that after resigning their seats, the Swarajists would
seek re-election on a programme drawn up by the
I
INDIAN POLITICvS 85
Congress. Everything depends on that programme.
Such a staunch defender of capitalism and landlord-
ism as the Swaraj Party never can and never will
seriously consider the project of civil disobedience
which cannot be put into effect without the revo-
lutionar}^ action of the worker and peasant masses.
The Swarajist leader himself did not mean any-
thing serious when he made the pledge to the Cawn-
pur Congress. It was meant for the galler}-. He
knew that the " national demand" had been brought
to such a degree of moderation as almost to guar-
antee its eventual acceptance by the Government.
Civil disobedience will ever remain a hypothetical
proposition. Then, we have seen the "national de-
mands" rejected more than once, without evoking
any retaliatory measure from the Swarajist side.
As a matter of fact, the Swaraj Party began to
climb down from the position it took against the
Right dissentients, immediately after the Cawnpur
Congress. The leading members of the Right re-
signed their seats in the Legislatures — Central and
Provincial, and declared their intention to seek re-
election on their programme of political peace,
which the\. euphemistically call "Responsive Co-
operation." This was an extremely clever move on
their part. The social composition of the electorate
assures their re-election. Nehru and his followers
at the head of the Swarajist Majority were outwitted.
They immediately made it understood that if the
responsivist leaders are re-elected, the party would
find it necessary to change its programme, because
the re-election of the Right leaders on their pro-
gramme would show that the country was in favour
of that programme. In other words, as soon as the
bourgeois voters had made it clear that they have
no more use for parliamentary fireworks, the Swaraj
86 THE FUTURE OF
Party would meekly obey and get down to the busi-
ness of discovering the identity between " Respon-
sive Co-operation" and "Honourable Co-operation."
While running down the responsivist " heresy"
— a policy dictated by capitalist interest — the leader
of the party paid homage to and received the bene-
diction of the god Capital. On December 3rd, 1925,
Motilal Nehru was entertained by the cotton mill
owners at a tea party. The president of the Mill-
owners* Association thanked the Swarajist leader for
the great services rendered by his party to the pre-
mier industry by supporting the abolition of the
Excise Duty. Nehru replied :
" I and my colleagues have done our duty.
I assure the millowners that we will act simi-
larly whenever the industry will be in danger
of being exploited by foreign or unfair competi-
tion. We went in the Legislative Assembly
to work for the country, and not for any parti-
cular section or party."
So, the Swaraj Party as a party stood solidly
as the political instrument of the capitalist and
landowning classes, even at the moment it was
pandering to the radical illusions of the middle
class. The Swaraj Party entered the Legislature
" to work for the country" ; but it is notorious whom
they served. They served exclusively capitalist
and landed interests. Now that these same inter-
ests (which are identified with the entire country
by the bourgeois Nationalists) can be better served
by declaring political peace and co-operating with
the British Government, the Swaraj Party, as good
patriots, will have no compunction to do what should
be done "in the interests of the country." The
Right Wing leaders had more courage and convic-
INDIAN POLITICS 87
tion than the rest. They were the pioneers in the
march to the spiritual home. In this period of dif-
ferentiation between the bourgeoisie and petty bour-
geoisie, the Mahratta leaders played the same role
as C. R. Das had played in the previous period
which was marked by the separation of bourgeois
Nationalism from revolutioiary mass action. Just
as parliamentary obstruction replaced mass passive
resistance, just so will parliamentary obstruction be
abandoned in favour of constitutional opposition.
A steady change in the economic relation between
imperialism and native capitalism, which is the
social basis of bourgeois Nationalism, has caused
these successive stages of evolution in the political
sphere. It was a pre-determined and inevitable pro-
cess.
This debacle of bourgeois Nationalism, however,
does not by any means indicate the end of the anti-
imperialist struggle. It only means that the social
basis of Nationalism will be shifted from the bour-
geoisie to the masses. This process of widening
the social basis of Nationalism is parallel to the
process of widening the social basis of imperialism
by drawing the colonial bourgeoisie economically
and politically closer to it. So, the future of In-
dian politics will be the organisation of all the
classes of the native society, except the landlords,
the big bourgeoisie and their middle class satellites,
in the struggle for national freedom. The pro-
gramme of the new phase of Nationalism will
naturally be entirely different from the programme
which up till now has dominted the Nationalist
movement .
The formation of the Bourgeois Bloc in the Unity
Conference of Bombay forced upon the Swaraj Party
88 THE FUTURE OF
the necessity to define its position. It must aban-
don the ambiguous position taken up at Cawnpur.
It must take sides — with the bourgeoisie for the
programme of constitutional reform or with the
people for revolution. This ultimatum of the bour-
geoisie frightened the Swarajist leaders. Immedi-
ately after the dramatic walk-out they met the Re-
sponsivists at Sabarmati to discuss the conditions
for accepting office. The Sabarmati Pact was a
negation of the decision of the Cawnpur Congress
and the walk-out as a result of those decisions. The
pact meant a complete capitulation of the Swaraj
Party. It signified the triumph of bourgeois
Nationalism and political death of the Swaraj Party.
It recorded the victory of Responsive Co-operation
which was so demagogically fought at Cawnpur ;
and Responsive Co-operation means nothing but
a complete compromise with imperialism to co-
operate with the British Government in response to
the concessions made to the Indian bourgeoisie.
The Bourgeois Bloc, to which the Swaraj Party
would submerge itself through the instrumentality
of the Sabarmati Pact, was a union sacree not
against the foreign rule, but to fight the revolution-
ary movement. It would fight the Swaraj Part^^
should the latter still persist in keeping company
with the revolutionary wing of the Nationalist
movement.
The general elections are a few months ahead.
The time set for the extension of reforms coincides
with the lifetime of the next legislatures. There-
fore, it is absolutely necessary that in the coming
elections such candidates vshould be returned as stand
unequivocally on the platform of bourgeois National-
ism. If the Swaraj Party did not fall in line, war
would be declared on them. The bourgeoisie sue-
INDIAN POLITICS 89
â– ceeded in terrorising the Swarajist leaders who had
always stood on the platform of bourgeois National-
ism. But the surrender of the leaders at Sabarmati
opened the eyes of the Swarajist ranks. The pact
was repudiated. The split in the Nationalist ranks
along the class line was complete. The line runs
through the Swaraj Party also. Consequently the
Swaraj Party has virtually split on the. issue of
compromise with imperialism versus revolutionary
mass struggle for freedom. This is the case in
spite of the fact that the revolt in the ranks obliged
the Swarajist leaders to go back on their signature
to the pact of capitulation.
The Bourgeois Bloc is a historic phenomenon.
All the events in the Nationalist movement ever
since the betrayal of Bardoli had been heading to-
wards it. The bloc marks the termination of a cer-
tain process of evolution. It is the crystallisation of
the policy of compromise with imperialism on the
basis of the Reform of 191 9 — to work them for
what they are worth and to negotiate for further
concessions. This line is dictated b}^ the immediate
interests of the native bourgeoisie. On the other
hand the compromising elements in the Indian
Nationalist movement are strengthened and encour-
aged by the fact that British imperialism is ob-
liged to meet these elements halfway. The collapse
of bourgeois Nationalism is inevitable. It is deter-
mined by the economic relation between the Indian
bourgeoisie and British imperialism.
90 THE FUTURE OF
PART III
A REAL NATIONALIST MOVEMENl^
Chapter XII. The New Basis of the National
Struggle
The big bourgeoisie is practically eliminated
from the struggle for national freedom. The bour-
geois bloc of Bombay propose to fight not so much
the bureaucracy as any revolutionary tendency in
the Nationalist movement. They have declared war
even on the harmless stage-thunders of Swaraj ism.
Practically, the bourgeois bloc seeks to make a
united front with the imperialist forces of law and
order to make the country safe against any possible
revolution. The middle class, which still makes the
show of a parliamentary fight, is in hopeless poli-
tical bankruptcy. Economic understanding be-
tween British imperialism and Indian capitalism has
taken the wind out of the sails of bourgeois Nation-
alism under which the Swaraj Party has been steer-
ing its course. The future of Indian politics (of
national liberation) will, therefore, be determined
by the social forces which still remain and will al-
ways remain antagonistic to Imperialism even in
the new era dominated by the " higher ideals of
Swaraj within the Empire." These social forces
are composed of the workers, peasantry and the
petty bourgeoisie (small traders, artisans, em-
ployees, students, pett}^ intellectuals, etc.) . In the
new era of compromise and agreement the economic
conditions of these classes will not be essentially
improved. On the contrary, they will become
worse. The agreement between Indian capitalism
INDIAN POLITICS 91
and British imperialism is made on the basis of the
latter' s permitting the former a larger and more
direct share in the proceeds of exploitation of the
Indian masses. In making this "concession," im-
perialism has taken all precautions against a sub-
stantial reduction of its share.
The share of the Indian bourgeoisie will be in-
creased by a corresponding increase in the surplus
value produced by the Indian working masses. In
addition to the enormous tribute to imperialism, the
burden of contributing to greater and more rapid
enrichment of the native bourgeoisie will then also
fall upon the bent back of the Indian workers and
peasants. The Indian capitalists do not make any
secret of this prospect either. They frankly declare
that in order to secure " national prosperity" — by
which they mean the prosperity of their class — it
will be necessary for the people to make sacrifices.
While making a strong plea for the protection of
Indian industries, the minorit}^ of the Fiscal Com-
mission (composed of four leading Indian capitalists
and one Nationalist politician) in their Note of Dis-
sent wrote :
" We recognise that in the efforts to attain a
prominent position in the industrial world,
India will have to pay a price. The economic
well-being of India which we aim at in the tariff
policy which we recommend cannot be obtained
without making a sacrifice."
Protective tariffs not only increase the price of
commodities on which the tax is levied. They
cause a corresponding rise in the price of similar
articles produced in the country. Besides, a sym-
pathetic rise in prices results all around. This
means that in the era of protectionism, the consum-
92 THE FUTURE OF
ing public (majority of the population will be ob-
liged to contribute towards the enrichment of the
small class of capitalists who will derive the profit
from the industries developing behind high tariff
walls. Industrial prosperity is likely to cause a rise
in wages eventually. But the rise in wages will be
more than compensated by a greater rise in prices.
The real wages, therefore will steadily go down.
The peasantry will be obliged to pay higher
prices for agricultural implements, clothing and
other manufactured necessities, while, owing to the
shrinkage of the foreign market, the prices of agri-
cultural produce will go down. Extension of the
Indian market for manufactured articles at the
same time will require a prosperous peasantry. Agri-
cultural productivit}'- must be increased in general.
Productivity of land cannot be raised unless the
present primitive system of cultivation is replaced
by modern methods. But the existing land tenure
stands in the way of this improvement. Cultivation
of land cannot be modernised unless there is a class
of peasantry in secure possession of sufficiently large
areas of land. This readjustment in landholding
will be obviously at the expense of the poor peasan-
try who are at present tenants-at-will with no pro-
prietary right in the soil. A process of selection will
be introduced in agriculture as a result of the in-
dustrialisation of the country. More attention will
be devoted to the growth of raw materials required
by manufacturing industries. This will create the
need for large scale farming. Land will be gradu-
ally concentrated not as at present in the hands of
speculators and moneylenders, who usually leave
the cultivator on the soil, but in capitalist farms
where the former ''independent" cultivators will
be reduced to wage slaves. The totality of agricul-
INDIAN POLITICS 9j
tural production will be raised, the internal market
will be extended, by driving the small peasantry
oft the land — by expropriation. Concentration of
land will be caused by the expropriation of the small
peasantry.
The artisans will be visited by further destruc-
tion of their means of livelihood. If the handicrafts
suffered so heavily in comjDetition with machine in-
dustry situated thousands of miles away, the de-
struction will be extremely greater and quicker when
the same agency will operate on the spot. The de-
struction of craft industry will ruin the numerous
small traders connected with this industr}-. Exten-
sion of banking facilities, so much demanded by the
Indian bourgeoisie, will draw the rural trade more
under the grip of urban capital and the small in-
dependent trader will be squeezed out of existence
in consequence.
The prospect of the lower middle class and the
petty intellectuals is not any brighter. They will
have to bear the burden of heavy indirect taxation
in the shape of higher prices, rents and travelling
cost. Nothing is held out to them m return. The
promised facilities for technical education will con-
vert a small section of the younger generation into
industrial wage-slaves. The problematical Indian-
isation of the army will only give them the oppor-
tunity to pledge the younger generation to the
defence of a system that at best will keep them ever
on the verge of economic ruin and moral degrada-
tion. The petty intellectuals in India are
thoroughly proletarianised. They are an over-
produced commodit}^ thrown in ever increasing
numbers on the glutted market. A proletarianised
class can save itself only through a social revolu-
94 THE FUTURE OF
tion — by the radical change of the political-economic
system that has caused their proletarianisation.
British imperialism has adopted the policy of in-
dustrialised India in order to tap the unlimited
reserves of labour power. The produce of metro-
politan industries no longer enables British capital-
ism to hold its own in the world market — particu-
larly the markets of the east. To compete
successfully with its rivals British capitalism must
place cheap goods in the market. This can only
be done by harnessing the sources of cheap labour.
Therefore, industrialisation of India, which will
provide the Indian bourgeoisie the coveted place in
the sun, will intensify the exploitation of the Indian
proletariat. Unpaid labour being the basis of
capitalism, capitalist development of India will
cause a great exploitation of the Indian working
class. Since the future of British imperialism
depends upon its success in profiting by the cheap
labour of the Indian proletariat, it will keep the
working class to the lowest subsistence level. The
entire power of the State will be used for this pur-
pose. The Indian boureeoisie will be a willing
party to the violent exploitation and suppression,
because their prosperity also depends on what the
workers will produce without getting any return.
In short, in the era of " equal partnership '' the
insatiable greed of British imperialism and Indian
capitalism will be satisfied at the expense of the
proletariat.
Therefore, the agreement between imperialism
and the Indian bourgeoisie does not by any means
liquidate the struggle for national independence.
Indeed, it pushes the strueele towards more revolu-
tionary forms. The social basis of the Nationalist
movement is shifted to the classes which have noth-
INDIAN POLITICS 95
ing in common with imperialism — which have
nothing to lose but their chains of political slavery
and economic exploitation. Class struggle — the
struggle between the propertied and expropriated
classes — clearly becomes the motive force of Indian
politics.
Now arise the questions of organisation and
leadership of these forces. Which of the three
classes involved will assume the leading role in the
fight ? What organisational form will the struggle
adopt ?
Both the leadership and organisational form will
naturally be determined by the social character of
the movement. The social elements that will
henceforth compose the movement for national
liberation are the petty intellectuals, artisans, small
traders, peasantry and the proletariat. In the ex-
isting condition of Indian society, these all belong
to the oppressed and exploited class. The movement
for national liberation will take place on the basis
of the struggle between the exploiting and exploited
classes. Henceforth the fight for national freedom
in India becomes a class-struggle approximating to
the final stage.
Class struggle is not always a struggle between
the exploiter and exploited. It is so only in its last
stages. In the earlier stages it is not a prelude to
the abolition of class ridden society. It simply
expresses the antagonism of a rising class to the old
dominating class. It simply causes a transforma-
tion of property relationship — one class replaces
another class as the dominating social factor. In
its final stage the nature of the class-struggle
entirely changes. It ceases to be the struggle
between tw^o forms of property. It becomes the
prelude to the abolition of private property and the
96 THE FUTURE OF
foundation of the socialist order of society. On the
one side of the line stands capitalism as the quintes-
sence of private ownership, and on the other is
marshalled the proletarian army which by its very
nature does not represent a new form of propert}-.
The victory of the latter, therefore, leads to the re-
organisation of human society, free from class
domination. With the disappearance of property-
right, classes disappear.
Although the class struggle in the contemporary
Indian society has not arrived at the very last stage,
it approximates that stage so much as to have the
proletariat at its head. But at the same time the
majority of forces involved in the struggle objec-
tively do not stand for the total abolition of
property. They are exploited, expropriated ;
nevertheless, their victory will not be a socialist
victory, but a popular democratic victory. So the
proletariat is called upon to lead a movement for
democratic freedom, which movement, however, will
have a preponderating character of class struggle in
the last stage. The proletariat will have the hege-
mony in the struggle for democracy. The objective
programme of the proletariat (Socialist Programme)
will not be imposed on the movement, but the hege-
mony of the proletariat will inspire the struggle
with the most advanced revolutionary democratic
ideals, as distinguished from the hypocritical bour-
geois democracy. Democracy is the end in itself
for the class which converts the democratic State
into an instrument of its domination. From the
proletarian point of view it is a means — a step
towards Socialism. Therefore, if necessary, as in
India, and as has been in Russia, the proletariat
should assume the hegemony in the struggle for
democratic freedom. Whether the democratic
INDIAN POLITICS 97
revolution can be quickly transformed into a
Socialist Revolution (as in Russia), remains an open
question depending upon the class relations in the
particular society and on the political maturity of
the proletariat. What is conclusive is that on the
failure of the bourgeoisie to lead the democratic
revolution, the proletariat becomes the leaven of the
democratic movement, and will exercise the hege-
mony in the struggle for democratic freedom.
When, as in India, the bourgeoisie betray their his-
toric trust, the movement for democratic freedom
becomes a class struggle approximating the last
stage. As a matter of fact, the bourgeoisie desert
and betray the struggle for democratic freedom
whenever the conception of democratic freedom in
the least threatens to transgress the narrow confines
of capitalist parliamentarism and approximates the
freedom of class domination. History is full of
examples of such desertion and betrayal. The
democratic movement headed by the bourgeoisie is a
struggle for power between two classes representing
two different forms of property. But a democratic
movement which goes on in spite of the betrayal of
the bourgeoisie, represents the classes that are
essentially exploited and expropriated, although
some of them are identified with some form of pro-
perty. Petty bourgeois property, however, is not a
newer and more developed form of property as
against the capitalist system. On the contrary, it
is a form of property that is bound to be eliminated
by the development of capitalist production.
Therefore the antagonism between capitalism and
petty bourgeois ownership does not belong to that
category of class-struggle which is between two
forms of property. It is essentially a skirmish on
the outskirts of the arena where the final battle will
G
98 THE FUTURE OF
be fought. This being the case, a democratic
struggle whose social basis embraces the petty hour-*'
geoisie (including the peasantry) is bound to be
under proletarian hegemony. Being essentially
linked up with the last stage of the class struggle,
it is inevitably influenced by the leader of that
struggle. Therefore, the proletariat will have the
hegemony in the Indian struggle for national
freedom in the coming phase.
The next question is, how will the movement be
organised ? In what formation should the demo-
cratic forces be marched in the battle? To play
creditably its political role, the proletariat will, of
course, have its own party — the Communist Party.
But in that there will be no room for its democratic
allies. The party of the proletariat stands under
the banner of Socialism. On the way to the ulti-
mate goal, the proletarian party may be required to
fight for non-Socialist democratic demands. But it
always remains a Socialist (Communist) Party. Its
final programme is a Socialist (Communist)
programme.
The allies of the proletariat, however, are not
just now fighting for Socialism. They, therefore,
cannot be in a party which objectively stands for
Socialism, though taking part, even leading, non-
socialist democratic movements as steps forward.
Hence arises the necessity of a party in which the
proletariat stand side by side (as a vanguard) with
the revolutionary Nationalist elements fighting for
democratic freedom. None of the existing Nation-
alist parties can serve the purpose. The Liberal
and the Independent Nationalist parties have never
pretended to be anything but the political instru-
ment of the bourgeoisie. Such pretension came
from the Swarajists. But the completely capitalist
j
INDIAN POLITICS 99
character of the Swaraj Party — as led and consti-
tuted at present — has been demonstrated. There
are large petty bourgeois elements in that party.
These elements, however, can no longer stay in the