Indian Communists appeal to British workers on the occasion of a speech to the House of Lords by the Secretary of State for India, ‘Lord Birkenhead,’ on the unity of all political parties, including Labour, in refusing to countenance any moves towards Indian self-rule.

‘Imperialism and Labour: An Appeal to the British Proletariat’ by the Communist Party of India from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 5 No. 67. August 27, 1925.

The facts given above enable us to judge for ourselves in whose hands lies the leadership of the national revolution. Not only can the bourgeoisie not take over the leadership itself, but it is already counter-revolutionary; it is the faithful henchman of the imperialists. To-day only the petty bourgeois and the peasantry and the students who have sprung from the peasantry can take part in the fight, and then only as the auxiliary forces of the workers.

In his recent statement in the House of Lords the Secretary of State for India has outlined a policy of strong hand. The gist of his speech is: India was conquered by the sword and will be ruled by the sword. The Indian Nation shall remain in the present state of tutelage for an indefinite period. Even the paltry administrative reforms grudgingly promised in the Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) shall be held in abeyance until every resistance to British absolutism has ceased. 320 millions of human beings, not in a state of barbarism, possessing as high a level of culture as could be attained in spite of a long period of foreign domination, and counting among their leaders not a few eminent men of letters, science and politics, are treated as so many dumb driven cattle. It is not for them to decide how they shall progress. They must act like good school boys to induce their British overlords to grant them constitutional promotion some time in the future.

Lord Birkenhead, however, has said nothing new. He has only recapitulated the traditional politics of British Imperialism in India. Nor has he spoken in behalf of any particular party. He was the spokesman of the British bourgeoisie and their henchmen in the Labour Movement. After Lord Birkenhead had been heard, the motion for papers was withdrawn by Lord Olivier, Obviously, the latter, as the spokesman of the Labour Party in the Upper House, was convinced that there could not be any question of constitutional reform for India. In the subsequent House of Commons debate the Labour Party did not express any more disagreement with the Government’s Indian policy as stated by Lord Birkenhead, than did the Liberals. In view of this situation, Lord Birkenhead was quite justified in glorifying the politics of die-hard Imperialism as a “National Policy”. This he did in a speech at Dorset. He said: “The policy of the Government in relation to India, was accepted without question, almost without criticism, in the House of Commons. Col. Wedgwood and Mr. MacDonald accepted the broad principles upon which my speech has been framed. Therefore, I can say to my Indian critics that that which I said in the House of Lords represents not only the considered policy of a party, but the considered and deliberate judgment of all parties in the British nation.” (Italics are ours).

This is indeed a grave charge which calls for a reply from the Labour Movement. The attitude of the leaders has certainly committed the Labour Party to the support of a policy of strong hand in India.

Now, what are the “broad principles” of Lord Birkenhead, accepted by Col. Wedgwood and Mr. MacDonald in behalf of the Labour Party? They are the following:

1. No further constitutional reforms can be granted to India in the near future. No such step can even be contemplated just now;

2. “One constitution or another might, at one time or another, be attempted.” An amendment here or an advance or a variation there” can eventually be made. But no guarantee can be given that the undertaking of the Montagu Act will be acted upon that a constitutional advance will be granted in 1929 as promised in the above act of parliament;

3. Britain cannot be “diverted from her high obligations” in India by the “tactics of restless impatience” on the part of the Indian nationalists;

4. The Indians must give up all resistance to foreign domination, and meekly do the bidding of the British masters who, as it were, are providentially anointed to decide what is good and what is bad for the Indian people;

5. The policy of repression carried on by the Government of India and several provincial Governments during the last years, is justifiable. To override the wishes of the legitimately elected members of the Legislatures is not a violation of the Constitution;

6. The bankrupt and clumsy system of dyarchy, the prerogative of the Viceroy to override the verdict of the Legislative Assembly, the right of Provincial Governors to dissolve the Legislative Councils whenever the latter become untractable, the right of the Executive to hold people indefinitely in jail without trial, the Criminal Laws Amendment Act (practically a civil version of martial law), the Bengal Ordinance and many other similar administrative and judicial monstrosities shall remain in force;

7. Even such partial demands as “the Indianization of the Public Services”, “Indianization of the Army”, “Provincial Autonomy” etc. shall not be granted;

8. The standard, by which India’s fitness for self-government will be measured, is the unconditional readiness of the Indian people to cooperate with the existing system of government;

9. The people of India is denied the right of self-determination; British Imperialism usurps the right to determine the future political status of the Indian Nation;

10. The moment for the withdrawal of the British forces from India cannot be foreseen. British domination in India is permanent. No moment can be discerned in “any foreseeable future” when (to quote Lord Birkenhead) we may safely, either to ourselves or to India, abandon our trust.

These “broad principles” hardly require any commentary. They are the principles of Imperialism, thinly embellished by such hypocritical doctrines as “civilising Mission”, “White Man’s Burden”, etc. It is not necessary to explain why the British bourgeoisie are determined to hold India in subjection. India is not a “sacred trust” she is an invaluable asset. But what is beyond comprehension is how people pretending to speak in behalf of the British proletariat can subscribe to these principles.

Let us see if it is to the interest of the British working class to support Imperialism how the continued subjugation of the Indian people will react upon the living conditions of the British proletariat.

Apart from important political and military reasons, India is of three-fold economic value to the British bourgeoisie. She is a source of raw materials and food; she provides a market for British manufactures that has unlimited possibilities; and she offers lucrative investment for British capital. Although, looked at from the viewpoint of class-antagonism, it can always be maintained that that which strengthens the position of the capitalist, is detrimental to the interests of the working class, the first two of these three economic factors did in the beginning react favourably upon the conditions of the British proletariat. In other words, easy and abundant spoils derived from colonial expansion enabled the British bourgeoisie to permit the proletariat at home a relatively high standard of living. This apparent economic advantage, coupled with the services of the corrupted labour aristocracy, created in the British proletariat a naive love for the Empire. Glittering gilt hid the real signifiance of the chain.

The situation, however, has changed. Gone are the days when the proletariat at home could even derive from colonial exploitation an indirect benefit of very questionable value to their class. The change begun in the normal course of capitalist development has been greatly accentuated by the consequences of the Great World War, which in itself, was brought about partly by the scramble over the colonial spoils. If the total loss caused by the war and its consequences to the European working class in terms of the millions of lives lost, of multitudes mutilated, of chronic unemployment and the resultant destitution, is computed, it will more than over-balance the slight advantage gained in the standard of living during the preceding period. Today colonial possession does not bring any benefit to the metropolitan proletariat as a whole. The capitalists are the sole beneficiaries. The cheap labour of the colonial coolie enables them to break down the resistance of the working class at home. By exporting capital to the colonies they can, temporarily, survive the permanent industrial crisis at home. The only remaining share of the metropolitan proletariat in the colonial exploitation is the unemployment dole which corrupts and demoralizes a considerable section of the working class. So long as British capital can hire more than ten men in India with the wages of one man at home, it will be in a position to maintain an army of unemployed as a standing menace to those at work as a sinister weapon to oblige the entire proletariat to accept a steadily declining standard of living.

India is no longer an exclusive agricultural reserve of and monopoly market for the British industries. She has become a competitor in production, and her markets are assailed from all sides particularly by Japan, America, Germany, and Belgium. This new situation forces upon British Imperialism a new policy to transform India into a centre of production. The consequence of this new policy shatters the imperialist doctrine on which the British working class have been fed by the bourgeoisie and their allies in the Labour Movement. This doctrine is that Britain does not produce food, which must therefore be imported from outside in exchange for manufactured goods; if the colonial possessions are lost, the food-supply of the British people will be at the mercy of other nations; and consequently starvation will stare the British people in the face. The other part of the same doctrine is that the loss of India and other dependencies may lead to the exclusion of British manufactures from those countries which will be ruinous to the British working class. The economics of this doctrine are fallacious. Nevertheless, by raising the bogey of starvation and threat of unemployment it did succeed in enlisting at least the tacit support of the working class for the policy of colonial Imperialism. Now, apart from its fundamental economic fallacy, this doctrine has become totally untenable.

British monopoly, even supremacy, in the Indian market can in the future be retained only by reducing the price of British goods. This can be done either by lowering the wages in Britain or by producing in India with cheap native Labour. One means lower standard of living and the other means unemployment for the British proletariat. Not only has the Empire ceased to be beneficial: it can be maintained only at the expense of the home proletariat. Food and raw materials cannot come from India except in payment for manufactured goods exported from Britain. In order to insure the supply from India, the British worker must learn to make his necessity of today a luxury of tomorrow. He must be accustomed to eat less, if he desires to have his food grown within the Empire. He will be forced to accept this condition, because products of industries built in India with capital exported from Britain, will swell the pockets of the British bourgeoisie, but will not cause the flow of food to Britain. What earthly reason is there, therefore, for British Labour to support the Indian policy of the British bourgeoisie as outlined by Lord Birkenhead? Workers of Britain! will you not repudiate the statement that the imperialist policy outlined by Lord Birkenhead is a “National policy” “is a considered and deliberate policy of all the parties in the British nation”? Will you not declare that the proletariat have nothing in common with the class of exploiters that they are unconditionally opposed to the policy of Imperialism?

Capitalism has brought the industrial system of Britain to the verge of ruin. On the old basis, it cannot survive the crisis. It seeks a possible escape in colonial exploitation. But that will make the complication more complicated. Profits will increase while wages will be forced down. New centres of production will grow in the colonies, while the productive capacity of the industries in the metropolis will be artificially reduced. These are the inevitable consequences of capitalism, the most highly developed stage of which is Imperialism. The doctrines of “Civilizing Mission” and “White Man’s Burden” are monstrous lies.

When the British bourgeoisie pretend to lead the Indian people on the road of orderly progress and prosperity, can not the Indians retort: Doctor heal thyself? Capitalist greed has sapped the prosperity of the British working class: a people faced with threatening industrial ruin can hardly talk of moral progress. Such being the conditions at home, the British bourgeoisie can be asked to mind its own business, and let India take care of herself. Those elements in the British Labour movement who have a different view of the situation and believe in the beneficence of Imperialism, simply betray the interests of the proletariat. Modern Imperialism is a double-edged sword. It aggrandizes the bourgeoisie at the expense of the subject peoples, and enables them to break down the resistance of the home proletariat.

The struggle against Imperialism and its allies inside the Labour movement, therefore, should be inspired not by liberal sentiments, but by the consciousness of class interests. The post-war crisis has conclusively proved that the British industrial system cannot continue on the capitalist basis. Reconstruction is only possible on socialist principles. Imperialism hinders this great revolution at home by creating a new base of capitalist production in the colonies. In other words, Imperialism enables the bourgeoisie to maintain at home a totally bankrupt mode of production which has become a positive social impediment. The disruption of the Empire is the sin quo non for the introduction of a new social system in Britain. A system that produces an ever-increasing army of unemployed when the world is hungering for manufactured goods, that reduces wages when profits soar ever higher, that brings in its train interminable wars of pillage and destruction, certainly demands a radical change. The Empire stands in the way to such a wholesome change in Britain.

Now, we turn to the other side of the picture. It has always been the policy of the British bourgeoisie to proclaim that the majority of the Indian people are so much benefitted by British rule that the nationalist demands are but the voice of a disaffected few. Lord Birkenhead also harped this hackneyed tune. But gone are the days when such statements could pass unchallenged by a crowd of facts. Before the tumultuous events of the last half decade, the “satisfied India”, thankfully basking in the glory of the British lion, has become legendary. Therefore Lord Birkenhead was up against an uncomfortable task when he had to give this legend a touch of reality. He stretched his imagination, and thundered that since among the “responsible nationalist leaders” there was not to be found one who advocated the separation of India from the Empire or withdrawal of the British army from India, British Imperialism acquired a moral right to perpetual existence in India. Lord Birkenhead pretends to have arrived at this conclusion on the strength of information gathered from “very divergent sources”. Either he is misinformed or he is dishonest. Lord Reading should have given him better information.

The noble Earl argued like a lawyer. The burden of his argument was to prove that the Indians are anxious to have the protection of the British forces. Once this is established, it follows logically that Britain remains in India for the benefit of the Indians. But the ex-Lord Chancellor was handling a bad case. In order to justify the policy of strong hand, he had to admit that there existed in India forces that refused to eat out of the generous hand of British Imperialism that clamoured for more than the British protectors were pleased to concede. He had the Swaraj Party in mind. Referring to the “restless impatience” of the Swaraj Party, Lord Birkenhead thundered: “The door of acceleration (of constitutional progress) was not open to menace; still less would it be stormed by violence.” If the very moderate demands of the Swaraj Party called forth such an ominous warning, it is easy to imagine how those voicing the demand for complete national independence would be treated. Lord Birkenhead good-naturedly intimated that if such men were found, his opinion of those men’s judgment would undergo a swift diminution. He would hand them over to the mercy of the Criminal Investigation Department, of the jailors, and to the hangman, if necessary. Still be argues that the absence of “responsible leaders” demanding separation from the Empire conclusively indicates that British Imperialism maintains law and order in India in her interest and with her consent!

To express national aspiration to independence is a criminal offence in India. Nevertheless, all through the history of the Nationalist movement signs of this expression are clearly discernible. Of late the signs have assumed alarming proportions. Had it not been the case, it would not be necessary to shake the mailed fist at such a moderate constitutional opponent as the Swaraj Party. There is a growing determination on the part of the Indian people to gain national freedom in the fullest sense of the term. Free from all coercion, India will disdainfully reject any constitution made for her in Britain. She claims the full right of self-determination. If it were not so, the Nationalist movement would be meaningless. Every British official in India knows that the country is in a great ferment; that the seething discontent of the masses daily becomes more articulate; and that the economic causes of this movement demand a radical change in the present system, the bulwark of which is the British Government.

The “responsible leaders” of Indian nationalism may not desire separation from the Empire. They may even seek the protection of British arms. But they are not India. They mostly belong to and represent the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie, who would rather live under foreign tutelage than countenance a revolutionary struggle which might have more far-reaching consequences than the overthrow of British domination. The “considered policy” of British Imperialism is to buy the support of the Indian bourgeoisie with the cheapest possible price. To render them more tractable in negotiation, the big stick of repression is brandished over their heads whenever they put up any resistance.

The new method of colonial exploitation requires the cooperation of the nationalist bourgeoisie; but Imperialism would not have this cooperation, except on its own terms. It tells the nationalist bourgeoisie; accept thankfully what I am pleased to grant, in return help me intensify the exploitation of the natural resources and the labour power of your country, and you will be rewarded with a minor share of the spoils. The majority of the Indian bourgeoisie had capitulated. The Swaraj Party was the last of the Mohicans. The “considered policy” of the British Government was to bully them into submission. This policy seems to be on the road to temporary success. But how long will this make-shift last? And what will be its effect not only on the toiling masses of India, but on the living conditions of the British proletariat also?

The reconciliation with the Indian bourgeoisie will open up a new era of imperialist exploitation. The characteristic of this new era will be industrialization of India with capital exported from Britain. This process has been going on for a long time. It is the foundation of modern Imperialism; but now it will be accelerated. The British bourgeoisie have already over one thousand million pounds invested in India. The capital outlay has been recovered lang ago. The investment produces dividends often as much as one hundred per cent. This investment has touched but a very small part of the possibilities of India. The rest was held in reserve as a policy of insurance of the British capitalist system. The catastrophe caused by the war has created the necessity of falling back upon this reserve.

It is remarkable that while British Imperialism has, in the last years, resolutely opposed the political aspirations of the Indian people, it has ceded some economic ground to the Indian capitalists. Naturally the process has been very slow; for Imperialism will never approach anywhere near losing the political control and economic hegemony. Nevertheless, steps of far-reaching importance have been taken, the grant of protection to the Indian iron and steel industry being the most outstanding. This concession to the key industry has not been made out of charity or fairness to Indian capital. Imperialist interests demanded it. In the last two years, iron and steel manufactures imported from Germany and Belgium flooded the Indian market. British goods were undersold. Production in India behind high tariff walls was the only remedy to save the situation. Huge metallurgical combines are in the process of formation. They are closely connected with British banks and steel trusts. In ten years, India will supply not only her own market, but will reach out to the entire East. Along with those from other European countries, British manufactures as well will find a formidable rival in the steel industry built in India with British capital and cheap native labour. Imperialism–“Empire Development”–will aggrandize the bourgeoisie; but the British proletariat will find themselves in a mighty tight corner. Still, not a few leaders of British Labour are great advocates of “Empire Development”, in which they find a solution of the chronic unemployment at home!

The key-industry thus protected in the interest of British capital, attention will be turned to the textile trade. Negotiations are already going on to redress the grievances of the Indian capitalists. The handicap imposed upon this industry to prevent it from being a rival to Lancashire, will no longer be necessary, if an ever-growing volume of British capital participate in it. Thanks to the irrigation works, which in their turn, have provided very lucrative investment for much British capital, long-staple cotton will be grown in India. As far as the Lancashire operatives are concerned, India will cease to be the brightest jewel on the British Crown.

It is not necessary to indicate this process in every other single industry to prove that the Empire is an invaluable asset to the bourgeoisie, but a standing menace to the proletariat.

The British working class, therefore, should not only categorically disassociate itself from the imperialist politics of the bourgeoisie. It must go further: it must actively and effectively oppose the attempt to crush the liberation movement in the colonies. The triumph of the Nationalist movement in India, to the extent of separation from the Empire, will deprive the British bourgeoisie of the vast reserve forces which they are planning to bring to bear upon the fight against the revolutionary proletariat at home. Deprived of this reserve, British capitalism will succumb to the present crisis. The doors to socialist reconstruction of Britain will be open.

Workers of Britain! Join hands with the Indian people in the fight against Imperialism. Demand full right of self-determination for the Indian people. Demand immediate withdrawal of the British forces.

The speech of Lord Birkenhead is an insolent challenge to the people of India. The policy outlined therein violates the rudimentary concepts of democracy and constitutional government. His attempt, on the other hand, to glorify the Tory policy as the “national policy” is an insult to the British proletariat. The present depression in the Indian movement obviously encouraged the British bourgeoisie to an offensive. But this depression will not last long. The coming phase of the anti-imperialist struggle will be more revolutionary than ever, because its basis is shifting from the timid and anti-revolutionary middle class to the toiling masses with nothing to lose but their chains, and a world to gain. Imperialism will endeavour to drown that revolt in torrents of blood, as it is doing in China and Morrocco, in the name of peaceful progress and civilisation. Workers of Britain! Prepare for that fateful day by extending the hand of fellowship to the people of India.

Workers of Britain! In conclusion, we must warn you against the insidious attempt to camouflage the Empire as the “Commonwealth of Nations”. Here again you will find many of your leaders serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. If the “Commonwealth” is to be a British commonwealth, the non-British subject people of the Empire have no place in it. If it is to be a commonwealth of free nations, let the subject peoples first be free nations. An Empire can be transformed into a “Co-operative Commonwealth” much less than Socialist society can be built within the frame-work of bourgeois state. The Empire is reared upon the right of British capital to exploit the colonial races. By uttering a few meaningless catch-phrases the Empire Labour Conference cannot induce the British bourgeoisie to abandon this right. If you really desire to see the Empire of pillage and plunder replaced by a Commonwealth of co-operation and brotherhood, don’t try a short-cut. Begin from the beginning. Join hands with the colonial subject races to boldly challenge the right of exploitation usurped by the British bourgeoisie. Labour must be in power (not in office by the grace of the bourgeoisie), the capitalist state must be destroyed, socialist reconstruction must begin before one can honestly raise the question of reorganising the peoples formerly subjugated by the Empire, into an economic unit of production and distribution. To talk of a “cooperative commonwealth” without challenging the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie at home and in the colonies is hypocrisy. At best, it is an imbecile utopia.

Workers of Britain! Let us organise a united front to meet and break down the imperialist offensive.

Bombay, July 15, 1925.

Communist Party of India.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1925/v05n67-aug-27-1925-inprecor.pdf