TEXT-VII (Part 2, article 7-19) : Important Document on Party Line and Programme

7

Problems of the Anti-Imperialist Struggle in India

There is no doubt whatever that India to-day stands at the cross roads. …

The young Communist Party of India continues to make every effort to open the eyes of the masses of the people to the actual state of affairs. It carries to the masses the message of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution. It exposes the double- dealing and falsity of the national-reformist policy. It has consolidated and united the best sections of the advanced workers — although far from the majority of them — having wrested them from under the treacherous influence of national-reformism. However, it has so far not succeeded in paralysing the influence of national-reformism among the masses,it has not so far succeeded in rallying and winning over the most active and militant sections of these masses to the side of the irreconcilable revolutionary struggle, it has not succeeded in wresting these masses from under the influence of the National Congress, in spite of a number of partial successes which it has won in this respect.

This is why the masses of the people in India to-day, having lost faith in the conciliatory policy of the National Congress, at the same time do not break away from this organisation, in a sense still looking upon the National Congress, headed by the national- reformist bourgeoisie and landlords, as an organisation representing an all-national opposition against imperialism. This is why these masses, while expressing their dissatisfaction with the leadership of Gandhi and other capitulators and conciliators, while resenting the absence of democracy inside the Congress, simultaneously urge the National Congress to re-organise in line with their interests, demand that the Congress acknowledge their demands as its programme, that it help them organise for the struggle for these demands.

Considerable regroupings and changes are occurring at the present time in the upper strata of the national Congress. These groupings and these changes show that the National Congress is not a consolidated and unified organisation of the national- reformist bourgeoisie and the national-reformist landlords. In a certain sense it represents an arena for political groupings and [sub] groupings of the national-reformist bourgeoisie, of the liberal landlords and the upper strata of the petty-bourgeoisie. …

However, the Communist Party of India in the past committed a number of mistakes and incorrect actions as regards its participation in the anti-imperialist struggle. … The task of the Communists was not to limit themselves simply to general appeals to fight for an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution, but to go into the midst of the struggling masses, to try and rally them to their side, giving chief prominence to the concrete demands of the struggle against imperialism and putting the tactics of the united front into effect. In reality the result was the separation of the struggle against national reformism from the struggle against imperialism, from the struggle for the immediate demands of the workers, as well as of the peasants. This greatly hampered and weakened the work of the Communists among the workers, who were Under national-reformist influence, weakened the work in the reformist unions. The inability to link up the most active participation in the struggle against imperialism in the front ranks of the fighting masses with the exposure of national-reformism, facilitated the growth of sectarian moods and tendencies, which even to-day are far from being overcome. …

The application of the tactics of the United Front in the anti-imperialist struggle, as well as in the struggle of the workers against the capitalist offensive, in the struggle of the peasants against the landlords and usurers, is the basic condition for a successful struggle for the masses. … This becomes all the more dangerous since imperialism outlawed the Communist Party, since national-reformism savagely vilifies it, since the agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class, the Kandalkars, the Roys and the Congress Socialists, call for the “purging” of the labour movement of all Communists.

The Communist Party must take advantage of the present situation in the camp of the National Congress in order actively and persistently to mobilise the masses for the struggle against the imperialist offensive. … There are a number of organisations in India which include also Communists, which could develop their work among the masses to counter-balance national- reformism. These larger organisations could become the centre for intensifying and developing an effective struggle against imperialism.

The whole situation bears witness to the fact that the power and influence of these organisations will grow infinitely more if, as organisations, they join the local organisations of the Congress, on the basis of collective membership, while preserving their independence and face. … After joining the Congress, they can take up the task of uniting all honest elements, ready to fight against imperialism not in Gandhi fashion, but in actual deed. A minimum programme of the united front for the anti-imperialist struggle for uniting and activising all such elements may be the following :

1. Complete and unconditional independence of India from Britain.

2. Repeal of all emergency laws (not only the ordinances and all anti-labour laws). The liberation of all political prisoners.

3. Refusal to participate in legislative councils and the cessation of all negotiations with British imperialism.

4. Organisation of the struggle of the masses against imperialism and against the imperialist sham constitution.

5. Against wage cuts and dismissals of workers, against the seizure of peasant land for debt by the imperialists, landlords and usurers.

There are wide strata in the ranks of the National Congress who are prepared to fight for such a programme. However, such strata, representing the dissatisfied masses, lack organisation and political stability. … The masses of workers, peasants and urban petty-bourgeoisie are marking, learning and inwardly digesting the lessons of the struggle and the lessons taught by the bankruptcy of conciliation tactics. It is necessary to help these masses to draw the correct political conclusions, to help them to organise into an independent political force.

Let the Congress leaders not shout that the crafty Communists are intriguing against the “national organisation of struggle against imperialism.” …

… The National Congress presents not only a certain field for legal activity (although limited to the extreme by the barriers of British “legality”); it presents also a political arena in which the different groupings of the Indian exploiting classes take definite form. The representatives of these groupings are naturally keen on not letting their internal differences [become] public knowledge, in order that these differences should [be] used by the exploited and oppressed masses in their own [ways]. But precisely for this reason it is necessary that organisations which really represent the workers, peasants and petty bourgeois youth utilise this arena in their own interests. …

There is no doubt whatsoever that work in the ranks of the Congress organisations contains dangers insofar as certain unstable elements of the Left mass movement and even individual unstable communists … may slip down on to the road of [integration] with national-reformism and may wrongly interpret the tactics of the united front as meaning the renunciation of the irreconcilable struggle against the national-reformist conciliators. … The Communist Party must see to it that it explains its [code] of conduct correctly, in a real Bolshevist fashion. It must exercise a genuine check-up on the actions of its members; …

At the same time the Communist Party as such will develop inside the Congress organisations a wide independent mobilisation of the masses for the struggle against imperialism, and will constantly put into effect the tactits of the united front when organising any anti-imperialist action. Its struggles against national-reformism, in close and inseparable contact with the mobilisation of the masses against the principal enemy, against imperialism, must not be weakened down, even a moment, when applying the united front tactics, but, on the contrary, will have to be deepened and [developed]. This struggle against national- reformism will have to be [conducted] much more than hitherto on the concrete exposure of every national-reformist manoeuvre, …

… Objective conditions are very favourable for the Communist Party of India, and therefore it is charged with great political responsibility. At this crucial moment it must not give the conciliators of national-reformism the possibility to triumph again over the deceived masses; it must not let itself be isolated from the masses. It must throw itself into the thick of the masses under its militant banner; it 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.

Source: Inprecor, 9 March, 1935, pp 289-92.

[Note : — In the original, a few words are not fully legible; we have placed them within square brackets.]

8

The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front

(Slightly Abridged)

by R Palme Dutt & Ben Bradley

The Indian national struggle is today at a critical point. British imperialism has succeeded in imposing its constitution of open subjection in the face of the opposition of the entire Indian nation. The first stage of the struggle against it has met with defeat. For the moment, there is confusion in the national camp as to the path forward. At the same time, the ever worsening situation and sharpening struggle of the masses of workers and peasants calls ever more loudly for organisation and leadership.

If we look at the world situation, we see that all over the world, the anti-imperialist struggle is gathering strength and advancing. In Egypt, the united mass struggle is exercising powerful pressure on British imperialism. In China, the popular forces of resistance to partition and for national unity and liberation are gathering around the central core of Soviet China, consisting of at least sixty millions who have already thrown off the imperialist yoke. …

What of the situation in India? Since the abandonment of mass civil disobedience we see a confusion of forces and no powerful united movement of resistance to British imperialism, which rules with more triumphant reaction than ever. Some voices are raised to advocate cooperation in working the new constitution. Others advocate retreat from the political field to concentrate on village industries or on the removal of caste disabilities. Gandhi has proclaimed his retirement from politics. The National Congress, apart from the electoral field, has given up for the time the attempt to direct the struggle, and even in the electoral field is sharply divided on the future policy, to accept office or not to accept office.

The peasants and workers, suffering under ever heavier economic distress, find themselves without united and centralised leadership in their sporadic struggles. … Alongside this, there is terrible mass unemployment seriously affecting not only the workers and peasants but also the middle class.

How can we transform this situation ? How can we unite and mobilise a powerful movement of resistance to British imperialism and for the needs of the masses ? This is the key problem of the Indian situation.

The Indian National Congress will shortly be meeting in Lucknow. The representatives of the main body of the Indian national struggle will have to consider the problems of the path forward. What shall be the programme at the coming elections ? What shall be the future line of direction of the national struggles to defeat imperialism ? The left-wing elements are pressing for a line of irreconcilable struggle against imperialism, for an advance of the programme to reflect the growing influence of socialist ideas and for the organisation of workers and peasants as the decisive practical task. The Right-wing elements are making gestures for unity with the Liberals and other elements outside the Congress who have abstained from participation in the common struggle and stand for cooperation with imperialism. The discussion will be sharp. The decisions will be of far reaching significance.

It is at this stage that the present proposals are put forward for the consideration of all who, whether inside or outside the Congress, are concerned for the advance of the Indian national liberation.

The first need — unity

Every Indian patriot will recognise that the first need for the successful advance of the Indian national struggle, the key need of the present situation, is unity of all the anti-imperialist forces in the common struggle. …

But, what is unity ? Talk on unity, of the United Front, is today on the lips of all. But many different proposals are put forward in its name.

Thus, some, as in the recent speeches of Babu Rajendra Prasad, late President of Congress, urge unity with moderate or Right- wing elements at present outside the Congress, such as the Liberals, the friends and allies of British rulers, whose programme is one of cooperation with imperialism and entry into office in order to assist the slave constitution to function successfully. Naturally, the Liberals from their point of view, as shown in the recent speech of VS Srinivasa Sastri, at Madras, heartily welcome such proposals of unity. …

But will this strengthen the anti-imperialist forces? While it is evident that all elements, including those from among the Liberals who are prepared to break with cooperation with imperialism and accept the programme of the national struggle, are welcome to the common front, this can only be on condition of acceptance of irreconcilable struggle against imperialism for complete independence (as already laid down in the Congress programme by the Lahore decisions). …

The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front

… Much as we may desire to see unity of the whole Indian people in the struggle against foreign rule, we have to recognise that there cannot be an abstract ‘unity’ of the entire Indian population, 100 percent, all sections and classes, against British imperialism. Some sections have their interest bound up with imperialism, e.g. the princes, landlords, moneylenders, reactionary, religious and political elements which live on exploiting communal differences, elements among the merchants and wealthy classes who favour cooperation with imperialism, etc. The cunning British rulers have known how to follow the old maxim “Divide and Rule” and build up their dominion on elements of support within the population; and in consequence, in estimating the forces of the national struggle, we have to take into account the realities of the class-structure of the population under the conditions of imperialism.

But there can be unity of the overwhelming majority of the population against imperialism, i.e. of all the popular masses who suffer under imperialist rule. …

What is the necessary basis for such unity of all the anti-imperialist forces, such as can unite all the forces of the National Congress, the trade unions, the peasants organisations, the youth organisations, etc. on a common platform in a mighty common front ?

It is clear that the essential minimum basis for such a grouping is (1) a line of consistent struggle against imperialism and against the existing slave constitution, for the complete independence of India; (2) active struggle for the vital needs of the toiling masses.

This is the unity of the Indian people we want, the United Anti-Imperialist People’s Front for the struggle against imperialism.

The role of the National Congress in realising unity

At this point, the question will be asked: what is the relation of the National Congress to the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front ? Is not the National Congress, as many of its leaders claim, already the united front of the Indian people in the national struggle ?

The National Congress has undoubtedly achieved a gigantic task in uniting wide forces of the Indian people for the national struggle, and remains today the principal existing mass organisation of many diverse elements seeking national liberation. Nothing should be allowed to weaken the degree of unity that has been achieved through the National Congress, and the proposals that are here put forward are only intended to endeavour to find means to assist and extend that unity to a still wider front.

We on the Left have many times criticised sharply the existing leadership and tactics of the National Congress. We have found many decisions and policies, such as the calling off of mass civil disobedience in 1922, at the moment when it was ready to enter on its greatest strength, the uncertain voice on the aim of independence, the wavering in the relations to imperialism, the siding with the landlords against the peasants, the Delhi Pact, the cooperation in the Round Table Conference, the Poona calling off of the struggle in 1934, disastrous to the true interests of the national struggle and equivalent to surrender to imperialism. We have traced these decisions and policies to the existing dominant bourgeois leadership, whose interests often conflict with the interests of the masses and with the interests of the national struggle. These issues, of the utmost importance for the future, need to be discussed and fought out. But this criticism against particular policies is in no sense intended as a criticism against the masses in the Congress. Our opposition to a particular leadership or to particular policies is only intended to assist the mass army of the national struggle, represented by the Congress, and to assist and strengthen the national struggle.

The National Congress can play a great part and a foremost part in the work of realising the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front. It is even possible that the National Congress, by the further transformation of its organisation and programme, may become the form of realisation of the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front; for it is the reality that matters, not the name.

But, it is necessary to recognise that the National Congress, as it exists at present, is not yet the united front of the Indian people in the national struggle. Its constitution still leaves out the broadest sections of the masses. Its programme does not yet express with full clearness the programme of the national struggle. Its leadership cannot yet be recognised as the leadership of the national struggle. It does not at present draw out and guide mass activity, rather acts as a brake upon it.

What is needed is, without impairing the degree of unity that has been achieved through the National Congress, to strengthen and extend this unity to a broader front, and to develop to a new stage the organisation and leadership of the mass struggle against imperialism.

Draw in the masses

The National Congress is at present based, not on the union of all elements supporting the national struggle, but on a restrictive individual membership, with certain limitations of franchise and of a special ideology or ‘creed’ which prevents it from embracing the broadest front of all who support the national struggle.

The mass organisations of the workers and peasants, the trade unions and peasant unions and all similar collective mass organisations, constituting the most important forces of the national struggle, are at present outside the National Congress. Only when all these forces are combined, the mass organisations of the workers and peasants, together with the National Congress, whether in a united front agreement or by the collective affiliations of these affiliations to the Congress, will we have achieved a broad united national front, capable of developing as a real anti-imperialist People’s Front and drawing behind it the overwhelming majority of the population, the workers, the peasants and the middle classes, in a single army of the national struggle. Within such a bloc the working class can increasingly realise its role of vanguard, to lead to victory the Indian revolution.

The first aim should therefore be to establish a united front of the National Congress with all the existing mass organisations of the trade unions, peasants unions, youth associations or other anti-imperialist mass organisations, in a broad anti-imperialist People’s Front on the basis of the struggle against imperialism and its constitution and for organising the struggle of the masses for their immediate demands.

At the same time, we should seek to amend the constitution of the National Congress in such a way as to permit of the collective affiliation, with delegate representation, of the trade unions, peasant unions, youth organisations, etc. This collective affiliations should be carried out not only on an all-India scale (All India Trade Union Congress to the National Congress), but equally in the provinces and on a district and local scale the whole way through, thus bringing the National Congress into direct and continuous association with the masses. This collective affiliation is important, not only for the immediately existing mass organisations, but for the whole net-work of trade unions and peasant unions gradually embracing wider and wider sections of the masses, which Congress should devote its most active efforts to assist in building up as the strongest pillars of the national struggle.

The possibility of such collective affiliation is illustrated not only by the examples of the European Labour Parties, but still more closely by the example of the old national-revolutionary Kuomintang (before the betrayal by Chiang Kaishek) at the height of its strength when it grouped, along with individual political members, trade unions, peasants’ organisations and the Communist Party, and on this basis swept forward from strength to strength, proving the most powerful and victorious weapon upto then devised for the colonial struggle against imperialism.

While it may take a necessary process of time to carry through the campaign and introduce collective affiliation into the constitution of the Congress, no time should be lost in already setting up on a local, district, provincial and, if possible all-India scale, joint bodies of the Congress committees, trade unions, peasant unions, youth associations, Congress Socialist groups and other groups and anti-imperialist organisations, uniting for the purposes of combining the campaign against imperialism in the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front.

Actually united front bodies have been already set up in localities — not permanent but temporary bodies which show the possibilities — in places like Bombay, Calcutta and elsewhere. United front demonstrations and meetings were held in Bombay in February last year against the new slave constitution; these and similar actions were supported by trade unionists, Congress Socialists, Congressmen, Communists, etc. These actions, of course were only the very first signs, but they show the urge for, and possibilities of, the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front.

Democratise the constitution of the Congress

… The existing working of the Congress machinery cannot be regarded as democratic. In practice a very small handful of leaders hold absolute control. In particular, the working committee, which has the greatest power and takes the most important executive decisions, is not an elected body, and cannot be regarded as representative of the sections of opinion in the rank and file of the Congress. Similarly, in the provinces and localities, the degree of control from below is very weak.

An exhaustive overhauling of the constitution is necessary in order to bring it into accord with modern democratic conceptions of a popular party, and to ensure, not only the forms of democracy, but that these shall be realised in the practical working — i.e., widening of facilities for raising issues and putting forward resolutions from the membership, prior circulation of agenda with opportunities for discussion, mandating of delegates, etc. active political life and discussion in all the local organisations, election from below of all committees and officers, etc.

Centralised direction is essential for the purposes of the struggle, but this centralised direction must be on the principles, not of personal dictatorship, but of democratic centralism, i.e., elected from below and responsible to the representatives of the lower organs.

A clear programme of anti-imperialist struggle

… At present, despite the decisions of the Lahore Congress on the aim of independence, there is still much confusion even on the central aim. Definitions of the meaning of ‘Purna Swaraj’ are as thick as blackberries on bush, and cover the most contradictory notions. The latest definition by the Wardha meeting of the working committee in September 1934 (“included unfettered control over the army and other defence forces, external affairs, fiscal and commercial matters, and financial and economic policy.”) goes back on the goal of independence and returns to the pre-Lahore aim of Dominion Status.

It is essential to establish, in unmistakable terms, the aim of complete independence of India as the unchangeable aim of the Indian national struggle, and therewith the rejection of all compromise and negotiation with imperialism for half measures, cooperation in working the constitution, etc.
Further, it is essential to link up the programme of the fight for independence with the immediate political demands of the struggle against imperialism and with the immediate demands of the workers and peasants for their vital needs.

The details of such a programme could be worked out in common by representatives of all the organisations concerned. Thus, for example, such a programme might include:

1. The aim of complete independence for India;

2. Freedom of speech, press, organisation, assembly, strikes and picketting;

3. Repeal of all exceptional and repressive laws, ordinances and anti-labour laws (Criminal Amendment Act, Press Act, etc);

4. Release of all political prisoners, detenus and internees;

5. Against reductions of wages and dismissals of workers; for an adequate minimum wage and 8 hour day; for SO percent reduction in rents and against the seizure of peasant land for debt by imperialists, native princes, zamindars and money-lenders.

The particular immediate demands of the struggle could be worked out and varied according to the locality and the particular condition and stage.

A central rallying slogan for the whole movement could be provided by the demand for a Constituent Assembly, the conditions under which this demand could be usefully taken up and made the centre of agitation and propaganda are considered in the present article. A platform of this type requires to be established as the common platform of the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front.

Similarly, the constitution and platform of the Congress requires to be worked out anew in the light of this, …

The tactics of mass struggle

A similar clarification is necessary with regard to the basic tactics of the Congress and of the national struggle.

The existing ideology of ‘non-violence’ which is still made a com­pulsory part of the Congress creed, is today a survival which is more and more visibly at variance with the realities of the struggles and less and less corresponds to the outlook of large sections of the national movement. Many prominent members of the Congress, who have formally to subscribe to this dogma as the condition of their participation in its mass activities, today privately declare their disbelief in it. This is not a healthy situation. While many sections may still be under the influence of the theories of ‘non-violence’, to make this a dogma compulsory on all sections is to place an obstacle in the way of unity of the national front. In fact, the experience of the nearly two decades since the war has abundantly shown that the conception of ‘non-violence’ has been used, not merely in opposition to the fruitless policies of individual terrorism or sporadic outbreaks of a minority, but to shackle and hold in all effective mass activity and the development along the lines of the class struggle of the most powerful weapons against imperialism or mass resistance to imperialist violence, and thus leaving free play for the violence of imperialism, has been a dangerous and paralysing influence on the advance of the national struggle and the principal cause of the relative stagnation and failure of advance in India, despite the enormous sacrifices made, compared with other colonial countries. China and Abyssinia have shown how a people fights for its freedom against the imperialist enemy. In Egypt today, the higher degree of aggressive mass activity is reflected in the far greater readiness of British imperialism to offer concessions. It is essential that the Indian national movement should free itself from the paralyzing conceptions of passive ‘non-violence’ if it is to defeat its enemy. A sharp ideological struggle needs to be conducted on this question, but a struggle in the ideological field, by way of ceaseless explaining and winning over. This issue should not be allowed to split the national front.

The Congress creed in consequence needs revision in accordance with the real conditions of the struggle. The dogma of ‘non- violence’ should be omitted. The entire emphasis should be placed on the development of the mass struggle, on the work of organisation of workers and peasants as the primary task in the field of organisation, on the active taking up of the immediate demands of the workers and peasants for their vital needs, and the linking of this struggle with the political anti-imperialist struggle.

Consolidation of the left wing

… In the past there has been much dispersion of effort, division and mutual snipping between the Left-wing forces, thus playing into the hands of the domination of the Right-wing leadership. While it is necessary and desirable that the differences of political outlook and conception which exist between the different groupings should be thoroughly discussed and cleared in comradely discussion, this should not stand in the way of the fullest cooperation and common working on all the issues on which agreement can be reached, both within the Congress, and in the immediate daily struggles.

Congress Socialists, Trade Unionists, Communists and Left Congressmen should all be able to unite on the essentials of a minimum programme of anti-imperialist struggle for complete independence, of organisation of the masses and development of mass struggle, and of the fight for changes in the Congress constitution, policy, organisation and leadership to forward these aims. The Congress Socialist Party can play an especially important part in this as the grouping of all the radical elements in the existing Congress. It is of the greatest importance that every effort should be made to clarify questions of programme and tactics in the Congress Socialist Party.

It is this way the first stage of anti-imperialist People’s Front could be built up already in the common fight, stressing particularly the local, district and provincial basis.

At the same time, it is essential to recognise that the task of consolidation of the Left wing forces renders more necessary and responsible than ever the role and the activity of the Communists in this process, since they have the most responsible role to play in ensuring the political clearness of the fight, in pressing forward the drive to unity in action, and guiding the aims of the movement towards the goals of political and social liberation. …

The anti-imperialist front in the elections

The question of the elections is of cardinal importance for the anti-imperialist front.
On the one hand, it is essential that the clear line of the anti-imperialist front, the line of consistent struggle for complete independence, against all cooperation with imperialism and its constitution, and for the demands of the masses, should be challengingly voiced at the elections, and that the outlook of these vast sections of the national movement must not be stifled.

On the other hand, it is essential that unity of the national front should be maintained against the imperialists and their allies, and there should be no splitting of the vote for the benefit of the reactionary Right-wing elements outside the Congress who stand for cooperation with imperialism.

The best means to realise this requires the most earnest consideration of all supporters of the national struggle.

We would suggest that the anti-imperialist bloc, constituted on its programme of complete independence, no co-operation with imperialism, and active struggle for the demands of the masses, should seek agreement with the existing leadership of the Congress (within which the Congress Socialists, grouping the radical elements, represent already a substantial minority of roughly one-third of the forces and a potential majority) to run its candidates directly on this programme in a number of seats (or to be able to include them as a group with their specific programme within the Congress panel), as recognised candidates of the united national front, cooperating with the Congress candidates in other constituencies who run on the official programme. The details of this arrangement will need careful working out; but with goodwill on both sides, such an arrangement should be possible.

Every effort requires to be made to prevent a splitting of the national front in the elections; but such unity should not be utilised to stifle the Left-wing forces of the anti-imperialist bloc.

The constituent assembly as the central slogan of the struggle

In order to concentrate the struggle against the slave constitution imposed by the British Government, we cannot rest satisfied with the negative programme of rejection of the constitution and refusal of cooperation, but must counter-pose our positive slogan.

Corresponding to the existing stages of the movement, the time is now undoubtedly favourable to launch as our central slogan the demand for the convening of a Constituent Assembly, based upon a universal and equal franchise and direct and secret ballot.

In the past, there has been much discussion on the slogan of a Constituent Assembly. On the one hand, it has been presented in such a form as if the existing National Congress were to be regarded already as the Constituent Assembly of the Indian people. On the other hand, it has been presented as it were to be regarded as an alternative to the aim of Soviets, as the political aim of the Indian Revolution. Both these outlooks are incorrect and require to be combated. But this necessary criticism of misleading conceptions has given rise to the alternative danger of the conception that the slogan of a Constituent Assembly is as such and at all times inadmissible and in inevitable opposition to the aim of the Soviets. This would be a serious misunderstanding; the example of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution has shown how, in a given situation, the slogan of a Constituent Assembly can be a most powerful mobilising force which can be combined with the propaganda of Soviet power as the ultimate aim.

Is the situation now in India such that this slogan of a Constituent Assembly would be a correct slogan of action for the coming stage? Yes. At a time when the British government is imposing its new constitution of slavery upon the Indian nation, and preparing its mockery of elections from which the voice of nine-tenths of the people is excluded and the remainder barred from effective representation with any power to the representatives, it is essential to spread broadcast, in opposition to the line of imperialism, the demand for a Constituent Assembly freely elected upon a basis of universal suffrage. In putting this forward the Communists will in no-wise weaken their propaganda for the aim of Soviet power. The Constituent Assembly is a slogan of action for mobilising the masses at the present stage of the struggle.

But at the same time, it is necessary to explain on every occasion on which the issue of a Constituent Assembly is raised, both within the National Congress, and in mass propaganda, that a real Constituent Assembly can only be realised as a result of a broad movement of the masses, of the people in active struggle. The significance of the slogan of a Constituent Assembly is as a mobilising slogan of the mass struggle at the present stage. As such, it should become the central slogan of action of the present stage of the national struggle and of the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front, uniting all the partial and immediate struggles in this central political fight.

The need for the speedy realisation of the broadest Anti- Imperialist People’s Front in India is the more urgent, not only for the reasons of the situation now existing within India, but in view of the whole international situation as it is developing and affecting India. The war question is now of burning urgency. The Italian war on Abyssinia, alongside the ever-extending Japanese aggression in China, is the signal of the advance of imperialism to a new world war. The sympathies of Indian people are warmly united with the Abyssinian people, and with the Chinese national struggle against Japanese and all other imperialists. But at the same time, it is necessary to sharpen the struggle against the war preparations of British imperialism, which fall with merciless heaviness on the Indian masses. …

Source: Inprecor, Feb. 29,1936, pp 297-300

9

Circular No. 5

On Elections

The elections to the various legislatures are becoming the centre of political activity. All the various parties are mobilising their forces for the purpose. How does the attitude of the Communist Party differ on the point from that of other parties? In the fact that we want to utilise the election for furthering the anti-imperialist-struggle and raising it to higher level, that we want to utilise the occasion for clarifying the issues before the masses to sharpen their class consciousness and make elections a lever for consolidating the class forces of anti-imperialist masses. The reformist organisations look at the election from a different point of view. Their sole aim is to be successful in the elections. For this purpose they form opportunist alliances. The Congress today is in the one side making a show of defending the peasants’ interest, on the other side assuring the Zamindars that no harm is meant to them. It is attempting to befog the consciousness of the masses for their sole purpose is to get their candidates elected. The Congress thus does not utilise the elections to consolidate the anti-imperialist forces, but prevents the independent consolidation of such forces by forming united front with the Zamindars and other reactionary elements.

It is so because for the Congress the entrance into the legislatures is not a means for furthering the anti-imperialist struggle outside, but the sole political activity to-day. The Congress wants to take to constitutional opposition as its sole activity. To get members elected in the largest possible number is a question of life and death to it. But we stand for linking the struggle inside with the struggle outside the legislatures. The election campaign therefore has to be visualised in its proper perspective and must be utilised for furthering the anti-imperialist struggle, for popularising our slogans and our tactical line at the present stage.

In those constituencies, therefore, where our independent candidates are contesting the elections it is necessary to put forward the full CP platform as formulated in the resolution of the CC. In those constituencies on the other hand where we do not have our independent candidates we have to apply the tactics of United Front. According as there is CSP candidate or the Congress candidate we have to agitate for the united front platform as formulated by the CC; Platform A, in case of CSP candidates and platform B, in case of Congress candidates. It is but obvious that in these constituencies we cannot support the Congress and CSP candidates on their own platforms. That will be simply becoming the tail of these organisations. Nor on the other hand will it be an easy task to make these candidates accept the united front platforms. We have therefore to agitate among the masses for the United front platforms, explaining to them the necessity of such platforms and bringing the greatest possible pressure from the masses for making the candidates accept the platform. On the other hand we have to make it unequivocally clear that we oppose the reactionary candidates (be they Zamindars, Communalists, justicites[1] or liberals) who stand in opposition to the Congress candidates. This support however is not due to the fact that Congress candidates are our candidates or that their programme is the right one; but because they are more progressive than the others. Every time demanding that the Congress candidates accept our united front platform we must support them even though they do not accept the platform. We must canvass votes for them, bring the voters to the election booths, participate in the election meetings and [the] whole election campaign and not confine ourselves to oral support; and thus prove in practice that we are serious about the united front with the Congress and do not put it forth simply as a manoeuvre. This will be an important method of convincing the rank and file of the Congress and masses outside the Congress that we mean to fight for united front even when there is resistance from the Congress Top.

Organisational form for election

The purpose for which we enter the election campaign determines the organisational form we raise for it. Election campaign being a weapon to intensify the mass struggle we must raise organs of the masses from below which must be broadbased and united front organs. In every locality we must take the help of all left sections, wherever possible we should take the local Congress Committees, CSPs Youth leagues, Trade Unions or Peasant Unions [into confidence] and get the United frent platform endorsed by them. We must then carry on propaganda for the United front platform among the masses, then call upon the masses to elect broadbased “Peoples election committees” which will be the rallying point of all those forces which stand for united front platforms. Through them we carry the campaign, through them we put pressure upon the candidates to accept the platform. The “Peoples Election Committees” will crystallise the left elements which will be a force for continuing the movement or achieving united front even after the election campaign. In big cities or the rural areas of the districts “Ward Peoples Election Committees” can be formed leading up to “City or District Peoples Election Committees”.

Independent propaganda of CP

At no stage can we Communists give up our own independent propaganda. While therefore agitating for United Front Platform we must point out that at the present stage we are ready to adopt this platform for furthering the anti-imperialist struggle, but the problems of the masses can only be solved by the full platform of CP, by the Agrarian Revolution, by the establishment of the “Dictatorship of the Working Class and the Peasantry” that being Communists we are bound to fight for that, as that alone can free the masses from exploitation and misery and establish a really free society. In the present stage, however, when Imperialism is intensifying its exploitation, when it is imposing the Slave Constitution and trying to break the Anti-imperialist movement by ruthless terror, mass internment and imprisonment, United Front is a necessity and hence the Communists, as the most consistent fighters against Imperialism and for National Independence, stand for a United front of all Anti-imperialist forces.

Illegal leaflets popularising CP platform and linking it with the United Front platform should become the regular feature of the election campaigns. Thus it will be possible for us, on the one hand to extend the influence of the CP, and simultaneously to strengthen the movement for United front. Rightly utilised the election campaign can be a lever to build a mass CP, consolidate the Left forces, bring United front nearer and thus raise the whole anti-imperialist struggle to a higher level. Let us hope that the CPI will rise up to the occasion and prove itself to be a worthy section of the CI.

PBCC

Note :
1. The reference is to the members of the Justice Party, a loyalist party based in Madras. —Ed.

10

Excerpts from the first editorial of The Communist, July 1936

Communist Party and the Coming Election

The hideous British Imperialism is redecorating itself, with the unreal democratic tinsels of the new constitution, to hide the barbarous autocracy of its rule in India, to cover up its merciless exploitation of the Indian people. … The elections under the new constitution are coming, the various political parties are preparing to participate in the elections and win an electoral majority, to further the interests of the classes they represent and to advance the cause they champion.

Where does the Communist Party (CP) stands ?

The Communist Party of India (CPI), the party of the revolutionary working class, the party of national and social revolution, the front rank fighter against British Imperialism, declares that it regards wrecking the present slave constitution as its first and immediate task and that this can be done only through a wide-spread and militant mass movement. The entire electoral policy and activity of the CPI is designed to serve and is subordinate to this definite aim and major task.

Against boycott of elections

The CP rejects the policy of boycotting the present elections as sectarianism, leading to isolation from the masses. The electoral campaign is carried on among the masses, the loyalist reactionary parties will try to bamboozle the masses and lead them into the camp of Imperialism, the reformist parties will preach their cowardly creed of compromise. The policy of boycott allows all this to happen unchallenged, it makes agitation among the masses the monopoly of reaction and reformism; on the other hand by participating in the elections we can agitate the masses, propagate our policy among them, and win them over to our side — to revolution. By boycotting the elections we isolate ourselves from the masses and allow a free hand to our enemies and friends of Imperialism; by participating in the elections we can combat the pro-imperialist united front of the exploiters and build a mass basis for the United Anti-Imperialist People’s Front.

The CPI in rejecting at the present stage the slogan of boycott of elections states in the words of the second congress of the Communist International, “Boycotting the election or the parliament or leaving the parliament is permissible, chiefly when there is a possibility for an immediate transition to an armed fight for power” !

CP and parliamentary activity

Beneath the surface of apparent lull in the political movement a new mass upsurge is brewing. …

The CP holds mass activity to be primary and parliamentary activity to be auxiliary, its parliamentary activity is not a substitute for mass activity. In the present conditions of Terror prevailing in our country parliamentary activity can become an effective means of building up, organising and developing a mass movement. …

The Communists shall contest the elections not because they have any illusions about this sham constitution, the CP considers the slave constitution worth only one thing — blowing it up. The communists enter the legislatures only for the purpose using them as platforms of agitation and for the purpose of helping in every way from inside the legislature the growth of a mass movement outside. The communists enter the legislatures to fight their political enemies face to face, to expose their reactionary policies and counter-revolutionary intrigues promptly on the spot, to popularise the partial demands of the people and the struggle against the slave constitution, to use the legislatures as the sounding-board for the call of national independence and socialism. Our aim in entering the lagislatures is anti-imperialist agitation, anti-imperialist propaganda and anti-imperialist organisation.

CP and united front for elections

… If the elections are to be successfully transformed into a large scale anti-imperialist mass mobilisation it is necessary that all the existing anti-imperialist organisations must function as a united team. …

… The CPI shall actively support the Congress candidates against the loyalist Zamindar candidates with all the forces at its command. The Communist speakers shall however, make clear their differences with the policy of the existing official leadership of the Congress — its compromising nature and class-collaborationist character, and state in a persuasive comradely manner the changes we desire before the Congress could become a real anti-imperialist organisation. Not to make our comradely criticism, suppress our independent views, and give unqualified support to the INC as it is to-day would be to strengthen reformism and extend its hold over the masses, it will not be building up the anti-imperialist united front, it will be throttling the united front with our own hands but with the mantram of united front on our lips.

The leading anti-imperialist parties insides the INC should formulate an independent election platform which should not suffer from the various limitations of the official Congress programme, be more clearly and emphatically progressive both as regards aims and major demands (we are suggesting elsewhere the draft of such a platform)[1], they should set up candidates on their own platform after proper negotiations with the official Congress as regards seats etc., they should accept the Congress whip inside the legislatures, and during the elections they should actively support the official candidates just as the latter would be bound to support them. The Left too would stand as Congress candidates accepting the official programme of the congress (unless it contains something against the anti-imperialist creed — the official congress platform has yet to be published) but they will also have an independent platform of their own.

In the labour constituencies the CPI will do all it can to prevent the proletarian front being broken up through personal ambition or partisan rivalry. It shall support militant class-conscious rank and file workers irrespective of their party allegiance rather than individuals of non-working class origin. It will struggle to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement as regards seats etc. on the principle that all the revolutionary currents of thought inside the working-class get proper representation. …

The CPI will support independent anti-imperialist candidates against the reformists provided they have a clean record of past struggle.

Inside the legislatures communists will help to form a well-knit harmoniously functioning Anti-Imperialist Block whose objects would be to wreck the slave constitution of Imperialism, actively help the extra-parliamentary mass-struggle, frustrate all attempts at a compromise with Imperialism etc. etc.

Through united front for elections towards the Anti-Imperialist Peoples’ Front

A properly conducted united front election campaign will not only mean a successful mass mobilisation against the slave constitution but it can become the beginning of a mass movement against Imperialism itself; out of the united front work for elections can arise the united front work for the Anti-Imperialist Peoples’ Front line, the particular can become the general, from an elementary stage we can march on to a higher stage, This will happen not mechanically or automatically but through action. … struggle will reveal the immense potentialities of the policy of united front so that what looks like a familiar election pact will be revealed as a successful and effective political line of struggle; the actual experience of the united front campaign will restore the necessary mutual confidence, establish bonafides and subjectively prepare the different individual parties for a more vital and lasting united front agreement. The ground would be prepared for transforming the Anti-Imperialist Peoples’ Front from a current popular phrase into a serious political reality. To achieve this consummation will remain the conscious task of all Anti-Imperialists.

The actual outcome of all this will to a great extent depend upon the attitude of the INC for it is the dominant political force in our country and will naturally dominate the election campaign as well. Of great significance therefore would be the attitude of the present head of the National Congress, Jawaharlal Nehru, towards the policy of united front in general and united front for elections in particular. He should not find it difficult to support the line sketched out above for has he not himself stated that the Congress is not a political party but a mass movement? With this as his own premise he should not find it difficult to come to the conclusion that Congress ‘discipline’ should not be party discipline but the discipline of a movement i.e. that though it is necessary to pull up the reformist Right for its compromising manoeuvres (which disorganise and disrupt the movement and tend to its betrayal) yet it will be impermissible to deny an independent existence to the Anti-Imperialist left inside the INC for their policy is only more consciously Anti-Imperialist than that of the Congress as a whole and their line only tends to activise and solidify the whole movement in the direction of struggle. We communists struggle. We communists shall enthusiastically welcome and wholeheartedly support all the efforts of Nehru, CSP and the other anti-imperialist elements which are intended to advance the strength against slave constitution and build up the united front movement. Whatever the obstacles and difficulties, we Communists shall pursue the path of united front patiently, persistently and actively for we know that is the path of struggle which will lead us to victory.

Note :

1. See Text VI2s -Ed.

11

Excerpts from the second editorial of The Communist, July 1936

The Issue of Ministry Vs. Anti-Ministry

The slogan and its importance

For ministry or against ministry acceptance. This is becoming the major political issue of the fight against Imperialism in our country. Behind the former, scouts of the reformist Right are feeling their way into the arms of Imperialism behind the latter the anti-imperialist left is mobilising its forces. …

The approach of the Left — abstract and narrow

The approach of the entire Left nationalist camp, under the influence of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) which has been considerably strengthened by the support of Nehru, to this issue is abstract. … We reject the slave constitution of Imperialism therefore ministries under this constitution cannot be accepted because this will be accepting not rejecting the constitution — this is their logic. But to bind down a political question within the framework of a syllogism is incorrect, it is to replace logic for life. Nothing is in itself right or wrong. Contact with the enemy is not always contamination marching into the enemy’s citadels is not necessarily treachery. The decisive questions are when this is done, who does it, how this is done, and for what result ? …

… Our comrades of the Left are concentrating on the Anti-ministry slogan as if it could be the means of wrecking the slave constitution in place of the mass movement of the revolutionary people. Constitutional struggle to end the constitution — this is what their policy comes to. “Creating Deadlocks” is their favourite formula. This is no new policy. It has been tried by the old Swaraj Party under Nehru-Das and we know with what results. Constitutional deadlock alone would be the reformist Left bourgeois and not anti-imperialist policy. …

… during the Lucknow Session of the Indian National Congress (INC), CSP and other Left speakers concentrated all their fire on the “constitutional deadlock” through non-acceptance of ministry tactic and they mostly did not mention at all the mass movement for the destruction of the slave constitution and when this was done it was incidentally or apologetically. In their actual day to day agitation they put the mass movement in the background and the issue of constitutional deadlock through non-acceptance of offices in the foreground while it should be the other way about. …

What is behind this wrong approach ?

… This mistaken approach of the Left Nationalists and CSP is a remnant of Gandhian ideology and ‘no changer’ mentality.

Gandhism was the dominant ideology of our first civil disobedience movement. Gandhism is a system of old world religious, almost theological, dogmas applied to politics, it is based on the usual abstractions, but the reflection of a mighty mass movement on the Mahatma’s mind produced some fine fighting phrases and some pieces of remarkably powerful, almost classical, prose and it was these which became the ideological food of his militant petty-bourgeois following. They took his phrases literally, not like the Mahatma himself metaphysically. ‘Satanic Government’ expressed all their hatred against Imperialism and the necessity to destroy it. How can they ever cooperate with Satan? … That was however long ago; most of the no-changer rank and file of that day now constitute the Left inside the INC and the CSP has come into being as the ideological flowering of the hopes and aspirations of the INC rank and file but in roots are these. …

Congress Socialism and Left nationalism of to-day is different from Gandhism, the flower is different from the root. It is true this flower will produce a seed (it is certainly not barren) which in turn will find its own roots and give us a new flower. But to-day we are concerned with the present. To consider the ideological differences between Gandhism and Congress Socialism but ignore their ideological continuity would be as wrong as to state the later but forget the former. The desire of the CSP to become Marxist, i.e., realist is irrelevent immediately, it is the hope for the future.

The dangers from this approach

… What then are the immediate dangers from the above policy of Left nationalism and CSP in concrete terms ?

… The present tactical line of the Congress Right (which of course may change if there is a sharp turn in events) seems to be not to work for an immediate split but to go to the electorate as a united Congress and use all the enthusiasm and vigour of Left for the electoral campaign and when that is over to force the issue of ministry acceptance and if the Left is turbulent, adamant, disobedient to throw it out with the aid of their autocratic consideration and bureaucratic machinery. The Left by its present tactical line is just playing into the hands of the Right.

Anti-ministry is a negative platform and suffers from all its draw-hacks. When the Congress Right gets Ministry acceptance passed by e official majority, what will we do ?

Split from the Congress ? It sounds heroic but it would be suicidal. It will be making a present of the Congress mass following to the reformist-Right, i.e., exactly those potentially Anti-Imperialist elements whom we have to win over immediately to our side. Such a development would please Imperialism the most — a mass following behind the compromisers and the mass isolation of the Anti-Imperialists. …

What should have been done ?

If the present policy of the Left is incorrect what then should have been done ? …

We should have left the question of office acceptance open not made it the major issue, but regarded it only as one item in our electoral policy, a part of our campaign to destroy the slave constitution, …

We should have asked the INC to declare that its electoral activity is a part of the general plan to destroy the slave constitution and that the slave constitution cannot be destroyed through work inside the legislature alone but only through the mass movement of the people outside the legislatures and its parliamentary activity is an aspect of this general mass movement, and that it will simultaneously launch both Parliamentary and extra-parliamentary campaigns and co-ordinate them together.

Wherever the Congress would have been returned a majority they should not hesitate to accept office to carry through their major election pledges within a stipulated short period of time and actively help the development of the mass movement outside. Wherever the Congress were in a minority it should combine its parliamentary strength with the mass movement outside for securing the partial demands of the workers, peasants and the town poor, it should combine its political agitation inside with the general mass movement outside for the destruction of the slave constitution. In short, Congress members go into legislatures as the tribune of the Indian people as the organisers and agents of the movement against Imperialism and its slave constitution.

What would be the advantages of the above course ?

1. The first most likely result of the following the above line would be that the Governors would be forced to assume dictatorial powers, dismiss the ministers, dissolve the legislatures and rule as dictators more dictatorial than any dictator, Hitler or Mussolini — i.e., we force Imperialism to tear off its own mask and demonstrate dramatically that its new constitution is the paraphernalia of slave-drivers and exploiters. The entire Indian people would then have not to believe our criticism of this constitution but their own eyes would be a witness to its reality and they themselves would be tasting its first fruits. It would be an exposure of the constitution not in words but through action, a real exposure, unmistakably visible even to the politically naked eye.

2. … All reactionary parties are coming forward with their election programmes and demanding the support of the electorate 00 the ground that they will be able to do ‘Something’ for them while the Congress is out only to create ‘obstruction’. Even if our negative policy is successful immediately, after the dissolution of legislatures a couple of times the demonstrative value of ‘Constitutional dead-locks’ would be over and cease to have value or significance like the repeated drama of salt manufacture. It is then that the reactionary ministers will be able to counterpose their ‘something’ against our ‘nothing’. Whatever little they do will go in their favour, help them to mobilise the masses behind Reaction because they will be able to put partial demands in opposition to ultimate aims. In this Imperialism will help them actively; its present policy and plans are to give whatever petty concessions it can to the masses through loyalist reactionaries so that they may get an entrance into them, be able to organise them— for Imperialism.

On the other hand we checkmate all these Imperialist designs through our line of action. We counter-pose our election platform to that of the Reactionaries and there can be no doubt that even backward masses will recognise ours as their own platform, … When they will see that the proposals embodying their partial demands have been vetoed by the Governor, that their ministers who were responsible for them have been dismissed, that their legislature which passed them has been dissolved, then it is that the slave nature of the constitution will be exposed to them to their entire satisfaction and utter indignation, they will then realise as a result of their own experience that the final alternative is to join the mass struggle from which they have so far held aloof — they will be drawn into anti-imperialist political activity$ our ranks will be strengthened, while the reactionaries will not be able to find a foothold among masses, the gulf between the advanced and backward masses will be bridged and a serious all-embracing struggle against the slave constitution become possible. …

3. … After this when the Right Parliamentarians say that “in national interests” we must occupy “all positions of vantage,” that ministers would be there whether we like them or not and ask us point-blank “Is Satyamurti worse than Raja of Bobbili, Govind Ballabh Pant worse than Nawab of Chattari and Rajendra Babu worse than Maharaja of Darbhanga ? The left and CSP have no logical answer to give which will convince others besides themselves.
It is thus that the reformist Right is consolidating the Congress masses against us. …

We concede the Right the issue of ministry-acceptance and thus not give it any ground to split the anti-imperialist ranks but formulate the tactic of ministry-acceptance in a way that it ceases being means of compromise with Imperialism but on the contrary becomes a weapon in the struggle against Imperialism.

… The masses are under the influence of Rajendra Baboo and Vallabhbhai Patel not because they know them to be Reformists but because they believe that these their leaders stand for national freedom, welfare of the toiling people, and mass action. This is our starting point. We ask them to accept a programme embodying only these items and nothing else. If they accept it they join the path of mass struggle (and we can safely leave to the course of struggle to take care of reformism and the reformists — with our selves in the struggle). On the other hand if they oppose it they isolate themselves from their following. …

Some objections answered :

… 4. By simultaneously preaching wrecking the slave constitution and office acceptance, are we not raising illusions about the constitution itself ? This would be the case if we fail to differentiate our line from that of the Parliamentary Right Congress leadership. The Right Congress rejection of the constitution is only verbal for it wants to accept office to satisfy the partial demands of the people — it is this line which will create illusions about the real nature of the new constitution. In our line the mass movement is given the dominant place and not the question of our being returned in a majority, we tell the masses that the existing constitution is a slave constitution and that our emotional rejection of the constitution will not make it disappear, we have to destroy it with our own hands. … Ours is a mass policy of struggle and struggle does not breed but destroy illusion.

From the above ‘objections’ it is clear that the elastic, comprehensive, nature of our tactical line is not easily grasped and that it does not fit within the framework of a simple formula. The road to revolution is not an unfrequented single line track. It is no argument against a correct tactical line that it is complex, for life itself which we struggle to change through our tactical line is complex; or that the tactical line is full of dangers, for any tactical line would land us in danger if it incorrectly or incompletely applied. Because a correct tactic is full of dangers, likely to lead to deviations, we must struggle not against the correct tactic itself but against the deviations from it.

What are the decisive facts ?

Should the CP pursue the policy outlined above ? No. The above tactic would have been correct as a tactic considered generally but not so bearing in mind the concrete situation inside the Anti-Imperialist camp. To-day 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 nationalist and other Anti-Imperialist elements and our pursuing the above course would result in our isolation from the Anti-Imperialist forces and prevent the CP from building up or even being a part of the United Anti-Imperialist Front.

A major Anti-Imperialist slogan of immediate political importance if it is to be effective must be the common slogan of the united Anti-Imperialist forces. That the policy outlined by us cannot be pursued is our fault. Our party failed to take the initiative which was rightfully its. There is little doubt that if we had formulated our above policy in time (Imperialist terror however does not allow our party to function as we desire) we would have succeeded in making it generally acceptable for the political influence and prestige of the policy of Communism is more than we Communists ourselves realise e.g. the immediate and widespread response to our demand for collective affiliation came to us as a surprise.

If we independently pursue the above policy now, we would be definitely wrong. We would be playing the game of the reformist Right, creating confusion and may be disruption inside our Anti-Imperialist camp which is irrevocably committed to the slogan of Anti-Ministry. … The purpose of our policy is to draw the backward masses into the struggle, how can we bring forward the rearguard if we dis-organise the vanguard itself ? The purpose of our policy is to avoid the future isolation of the Anti-Imperialist Left but will we be achieving this through our immediate isolation with the Anti-Imperialist Left ?

It is obvious that our above policy cannot be pursued as it is. Why then have we formulated it at such length ? To bring out clearly the various advantages of following this course; to point vividly the great dangers to which the present line of action of the Left Nationalists and the CSP is exposing us, our Anti-Imperialist struggle, in short to contrast the two policies for purposes of discussion so that one united policy may be hammered out. …

The CP of India lays down the following as its policy on the issue of ministry acceptance:

1. The CP of India declares that it is unequivocally opposed to the slogan of ministry acceptance as it is being put forward by the Right Congress leadership, because it is designed to be a stepping-stone to compromise with Imperialism and because it is working in practice the slave constitution of Imperialism and not struggling for its destruction.

2. The CP of India actively supports the Anti-Ministry slogan as the united front slogan, it does not advance it as its own independent slogan but accepts it as the slogan of other Anti-Imperialist elements.

3. The CP of India shall put forward in a comradely manner its criticism of the anti-ministry slogan in the form it is being advanced by CSP and Left Nationalists.

4. The CP of India shall press upon the CSP and left nationalists to support the line sketched out in the beginning of this article as the alternative tactic i.e. in case the Right INC leadership breaks through and goes in to accept offices, to demand a new session of the National Congress, and pin it down to put into action the major demands of the election platform within a definite period of time and thus come into a direct clash with the executive and that it must actively support the extra-parliamentary mass movement outside. …

12

The Constituent Assembly As An Expression Of The Unity Movement

… Quite apart from the rapid growth of the socialist group within the Congress, I think it would be a mistake to assume that the Congress was dead, as opposed to its leadership. … On the contrary the Congress organisation and the dormant masses of its supporters is a real potential force in the country, ready at any moment to be called into action, disillusioned, it is true, with the old leadership, but not for that reason reconciled to imperialism or despairing a new and militant lead.

From where is that new lead to come? Within the Congress already we see the growth of a movement that is capable of reviving the whole force of anti-imperial feeling. Lucknow confirms the rapid rise of this movement and it is reasonable to say that as the influence and demands of the rank and file works its way upwards and influences the leadership, it will rapidly gain the ascendancy. This new leftward movement within the Congress must be based upon an acceptance of the class struggle. There may be some hesitation on the part of bourgeois “socialists” to do this but it is the logical conclusion to be drawn from their avowed belief that only a mass organisation giving effect to mass demands can achieve Swaraj. Without doubt the new leadership of the Congress party will spring from the Congress Socialist Party.

What is to be our attitude towards Nehru and his “left” elements? … Nehru is no communist; he believes, on the other hand, in some sort of Communism, a faith which in our experience of social-revolutionaries and the like, probably means that the kind of socialism or Communism that he is working for quite genuinely at this stage is the ideal of his own mind and not the transfer of full power to the workers. Like the democratic “revolutionaries” of February 1917 the leftwing socialists hope to utilise the worker revolution to overthrow the present vested interests of the British empire and their allies and to create a benevolent middle-class rule that will parcel out to the workers such reforms as coincide with their conception of “Communism” whilst retaining the power for themselves.

But at this stage we are not only dealing with Nehru but with the whole leftward tendency which his leadership represents in the Congress, a tendency which springs up from below, from the mass of exploited workers in towns and villages who rightly see the imperial power as the primary and basic source of their present condition. And to channelise and formulate these tendencies is our immediate task. How best can this object be achieved now? Only by forming a united front with and within the Congress, lending our strength to the increase of pressure from the leftward forces and strengthening the left camp of the Socialists. In his article in the Labour Monthly of March this is the line put forward by Comrade Dutt, when he says “the National Congress has undoubtedly achieved a gigantic task in uniting forces of the Indian people for the national struggle, and remains today the principal existing mass organisation of many diverse elements seeking national liberation”[1] …

Our policy is then quite clear — that every one of our members and every member of each left organisation with a revolutionary policy, must at once enter the Congress and work the united front from within, taking advantage of, and urging on, all these tendencies that are irreconcilably opposed to imperialism and cooperation with the imperialists. The discussions between independent organisations as to a common platform for the co-operation of those independent organisations forms an essential part of the policy, but such discussions can advance us not at all unless and until the pressure of the revolutionary masses makes itself felt from within. What we want primarily is not pacts, but genuine unity and such unity is only feasible if and when the masses impose their will upon the leaders. Working within the Congress therefore, we must put forward the following demands :

(a) Complete independence.

(b) Support for the Left wing and socialist programme.

(c) Affiliation of workers’ organisations.

(d) A democratic organisation to enable the pressure of the masses to be felt together with freedom of speech etc.

(e) Adequate wage and reduction of land-rents.

By voicing these demands from below and making them the basis of local organisation the united front becomes a reality and the leadership is forced into line with the objective needs of the moment.

Among the demands enumerated above is the demand for democratisation of the Congress organisation, the demands for freedom of the press and of organisation, and the struggle for the attainment of democratic rights. These demands follow logically from our determination to form a united front within the Congress. There would be no point in our entering the Congress organisation on the basis of the anti-imperialist front, unless we hoped and intended, whilst assisting to strengthen that front, to remedy those faults which we have always criticised in the Congress polity. …

Source: The Communist, September 1936

1. The quote is from the Dun-Bradley Thesis, reproduced in this volume as Text Vile – Ed.

13

The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front & The United National Front

— Ishaque

… In March 1937 the Polit-Bureau (PB) of the CC issued a statement oa the same subject, “For the United National Front”.

The statement has, as is inevitable when some new political ground is broken, created a little confusion in our ranks. A correspondent comrade, for instance, writes that “The United National Front (UNF) is something wider in scope than the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front (AIPF)” and he takes this to be ‘evident’. He is wrong. The Anti-Imperialist People’s Front, the United Anti-Imperialist Front, and the United National Front all refer to one and the same front. …

… The PB has supplemented the thesis of Dutt and Bradley, not contradicted it. …

The statement of the PB comes fifteen months after the Dutt and Bradley thesis and carries it forward on the basis of the experience of this intervening period What has happened during this period? The entire left enthusiastically accepted this thesis and on its basis, despite some hitches, a consolidation of the left was achieved and its first impress was seen in the resolutions of the Lucknow Congress, and the Presidential Address of Pt J Nehru, the resolutions of the first All-India Kisan Congress were materially influenced by it and so were those of the Bombay TUC (Trade Union Congress) Session (May 1936.) The Second All-India Kisan Congress at Faizpur carried forward the tasks undertaken at Lucknow. The resolutions of the Faizpur Session of the INC, as further concretised in the Wardha Working Committee Resolutions of February 27, ’37, showed that the Indian National Congress has officially accepted the platform suggested by Dutt and Bradley. All this bore out that the left had vigorously popularised the platform and that it was a popular platform expressing the real immediate demands of our people. Formal agreement over the demands is not the winning of the demands themselves and it is this to which our PB drew pointed attention in its statement. All the premier mass organisations of the Indian people — INC, AITUC, AIKC — accepting one common platform of demands was a great thing but by itself this was not enough. They were ‘mere phrases’ if not linked up with a common plan of action. “Without the masses there is not and cannot be victory.” The tactic of the United Front policy is the active organisation of the partial struggles of the masses for the redress of their immediate grievances. Dutt and Bradley had also stated this. The PB showed the inter-connection of these partial struggles with our demands for a Constituent Assembly and the Democratic State as between the beginning and the conclusion of a process. Dutt and Bradley gave us a policy, we popularised it, the PB has called upon us to put it into practice. …

The PB has supplemented the Dutt and Bradley thesis in another sense — theoretically, again on the basis of our one year’s work. It was seen in the course of our efforts to popularise the policy of AIPF that some ideological confusion prevailed even in the ranks of our Party, which arose out of our ideological inability to link up the immediate with the ultimate and see the inter-relation rather than a contradiction between the two. The PB in its statement outlined how our fight for Independence and Democracy brought our aim of Soviet Raj and Socialist Society nearer. …

The statement of the PB supplements the Dutt and Bradley thesis in still another direction — by indicating the class basis of the AIPF. Dutt and Bradley, it will be remembered, had indicated the organisations through which the policy of AIPF should be pursued. … They had not stated the class-basis as such of the AIPF. … After Dutt and Bradley thesis was published … whole series of peasants Conferences in various parts of the country and the growing peasant organisations, the wide-spread strike-wave not only in the major but also in the backward industries culminating in the big BN Railway and Bengal General Jute Strike showed that the Indian people in very large masses were on the move and this movement from below could not but influence, vitalise and inspire other classes. British Imperialism on the other hand was becoming more ruthless in its exploitation, more brutal in its repression and less and less conciliatory in its policy. Its daily administrative measures, political and economic, crowned with the imposition of the Slave Constitution on an unwilling people, were … unmistakable evidence of it all. … Thus crushed from above and pushed from below the Indian bourgeoisie was swinging leftward (Comrade Venkatayya has worked this out in his article on the “Role of the Indian Bourgeoisie in the UNF”[1].) The resolutions of the Faizpur Congress expressed the political resultant of these currents and crosscurrents in our national arena. The election campaign and the electoral result showed the growing Unity of the Indian people and the rising tempo of their wrath against British Imperialism. The PB has carefully analysed and evaluated the events of 1936 and the early months of 1937 and made explicit what was implicit in the Dutt and Bradley thesis that not only the policy of the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front was in the interests of the entire Indian people but also that the AIPF embraces the entire Indian people except a handful of rabid reactionaries and shameless loyalists. It is obviously to emphasise this national Unity of the Indian people against Imperialism that the PB in its statement chose the word UNF. Says the PB “The United Anti-Imperialist Front is not directed against the Indian middle classes but puts, as its main [agenda], the liberation of the country and the national regeneration of the great Indian people. It is, therefore, a genuine United National Front against British Imperialism. This does not, however, mean that such broad-based UNF is an existing reality, nor that we have to wait for the achievement of this Unity before attempting to launch a mass movement against Imperialism. The UNF is not a finished but a growing organisation, the upper strata of the Indian people would be attached to the UNF and overcome their vacillations only as a result of the increasing successes of the UNF. “The very first successes of the anti-Imperialist Front would draw to it certain organisations of the Indian merchants and industrialists not to speak of students and other radical organisations.” If we read the statement of the PB carefully we will come to the conclusion that 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 and barring the small top knot section of the pro-Imperialist bourgeoisie and the big landlords and Princes.

A sectarian tendency is not non-existent which would identify the wide UNF with an exclusive Toilers’ Front. The toilers’ front in India, in terms of existing organisations would mean Unity between the CP, CSP, AITUC & AIKC : neither Dutt and Bradley nor the PB visualise the formation of such an independent Toilers’ Front separate from the UNF. Whether the UNF itself will be transformed into a toilers’ front at a later stage of the struggle, when and how, or a Toilers’ Front will be formed as a separate but integral part of the UNF, are today futile forecasts worthy of those who pretend to be astrologers under the guise of being Marxists. These left forces are not only intimately related to the UNF but form the motive force behind it. Neither Dutt and Bradley nor the PB call upon them to form a formal independent front. …

Source: The Communist, June 1937

Note :

1. The relevant point in the said article, published in the same issue of The Communist, is quoted here. — Ed. “… the INC leadership as a whole and the section of the bourgeoisie which support it have, during the last few years, moved to the left. The progressive leftward-trend is reflected in the INC resolutions of the last few years. Complete independence is understood as involving the absence of imperialist domination. The future state is visualised as a democratic state coming into existence through Constituent Assembly elected on adult suffrage, democratic rights and the basic minimum demands of workers and peasants are being accepted in the programme. … This leftward tendency is reflected in the emergence of R Jawaharlal Nehru in his new role since Lucknow. The leadership of the INC is no longer United in its reformism. … The fact that pt Jawaharlal Nehru is able to mobilise nearly a third of the Congress leadership (as constituted in the AICC) on most vital questions, conclusively shows that his radicalism is not an isolated phenomenon but represents the leftward tendency of a growing section in the Congress leadership itself. This leftward move is shared by sections of Nationalist bourgeoisie which support the INC. This is seen in the support accorded to R J Nehru by the majority of the Bombay Indian merchants chamber of commerce against ‘the twenty one’ (The reference is to 21 businessmen who in May 1936 issued an angry manifesto denouncing Nehru’s presidential speech at the Lucknow session of the Congress. – Ed) headed by AD Shroff and in the election of Mr. Govindlal Shivlal a Congress candidate to the presidentship of the said chamber as against the candidature of AD Shroff. … All what has been said above does not mean that the Indian bourgeoisie has turned revolutionary. … The aim of compromise with Imperialism remains the policy of the dominant section of the INC leadership. … This movement towards the left pursues not a straight but a zig-zag course. Though the resultant is a leftward trend.”

14

Draft Thesis On Congress Ministries And Our Tasks

– By RDB

… 2. With the acceptance of office our task was to see it that ministries were being used for the purpose of widening the democratic liberties with a view to strengthening the forces of struggle against the Constitution. We wanted the masses to keep the ministries ever marching forward in the task of implementing the Congress programme. Widening civil liberties, creating bigger and broader opportunities for the organisation of workers and peasants, for increasing the striking force of the National front against the Constitution.

We put forward the slogan — “Fulfill the Election Programme or resign”. The slogan is of course meant to hold good for the whole period of ministries. …
3. What have been the main results achieved during the first four months of the ministries ?

(A) … The coming of Congress ministries and the few early concessions, the general change in the attitude of the petty official in the village served to draw in the masses of backward population into the struggle.

(B) Mass campaigns launched mostly under the leadership of the Lefts for the release of political prisoners, removal of restrictions, for the granting of immediate relief to workers and peasants by passing executive orders on debt moratorium, remissions, stay of legal proceedings in rent and debt suits against peasants etc. have been successful. …

(C) … As the movement is all unofficial the agents of Imperialism are trying to paint it as a Red or Communist movement and isolate it from the democratic masses under the Congress and crush it singly. Their aim is to split the National Front, to isolate the left within the INC.

4. The Congress ministers and the Right wing are equally alarmed and are attempting to put a brake upon the developing forces of mass struggle, by using the apparatus of repression in the name of creating non-violent atmosphere (frequent use of 144 against strikers, the use of Cr. Law Amendment Act in Ahmedabad and Sholapur, the launching of sedition cases against Batliwalla in Madras, gagging orders on labour leaders in Cawnpore) are hindering the growth of the United Front movement. …

5. Under these circumstances the tasks of the Lefts in general must be determined by the following considerations : (a) that spite of the acts of commission and commission of the Congress ministries which run counter to the letter and spirit of the election pledges, these ministries still enjoy the confidence of the vast masses especially the backward sections; (b) that these ministries being Congress ministries can persist in these acts only in so far as they are able to mobilise the support of the majority of the vocal political opinion under the influence of the Congress; (c) that these ministries have proved themselves to a certain degree responsive to public opinion and pressure.

6. The need to counteract the reformist and anti-struggle trend is as great as ever. But this struggle cannot be conduct on the assumption that the ministries have merged or are fact merging into the apparatus of Imperialism. … We say that the ministries are pledged to carry out the spirit and letter of the Election Manifesto and if they fail, the Congress organisations and members must always join up in protest with workers’ and peasants’ organisations. Such protests must be organised in various ways, through MLAs, through the press, through demonstrations, deputations, marches to the Secretariat. …

8. It is necessary to plan out practical pieces of legislation within the framework of the Election Manifesto and place them before the legislatures, popularise them through Trade Unions and Kisan Sabhas to obtain for them the support of Congress Committees and MLAs. The legislation proposed by the ministries must be properly studied and amendments suggested. … The Amendments or Bills must not be proposed just with the object of exposing the ministries, but must be such as are immediately practicable. …

10. With every advance of the organisation and struggle of the masses, with every new and powerful offensive launched by workers and peasants, the ministers, inflected by the panic of the bureaucracy and the anti-national vested interests, are attempting to use repressive measures … every such attack … must be bitterly fought out by mobilising the Congress rank and file against the repressive measures … It may even be essential at times to defy these gag measures utilizing at such moments the anti-police and anti-bureaucracy sentiments of the Congress minded public, and always enlisting the sympathy of the Congress rank and file in these actions. In this way every advance made under the ministries, however small, must be made irrevocable, and a base for further advance. …

Source: New Age, January 1938.

15

Our Stand at Tripuri

By AK Ghosh

The stand taken by us at Tripuri has been subjected to sharp criticism by a section of the Left. It is alleged that we capitulated completely before the offensive of the Right Wing, accepted the Gandhian ideology and leadership, deserted Subhas and, on the whole, betrayed woeful lack of firmness. Further that at Tripuri we forgot all the slogans that we had been popularising for the last one year.

Are these criticisms correct ? If so, to what extent ? We were the first to give the call for President Bose’s re-election. That was in October 1938. The AICC meeting was over. …

Another war crisis was maturing. Desperate efforts were being made by imperialism to hasten the advent of Federation. Yet there was no sign that our national leaders were conscious of the seriousness of the situation.

It was in this situation that we gave the call for Sjt. Bose’s re-election. We wrote :

“In these critical times, the head of our people, the President of the Congress must not only be able to hold the people together but keep them in trim to come to grips with the national enemy. … Against British Imperialism which seeks to impose the Federation. Bose is our strong anti-Federation President. At a time when the greatest need of our movement is national unity but when a section of our leadership is threatening Civil War within the Congress he is the living link uniting the two wings of the movement.”

– National Front, October 16, ’38.

We knew that the policy of drift was leading to disruption. If that policy was continued a stage would come when the Congress would become powerless to resist any major offensive of imperialism — even the imposition of the Federal Scheme. Bose stood for struggle, for unity in the Congress, for unity between Congress and the workers and peasants organisations, for active support to the States People’s movement. Moreover he like Nehru, could maintain the unity of the Congress — a unity that was essential for the success of the struggle that loomed ahead.

Hence we advocated his re-election.

“Unity and struggle, unity for struggle, struggle through unity” were thus our slogans, right from the beginning. …

The plan of action

This forward move was possible only on the basis of the broadest national unity. We supported the following plan of action and sought to achieve unity on its basis :

(1) Ultimatum to the British Government demanding independence within a specified period. In case of non-fulfilment of the demand nation-wide struggle was to be launched.

(2) The intervening period was to be used preparing for the struggle. This was to be done rapid implementing of the Congress Election programme by the Ministries, by establishing united front relations between the Congress and the workers and peasants organisations, by the Congress itself taking up and leading the States people’s movement, by establishing communal unity, and by creating a national Volunteer Corps.

We popularised the above plan of action and called upon the people to vote for Subhas Bose in order to ensure its being adopted and implemented by the Congress.

Bose’s re-election — a wrong evaluation

The Socialist comrades, who at first were not very enthusiastic about the Presidential contest, later supported Subhas whole-heartedly. So did the Royists and the entire Left.

It was after Bose’s re-election that the differences among the Left came to the surface and the most grievous mistakes were made by certain sections of the Left. They entirely fail d to read the real significance of the election. They thought that the time had come for “an alternative leadership”, for at least demanding a majority for Leftists in the Congress Working Committee. Bose’s victory was interpreted by them as defeat of Gandhism and Gandhian leadership and technique. They raised slogans of new programme, new leadership, new ideology. The utmost length to which they would go was expressed by the following formula: “We do not want to drive all Rightists out of the Working Committee. But we want them to co-operate with us on our own terms.”

To these sections the registration of the 12 members of the Working committee appeared to be a blessing in disguise. The path was clear for a homogeneous Left Committee, for the “new revolutionary leadership.”

On the contrary, we viewed President Bose’s re-election in an entirely different manner and therefore, set entirely different tasks before ourselves,

“By voting for Subhas Bose, the delegates have recorded their verdict for a policy of advance, for passing on to the offensive. …

“The need of the hours is to unite the entire Congress for the offensive not merely against the Federation but … against the entire Government of India act. … United struggle under a united national leadership is the surest guarantee for the victory of the struggle. All slogans and tactics therefore that tend to widen and perpetuate the existing division between the Right and the Left … that demand the ousting of the Right wingers from their position of leadership in the Congress must be considered disruptive.”

Editorial, National Front, February, 26.

We went to Tripuri therefore with the slogans of united leadership and forward move — slogans which we had been popularising all through the year.

Our slogan — no side-tracking

… it is in an open secret that the advocate of “alternative leadership’” theory and a number of pseudo-Left leaders who for their own personal aggrandisement were opposed to the restoration of unity, strongly opposed the advice given to Bose by Socialists and Communists. To Roy and some “Leftists” this admission will seem to be another evidence of our “vacillatory policy.” But we had gone to Tripuri not in order to reduce the Congress session into a battleground between the Right and the Left over ideological and personal issues but to bring to the forefront and political and organisational tasks facing the nations. We knew that the Pant resolution would side-track the main issue, would focus attention on non-essentials, would frustrate our efforts for politicalising the session. Hence we had tried to get it forestalled by a statement from President Bose himself declaring his complete confidence in the integrity of the members of the Working Committee and making a fervent appeal for unity. That would have deprived the Right wingers of the weapon which they used with such devastating effect at the session.

What should have been our attitude towards the resolution? We had already interpreted Subhas Bose’s election as “demand not for a new leadership, nor for a new ideology, not even for a new programme but for a policy of advance instead of the policy of drift.” We therefore deliberately decided not to be drawn into controversy over ideological issues, not to deny Gandhiji’s undoubted leadership of the nation but taoppose only those clauses of the resolution which sought to indirectly censure Bose and which could be used by the Right wing to re-establish its exclusive leadership and continue the old policy both politically and organisationally. (The ‘aspersion’ clause and the clause demanding the appointment of the Working Committee “in accordance with Gandhiji’s wishes”).

Our opposition to the Pant resolution was therefore not ideological or personal but political. It was dictated by needs of immediate struggle and of united leadership. That we together with the CSP succeeded in mobilising 125 votes in the AICC against the resolution itself shows the correctness of our stand.

The rowdyism and its effect

After the rowdy demonstration in the open session and Sarat Base’s opportunist speech, the opinion of rank and file delegates swung overwhelmingly against the President, Sarat Babu was supposed to be the accredited representative of the President. The ‘ultimatum’ resolution which was known to embody Subhas Bose’s policy was interpreted by him in a speech which shocked even the Right wingers. The sum and substance of his “plan of action” was threat of struggle and ministerial resignation to back up the threat if imperialism did not yield. The masses nowhere came into the picture, mass struggle — even of the peaceful satyagraha variety — was not even mentioned by him. And it was on the basis of this policy that he ridiculed the National Demand resolution and voted against it.

Neutrality or opposition ?

We had opposed the Pant resolution because it was disruptive, because it sought to impose restrictions on a President who advocated a policy of struggle. But the past few days’ development clearly showed that forces of disruption were at work in the Left camp too, that one of the closest associates of the President and one who must have collaborated with him in evolving the ‘ultimatum’ resolution advocated a line which was thoroughly opportunist and reformist. It was under the influence of these elements of disruption and opportunism that the President had rejected our advice for issuing a statement. This had objectively helped the disrupters in the camp of the Right. Disrupters in the camps of the Right and the Left had frustrated our efforts to restore unity. The President himself had failed to check them, had failed to act as the “live link between the two wings of the national movement” — a role which we expected him to play when we advocated his re-election — had failed to take the steps that alone could politicalise the session.

Could we, consistent with loyalty to the Congress and our advocacy of the policy of unity maintain the same attitude towards the Pant resolution as before ? Would not our opposition to the resolution mean our support to the Left disrupters ?

In view of these considerations, the Executive Leadership of the Communists decided in favour of neutrality. That was half an hour before the session.

The decision was changed not because of the threat of rank and file revolt but by the political leadership of the Communists before the session actually commenced. Today, all of us, including those who were in favour of neutrality recognise that the decision to oppose the resolution was right and neutrality would have been wrong. …

The slogan of ultimatum

For 2 months before the session we had been trying to popularise the slogan of ultimatum. An ultimatum however can be delivered only by a united Congress. A resolution embodying the slogan of ultimatum is not just an ordinary resolution whose being carried or not carried is a matter of little importance. Such a resolution, if defeated by a big majority would make it appear to both imperialism and the people that only an insignificant minority in the Congress, wants struggle in the immediate future — an entirely wrong impression in view of the result of the Presidential election and other developments. If the entire Congress or at least the entire Left and a big section of the centre favoured the ultimatum, then and then only could it be embodied in the major political resolution of the session — a resolution which we wanted to be the basis of national unity.

What we found at Tripuri was that we had failed to popularise the ultimatum slogan extensively, that not even the entire Left could be united on its basis. The slogan of ultimatum in such a case, if insisted upon, would have become a slogan of disruption and not unity.

We therefore argued to delete the ultimatum clause from our resolution and prepared a draft resolution (along with the CSP) which embodied all the points of our resolution except the ultimatum clause, The Left nationalists too agreed to support the resolution. We wanted this draft to be accepted by the President and given priority over oilier resolutions. That could have been done because there were no “Official” resolutions in this session. …

The national demand resolution

But once again we failed. Because of the serious illness of the President, it was not possible for us to discuss with him the resolution and stress the need for his giving it the priority. His Left nationalist supporters while they agreed to support the resolution did not realise the need either.

What came before the Subjects Committee was the National Demand resolution of Jawaharlal It contained all the points in our preamble but embodied no Plan of Action, nor did it emphasise that the policy of drift must be ended and all-round offensive launched.

Our amendment

The proper thing for Socialists and Communists to do was to moves amendments to the resolution remedying these defects.

The following amendment was moved for being added at the end of the resolution :

“As an essential part of this preparation the Congress further emphasises the need for eliminating the disruptive forces that are at work in the country such as communal conflicts, for encouraging closer contact with the movements and organisations of peasants and workers, for laying more stress on social legislation and civil liberties and in its parliamentary activities, for co-ordinating and developing the struggles of the States people as an integral part of the national movement under Congress guidance and for the organisation of a national Volunteer Corps.

“The Congress is conflict that if the policy and Plan of Action set out above is carried, by the time it meets again, a fit situation will have been created for launching a nationwide struggle a against imperialist domination and for enforcement of the demand for national independence.”

Jawaharlal accepted part of the amendment and incorporated it in the resolution. After this Comrade Mehar Ally who had moved the amendment (agreed to by the Socialists and Communists) withdrew it even without consulting our comrades of the AICC.

Our mistake

It has here that we made the first major mistake. While it is true that the session was practically at an and, the delegates were fagged out and there was no possibility of the full amendment being accepted in such an atmosphere it was nevertheless our duty to have insisted on the amendment and moved it in the Open Session. That would not have changed the resolution, but at least we would have been able to clarify our position, use the Congress platform to popularise the Plan of Action and explain as to why we agreed to drop the ultimatum clause.

This failure was serious: ordinarily one would have considered it, and rightly too, surrender. But in this particular case, it has not so. An atmosphere of unreality pervaded the Subjects Committee meeting on the last 2 days, Serious discussion was no longer possible. The Pant resolution was still to come before the open session. Would it be passe. If so would the President resign ? Such were the thoughts uppermost to every mind. It had become simply impossible to direct attention to other issues.

The basic cause of failure

Nontheless the result of the failure was not as serious as some comrades seem to think. There was no likelihood of the amendment being accepted. Our moving the amendment would oasy have enabled us to popularise our plan of action from the Congress platform. And that was done by Comrade Jaiprakash in his speech. Explaining the significance of the resolution, he pointed out what “preparation for nation-wide offensive means.” He stressed the need for rapid implementing of the Election programme, for establishment of complete unity between Congress and workers and peasants organisations, for placing the Congress organisations of a fighting basis. To a great extent therefore the mistake was rectified.

What our critics forget is that at Tripuri we are faced with an extraordinary situation. We were fully alive to the dangers. Forces of disruption were at work. We sounded notes of warning. They were not heeded by all. The President was the one person who could have changed the whole character of the session, raised it above petty squables and made it one of the most glorious sessions of the Congress. Due to his serious illness, it was not possible to influence him. Once the initiative had passed into the hands of the Right, once they succeeded in side-tracking the issues, the rest logically followed. The Left was out-manoeuvred.

At no session of the Congress had the Left succeeded in achieving so much unity as at Tripuri. Yet, at Tripuri itself, fissures developed in the Left camp and after Tripuri the conflict within the Left camp has sharpened. One section of the Left blames another for the debate. And today the Left seems in a state of chaos and disintegration.

What explains this paradox

Lessons of tripuri

The Left had undoutedly secured a great deal of unity. But this unity was not adequate in view of the stupendous nature of the tasks facing the Left. In every other Congress session the Left played merely an oppositional role. Here, for the first time, an occasion had come when the Left had got its nominee elected to the position of President of the Congress. This very augmentation of strength demanded that the left had to play, more than ever before, the role of unifier. How this role should be played, what should be the basic slogans — on these matters there was no unanimity, in the camp of the Left. A Left Working Committee or United Working Committee, alternative leadership or united leadership, alternative ideology and programme or only a forward move — on these issues, which had become of burning importance after the Presidential Election, the Left could not achieve internal unity. Far greater political and tactical unity in Left camp was needed than what existed, in order to tackle the new problems that faced us. This unity was not achieved. Hence two different approaches were manifest even when the various sections of the Left formally “united” on the basis of some amendments and slogans.

Our task today is to repair the damage to restore unity in the Left camp. Without Left unity national unity cannot be built. But what would be the slogans of the Left ?

What would be the political basis of Left Unity ?

It is on this point that utmost confusion prevails.

Let it be clearly understood that the slogans of the Left today must be such as can be made the slogans of the entire Congress, as can be the basis of unity of the Congress as a whole, as can give expression to the urge of the millions of Congressmen who want struggle but also have confidence in the existing leadership. In the measure the Left gives expression to this urge, in the measure it combines the slogan of struggle with that of unity, in that measure it will win the confidence of the masses of Congressmen and be able to play a more and more decisive role in shaping Congress policy. In the measure the Left fads to take note of this urge and either surrenders to the Righ or advocates slogans which create disunity — in that measure it will isolate and weaken itself.

That is the lesson of Tripuri.

[Bold and italics as in the original – Ed]

Source: National Front, 16 April, 1939

16

Where Does Unity of the Left Stand ?

By PC Joshi

Political basis of Left Unity

There was light or loose talk about split in the Congress. We understood the need for the unity of the Left to struggle for maintaining the unity of the Congress itself. Today, Congress alone can be the organ of people’s struggle against Imperialism. To split the Congress is like butchering ourselves and giving up the struggle against Imperialism. …

Today the majority of Congressmen want a policy of struggle but they also have faith in the existing leadership. To advance the slogan of iterative leadership in such a position is only to help the hold of the Right Wing over their own following and isolate the majority of Congressmen from the Left, i.e., the fighters for the policy of unity and struggle. To initiate an anti-Right struggle, therefore, does not check the Right but strengthens it.

A national leadership reflects the correlation of forces within the national front. When it does not, it becomes a drag and a disruptive force. What the situation demands today is a united leadership and not an exclusive homogeneous leadership as we have at present nor an alternative leadership as some Leftists desire. A homogeneous leadership is acting as a brake and proving disruptive. An alternative leadership could only be established through disruption or remain an empty slogan. A truly representative national leadership today could only be a united leadership. This is what the Left has to fight for. An alternative leadership of the national movement and the overthrow of the old leadership only emerges when the masses, during the course of a nation-wide struggle, through their own experience, get convinced of the necessity of the change by seeing the old leadership sabotaging or opposing the struggle. Before the struggle, to advance the slogan of a new leadership is not to draw the masses towards struggle but keep them away from it.

These are the questions that politically divide the Left and there can be no organisational unity unless the political basis of Left unity is clearly defined and understood alike by all Leftists. …

Organisational form of Left Unity

As regards the organisational form of Left unity, it could only be a Bloc and not a party. What is the differences between a bloc and a party ? A bloc is a union of parties and groups while the basis of a party is individual membership. A bloc works on the basis of agreement while a party functions through majority voting. The Forward Bloc is attracting to itself Left Nationalists, and the only form in which they could unite with the Socialists and Communists was inside a Bloc and not as individuals inside a Party. If the Forward Bloc was sought to be organised as a Party they should not expect the Socialists and Communists to join it and thus in practice liquidate their own Party …. There were points or unity and yet fundamental differences between the Left Nationalists, Socialists and Communists and they could, therefore, be only united on the basis of a Bloc and not a party.

CSP comes in

So far an important section of the CSP leadership was bitterly opposed to the Forward Bloc. The CSP now agreed to a Left Conference to discuss the platform of Left consolidation and to the setting up of a Left coordinating committee. The CSP through a joint statement of Com. Jaiprakash and myself has taken a big step towards Left unity. We communists, approached the Forward Bloc leadership to discuss the joint Socialist offer but it has unfortunately not accepted it. …

Meaning of joint socialist offer

We argued in vain that the proposal was much more than merely informal contact between Left Parties. For the first time we will have a joint Left fraction in the AICC headed by the joint coordinating committee which will also plan and lead the mass campaigns in the country and thus act in practice as the united Executive of the Left. This was a tremendous advance on the present position and held out the prospects of much closer unity in the near future. …

Disunity continues

The Forward Bloc leadership will either have complete unity within the Forward Bloc but no immediate steps towards unity and not even a Left coordination committee. No Party can have unity on its own terms and to demand this is to perpetuate disunity. Left disunity today would only intensify the Right offensive. This together with its consequent “Left” reaction will only please British Imperialism. …

What next?

We Communists, would even now seek unity of the whole Left and keep contact both with the Forward Bloc and the CSP. We hope there will not be mutual sniping and no efforts will be made to force unity, on one’s own terms and therby disrupt instead of unifying the Left. We would be willing to cooperate with the Forward Bloc in every localityy and province for joint work. In view of Left disunity it becomes doubly imperative that Socialist-Communist unity be speeded up so that the united Socialists may more effectively forge Left unity to prepare our people for the coming battle through the National Congress. …

Source: National Front, 11 June 1939

17

Tasks Before the Left-wing

Activise the Base

By SG Sardesai, Member AICC

A new attitude towards gandhian leadership

In the first place it must not be supposed that the new Marxian approach towards the Gandhian leadership is based on a revision of the Marxian evaluation of Gandhism per se. It is based on a re-evaluation of the role of the Gandhian leadership in the entirely transformed national and international background of the period through which we are at present passing. What are the broad features of this period? First, the terrible intensification of social and political reaction all over the world and the persistent menace of fascist (aggression) war, in which background even compromising and reformist social philosophies and tendencies again a transitional progressive rol6. Secondly, the very rapid growth in the class and nationalist consciousness and organisation of the masses, particularly the working class, peasantry, urban petty-bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, which reduce the danger of successful reformist surrender from the top almost to a minimum and enable these new forces to wield even reformist slogans and bend reformist activities to aggressive anti-imperialist ends. Thirdly, the new role which under the foregoing conditions devolves on the forces of radical nationalism, viz., the active unifier of all the forces struggling not only for full independence but even for partial democratic demands.

The Leftists from being propagandists have, in this period, become responsible organisers and leaders of the struggle, gathering round themselves the very tiniest force that can at all contribute to the achievement of national independence.

It is obvious that in such conditions the Leftists not only do not need to but must not continue their old attitude towards Gandhism and Gandhian leadership. They have exposed the shortcomings of Gandhism sufficiently in the past. With the new strength at their command the time and the opportunity have come for them to weld even Gandhism with the new nationalism that is exuberantly spreading out at this very hour in every hut and chawl, every field and factory, every shop and school rom in India.

Gandhism in 1920

This necessitates a very close study of and emphasis on every positive side of Gandhism particularly during its militant anti-imperialist phase between 1919 and 1920. How many for instance, are aware that the columns of “Young India” during this period teem with statements from Gandhiji’s pen that he would anyway welcome India becoming free through violence than continue to be a slave because of non-violence if the latter has to become a fetter on the progress towards independence ? How many know of his passionate advocacy for proportional representation being incorporated in the Congress Constitution in 1920 ? How many know of his endless emphasis on the necessity of the intelligentsia identifying itself with the masses as a necessary condition for the achievement of Indian Independence and of the role of the Charka as a powerful instrument of this process ? …

… This is the Gandhism that we have to resurrect, burnish and replenish. It will at once win all to the anti-imperialist struggle, the “true” Gandhites for whom Gandhism is still an anti-imperialist inspiration and guide to action, and isolate those who would fain use it as an instrument for damning, disrupting and calling off the surging tide of mass discontent to-day.

Gandhism in 1939

So much about the basic approach. But even this will, not suffice, the reason being that the Gandhism of 1939 is not the Gandhism of 1920, and the effort to-day is, both in view of the critical political situation and Gandhiji’s unique role as the greatest unifier of nationalist ranks, to get along even with the Gandhism of the day so long as it is at all possible to do so without detriment to the needs of the national movements. But this is by no means a very easy process, for the Gandhian leadership itself is not (to put it mildly) very eager to co-operate with the new tendencies in the Congress and is steeped in every kind of prejudice against it.

How to Achieve Joint Struggle

What is to be done ? The only course is to acttvise the base of the Congress and through it and other mass organisations like Kisan Sabhas and Trade Unions, the people at large, to such a pitch, that the leadership will not think of rejecting the hand of cooperation held out by the Left excepting at peril to its own position in the national movement. This means first and foremost the intensification and integration of every mass struggle for partial demands, a point on which the Gaya Session of the Kisan Congress laid the most correct and opportune emphasis. It means making the go ahead decisions of Tripuri a live and burning reality for the masses.

Source: National Front, 30 April, 1939.

18

Editorial

National Situation And Our Tasks

RD Bharadwaj

British Imperialism faced with an economic crisis which portends to be greater than the last one which began in 1929 and also forced with increasing threats to its Empire from the rival fascist imperialist powers, finds itself faced with immense difficulties. The policy of imperialism, therefore, continues to be one of attempting to weaken and disrupt the forces of national struggle and not launch an offensive so as to drive them all into a struggle against it. …

Imperialism and national bourgeoisie

But being faced with economic crisis, imperialism would not give any substantial concessions to the Indian bourgeoisie in order to placate it. The show of political concessions is superficial. On the contrary the concessions already given are being withdrawn, e.g., reduction of protective tariffs on sugar, textiles, paper, inroads on the rights of Indian businessmen abroad and etc. The registration of foreign capital in India is increasing. Foreign capital is actually pouring in prospective war industries, (iron steel, heavy chemicals, etc.). The scope for extension of Indian capital is being restricted. … Faced with falling prices, the coming economic crisis and the impossibility of getting any substantial concessions from imperialism, the bourgeoisie is increasingly being forced to rely upon the support of the masses for defending its interests and for getting its demands satisfied. The bourgeoisie cannot afford to isolate from the masses, without whose support it has no weapon of defence or offence against imperialism and of safe-guarding its own interests. … This is the basis of the united national front embracing all sections of the people whose interests are opposed to the policy of imperialism including even the nationalist bourgeoisie.

Retarding the growth of struggle

But the characteristic vacillating role of confining the mass forces within the framework of compromising-politics on the part of the bourgeoisie and its representative, the Right wing leadership, has not disappeared. Only it has to be played on a higher plane. Under pressure of the masses, it was forced to accept the programme of the Congress Election Manifesto and the Faizpur resolutions. Under the pressure of extra-parliamentary struggles, it has been compelled to implement part of that programme after the acceptance of the Ministries, to participate in the States People’s movement, to declare itself in favour of preparations for a nation-wide struggle for the National Demand. But the compromising tendency of the Right has been able to prevent the full implementing of this revolutionary programme and in practice to impose a policy of drift upon the Congress. …

First period of ministerial work

In the period immediately following the acceptance of offices, the Ministries under the pressure of the masses were forced to make a beginning in implementing the demands of the people. Extension of Civil Liberties and the existence for the first time of Ministries responsive to the masses unleashed the forces of struggle. A wave of extensive strikes and peasant actions began throughout the country, and the Ministries were forced to remove the immediate grievances of the people, like release of political prisoners, restoration of wage-cuts, suspension of suits for debts and rent, etc. These measures of the Ministries (which satisfied only the immediate pressing demands, but did not tackle their causes basically) created great self-confidence amongst the masses, resulted in the vast strata of the backward masses being drawn into struggle and political activity, sharpened their consciousness and drew them in ever larger numbers in the national and their class organisations. This was not confined to the provinces only,, but to the States People as well, …

Wide-spread radicalisation

The Congress has gained the greatest accession of strength, becoming a network of organised units throughout the country commanding the loyalty of the whole nation. The campaigns for the extension of civil liberties and the release of political prisoners, the extensive struggles of the masses for their partial demands often drawing in the Congressmen, the States peoples’ movement and the popularisation of the programme of struggle by the left, have resulted in widespread radicalisation of the Congress ranks. It has found expression hi the Congress committees being unofficially drawn into struggles, and in their putting pressure on the Congress Ministries in the interests of the masses, Its highest indication was the election of Subhas Bose as President in opposition to the wishes of the dominant leadership …

Compromising tendencies at work

Despite the restrictive efforts of the Right, the result of the working of the Congress Ministries, has been a tremendous development of the forces of struggle both in extension and strength embracing far wider sections than ever before. The base of the rightist compromising leadership has thus been narrowed. Even within the national leadership the compromising elements have lost in strength. This diminishing core of extreme Right, together with the Ministries, still thinks in terms of merely putting pressure upon imperialism. After the first stage of the ministerial period, the pace of ministerial action in favour of mass demands slackened, because of the fact that the mass organisations due to their organisational and political weakness, could not keep up constant pressure upon the Ministries. … On the other hand the reactionary opposition outside the Congress had widely organised itself, and the reformist elements inside the Congress began their out-cry in favour of the national bourgeois interest (e.g., social legislation was [dis ?] approved as being unbearable burden on industry and so on). Under these circumstances began the second period of ministerial working, when … no positive comprehensive scheme of ameliorating the condition of the people is being taken up, not even the old repressive laws on the Statute Book are being repealed. Bourgeoisie which has gained some concessions as a result of the acceptance of offices (Government controlled insurance, Government contracts and such aid to industries) because of the lack of sufficient pressure from the masses was able to exercise its full influence upon the Congress Right and the Ministries. … the ministerial work got a twist in the direction of settling down to explore avenues of profitable investment for the Bourgeoisie and long-scale planning for providing opportunities to them, neglecting in the meanwhile even the most urgent grievances of the people which have been pressing hard upon them. In the efforts to restrain the masses ministries even came forward with avowedly reactionary measures (increasing use of Sec. 144, arrests of Kisan and labour workers etc.) and even initiated anti-mass and anti-struggle legislative proposals (Trade Disputes Act, Congress Zamindari Agreement in Bihar). … Relying upon the support of a section of the Congress and camouflaging another on the basis of danger of violence, the Right has also proposed purging of the Congress in an attempt to isolate the Left and to prevent further shifting of the Congress ranks towards radicalism. …

The main conflict between the compromising and the revolutionary trends continues, but on quite a different plane. …

Right wing needs mass support

However, the Right wing cannot afford to lose its mass support. … It is making frantic efforts to hoodwink the masses into supporting it, raising all sorts of irrelevant and false issues like the danger of violence, unpreparedness of the masses, to bamboozle the ranks into allowing it to have the deal. Tripuri made it clear that the Right does not hope to get a majority in its favour on a straight question of policy. It has to manoeuvre a majority on the basis of personal loyalties. In the measure we mobilise the masses for struggle, and they begin to insist upon consistent fight against imperialism, it is made impossible for the masses to be hoodwinked by irrelevant issues, we will succeed in pressing upon the right to give up its capitulatory policy, and forcing it to be a part of the fighting anti-imperialist front. … This is the immediate perspective which determines our task and role at the present moment. …

Struggle on two fronts

Politically the supreme task is that of pushing the Congress to the path of struggle while maintaining its unity … 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, comes from the disruptive, provocative tactics of the ultra-Left sectarians. Basing themselves on an exaggerated notion of the radicalisation of the national ranks, and underestimating the progressive capacity of the Right, they are likely to turn to provocative tactics of fighting to overthrow the Right. … Today to make the Right as the target of attack instead of Imperialism, to concentrate the fire on the Right instead of concentrating on winning over the middle elements to the point of view of struggle, is to help the compromising tendency of the Right, without counter-acting it. … It is the line of complete disruption, the line of giving up the fight for realising the revolutionary possibilities of the specific situation today, when the entire national forces including the national reformist bourgeoisie can be won over to struggle against imperialism.

“Alternative leadership” theory

In this connection we must deal with the theory of “alternative leadership”, the theory of fighting for a “consciously revolutionary leadership as a precondition of the revolutionary struggle” on the part of the Congress. Its immediate implications are to make the ideological struggle against the Right as the specific task of the present period. Revolutionary leadership can develop in the course of a fight for revolutionary struggle, … To speak of a consciously revolutionary leadership coming into existence as a precondition of such struggle, springing as it were from nowhere and being installed into leadership by a magic wand, can only be the dream of romanticist babblers and talkers and not of serious revolutionaries. … It is helping the Right in confusing these centrist elements to think as if the Left were fighting to disrupt the united front and not for winning over the Congress to struggle. In its immediate day-to-day practice the theory therefore is disruptive and inverted Rightism preventing the mobilisation of the Congress by the Left. It is giving up the tactics of united National Front and is giving up the task of forcing the national Bourgeoisie to be part of the united nation in opposition to imperialism. …

Similarly it is necessary to guard against opportunist deviation in our own ranks. The need to fight for unity in the Congress does not imply submitting to the opportunism of the Right. …

Tasks regarding class organisations

The result of the past development of the class organisations is (1) extensive mobilisation of the masses drawing in the strata of the backward masses, (2) a sense of self confidence amongst them, and their growing awakening and interest in political questions, (3) development of the organisational strength of these organisations, which lags far behind the objective possibilities and (4) the mobilisation in the past has generally been for class sectional demands and not for general political demands.
From these arise our tasks in the immediate future. … The cause of the present lag consists in our still being in the agitational stage, where on or two individuals continue to be the centre of organisations, and they are so over-worked as to be unable to take in hand the task of consolidation. … Only training up fresh cadres from the masses in the essential pdlitical and organisational tasks will remove the lag. In this connection the work of preparing a course of study for these cadres must be taken in hand which will deal with the immediate political problems, the agitational and organisational tasks …

Not merely such positive schemes must be formulated for the class sectional demands of the masses, but the Left and the class organisations must take the initiative in formulating the general political demands, like the repeal of repressive legislation, limitation of Sec. 144, demoralisation of local self-government institutions, curtailing the powers of the police, and even demanding the change of the lower administrative organs from the present bureaucratic one to a democratic one (e.g., land records to be maintained by an elected Panchayat, the District Magistrate to be under the control of an elected Peoples Committee etc.)

It is the working for such positive demands, a progressive realisation of which will completely exhaust the possibilities of the Congress Ministries at which stage an attack upon the Slave Constitution becomes inevitable.

Work up the Congress

However, the most urgent task in this connection is the necessity of swinging over the masses in the independent organisations into working the Congress. The development upto the present has been very deficient in this respect The isolation of the masses in the independent organisations, has resulted in the lack of political effectiveness of these organisations on the one hand, and the slow rate of the radicalisation of the Congress, on the other. …

In this connection, we must settle accounts with the theory often put forth that we must first develop class organisations, after which only the time would come for working up the Congress. The objective result of the stand is economism, for it means that for the present the workers and the peasants should confine themselves to their sectional demands only and must not participate in political work, the most important part of which consists in carrying out the Congress programme through the Congress. On the other hand, it leaves the Congress safe in the hands of the Right. …

Hegemony of the proletariat

This theory is supposed to be a stand in favour of emphasising the independent role of the working class and peasantry. It however turns out to be quite the reverse. The fight for the hegemony of the proletariat consists in its coming out as the builder of the united front, in its being able to take the initiative in mobilising the entire democratic masses behind it. … The needs of the situation demand that the working class and peasant organisations must constantly come forward to initiate new campaigns, new programmes, fresh schemes to organise the Congress in the new direction, as democratic units heading and developing the struggles of the people. Thus we will give a new form of organisations to the Congress, give it our technique of mobilising and fighting for mass demands, and establish proletarian hegemony in practice, not merely in words as those who would insist upon its being established as a precondition of revolutionary struggles.

We should take initiative in forming, on behalf of the Congress, trained Volunteer Corps — Volunteers who will not merely be trained to maintain discipline, but who will be effective propagandists of the Congress, who will become the most effective cadres in agitating and organising struggles on the basis of the Congress programme. Thus creating that effective corps which will be able to hurl the entire nation against Imperialism.

Political general strike

In this connection we must deal with the political general strike and country-wide non-payment of taxes, the specific weapons of the working class and the peasantry in the national struggle. … The preparations have to be done both amongst the working class and peasantry for these actions, as also to get the support of the other sections of the people to these actions. It is only when the entire nation has come to accept these weapons as a necessary part of struggle, that the working class and peasantry will really respond to the call of the nation, and will in turn receive the support from the entire nation. …

The tasks above outlined regarding the national movement will decisively win over the Congress masses to struggle, thus finally putting a stop to the compromising tendencies of the Right. … We are on the eve of great struggles. We can play a decisive role in them. With the determination of serious revolutionaries, let us engage ourselves in these tasks so as to leave nothing to chance and success will be ours.

Source: The New Age, May 1939.

19

The Crisis Deepens

The forward bloc

The Bloc stands for struggle, for uncompromising opposition to the Federation and war, for close relationship of the Congress with workers’ and peasants’ organisations, for direct leadership of the Congress in states People’s movements, for the creation of a national volunteer corps, for rapid implementing of the Congress programme by the Ministries. Its programme therefore is identical with the immediate programme of Communists and Socialists.

The danger

Nevertheless the heterogeneous composition of the Bloc, the existence of a number of persons in it who can by no stretch of imagination be called Left but who are only disgruntled Right-wingers, the absence of ideological homogeneity are factors which render it not unlikely that the Bloc may tend to become only factional consolidation against the present leadership, utilising every deviation, every mistake, every anti-struggle and anti-unity act of the present leadership in order to discredit it That mil deepen the internal crisis, weaken the Congress and the unity that it bias achieved.

This is not an unfounded apprehension. A recent speech of Bose himscli in which he said that “split may be necessary” shows the extent of the danger which the Congress and the national movement are faced with as a result of the recent developments The Forward Bloc is essentially a left nationalist body and as such a healthy development. But not to realise, that the desperation and sense of frustration produced in the Left camp by Right obduracy may How into disruptive channels, would be blinding ourselves.

Unite the Left

Our national movement has reached an extremely critical stage. Never was the need for unity greater and never too the anger of disruption greater. That unity can be achieved, that danger adverted only if the entire Left unite and use its strength — which is far greater today than ever before — not to wage factional struggle against the Right or to advocate a suicidal split, but to defeat the policy of drift and disruption, to mobilise support of the Congress organisations and masses for the partial struggles of workers and peasants in defence of their economic and political rights, to organise vigorous agitation in the Congress organisations particularly among the primary members for support to the States People’s and against suspension of their movement, to create mass opinion in favour of the anti-war policy of the Congress so that that policy may be actually carried out when the crisis comes, to mobilise widest support for purification of the Congress without weakening its mass basis — in brief to fight for the policy of unity and struggle concretely and positively and on a political plane by developing mass political consciousness, by making the issues of the day live to millions of Congressmen.

And for achieving this unity the Socialists, Communists and the Forward Bloc and other radicals must immediately meet and chalk out a common plan of action by mutual agreement. In order that this unity may be really effective the major political and organisational slogans and the approach to the burning problems of the day must be common. Maintenance of the unity of the Congress and its strengthening as the organ of the united people’s movement must be the basic task of the United Left. And 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 the other, that all agreements are voluntary and strictly adhered to, that the Parties to Left unity may maintain their independence and integrity. …

Source: The New Age, June 1939.