TEXT-VIII : Inner Party Debates and Polemics with Other Left Forces

1

WORKERS OF THK WORLD UNITE !

GANASHAKTI

English Edition

Price : One Pice

(Publish from GANASIHAKTI PUBLISHING HOUSE, Calcutta.)

Vol. I. No 1. SUNDAY, 30th SEPTEMBER, 1934.

“CONGRESS SOCIALISM”—A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

A Crituque of the Programme of the “Congress Socialist Parties”

(By R. Palmue Dutt)

The appearance of a “Congress Socialist Group” in Bombay has given rise to widespread discussion in the ranks of the Indian National Movement. The programme of this group was issued in February, 1934, under the signatures of Krishna Menon, M Shetty, MR Masani and others. It was issued with an approving letter from Jawaharlal Nehru, who stated that he “would welcome the formation of Socialist groups in the Congress to influence the ideology of the Congress.” …

What is the situation in which this programme appears ?

In May, 1934, took place the Patna Capitulation of the National Congress to the British Government. The Civil Disobedience campaign, which had been inaugurated with a flourish of trumpets in 1930, as the opening of the fight for absolute independence, was unconditionally called off. Councilentry was decided.

In June, 1934, the British Government raised the ban upon the National Congress and set the stamp of its approval upon it as a legal organisation.
In July, 1934, the British Government proclaimed the Communist Party of India an illegal organisation.

Here we have a chain of events, the significance of whose connection should be plain to the dullest. On the one hand, the British Government proclaims that the National Congress is no longer to be regarded as a dangerous enemy outside the law, but rather as a potential friend and ally. On the other hand, the British Government proclaims that its most dangerous enemy, against which its main fire is to be directed, is the young Communist Party of India.

This action of the British Government, which is a cunning and realist ruler and knows what it is doing, reflects and lays bare to all the shifting of forces which has taken place in the camp of the fight for emancipation in India. The national bourgeoisie, which led the Congress campaign, alarmed at the overwhelming forces of the mass movement and menace to its own interests revealed by even this incomplete and largely strangled fight, calls off the whole campaign and moves to closer co-operation with the British Government. The masses, betrayed by the Congress leadership, seek for new leadership for their struggle. This leadership can only be forthcoming from the organised working class, the sole force which fight imperialism and all exploitation to a finish. The party of the working class, the Communist Party, is revealed ever more clearly as the rising leader of the mass struggle in India. Increasing numbers of the previous supporters of the Congress begin to turn with greater and greater attraction to the revolutionary theory and programme of Communism as the only way.

It is at this point that the newly formed “Congress Socialist Group” is brought to the front, under the direct sponsorship of the official Congress leadership responsible for the capitulation, represented by Jawaharlal Nehru, and even with the blessing of Gandhi. Is it not obvious that we have here, not a genuine new political programme and leadership, but a manoeuvre of the bankrupt Congress leadership to conceal its bankruptcy and adapt its force under a new “socialist” coat of paint (the Nazis also call themselves “socialist”) to the new currents among the masses?

This may seem a harsh judgment to sincere elements among the new grouping who are drawn by the illusory hope of giving a “socialist direction” to the Congress and believe that here lies the path of advance. But it is essential that these sincere elements — like the sincere elements who were drawn by the “socialist” promises of the Nazis — should rid themselves of their illusions and realise that, on the basis of this “socialist” programme, under the auspices of the Congress, they are only being politically exploited for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

The character of the programme abundantly confirms this analysis.

What is Socialism ? Socialism, by the consensus of the Socialist movement for decades in all countries, as well as by the teachings of Marxism, which is the theory of Socialism, is the movement for emancipation of the working class, leading all exploited strata against the rule of the bourgeoisie, for the overthrow of bourgeois rule and for the establishment of the rule of the working class to build up the new society of collective production.

The heart of Socialism is the class struggle, the organisation of an independent political party of the working class separate from all other parties, the fight for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie (both the imperialist bourgeoisie and the Indian bourgeoisie), and for the dictatorship of the proletariat (in India, in alliance with the poor peasants).

Of all this, the A B C of Socialism, there is no word in this precious “socialist” programme. There is no word of the class struggle. There is no word of the dictatorship of the proletariat There is no suggestion even of the necessity of an independent political party of the working class.

These are no accidental “omissions”. They are inherent in the whole character of the programme. The programme elaborately sets out its proposals for trade unions for the workers, for kisan sanghs for the peasants, for organisations for the small traders, artisans, tenants. But it makes no mention of the necessity for a political party of the working class.

Why?

Because the real essence of the programme is the subordination of the working class and peasantry to the political leadership of the bourgeoisie, represented by the National Congress.

This is made abundantly clear, both by the programme statement and still more by the accompanying letter of Jawaharlal Nehru. The warning is constantly emphasised that the “socialist ideology”, the economic organisation of the workers and peasants, must be kept within the limits of the political leadership of the National Congress — “must be related to the Congress struggle”, in the words of Nehru, …

But since the Congress is the party of the Indian bourgeoisie, this means that the proposed “socialist” programme and organisation is to be subordinated to the political leadership of the bourgeoisie. The result is a complete contradiction from any Socialist point of view.

How is this glaring contradiction attempted to be covered? “Socialism” is presented as an “economic programme” to be tacked on to the “political” programme and leadership of the Congress. The weakness of the Congress, declares Nehru in his letter, is that it has confined itself to “pure politics” :

“We in India cannot afford to remain in the backwater of pure politics. … World events as well as the natural consequences of our mass struggles have forced the Congress to think, to some extent at least, in terms of economics.”

Such an “economic” programme, he declares, is provided by Socialism, which can be “tacked on” to the Congress struggle, provided any action is “co-ordinated” to the action of the Congress.

Gandhi, in a statement on the relationship of Socialism and the Congress, is even more explicit :

“Mahatma Gandhi, in reply to a question regarding the attitude which Congressmen should take towards their Socialist friends, advised that they should offer complete co-operation to the Socialists in agitating for workers’ and peasants’ demands in the day-to-day struggle, but he asked the Congress workers to oppose the Socialists vigorously whenever their preaching went against the fundamental principles of the Congress creed and programme.”

Two Opposing Political Lines

Here, in the complementary statements of Nehru and Gandhi, we have a complete system. A familiar division of labour is proclaimed between the bourgeois leadership of the Congress and their “socialist” supporters. The task of the “socialists” is to preach an “economic” programme, to preach an “ideology” more suited to the moods of the masses, and to organise the workers and peasants on the basis of “day-to-day” demands. But politics and political leadership must be left to the bourgeoisie. This is in fact a gross and caricatured version of the line of “Economism” long ago criticised by Lenin (the theory that in the period up to the bourgeois democratic revolution the tasks of Socialist and working class organisation lie in the economic sphere, while the political leadership of the fight against autocracy must rest with the bourgeoisie). Here is nothing of the line of Socialism. But it is the familiar line of class-co-operation, of bourgeois politics in the working class.

The line of Socialism in India can only be the exact opposite. … the task of the Socialists in India, not only for the victory of the fight for social liberation, but equally for the victory of the fight for national liberation, must necessarily be to strive to establish the hegemony of the working class in the mass struggle in opposition to the leadership of the national bourgeoisie, represented by the Congress.

But the hegemony of the working class in the mass struggle requires as its first condition the independent political organisation of the working class. This is the first task confronting all serious Socialists in India. Whoever renounces this task has nothing in common with Socialism. Only on the basis of the independent political organisation of working class can the revolutionary national bloc of struggle be built up. Even when the national bourgeoisie temporarily enters into the common struggle, such temporary co-operation with the bourgeoisie for the purposes of the struggle can only be conditional on the complete political and organisational independence of the working class. This was shown in the experience of the Kuomintang in China. …

The programme of the “Congress Socialist Group” of Bombay can therefore only be regarded as a false lead, calculated to confuse and distort the mass struggle and draw back the rising revolutionary Socialist and Communist currents in the national movement once more into the fold of the counter-revolutionary bourgeois leadership of the Congress. The urgent task of Socialism in India to-day is to build up the independent political party of the working class, in despite of the British Government, and in despite of the opposition of the bourgeois leadership of the National Congress.

In the editorial of the Aswin issue of the Bengali “Ganashakti” entitled “Congress Socialist Party,” it has been correctly analysed the treacherous role of the congress socialist party and how it pledges itself to betray the working class, peasantry and revolutionary youths of the town and the countryside, masquerading as the leader of the national struggle. It has been proved from the passed struggles that the working class is the only revolutionary class which can exercise its hegemony over all other petty bourgeois classes in the fight against the bourgeoisie, under the leadership of the proletarian party. But the congress socialist party denies this leadership. An article entitled “Why Within the Congress?” published in the “Congress Socialist” dated 29th Sept. 1934 from Calcutta, clearly manifests the traitorous role which the congress socialist party is going to play. It Says, “Owing to social backwardness of India, the National struggle must develop under the leadership of the petite bourgeois party. The proletariat is numerically insignificant and politically not sufficiently mature to assume the leadership of the National struggle from the very beginning.” This is nothing but a downright deception on the part of the petty bourgeois congress socialist party which once again pushes the working class to the tail-end of the bourgeoisie. The duty of all the anti-imperialist elements within the congress and the congress socialist party, is at once to break away from these bodies and help in the creation of an anti-imperialist bloc of national struggle by launching upon an extensive agitation against “White Paper” Constitution etc. and at the same time to develop an active struggle for complete independence and smash the organisation of the Indian Bourgeoisie — the National Congress and such bodies, under the leadership of the proletarian party.

We appeal to all the socialist-minded youths to beware of this mousetrap of the congress socialists and to rally around the banner of the proletarian party.

Editor — Saroj Mukerji

Printed by Manoranjan Roy from the Kalika Printing Works, 30, Haritaki Bagan Lane, Calcutta and published by him from 41, Zakaria Street, Calcutta. (The last two paragraphs were not there in the original article published in the Indian Forum. We have reproduced from the Ganashakti text after checking it with the original for printer’s errors. – Ed.)

2

Congress Socialists and Revolutionary Youths

The history of the political upsurge in India since the beginning of 1930 is written in words of blood and fire. … [The next few pages discusses the role of the Congress “during these years of increasing political unrest”. — Ed.]

We have traced this painful history of the continuous betrayal of the anti-imperialist masses of India only in order to demonstrate that the INC is a class organisation of the Indian propertied classes … who are absolutely dependent on Imperialist bayonets for their very existence and as such it will never adopt a revolutionary programme of ACTION that inevitably strikes at the very roots of British Imperialism, the very roots of capitalism and landlordism, … To hold the tail of the Congress bourgeoisie and to allow yourself to’ be bullied by hardened kulaks like Vallab Bhai Patel, or to be dragged to inaction and surrender is to overlook fthe actual struggle that is already awaiting, developing and intensifying. By under-taking to be loyal to the Congress creed and constitution you also undertake to preach Gandhism or social-Gandhism (Socialism in words and Gandhism in deeds) of the type of Jawaharlal Nehru, so long as you remain a minority; and to attain a majority in the Congress on the basis of a revolutionary programme of ACTION is impossible, for the simple reason that the capitalist class has at no period in history accepted the programme of the working class in action. And in India even a temporary co-operation of the two classes on the basis of a revolutionary United Front against British Imperialism is historically out of question and impossible. Finally it is extremely more important that the revolutionary socialist programme should be adopted not by the bourgeois Congress on paper, but by the revolutionary masses in action, masses who have already rendered it in flesh and blood in their own spontaneous way.

Moreover every genuine socialist in India knows that India’s struggle for independence is historically destined to be carried through under leadership of the working class — the only class which has absolutely no stake in private property, and therefore the only class which will undauntedly carry forward the revolution to its logical and historical conclusion. Knowing this, to enter the Congress fold on the definite basis of an acceptance of its bourgeois creed and constitution, to form a CONSTITUTIONAL opposition, without any anti-imperialist programme of ACTION outside it is nothing but the open abjuration of working class leadership, is nothing but the voluntary surrender of working class leadership to the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, and finally is nothing short of an attempt to create an illusion in the minds of the anti-imperialist masses that, if they are to attain independence they have no hope except through the INC a class organisation of their enemies. Or to put the matter more bluntly we ask you a definite question; having entered the Congress and accepted its creed and constitution what are you going to do, if your socialist programme is not adopted either on paper or in action ? Are you going to split away from the Congress with a strong protest to carry on independent anti-imperialist ACTION or serve as constitutional volunteers to further the programme of inaction, surrender, and betrayal that has already been hatched by Gandhi, the bourgeois, and Vallab Bhai, the kulak?

But before you answer the question, let us proceed to an examination of the Congress programme that has already taken a definite shape. …

Socialism in words and counter-revolutionary Gndhism in deeds, revolutionary phrase-mongering in words and abject surrender to Ganhdism in deeds — that sums up our great ‘Socialist’ Mr. J Nehru.

Comrade Socialists, thus when the starving millions from prison walls and hospital beds, from the blood-stained plough and the bloodstained factory machine, with bleeding lathi and bullet wounds and hungry stomachs, are demanding a revolutionary programme of action the INC together with its left social Gandhites like J Nehru and S Bose have conspired to side-track and wreck all mass discontent against British Imperialism by means of election mongering for the Legislatures and election mongering for a Constituent Assembly, which even according to them is already doomed to failure! This slogan of a Constituent Assembly is a slogan of inaction and surrender; it is a slogan of disarming a whole nation seething with revolt in face of the blood-thirsty rifles and bayonets of the British Imperialism. … No wonder Gandhi and the bourgeois kick up a row in support of this slogan. No wonder if even a Sirdar Kulak like Vallab Bhai Patel gets into rapture over such a slogan. …

Our Call To The Socialists And Revolutionary Youths

Brother Socialists and Youths: What must be our programme in these circumstances ? Our programme should be clear from what we have said above. The Bourgeoisie and the liberal landlords of the Congress are desperately trying to lull, side-track and wreck the revolutionary energies of the masses and thus clearing the way for the ruthless dictatorship of imperialist finance capital — clearing the way for the White Paper which is another name for the consolidation of British Imperialism in India. Our task must be the direct opposite of this. We must unitedly stand to rouse the workers and peasants to a revolutionary pitch. We must unitedly stand to co-ordinate and intensify the sporadic no-tax, no-rent, no-debts struggles of the hungry peasantry and the valiant strike struggles of the revolutionary proletariat and spread them into a nationwide conflagration under the leadership of the most revolutionary class in India the working class. … To paralyse the imperialist predatory machine we have to hit where the actual process of blood-sucking goes on. Therefore our slogans for the moment are:

Forward not to an impotent Constituent Assembly but to an anti-imperialist conference of all the revolutionary elements to draft the immediate programme of ACTION on the basis of the United Front. Forward not to inaction and surrender, not to socialist phrasemongering, but to real revolutionary action. Forward not to raising bogey of the communal problem to side-track the revolutionary struggle but to the revolutionary struggle that will put end to the main organisers of the communal riots, British Imperialism and its rapid agents like Shaukat Ali and Munje.

And for such a struggle we are prepared to form a united front with you on the basis of the following programmatic demands. …

[What follows has been paraphrased in the next document, with the concluding call quoted in the first para. Repetition is avoided. — Ed.]

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF

The Communist Party of India

(Section of the Communist International).

3

An Appeal To The Indian Terrorist Youths

“Imperialism knows”, declares a terrorist, “that to continue to rule India, it must lose thirty of its officers annually.”

This significant sentence gives us a clear insight into the point of view of a terrorist. He does not identify imperialism with imperialist system, the sum-total of the imperialist class relations. To him, imperialism is just a collection of bureaucrats. …

He is indifferent to the rather complex class conception of society. A collection of discrete individuals is something he can grasp and understand. He can picture himself or his comrades facing an imperialist agent singly — it is something concrete. But the picture of the oppressed masses against the oppressing imperialism, class against class, is, for him, something too vague, too far removed from reality.

For this outlook, he finds himself on far surer grounds to conspire with individuals, all of whom are known to him individually, than to work among the “non-descript” masses. He does not understand them. Their “backwardness” makes him angry. And, when imperialism lets loose its Black Hundreds on them, he cries out in agony, “Yes, we need more of it … nothing but oppression will rouse our inert masses to action.”

It does not occur to him, that with these words he is only seeking to justify his own inertness, his own lack of initiative, his own incapacity to lead the mass movement.

To dismiss this fatalist notion of the terrorist we must point to the example of Russia, once the home of terrorism. …

The terrorists swear allegiance to the Indian revolution.

Human society has seen many revolutions. … Consequently, we have today a powerful revolutionary theory based on the generalised experience of past revolutions. To ignore this theory completely and engage in a revolutionary battle against a power which has studied counter-revolutionary strategy is as ridiculous as it is futile. It amounts to refusing to take up arms in a battle-field and encountering the enemy with empty hands !

And this is exactly what the Indian terrorist is doing ! He scorns all ‘theory’ and declares himself to be an ‘out and out man of action’. To a Marxist, who regards theory as an inseparable companion to practice, enriching it and enriched by it, this would seem very strange indeed! To the terrorist however, ‘theory’ implies, not a general experience, but purely academic thinking, divorced from or even opposed to practice. Such theory certainly deserves contempt and repudiation, but the thoroughgoing terrorist scorns not only this but also its exact opposite, namely, Marxism.

Nothing could be more desirable from the point of view of imperialism. While the terrorists concentrate all their energies in developing ‘practical’ plans for futile attacks on imperialist bureaucracy, the firm hold of imperialist ideology on our people through our intelligentsia remains unchallenged.

The Nationalist Movement of 1919 correctly understood this ideological grip of imperialism on our intellectuals. It characterised the Indian educational system as one of the main ‘pillars1 on which the imperialist structure rests. It repudiated the adversities and set up its own institutions, the national schools. This, however, was a purely nationalist negation of imperialist education. It merely consisted in inverting its pro-British bias into a pro-Indian bias, and not in contra-posing a revolutionary theoretical system to the existing reactionary system. The nationalists … did not aim at the complete destruction of the theoretical structure of the imperialist system.

The Communist movement, on the other hand, in theoretical as well as other spheres faces imperialism with the exact opposite of the imperialist system. While imperialist logic forces into every category of knowledge (specially history, politics and economics) the perspective of a unidirectional and gradual growth of the British empire and its permanence, Marxist dialectics by an irrefutable, objective treatment of phenomena points to its inevitable decay in the present epoch, to the law of unequal development of the world imperialism which illuminates the writing on the wall, the doom of British imperialism.

But the pessimistic terrorist measures the strength of British imperialism by the numerical strength of its land, naval and air forces and the bureaucracy. Instead of pointing to the might of the masses and the inherent weakness of the empire, etc., and in practice, weakens our own front. …

To the weaker front of imperialism, however, he pays no attention !

Where lies the weaker point ?

Sholapur answered in May 1930.

“Sholapur felt the effect of the general upheaval when on May 8, a general hartal prevailed, led by the mill workers who had declared a strike in protest against the action of the government in arresting the leaders, and against repressive actions taken all over India.

“Massed crowds of mill workers marched in demonstration through the city, to be fired at by the police; twenty-six workers were killed, and hundreds wounded. Several scuffles took place between the workers and the police, and it was stated that nearly all the police were injured, three being killed. The police were beaten back and the workers, indignant at what had happened, set fire to the Government buildings, every police station was burnt down and the sessions court was finally destroyed. The city was in the hands of the workers, for they organised volunteers to control the traffic, carrying out the customary duties, and established a sort of administration of their own”.

— India Under British Terror p 3.

Burma pointed out where the weaker point lies, when the hungry peasants rose in revolt against imperialist oppression, and with their primitive weapons, resisted a fully equipped modern army continually for over a year.

The Peshawar demonstration showed where it lies, when the unarmed masses successfully repelled an armed battalion, destroyed an armoured car and fraternised with the heroic Garhwalli Rifles.

The unconquerable frontier ‘rebels’ demonstrated where lies the weaker front. In Monghyr, Coomilla, Noakhali etc. today peasants in bands of thousands storm the police stations. His Majesty’s police force proved powerless. In every province, every district, the masses are seething with discontent. India is like a powder magazine. …

But where lies the weakness of the Indian revolution ?

It lies exactly in that which our terrorists have overlooked — in the absence of strong leadership to direct this mighty revolt. We know from history that no situation, however revolutionary, develops automatically into a revolution. No general upheaval, specially in the present epoch, succeeds unless accompanied by a theoretically equipped revolutionary leadership, “whose strength lies not only in its experience and its discipline … but also in its powerful connection with the working masses”. (Stalin)

The COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA now declared illegal by British Imperialism, lacks all these qualities. It is still in an embryonic stage. Its lack of experience is colossal. Its connections with the working masses are deplorably weak. …

And still we describe this Party as the party of the Indian Revolution. Is this perhaps irresponsible ‘adventurism’ ?

Not at all. Our party, along with its disadvantages, has certain unique advantages. That is the reason why the British Imperialism has declared the Communist Party of India, with all its committees and subcommittees, illegal; and not the bourgeois National Congress or other similar organisations.

In the first place, the situation is favourable for a rapid development of the party of the working class. The extraordinarily developed stage of the mass revolt is a proof to this.

Secondly, the anti-imperialist movement has grown to such proportions that it can no longer be limited to the old forms of struggles, such as Satyagraha. Organisationally, Congress is too weak to stand the imperialist offensive. Thus there is a break up all round. The only party that can provide the forms of struggle that not only do not hinder, but actually develop the struggle is the COMMUNIST PARTY.

Thirdly, the consistent programme of action[1] of the Communist Party of India and its uncompromising anti-imperialist character puts before the country in concrete terms what the masses sense vaguely. …

Fourthly, the Communist Party of India is a section of the COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, the congress of the best revolutionary leader of the world. It has the benefit of their wide experience, …

Fifthly, our party has the unique opportunity of co-ordinating, through other sections of the Communist International, specially the British and Colonial Communist parties, the struggle of other colonial masses and the British working class against our own one enemy — the British Imperialism.

These conditions make it possible for the party to develop rapidly into the party that leads Indian masses to a decisive victory over British Imperialism and hence destroy another main prop of world imperialist structure.

But how soon they will be able to realise this aim depends not only on the circumstances, but to an equal extent on how far all the revolutionary elements in the country strive to exploit this unique setting to the fullest extent through concerted action. In this the terrorist has a special part to play.

Due to unavoidable circumstances the Party could not continue to function effectively as a fully legal organisation. Not love of romanticism, but the sheer need of the hour forced it to develop an illegal revolutionary technique; and at present that need has been aggravated, with the Communist Party of India being declared illegal by the British Imperialism. Now its success, and even its existence depends on the skillful development of the illegal revolutionary technique. The terrorist knows, more than any one else, how difficult it is for a young organisation to acquire this technique, unassisted.

This is where the terrorist can render invaluable assistance to the party. He can hand down to us his wide experience of building up illegal revolutionary organisations, of imparting revolutionary training. And he himself, if his experience is coupled with a correct revolutionary understanding of the situation, can become a powerful weapon in the hands of the nation in its struggle for freedom. …

Is it not a crime today to neglect our immediate revolutionary tasks, our supreme duty, and remain content with mere threats to imperialism, remain content with ‘thirty officials’? Comrade terrorists! The world watches the growth of Indian revolution! The supreme hour draws nearer! Give up your old and worn out methods, Comrades, and join the party of the working class ! Forward ! March in the front rank of the advancing masses and feel their irresistible power! No temptation and provocation should then make us turn our eyes from our goal — the Victorious Indian Revolution.

Join The Ranks of The Communist Party of India.

Observe The International Youth Day on 2nd September.

Long Live The Young Communist International.

On the 2nd September, the 20th International Youth Day, Rally around our slogans : …

Source: The Communist Review 2 September, 1934

Note :

1. The footnote is illegible in the original; evidently it refers to the document reproduced by us in Text VII-2 – Ed.

4

Extracts from

Moonje’s Thesis Against Individual Enrolment

Root of the confusion

The tactic of the collective affiliation of Trade Unions to the INC has created considerable confusion and demoralisation within ranks. On the one hand there is a feeling that the demand is based on a revision of a past view of the class-character of the Indian National Congress, that it means the adoption of the Royist viewpoint regarding that organisation. Those who interpret the proposal in this light see in it a concealed acceptance of the plan of “capturing the INC in order to change it into a genuinely anti-imperialist organisation.” Some even believe it to be equivalent to an entire liquidation of the independent leadership of the working class in the anti-imperialist struggle. On the contrary, there are those who profess to grasp the tactic correctly and yet maintain that it is quite consistent with simultaneous enlistment of workers en masse but in an individual capacity as members of the INC. It is not at all to be wondered at that those who take the latter view are actually justifying and strengthening of the former regarding our new line. …

Indian National Congress II

The fact of the INC being a bourgeois, and in the final analysis a counter-revolutionary organisation, cannot, however, detract us from another fact which is hardly less important, namely, that it is the bourgeois national organisation of a subject colonial country. The immediate task of the colonial revolution is bourgeois democratic in content. As such, until the colonial masses — in this case, the Indian masses, understand (and life and struggle are their only teachers) that “their” national bourgeoisie are in reality the sworn enemies of the national revolution itself, it is not only not surprising but perfectly natural and inevitable that they muster in and around a reformist national bourgeois organisation. …

Royist characterisation of INC

… Because the popular masses join the INC and have been mainly led by it. Therefore the Royist characterisation is as a “peoples” organisation. In doing so they forget that a “peoples” organisation must be objectively anti-imperialist, and that the class character of an organisation is determined by its structure, role, leadership, ideology etc. and not by the class from which its membership happens to be mainly … the Royists have rushed to the conclusion that the JNC is not a class organisation but a movement. … this view entirely ignores the Marxian principle that however flexible and amenable to change an organisation may be the absolute limits of such flexibility and amenability are fixed by the socio-historical limitations of the class whose interests that organisation represents. …

From the characterisation of the INC as a “movement” arises third Royist illusion, one which, due to its supposed acceptance by Comrades Dutt and Bradley in their recent article, has assumed serious importance. It is that the INC has been and is essentially a people’s organisation that, despite the presence in it of certain undesirable anti-national elements which have to be purged from time to time, is a growing organism that has been continually adjusting itself to the progressive requirements of the over-widening and deepening anti-imperialist struggle of the Indian people. What needs to be done, therefore is to continue to its logical end a process which has already been in progress for decades. The “capture” of the INC is thus to become the crowning stroke of a historic process whereby the INC is to realise its highest consummation as the leader of the Indian masses to the goal of complete national independence. …

Correct interpretation of the stand of INC

As contrasted with the Royist what is our interpretation of the process of differentiation going on inside the INC, the relation of this process to the mass struggle and vice versa, and the continued effect of both these on the INC as an organisation? How do these different interpretations affect our respective approaches to the INC ? … We stand firm on the Marxian principle, that the INC, an organisation of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, however it may be capable of being utilised due to certain historical reasons, for the purpose of developing the anti-imperialist struggle, cannot be bent to the tasks of a revolutionary anti-imperialist organisation under proletarian hegemony.

For us, therefore, there can be no question of broadening the INC into an anti-imperialist organisation. We recognise that the vast majority of the conscious anti-imperialist masses in India today stand in and behind the Congress. But we also realise the irreconcilable contradiction between their true interests and interests represented by the INC. … We visualise a process whereby the anti-imperialist forces in the country will continue to develop and become increasingly organised and united both inside and outside the INC. It is certainly likely that such a development may lead to a stage when these forces, organised in workers’ and peasants’ unions, youth and women’s organisations etc. etc. would make a bid for the control of the INC as a political machine. But the bid itself must mean the death of the INC. For the success of such a bid must mean the emergence of an organisation which politically and organisationally will be poles asunder from the INC. …

… It has already been pointed out that despite the Indian bourgeoisie the Indian National Congress has in the past to an extent helped the centralisation and organisation of the national forces. To-day it is not only the most wide-spread political organisation in India but is the leader of the great majority of the politically conscious masses in the country. Still more important is the fact that the intense accentuation of the economic crisis and its political consequences have so much aggravated the contradiction between the rank and Tile of the INC and its leadership, and so much disintegrated and confounded the leadership itself, that the bourgeoisie are already finding it a very difficult task to maintain their hold over their own organisation. On account of these conditions, the opportunity offered to the revolutionary forces in the country for utilising the Congress itself for pushing forward the national struggle have developed to an unprecedented extent. At a time, therefore, [when] the platform of the INC can be made the means of rallying the masses for a genuine struggle against imperialism, at a time when a given appeal from the INC platform inspires and sets in motion a hundred thousand time more persons than what it can from any other platform, it would be a height of political tactlessness to visualise the process of disintegration of the INC as it were an independent task to be raised above the revolutionary struggle itself. We must totally oppose any disruption of the INC by factional of bureaucratic means. … Nor must we purchase either an entry into the INC or continuation inside at the cost of a surrender to reformism. …

It is precisely these developments [the world economic crisis and the consequent intensification “of the contradiction between the Indian bourgeoisie and imperialism”, the “criminal betrayal” of “the mass political upsurge of 1931” and the resultant search for alternatives, the rupture in the unity of the Congress leadership, and so on — Ed.] that have brought about within our reach the tactic of collective affiliation, a tactic whereby we simultaneously develop and strengthen the anti-imperialist forces in the country and also expose the bourgeois leadership of the Congress. To have adopted this tactic when the INC had not yet begun to be rent by crevices and fissures, when the masses had almost boundless faith in its leadership, when the bourgeoisie were yet the complete and trusted masters of a politically compact organisation, when the masses were not seething with such discontent and economic condition was not universally so dire as to secure an immediate and powerful response to revolutionary appeals, when such appeals still sounded academic to the petty bourgeois intelligentsia inside the INC, when the revolutionary party of the working class hardly existed even on paper — under such condition to have thought of taking trade unions inside the INC would assuredly have amounted to inviting bourgeois reformism to demoralise the working class instead of making the working class revolutionism radicalise the anti-imperialist struggle. This is why collective affiliation is a revolutionary tactic today that would have been a liquidationist one then. …

Liquidationist danger

… It would be wrong however to lull ourselves into a false sense of security and believe that the revolutionary pitch of the crisis and its political consequences have eliminated the liquidationist danger involved in this tactic. On the contrary it is precisely because of the seriousness of this danger that we emphasise that working class entry into the INC should be through their class organisation and class organisation alone.

… It must never be forgotten (for very simple truths are often overlooked) that the working class enters the Indian National Congress not to come under the influence of the bourgeoisie but to bring the radical Indian elements under its influence. … And the only way of achieving such [aim] is for the workers to enter the INC as an organised body that can be rigorously controlled by their independent organisation. It would be too much to expect that an uncontrolled and nebulous mass of workers would display the clarity and discipline requisite for the carrying 0ut of this task.

Basic assumptions

Success of collective affiliation further assumes that redoubled emphasis would have to be laid on the CP’s revolutionary work inside the Trade Unions, and the development of the united front outside the INC. … in order that the adoption of it should not lead to the working [class] becoming the tail of the INC far greater emphasis than in the past would have to be laid on the task mentioned above. The collective affiliation of Trade Unions with INC can in the long run revolutionise Indian politics only on the assumption that the majority of trade unions so affiliated are themselves a revolutionary and not a reformist force. …

The foregoing explanation of the significance and justification of collective affiliation should make it obvious that the enrolment of individual workers as Congress members can’t serve true purpose we have in view. …

“But” it has been suggested by certain comrades “we recognise that collective affiliation alone can serve the aim we have in view. … we only propose that individual workers be made members of the INC so as to secure greater support inside it for the purpose of collective affiliation. …” …

… The question is not at all what we want workers to do [but] what they will do in the existing state of their political consciousness and our influence over them. It must not be forgotten that en masse enlistment is indiscriminate. What working class organisation in the country today wields such an influence over workers that at its call a mass of nondescript workers joining the Congress individually, will do its bidding? Moreover, had we so much influence over workers (this implies politically and organisationally a much higher stage of the struggle) it is doubtful if even collective affiliation would have been necessary for in that case it might have been possible to adopt the methods of ordinary united front that is two independent organisations coming together on an agreed platform. …

The argument that opposition to individual membership would break an united front with the Congress Socialists is not only wrong but what is worse it betrays a most dangerous and censurable attitude to the united front. … The correct approach to the question whether the tactic is surely revolutionary or not, not whether it would require us to break with any of our temporary allies. Such an attitude towards the United Front can only lead to degeneration into the rear-guard of our allies and complete abjugation of our responsibility of radicalising the other groups by continually giving them a bold revolutionary lead. It is the denial of the very rationale of the United Front. … it is certainly assumed that form and content of our criticism really serves revolutionary ends. But provided this condition is strictly adhered to, the mass of Congress Socialists will not only take our criticism in a reasonable spirit but would welcome it even.

To talk of the danger of split with the Congress Socialists is therefore only to fog the issue. The real reason why no clear-cut lead has been given by us on this question lies within the party itself. Despite the most unambiguous position taken by the CI, the CC has not taken a firm stand on this issue. On the contrary it has left it to the various provincial committees to decide locally, thereby denying its national character. Responsible members in the Bombay Committee have themselves been vacillating on what ought to have been a perfectly clear issue, and have now openly come forward with the proposal to support individual membership. The failure of the Party to give a correct and bold lead on this question is not only a criminal breach of responsibility but it is bound to have most harmful effects on the working class struggle. Only sometime ago the leading office-bearers of the TUC were prepared to come out against the CSP proposal of individual membership if only we stood firm on that point. It was our own non-committal attitude that prevented us from making the TUC take a correct stand. Even now a correct lead from the party can considerably improve the situation. It must be clearly realised that not to give a lead would be surrendering to opportunism.

Source : The Communist, August 1936

5

The National Congress and the Immediate Task of the Communists

By Nirmal

It is not a secret that our tactics regarding the National Congress today are different from what they were in 1930-34. Today we regard the Congress as a mass organisation. There are many comrades who consider this to be Royist deviation and openly say that we are going back from our previous and correct estimation of the Congress as a party of the bourgeoisie but because we do not want to admit this deviation, this concession to Royist opportunists, we attempt to cover this retreat of ours by reference to the “changed objective situation” etc.

Is this criticism correct ? It is not. The Congress is a party of the bourgeoisie, the Congress is a mass organisation. Both these characterisations are correct but each one is only partially correct and therefore cannot decide the sum total of our tactics. …

A mass organisation does not necessarily mean an organisation that really fights for the interests of the masses or follows a correct mass programme but it signifies mass membership, mass influence and mass following. Again, a party of the bourgeoisie d6es not necessarily mean that all or even the majority of its members consciously serve the interest of the bourgeoisie and subordinate the interests of the nation to that of the bourgeoisie. Even most of the leaders may not be conscious agents of the bourgeoisie but in spite of their intention the organisation follows a policy which is in the interest of the bourgeoisie, if its programme be such that it sacrifices the interest of the masses for the interest of the bourgeoisie, if its leadership as a whole be bourgeoisie in character and ideology, then certainly it is a party of the bourgeoisie not withstanding its mass composition.

We must therefore describe the National Congress as a bourgeois party with mass basis or a mass organisation dominated by the bourgeoisie. Historically, the former characterisation would be more correct, as it signifies the process of transformation in the composition of the Congress.

When deciding on our tactics with regard to the Congress this dual aspect of the organisation must be clearly realised. Emphasising on the mass composition alone would lead us into opportunist under-estimation of the importance of independent political struggle outside the Congress (Royist opportunism). While concentrating on the bourgeois character of the organisation alone would lead to our isolation from the anti-imperialist masses (Left-Sectarianism). …

Collective affiliation of mass organisations to the Congress is thus an anti-imperialist demand of the masses, a class demand of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie realise this quite clearly and hence the stout opposition of the Congress Right Wing headed by Rajendra Prasad and Vallab Bhai the erstwhile champions of the down-trodden masses, to this demand.

At Lucknow the proposal to amend the Congress constitution enabling the organisational affiliation of Trade Unions, Peasants’ Unions etc., was defeated. What is the next step in the struggle ?

It must be clearly understood that collective affiliation cannot come as a concession from the bourgeoisie. It will have to be fought for and won. …
The Socialists have launched their drive for mass membership (individual) in the working class. …

It would be sheer opportunism to say that we shall neither support nor oppose individual enrolling but simply emphasise on collective affiliation. The demand for collective affiliation has been voiced unequivocally both by us and the Left Congress-men. The question before us today is individual enrolling and we must face it squarely and decide either way.

Comrades who think that we oppose this individual enrolling campaign say :

(2) Such individual enrolling campaign is bound to confuse the workers, raise in their minds illusions regarding the anti-imperialist character of the Congress, and false hopes of capturing it by joining it in larger numbers.

(3) By asking the workers to join the Congress in an undisciplined, unorganised way we shall be handing them over to the bourgeoisie and create among them bourgeois illusions. This will be undiluted Royism.

(4) Such campaign shall relegate to the background the demand for collective affiliation.

… Before attempting to reply to all the objections raised we would like to put these comrades a few questions.

The Socialists shall retort “you gentlemen gave the slogan for collective affiliation and we took it up. We spared no pains to mobilise the Congress rank and file round this slogan but at Lucknow we were defeated. We mean to fight for it and we shall continue to fight but as you have seen, the Right Wing is bitterly opposed to it. The radicalisation of the rank and file must proceed much further, the Left Wing within the Congress must become stronger to bring about collective affiliation which would facilitate the establishment of Working-Class leadership in the National Liberation movement. So you want the petty bourgeoisie alone to fight within the Congress for this demand of the” working class but you would not allow the workers themselves to enter the Congress and strengthen our hands or to elect such representatives as will fight for this demand. That is a very consistent position indeed”. What reply shall these comrades give?

Shall the opposition to the individual entry be confined to the working class or extended to the peasantry also? In a number of provinces our comrades are working among the peasantry. Peasant Unions are springing up all over the country. As all know, in UP, Bihar and Gujarat, the peasantry constitute the backbone of the Congress. The ECCI in its 34 instructions asked us to affiliate not only Trade Unions but all organisations — Peasant Unions, Youth Leagues etc. to the Congress. The Socialists are fighting for the affiliation of Peasant Unions also to the Congress. What should our comrades working in rural areas do? Shall they oppose the campaign for Congress enrolment and advise the peasants to join the Congress only when collective affiliation has been brought about ? If individual entry to the Congress must be a counter-revolutionary step, they should stoutly oppose it. This means in plain English THE FIGHT FOR THE ORGANISATIONAL AFFILIATION TO THE CONGRESS IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE FIGHT FOR MASS DISAFFILIATION FROM THE CONGRESS TILL COLLECTIVE AFFILIATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT. Does this mean anything ? Yet we must strongly oppose individual joining of the Congress on the part of the peasantry because it is more backward class politically. …

Now we want to take up the objections formulated.

It is perfectly true that individual entry in the Congress is no substitute for collective affiliation. … It is also true that entry of individual workers in the Congress is not by itself United Front, it can be guided by proper tactics [to] become a lever for building up the United Front. …

We shall certainly be creating among workers bourgeois reformist illusions if we simply support the campaign for enrolment, if we do not specify the tasks of the working class in the anti-imperialist struggle, if we describe the Congress to be an anti-imperialist organisation of the masses, if we minimise the importance of collective affiliation. We shall certainly be guilty of Royist opportunism if we tell the workers that their task is to strengthen the Congress.

If however we support the campaign and at the same lime explain to the masses the real character of the Congress, the irreconcilable contradiction between its bourgeois leadership and the anti-imperialist rank and file, the ever-sharpening contradiction affecting even the top, the Congress Working Committee, hitherto a homogeneous united body of conscious reformists unassailed by the revolutionary ferment below, the task of the working class is not to strengthen the Congress but the revolutionary forces inside the Congress and the dynamic process of the emergence of the anti-imperialist people’s front from out of the mass struggle, then certainly we shall not be handing the workers to the bourgeoisie or strengthen reformist illusions under the present objective conditions of rapid clarification process inside the Congress.

It is perfectly true that such agitation is much more difficult than the old methods of “explaining” complex processes by simple mechanical formulae but the forging of the anti-imperialist front is a dialectic process and we cannot reduce it to ready-made cut and dried steps. …

Critics will not wanting who will denounce these tactics as opportunist and going back to the pre-Meerut policy of ’28 of individual entry in the Congress which they allege, led to nothing but illusions. Will this criticism be sound? Certainly not. A wide gulf separates us from the days of ’28.

Today the anti-imperialist consciousness of the masses has arisen to a much higher level than ever before. … Today the conflict between the Right and the Left in the Congress is a thousand times more intense and most characteristic of all, this contradiction today manifests itself not only by a conflict between the rank and file and the leadership but by a rift in the leadership itself. …

Not only that, the Communist Party has spread its organisations in almost all the Provinces. The slogans of the Party are becoming more and more popular, the influence of the Party is fast extending. …

Before our eyes are developing within the Congress sharp struggle between those who stand for capitulation and compromise and those who stand for relentless struggle against foreign domination.

Our task in this struggle is to intensify it, to develop it and to give the anti-imperialists a conscious revolutionary lead.

6

CIRCULAR N0. 4

Individual Enrolment To Indian National Congress

(Slightly abridged)

(1) Serious and prolonged discussions have been held inside the Party on the concrete application of the anti-imperialist peoples’ front line. The issue of individual enrolment to Indian National Congress (INC) has been discussed at considerable length and with some heat particularly in Bombay. We have now come to a stage Where a definite decision must be taken. The purpose of this circular is to conclude the inner-party controversy on this issue and give to our party organisations the decision of the PB and general directions to carry it out in practice.

(2) The PB accepts the line of the article “The National Congress and the Immediate Tasks of Indian Communists” and rejects Moonje’s thesis on the subject as embodying sectarian prejudices leading to a policy of isolation and inactivity.

The PB declares that individual enrolment is not a substitute for collective affiliation but only one of the means to intensify the agitation and strengthen the demand for collective affiliation from inside the INC platform in alliance with the INC rank and file and by mobilising them under our leadership on this and other allied immediate issues. The PB declares that this agitation from inside the INC is not enough. Our main emphasis should be on demanding collective affiliation etc. by mobilising all anti-imperialist mass organisations outside the INC. To demand collective affiliation and the acceptance of the minimum platform by the INC from outside the INC and refusing to go inside the INC as individual members would be perpetuating the position of isolation. On the other hand to neglect the work of independent mobilisation outside the INC and confining our activity inside the INC alone will be taking up the traditional line of Royism becoming ineffective critics of reformism. It is only when independent activity outside the INC is intimately linked up with the work inside that the demand for collective affiliation will become irresistible and the formation of united front with INC and its local organisations become possible.

(3) The PB calls upon all members and organisations

(b) to break all sectarian resistance to individual enrolment to INC in particular. Really competent comrades who could do effective work inside the INC should be delegated for this task and all necessary help given to them.

(4) The PB again warns all members and organisations that on the plea of “work inside the INC” the independent work of the party and the building up of the united front movement outside the INC should not be neglected or thrown into the background of our activities. It is only in proportion of our independent activities that our work inside the INC will prove effective while it is also true that our work inside the INC will become today one of the most potent means of strengthening and extending the base of our independent party and united front work. … It would be the most serious mistake to sacrifice one task for the other or to put one in opposition to another.

(5) The PB declares that the policy pursued by the CC, that one uniform policy for the whole country for work inside the INC cannot be and should not be laid down, is correct. … The Polit Bureau is reviewing the position as it exists in some areas and the policy which is being pursued or should be pursued. Our actual policy should be determined by an exhaustive realistic analysis of the situation as it exists e.g., whether the area is rural or urban, the class composition of the Congress membership, the extent of reformist influence and of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) and other left elements and our own; the existence of mass organisations (like TUs & PUs) and the policy being pursued by them, conditions of Imperialist terror, the activities which the official INC organisations are pursuing or intend to pursue etc. etc.

In Calcutta, for example, official Congress leadership is torn by factionalism and stands to a considerable extent discredited before its own rank and file (largely composed of terrorists or their sympathisers) because of their personal cowardice and political inactivity arising from factional struggles. The CSP is Right and is the least influential. … The class consciousness of the INC leadership is not so marked as in Bombay. … the Labour Party and our comrades … have issued a statement endorsing the united front policy and in particular the necessity of work inside the INC and called upon their members and supporters to join the INC. Similarly they have called upon the CSP to work jointly with them inside the INC. They have had no need to enrol members en masse for INC on an individual basis, the advance workers and petty-bourgeois sympathisers would be perhaps also in the AICC which position would be used by them to mobilise the Congress rank and file for the United Front policy.

In Bombay proper, the position is different from Calcutta. The class struggle here has reached a higher stage than anywhere else and its reflection on the psychology of different classes and political groups more marked than anywhere else. According to official Congress figures 20 percent of the Congress membership is proletarian. The Right Congress leadership which is dominant is trying to weed out the Left (represented by the CSP and Royists) from all leading positions and the Left is attempting to meet the efforts of the Right by appealing to the workers to join the INC and help them to fight the Right leadership and demand collective affiliation from inside the INC. If we oppose this effort of the CSP and Royists, we isolate ourselves even from the politically conscious section of the working class. If we remain neutral we condemn ourselves to a position of political inactivity. The Left is enrolling the workers not through a mass campaign of meetings, demonstrations, etc. but by visiting them in their Chawls. We should immediately enter into a pact with the CSP and Royists for joint enrolment of members on a joint platform of struggle for the united front policy from within the INC and for a struggle against the reformist policy of parliamentarism and class-collaboration and repudiation of mass struggle. … it is very necessary that we raise no illusions about the INC as it is today or that through individual enrolment the INC can be transformed into a Peoples’ anti-imperialist organisation; if the Left raises such illusions in its agitation we should combat them in a persuasive and not abusive way. … Our agitators must participate in the campaign with vigour but make the necessary qualifications in their speeches etc. Having enrolled worker members of the INC on our own behalf and as far as possible as a Left Anti-imperialist Block we should not keep quiet but continue our agitation among the workers and petty-bourgeois members of the INC till the election to various congress committees are held and the purpose of this activity should be to win over to our side the workers and the other rank and the of the INC enrolled by the Right using the members enrolled by us as our main base and thus knock out the social base of the Right membership among the anti- imperialist masses.

In rural provinces like UP and Bihar there is a rapid radicalisation in the active elements of the Congress rank and file and the leadership is rapidly passing over from the Right to the Left, and under the influence of the CSP members and sympathisers peasant organisations are springing up. Our comrades in these areas have themselves come over to us from the INC rank and file and yet retain their contacts with the INC organisations though in most places they had cut themselves off in accordance with the old policy. In such areas the active village volunteers were the organisers of the Congress movement and local agents of the Dist. INC organisation. We should encourage them and help them in every way to form independent Peasant Unions on the basis of partial demands and the policy of class struggle and united front and these PUs should demand Collective Affiliation jointly with TUs and other left organisations. … we should ask them to continue to enroll their old contacts (who become individual members of INC through them) as individual members to work inside the INC organisations as the basis of our policy. … In some areas it should be very easy to win over whole Tehsil or Dist. Congress committees and with these local united front agreements must be achieved. …

The position in Punjab is different. The orthodox Congress represents the Hindu moneylenders and has been considerably weakened by the opposition of the Congress Nationalists, The Congress organisation is confined mostly to towns. In the countryside whatever organisation exists is only represented by the Karza committees. The militant rank and file of the INC and entire Left is outside the INC and is represented today by the Socialist Party, Radical League, and Kirti Kishan Party. Those have an independent political ‘influence in the province which they have won as a result of ruthless struggle against the INC as a whole and its Right leadership in particular. If these Left elements unite their forces under a centralised leadership and correctly pursue the united front policy both inside and outside the INC they can easily become the dominant political force not only inside the provincial INC organisation but in the province as a whole and this would give a remarkable impetus to the Left forces throughout India. These left elements are, however, weakening each other by factional warfare and also suffer from sectarian prejudices. … All these rival groups must be united into the CSP and they should contest elections to capture all urban Congress organisations. In those rural districts where Congress organisations do not exist they must immediately take initiative through the local CSP organisations to form Distt. INC organisations. …

In Madras it should be possible to work inside the INC through the CSP which are on the whole left. The task there is intensified activity through the CSP and not the question of building up contacts with the INC rank and file.

In the rural areas of Madras and Bombay Presidencies, however, the position is different from that of UP or Bihar because of the existence and influence of Justice and Non-Brahmin parties. The rank and file of the non-Brahmin and the Justice party (Left Self Respectors) are getting rapidly radicalised. They have contacts with the rural masses, are breaking from their reactionary loyalist leadership and advancing towards the path of anti-imperialism. Because of their old political associations they are violently anti-Congress. … We should not insist that they break away from their existing organisations to join the INC or CSP as a precondition of any united front work with us. We should however carry on ceaseless political propaganda among them about the true character of the Justice or the [Non-]Brahmin party and impress upon them the necessity of working both inside and outside the INC. We should work with them to set up independent peasant organisations and link them up with the anti-imperialist masses under the influence of INC. … we should work both among them and the local INC organisations to set up or support a candidate whether independent or Congresswala who stands on the anti-imperialist platform embodying the partial demands of the toilers.

(6) It is clear therefore that the exact way in which the agitation for individual enrolment to the INC is to be carried on shall differ from place to place and also from time to tome in the same place. To a great extent it shall depend on the tactics adopted by other Left parties — whether these go in for mass enrolment from the platform and through leaflets or through individual persuasion only. …

Especial emphasis should be laid in our agitation on the following demands :

(b) United Front agreement between the INC and class organisations of workers and peasants.

(7) The demand for Democratisation of the Congress has to be concretised. The immense radicalisation of the masses that follow the Congress has as yet been only particularly [partially?] reflected in the Congress committees and this anomaly is to be explained as the result of the existing bureaucratic constitution of the Congress in which the rank and file constituting the primary members of the Congress have no voice in determining the political policy of the Congress. The only right enjoyed by the primary members is to cast votes once a year for the candidates to the Ward and Dist. Congress committees. Our demand is the establishment of rank and file leadership in the Congress. At a period when the growth of revolutionary consciousness among the masses is being throttled by the INC leadership the fight for democratisation of the Congress becomes our important link in the anti-imperialist struggle. For the Democratisation of the Congress the following basic demands of the primary members must be emphasised upon.

(b) These conferences to discuss and decide all local political problems and have the right to recall members of the Ward and District committees.

(9) We must make it absolutely clear that we do not hope to capture the Congress by swamping it. Our objective is to strengthen the left forces inside the INC. The workers do not enter the Congress to follow the bourgeois leadership. This task can be achieved most effectively by collective affiliation and it is to strengthen the fight for collective affiliation that workers should today enter the Congress as a conscious anti-imperialist section.

We must fight sharply against any effort to vulgarise our tactics of individual enrolment. The CSP and the Royists may ask workers to strengthen the Congress as already an anti-imperialist organisation. As against this we must explain to the workers the developing contradiction between the Left and the Right in the INC and our platform as lever to sharpen this contradiction and mobilise the masses for the anti-imperialist struggle. The Royists and the CSP line is political movement exclusively under the Congress and through it; class organisations [are] to confine themselves to economic questions only. As against this we ask workers to join the Congress to demand United Front movement both on the political and the economic front.

Therefore, we support individual enrolment not to tie [the] working class to the tail of the bourgeoisie; not to strengthen the Congress as already [the] anti-imperialist front of the people but to strengthen the anti-imperialist wing within the Congress and launch abroad-based revolutionary struggle out of which alone can the People’s Front emerge; not to delude the working class with the false hopes of capturing the Congress through the present Congress machinery but to strengthen the fight for collective affiliation; not to deny independent political action by the working class but intensify it and extend its scope.

Note:

All our members and party organisations are severely warned against forming unprincipled alliances to contest elections or becoming parties to the acute factional squabbles among Congress leadership. Such acts may result in returning a few of us to the Congress committees or even in our capturing some local Congress committees but it will not be building up the United Front Movement, on the other hand [such] acts would become a serious hindrance to building up the United Front Movement. Unprincipled intrigues or factional manoeuvres are not political activities worthy of Communists, they discredit not only individuals but the whole Party and thus help masses to remain under the reformist leadership.

POUT-BUREAU OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

The 25th July, ’36.

7

Royism in Action

— Dipak

Ever since his expulsion from the Communist International, Roy openly and deliberately followed a policy of .disruption of the Left forces, vulgarisation of Communist slogans and vilification of the Comintern (Communist International). In this review we would take up only a few of his latest acts of disruption.

Roy and Socialists

All had hoped that Roy’s coming out [of jail – Ed.] would strengthen the developing unity of the Left forces in the country. What did he do however ? Instead of joining the tanks of those who were trying to radicalise the Congress so as to make it into an effective instrument of anti-Imperialist struggle he declared that the Congress itself was already the United Anti-Imperialist Front Instead of waging a sharp struggle against the Capitulatory policy of the Congress Right-wing he launched his attacks against the Congress Socialist Party.

“The existence of Parties in the Congress hampers the development of the United Front”, he declared in a speech. This statement clearly shows that Roy does not understand the most elementary principles of United Front. The United Front is not a monolithic Party. It is an alliance of different Parties and sections for a common objective — the overthrow of Imperialist rule in India. All the parties to the United Front have their own ultimate objectives, their own forms of struggle, but for a common immediate objective they agree to unite. This is the essence of United Anti-Imperialist Front.

Therefore the existence of Parties in the Congress can be a disruptive force only when a Party attempts to impose its ultimate programme on the whole Congress, or when a Party attempts to divert the Congress from the path of anti-Imperialist struggle. … Never did the CSP attempt to foist Socialism on the Congress. On the other hand the Right-wing, by refusing United Front with Workers’ and Peasants’ organisations, by sabotaging the Mass Contact resolution passed at Lucknow, by opportunist alliances with ex-government servants, Rai Bahadurs and anti-national sections….. has more than once attempted to disrupt the growing United Front relations between the Congress and the class organisations of the toilers (refusal to adopt comrade Nimbkar, Sirdar PatePs attack on the Kisan Federation) and sought compromise with Imperialism (the “assurance” clause is the latest example). It is the Congress Right-wing, therefore, which is the real obstacle to United Front, not the Socialist Party.

Why did Roy not see this? … he wanted to win the favour of the Right-wing and therefore attacked the Left. He realised that the Left was organisationally weak, that to strengthen the Left and on the basis of this strength, ride high in the Congress ladder was an arduous job. So he chose the easier line. What could have pleased Sirdar Patel, the real leader of the right-wing in Mahatma’s absence, than an attack on the Congress Socialist Party? … He enthusiastically supported the official resolution on convention (the rallying ground of compromisers). He described “this mock Convention elected on the basis of ‘partial sovereignty’ (sovereignly apparently conceded by the British Government under the New Constitution) as a step towards the Constituent Assembly, which was not to come into being after the overthrow of Imperialism but which would grow in the course of the anti-Imperialist campaign, as INSTRUMENT FOR THE CAPTURE OF POWER”. (Communist No. 14). The instrument for the capture of power, according to Roy was to be, not the transformed Congress — the Anti-Imperialist People’s Front, nor local organs of struggle created by the revolutionary masses — but the body of legislators elected under the Government of India Act; and it is this body which would become the Constituent Assembly. The vulgarisation of the slogan of Constituent Assembly was a deliberate move to curry favour with the extreme Right-wing Constitutionalists — Bulabhai and Satyamurti. …

But not only did Roy attack the Socialists from outside. He tried to disrupt CSP from within, …

The resignation of twenty five Royists from the CSP in Maharashtra is the latest example of Royist unscrupulousness. …

Royists in the TUC

The Faizpur meeting of the TUC Executive decided by an overwhelming majority to put up Comrade Joglekar for the Assembly Election. The Royists had opposed the resolution. After it was passed, they had two alternatives: (1) as loyal Trade Unionists to carry out the TUC mandate or (2) as people who believe that the workers should, under no circumstances, oppose the Congress, to come out openly against the TUC decision and ask workers to vote for the Congress candidate — and not for Comrade Joglekar. But to follow either of these courses would not have been Royism — it would have been faithful adherence to a political line, and loyalty to an organisation — both of which are foreign to Royism. Therefore the method chosen by them was scrupulous avoidance of the area where the election fight between the TUC and the Congress was waged, and unscrupulous propaganda in newspapers under assumed names, against the TUC. This was ROYISM IN ACTION. …

Roy and the Comintern

Roy never lets an opportunity CI attacking of and Communist Parties pass by. His attack on the heroic Communist Party of China is the most disgusting one can think of …

But what can one say of Roy’s shameful attacks on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — The leading Party of the International?

In an article named Moscow Trials (Independent India, 2nd May) Roy writes :

bound to take place

What a shameful attempt at explaining away the crimes of traitors and murderers! Does Roy know that these traitors, whom he describes as “devoted revolutionaries”, betrayed the Party not once but repeatedly? Were they not given the opportunity to criticise the Party line and put forward their own line? They were. And only when they persisted in their anti-Party activities after the whole Party had accepted Stalin’s line were they expelled. And even then the Party was not vindictive. It took them back and restored them to leading positions. And further they committed these crimes when the Soviet Union under Stalin’s leadership, had already forged ahead and THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LINE HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY ACTUAL RESULTS. … They could get no adherents in the Soviet Union and THEREFORE they became agents of HITLER. The root of the evil is to be found not in “the internal condition of the Party” as Roy maintains. The Party led by Stalin is the most democratic in the world — far more democratic than the “Party” of which Roy is the boss. The “Root of the evil” is to be found in the degeneracy of scoundrels like Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev and in the over-leniency of the CPSU (Communist Party of Soviet Union). These degenerates should never have been taken back into the Party. They should have been treated as outcasts. …

In the extract quoted from “Independent India”, substitute the word “Royist” for “former leaders” in the first line, and “Congress Socialist Party” for “Party” and you will get an amazing parallel. The Royists were opposed to the formation of the CSP. It was formed inspite of them. But “the Party was going the wrong way”. It was not possible “to influence it from outside”. Therefore the way “into the party was found in hypocrisy.” Maniben, Madan Shetty and Dr. Shetty solemnly declared that they had dissolved their “own Party” arid “of course they were forced to adopt clandestine methods” to disrupt the CSP and ultimately justify their treacherous activities by alluding to the “internal condition of the CSP” …

And hence comes the real parallel between Trotsky and Roy. Both Trotskyism and Royism have long ceased to be political ideologies. Both have become the handmaids of the enemies of the CI, the Soviet Union and the People’s Front. In a specific field of operation Trotskyism has become the handmaid of Hitler. In another field of operation Royism has become the handmaid of Congress Right (of course I am not suggesting that Congress Right is fascist). The methods of both, to use Roy’s words, are “clandestine”; the tactics of both — unscrupulous and disgusting. Both are not deterred by any consideration of “decency”.

Source: The Communist, May 1937.

8

“Domination of The Communist Party”

AKG

[This serialised article starts with a detailed theoretical discussion on international level and then comes down, in the section we reproduced, to the Indian scene. The title in quote marks refers to an allegation by MR Masani. – Ed.]

From this brief survey we can see that :

homogenous working class Parties

(2) The Split was THE RESULT OF FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES — the socialist or reformist wing renouncing revolution and the Communist or revolutionary wing standing for revolution.

(3) The existing disunity in the Socialist ranks in Europe, i.e., the existence of TWO PARTIES OF THE PROLETARIAT, the socialist and Communist Parties, is the outcome of this split.

THE PROBLEM OF SOCIALIST UNITY IN EUROPE IS THEREFORE BASICALLY ONE OF HEALING THE POLITICAL SPLIT IN THE RANKS OF THE PROLETARIAT.

This can be achieved, only by liquidation of the causes that led to the split, i.e., by the Socialist Parties growing revolutionary by their rupture with their class-collaborationist past.

And if today the split is in the process of being healed it, is mainly because the Social-Democratic masses and sections of its leadership are, taught by their own experience, moving more and more to the left — i.e., by the ‘growing influence of Communism in working class ranks’ as Dimitrov puts it.

Nature of socialist disunity in India

Can we say that the existence of the Congress Socialists and Communists in India is due to the same causes that led to the split in the International working class movement and the formation of Socialist and Communist Parties in the countries of Europe and America?

Obviously we cannot.

The class basis of the Communists in India has been, from the very beginning, the working class. Even during the pre-Meerut days when leading Communists were in the AICC and other Congress organisations, their main sphere of work was the working class. They gave the working class movement a distinct CLASS POLITICAL character : under their leadership rank and file workers learned to think in political terms and participate in political actions — political demonstrations, political strikes etc. They began to realise that for the satisfaction of their economic demands, struggle against foreign rule was necessary, that final emancipation was possible only through establishment of Socialism and Communism. Socialist cadres developed from rank and file workers, who had come to the forefront in the strike struggles led by Communists.

The chief success of the Communists has been the politicalisation of the working class movement and developing it as an independent political force.

Their chief failure has been in not linking up the working class movement with the broad national movement led by the Congress.

The Congress Socialist Party on the other hand sprung directly from the national movement led by the Congress. Gandhian ideology and tactics were realised by the most advanced sections of Congressmen to be inadequate for drawing the broadest masses in the national movement, for achieving independence. As the Meerut thesis of the CSP puts it, “The Congress Socialist Party was formed at the end of the last Civil Disobedience movement by such Congressmen as had come to believe that a new orientation of the national movement had become necessary; a re-definition of its objectives and revision of its methods.” The left-ward swing of the rank and file Congressmen, brought about as a result of disillusionment with the compromising bourgeois leadership of the national movement, found expression in the Congress Socialist Party. Advanced Congressmen realised the need for organising the workers and peasants on the basis of their partial demands and thereby harnessing their revolutionary energies for the national liberation struggle. This in itself is not Socialism. But because the Congress leadership dominated by the bourgeoisie turned its face away from mass struggle, the new awakening of the rank and file took a socialist form.

Congress Socialism thus represented a socialist trend born out of the national movement. The Party was the Party of Congress-men who had come to accept socialism. It had no organic contact with the working class movement which had developed independently of the Congress. It did not have therefore a proletarian composition.

During the last two years the Communists have, to some extent, overcome their isolation from the national movement. The Congress Socialists have been increasingly participating in the working class movement. But even today the Communists are MAINLY identified with the working class movement while the Congress Socialists are MAINLY active in the National Congress.

The existing disunity in Socialist ranks in India has therefore an entirely different character from that in Europe. …

THE PROBLEM OF SOCIALIST UNITY IN INDIA therefore is not basically that of healing the political split in the working class but of unifying the two major socialist forces that have developed with the national and working class movements and have remained a part because of the mutual isolation of these two movements.

Only when the character or the existing disunity among Socialists and Communists in India is clearly realised, and its basic difference with the disunity in Europe grasped, the correct way of achieving unity becomes clear. No thesis on Socialist Unity can be a correct guide to action which does not base it on this realisation. No wonder therefore, that Comrade Masani proposed a method for “uniting” socialists, which cannot but emasculate the CSP, disrupt it and weaken the Socialist movement.

He believes that the immediate restoration of the ‘homogeneity’ of the CSP is necessary, and for this the “Reds” who have “burrowed in” should be expelled.

The task of Socialist unity in this country is, as we have seen, that of uniting two major socialist forces. Comrade Masani hopes to achieve this unity, by not merely not bringing them nearer but by widening the existing breach. How thereby the national and proletarian movements will be linked up together, how thereby the socialist movement will gain, he does no tell us.

The way to unity

… In the specific situation of today, this [“unification of all Socialists and Communists” – Ed.] means the Congress Socialist Party itself must become the form of Socialist unity, uniting within its framework all the Socialist forces born out of and active on all Fronts — Working class, Peasant, Student, Congress.

The apprehension that thereby the homogeneity of the CSP would be destroyed is baseless. The CSP because of its historic origin, could not have and has not today the homogeneity of a one class party like the Socialist Parties of Europe. Within the Congress there are various trends of Socialism — ranging from fully developed Marxist-Leninist at one end to vague, Jawaharlalist at the other. All these socialist trends are present within the CSP today. By drawing the Reds in the Party, the non-existent homogeneity would not be destroyed but on the contrary the foundation would be laid for achieving real homogeneity.

Counter-posing united action to united Party is based on abstractions. United action between Socialist and Communist Parties of Europe is, above al), united proletarian action. Both parties are mass proletarian parties. The CSP has yet to be given a proletarian orientation. It must become a mass proletarian party if it has to develop as a Socialist Party. The first step towards this must be the absorbing of the existing socialist ctidres in the working class movement. …

… The situation demands the Congress Socialist Party’s becoming a mass political force, active and vigorous on all fronts, uniting the most effective and honest socialists of all trends, resolving all mutual differences in a comradely manner within the framework of one organisastion, giving a purposeful centralised lead on all living problems of the day.

This of course does not yet mean the realisation of Socialist Unity. On many day-to-day issues differences will arise — differences due to ideological differences at bottom. The difference between various trends that exist in the Socialist movement from Communism to Jawaharlalism cannot be liquidated by force. Within the CSP the exponents of each trend must have full democratic rights to freely express their views and influence others.

Through joint struggle and joint work, through the growing influence of Marxism-Leninism in the Socialist ranks, will ultimate unity be achieved.

Source: The New Age, March 1938