripad (another JS of the CSP; his later career is well known), Dr. ZA Ahmed, AK Gopalan, P Sundaraya, P Ramamurthi and so on. As the names themselves suggest, the entire infrastructure of the CPI in south India Was built up in course of CSP practices. Through the CSP communists also secured, by 1939, as many as 20 seats in the AICC, with many of them firmly installed in major provincial posts (like Mian Iftikharuddin, the president of the Provincial Congress Committee of Punjab). But far more vital than the organisational posts was the political benefit: the isolation from the national movement, overcome in theory during 1936-37, was terminated in real life in course of the new UF practice with Left Alliance at its core. The growth period of WPPs came back, sans the surrender of the communist banner which had stigmatised that period. The danger of dilution of the Party’s political independence remained, but broadly speaking the Party succeeded in preserving it. Before we proceed to examine the Party’s UF practice vis-a-vis the Congress, the record of CPI-Royists relations needs to be updated.

Starting with the countrywide textile strike of early 1934 jointly sponsored by Royists and communists, united actions gained some momentum in the second half of 1930s. But the process was hampered by two factors — (a) Roy’s drift towards Jacobinism until he finally declared in 1940 that Indian Communists should “raise the banner, not of Communism, but of Jacobinism”^[5]; and (b) the Royists’ increasingly harsh criticism of, and finally their group-by-group resignations from, the CSP (calculated to discredit the party as effectively as possible) in mid 1937.^[6] Given this political perspective, little more than some localised joint actions was possible between the CPI and the Royists. Of course, polemics continued on both sides, as can be seen in Text VII₇ (“Royism in Action”, an article in The Communist, May 1937) and the appendix to Text VIII (extracts from a Royist manifesto published in 1935).

Notes:

1.   14-page Polit Bureau statement appeared id The Communist, September 1936 along with the full text of the Dutt-Bradley thesis. The statement acclaimed the thesis by declaring that “no political document has evoked such an enthusiastic response from all the anti-imperialist elements”. Evidently this was an over-statement to conceal the normal initial confusion and resistance to the new line, as recorded in some other documents (see Text VIII₄). It did not, however, take long for the entire Party to broadly accept the new line, since a good section of Party leaders and ranks had already in 1933-35 embarked on a journey beyond isolationism. We do not reproduce the PB statement because it contains nothing new apart from some rather unseemly personal praise of comrades Dutt and Bradley.

2. “The National Congress and the Immediate Tasks of Indian Communists” by Swadesh Priya.

3. We do not reproduce Ali's rejoinder because it hardly makes any new point not covered by other write-ups reproduced by us — Ed.

4.   See The Communist Party of India A Short History by MR Masani, Derek Verschoyle (London, 1954), pp 69-71

5.   Cited by John Patrick Haithcox in Communism and Nationalism in India Princeton University Press, (1971) p 171.

6.   The main logic behind Roy's declared aim of “liquidating” the CSP was that the latter tended to divide Congressmen into socialists and non-socialists, thus hampering the unity of all radical nationalists as against the rightists.

CPI And the Congress : 1937-39

Having already studied the experience of Congress ministries, we can now take up the important CPI documents on this score and on relations with the Congress in general. The general approach adopted by the CPI, as laid out in the “Draft Thesis on Congress Ministries and Our Tasks” (Text VII₁₄), was to put popular pressure on the ministries (from both outside and inside the legislatures, mainly the former) for fulfilling the election promises in letter and spirit. The repressive measures were to be actively repulsed by utilising "the anti-police and anti- bureaucracy sentiments of the Congress-minded public, and always enlisting the sympathy of the Congress rank and file ...”. As an editorial note in New Age of January 1938 reaffirmed, the CPI “joined the Congress [not] as a matter of grace but as apart of our policy to develop it into the United National Front of the Indian people.” (see Text VI₃₀).

The Haripura Congress session (February 1938), to which the CPI issued a manifesto upholding the role of workers’ and peasants’ struggles in the UNF and criticising pro-zamindar, pro-capitalist tendencies in the Congress, saw Bose smoothly succeed Nehru as the Congress president for 1938. The next month New Age came out with the lead article : “Haripura — A Step Forward”. “It was an instance of the entire national ranks, from the extreme right to the extreme Left, closing together in the face of the onslaught of British imperialism.” — the article observed. But this unity was only skin-deep. When in January next year Bose recontested for the post, he came up against stiff opposition from the rightist lobby which put up Pattabhi Sitaramayya. There was a tough contest in the AICC voting held in Calcutta. Bose was re-elected by 1580 votes against 1377, with CSP and CPI members voting en bloc for him. Gandhi made his oft-quoted remark that Sitaramayya's defeat was “more mine than his”, and the rightisl backlash began with 12 leaders like Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel etc. resigning from the working committee chosen by Bose. The crisis came to a head at the Tripuri session of the Congress held on 8-12 march 1939. The CPI published a series of articles prior to and just after Tripuri, clarifying its stand on the strife within the Congress in the context of the current national and international situation. “Tripuri Must Sound the War Drum”, declared the New Age in February. The article supported Bose while highlighting the need for unity (see Text VI₃₁). The support continued in the article “The Congress Must Decide”, written by BF Bradley just on the eve of the session but published in the March issue of New Age which came out just after the session. “There is no time for delay”, Bradley warned, “Tripuri maybe the last Congress session before the war breaks out.” And he added : “Chamberlain is walking hand in hand with Hitler to defeat democracy wherever it exists. And one of his first steps will be to smash the movement in India that, by electing Subhas Bose, is laying such urgent claim to democracy in India.”

At the Tripuri session itself, communists were faced with a very difficult situation. The communist members of the AICC placed a draft resolution stressing “Unity And Struggle” (see Text VI₃₃), but this had only propaganda value. Govindaballav Panth, acting on behalf of the consolidated rightist lobby, moved a resolution which reaffirmed faith in Gandhian policies and asked Bose to nominate the Working Committee “in accordance with the wishes of Gandhiji”. The resolution was passed without opposition from CSP and CPI members. Bose continued his effort, which he was making since January, to win Gandhi’s confidence but in vain. A president without a working committee, he was forced to resign in late April. On May 3 he formed the Forward Bloc and carried on the struggle for a more militant line of action against British imperialism from within the Congress. This led to his ouster from the mother organisation in August 1939.

Why did the communists not throw in then- lot with Bose at Tripuri and after it? Because they were not prepared to sacrifice the long-term unity in the UNF for the sake of a showdown that was destined, given the actual balance of power-blocs within the Congress, to result in a split and reduce the not-very-consolidated left bloc to a splinter group. Later developments bore out the correctness of this position. Bose with his Forward Bloc really became an adventurist splinter group. At the moment, however, there was much confusion and dissension in the ranks of CPI and other militant forces and the Party had to explain its position in a number of articles, from which we reproduce a few excerpts in Texts VII1_{5 and 16.} From these excerpts it would be evident that with the utmost emphasis placed on unity, the struggle against Gandhian leadership reached on all-time low. This was best theorised by SG Sardesai when he wrote in National Front (April 30, 1939) : “They [the Leftists] have exposed the shortcomings of Gandhism sufficiently in the past. With the new strength at their command the tune and opportunity have come for them to weld even Gandhism with the new nationalism ...” (Text VII₁₇)

So this is where the UF line came to in 1939. The general approach was evident also in the specific policies on worker’s and peasant’s fronts : the AITUC and the AIKS were asked to operate strictly within the limits of inviolable unity with the Congress (see documents like IV A₁₂ and IV B₆).

 

Agitprop And Party Building

The process of Party reorganisation started in late 1933 (see the chapter from Fragmentation to Reorganisation in Part IV) progressed through the next two years amidst severe repression. After the arrest of general secretary SS Mirajkar at Singapore on his way to Moscow for the Seventh Congress of CI, Somenath Lahiri of Bengal informally took up the charge in the absence of senior leaders like G Adhikari, Muzaffar Ahmad etc. (they were still behind the bars). Towards the end of 1935 a Central Committee session was held in Nagpur. N Zambekar and S Jaymant (Bombay province) PC Joshi and Ajoy Ghosh (UP), P Sundaraya (Andhra, then included in Madras province), Dr Ranen Sen and Lahiri (Bengal) were among those present. Lahiri was arrested in early 1936 while working at the Party Centre in Bombay. At a brief session of the Central Committee held at Lucknow in April 1936 (i.e., at the time of the Congress session), PC Joshi was elected general secretary and this ended the stop-gap arrangements for this crucially important post continuing over the past two-and-half years. According to Dr Ranen Sen, a Political Bureau was also elected, comprising Joshi, AK Ghosh, G Adhikari and RD Bharadwaj.^[1] Joshi led the Party in effecting a smooth transition to the new UF line, successfully organised a stable leading group around himself, and held his post for long twelve years.

PC Joshi shifted the Party Centre to Calcutta. The Communist was regularised and its circulation increased. The reorganised CC made a fervent appeal to all Party members as well as “all Communists and Communist groups outside the Party” to unite in the Party on the basis of principled discussion and debates, and where that was not immediately possible, to pave the way to party unity through UF work (see Text III₁₇). Such appeals had been made also in the past, but the two instruments necessary for the realisation of the same was lacking : a correct political line capable of enthusing all anti-imperialist fighters and a powerful, energetic central leadership. These being available now, a rapid growth in Party activities and membership was reported from everywhere. In Madras province Amir Hyder Khan had been working painstakingly for building up the Party from pre-1934 period, but it was only during this period that the party spread throughout south India thanks to work in the CSP. This process and the most important document on it (Text III₂₀) has already been discussed towards the end of the chapter Growing Leftism ... And the UF Line. In Bihar the Party was founded by Sunil Mukherjee on the basis of the Purnea peasant movement. In Punjab the Party organisation progressed under the leadership of Sohan Singh Josh and gradually future leaders like Harkishen Singh Surjeet, Zainul Abedin Ahmed and Satyapal Dang came into its fold. The same story was repeated in other regions also. Among political prisoners in the Andamans and elsewhere, study of Marxism and communist literature had been spreading since 1933-34 and a very large number of them — particularly from Bengal — progressed from patriotic terrorism to communism thanks to the new line of the Party. Among these recruits, many became prominent leaders, such as Mani Singh (later leader of the Bangladesh party), Bhowani Sen, Promode Dasgupta etc. A Number of brilliant students from well-to-do families became communists in England around this period and actively joined the movement when they returned home. Dr. ZA Ahmad, Sajjad Zaheer and Jyoti Basu were among them, to name a few. Some recruitment was also made from different left groups like the Labour Party in Bengal.

Along with expansion, care was taken also for restructuring and consolidation. The neto Political Bureau issued a “Circular On Party Reorganisation” in August 1936 which laid out detailed plan for this (Text III₁₈). Special emphasis was placed on collective functioning of leadership, scientific division of work and formation of auxiliary cells (in addition to regular ones) for new recruits.

A very important role in the Party's growth was played by the expansion of what was called agitprop (agitation + propaganda) instruments in those days. In addition to a boom in leaflets, pamphlets and public speeches by communists working in the Congress and various mass organisation, a new stage was reached in the party’s magazine network. The weekly National Front began to be published from Bombay (where the Party Centre had been shifted a few months ago) since February 1938 and became the Parry's most successful news-magazine upto that time. It could not openly identify itself to be a CPI organ, but played that role with its wide coverage and authoritative articles by Party leaders. The editorial board was composed of Joshi (chief editor), Adhikari, Ghosh, Dange and Muhammaduzzafar. A theoretical monthly entitled New Age with SV Ghate as editor was also started about this time. Its periodicity could not be strictly maintained and it was discontinued in the middle of 1939. A number of magazines in Indian languages were brought out or restarted, such as Ganashakti in Bengal, Prabhatam in Malayalam, Kranti in Marathi, Navasakti in Telgu and Janasakti in Tamil.

Since 1936 the Party was functioning in a semi-legal manner, but it kept up the pressure for legalisation. JP Narayan and PC Joshi issued a joint call to observe March 20,1938 as an all-India on this demand. Swami Sahajanand were among those who issued messages supporting this call (see Text III₁₉). But the ban on the party continued, to be lifted after some three years under a completely different set of circumstances.

Note:

1.   See the Bengali book Banglaye Communist Party Gathaner Pratham Yug (The First Period of Party Building in Bengal), published by Bingsha Satabdi (Calcutta, 1981).

 

During the Countdown to the Second World War

From the early 1930s, a series of aggressions and interventions — by Italy in Ethiopia, by Italy and Germany in the Spanish Republic, by Japan in China, by Germany in Austria, then Czechoslovakia and finally Poland —, slowly but steadily pushed the world to a new great war. The responsibility lay not only with the fascist aggressors and the Japanese militarists, but also with other imperialist powers which had been pursuing a policy of shameless appeasement with an eye to egg nazi Germany on to aggression against the USSR. The specific events relating to the Second World War are too well known to be recounted here, and we go over to a brief discussion of CPI's position on war and peace and the communist movement during the 4-5 months just before the world conflagration began in early September, 1939.

Anti-war mobilisation

The CPI for a long time past had been carrying on anti-war propaganda. For instance, an article on this topic in The Communist, April 1937 observed : “... active opposition to war preparations by the masses, and the mobilisation of the masses to fight for peace is the essence of our tactics. And for us, in India, this activity, this dynamic attitude towards the question of peace, is closely united with the building up of the Anti-Imperialist UF.” Also there was a regular flow of materials expressing international anti-imperialist solidarity, particularly with China (see Text VI₃₂ for a June 1930 appeal: “In Aid of China”; in the 7 August, 1938 issue of National Front we find a front-pager “For Peace and Freedom” high-lighting the “resolutions passed at the Peace And Empire Conference presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru and held on 15 and 16 July 1938 in London”). When the Congress sent a medical mission on China in 1938, Dr Ranen Sen (then a CCM of CPI) was selected along with Dr Kotnis and others, but had to be replaced by Dr Bijoy Bose when Sen was denied a passport because of his revolutionary credentials. The Indian communists drew great inspiration from the Chinese struggle, as evident from items like “Strenghten UF in India — Says Mao Tse Tung” (Text VI₃₅), “A page from the Auto-biography of Mao Tse Tung — As told to Edger Snow” (NewAge, March 1938) and so on. That the Party had a specific “Peace Policy for India” based on a concrete assessment of the war situation even in early 1938 is to be found in P Sundarayya’s article in National Front (Text VI₃₄). On 30 April, 1939 the National Front came out with a front-page joint statement by JP Narayan and PC Joshi: “May Day is People’s Day”, which highlighted the slogans of “All support to the USSR” and “Solidarity with Anti-Fascist Front”. In order to counter the government’s army recruitment campaign, the communists and socialists in 1938 raised the slogan “Na ekpai, na ek bhai” (not a pie, not a man for war). Starting from Punjab, the main catchment area for the British Indian army, the slogan was spread to other parts of the country.

The communist opposition to war and to India being dragged into it was generally shared by the majority of Congress leaders. There was a broad national consensus that unlike the First World War, there must be no unconditional support this time to the British war plans. At home, however, the Congress ministries were rapidly becoming more repressive and corrupted and the CPI’s endeavour to forge a fighting unity between the Congress and workers’ and peasants’ class organisation met with success only at lower levels. Conflict between the compromising right-wing and the left wing within the national movement was growing sharper. As the editorial in New Age, May 1939 (Text pointed out, “while disruption from the right continues to be the main danger for the national front as a whole, the greatest and the specific danger of the Period within the ranks of the Left, come from the disruptive, provocative tactics of the ultra-left sectarians.” Party members were therefore called upon to concentrate attack on the pseudo-revolutionary “alternative leadership theory” while at the same time guarding against “opportunist deviation in our own ranks.” The main political thrust was laid down in the following words :

• “The fight for the hegemony of the proletariat consists in its coming out as the builder of the united front ... the working class and peasant organisations must constantly come forward to initiate new campaigns, new programmes, fresh scheme to organise the Congress in the new direction, as democratic units heading and developing the struggle of the people ...”

The Left Consolidation Committee

A Left Conference was held in Calcutta in February 1939, where supporters of Bose (who commanded a great majority in the BPCC) and Roy assembled together with communists and socialists. United mass programmes against imperialism, for release of political prisoners and for democratic liberties were taken up. Well known communist intellectuals like Gopal Halder and Benoy Ghosh worked in the editorial staff of Forward Block, while Subhas contributed appreciative messages/articles to the National Front. Thus Bengal was already acting as the main bastion of the united Left when, after the formation of the Forward Bloc (FB, May 3), JP Narayan and PC Joshi issued a joint call for united activity by different left forces. Explaining the CPI position, the New Age in June 1939 urged for “a common plan of action by mutual agreement ... in order that disruption may not develop in the Left camp itself, it is absolutely necessary that one section does not try to gain at the expense of another, that all agreements are voluntarily and strictly adhered to, that the Parties to Left unity may maintain their independence and integrity ...” (see Text VII₁₉). Bose insisted that the FB itself be accepted as the broad platform for the united Left, which would then evolve a programme acceptable to all but would function on the basis of majority. Naturally the communists and socialists rejected this proposal for merger into a left nationalist party. After a brief stalemate, the Left Consolidation Committee (LCC) was formed in June as a confederative body uniting the CPI, CSP, FB, Royists and the Kisan Sabha and functioning on the basis of unanimity. The Committee included Bose, JP Narayan, PC Joshi, Roy, Swami Sahajanand (representing the Kisan Sabha), NG Ranga and others, with Bose as convenor.

This welcome step was, however, taken at too critical a juncture in national politics (which demanded bold and specific political action on the part of the united Left) and with-too little political understanding among the constituents (which made such united action immensely difficult). The result was that fissures developed in the LCC as soon as it took the first major political offensive against the compromising tendency in the National movement. The occasion was provided by two AICC resolutions passed in late June — one prohibiting Congressmen to offer satyagrahas without prior approval of the PCC concerned, while the other one made the Congress ministries independent of the PCCs. The LCC unanimously decided to observe July 9 as a day of national protest against these resolutions. The Congress president Rajendra Prasad threatened disciplinary action against any such step. The demonstrations did take place, but Roy backed Out at the eleventh hour. So did the four CSP leaders (Masani, Lohia, Mehta and Patwardhan) who resigned from the CSP executive in protest against the official line of uniting with the communists and working inside the LCC. These leaders and Roy was severly criticised by the CPI, but soon the CSP as a whole came out of the LCC. Bose was suspended from primary membership of the Congress for the July 9 demonstrations and BPCC, of which he was the president, was replaced by an ad-hoc body. The CPI disapproved of Bose's headlong clash with the Congress high command and began to take a lukewarm attitude to the LCC. Towards the end of 1939 they abandoned it and the curtain came down on the first experimental institutionalisation of Left unity.

But the CPI had by itself already won recognition as the most advanced — small yet growing — contingent within the national mainstream. While expanding its base among workers and peasants and maintaining the ideological-organisational independence, it moved forward with a very broad political vision:

• “The major class division is between Imperialism on the one hand and the Indian people on the other, the greatest class struggle today is our national struggle, the main organ of our struggle is the National Congress.”

(General secretary PC Joshi in April 1939, see Text IV B₇)