As India celebrates the Amrut Mahotsav (75 years) of its independence, the question still remains why India still lags behind, why imperialists still have a say in running the country.
India, the second most populous country with a huge economy, often succumbs to pressures from foreign powers and foreign agencies like IMF and World Bank, in matters of economy and even politics. Its policies on farm subsidies and farm laws were guided by them, by MNCs. Its stance towards Iran, a major supplier of oil on favorable terms, is just one case where it bends to US pressure on foreign policy. Its stance towards China was always influenced by the imperialist powers, mainly the Super Powers of the day. Unlike the much smaller countries like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, not to speak of China, which assert their independence, India bends to pressures. Why is it so?
This is an important question of history and politics that is still relevant, and will be useful, particularly to the younger generation who are fed on notions spread by the ruling classes and their system of education and media.
“ The British imperialists transferred power to comprador bourgeoisie and the land lords (feudal and semi-feudal) in August 1947, by an Act of British Parliament. Thus the above classes became the new rulers of India replacing the former…The change of power from one hand to the other is significant and should be taken note of..” It is no more direct colonial rule, but..
“The power which is transferred is political which is related to super structure and not the economic, which is the basis. Thus what the comprador bourgeoisie and land lord classes got was the political power to rule the country.
“The power which the ruling classes had in August 1947 was the result of a compromise between old and new rulers and not due to the seizure of power by revolutionary classes after a victorious revolution. Therefore we have been using the words “transfer of power” to contrast seizure of power which has a revolutionary content…
“Therefore we say that there was a beginning of political independence from August 1947 but we never say that real and complete political independence was achieved either by January 1950 or at any time afterwards (we have been using the words independence and political independence synonymously)…
“This is because a complete and real independence includes economic independence which is fundamentally different from political independence. What we achieved as a result of Transfer of Power was political independence but not complete and real independence…” explains DV Rao in this article, written in early 1981. It was a result of compromise.
This article by DV Rao (1917-84), veteran communist revolutionary (CR) leader of Telangana People’s Armed struggle (1946-51) who was also a Member of LokSabha (1957-62), discusses the question of the formal nature of its independence. Being linked with and dependent on imperialist capital, its economic independence was always constrained; that in turn determined its formal political independence, which varied in degrees from time to time. Various ruling class political forces in India are linked with, and subordinate to imperialists, and are also influenced by inter-imperialist contradictions, he explained.
Thus India’s was not a complete and real independence, DV Rao asserted.
The same view was held by his inseparable comrade-in-arms, T. Nagi Reddy (1917-1976) whose view was summed by the title of his famous book India Mortgaged.
This evaluation of India’s independence was among the ideological-political questions that divided the communists, into reformists and revolutionaries, from 1947 itself.
What is the assessment of the Indian state, what strategy and what tactics need to be adopted towards it was a key question of Indian revolution. This article goes into that basic question.
The article briefly touches also the Theory Of Differentiation Of Countries Of The Three Worlds, and how it operated in the world and in India. There is a detailed separate theoretical work (published in PL No.1, 1979 April) on the Theory by DV Rao.
While studying the article, which mentions this Theory, it is to be noted that those were times when US and Soviet Union were both super powers that indulged in star wars, with huge nuclear arsenals. The latter became the main aggressive imperialist power that indulged in foreign interventions and military occupations as in Afghanistan, where it was the occupationist force for a decade, and was hence called Social imperialism (Socialism in words, and imperialism in deeds). Brezhnev-led Soviet Union openly supported Indira Gandhi’s fascist Emergency (1975-77), and manipulated Indian polity. It had indulged in Regime Change policies, toppled its own protégés as in Afghanistan. It had massed one million troops along its China border. Gorbachev in late 1980s wound up these aggressions, and Soviet Union finally collapsed in Dec 1991.
Simultaneously, it was also a period when US was trounced in Indo-China, Vietnam in particular by 1975, and was helpless against a political revolution in Iran 1979 against US puppet regime of Shah of Iran, when its Embassy and scores of Americans were under siege for 444 days. US-led military alliances SEATO and CENTO collapsed and were dissolved, the former in 1977, and the latter in 1979. It was during that period when Soviet Union was dominant, President Nixon (in 1972) visited US recognized China, allowed it to take its legitimate seat in UN and its Security Council, more than two decades after PRC was founded. It was only after Soviet collapse that US came up again, and sought a unipolar world.
This famous long article was written by DV Rao, with the pen name Adityan, as a polemical document and was first published in the Proletarian Line ( PL Number 12, May 1981), the journal founded and edited by him. It was also published in Telugu. There was a section who at that time broke away from UCCRI-ML, he had founded in 1975 along with T. Nagi Reddy. DV Rao, General Secretary of UCCRI, said in a 1981 statement, that they fell out as they were “not able to cope with the requirements of the growing mass revolutionary movement” and “they had developed certain differences only for this purpose.” They had raised questions of independence, of post-Mao China, among others, to blame DV Rao of a so-called ‘Right deviation’, which he rejected by explaining various issues involved in several of his writings. Instead of joining issues, some of them had organized into a Rival Centre, secretly met in what they arbitrarily called a conference, without notice to DV Rao and many others, and “expelled” DV Rao from the UCCRI that he had founded. They invented DV’s differences with TN on this question, which DV Rao exposed and refuted in this article. The article also discusses differences in approach between CRs and CPI, CPI-M. All emphases and sub-titles are added.
Intro by Ramakrishnan
Now DV Rao’s text follows.
On The Question Of Political Independence
The question of Transfer of Power, and the nature of independence that our country had all these years, has led to never-ending discussions inside the communist movement of our country. Of late, a section of communist revolutionaries, whether big or small, have become victims of confusion, due to dogmatic and opportunistic views spread by interested elements, who have come forward as “critics” and opponents of our line in general, and of our attitude towards this question in particular. They accuse us that we have changed our position from one of transfer of power to political independence so far as our country is concerned. They vainly attempted to prove their contention, if any, by quoting a few sentences and extracts from some articles, more often out of context and in an incomplete form. Here is their view point:
“The communist revolutionaries have been maintaining that, the idea that India has become politically independent in 1947 is a travesty of truth and deceptive. It has been one of the dividing lines between us and the neo-revisionists. It has been one of our basic understandings that the event of 15th August 1947 was one of transfer of power to the Indian comprador big bourgeoisie and landlord classes and that the Indian Independence was formal and continues to be so.”
Here the “critics” agree that India has been independent all these years and the independence was formal. The simple questions and answers arising out of this problem are:
What is the power which was transferred? Political or economic? The answer can only be: political. Whether the formal independence is political independence or not? Yes. It is political independence.
But they don’t agree with both the answers, because they equate political independence with real and complete independence which includes economic independence. Obviously, they are mistaken.
The fact of the matter is formal independence and political independence are one and the same. But political independence and complete and real independence are not one and the same. In the same way, there are variations (degrees) in the formal independence, i.e., political independence.
The nature of independence of a country is related to the classes which are in power. If they are pro-imperialists (comprador bourgeoisie etc.) the political independence is formal in varying degree. If they are anti-imperialists playing an active anti-imperialist role, the political independence becomes real accordingly. The same is the case with India. With pro-imperialist classes in power, the independence is formal. At the same time it is political independence.
Political Independence: Transfer of Power was transfer of only political power
The ‘Transfer of Power” poses certain questions which have to be answered. They are:
1.From which class or classes did the Transfer of Power take place ?
2.What is the nature of Power which was transferred ?
3.What are ‘the net results of transfer of power ?
4.What are the effects of the effects of the changing national and international situation on the power set-up in our country?
These are some of the important questions, arising out of the problem of ”Transfer of Power” which is the subject matter under discussion. We will try to answer these questions first and then go over to explain other aspects of this problem.
We need not go into the causes which led to Transfer of Power. Suffice to say that national and international situation of post Second World War period had led to this change. There is a near unanimity on this point, though there are some who exaggerate its role and others underestimate it.
Here are the answers to the questions:
1) The British imperialists transferred power to comprador bourgeoisie and the land lords (feudal and semi-feudal) in August 1947, by an Act of British Parliament. Thus the above classes became the new rulers of India replacing the former. The British imperialists at the time were represented by Labour Party government of Britain while the Congress leadership represented comprador bourgeoisie and the land lords. The change of power from one hand to the other is significant and should be taken note of.
2)The power which is transferred is political which is related to super structure and not the economic, which is the basis. Thus what the comprador bourgeoisie and land lord classes got was the political power to rule the country.
The power which the ruling classes had in August 1947 was the result of a compromise between old and new rulers and not due to the seizure of power by revolutionary classes after a victorious revolution. Therefore we have been using the words “transfer of power” to contrast seizure of power that has a revolutionary content.
For example, after the second world war a was over, there was a seizure of power through military revolt in Egypt. Here there was no compromise between the two sides. Hence no transfer of power. But there was a transfer of power in India and Pakistan, as a result of compromise.
The compromise took place over the head of a mass revolutionary upsurge of an all-India scale: revolts of workers, peasants and armed forces, and an organised peoples’ armed struggle in Telangana, because both sides were afraid of the onward march of Indian revolution. Hence transfer of power and not a seizure of power. And it was a political power.
3)As a result, the political power was passed on to a new set of classes which belong to India but at the same time were totally dependent on imperialism in general and British imperialism in particular. Therefore we characterise it as political independence, in contrast to the colonial regime which was existing before transfer of power. There was a Constituent Assembly-Parliament, Cabinet with the Prime Minister etc, with the gradual replacement of British personnel in concerned fields with those of Indians. Withdrawal of British personnel was almost total by the time Constitution was adopted in January, 1950. Thus it took more than two years to complete the transfer of power. Therefore the level of political independence which India attained in August 1947 was different than that of January 1950. Therefore we say that there was a beginning of political independence from August 1947 but we never say that real and complete political independence was achieved either by January 1950 or at any time afterwards (we have been using the words independence and political independence synonymously).
This is because a complete and real independence includes economic independence which is fundamentally different from political independence. What we achieved as a result of Transfer of Power was political independence but not complete and real independence.
The question of formal independence has to be understood in this context. It is formal in the sense that it is not real or complete independence, which is possible only if there is an economic independence. Therefore formal independence is also political independence in a degree which makes it formal. To what degree it is, is manifested by the role of the government played against dominant imperialist power or powers in a given national and international situation.
4)The role of the successive congress governments was one of maintaining a formal independence in relation to British and US imperialism and Soviet Social Imperialism. But it was not the same all through. There was a greater degree of independence when Nehru Government, in opposition to the wishes of US imperialism, recognised People’s Republic of China, refused to join military pacts, and as one of the main participants in Bandung Conference (1955) etc. But it was reduced further when it was at war with China (1962) and Pakistan (1965, 1971). Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 which is of a military nature and which is still in operation, has made political independence more formal than ever.
The position of Janata Government was different from that of Congress, even though in degrees. It was not that subservient to Soviet Union as was the case with Congress. It had refused to recognise Heng Samrin’s puppet government as against the dictates of Soviet Union. The extent of operation of the Treaty was not the same during its regime, as it has been with that of Congress. It has played an opposition role on issues like atomic explosions, Treaty of nonproliferation, Nanda Devi nuclear spy device. It had refused to wage a war against Pakistan, as dictated by Soviet Union. All these developments go to show that Janata Government was different from Congress in the sense that it had asserted a marginal independence against Soviet Social imperialism, and on certain issues against US imperialism also.
Those who indulge in parroting ‘formal’ independence are refusing to understand the significance of these developments. For them, formal independence means no independence, which in turn means continuation of colonial regime, which is not a fact.
Economic Independence Constitutes The Base …Which Is Fundamentally Different From Political Independence Which Is Part Of The Super Structure.
As a result of confusing the political independence with the real and complete independence, our ‘critics went a step further by saying “Is it not a violation and alteration of one of our programmatic understandings? Yes, it is.’ Thus they assert that we have departed from “the programmatic understanding” on this question.
What has been the understanding of our basic (programmatic) documents on this question ?
The Draft Programme presented by Andhra Pradesh Communist Committee (Revolutionaries) contains the following sentences which are relevant to the subject:
“In order to save themselves, they (British imperialists-author) transferred power to the big bourgeoisie and landlords, who in turn guaranteed the protection of imperialist interests, while suppressing the rising tide of revolution. Though the British rulers left India, British monopoly capital remained as ever. Therefore the independence that India had was a formal one and still continues to be so.” (Issued In February 1972.)
The Draft Programme, as finalised by Unity Conference (April 1975), (when UCCRI-ML was formed –Ed.) contains the same passages with alterations and additions which do not make any change in the meaning so far as political independence is concerned. The relevant parts are as following :
“In order to save themselves, they transferred power to the comprador bourgeoisie and land lord classes, which they themselves have created and nurtured, and who in turn guaranteed them protection of their vital interests, while taking on the responsibility of averting or suppressing the rising tide of revolution in our country ”
After adding some details about various classes in India, it continues:
“Thus, though the British rulers left India, British monopoly capital remained intact. Therefore Indian independence was and continues to be merely formal”.
Another draft with intended changes says as following :
“In order to save themselves, they transferred power to comprador bourgeoisie and the land lord classes which they themselves had created and nurtured and who in turn guaranteed them protection of their interests while taking the responsibility of averting or suppressing the rising tide of revolution in our country…”
“Though the British rulers left India, British monopoly capital remained intact. Therefore Indian independence was formal…”
The following are the common features in all these drafts:
- That there was a transfer of power from British imperialists to the would-be Indian ruling classes on August 15, 1947.
- That the British capital continued to stay in India Therefore there was no economic independence.
- But there was independence which was formal.
All the drafts of our programme are unanimous in characterizing August 15, 1947 as the day of Transfer of Power, which took place in accordance with an Act of British Parliament, adopted for this purpose. That is why the event is known as Transfer of power. The result of the Transfer of power is independence. The nature of independence is formal, in contrast with the real independence which must include economic independence. The character of power which was transferred is political. Therefore the independence is political and at the same formal. Its being political in no way negates or minimizes its formal nature.
Added to this, economic independence constitutes the base while political independence is part of the super structure. The Transfer of power was a measure which paved the way, for India, to have a change in the super structure, and certainly not in the base. This being so, those who characterize Transfer of power being opposed to political independence betray their ignorance of politics and confused thinking.
It is not accidental that none of the documents contain the programmatic demand of political independence as part of those contained in the “State Structure.” It is because, the drafts visualise that the country is politically independent though it is formal. At the same time they contain the demand of confiscation of Foreign Capital, in whatever form it exists. It is a demand for economic independence, which is incorporated in all the documents. This being so, formal independence is also political independence, which is the result of “Transfer of power.”
(The words “Nominal independence” are used to denote formal independence, in Telugu versions of these documents and elsewhere. At the same time the word formal independence is more comprehensive than “nominal independence.”)
There are certain divergences in the above mentioned paragraphs. The Andhra draft says that the power was transferred to big bourgeoisie and landlords, where as the other drafts changed the former into comprador bourgeoisie. It makes no difference as far as the new ruling classes are concerned. The Andhra draft says ‘Indian big bourgeoisie was in the main a comprador of British imperialism in the pre-transfer of power days. After the new ruling classes have come to power it has become the comprador of all the imperialist powers that have entered India”. (P. 5. emphasis added)
The other two drafts do not provide this understanding so far as big bourgeoisie of pre-independence days is concerned. They characterize the entire section as compradors: that has its own implications regarding the assessment of the role of the leadership of national movement. But all are of the same opinion about the comprador nature of the big bourgeoisie of post-independence period, that it is comprador of all imperialist powers.
While Andhra and Unity Conference drafts say that independence was formal, and “continues to be so”, the draft with intended changes stops at “independence was formal” (emphasis added) implying that it may not be so subsequently. Such a characterization leaves scope for a change in formal nature during subsequent periods.
Notwithstanding these divergences, we hold that the independence is formal. At the same time it is political. Both are not at all contradictory. On the other hand they are one and the same. It is also stupid to counterpose Transfer of Power against political independence.
Com. DV’s Court Statement, in which this subject was dealt at some length, contains the same characterisation. This is what it says :
“The British imperialists, the new ruling classes of India and those who blow their trumpets have been proclaiming the ‘transfer of power’ to be independence, complete independence and political independence. Our country has been and is still dependent on foreign countries, politically, militarily and economically. It was so during and after the period of ‘transfer of power’. If there were any changes, it was the domination of Soviet Union and US over our country, instead of Britain. The Indian ruling classes had won the freedom to change their masters. But they do not have the freedom to do away with them. We shall consider to have achieved complete independence and political independence only when it gets rid of Soviet and US domination in addition to that of the British. Our programme aims at the same. Our experiences prove that without economic independence, there is neither political independence nor complete independence.” (Towards the end of Chapter IV.)
This part of the statement was written to emphasise the need for economic independence to transform formal independence into real independence. Such a transformation needs constant struggle of the people, a national democratic revolution and a people’s democratic revolution. The ‘political’ independence is used here to denote the real political independence, and not at all to negate the formal political independence that we have ever since the ‘transfer of power’. Since it is formal political independence, political dependence also continues in one form or other and in one degree or other. Formal political independence and political dependence do not contradict each other. On the contrary, they are interrelated. If it were so, it amounts to saying that the ‘transfer of power’ made no political change. Consequently it should mean that the British Colonial regime continued even after ‘transfer of power’ which is absurd.
The same point is further explained in the statement as follows:
“Imperialism transferred power to prevent the National Democratic Revolution from its consummation. Thus it could transform political independence into a formal one by depriving it of the foundation of economic independence. The liberal leadership who assumed power, with the consent of the imperialists are trumpeting eversince that there is no imperialism in India and that we won political independence. Thus they have been concealing the economic, military and cultural domination of imperialists. The liberal intelligentsia has followed the foot-steps of the ruling classes. Old and neo-revisionists have also been presenting this formal as a real political independence by artificially minimising the domination of imperialism. Thus they have become trumpeters for the ruling classes and helping them to divert the attention of the people from imperialism.”
In this extract, the domination of imperialists has been limited to economy, military and culture. It is not extended to politics. Therefore it pre-supposes that there is a political independence. In fact the extract clearly says that there is a political independence, which is transformed into a formal one without the foundation of economic independence.
The economic basis of complete and real independence of a country is laid by doing away with imperialism as a whole. A national democratic revolution has the potentialities of economic independence and thus of real political independence. But in the absence of proletarian leadership, it may not be stable and permanent. A people’s democratic revolution alone can perform this task : because it is led by proletariat, which is interested in wiping out imperialism in toto. Presently, the struggle against imperialism has no meaning if it is not directed against the two super powers, Soviet Union and US, who have taken upon themselves defending world imperialism against the onslaught of national liberation movements. They are hegemonic powers in our country also. Therefore any struggle against imperialism should be directed against these powers in general and Soviet Union in particular, because of its dominant position. By eliminating the two super powers, people will achieve basically complete and real independence. Complete victory over imperialism – eliminating other imperialist powers – can be achieved without much difficulty, once the Super Powers are defeated and eliminated. This is the direction in which people are moving towards complete and real independence. The formal independence which we have is political independence as well, and not complete and real independence which includes economic independence. Those who refuse to understand this phenomenon, simple as it is, are equating formal independence to colonial regime which is not a fact. Their logic works out like this : no economic independence, therefore no political independence: therefore a colonial regime. How absurd it is ?
Com. T. Nagi Reddy, in his famous work India Mortgaged had exposed the nature of ‘Transfer of Power’ thoroughly. All the same, he says the following in this connection :
‘Therefore the British government felt the need for compromise, to relinquish its political hold in the area thereby enabling Britain to preserve intact all its financial, industrial, and commercial positions in India ” ( P. 5 Emphasis added)
He was clear enough when he said that the British government felt the need for relinquishing its ‘political hold’ to keep the economic hold intact. It was this political hold which was transferred. Therefore we characterize it as political independence even though, it was formal. He said subsequently, (page 6) : “Thus independence was proclaimed. Thus Indian independence was achieved peacefully … The newly independent India decided to maintain the status quo… “. All this shows that he characterized India as politically independent. At the same time he exposed its formal nature. (He used the word independence many a time.)
All this goes to show that the concept of political independence is part of our programmatic understanding. The same was explained in the court statements by comrades DV and TN.
Differences Between Revolutionaries and Reformists like CPI, CPI-M
Those who characterize ‘transfer of power’ so as to negate political independence, argue that there will be no difference left between CPI, CPI(M) on one hand and Communist revolutionaries on the other, if we say that India is politically independent. Obviously it is an absurd argument. CPI, CP|(M) say that power was transferred to would-be ruling classes on 15th August 1947. While CPI said that India has ‘formal’ independence, CPI (M) said the same in unequivocal terms. CPI’s programme said:
“They (The British imperialists-author) conferred independence on both (India and Pakistan-author)… Imperialism calculated to make the independence of India a “formal” affair and keep her as a satellite State in the imperialist-capitalist orbit and hamper her independent economic development.”
‘Conferring’ independence is more menial than ‘transfer of power’. The “formal” nature of independence is mentioned here, as an attempt of British imperialists to keep it at that level. It also says that.. “7. The new Indian government and the people however fought back and defeated these (listed earlier – author) onslaughts and manoeuvres of imperialists and reactionaries…”. It is a fact that people continued their struggle to defeat imperialist onslaughts and manoeuvres. There is no basis whatsoever to attribute the same to the new Indian government, which toed imperialists at every step to begin with, and basically in subsequent period. Therefore the difference between CPI and Communist revolutionaries is not on the question of ‘transfer of power’ and political independence, but on that of complete and real independence which CPI sought to make out without any basis by saying that the government “fought back and defeated reactionaries.” Such a characterization is the result of CPI’s stand-point regarding the Indian State. Its programme says:
“46. The State in India is the organ of the class rule of the national bourgeoisie as a whole, which upholds and develops capitalism and capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange in the national economy of India.
In the formation and exercise of governmental power, the big bourgeoisie wields considerable influence.” (p.25-26).
With the State power in the hands of national bourgeoisie (according to CPI), the character of formal political independence also changes into complete and real independence. It shows “the path of independent capitalist development” (p 55) as the economic basis for it. In fact, Indian ruling classes have taken up imperialist path of development and the section of bourgeoisie which is in power is comprador.
Therefore CPI’s understanding of independence is complete and real independence which has nothing in common with that of ours.
The CPI (M) accepts, more or less the same stand-point. Its programme says:
“3. As a result, the country was partitioned into India and Pakistan and political power was transferred in India to the leaders of the Congress Party on August 15, 1947. Thus ended the political rule of the British in India and State headed by the Indian big bourgeoisie was established. ”
“4. The British imperialists hoped that despite the transfer of power, they would be able, by their entrenched positions in our economy, to make our independence formal. But the course of historical development since that has been disappointing to the imperialists and their hopes were buried. ” (P- 1-2)
The CPI (M) says that the the power was transferred on August 15, 1947, whereas CPI says that it was ‘conferred’. It also says that the political rule of the British ended, so on and so forth . It says that though imperialism wanted to reduce the independence into a formal one, the situation obtaining eversince transfer of power (emergence of socialist camp, opposition role of big bourgeoisie etc) did not allow it to materialise. That is to say that the independence is not formal, but real or moving towards it. Therefore both the CPJ and CPI (M) take their stand-point from the oppositional role of the national bourgeoisie and big bourgeoisie, respectively, together with the existence of Socialist Camp. Communist revolutionaries deny this by taking their standpoint from comprador bourgeoisie being one of the partners of State power. This means that not only imperialism wants to reduce the independence to a formal one, the comprador bourgeoisie and land lords, being in State power, allow it to become formal because they have no anti-imperialist role to play.
Therefore the demarcation line between CPI-CPI (M) on one hand and Communist revolutionaries on the other, is not between political independence and transfer of power. The class character of the State and its impact on the nature and extent of political independence are the decisive factors, which differentiate between the former and the latter. It should be known that the question of State power and classes representing it is fundamental. Inter-imperialist contradictions and contradictions between sections of comprador bourgeoisie as a result, have their own impact on this question. (We will explain this point in the later part of this article).
There are a number of common words used by CPI and CPI (M) on one hand and communist revolutionaries on the other. They claim to be Marxist Leninists and quote extensively from the classics to prove their contentions. We all know that they have departed from Marxism-Leninism and their thinking and practice has nothing in common with it. This does not mean that we refuse to use the word Marxism-Leninism nor keep ourselves away from the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. The same is our attitude towards other words used by CPI (M). CPI (M) had said that the Power was transferred on August 15, 1947. Are we going to reject it because CPI (M) has said so? No. We also characterize it in the same words because it is a fact and it is correct to say so. In the same way if CPI (M) says that India is independent in the sense that it is politically independent, we have no objection. But if it says, that it is on the way to become economically independent, we oppose it. As Communist revolutionaries it is but correct that we adopt such an attitude. The point of demarcation between CPI (M) and ourselves lies not in relation to political independence but in relation to economic independence and related matters. Therefore it is a political stupidity not to accept that there is political independence, however formal it may be simply because CP1(M) says that there is one.
In view of the above, we say :
1.That India is independent politically. At the same it is formal.
2.That the CPI and CPI (M)’s expression of independence in no way coincides with that of ours because of fundamental difference between both sides regarding class character of State and the nature of the economy being developed.
Part-2 has section 4 on The Two Super Powers And Their Role In Contemporary India; and section 5 discussing Lenin on political independence.
For more on the author DV Rao visit:
For com T. Nagi Reddy’s views on Transfer of power, and its context, visit: