The nature of social formation and the revolutionary base in India and the colonial linkage of the country, demand interpreting the Marxian revolutionary framework to suit the Indian situation. During the colonial period, revolutionary and radical resistance was being carried out parallel to the other forms of resistance that the national bourgeoisie in India, under the overall banner of Indian National Congress, carried out. It may be mentioned here that similar to Mao’s concept of revolutionary alliance, the concept of national bourgeoisie as an ally for revolutionary goal has been adopted by a section of the India-left. This strategic position has been adopted as part of a doctrine of two-stage revolution. Given the nature of Indian social formation, where bourgeois revolution has not been achieved and multiple social formations co-exist and that the vanguard party or the revolutionary base is not strong, overleaping the bourgeois phase is not considered practical. The two-stage theory signifies that before the socialist revolution is achieved, there is need for a democratic revolution to take place. This means that to achieve the a democratic revolution, the non-reactionary, historically anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie can be relied upon and a broader revolutionary alliance with them could be forged. In practical terms, this means that the Indian National Congress (INC) could be an ally of the Indian-left. This doctrine or strategic position became an issue leading to division in the left movement in 1960s and the two parties, namely, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI (M) came into existence. The CPI adopted the two-stage revolution as party line.
Immediate political implication of this doctrine or party line adopted by the CPI was that from the mid-1960s CPI was available for political alliance with the INC. This got manifested in political, electoral and governmental alliances and coalitions between the CPI and the INC. It appears that now the CPI (M) which toed a radical line, has also accepted the strategy of alliance with the national bourgeoisie as a precursor to a proletarian revolution. This has manifested in political alliance of the CPI (M) with the Congress party. This being the case, for a simple sympathizer or follower, or an analyst and observer of the left movement in India, it is baffling as how and why to differentiate between the CPI and the CPI (M). Situations that are more baffling stare from other directions too. While the mainstream left is busy in bringing a democratic revolution in alliance with the national bourgeoisie, the Marxian revolutionary strategy may encounter another set of problems altogether. How is the revolutionary base itself to be strengthened? The national bourgeoisie can be ally only when the left has developed its own strong revolutionary base. Mao first made the peasants as the base and made the national and anti-imperialist bourgeoisie as an ally. Look at the revolutionary potential that the Indian worker is repository of. How would a worker working in an industrial setting in Kolkata or Mumbai be class-conscious when he behaves like a proletariat at his work place, goes back to his village for one month, behaves there as a caste member, performs all religious rites and meanwhile forgets whatever revolutionary potential he would have inculcated. Further, is it not a food for thought for the revolutionary strategists in India that the majority of the workers are affiliated to a trade union, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), which has linkage with the religious right party, the Bhartiya Janata Party? It points to the fact that revolutionary strategy must take into account the ground social realities based on the nature and stage of social formation and if overleaping is to be done, changes in the theory, strategy and tactics of revolution have also to be effected.
Leave a Reply