The programme adopted by the CPI(M) at its 1964 Calcutta Congress drew heavily on both the 1951 programme and the Moscow statements of 1957and 1960. Instead of critically assimilating this inheritance, the CPI(M) only introduced some eclectic corrections in its new programme. Interestingly, while the CPSU ideologues were making no bones of the fact that their post-1956 formulations differed substantially from their earlier positions-in our case, the 1957 and 1960 statements and the Soviet prescriptions of peaceful transition through non-capitalist path virtually negated the perspective of protracted war and dogged resistance, of “hundreds of streams of partisan struggle merging with the general strike and uprising of workers in the cities” as envisioned in the 1951 Tactical Line – the CPI(M) adopted both the 1951 documents and the 1957and 1960 statements as its basic guidelines and continued to pay lip-service to the 1951 SOP alongside its 1964 programme.
Let us now take a look at the major corrections. The CPI programme describes the Indian State as “the organ of the class rule of the national bourgeoisie as a whole, in which the big bourgeois holds powerful influence. This class rule has strong links with landlords. These factors give rise to reactionary pulls on the state power” (8th Congress, CPI, Patna). So according to the CPI, landlords do not have a direct share in state power and if the powerful influence of the big bourgeoisie and the links with landlords could somehow be eliminated or weakened, the state could be freed from the reactionary pulls and set on a revolutionary course! Rajeshwara Rao later defended these formulations on the following grounds : “Our idea is that every State in essence is a State of one class though that class has its allies. In this case it is the State of the bourgeoisie as a whole, which is the determining factor, with landlords as its ally. Our characterisation of the State as one in which the big bourgeoisie holds powerful influence but is not in complete leadership of the State explains the phenomenon of the progressive foreign policy of our country.”[1] So while the big bourgeoisie ostensibly formulates the reactionary internal policies, the medium and small bourgeoisie maintains the progressive foreign policy and together these sections of the bourgeoisie run the show called the State!
How does the CPI(M) resolve this riddle? Para 56 of the CPI(M) programme defines the Indian state as “the organ of the class rule of the bourgeoisie and landlords, led by the big bourgeoisie, who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital in pursuit of the capitalist path of development.” The CPI(M) would have us believe that the formulation that the state is led by the big bourgeoisie is sufficient to plug all collaborationist loopholes. But the point is even if the big or monopoly bourgeoisie is identified as the leading ruling class and made a target of the democratic revolution the scope for class collaboration may still remain depending on how we explain the position of the bourgeoisie vis-a-vis imperialism and feudalism, the two basic targets of any modern democratic revolution. And here is how the CPI(M) programme characterises the big bourgeoisie, the leader of the so-called first stage of India’s democratic revolution : “Despite the growth of contradictions between imperialism and feudalism on the one hand and the people, including the bourgeoisie, on the other, and despite the new opportunities presented with the emergence of the world socialist system, the big bourgeoisie heading the state does not decisively attack imperialism and feudalism and eliminate them” (Para 15, emphasis added).
With such an appraisal of the bourgeoisie, what can the CPI(M) have against Ghosh’s profound discovery that the Indian bourgeoisie is not revolutionary but reformist. If the bourgeoisie is not decisively attacking and eliminating imperialism and feudalism, the proletariat and its party are there to pressure it into doing that. Para 108 of the CPI(M) programme clearly states — “The Communist Party does take cognizance of the contradictions and conflicts that do exist between the Indian bourgeoisie, including the big bourgeoisie, and foreign imperialists. They express themselves on the issue of war and peace, on the economic and political relations with socialist countries, on the terms of aid from foreign monopolists, on the question of finding adequate markets for our exports, and on Socialism and imperialism — has undermined the very primacy and essential dence. Entertaining no illusions of any strategic unity or united front with the ruling Congress party, the working class will not hesitate to lend its unstinted support to the Government on all issues of world peace and anti-colonialism which are in the genuine interests of the nation, on all economic and political issues of conflict with imperialism, and on all issues which involve questions of strengthening our sovereignty and independent foreign policy.”
Surjeet brushes aside Rajeshwara Rao’s problem in reconciling the big bourgeoisie’s leadership over state power with India’s progressive foreign policy with a clever-looking question “Since when has the CPI come to the conclusion that the big bourgeoisie is not interested in peace and defence of independence and sovereignty?”[2] And mind you, this was in 1985 when India had already had the first IMF loan and Rajiv had embarked on his 21st century liberalisation drive.
Notes :
- 10. Cited by HKS Surjeet in his pamphlet, On CP1(M)-CPI Differences, National Book Centre, October 1985, pp 36-37.
- 11. Ibid, p 37.
