[Militant, No. 75, May 1971, p. 2]
Lynn Walsh (Ardwick C.L.P.)
The March general election produced a landslide victory for Mrs Gandhi’s New Congress Party (350 out of 521 seats). This was the result of a massive response to Mrs Gandhi’s radical sounding “socialist” slogans. “The election has uncovered a national urge which is manifested as a vote against the rich. The Congress was swept. back into the Lower House by the country’s oppressed classes.” (Times 13/3/71). Following a period of growing turmoil, with widespread seizures of the land and strikes involving millions (there were 1,100 strikes per 1000 workers in1969 compared with an average of 498 during 1960-4,) this unmistakable vote for change represents the beginning of a new stage in India.
In 1969 the all-India Congress Party split down the middle. The break up of the party which had been placed at the head of the Independence struggle revealed the hollowness of “independence”. The power and privilege of the 75 families that dominate the economy was undoubtedly increased but the conditions of the majority of Indian workers and peasants actually deteriorated. More than 20 years after independence food production per head was lower than 100 years ago. Even the government has to admit that 38% of the rural population and 40% of the urban population live below the official poverty line. Mrs Gandhi laid the blame for Congress’ failure to provide solutions on the domination of the “Syndicate” (the big capitalists and landlords who controlled the party machine). Her denunciation of these vested interests and call for socialist reforms, such as the nationalisation of the banks, met with: a tremendous response. The Syndicate and its supporters were kicked out of the party. But Mrs Gandhi made no attempt to implement even the limited Bangalore socialist programme drawn up at the time of the split, blaming this on the right wing opposition in parliament.
No Real Programme from Mrs Gandhi
Mrs Gandhi fought the election mainly on the basis of attacking the right wing. “We feel we cannot go ahead with our proclaimed programme and keep our pledges to our people because of oppositional vested interests and obstruction of reactionary forces.” (Financial Times 2/3/71). Despite the fact that Mrs Gandhi had been herself a member of the Syndicate and had not previously attempted to implement the “socialist” policies that had been part of Congress’ programme since 1948, millions responded to her call. As a result the coalition of conservative and reactionary parties (e.g. the Syndicate, and the Jan Sangh & Swatantra parties) opposed to her reforms, lost two thirds of their seats. Several right wing Congress leaders, who had stayed with the opposition announced their intention of rejoining Mrs Gandhi’s party.
Mrs Gandhi now has no excuses for not meeting her promises. Not only have the right wing parties been temporarily routed but her massive support cut completely across religious, caste and communal lines. Even the vague promise of social revolution has pushed the differences carefully cultivated by British imperialism and reactionary governments to divide the workers and peasants into the background. But it is clear that Mrs Gandhi is far from contemplating the mass campaign and socialist programme necessary to secure any improvement in the position of the Indian masses. When it became clear that she had won the election, instead of announcing bold measures she said “Our work has now begun. We have to think of new programmes to help to solve the many problems facing the country.” (Times 11/3/71). She revealed, in fact, that she had no real programme.
Domination by Big Monopolies
It is clear, for instance, that there can be no improvement in the position of the millions of impoverished peasant families nor any general social progress without a sweeping land reform. Such a reform would involve mobilising mass support against the landlords and the capitalist interests bound up with them. Throughout her rural campaign Mrs Gandhi constantly stressed that she supported private property “I have not come to take your property away from you”, she told the crowds, “but to help you run it better”. (FT 6/3/71). This is unmistakably a reassurance not to the poor peasants but to the landlords and rich tenants who have benefited from the “green revolution” at the expense of the poor and landless peasants. A genuine land reform would in fact mean the expropriation of a small minority of big landlords and the handing out of the land to the majority on the basis of cheap credits and assistance from the industrial sector of the economy. A land reform cannot be carried out in isolation from a transformation of ownership of production in the economy as a whole. But as far as socialist measures to develop the industrial economy in the interests of the people, Mrs Gandhi’s slogans are completely hollow: “The object of socialism” she says “is not to take everything away from the rich and give it to the poor. The aim is to reduce economic disparities” (FT 5/3/71). But the grotesque “disparities” are the inevitable result of the domination of the economy by foreign interests and big monopolies whose only interest is to make profits. Only by taking these over and running them under the control of the working class in conjunction with the poor peasantry on the land can the productive forces be harnessed to raise India’s 550 millions to a civilised level of existence. Based on the intermediary layers of society and appealing to the propertyless classes only as a demagogic manoeuvre, Mrs Gandhi and the Congress Party are incapable of contemplating such a course of action.
Only a working class party prepared to mobilise a struggle for power on the basis of a Marxist programme can provide a way forward. But the so-called Marxist Communist Party (CPI(M)) which has been repeatedly swept into office in Kerala and West Bengal after the imposition of presidential rule have failed to give the necessary lead. (See Militant 36).
Its policy of forming “Popular Front” government with capitalist parties on a program of minimal “socialist” reforms is a repeat of the mistakes of the Stalinist parties of the 1930s. They present the ruling class with the opportunity of using the government to dissipate the revolutionary energies of the workers and peasants and then discredit the ideas of “Marxism”. In the general election and the elections to the West. Bengal State Assembly, the CPI(M) increased its support and emerged as the strongest party apart from Congress. If it advanced a Marixst programme for taking power and running the economy under workers’ control, together with a radical land reform, the tremendous support that this would undoubtedly receive in West Bengal and Kerala would act as a catalyst for a revolutionary change throughout the sub-continent and, beyond that, in Asia as a whole.
No Middle Way
The socialist revolution will not have unlimited time or unlimited opportunities. The elections have temporarily repelled the reactionary right wing parties. But they, and also the army which has made threatening noises in favour of military rule, will be waiting in the wings. “There are those who see danger in Mrs Gandhi’s promise to ‘rouse the Indian masses from their ancient rut’. If Mrs Gandhi now successfully stirs them up she may liberate forces difficult to control.” (Observer 14/3/71). However hollow, her “socialist” slogans will have consequences that go far beyond her intentions. Worsening conditions, rapid changes in the political situation, and appeals for change are stripping the layers of passive acceptance off wider and wider sections of the population. In the coming period the future of India must be decided one way or the other. There is no middle way, as Mrs Gandhi tries to deceive people. Either the workers and peasants will be: mobilised to take over society and run it in the interests of society, or there will be a barbaric reaction.
Schreibe einen Kommentar