July 28 is the day comrade Nagi Reddy died in 1976, while he was under-ground. He and his comrade-in-arms DV Rao ( 1917 June-July 12, 1984)  are  remembered  in July every year through various  programmes  at different places across AP and Telangana. Thousands of people and activists, led by UCCRI-ML which they founded in 1975, are carrying forward their goals  through various mass movements and mass organizations of different classes, with the slogan : Struggle for Land, Democracy and Independence. They uphold  agrarian revolution as the principal task that has  Abolish Landlordism and Land to the Tiller as its key slogan.

TN  and DV wished to be remembered by their views and practice, and  not by statues and the like. Hence this tribute.

The legendary communist leader Tarmela Nagi Reddy (popular as TN), who began his life as a communist revolutionary in 1939-40, was a Member of Lok Sabha (1957-62), and three times (1952, 1962, 1967) Member Legislative Assembly, of Andhra Pradesh (AP).

The first time he was an MLA was in 1952 when he, from inside the jail, got elected and defeated N. Sanjiva Reddy, the first CM of Andhra Pradesh,  and later  India’s President. Such was his mass following by the time he was aged 35. And as a result, the undaunted leader was constantly harassed by the Indian state that claims to be the largest  democracy in the world:

In over 35 years of his turbulent political life,Nagi Reddy was imprisoned about 10 times,  spent almost as many years in jail,  and over five years underground, most of it in the ‘democratic republic’  post-1947. All the time it was under the same  IPC, Indian Penal Code,  of 1860 colonial vintage.

For more on his life and work, see articles published in countercurrents.org. See some links below:

https://countercurrents.org/2017/02/remembering-t-nagi-reddy/

https://countercurrents.org/2016/07/tarimela-nagi-reddy-remembered/

https://countercurrents.org/2019/07/t-nagi-reddy-on-adivasis-and-their-struggles-recalling-srikakulam-girijana-peasant-revolt-50-years-later/

https://countercurrents.org/2016/08/the-bourgeoisie-and-the-bourgeois-democratic-revolution/

https://countercurrents.org/2019/08/indian-state-post-1947-served-imperialists-and-strengthened-landlord-base/

***        ***

TN pertinently and pointedly raised the question, still relevant in an India now ruled by forces claiming to be great nationalists: How Indian Is The Indian Bourgeoisie ?

Given  below is an Extract from his classic work, INDIA MORTGAGED ( See cover page above) , written (in jail 1970-71) by comrade Tarimela Nagi Reddy (1917-1976). The book was originally his Defence Statement in  a Special Court that held a trial of the famous Hyderabad Conspiracy Case, foisted against him, DV Rao, and 40 others by the Indian State.

This  Extract deals with an important theoretical and political question that is still relevant in an INDIA MORTGAGED to imperialism, despite claims of a great freedom movement and of rule by nationalists.

TN was an expert on Indian economy and  his Budget speeches were keenly heard by the ruling classes too. When he was an MP, he was a Member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and utilized that for a keen and deep study, based on official data, about imperialist grip on Indian economy, and his magnum opus, India Mortgaged (published in 1978), was a product of that. At one time, most of India’s universities valued it as a standard work, and  kept it in their libraries.

He for instance wrote : “Finally, we have noted how the economic drain today is not a whit-less than what it was in the colonial period, even though all the forms of the drain are different. There is drain in various forms,”  he explained and wrote : … “and finally, drain due to payment of profits, royalties, technical know-how, and payments to head offices of ‘mother’ companies. On all accounts, it cannot be less than a thousand crores of rupees a year.”

What is the state of affairs today, 50 years after TN  wrote that …as seen by  Dr. Ashwani Mahajan, Convenor,  Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an RSS affiliate?

He wrote a letter to PM Modi in 2018, four years after NDA-1 came to power, that Royalties etc were still draining the country, and a cap that existed until 2009 should be restored. (No such cap is restored as of now.)

The drain under this account, Royalty and Technical Fees (RTF) paid out to MNCs by Indian companies was high at $ 20.65 billion (more than Rs.1.5 lakh cr in one year) in 2017-18, when FDI inflows were $ 60.96 billion.

That was said by Dr. Ashwani Mahajan, SJM Convenor , (RSS-affiliate, Swadeshi Jagran Manch). He is a Professor of Economics.  That is how imperialist loot continued under a so-called nationalistic BJP regime led by PM Modi, showing it is basically  no different from the Congress rule in this respect of serving imperialism.

He said:

In 2014-2015, (during NDA-1, we may note) we got an FDI of $31 billion (about Rs 207,700 crore) but the outflow due to income transfer due to royalty, income, etc was $36.5 billion (about Rs 244,550 crore).

In the last 14-15 years, we got FDI of around $345 billion (about Rs 23 lakh crore.). And the amount of foreign exchange that went out from the country during the same period was around $287 billion (about Rs 19 lakh crore), pointed out in 2016, SJM Convenor Dr. Ashwani Mahajan.

( See Reports by PTI , 2018, Nov 2)

Extract from Chapter XII of INDIA MORTGAGED follows:

***         ***

 

How Indian Is The Indian Bourgeoisie

In the course of my statement, I have tried to show how the Indian bourgeoisie has become more and more dependent on imperialism in all aspects of its activity. Consequently, every detail of our activity – political, social, and economic – has come to be dominated by the imperialists.

I have tried to show how the quantum of assistance from imperialist powers has grown phenomenally from Plan to Plan and how the utilisation of foreign aid has grown, from Rs. 40.54 crores per year upto the First plan to the phenomenal average of Rs. 1032.56 crores per year during the period of the plan holiday (1966-69) after the Third (1961-66)plan .

I have shown how this immense flow of foreign finance capital has become a major sustenance for our budgets and for maintaining industrial production even in the already established industries. It was seen that the proportion of budgetary deficit covered by foreign assistance has increased from 9.2 per cent in the First Plan to 52.7 per cent in 1965-66, the end of the Third Five Year Plan.

We have also noted how foreign private capital, making use of official loans from various foreign governments and international organisations, has made phenomenal progress in the most important industrial activity – steel, oil, chemicals, transport, metal (such as aluminium), and in various other core industries.

We have also seen how the Indian financial institutions – such as IFC, ICICI, LIC, – have become sources of mobilization of scarce Indian capital in the interests of foreign capital’s domination over our corporate sector, and how by financing the lending operations of financial corporations, foreign finance has come to occupy the commanding heights of these institutions.

We have also noted that, in the past two years, international finance has entered and is entering the countryside, in a big way giving huge loans for agricultural development. It has already gained undue influence in the cooperative field. It is on way to complete domination and control of the financing policies and institutions in the agricultural sector.

We have seen how the influence of foreign finance has changed our policies according to their dictates through allowing induction of huge foreign private capital into the public sector concerns in oil, fertilisers, etc. Our economic policies have been tuned to their wishes – by changing our plan orientation mainly towards agricultural development, reducing the value of the rupee etc.

Economic drain today, not a whit-less than what it was in the colonial period

Finally, we have noted how the economic drain today is not a whit-less than what it was in the colonial period, even though all the forms of the drain are different. There is drain in the form of paying foreign personnel – official, semi-official and private – ; drain for repayment of loans and interest mainly for non-income deriving projects of infrastructure, such as power, railways, communications, irrigation; drain pertaining to excess payments for commodities purchased on account of non-project loans and tied imports, drain due to unfavourable terms of trade imposed by imperialist countries on underdeveloped countries; drain due to excess charges on shipping transport etc; and finally, drain due to payment of profits, royalties, technical know-how, and payments to head offices of ‘mother’ companies. On all accounts, it cannot be less than a thousand crores of rupees a year.

 

And yet, doubts are expressed over the semi-colonial character of our economy. We have tried to answer this doubt by showing how India is not getting industrialised even though a certain number of industries have developed. Neither the total industrial income has effected a qualitative change in total national income, nor production relations have changed from agricultural to industrial in the past 70 years. India has continued to be a stagnant economy over the past 20 years.

Under such objective conditions, to expect an independent bourgeoisie to develop and dominate the field is foolishness unprecedented. Since this question of the character of Indian big business is extremely pertinent to the Indian democratic revolution, we must now answer the question: How independent is the Indian bourgeoisie and how Indian is the Indian bourgeoisie? Is the Indian bourgeoisie a comprador bourgeoisie?

What is the Character of Comprador Bourgeoisie?

There is a general tendency to equate the Indian comprador bourgeoisie to the Chinese comprador bourgeoisie and to immediately assert that since the Indian bourgeoisie is not the same as the Chinese compradors in all aspects, the Indian bourgeoisie is not and cannot be comprador bourgeoisie – that the Indian bourgeoisie is more industrial than the Chinese bourgeoisie, that this is an industrial entrepreneur class and, therefore, cannot be compared with the Chinese bourgeoisie which was not, in the main, industrial.

Their reasoning is as follows : “What is the relevance of imperialism to India ? How neo-colonial is the Indian State?

“Two extreme characterisations both claiming to be Marxist, falsify reality.

One grossly under-estimates the collaboration of the Indian bourgeoisie with imperialism by attributing far too independent a character to the former, and the other considers India a neo-colonial State ruled by the comprador bourgeoisie similar to the ruling class in pre-revolutionary China. The first view refuses to recognise the extent of foreign capital’s penetration and control of the Indian economy and fails to see the increasing collaboration of the Indian ruling class with imperialism against the rising democratic forces within.

The second view is blind to history, to the emergence and growth of an indigenous industrial bourgeoisie more developed than its counterpart in many other countries or colonial Asia. It was this class which led the struggle for independence. It is inconceivable that a comprador-bureaucratic class could develop contradictions acute enough to carry on a nationalist struggle against imperialism. Since independence, there has been nothing to suggest that the industrial bourgeoisie has degenerated into a comprador class.”

This opinion expresses a serious viewpoint of a section of the communist movement in India – the opinion of C.P.I. (Marxist). This quotation from the Radical Review (Volume 2, No. 3), published from Madras has been taken as the opinion of C.P.I. (M) since it gives its reasoning cogently and clearly in one place.

It gives three reasons to reject the analysis that the Indian bourgeoisie is basically of comprador character.

(1) The Indian bourgeoisie is not similar to the ruling class in pre-revolutionary China.

For this reason, this bourgeoisie,”could develop contradictions acute enough to carry on a nationalist struggle against imperialism.”

The Indian bourgeoisie is an indigenous industrial bourgeoisie, more developed than its counterpart in many other countries.

Chinese Bourgeoisie and Indian Bourgeoisie

From the above account of the C.P.I. (M) opinion, it looks as though there was no industrial bourgeoisie in China. That, is not true. Just as in India, penetration of foreign capitalism played an important part in the disintegration of China’s social economy undermining the foundations of her self-sufficient natural economy and hastening the growth of a commodity economy in town and country. This gave rise to certain objective conditions and possibilities for some merchants, landlords, and bureaucrats, to invest in modern industry as far back as in late 19th century, to create capitalism in China. Therefore, there was an industrial bourgeoisie in China, chiefly in textiles and flour milling.

It is true that the Indian bourgeoisie grew stronger during the periods of the first and second world war due to their collaboration with imperialism in their war effort and minted extraordinary profits. The question is : this bourgeoisie due to its links with imperialism and feudalism, even though it happened to be the leader of the national struggle and due to the weakness and failure of the working class party to gain the leadership, it was not interested in the total victory of the democratic revolution and compromised with imperialism.

Therefore, it is not a question as to whether the Chinese bourgeoisie was less developed or more developed. The question is what the main characteristics were. We must also remember that the Chinese bourgeoisie led a national liberation war. “The Chinese bourgeoisie, which is also a victim of imperialist oppression, once led and played a principal role in the revolution 1911” (Mao Tse tung. Now spelt as Mao Zedong.). Therefore, to think that only the Indian bourgeoisie led the national struggle, and not the Chinese bourgeoisie, is not correct.

For that reason, to come to the conclusion – especially in regard to the Indian bourgeoisie – (which was always against rousing the people for a National Liberation War, and was always for compromise at every moment when the people came into action,(afraid of the ‘rabble’, as Gandhi called them in 1946), that it was “this bourgeoisie which led the struggle for independence”, is entirely wrong. To be truthful to history and to facts, it was this bourgeoisie which led the ‘grand betrayal’ of the national liberation struggle, at a time when all classes of people in the country were on the path of war against imperialism and feudalism.

Before we proceed to discuss the characteristics of the comprador bourgeoisie, we must answer one more facile argument.

In the resolution. “On Left Deviation or Left Opportunism”, passed by the Central Committee of CPI (M) at Madurai in 1967, it is argued :

“What is the implication of a stooge government, a neo-colonial State or a State run in collaboration with imperialism, in a period when imperialism is collapsing all over the world? It implies that the State and the Government are already completely isolated, universally hated and armed struggle is the only form left to the people: it has only to be called-for it to be started. ” (page 5).

It is such an infantile and childish argument- that it is above all reasonable explanations. It has innumerable number of implications. ‘A stooge government’ – a stooge to imperialism. When a particular State is the centre of contradictions between various imperialisms struggling for total hegemony in their exploitation, there is no reason to be surprised at such a situation.

Mao Tse tung has said : “However, different sections of the comprador big bourgeoisie owe allegiance to different imperialist powers, so that when the contradictions among the latter become very acute and the revolution is mainly directed against one particular imperialist power, it becomes possible for the sections of the comprador class which serve the other imperialist groupings to join the current anti-imperialist front to a certain extent and for a certain period. But they will turn against the Chinese revolution the moment their masters do.”

(Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party)

 

Due to the growing contradictions among imperialist powers, India is becoming a cockpit of struggles, so far, mainly covertly but more and more are coming into the open. Simply because of such a situation one cannot refuse to see the semi-colonial nature of the state.

Secondly, the above argument that immediately one characterises a country as a neo – colonial state,” it “implies that the state and the government is already completely isolated and universally hated. Armed struggle is the only form left to the people: it has only to be called for it to be started,” is a silly, infantile, and fantastic argument.

Simply because the government or the ruling class are not yet completely isolated, or are yet not “universally hated”, simply because of that, can a neo-colonial State become an independent and a sovereign State? Does it automatically follow that, immediately a State is objectively characterised as a semi-colonial or neo-colonial State, “armed struggle becomes the only form of struggle” ? Or that one should not characterise any State as neo-colonial State unless, armed struggle “has only to be called for to be started”.

These are certainly funny conditions to characterise a State. The character of a State does not change on the basis of its complete isolation from the mass of the people at a particular moment. Hitler was the most popular head of the State at a particular moment, and would it be enough reason to refuse to characterise Germany then as a fascist State? People were not ready for an armed struggle in colonial days. Did that preclude the characterisation of India as colonial India?

Chinese Characterisation of Comprador Bourgeoisie

Whatever are the different shades or forms of the comprador class, the basic characteristics are the same. Just as smallness or bigness of imperialism (for example the Portuguese or the British) does not change the basic character of imperialism, so also simply because the Indian bourgeoisie is more developed than any other bourgeoisie in Asia does not by itself preclude its being a comprador bourgeoisie.

Therefore, it is necessary first to understand the characteristic feature of the compardor. Let us, therefore, try to understand what the Chinese mean by comprador.

“In economically backward and semi-colonial China, the landlord class and the comprador class are wholly appendages of the international bourgeoisie depending upon imperialism for their survival and growth. ”

(Mao Tsetung , “Analysis of Chinese Society”).

A further explanation is given as a note to the above:

“A comprador, in the original sense of the word, was the Chinese manager or the senior Chinese employee in a foreign commercial establishment. The comprador served foreign economic interests and had close connection with imperialism and foreign capital.”

Thus a comprador has various shades of dependence according to the nature of the times. He might be merely an ordinary employee or he might act as a manager, he might be acting as a direct purchasing agent of a foreign firm for the supply of raw materials or a selling agent of his product: he might be acting as a benami of foreign finance or a subordinate partner of a foreign firm ; or during this period of the final stage of the collapse of imperialism and the victorious march of national liberation struggles the activity might take the form of ‘joint sector’. All these various forms can make the native bourgeoisie, wholly appendages of the inter-national bourgeoisie, depending upon imperialism for their survival and growth, and so serving foreign economic interests in close connection with imperialism.

Such diverse forms are not peculiar to India. There are always certain parties, as in India to confuse the issue, in their effort “to root out all revolution, and thorough-going resistance…. and to prepare public opinion for their capitulation …. ”

(“On New Democracy”)

Mao Tsetung  characterising such a situation, says the following:

“This is deliberately being fostered by the Japanese imperialism. Since their occupation of Wuhan, they have come to realise that military force alone cannot subjugate China and have, therefore, resorted to political offensives and economic blandishments. Their political offensives consist in tempting wavering elements in the anti-Japanese camp, splitting the united.front, and undermining Kuomintang-Communist co-operation. Their economic blandishments take the form of so-called joint industrial enterprises. in central and southern China, the Japanese aggressors are allowing Chinese capitalists to invest 51 percent of the capital in such enterprises, with Japanese capital making the other 49 per cent, In northern. China they are allowing Chinese capitalists to invest 49 per cent of the capital, with the Japanese making up the other 51 per cent. The Japanese invaders have also promised to restore the former assets of Chinese capitalists to them in the form of capital shares in the investment. At the prospect of profits, some conscienceless capitalists forget all moral principles and itch to have a go. One section have already capitulated. Another section lurking in the anti-Japanese camp would also like to cross over… So they have put their heads together and decided to prepare the ground in cultural circles and through the Press. Having determined on their policy, they have lost no time in hiring some ‘Metaphysics-mongers’ plus a few Trotskyites who brandishing their pens like lances, are tilting in all directions, and creating bedlam.” (“On New Democracy”).

The position now is made clear. At a certain stage in history, imperialism adopts new tactics to ally itself more firmly with the indigenous bourgeoisie and one of the tactics is to allow ‘joint ‘ partnership in ‘joint industrial ventures’. It is not simply a question of the “growth of indigenous industrial bourgeoisie, more developed than its counterpart in many other countries of colonial Asia”.

To look at this problem on the basis of the formal outward appearance, and to forget the inner content is to behave like simpletons and not Marxists. “All that glitters is not gold”, and “all that is white is not milk “, however much the revisionists  may try to prettify foreign aid.

That is why Mao Tsetung characterising the comprador bourgeoisie says :

“The comprador big bourgeoisie is a class which directly serves the capitalists of the imperialist countries and is nurtured by them: countless ties link it closely with the feudal forces in the countryside.”

(“Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party”).

How succinctly and clearly it is defined! The comprador bourgeoisie is nurtured by the imperialists and this comprador bourgeoisie serves them. I have pointed to the court as to how this mutual understanding has been working in Indian conditions. The growth of the Indian bourgeoisie is directly linked to foreign finance. Every new industry established in this country is nurtured by foreign finance.

(Even while mouthing Boycott China, Swadeshi and Atma Nirbhar Bharat, Modi-led government latest allowed 100 percent FDI not only in coal, but also  Defence Sector!)

The phenomenal growth of the big bourgeoisie during the ‘post-Independence’ period is directly linked to foreign finance. Tatas, Birlas, Mafatlals, and a score of others, have grown and are growing under the protective umbrella of foreign finance capital. Simultaneously, foreign finance is served directly by the compradors through magnanimous tax concessions, and by putting at their service all the financial institutions and scarce budget resources.

It is useful to recall what Teresa Hayter has said in her book, “Aid as Imperialism” regarding the role of Foreign aid: “it may kelp to create 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” (Page 9).

And yet, there are some people, masquerading as communists, who have been “brandishing their pens like lances, are tilting in all directions and are creating bedlam ” in their pitiful attempt to cover up this nasty but dangerous deal in various forms.

Growing Degeneration of the Indian Bourgeoisie

Another patent argument in support of the thesis that the Indian bourgeoisie is not comprador is that, “since Independence there has been nothing to suggest that the industrial bourgeoisie has degenerated into a comprador class”. This objectively incorrect thesis has dangerous implications. It concedes that the Indian bourgeoisie is being an independent bourgeoisie by playing an independent role and taking advantage of the contradictions between Soviet social imperialism and Western imperialism, and by playing between various Western imperialist States, and that it is capable of independent growth. It may be slow and halting but it is independent growth. (India led by UPA as well as NDA succumbed to pressures by USA, latest in relation to Iran.)

This thesis further implies that the Indian revolution has no more role to fulfil the task of national liberation. Izvestia of September 4, 1970, quotes Leonid Brezhnev as having said in his report on Lenin’s birth centenary as follows :

“Today, with the disintegration of the colonial empire or the .capitalists in the main completed, the former colonial world has entered a new stage: The struggle no longer is solely for national but also – and this is now the main thing- for social liberation and this is today becoming more and more sharply pronounced.”

Does it mean that, since the disintegration of the colonial empire “is in the main completed”, the former colonised world in the main has no more an anti – imperialist political task? It means so because the task today is not political but social liberation. That is the new stage about which the revisionists speak in the former colonised countries. This arises out of an incorrect analysis of the character of the Indian big business and their servile role in relation to imperialism.

These persons refuse to see that neo-colonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism. India has not only not completely shaken off imperialist plunder, it has become an object of contention between various imperialist powers. And this is a fact of our everyday life. The old colonialists have changed into neocolonialists, and the new colonialists who have entered the field and have created a class which is dependent on them.

Today along with the British hold on our economy, American, West German, and Japanese finance capital’s hold on it is of no mean order. Soviet- revisionism, moreover, is. a partner and contender in this struggle for control. That the bourgeoisie, even though developed to a certain extent, is mostly associated with foreign imperialism is a fact.

Imperialism controls India’s vital financial and economic arteries. Not only economic but even cultural development is financed and programmed by them. Through their banks, aid, and penetration of private capital, imperialism is in control of our trade. They operate many enterprises in both light and heavy industries directly, and many more through joint sector, and thereby exert economic influence and pressure heavily and obstruct the development of productive forces. Imperialists, thereby, have created through the compradors a network to facilitate the exploitation of the remotest of the hinterland of our country.

To finally clinch this issue, it is important to study the growth of at least one or two important houses in the ‘post Independence’ period.

(Then Nagi Reddy goes into a detailed analysis, backed by data, of growth, aided by imperialist links, of two Business Houses – Birlas and Tatas.)

Thus foreign ownership and control of Indian business continues to increase, in both absolute and relative terms, through direct investments and loan capital, in all the major industrial houses during this post -‘Independence’ period.

Therefore, comprador bourgeoisie is the most dominating force in Indian economy. It is clear from the above enumeration of facts that they are wholly appendages of international finance capital, wholly dependent upon it for their growth.

It is clear that this class which has close relations with feudal landlordism represents the most backward and most reactionary relations of production and hence hinders the development of India’s productive forces.

It is a class which has countless ties with imperialism and that it directly serves them for petty, secondary profits. As a subservient and useful force to imperialism, it is nurtured and maintained by it. The links of the comprador bourgeoisie with the feudal landlords are strong. For them, democratic revolution is an anathema.

“They have formed into a camp of traitors, for whom the question of whether to become slaves of a foreign nation simply does not .exist, because they have already lost all sense of nationality and their interests are in separably linked with imperialism”. Whichever imperialism is prepared to give a sucker to it, they are prepared to surrender to it.

For this reason, India is being made into a cockpit of international contradictions – each trying to make India into a strong base for super profits for itself.

I had explained why the bourgeoisie is against the full bloom of the democratic revolution. 1 had also in short narrated why and how the Indian bourgeoisie betrayed the national liberation struggle and arrived at a compromise with imperialism and feudalism.

As Mao Tsetung had explained in 1940:

“It is an era in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the globe, and has fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the remaining capitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and semi-colonie; in which the socialist State has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movements of all colonies and semi-colonies; and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself from the social imperialist influence of social democratic parties,and has proclaimed its support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism,i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of bourgeois democratic revolution, but within the new category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeoisie, or capitalist world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the proletarian socialist world revolution. ”

“Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its very roots”.

Such is the nature of democratic revolution in India, against imperialism, comprador bourgeoisie, and feudal landlordism.

Such a revolution cannot be led by the bourgeoisie. As part of the world revolutionary struggle it has to be led by the working class to its consummation.

History, has proved that the Indian bourgeoisie cannot fulfil this responsibility, however much the revisionists might wish and render all help to the bourgreoisie. Therefore, this responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the proletariat.

***         ***

‘What kind of growth is it when 90% of population is out of it?’ asked the SJM leader in an interview on October 03, in 2017 (rediff.com)

That was in 2017, three years after Modi came to power as PM of NNDA-1. Now it is NDA-2. Direction remains the same as pointed out by TN, though the situation is far worse than before, more so hit by Covid-19, not to speak of the all round crisis  that preceded that. There is no answer to his question from the Modi regime.

And it won’t come from his calls for Atma Nirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) as long as the foundation remains unaltered.

Nor it would come from the slogan of Boycott China goods and services.  

Thus Indian ruling classes, to whichever party they may belong, are Indian in name , but are in the service of imperialism. Their practice as reflected by India’s economy, shows the same. All the reforms they claim are within this basic framework.

Boycott China goods and services is also part of this framework, and would provide the imperialists and their compradors a happier hunting ground for their plunder and exploitation of various forms.

Politics of Hindutva and of jingoism are only a cover for this. The undeclared Emergency in India, already in vogue for a few decades, with ever worsening features is meant only to serve these ruling classes.

The struggle for Land, Democracy and Independence is an imperative. It is the need of the hour. Divisive and diversionary movements must be shunned, exposed, and and shunned. Unity of all positive forces for such a struggle is the need of the hour. Unity for struggle and struggle for unity are inseparably linked.

That would be the best tribute to TN, DV and all revolutionaries.  

(Author is a mediaperson)


SIGN UP FOR COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER


 

One Comment

  1. Avatar chaganti snmurthy says:

    These articles remembering com. D.V.Rao and com. T.Nagireddy are very much useful in the present context. Writings of DV on casteism and of TN on “how Indian is The Indian Bourgeoisie” are more relevant today than ever. It is fine to quote the figures of drain on account of RTF etc., quoting the SJM leader. These recent figures are necessary. Of course, this is one important side of the imperialist exploitation of Indian people. In fact imperialism is controlling the minds and souls of our people. Writings of coms. DV and TN are so much necessary and useful to emancipate our minds.