Naxal Resistance

This blog is a mirror site of http://indianvanguard.wordpress.com

Fake Independence and the Mercurial Stance of Undivided Communist Party: CPM’s Hotchpotch View on Semi Colony and Neo colony

Posted by Indian Vanguard on August 15, 2007

We repost an article published by CPI (Maoist) on the occasion of  the socalled Independence day.

It is not the CPI(Maoist) to declare such a bitter truth for the first time in India. The editorial in the People’s Age (the CPI mouthpiece) of 21st January 1948 said that it is “a blasphemous lie to assert that freedom has been achieved…. our national leadership has accepted sham freedom.” The Second Congress of the CPI under Ranadive leadership had taken many adventurist policies but rightly called the power-transfer of August 1947 as sham independence. So also the editorial of the Lasting Peace of 27 January, 1948 assertively stated, “a sham independence (was) bestowed on India” [Cited in M.B.Rao(ed). Documents of the Communist Party of India , vol. VII, 1948-50, PPH, New Delhi, 1976, p.viii] It is well known to the serious readers of the Marxist movement in India that after the extremely rightist policy of the CPI under P.C.Joshi he was ousted from the post of General Secretary and B.T.Ranadive assumed the highest post and pursued a ‘left’ adventurist policy conforming to the line of Tito.


Ranadive had to go and by this time the Telangana Uprising kindled the fire of revolution on the Maoist lines. The Telangana struggle put the CPI leadership under strong pressure to accept some of the formulations of the Andhra CPI unit. The C.C. members from Andhra submitted their critique of the CPI PB’s vacillating position and the failure to ‘learn from the Chinese experience’. In their critique, popularly known as the Andhra Thesis and accepted by the Polit buro of the CPI for the time being, they made serious criticisms of the Polit buro’s ‘Tactical Line‘. They clearly charged the PB with reviving the position on the Mount Batten Award, mistaking the “distinction between the colonial and semi-colonial countries on the one hand and the independent, capitalist, imperialist countries on the other”. [‘Report on Left Deviation Inside the CPI‘ (Draft Critique submitted by the member of the CC in its May-June 1950 meeting, In M.B.Rao (ed) DocumentsIbid. p.786 ]


Like the CPI(Maoist) the Andhra C.C. members also then quoted from comrade Lenin’s “preliminary Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions” for the second congress of the Communist International. We quote what they quoted from Lenin. It runs

“Sixth, that it is necessary constantly to explain and expose among the broadest masses of the toilers of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practiced by the imperialist powers in creating under the guise of politically independent states, states which are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily…” [Ibid. p.790]. The Andhra C.C leaders also justly criticized the tactical line of the P.B. for “starting with relegating the aspect of imperialist oppression and enslavement into the background, ended with clean bypassing the national-liberationist aspect of our struggle and nullifying the distinction between the revolution in independent imperialist countries and revolution in colonial and dependent countries…”[Ibid p.795]


The CPI(Maoist) is fully at one with such a view and is devoted to rekindling the fire of Telangana . Mention should be made here that the revisionist CPI leadership within years backtracked and from 1955 officially declared that what it called fake independence before was actually real independence. Thus the view on semi-colonial India was dismissed and the CPI and then the CPI(M) have faithfully following that revised position to dive into the path of parliamentarism.


Anil Biswas is saying nothing new when he dismisses very easily and perfunctorily the crucial fact of ‘Transfer of power‘ on 15th August 1947, reducing the colonial status of India to a semi-colonial one. It is known to many veterans of the communist movement that even the CPI in 1947-51 period officially rubbished Indian independence as sham. The 1951 CPI Programme also identified India as semi-colonial and semi-feudal. The leader of the British Communist Party [CPGB] and great theoretician influencing the CPI leaders in the 1940s and 50s Rajni Palm Dutt held the view in 1947-48 period that the so-called independence was merely a “a change from the direct rule of imperialism to its indirect rule”. (India Today, Editions of 1947 and 1948).


When the CPI had preferred plunging into the rosy path of parliamentary politics, even shelving the 1951 programme, it re-discovered and re-identified the ‘independent progress of India‘ under Nehru. Khruschev’s betrayal provided a handle to the majority of the CPI leaders and the theory of ‘peaceful transition to socialism’ possibility of ‘ fundamental social change‘ in a number of ‘capitalist and former colonial countries’ by “winning a stable parliamentary majority backed by mass revolutionary movement” of the working people, etc. were easily courted by them. [Quoted in the Report of CPSU, In The Fourth Congress Documents, In Mohit Sen (ed.), Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India, Vol. III (1951-56), Peoples’ Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977 p. 295].


The Palghat Congress of the CPI in 1953-54 had already started singing pro-Nehru song in its way to strengthen ‘freedom’ and acclaimed the “significant” role played by the Indian government “In a number of important international issues”. [Political Resolution of the Communist Party of India, Adopted by the Third Party Congress, Madhurai, 27th December 1953 to 4th January 1954, In Ibid. p.295]. The Tebhaga struggle had already ended and the revisionist CPI leadership withdrew the Great Telangana Armed Uprising. And by then the path of electoral politics accepting Indian “democratic system” made the CPI abandon the past official announcement on the fake independence embodied in the semi-colonial, semi-feudal system. It is worth remembering that even the Second Party Congress of the CPI raised such calls like “complete severance from the British empire and full and real independence”, “self-determination of nationalities including the right to secession”, etc. [Political Thesis adopted at the Second Party Congress of the CPI, In M.B.Rao(ed), Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India, Vol. III, 1948-50, PPH, 1976, pp. 85-87]


The ideology of reformism demanded of the CPI to abandon openly the earlier view-points on the Transfer of Power by consent in 1947. Already the extended plenum of the C.C. of the CPI held in 1952-53 went into raptures to declare that in the 1952 elections “The entire party went into election campaign immediately after the all-India party conference held in October 1951″. This plenum also had shown signs of sympathy for the colossal burdens on all classes ” including industrialists and merchants and other class of common people.” [The Extended Plenum of the Central Committee held in Calcutta from 30th December 1952 to 10th January 1953, PPH, New Delhi, 1977, pp. 199, 201]


This journey in the path of parliamentarism with the bizarre policy of equal love for Nehru, industrialists along with the common people, abandoning the fundamentals of revolutionary Marxism, led the CPI to declare the independent status of India suppressing the surrenderist policy of the government and the comprador big bourgeoisie to imperialist interests. Notable is that with Khruschev’s new line and the CPI’s topsy-turvy the CPGB theoretician Rajni Palme Dutta too uncermoniously turned a somersault by rejecting his earlier view on the fake independence of India in 1947 and joined the chorus of revisionism to declare India as an independent, bourgeois state and that the independence was “a landmark of world history“. [Rajni Palme Dutt, India Today, Preface, Manisha Granthalaya, 1970]


Anil Biswas in his writing preferred rambling to prove the independent – not comprador character – by any means but ended up in proving the CPI(M) theorization inherently contradictory as well as bankrupt. However, except parroting the Dange view on the so-called national bourgeoisie Biswas and his party have nothing to write new. What is lacking in his so-called critique of Maoists is virtual silence on the part under the sub-heading “….the country is not semi-colonial”. Perhaps Biswas felt tired of proving by any means the independent, freedom loving character of the Indian big bourgeoisie and so averted further delving into the question of refuting the Maoist theorization of semi-colonial India. Although Anil’s and the CPI(M)’s hotch-potch theory on the independent capitalist development by virtue of the supposed positive role of the big capitalists like the Tatas, Birlas, etc. and the implied view on ‘independence of India’ convinced Anil Biswas that the less is said on the latter, the better to avoid showing off big holes in the whole theorization.


Let us deal with the Maoist position on semi-colony with our acceptance of Comrade Lenin’s brilliant pronouncements. While dealing with the transitional forms of state dependence in the stage of imperialism based on finance capital Lenin clearly stated: Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence — the semi-colony.” [Lenin, ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism‘, Collected Works, XXII, Moscow, 1974, p.263, stress in Lenin’s].


Anil Biswas smacks of his and his party’s bankrupt position. While weaving a web of fantastic theorization on the independent character of the Indian and other third world big bourgeoisie in the present period he takes recourse to idealist fallacy without any foundation in Marxism-Leninism. Rejecting the above formulation of comrade Lenin this revisionist coward writes, “It has been the main and general tendency of the owners of capital the world over to try to cooperate with the international finance capital and to be its partner. Indian big bourgeoisie has taken recourse to such cooperation standing own their on strong basis. It is not business of the comprador bourgeoisie. The flow of international finance has surely influenced the Indian big bourgeoisie with regard to their economic decision and role. While keeping intact their own capital, they are used to taking necessary decision to increase profit. Besides that, from the position of their own strength with the help of foreign investment they are entering new field. If ‘dependence’, ‘co-operation’, ‘relation’ express the compradorial character, then we have to say the capitalists of the whole of the third world are compradors. To tell the truth, then the bourgeoisie of many European countries are to be called comprador bourgeoisie for their keeping close relations with and partial dependence on imperialist capital….”[p.19]


We learn many an anti-Leninist sweeping decision from the above and all are premised on the stock-in-trade preconceived view that the India is independent and her big bourgeoisie have grown enough strength to dictate their own terms while dealing with the tycoons of the industrial west. First, Anil Biswas rejects the ‘diverse forms of dependent countries’ in the stage of imperialism based on finance capital. Based on such assumption, Anil Biswas and the CPI(M) are driven to the conclusion that despite influence of the ‘international finance’ the supposed ‘free’ country’s bourgeoisie do have independent role regarding profit making for “keeping their capital intact”. The novelty of Anil’s brilliance leads him to offer the second gem. He then sets up an enemy (here it is none but the Maoists) to drum into his/her ears that ‘dependence’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘relation’ do not mean loss of independence as occurs in case of compradors. Here also Anil Biswas slips into another contradiction.


The tenor of his entire write-up is a deliberate and conscious effort at holding a brief for the Indian bourgeoisie’s independent and freedom-loving powerful character. Here Anil has added ‘dependence’ to co-operation’ and ‘relation’ of the Indian big bourgeoisie vis a vis the international finance capital. What a pathetic condition of the CPI(M)’s supremo in West Bengal! We are forced to believe that the entire tie-up in different names between the small partners and their big tycoons is as innocuous and pure as ‘co-operation’ and ‘relation’! And as the state of India being led by this class of big bourgeoisie – so the CPI(M) Programme says – the inflow of capital through the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, MNCs, etc. is pure and simple ‘cooperation’, ‘relation’, etc. This is the pet argument of all the successive governments at the Centre and of the current CPI(M) led government that in such deals no strings are attached.


Anil Biswas himself pats on his own back by such silly comments considering it that his frivolous way of presentation shall let down the Maoists and assure the captains of foreign capital an unrestrained flow of capital to India, West Bengal in particular. With such pronouncements Anil Biswas actually wants to arrogate to himself the role of a Khruschevite “Lenin” by dismissing comrade Lenin’s farsighted view on a number of ‘transitional forms of state dependence’, ‘diverse forms of semi-colony’. With such use of words like ‘cooperation’, ‘relation’ Anil conceals the fact that they are possible only in conditions of equality and mutual understanding, but never in conditions of monumental dimension of giant powers poised for domination and exploitation of the people and resources of the countries with whose big bourgeoisie (obviously weak and tied to the former in numerous ways) they lend, yet the sophisticated foolish Anil Biswas problematises his and his party’s scheme by including ‘dependence’ – as if this were a mere word, not a concept. The anachronism becomes glaring. To belittle comrade Lenin’s view on dependence under the cloak of “formally independent” but actually semi-colony, Anil Biswas shrewdly pushes the Khruschevite thesis of independence of India under the leadership of the big bourgeoisie.


So for Anil Biswas and his party ‘dependence’ on imperialist capital is “cooperation”, “relation” and such sugar-coated pills with which that social-fascist organisation, the CPI(M) and its leadership has been justifying globalization, FDIs, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and such imperialist finance capital to smoothly make inroads into India, West Bengal imparticular. There always exists multi-dimensional loot and the great drain of resources, natural and man-made. We may recall the brilliant exposure of so-called selfless imperialist ‘aid’ by Teresa Hayter in Aid as Imperialism that created a lot of flutter in the 70s. Hayter writes, “It may help to crate and sustain within third world countries, a class which is dependent on the continued existence of aid and foreign private investment and which therefore becomes an ally of imperialism.” [p.9] This ‘dependence’ in the cloak of ‘co-operation’, ‘relation, etc. not only limited to comprador bourgeoisie, this ‘dependence’ also breeds a servile class of elite and politicians as well as political parties like the Congress, CPI(M), etc. Those spineless forces are danger to the Indian people and society.


Anil Biswas then sucks up the big bourgeoisie of the Third world by superciliously trampling underfoot Lenin’s and Mao’s lessons on the so-called signboard of freedom of the backward third world countries at one stroke. Armed with the CPI(M)’s revisionist thesis (the revised official view based on the topsy turvy of the CPI on the supposed genuine independence attained on 15th August 1947 under the leadership of the big bourgeoisie) on free India from the clutches of imperialism Anil Biswas generalizes it with the power transfers in countries of the 3rd world as symbols of genuine independence and the big bourgeoisie of those countries are genuinely national having revolutionary role in those countries, they are not compradors. This formulation of bankruptcy is placed in a round about way when Anil Biswas scrambles to prove the CPI(M)’s fallacious view by way of a vainglorious attempt, weak at its very core, interrogating the Maoists: “If ‘dependence’, ‘cooperation’, ‘relation’ express the compradorial character, then we have to say the capitalists of the whole of the third world are compradors.” Who cares to listen to Anil’s and his party’s sermon concealing neo-colonial exploitation and playing second fiddle to imperialist capital’s owners and ambassadors? Instead of citing numberless deals and cases of plunder, we only help Anil Biswas and his social-fascist party to fortify their position further with a cue from what the U.S. ambassador in India Mr. Mulford really said in a speech on 1st September, 2005 at a meeting of the C.I.I. in Chennai: “American capital does not want to come to rule India. The aim behind this coming is solely for fulfilling the dream of India’s development” (sic.) [Source: Kalantar, 7th September, 2005]. Does not Mr. Anil speak his Master’s Voice?


Anil, in his flight to the world of absurdity, thinks that Maoist formulation of semi-colonial and comprador character of the Indian big bourgeoisie has been demolished with the above generalization. Actually he befools himself and his party’s followers. In his over-statement through the generalization of the non-comprador character of the third world’s big bourgeoisie and their ‘genuine independence’ he foolishly challenges the Maoists: “To tell the truth, then the bourgeoisie of many European countries are to be called comprador bourgeoisie for their keeping close relation with and partial dependence on imperialist capital”. Here also the premise of the argument is to put on the same footing the big bourgeoisie of many European countries and the Indian or other third world’s big bourgeoisie. However, the clever Anil Biswas has added phrases like ‘keeping close relation’, ‘partial dependence’ etc. to avoid bitter controversy but with such phrases Anil Biswas has actually compounded his and his party’s problem further. We can also echo in Anil’s voice that the English capital has close relations with the U.S. finance capital, and it is ‘partially dependent’ on the latter on certain cases, so also is the case of Italy, Canada, France, East-European countries, etc. But what does it suggest? Does it suggest that the growth, development and flourishing of the big bourgeoisie in those European countries particularly with the U.S. hegemony of the current stage reduce them to a mere subservient and completely dependent role tied-up to the U.S. capital without any freedom like the Indian big comprador bourgeoisie? Do their relations, etc. (among the European continental countries) are comparable to India’s, or for that matter third world’s big bourgeoisie’s perpetually dependent role in multifarious ways except the possibility of courting the capital from the U.S. or any other capitalist country? Anil Biswas had better brush up his knowledge bank despite his behind the scene engagement in state administrative duties by taking a look at classics by Marx, Lenin, et al. However, it is our opinion that people like Anil Biswas can not do the basic homework as is evident in their production of page after page of shallow writings.


Anil, representing the CPI(M), is dangerously oblivious to the fact that in the capitalist countries in Europe the growth and development was not dependent on the imperialist masters as in India. The Tatas’, the Birlas’, the Goenkas’ infamous birth lay in the cradles of British colonialists. How come then Anil Biswas crows about the supposedly same status of the big bourgeoisie of the capitalist west confusing them with that of the third world, especially India’s big bourgeoisie? The Maoists are not fools like the ideologues of the CPI(M) to characterize the former as compradors.


Let us shed some light from the pages of history. Some comrades in the Soviet Union cried that after the World War II “the USA has brought the other capitalist countries sufficiently under its sway to be able to prevent them going to war among themselves and weakening one another; that the foremost capitalist minds have been sufficiently taught by the two world wars and the severe damage they caused to the world capitalist world not to venture to involve the capitalist countries in war with one another again….” [ J.V.Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism In The U.S.S.R, Foreign Language Publishing Press, Peking, 1972, pp.32-33].


It is well known to the people with minimum knowledge about the rise of the U.S.A and the fall of the U.K after the end of the World War II and the U.S. efforts with Marshall Plan and various measures to play the leadership role in the capitalist world along with suppressing communism worldwide and to encircle the socialist camp. Comrade Stalin categorically rejected the view of permanent U.S. hegemony in the aftermath of the war-torn economies of other capitalist countries (of course having genuine independence and free development of capitalism). Comrade Stalin’s farsight proved true with the passage of time. He asserted “Outwardly, everything would seem to be “going well”; the U.S.A has put Western Europe, Japan and other capitalist countries on rations; Germany (Western), Britain, France, Italy and Japan have fallen into the clutches of the U.S.A and are meekly obeying its commands. But it would be mistaken to think that things can continue to “go well” for “all eternity”, that these countries will tolerate the domination and oppression of the United Sates endlessly, that they will not endeavour to tear loose from American bondage and take the path of independent development.” [Ibid. p.33]


The pronouncements are clear and straight-forward. Such possibility of those war – ravaged economies to come out on their own was a reality since those were independent capitalist countries, temporarily finding themselves under U.S. domination. Stalin concluded brilliantly: “…..Would it not be truer to say that capitalist Britain, and, after her, capitalist France, will be compelled in the end into conflict with it in order to secure an independent position and, of course, high profit?” [Ibid. p.34]. And here lies the truth of comrade Lenin’s thesis that the struggle among the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors are inevitable. For this Comrade Stalin adds that Lenin’s thesis of the inevitability of war is not obsolete. Mr. Anil Biswas and his party, the CPI(M), imagine that the Indian big capitalists are on equal footing with the French or British capitalists and so this leads to the extreme view that they may develop so much strength and courage to be imperialistic like the latter to crush west European competitors even at the risk of war. Sorry to state that Anil’s and his party’s thesis would have us believe about such imaginary culmination. Only a mad can blow up out of proportion that ‘American bondage’ of France, Great Britain, etc. after the war is same as the colonial or neo-colonial bondage structurally binding a 3rd World state like India to Great Britain or latter to the U.S.A., U.K, etc.


Now we like to add a few more words on Anil’s [and that of the CPI(M)] pronouncement that India is not semi-colonial but independent. We may start with reference to Mr. Attle’s statement made in British Parliament on 20th February, 1947 on the transfer of power. In point 14 Attle, the chief of British government made it clear that “HMG (His Majesty’s Government) believe that British commercial and industrial interests in India can look forward to a fair field for their enterprise under the new conditions. The commercial connection between India and the United Kingdom has been long and friendly and will continue to be their mutual advantage.” [In Dhirendra Nath Sen, Revolution By Consent? Saraswati Library, Calcutta, 1947, Appendices, p.318, Emphasis ours].


This was a clear statement a few months before the actual Transfer of Power. And obviously the phrase “the mutual advantage” sounds like Mr. Anil Biswas’s ‘relation’, ‘cooperation’, etc. The actual meaning lies in the fact of advantage for the British capitalists and then of the Indian big comprador capitalists nurtured and developed in the lap of the former. The top of the Indian big bourgeoisie, in the CPI(M)’s view a leader of the freedom movement, declared in 1946 itself “I don’t believe this [British capital in India] will ever be expropriated. The British firms will carry on”. [G.D.Birla’s Statement in Hindustan Times 11th April 1946, cited in Rajni Palme Datt, India Today, Bombay, 1947, p.160]. This is mutual love for mutual advantage.


We are not referring in detail to the volcanic situation in the post-war period created by the revolt of the R.I.N., the militant mass demonstrations, the large-scale strikes by Post & Telegraph workers and others, the Tebhaga struggle, etc. that shook the British rule in India. Simultaneously, it should be remembered that with the decline of the British power, America began to make inroads in the economic field. In a leading article, Eastern Economist wrote in July 1945 that “It is a happy sign that Americans have begun taking intimate interest in Indo-American economic relations.” It also stated that as America could “maintain conditions of full employment by large-scale manufacturing and export of capital goods, India’s post war requirements can, therefore, be absolutely dovetailed into each other.” [“India Britain and the U.S.A“, Eastern Economist, 13th July 1945, Cited in Suniti Kumrr Ghosh, The Indian Big Bourgeoisie , New Horizon Book Trust, Calcutta 2000, p.262]. So alongside the British capital, the American capital too started extending its stranglehold over the Indian economy on the eve of so-called independence.


What Mr. Anil Biswas and his party wants to hush up is the naked reality that after 15 th August 1947, India became a Dominion of His Majesty’s Government. So many people along with Mr. M.K.Gandhi died in 1948 not as Free Indian Citizens but as British Subjects! What a novelty of ‘freedom’! Such dishonest social fascists suppress the glaring facts that “In their own interests…. the British volunteered to train us in the art of ‘democratic way’ of life and the services of a British Governor – General, Lord Mount batten, to preside over the destiny of the newly created ‘Independent Dominion version of the Government of India Act. 1935…” [Dhirendra Nath Sen, ‘The Paradox of Freedom’, Vidyodaya Library Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, 1958, p.1].


The peddlers of such “genuine” freedom suppress the fact as to how the last governor under the direct colonial rule of the British could assume the office of free India’s governor general; how two British governors and one Indian governor during the British period could continue in their respective posts after the “freedom” of India; how could the British generals remain the head of the army, navy and air force after the transfer of power? Why the appeal was made to the British army officers and soldiers to serve as before for the “free India’s” security? Why 49% percent British army officers and 94% British soldiers responded to “free India’s” call to stay back in India? Those revisionist liars shall never disclose the fact that the ‘India Allowance’ for the ordinary British soldiers was hiked as high as 50 percent. Those dishonest leaders under the garb of ‘Marxists’ hush up the crucial fact that the rebel soldiers of the Historic Naval Revolt (1946) and the soldiers who joined the I.N.A were not allowed to serve the “free India’s” military service. Their ‘offence’ was that they were patriots!


The entire system of bureaucracy, judiciary, etc. remained as usual after the Transfer of Power. And the same colonial Acts and even various sections of the Acts were retained intact. The height of the paradox of ‘freedom’ was reached when during the “Freedom at Midnight” or to borrow Nehru’s words, “Tryst with Destiny” on the 15th day of August 1947 the ‘freedom’ was celebrated according the first prioty to the colonial regime’s national anthem “God Save the King” and only after then the national anthem of “free” India “Jana Gana Mana….” It was not surprising at all that though the tricolour was hoisted on that day at Delhi, Union Jack was allowed to keep fluttering. This is ‘indepence’ by consent! [N. Mansergh, editor in chief, Constitutional Relations Between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942-47, London, 1971-81 – Vol. XII, Cited in Suniti kr. Ghosh, India and the Raj, Vol. II, pp.317-25]


The Transfer of Power also led to the membership of the British Commonwealth headed by the British King. These are only some of the instances to be known by the people of India. Let Anil Biswas and his party answer how to justify this ‘Transfer of Power’ in the name of freedom, not a semi-colony what the Maoists have enough courage and theoretical basis to declare, to the chagrin of all such people and parties enjoying various sorts of opportunities and benefits in the post 15th August, 1947 India. Mr. Anil Biswas and his party project things in such a fashion as if the CPI(Maoist) has introduced this view of India’s ‘freedom’ out of nothing.


Anil’s [i.e. the CPI(M)’s] knowledge of Marxism and comprehension of the post-world war II situation leading to the transfer of powers to many countries are really full of revisionist radiance and flight of fantasy. Anil Biswas does not know what neo-colony is! His sarcasm against the Maoists proves him as a simpleton of the first degree. Poor Anil Biswas says “If the analysis of the Maoists is accepted then it amounts to saying that with the break-down of the old colony imperialism took recourse to neo-colonial tactics….” [p.20] Mr. Anil makes such utterances in wonders as if the Maoists are inventing something new. He is in great confusion as the much-known Marxist-Leninist concept of new-colonialism, if accepted, will automatically destroy the whole CPI and later the CPI(M) formulation of the state character, to the disturbance of their native and foreign masters.


It is an indisputable fact that the two consecutive world wars, the march of socialism throughout the world and the massive volcanic eruptions of people’s anti-colonial struggles forced the imperialist master to come to terms with the big bourgeoisie and feudal landlords of the third world countries like India to transfer powers on the condition that the new rulers will safeguard the interests of imperialism. This indirect rule in the form of neo-colony has remained as the perpetual dependence on imperialism as evident in the so-called free countries like India. Secondly, the decline of the enormous powers of the British imperialism and vast changes in the international scenario with contradictions among the imperialist countries provided some bargaining space to the new rulers but by no means this bargaining of different degrees meant the change of character of the ruling comprador bourgeois.


During the Great Debate the CPC under Mao Ze Dong while defining the general line of the international communist movement unequivocally stated that after the World War II the imperialists have not surely abandoned colonialism, rather they have assumed a new form which is neo-colonialism. Rejecting the revisionist propaganda of the Soviet Union which Mr. Anil Biswas and his party clings to, the CPC referred to the important feature of such neo-colonialism as witnessed in the world is the change of their old method of direct rule under a compulsive situation and they have taken recourse to a new form of colonial rule and exploitation depending on their trained and selective agents. The CPC referred to the fact how the imperialists led by US imperialism were forming military alliance, establishing military base, making “Federation” or “Community” and also through their puppets do trample and control those countries which have announced freedom. The CPC in its polemics with the revisionist headquarters of the CPSU referred to economic ‘aid’ and various other forms by which the imperialists keep those “free” countries as markets of their commodities, as source of raw materials and for exporting their capital to loot those countries and exploit their masses. Besides that, those imperialists interfere into the internal affairs of those so-called free countries and make use of the UNO to carry on military, economic and cultural aggression on them. And when all such steps fail to carry on neo-colonial measures in a “peaceful” way, the imperialists engineer coup de ta , resort to subversive activities or direct intervention and aggression.


Comrade Lenin referred to many types of semi-colonies, this neo-colonialism has assumed greater importance particularly since World War II. Comrade Lenin also referred to the fact how under the guise of political freedom of mainly the backward countries how the imperialist countries build up dependent states economically, militantly and through the investment of capital.


Can Mr. Anil Biswas refute any of the formulations about neo-colonialism as stated above? Can Mr. Anil Biswas dismiss the fact that this phenomenon of moribund capitalism at the stage of imperialism is more dangerous and more subtle with many different forms of imperialist exploitation and intervention have been the order of the day particularly since the World War II? Can our CPI(M) ideologue dismiss the neo-colonial rule of India with a number of imperialist countries now led by US imperialism? Anil’s party, the CPI(M) has the habit of using the words like ‘imperialism’, ‘Indian big bourgeoisie’s wavering role’, ‘US pressure’ and what not but as the CPI(M) programme has dictated to define India’s status as ‘free’ since 1947 can the Anils, Buddhas, Karats say otherwise even facing the stark reality of neo-colonialism in India? In any case, we the Maoists put the counter question to Mr. Theoretician Anil Biswas could you say where imperialism is absconding for decades after the “freedom” of almost all the 3 rd world countries? The CPI(M) deserves our pity for such childish talks as presented by Mr. Anil Biswas and his party suffering from acute parliamentary cretinism!


However, Anil’s party further compounds the problem while rejecting semi-colony, neo-colony and such Leninist, Maoist formulations. The CPI(M) even went many paces ahead in its habitual tall talks to prove its anti-imperialist position. In its latest Congress it even talked about ‘re-colonization’ under the globalisation spree and Anil Biswas too being used to double talks – one in party’s theoretical mouthpiece and the other in support of West Bengal ‘Left’ Front’s total surrender to imperialism and native exploiters – has recently not only talked of ‘class struggle’, of fight against imperialist institutions like the World Bank , WTO, globalisation and all such high-sounding words, he even said “Under the exploitative drive of neo-colonialism, the so-called developed nations indulged in rapacious economic exploitation in the lesser-developed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.” [People’s Democracy, October 09, 2005]. We take note of the conscious use of the phrase “lesser – developed nations” – obviously an escape route to keep India under the CPI(M) propped Congress government and the ‘Left’ government in West Bengal, etc. out of such ‘rapacious economic exploitation’. Still it begs the question what do you understand by the “exploitative drive of neo-colonialism”? However, here too the wily hypocrat used the CPI(M)’s pet theory like “tilting towards imperialism” or “drive of neo-colonialism”, etc. i.e. the process shall not see an end and India like countries shall ever remain independent and its big bourgeoisie shall flourish and flourish with full independence despite some compromising tendency. So it is natural for Anil Biswas & Co. to declare at one go India is neither semi-colony and the Indian big bourgeoisie are not compradors, a Khruschevite thesis first accepted by the Dangeites and then the Namboodripads of the CPI(M).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: