Speaking at the Sixth Comintern Congress, Tagore, first translator The Communist Manifesto into Bengali and founder in 1934 of what would become today’s Revolutionary Communist Party of India, registers his disagreements with the Comintern’s thesis on the Colonial Revolution. Particularly against the notion that the colonial and semi-colonial bourgeoisie could play a progressive role in the struggle against imperialism.

‘Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies’ by Narayan (Saumyendranath Tagore) from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 8. No. 76. October 30, 1928.

One of the most fundamental differences between the opportunistic attitude of the Amsterdam International to the colonial policy and the revolutionary attitude of the Third International has been very well defined by Comrade Lenin at the Second Congress of the Communist International in his theses on the colonial countries. Since then, the Communist International has adopted a definite revolutionary attitude towards the colonies.

Between the Second and the Sixth Congress, fundamental changes and developments have taken place in the colonial countries. On behalf of the Indian delegation, I welcome the theses on the revolutionary movement in the colonies and semi-colonies, especially because of the very great stress that has been laid on the Indian question. But there are some contradictions in the theses which I wish to point out here.

On page 6 of the theses, we find the statement: “The real industrialisation of the colonial countries, especially building up of efficient machine industries which might be needed for the independent development of the productive forces of the country, are not fostered by imperialist monopoly, but are retarded. This is the basic function of colonial subjugation. The colonial country is forced to sacrifice its interests of its independent development and to serve as the economic market for capitalism in order to strengthen the economic and political power of the bourgeoisie of the imperialist country in order to perpetuate monopoly in the colony and to increase the expansion power of the respective imperialists as against the rest of the world.”

I think that this statement does not give a true picture of the dynamic growth of capitalism, and of industrialisation in India. Till the world war, the policy of British imperialism was the classical form of imperialistic exploitation. It consisted in keeping India as a source of raw materials and as a market for the industrial products of British industries. There was a policy of deliberately keeping India industrially undeveloped. High tariffs, high duties and embargoes on machinery were imposed by the British imperialists in order to prevent India’s industrialisation. During these years, British capital was exclusively used for railways, for irrigation work and for the development of harbours. In other words, British capital was used for the sole purpose of the expansion of the market. British imperialism does not adopt the same methods today to exploit India. Fundamental changes in objective conditions have brought about changes in the policy of British imperialists.

The causes of these changes are: first, the conditions during and after the war. During the war, it became necessary that war materials should be manufactured in India to meet the requirements of the troops in Mesopotamia and other eastern theatres of war. Britain could not effectively supply these unless industries especially war industries, were developed in India. This resulted in the setting up of the Industrial Commission, which marked a major turning point in the policy of British imperialism.

Secondly, Japan and America posed a serious economic challenge to the British monopoly over the Indian market. Britain realised its inability to cope with this situation without changing its policy in India. This led to the virtual abandonment of the traditional policy of free trade and the recognition of differential protectionalism in India which we find, for instance, in the Bombay textile industries. This shows clearly that stabilisation of British industries, during this period of decay, made industrialisation of India an absolute necessity.

The industrialisation of India created an additional market for engineering and metallurgical industries. Cheap Indian labour could be more effectively utilised in order to stabilize British industry.

Thirdly, the Taxation Commission was set up. Its sole aim was to distribute the burden of taxation in order to expand the internal market. The scheme for the modernisation of agriculture was drawn up to raise the purchasing power of the peasantry.

Finally, India could not be converted into a military base of British imperialism in the East unless the national bourgeoisie were won over, and the national bourgeoisie could not be won over unless some concessions were given to them.

What is the political expression of this policy? It is this: that in order to industrialise India, it is necessary to extend the internal market, to make certain agrarian reforms which is impossible for British imperialism to achieve, owing to the very complicated land tenure system.

Thus, industrialisation tends to pauperise the peasantry, which creates the possibility of an agrarian revolution. It also gives rise to the development of the proletariat, which brings with it the possibility of a socialist revolution. Moreover, it brings about a change in the attitude of the national bourgeoisie. All these are the political consequences of the change in Britain’s economic policy towards India.

Unless we see this process dialectically, and in its proper perspective, we will arrive at wrong conclusions regarding the role of the native bourgeoisie and we shall draw the same wrong conclusions, which the author of the theses has drawn.

So long as imperialism obstructed capitalist development in India, the Indian bourgeoisie were the driving force of social change. But the changes in British policy had already led to a corresponding change in the attitude of the Indian bourgeoisie towards imperialism. We find that to the corresponding degree to which the hindrances to capitalist development have been removed by British imperialism the bourgeoisie are moving towards co-operation with it, one group after another capitulating to imperialism. Never in their history, the Indian bourgeoisie have adopted a revolutionary attitude towards British imperialism. They never crossed the boundaries of acceptable constitutional agitation, and at the critical moment, they betrayed the movement. One who is conversant with the Indian national movement knows that the Indian bourgeoisie have close ties with feudalism; therefore, they cannot rouse the masses; they cannot bring about agrarian reforms without undermining their own position. They, therefore, cannot be expected to rouse and lead the masses to complete the agrarian revolution in India.

Now let us see how this role of the bourgeoisie has been formulated in the theses. We see on page 17, paragraph 19: “As an independent class rule, a future of ‘free’ and independent capitalist development, a hegemony over an independent people—this will never be given voluntarily to the national bourgeoisie by imperialism. But this is precisely the class aim of the bourgeoisie, their future as an independent class, as a ruling representative of an independent nation. In this point, the conflict of interests between the national bourgeoisie of the colonial country and the imperialists is objectively of a principle character; it is unbridgeable; it demands capitulation from one side or the other.”

Too much stress on the nature and intensity of the conflict between the national bourgeoisie of the colonial country and the imperialist bourgeoisie has led to certain incorrect conclusions. It is stated on page 21 paragraph 23: “In the first preparatory period of the revolutionary movement of these countries when the organisation of the proletariat and the influence of the Communist Party is still weak, but that of the bourgeois parties on the other hand is much stronger, when the latter occupy the leading position in the national movement because in the interests of the demands of the national bourgeoisie for power they still temporarily demonstrate their opposition (no matter how vacillating and reformist) against the ruling imperialist-feudal power bloc, and when the masses of the population follow along behind them, in this stage (as at present e.g. in India and Egypt), it would be an ultra-left mistake to start the Communist Party’s agitation by simply identifying the national-reformists (Swarajists, Wafdists and others) with the ruling counter-revolutionary bloc of imperialists and feudal lords.”

“It is not true that the Swarajists, Wafdists and others have already exposed themselves in the eyes of the toiling masses as allies of imperialism, as counter-revolutionary traitors to the national movement.”

A few lines later: “The Swarajists, Wafdists, etc., have not yet betrayed the national liberation struggle in the decisive manner in which, for example, the Kuomintang did in China.” The conclusions that are drawn from this formulation are that the Communist Party in India should keep quiet and not criticise the vacillation of the reformist bourgeoisie because they have yet to play a revolutionary role. It is also stated that “they have not betrayed the national liberation movement in a decisive manner.” This is far from being true. The Bardoli decision was a definite betrayal of the Indian masses by the nationalists in 1922 when great mass upheavals took place, and there was the greatest possibility of an agrarian revolution breaking out in India. The bourgeoisie decisively betrayed the movement under the leadership of Gandhi out of pure and simple class interest. It was the menace of the agrarian revolution which forced the national bourgeoisie to betray the movement. Perhaps, may not be in the same manner as the treacherous counter-revolutionary Chinese bourgeoisie who have shed the blood of millions of workers and peasants, but the Indian bourgeoisie did deceive the masses in 1922.

At the end of the paragraph, we find: “The Indian Communists agitation in this stage should not concentrate the sharpest fight against the bourgeoisie but should turn it against the present immediate chief foe, the ruling imperialist-feudal bloc.”

I consider this statement does not give a realistic appreciation of the situation in India and of the growing counter-revolutionary attitude of the bourgeoisie towards the national revolutionary movement. This formulation may lead to a tactical blunder.

Now, I come to another question which is in the last paragraph of the theses on page 37, paragraph 32. Here, in describing the activities of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties and in drawing the conclusions from their experience, it is said: “The special Workers’ and Peasants Parties, no matter how revolutionary they may be, can easily be transformed into ordinary petty-bourgeois parties. Therefore, the organising of such parties is inadvisable just as the Communist Party cannot build itself upon a foundation of an amalgamation of two classes, so it is just as wrong to organise other parties on this foundation, which is typical of petty-bourgeois members.”

It seems to me that some of the comrades are scared of a nightmare, which is the result of their own irrational fantasy, that the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party is a substitute for the Communist Party. Nobody has ever put forward the idea that the Worker’s and Peasants’ Party would become a substitute for the Communist Party.

The petty bourgeois elements in a backward country who have been proletarianised are sometimes more proletarian than the proletariat themselves. The petty bourgeois intelligentsia, the urban petty bourgeoisie, have a role to play in the revolutionary movement in the colonies. What should be the organisational expression of an anti-imperialist front of the petty bourgeois elements? Can we afford to swamp the Communist Party with such petty bourgeois elements? We cannot. On the other hand, the Communist Party of India should utilise the revolutionary energies of the petty bourgeoisie. I think it is clear that this anti-imperialist front can only take the organisational form of a Workers’ and Peasants’ Party composed of the urban intelligentsia and the petty bourgeois elements under the leadership of the proletariat.

These Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties which started in India in 1925 have been carrying on a definite line of action. This party organised 30,000 workers in Bombay in demonstrations against the Simon Commission under such revolutionary slogans as “Down with Imperialism”, “Complete Independence of India”. Strike movements today are being led by the Workers and Peasants Party. The strike in Lilloah was led by the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party under the control of the Communist Party of India. We have been able to take over some trade unions. Now we are told to liquidate all these Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties. This is pure and simple professional dogmatism which Lenin warned us so many times.

But if we look at the situation in India itself, which are the channels through which the Communists are making their influence felt among the masses? I think it is quite clear that, under the leadership of the Communist Party of India, the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties are valuable channels for the propagation of Communist ideas in India. There was no leftist tendency in the Indian national movement before the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties appeared in the field. Today all the leftist elements in the country are veering round these organisations, and a certain crystallisation of leftist forces have been taking place through these parties.

And, therefore, I think that this formulation is wrong, both tactically and in principle.

In the same clause, it is said that this by no means excludes the organisation of the fighting bloc of the workers and peasant masses, which is necessary for the conquest of power in the bourgeois democratic revolution at the time of the uprising, in the form of elected Soviets and other loose organisational forms. Loose organisational forms are admitted, and such organisations can be formed on the basis of an alliance between the peasants and workers. But when a concrete party comes in the field as a leftist party which gives a leftist orientation to the nationalist revolutionary movement in India, it is to be liquidated. I do not understand the logic of this argument, and I consider it to be a wrong and unrealistic attitude towards the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecor” 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. Inprecor’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 Inprecor, 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/1928/v08n76-oct-30-1928-inprecor-op.pdf