The Eastern Scene (1953)

From the October 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

India: Sacred Jobs

Recent demonstrations in Lucknow by over 1,000 Uttar Pradesh primary school teachers, over wage demands and the non-payment of salaries (some being months in arrears), brought forth a peroration from the Chief Minister, Mr. Gobind Ballabh Pant on the sacredness of teaching. According to Janata (organ of the Praja Socialist Party, Bombay, 1/3/53) he is reported to have advised the teachers “to follow the ideals set up by the Gurus of ancient India and to take their jobs as sacred work for the progress of the country.” Mr. Pant stressed that it was the importance of their task that made the teachers the most important section of the nation. It is, therefore, he said, not dignified for those who had a sacred task to perform, to think of petty things. We can be sure that Miss Horsbrugh will take note of this, for the next Burnham report on Teachers' pay.

Despite Mr. Pant's exhortations to the teachers, there has been no cessation of their activities. On the other hand, we haven’t noticed that Mr. Pant has taken any of his own advice.

As most teaching is done by inculcation, perhaps the Minister thinks that the old maxim is true, “That empty vessels make most noise."

India: A Reckless Report

A report on India’s prison administration was recently submitted to the United Nations by Dr. Walter Reckless, an American criminologist on loan to U.N. (Janata, 1st March). Dr. Reckless thinks that the Indian prison system is in a parlous condition and needs reorganising drastically—too many Black holes and not all in Calcutta. The treatment of prisoners seems to be wholly punitive, with all of which our eminent criminologist disagrees. Not that he wants to abolish prisons, he just wants to make them better to live in! He wants to substitute corrective and rehabilitative training for the present punitive system, the idea (as if we didn’t know) being, that with training prisoners will face life anew, full of confidence, and that their bitterness against society will disappear. In other words, they won’t steal, any more property.

The amazing thing is that the report recognises that environment plays a part in the make up of a criminal, but contains no talk of changing the environment, only the prisoner. Many of the convicts in India’s gaols are there because they could not subsist outside without stealing.

There was no mention of that other class of criminals; the 10 per cent. who live on the plunder which they steal legally from the workers. But then who expected there would bet

Labourism in India

Mr. B. S. Mahador Singh, Chairman of the State Praja Socialist Party, a body roughly analogous to the British Labour Party, has been voicing criticisms of the Indian Congress Party Government which he and his followers helped to establish.

Speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of the State Mazdoor Sangh early this year he said:—

"Any legislation that imposes restrictions on the right of the workers to strike, regardless of providing other avenues of settlement, will be strongly resisted by the Hyderabad State Mazdoor Sangh, for in the opinion of the Sangh the right to strike should be assured to all workers.” (Janata, 1/3/53.)

At the moment of writing the P.S.P. has only 22 seats in the National Assembly, which still does not bring them anywhere near the Communist Party’s total of 41 members and position as chief opposition party. Still the P.S.P. leaders have hopes of getting into power and, like Social Democrats throughout the world, are prepared to tell workers almost any tale (witness the above) in their endeavour to achieve this.

One thing they don’t tell workers, is that capitalism can only run in the interests of the capitalists and that all Governments put down strikes. Witness the Labour Party in this country, which engaged in strike-breaking when in office, although telling another story when out. We can be sure that if the P.S.P. ever achieves power they will do likewise and that Mr. Singh will forget the hot words he poured forth at Hyderabad.

National Bank of Egypt

We are often exhorted by various newspapers and political leaders in general not to scuttle from Egypt. The information below may give one of the reasons why our rulers are so keen to stay there.

The recently published report of the National Bank of Egypt, shows that a gross profit of £E2,317,817 was made for the year ending December, 1952. A dividend of 20 per cent. the same as the year before, was paid to the shareholders. The capital of this Bank is mainly British. (Manchester Guardian 10.4.53, Company report)

Israel. Soviet Jews

Mr. Ben-Gurion, Israel’s Premier, is reported as saying at a meeting of immigrants on April 5th, “That he hoped that the Soviet Government would now allow Jews in Russia to emigrate to Palestine and resume diplomatic relations with Israel.”

If this news manages to percolate through the Iron Curtain, the two and a half million Jews should not take it too seriously, for even if Malenkov and Co. were willing, it must be remembered that legislation was passed last year in Israel which limits immigration to certain categories. 80 per cent. of the immigrants must be under 35 years. The other 20 per cent., the over-35’s, must have trades or professions, or sufficient resources to arrange for their own accommodation. All immigrants must pass a medical examination, supervised by Israeli physicians (Manchester Guardian, 3.12.51).

This of course will exclude a large part of the Jews in Russia, and those who are eligible, are liable to think twice about giving up home and job to go to Israel where unemployment is rife. The above legislation makes a mockery of the hoary cliches which are still trotted forth by Ben Gurion and his supporters, such as the “ Ingathering of the Exiles.”

Many of those who are in the “National Home” are thinking twice about it. Up to December, 1952, 39,000 are reported to have left the country, and 25,000 people inside Israel have preferred to keep the nationality of the country they came from (Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, 12.12.52), which speaks for itself.

The S.P.G.B. has pointed out since its inception that Nationalist movements or for that matter any reformist organisation cannot solve the workers' problems; only the ending of capitalism and establishment of Socialism can do that Ben Gurion (who called himself a Socialist and refers to his Mapai Party likewise) is not interested in Socialism. He wants emigrants from Russia, or anywhere else for that matter, to help build up capitalism in Israel. Technicians, teachers, doctors, scientists and maybe a few Rouble millionaires will be more than welcome. But if aged over 35, sick, unskilled, or without financial .backing, the signboard says “No vacancies.” Which is capitalism all the world over.

Israel Jewish Unemployment

Unemployment as we all know, is one of the many horrible aspects of capitalism and has increased in many countries since Malenkov made his peace statement. Israel is no exception and has one of the highest (if not the highest) percentages of unemployed in the world. Out of a population of 1,629,000 there are twenty-five thousand registered as unemployed (Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, 12th December, 1952). This does not include part-time workers and those who would not register anyway; such as most of the Arab population which forms the largest part of the 179,000 non-Jews.

Working on the assumption that the average family in Israel has at least four members, it can be seen that a very large section of the population is affected.

The supreme irony of the situation, lies in the fact that many of these people dissipated their energies over the years in the Zionist movement and other “Jewish ” Nationalist organisations in the endeavour to form a “National Home,” only to find that they can suffer just as much in Israel as elsewhere. For Israeli capitalists are no different from the rest of their class and are quite impartial about exploiting either Jewish or Gentile workers.

Jon Keys

Here and There: The Church in Spain (1937)

The Here and There column from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Church in Spain

Among a series of excellent articles on Spain in the Manchester Guardian one deals with the function of the Catholic Church in Spain and its attitude towards the Civil War. The correspondent, who spent a year in Spain, says: —

The burnings were often carried out by the villagers without any instructions from outside— indeed, they were often as spontaneous and, seemingly, as natural throughout Spain as the seizure of land was in the South of Spain. . . .

But, generally speaking, the war on the churches seems to have been a popular, spontaneous movement. And even when a gang arrived from outside the villagers, would, as a rule, stand round passively and look on while petrol was poured on the altar and set alight and the priest was dragged from his hiding- place.

In a country where the majority of the people have been, and still are, Catholics this indifference to the fate of the clergy needs some explaining. Read on: —

A Materialist Church.

Genuinely Christian priests have been killed. Much fine art has been destroyed and some of the finest music in the world been silenced. But the problem of the Church in Spain has another aspect. It was a Church more permeated by materialism than any other in Europe. It was largely—though by no means entirely—a commercial enterprise. It was the biggest landowner in a country of big landowners. It had a vast, and sometimes even a commanding, share in various industrial and commercial interests. A Church that identifies itself too closely with a temporal order is in danger of sharing the destiny of that order. And if a Church throws its weight on the side either of revolution or of counter-revolution, it will survive with the one or perish with the other.

The Spanish clergy has used Catholic teaching to influence Spanish workers to assist in maintaining the landowning and capitalist interests of the Spanish Church. They have failed and millions of Spanish Catholics are now the bitter enemies of the Catholic Church. The Jesuit boast that Catholic teaching until the age of seven years immunises the mind for life from heretical influences is a patent myth. The dominating influence in class struggles is class interest. The class interest of the Spanish workers, or what appears to them to be their class interest, dominates the influence of religious superstition. In many thousands of cases the open struggle with the Catholic Church will be sufficient to destroy its influence entirely. The position surprises many people with exaggerated ideas about the power of religion. The attitude of the Spanish worker to the Catholic Church is no less a logical expression of material interest than the attitude of the angry Spanish peasant who hung the image of St. Anthony upside down in a well after a failure of his crops. (An instance quoted by the Guardian correspondent, which can be paralleled by many stories from countries where there is a large Catholic peasantry.)

The Catholic Church is lined up with the landowning class behind Franco in a desperate fight to retain its ownership and feudal privileges. That is its chief interest in the struggle; and its resources are at the disposal of Franco. Many churches have become arsenals and many priests have discarded the cassock for the rifle. It is a ruthless and bitter class struggle in which life and property inevitably are destroyed.

If Catholic priests were murdered by angry Spanish peasants they have the reactionary and callous attitude of the Catholic Church to thank.

Whatever the outcome of the immediate struggle in Spain the hypocrisy and charlatanry of the Catholic Church there has dealt a blow to its moral influence which will not be rebuilt so easily as the walls of its churches.

Civilising Spain

The Irish Brigade, raised by General O’ Duffy to fight on behalf of Franco in Spain, has returned to Ireland without having done much fighting. The Manchester Guardian (June 23rd, 1937) quotes from the Irish Times and the Irish Press an account by the volunteers of what they saw in Spain.

We saw General Franco’s army executing “Reds” each morning in massed groups. They machine-gunned the condemned people, beginning at their ankles and directing the fire up along their bodies. The “ Reds,” in their last moments, lifted their clenched fists in the Communist salute, snouting “Viva Madrid !” This was in Caceres. It was in this town that the brigade spent most of their time.

That “great gentleman” and Catholic, Franco, will find a place in history with those murderers of the Paris Communards, the French ruling class. 

Marx—by Mr. Woodburn

Mr. Arthur Woodburn, secretary of the Scottish Labour Party, N.C.L.C. lecturer, and exponent of finance and economics, arch-squarer of the circles in Labour Party policy, says in the June Plebs: —

When individuals deny the obvious and proved fact that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party there is no point in arguing with them. . . . No one can join the Labour Party without proclaiming himself a Socialist.

It is, perhaps, too much to expect an Oracle to argue, but does he need to? Surely an "obvious and proved fact” should speak for itself? The “obvious and proved fact” that prominent members of the Labour Party have openly repudiated being Socialists and that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party does, however, appear to require explanation. Would you oblige, Mr. Woodburn? And would you also mention where evidence can be found for the statement that Marx agreed that 

It was quite conceivable that the capitalists would be bought out if they were paid very well if (as an exception, and England at that time was an exception) circumstances so developed that the capitalist would be obliged to submit and proceed in a cultured and organised manner towards Socialism on terms of compensation, 

and where

Elsewhere Marx said that "Under certain conditions the workers will not by any means refuse to buy out the bourgeoisie.”

There may be “not much point in arguing,” but, really, Mr. Woodburn, we would like to know.


The "New Leader” and “ The Socialist Standard"

In an article, “A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike,” which appeared in the July The Socialist Standard, it was stated that: “No reference has appeared, or—to be pedantically correct—has been noticed,” in Labour and Communist newspapers to the Bedwas Agreement signed by Mr. Arthur Horner. We learn now that such reference had been made. John Alpin, industrial editor of the New Leader, writes to say that it carried a critical analysis of the agreement and that a reply to that analysis by a member of the South Wales Miners’ Federation was dealt with point by point. Rather disagreeably, he says that he “would have assumed that the S.P.G.B. . . . would have read the columns of the New Leader each week.” We make the correction suggested by Mr. Alpin, if such it can be called, gladly. The number of weekly and monthly journals published by working-class organisations is numerous, and when writing is a voluntary task and journals unobtainable through the usual channels it is quite easy to miss an issue of any particular journal. The New Leader could help to avoid the recurrence of such “errors.” We suggest it put us on its exchange list. We put this suggestion to several journals, including the New Leader, a few years ago. Many agreed, even where the price is much higher than The Socialist Standard and publication more frequent: the New Leader declined. Perhaps, Mr. Alpin, you would do something to adjust the matter?

The Indian Workers and their Exploiters

Congress, India’s Nationalist Party, has climbed down from its earlier attitude of refusing to form governments in the six Provinces where it obtained majorities in the recent elections. In the resolution embodying the decision to form Governments, the draft of which, according to the Daily Herald, is attributed to Gandhi, it is said: —

The proper description of the existing relationship between the British Government and the people of India is that of exploiter and exploited, and hence they have a different outlook upon almost everything of vital importance.

Having admitted that exploiters and exploited must have a different outlook, Mr. Gandhi ignores the obvious, that exploited Indians can have no harmony of outlook with the Nationalist exploiters of their own race. To say, as he has said, that the Indian princes, landowners and capitalists can be persuaded to be “trustees” for the Indian masses, dodges the issue. The British capitalists would claim “trusteeship” for millions of Colonial masses throughout the world with nothing more to support it than the pious hypocrisy which cloaks their real interests. The practice of capitalism does not reveal the capitalist class to be any less the robbers because the class they exploit happen to speak the same language. The Indian workers have yet a painful road to travel before they acquire the understanding necessary for their emancipation. 

More Russian Puzzles

The Russian Government’s purge of "Trotskyites,” “diversionists,” ”wreckers” and “spies” continues, apparently, unabated. As must obviously happen, no amount of bias or coloured phraseology can obscure the contradictions which obtrude through the evidence against the “traitors."

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Herald (June 29th, T 937) gives the number executed for spying in the Far Eastern Province of Khabarovsk as 133 to the end of April, and quotes the Russian newspaper Izvestia, that “the spies were able to persuade railway workers’ to sell them uniforms." The reason why workers, who, according to Russian and Communist claims, are well paid, should want to sell their uniforms, is left to the imagination of the reader who is keen enough to notice the contradiction.

Another report from the same correspondent (July 3rd, 1937) states that a notorious spy, who had been run to earth, succeeded in organising "a gang of ex-priests, monks, kulaks and discontented young people'' (Our italics.) Perhaps a Communist friend could explain that “discontent" of young people.

Many of the “honourable Communists" who helped to draft the Constitution have since become victims of the purge, including Tukhachensky, Gamarnik, Uborevich, Yakir and Chervyakoff, who are dead, and Goloded and Postysheff, who are disgraced.

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (June 29th, 1937) refers to the purge among industrial leaders whose production figures have fallen, and quotes from Pravda an attack on the woman Communist President of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, who. it is alleged, spent £600 on clothes suitable for her to wear to meet foreigners, when sent on an official trip abroad. The reward of Socialist competition?

Yet another report comments on the arrest of a “Trotskyist bandit,” Doletski, head of the Tass News Agency, which supplies the bulk of all news to Soviet papers. He is ”accused of having suppressed news about wreckers in industry and having over-emphasised news of successes." (Daily Herald, July 8th, 1937.)

Suppression of news inimical to its interests is inevitable where there is political dictatorship and a host of minor dictators in their own particular spheres. No regime claiming to represent working-class interests, which has a sound basis, need repress news or criticism. Socialist principles have nothing to lose and everything to gain from free and open discussion. Under dictatorship even the mildest criticism of the regime, or opposition on questions of policy, must result in intrigue against the Government and take insurrectionary forms.

Where there is dictatorship by a person or a clique, who decide what is right for the majority, it is inevitable that discontent and inequality arise. When discontent becomes widespread a scramble takes place to place culpability on the shoulders of others. Socialist interests can only thrive under the free and open conditions of democracy. 

Harry Waite

Editorial: Disillusionment in India (1951)

Editorial from the August 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In addition to being members of the working class exploited by Capitalism, the Indian workers under Nehru and the British workers under Attlee have in common the experience of being presented with much-praised gifts that they are now discovering to be valueless. In Britain the workers celebrated nationalisation only to find that it leaves them in just the same exploited condition as before. In India the workers celebrated independence but are now sadly waking up to find that Capitalism and its politicians are just the same though the flag has changed.

Here are a few recent incidents in India to show just how little difference it has made.

Under British rule Indian Nationalists complained bitterly of British interference with the liberty of the Press. Now Nehru, who used to voice the protests, has got the Indian Parliament to pass an Act which gives the Government power to suppress newspapers in certain circumstances. The All-India newspaper editors' conference at Bombay has passed a resolution in favour of taking their protests to the United Nations and decided that every issue of their papers will carry the following inscription above the editorial: “Freedom of expression is our birthright, and we shall not rest until it is fully guaranteed by the Constitution.” (Daily Mail, 25/6/51.) One of the defenders of the Indian Government's action was the son of the late Mahatma Gandhi, who, father and son, used to protest against the British Government for denying freedom of the Press in India.

Then, on 11th July, the President of the Indian Republic "promulgated an ordinance . . . enabling the Government to take prompt steps to prevent strikes in the essential services.” (Manchester Guardian, 12th July, 1951.) It is directed especially against a threatened railway strike and those found guilty of instigating strikes will be liable to terms of imprisonment

Even the fraudulent facade erected by the Government to disguise the naked brutality of Indian Capitalism has been borrowed from the British Labour Government, for we read that in his report to the Congress Party Prime Minister Nehru “laid stress on the need for building up a Welfare State by combining private enterprise with the essential features of Socialism.” (Observer, 8/7/51.)

The prophet of Indian Nationalism, Gandhi, preached pacifism and his attitude was largely shared by Nehru. In line with this reputation a number of British writers, including supporters of the Labour Party, recently sent him a message thanking him for his “efforts for world peace.” (Manchester Guardian, 17/3/51.) It is the same Nehru who belligerently threatens war against the equally belligerent Government of Pakistan over possession of the disputed State of Kashmir.

Of course the stresses and strains of Indian politics have led to movements to form breakaway political parties in opposition to the Congress Party. One of them is led by Mr. Kripalani, whose speech at the inaugural convention is reported as follows by The Times (16/6/51):—

"Mr. Kripalani, who was voted to the chair, said that he had nothing to offer his follower but hard work. Food, clothing, and the housing position had deteriorated since independence. Their enemy to-day was sloth, indifference, superstition, and power politics. Power was necessary for the conduct of human affairs, but became despicable when used for sectional and selfish ends. He had worked under Gandhi’s leadership for India’s freedom, but had lived to hear people saying that things had been better under foreign rule. What could be more degrading for self-respecting Indians? ”

The new party proclaims its aim to be the establishment “of a free, democratic, casteless and classless society” (Manchester Guardian, 18/6/51), but, like Nehru and the Congress Party, they too are going to combine State Capitalism and private Capitalism, but with less emphasis on nationalisation.

The so-called India Socialist Party, which has no better claim to the name Socialist than has the British Labour Party, has a new programme which includes abolition of the rural landlord system without compensation, the “nationalisation of insurance and banking companies,” etc., a capital levy, and no incomes above £900 a year. (Manchester Guardian, 6/7/51.) Being an opportunist, reformist and vote-catching organisation, it has had talks with Mr. Kripalani's party about possible combined electoral action against the Congress Party. The Congress Party used to catch votes with the plea that independence would solve the problems of the Indian workers, though, having made India a Republic within the British Commonwealth, Nehru now defends the policy of remaining inside. So the “India Socialist Party” is trying to collect the votes of workers disgusted with Nehru's government by promising to take India out of the Commonwealth and by forming a new grouping of Powers “from Indonesia to Egypt,” in opposition to both the American-British group and the Russian group.

The significant thing about all these groups in the Indian political world is that every single item of all their programmes has been lifted from the British capitalist-reformist parties. They have taken with them on their departure from the rule of British Capitalism all the trashy political nostrums, everything in fact except the one thing British experience could have taught them—the uselessness to the workers of reforming Capitalism, and the necessity of establishing Socialism.

Editorial: The Ugly Reality of Indian Nationalism (1942)

Editorial from the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a request to give our support to a joint manifesto in favour of the Indian Nationalist movement, and the following resolution has been sent in reply to it : —

“We are not willing to give our support to a joint manifesto in conjunction with other political parties endorsing the Indian Nationalist movement. As Socialists we are opposed to the exploitation of the toilers either by foreign or native exploiters. As that exploitation can be ended only by the achievement of Socialism, through international working-class action, we are opposed to the Indian Nationalist movement which has capitalist aims and is not deserving of working-class support. We are also not prepared to associate with non-Socialist political parties.”

The Indian population consists of a small wealthy class at the top and a vast mass, numbering over two hundred millions, of poverty stricken workers and peasants at the bottom. If the Nationalist movement becomes successful an indication has already been given of what the mass of the population may expect from native rulers.

When for a short time the Congress Party was in control of the government of Bombay, the home of Indian industrial millionaires, they immediately took the opportunity to introduce a Trades Disputes Bill which made strikes illegal, thus taking away from the worker the only industrial weapon he can use against the exactions of employers. When Indian workers were on strike the real leader of the Congress Party, Gandhi, sided with the employers and forsook his much advertised peaceful persuasion principles to give his blessing to the use of force against workers who engaged in the picketing of factories. In all his agitation in India there has been one constant feature of Gandhi’s position : he has been a friend and supporter of Indian capitalists.

In the industrial centres of India, irrespective of the nationality of those in control of industry, working conditions are deplorable, wages are poor, and unemployment flourishes. This is true where the mill-owners are generally native Indians. Religious differences are exploited by local parasites who turn the worker’s attention from the real source of his misery to religious riots. The fact that British capitalists may also have used these religious differences to further their own ends does not absolve the Indian capitalists from responsibility for the economic conditions out of which the riots spring. The real core of the matter is the exploitation of the Indian workers and peasants.

The Nationalist movement is financed by Indian capitalists and, as only a small percentage of Indians are literate, its prominent officials are either capitalists themselves or intimately connected with the upper strata of wealthy people. As landlords, factory owners, and legislators they have shown they are as determined to live on the backs of the Indian toilers as are the British capitalists whom they wish to eliminate.

It is of no real consequence to the Indian worker whether he toils for the profit of an Indian or a British capitalist concern. His real problem is the fact that the means of production are controlled by a class that forces him to labour and suffer in greater or less degree the miseries suffered by his fellow toilers in other lands.

The present position in India is an indication of the differences that would split Indian society if Indians obtain control of their own affairs. One section there, including the Communists, is supporting the war and another section is opposing it. The different sectional interests of landlords, factory owners and traders will also be a fruitful source of strife. The struggle for markets against Chinese, Japanese and other international interests will add further fuel to the fire. And all the time the Indian worker will toil and suffer, his needs forgotten under the new regime, unless he asserts himself in the only direction that will serve his interests.

Many Indian workers and peasants attribute their miseries to foreign rule rather than to the private ownership of the means of production, but the Indian Nationalist movement will not help the Indian worker to emancipate himself from his subject condition. It draws support from wealthy Indian financiers and manufacturers who inflame national prejudice with the object of climbing upon the backs of the workers to positions of greater wealth and power. Too often have the workers’ aspirations for a better life been diverted into the chase after a national independence which has gained them only a different flag to wave over their misery.

The fact that we are opposed to the Indian Nationalist movement does not mean that we acquiesce in the brutal suppression of which the Indians have been victims. We are opposed to the capitalist system wherever it raises its ugly head, but we know that the solution to the workers’ subjective position under it is the same everywhere.

The only road to salvation for the Indian worker is the road to Socialism, and he must travel along that road in brotherly harmony with the members of his class throughout the world.

Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.

Notes by the Way: Gandhi and the Millionaires (1942)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Gandhi and the Millionaires

At the time of Gandhi’s arrest several British newspapers made much of the close association between Congress leaders and wealthy Indian capitalists. The “Daily Express” had the following : —

“Just as ten years ago German industrialists decided to finance Hitler for their own ends, so to-day it is largely the great Indian capitalists who stand behind Congress.

Men like the Birla brothers, great mill owners, and Walchand Hirachand, chairman of the £1,700,000 Scindia Steam Navigation Company, see India freed from British control, as the industrialists’ paradise, with high tariff walls. Some rich Congressmen would like to do a business deal with Japan, too. It is against such tendencies that two new leaders have now sprung up, who are putting Congress through the greatest crisis of its career.” (“Daily Express,” August 6th, 1942.)

The “Evening Standard” (August 4th) said :

“There was surely never a quainter contrast in political associates than that between Gandhi and his host for the Bombay meeting of Congress, Ghanshyam Das Birla, the millionaire of big business. . . . Now and then their friendship has been criticised by Indian Socialists.”

This is fair comment. A political movement which claims to represent the interests of Indian workers and peasants has got to explain why it receives financial support from Indian big business, the exploiters of the Indian toilers; but why does this apply only in India; why not nearer home ? What about big business influence in British political parties ? And why should Indian workers be impressed by advice from millionaire controlled British newspapers, or from politicians who likewise find their close associates in the ranks of the captains of industry?

* * *

Are Bishops More Honest? 

The Bishop of Liverpool, advocating whipping for juvenile law breakers, says : “There is no doubt that since the last war the standard of honesty in Britain has been steadily going down.” (“Evening News,” August 19th.) In accordance with the biblical precept, “If any would not work, neither should he eat,” it is certainly dishonest of our investing class to live at the expense of the workers, but Dr. David is probably being rather unfair to his fellow Church dignitaries if he suggests that they, along with boys who rob orchards, are becoming more dishonest. Did not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were the biggest mining royalty owners in the country, willy-nilly suffer a reduction of revenue of about £120,000 a year when coal royalties were vested in the Coal Commission ? And observe how the Church has become more sensitive to criticisms about its slum property, and has sold it, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury (“News Chronicle,” August 13th, 1942). And all done without, so far as we have heard, a single Bishop being flogged.

* * *

G. B. Shaw and the Indian Riots

There must be heart-searching among Labour Party adherents who have so long supported Indian nationalism against what they said was a needlessly repressive policy of British Governments, that while Labour leaders are in the Government strong measures against national rioters are again being used. The following are two items in the “Daily Express” (August 20th, 1942) :—

“A Cawnpore man has been sentenced to 20 whip lashes and two years’ hard labour for damaging Government property and causing damage by fire. This is probably the first whipping ordered in India under the new regulations. A new order issued in New Delhi empowers Provincial Governments to set up special courts to try certain offences in event of emergency, and to impose collective fines in areas where offences “prejudicial to safety” occur.”—Reuter, B.U.P.

G. B. Shaw, asked to send a message to an India League demonstration in this country, is reported by the “Evening Standard” as follows : —

“The second (blunder) was the Flogging Bill, which seemed so natural to Ministers educated at Eton that they could not see how it could shock all Europe, including Adolf Hitler.”

At whom is the gibe intended? Mr. Amery went to Harrow, Sir Stafford Cripps to Winchester, and Mr. Attlee to Haileybury, and they are the three most closely concerned with India to-day.” (“Evening Standard,” August 25th.)

* * *

An Echo of the Russian Purge

At the time of the Russian trials in 1938 there was much discussion about the prisoners’ confessions, ranging from Major-General Sir Wyndham Childs, who wrote : “Those who guessed the application of a new and terrible drug were not far wrong” (“John Bull,” March 19th, 1938), to the uncritical believers in things Bolshevist who were prepared to accept everything. When the latter read in their newspapers in July of this year that the Russian People’s Commissarfor the Navy had sent a message “to Mr. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to a Red Navy Day message” (“Evening Standard,

” July 29th, 1942), did it call up some recollection in their minds? Do they remember Zelensky’s confession? Here is one of the passages from the Official Report published by the Russian Government: “The President: Your testimony contains the phrase: “To come to an understanding with these leaders for possible assistance in the event of an uprising against the Soviet power.” Do you confirm this or not?

Zelensky: I do.

The President: How did you endeavour to utilize this?

Zelensky: At a meeting with a certain Alexander . . .

The President: Who is this Alexander?

Zelensky: The leader of the British Co-operative Party, which is affiliated with the Labour Party. (Page 338.)

According to the Official Report of Zelensky’s “confession,” Mr. Alexander is supposed to have said he would welcome a Right Government, and that the Cooperative Movement could guarantee such credits and assistance as was granted to the Soviet Government during the time of the embargo.

Rakovsky, in his confession, also implicated Mr. Alexander. Rakovsky got twenty years’ imprisonment and Zelensky was sentenced to be shot, while Mr. Alexander, who said that the confessions about him were baseleses, is now Ruler of the Kings’ Navee, receiving greetings from the Russian Government.

* * *

Bolshevist Books for British Bairns

War brings about strange happenings. What must be the thoughts of staunch Conservatives who for years persecuted teachers, suspected of Communist leanings, when they read about the new policy of the Board of Education? Under the heading, “Stalin’s text-books for British School Children,” the “Daily Express” (August 25th, 1942) reported that the Board of Education have sent out to schools a list of 40 books recommended for teachers Among them are “Selected Works of Lenin,” and Stalin’s “Foundations of Leninism.”

And a month earlier the R.A F. had been dropping copies of Stalin’s May Day Order in the Rhineland and Central Germany (“Daily Mail,” July 23rd, 1942).

* * *

The Upper 100,000

We have heard a lot lately about the nearly extinct rich, bled white by taxation. Comprehensive figures about income and taxation have been published by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (House of Commons Reports, July 23rd, 1942). Among other things it is possible to find out from the figures how many people there are with incomes exceeding £2,000 a year, how much tax they pay now, and how much tax they paid in 1938-39. The figures have been analysed in the “Economist” (August 1st, 1942), and they show that there are 105,000 persons whose income is more than £2,000 a year, including 100 with more than £100,000 a year each. These figures relate to total income before income tax and surtax have been deducted. Consequently they hide the harrowing facts that, in the words of the “Manchester Guardian” (July 31st, 1942), “tax has become crushing” above the £2,000 a year level. Here is the bitter truth about these crushed souls : —

“In 1938-39 the 105,1000 persons with incomes above £2,000 a year had an average income, after paying tax, of £3,150 per head, but ” the war . . . has reduced their average net income, after tax, from £3,150 to £1,950.” (“Times,” July 27th, 1942.)

They used to jog along on an average of £60 a week after paying tax, and just managed to make ends meet; now all they have for food, clothing and shelter is an average of £37 10s. a week ! In the words of the “Manchester Guardian,” “There are still 105,000 people with gross incomes of over £2,000 a year, but their average net income after tax is only £1,950 ” (July 31st, 1942) (our italics). One wonders why this sobbing city editor headed his article, “Rich and Poor”; “Poor and Poor” or “Poor Workers and Poorer Surtax Payers” would have been more seemly. Now that they are down and out, he ought not to have added insult to injury. His final words are : —

“There cannot be more than a few hundred persons left with a net income of £5,000 a year.”

* * *

Postcript on Mr. Bevin

Mr. Bevin’s statement that at the end of the war “the rentier, comfortably living on interest, would certainly be gone.” brought swift, if indirect, repudiation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood. On July 30th, Rear-Admiral Beamish asked a question in the House of Commons plainly directed against Mr. Bevin, though he was not mentioned : —

“LOANS (SECURITY).

READ-ADMIRAL BEAMISH asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage thrift and to allay doubts that have arisen in the minds of those who direct and subscribe to the War Savings Campaign, he will again make it clear that those who lend money to the State and rentier people living on interest can look to the future without fears for their loans or their interest ?

SIR K. WOOD: Loans to the State will be honoured without exception or qualification. The State is not directly responsible for private loans, but its the declared policy of His Majesty’s Government to maintain public confidence in the credit structure of the country, and no action of any kind is contemplated which would interfere with the rights of creditors in respect of private loans.” (House of Commons Debates, July 30th, 1942.)

On Sunday, August 2nd, the reply was given wide publicity by being included in the news on the wireless. Before his statement was repudiated Mr. Bevin’s words had caused consternation in various circles. Anxious investors wrote to the newspapers and to their banks and financial advisers, the War Savings Organisation felt that it was distinctly discouraging to their campaign, and many letters on the subject were published in newspaper correspondence columns. Among the latter was one from Sir Rowland Evans, published by the “Daily Telegraph,” which provided us with the entertaining spectacle of a defender of capitalism quoting Bolshevist Russia against Mr. Bevin’s alarming views : —

To the Editor of “The Daily Telegraph.” 

Sir,—According to his recent speech, Mr. Ernest Bevin welcomes the prospect of there being no “rentier people living on interest” at the end of the war. Apparently he disapproves of the principle of interest on capital as he does of the motive of profit.

But Mr. Bevin’s Socialist friends in this country need not be discouraged by his ethics in this matter from taking up War Loan or buying Savings Certificates, or have any qualms of conscience in receiving interest on their capital thus invested, for their fellow war-workers in Soviet Russia have been doing the same thing—and on quite a big scale. For example, as early as 1937 the Soviet Government floated a Defence Loan of 4,000,000,000 roubles, bearing interest at 4 per cent., redeemable in 1957.—Yours faithfully, (“Daily Telegraph,” July 24th.)

Edgar Hardcastle

The Class Struggle in India (1949)

From the July 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

For nearly 200 years, India was under British rule. Throughout these years the workers of India were exploited and oppressed and any attempt by them to resist was met with brutal suppression from the British ruling class. The mass shootings at Amritsar in 1919, Bombay in 1921, Calcutta in 1930, Cawnpore in 1931 and Karachi in 1935 are but a few instances of the treatment handed out to Indian workers by their British masters. As Lord Brentford said in 1925:

“ We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians . . . We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we shall hold it.”

For many years the Indian workers have struggled against foreign oppression. Under leaders like Gandhi and Nehru they have striven for national independence. They have used hunger strikes, passive resistance, demonstrations, strikes' and other weapons in the struggle. They have been heroic. Now that they have had their much desired national independence for some short time, we can take a look at the situation and learn a few things.

When a foreign conqueror dominates a country, he either exterminates or subordinates the native population. If the conqueror ushers in capitalism and the people of the country are at a low stage of social development, there will be no place for them in the process of capitalist production. They will be thrust aside as were the Red Indians of America and the Maoris of New Zealand. If they are not exterminated, but are allowed to live side by side with people of a higher stage of social development, the rate of their own social development will be hastened. But, at first, such people do not fit into a system of factory production or commercial enterprise. If, on the other hand, the people of the country have arrived at a stage of development that makes it possible to exploit them, then they will be exploited. When the people of a foreign—capitalist—dominated country can be proletarianised, they will be absorbed into capitalist industry as it develops in their country.

A few of the local population, either because of the position they held before the foreign domination, or because they have been able to take advantage of some chance that the new capitalism offered, will constitute a native capitalist class. This minority will, in time, find itself hampered by the capitalists of the ruling power. These native capitalists will want to control their own system of taxation and to regulate their own tariffs. They will resent a large share of the proceeds of the exploitation of the workers going into the coffers of foreigners. They will resist the continued rule from some other part of the world. To resist successfully they must have the support of the majority of their working class countrymen. Hence, there is built a nationalist movement in which all those who consider that they have a common interest as nationals, will gather and struggle. This is what has happened in such countries as Egypt, Ireland and India. The years of cruel struggle in India have resulted in the achievement of national independence and the arrangement agreed to at the Commonwealth talks in London during April of this year.

What is the position of the workers in India now that this state of national independence has been achieved? Are they free from exploitation and oppression? Are their conditions of life improved? What have they gained from the struggle? We can see, what socialists have always seen, that “India for the Indians” has been a rallying cry to muster the workers under the banner of a group of native exploiters in an endeavour to throw off the yoke of the foreign ones. With the battle won, the workers find that they have got rid of one bunch of tyrants only to be subjugated to another one which speaks their own language and has their same coloured skin, and which can be as brutal and merciless as were the British.

David Raymond, writing about Nehru in Reynold's News (April 24th, 1949) sums up the matter briefly. He

says:

“So long as the fight was for independence it had an aim that united all, rich and poor, exploiter and exploited.”

He also says of Nehru that:

“He has many times written and spoken to the effect that India will not be free until her millions —many of them constantly on the verge of starvation—are free from exploitation by their landlords and by their own capitalists, whom he once described as 'quite amazingly backward'. "

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru came to this country this year to negotiate an arrangement which will give the Indian capitalist class freedom to exploit Indian workers without interference from Whitehall, whilst at the same time conserving to them some of the advantages to be gained from being linked to the “British Commonwealth of Nations.” The Congress Party, which was the backbone of the Nationalist Movement, now forms the government of India, of which Nehru is the head.

The Congress Government in India today is continuing the beatings, shootings, wholesale imprisonment and brutal treatment of the native workers with as great ferocity as did the British. From the Trade Union Record, monthly bulletin of the All-India Trade Union Congress, we get information of the treatment handed out to Indian workers by Indian capitalists and their henchmen. In the issue for March, 1949, we read that,

“. . . Trade Union offices have been broken into, ransacked, records confiscated and the offices sealed . . .”

"Besides the hundreds of Trade Union workers arrested during the last twelve months, more than 2,000 have been arrested during the last fortnight alone.”

Acts have been passed by the central and provincial governments which virtually deprive the workers of the right to strike. The government proposes to amend the Indian Trade Unions Act of 1926 in a manner that will withdraw the freedom to organise from many workers.

Continuously rising prices are giving rise to much discontent and a large number of strikes. Compulsory arbitration has been imposed but trade union officials have been arrested before, and even during, the arbitration proceedings. The same issue of the Trade Union Report states.

"More workers have been killed by bullets in the last one year and a half than in any other period of Indian history.”

In a previous issue of this bulletin, a report from Assam, the country of tea plantations, referring to the month of June, 1948, states,

“In the course of the last month more Trade Unionists have been put behind the prison bars in Assam than even within a year of the worst days of British rule.”

During those days of British rule we often heard of Indian workers being charged and beaten with lathis (bamboo sticks). We still learn of similar instances.

". . . when a deputation of the workers (of the Naivasal Mohamed Hussain Tannery works at Vaniambadi) started to go to the management to make representations they were severely lathi-charged. Twenty workers, including four office bearers of the Union, were arrested and beaten.” 

The general situation is summed up in the following statement from the same source,

“During the last two years the Government has more than once displayed its desire to 'meet the legitimate demands of their employees and other workers’ with lathis, tear gas, bullets and jail.”

This position is not peculiar to India. Wherever a native ruling class has ousted a foreign one it has always been as eager as its predecessors to extract the maximum amount of wealth from the labours of its workers. It will be equally as ruthless in the process and often, being less experienced, will be more crude in its methods. For the workers, the remedy lies not in supporting one national section of the capitalist class against another, but in abolishing all exploiting classes, native and foreign.

There is one thing that emerges from these struggles within capitalism. Out of the turmoil between conflicting sections of the capitalist class and the striving of the workers for political elbow room, there develops the modern type of democratic government with an ever-widening franchise. Thus is formed within capitalism the weapons that the workers can use for its overthrow. When the working class realises the futility of supporting class society in any form, it will find that out of the welter of class conflict has emerged the instrument which can be used to wipe away class domination and privilege—the franchise.

We are often told by our fellow workers from different parts of the world, particularly by our coloured colleagues, that the Socialist solution is too remote. They cannot wait for the day when the workers of the world will overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. They are being ruthlessly exploited by foreign capitalists and subjected to brutal oppression. They need a speedy remedy. Their answer is contained in these extracts from an Indian Trade Union journal. No matter how the workers struggle within capitalism, they will remain an exploited and oppressed class. Socialism is not just the speediest remedy, it is the only remedy.

A slave is no less a slave when he has changed masters.

W. Waters

Editorial: The Forgotten Man in India (1942)

Editorial from the May 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir Stafford Cripps’ abortive negotiations with the Indian political leaders have had the incidental result of showing up the reality lying hidden behind the words and theories of the principal participants. Sir Stafford’s own attitude in the past has been that the Indian problem could be solved if only sincere and disinterested well-wishers were allowed to brush aside British vested interests and their prejudiced political advisers, and make direct approach to the Indian leaders. Under the threat of Japanese invasion he was allowed to offer what he considered to be a suitable scheme, but failed to overcome the opposition of the Hindoo and Moslem organisations or to reconcile their differences with each other. At the end he received from Nehru, leader of the Congress Party, the unkindest cut of all, the charge that whoever comes from the British Government “speaks the same accent as of old and treats us the same way” (Evening Standard, April 16th, 1942.) He also remarked of Cripps: —

“What he said was a repetition of the farrago of nonsense Amery has been uttering all these years”.—(“News-Chronicle,” April 13th, 1942.)

Such is the fate of those who aspire to solve Capitalism’s problems in a non-capitalist way.

Cripps, for his part, had characterised the counter-proposal put forward by Nehru as a form of government which would constitute an “absolute dictatorship of the majority,” providing no real safeguard for the protection of the Moslem and other minorities against the Congress Party.

The Moslem League shared this view. Its leader, Mr. Jinnah, is reported to have said that the Congress Party’s aim

“appeared to be to set up an irremovable Cabinet responsible to nobody but the majority. If such an adjustment was arrived at such a Cabinet would be a Fascist Grand Council and the Moslems and the other minorities would be entirely at the mercy of the Congress Raj.”—(“Manchester Guardian,” April 15th 1942.)

Nehru’s view, on the other hand, was that “Congress is the only party in India which could deliver the goods,” and he is reported to have told a Daily Express correspondent that Jinnah of the Moslem League is a “Fascist” (Daily Express, April 13th). The one part of the British offer that the Moslem League accepted with “gratification” was the clause empowering provinces to vote themselves out of the new United India if they wanted to do so, in order to escape Congress Party rule.

After due allowance is made for views being put forward during negotiations in an exaggerated and not fully considered form, the fact remains that Sir Stafford’s beliefs about the nature of the Indian problem and the way to solve it were proved wrong, as also were the Indian nationalists’ claim that there would be no problem if British rule disappeared. In a capitalist world the real underlying motives of conflict arise out of, or derive their intensity from, the vested interests of the different sections of the propertied class, whether British investors, Indian princes and landlords, or the Indian textile and other millionaires. All alike must plead guilty to the charge that the welfare of India’s workers and peasants are to them only a secondary consideration. The British rulers of India and most of the Indian Princes have to answer the statement made Mr Runganadhan, adviser to the Secretary of State for India, in a speech at a conference of educationalists on April 11th, 1942: —

“Out of 50.,000,000 children of school age fewer than 10,000,000 are attending school or receiving education of any kind, he said. Fewer than 10 per cent, of the total population of 400,000,000 are literate. Three out of every four of the 700,000 villages have no school.”—”Empire News,” April 12th, 1942.)

This is the condition of India after long years of their rule; and Congress Party rule offers little change except in name. When the capitalist-financed Congress Party protest that they are different in their attitude to the masses they have to explain, for example, why, when they governed Bombay in 1938, one of their first acts was to introduce a Trade Disputes Bill designed to fetter Indian trade unions. In the words of an Indian trade union journal, this Bill

“takes away the legitimate, constitutional and powerful weapons of the workers, namely, the strike, by declaring it illegal and therefore punishable in a large number of cases.”— (“Indian Labour Journal,” October 23rd 1938.)

And Gandhi, former Congress leader, has to explain why he, an advocate of non-resistance even against armed invasion, stated in 1938 that if strikers persisted in mass picketing of factories

“the owners of mills or other factories would be fully justified in invoking the assistance of the police.”—(“Indian Labour Journal,” August 21st, 1938.)

Whatever words the various leaders may use in attacking each other, they are all concerned at heart with maintaining landlordism and capitalism, and while capitalism remains, the lot of India’s poverty-stricken millions will be that of a dispossessed class struggling against landlords and factory owners to improve their miserable conditions. Gandhi, no less than the others, is committed to capitalism: —

“The duel between capitalists and labour, he says, is only between big words . . . Both are capitalists; one has consolidated his capital and used it intelligently ; the other squanders it recklessly. If you communists or anybody wish the destruction of capitalists we would be destroyed. What I really do want is a combination, mixing and uniting of the two.”—(“Indian Labour Journal,” July 8th, 1934.)

When we contemplate the political immaturity of the great majority of the Indian workers and peasants, the hold of religious superstitions and caste barriers, the consequent enormous influence of political and religious leaders, the strongly developed regionalism helped by religious differences and geographical factors, and not least the material for bitter class conflict between peasants and workers on the one hand and landlords and factory owners on the other, and between Princes, landlords and industrial and commercial interests themselves we are not being rashly-prophetic when we say that India governed by Indian property-owners’ parties contains the prospect of acute internal strife with the possibility of civil war like that in America in the sixties of last century, and the development of a “totalitarian” form of government. If the Indian masses continue to be pawns to be used by their masters’ political parties and religious groups one thing can be said with complete certainty, that the interests of the masses will continue to be forgotten. Our advice, given in reply to a question put by Indian workers interested in Socialism (Socialist Standard, June, 1932) bears repeating—

“Workers in India should unite on a basis of Socialist principles and organise for the establishment of Socialism. They should take what steps are necessary to secure a franchise for this purpose, but they should not unite with any other parties or give adherence to any other bodies, even those masquerading as pure, and simple franchise organisations, as by so doing they would lose independence.”

The well-being of the Indians does not lie with political and religious leaders, whether Indian or British, Japanese or Russian, but in their own single-minded efforts to understand and organise for Socialism. Their slogan, like that of Socialists everywhere, should be not “India for the Indians,” but “the world for the workers.”

The Problem of India (1941)

Book Review from the December 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism is no Sleeping Beauty. The apostles of the “inevitability of gradualness” have been pulverised by the crashing blows of events during the last decades. War—crisis—then war again; the false complacency of “improvers” and social reformers is now revealed in all its inadequacy, for like a series of terrific earthquakes, capitalism administers periodical shocks.

The backward countries are particularly affected. Already it is clear that the battleground of the present conflict is moving east. Africa and particularly Asia will bear much of the brunt of the world-war.

Again, the productive powers of the warring countries will be strained to their limits, no source of supply will be left untapped; think of these factors and then think of India.

“The Problem of India,” a “Penguin Special,” is a book of some two hundred and fifty pages. The author, Doctor K. S. Shelvankar, an Indian student, presents his case exhaustively, efficiently and clearly. In his foreword he claims that it is not “pro-British and anti-Indian or vice-versa,” but that he is “pro the things that can bring food and freedom for the millions who are to-day deprived of them.” “Food and Freedom !” In his historical survey of pre-British India the author makes it quite clear that there was not much of the first and none of the other for the masses of peasants and handicraft workers. A multitude of oppressors and exploiters, princelings, landowners and middlemen, plus the inevitable crowd of religious parasites, the priesthood, had to be maintained according to their social status out of the products of the labouring masses. The system of agriculture was backward even when compared to the then feudal structure of Western Europe. This was due to a variety of reasons: Lower fertility owing to lack of irrigation, wasteful methods of tilling, little domestication of animals. It is not the purpose of this article to follow the author deeply into the historical development of India, for Socialists here the main question is the position of India under the rule of British capitalism.

However, Dr. Shelvankar’s investigation of India’s past is an impressive, though necessarily condensed, piece of work. Methodically he describes for us the whole structure of India as it was when the traders from the European continent came to barter and cheat the Indian population under the banner of Christianity. First the Portuguese, then the Dutch and the French and finally the British in the form of the East India Company. The British stayed.

At this time, during the 15th century, the country was under the rule of a Moslem dynasty, the Moguls, having been conquered by a series of attacks some four centuries previously. Victors and defeated were of different religion, the former were Mohammedans, the latter Hindus. The two faiths did not assimilate each other; both existed side by side and do so to the present.

The invasion made little or no difference to the economic life of the country; it merely deposed one ruling group and substituted another. Peasants toiled on the land, the craftsman worked on his job, but the surplus-value, politely called “tax,” went to the princes and priests of Islam instead of to the Brahmin caste.

The Indian feudal structure differed in important essentials from the system prevailing during the same period in Europe. This must be remembered in order to see why India did not develop into capitalism of its own accord, but had to have the capitalist virus injected into the body economic from without.

The Indian village community remained static. The handicraft worker stayed put, the victim of the peasant’s abysmal poverty; the towns remained the pleasure-grounds of the feudal rulers. Commerce was restricted to the needs of the thin upper crust, a mere by-product of an effete social system, as was the highly-skilled artisan labouring in the prince’s courtyards.

Into this paradise for capitalist exploitation came the British merchants and soldiers ready to assume the “white man’s burden” of gold. The Whig politician, Sheridan, described the East India Company as “wielding a truncheon with one hand and picking a pocket with the other.” The truncheon was soon replaced by the rifle and bloody battles throughout the country blazed the trail of British conquest. Then came the mutiny in 1857, the Company was wound up, and India came under the control of the Government, as the “brightest jewel in the British Crown.”

For more than eighty years India has been a Crown Colony. The British ruling class cannot therefore disown responsibility for the conditions now obtaining among the mass of the Indian people. It is not a pleasant thought. Out of a total population of 353 millions, and a working-mass totalling 154 millions, excluding children, about 66 per cent, are still employed on the land either as smallholders or labourers. Only 18 per cent. are employed in trade, transport and industry. There is a middle group composed of professional workers, officials, small business men, etc., numbering roughly 15 millions. Then comes the top layer of big landlords (princes, etc.), industrialists and others living on big private incomes.

The preponderance of agriculture is evident. It is not agriculture as we know it in the Western world. Large-scale farming is practically unknown except in products designed for export such as cotton, jute, linseed, tea and coffee. The production of food grown for home consumption, cereals, pulses, sugar, and so on, has been left to stagnate under a system of primitive small-holdings, the owners of which are burdened down by government tax and money-lenders. The standard of living among these peasants as well as the urban proletariat is so low as to be incomprehensible to our minds. To quote the author:

“Excluding the cultivators, most of whom, clinging to dwindling plots of land, are on the brink of insolvency and steeped in debt, we have sixty or seventy million agricultural and industrial workers holding on to dear life by the skin of their teeth. Very few of them—a fraction of 1 per cent. at the most—earn as much as 1s. or 1s. 6d. per day (i.e., between £12 and £18 a year); all the rest toil and sweat for a few pennies a day.”

How do they exist? Dr. Shelvankar tells us.

“The average village dwelling is a low, flimsy, crooked structure with mud walls, a mud floor and a thatched roof. It is windowless, airless and has no sanitation.”

The urban proletariat vegetate in hovels “with no windows, chimneys or fireplaces. There is neither light nor water supply, and, of course, no sanitary arrangements.”

Their diet is reminiscent of kept animals, only much smaller in quantity. The daily food of an industrial worker in the towns of Bombay or Madras consists of l¼ lb. of cereals and little else. The average consumption of milk per head in working-class households in Bombay “is less than ½oz. supplemented by .05oz. of melted butter.” Many of the peasants exist on an even poorer diet.

Is it any wonder that during the first thirty years of this century “Cholera has claimed 10¾ million victims, influenza 14 millions, plague 12½ millions and malaria 30 millions ” ?

And yet pacifists can only see the horrors of war !

What remedies can be applied to alleviate such distress? As was to be expected, the author of this book argues strongly that first of all India must be freed from British domination before any comprehensive policy of progressive amelioration can be put into effect.

The core of his case is, that by a deliberate policy of imperialist exploitation the development of industry has been stifled, whilst a mortal blow has been dealt to the old village communal system, adding the burden of alien exploitation to the existing native incubus. As a consequence the demand for working recruits to industry is not large enough to relieve the economic pressure on the over-populated small-holdings. He contends that the country has in the main been allocated the role of supplying to British capitalism the natural products so vital for an empire of industry and commerce, plus the provision of countless well-paid sinecures to members of that exclusive ruling-class “freemasonry,” the old school tie.

During and since the last war, however, there has been a marked rise in industrial output, particularly in textiles. It is certain that this industrial impetus will be intensified as a result of the present war. Therefore, even if it were the wish of the British ruling class to retard the growth of capitalism in India, the evolutionary process is not a thing that can be held back for ever.

That is the Socialist view, and it should be taken into account when we are dealing with nationalism in a colonial country. Further, it has yet to be shown that “national liberation” would prove to be something worth the effort and sacrifice for the hungry millions.

For as the author himself notes:

“The outstanding feature of Indian industry to-day is the degree to which ownership and control are concentrated within a comparatively narrow circle. ‘The same set of individuals’—rich merchants with a sprinkling of the more prosperous professional people—‘hold the bulk of the shares in all the cotton, jute and other concerns.’” (Page 155.)

We have still to be convinced that in matters of economic welfare or on any other questions the Indian masses could expect a better deal from their native exploiters.

Dr. Shelvankar seems to recognise the truth of this. He agrees that the handing over of the country to a native bourgeoisie, or worse still, the princes, would not improve the situation. In his view the only hope for India lies in the introduction of a “planned Socialist economy” for which national liberation would provide a stepping stone, a period of brief “transition.”

It is a view which has no basis except in the optimistic imagination of the author, who assumes that “liberation” would give the nascent Indian bourgoisie only a short lease of life. Quite the contrary. Success in the struggle for national freedom may have the effect of eliminating for a long time to come whatever influence (and it is very small indeed) the ideas of independent working-class action, not to speak of Socialism, has in India to-day. The very status of national independence presupposes a powerful native ruling-class secure in the support of a nationalist-minded population.

The author several times quotes Ireland in dealing with the agrarian problem. It is a pity he did not allow himself, and his readers, a glimpse at the virtual stagnation of the working-class movement in the Irish Free State at the present time. It is certain that this standstill is partly the result of the struggle for national independence which completely occupied the energies of the Irish workers.

Dr. Shelvankar wants his working-class compatriots to make the same mistake, but expects them almost immediately after to turn on the movement for which they have suffered and bled, throw over the nationalist illusions with which they have so long been nurtured, and proclaim their conversion to socialist ideas.

However desirable Mr. Shelvankar’s hopes may be, they are totally unrelated to the problems he is attempting to solve. Under present conditions in India, and with the standard of political consciousness prevailing among the majority of its inhabitants, the platform of national liberation can at best only lead to some form of native capitalism. This is clearly seen from the nature of the mass-movements India has so far produced. The Congress Party, though some of its leading spokesmen such as Nehru claim to the Socialists, is in fact no more than a movement of national liberation. This is implicitly recognised by the author himself when he deals with the growth of Indian industrialism during the last war. On page 176 he says: “These developments marked a critical transition in the nature of Indian capitalism. From being predominantly commercial in character, it was launching out into industrial production. But its real strength lay not so much in the economic resources at its command as in its affiliation with a political movement (the Congress Party) which was becoming a menace to imperialism.”

Later, in dealing with the record of Congress in office, in 1937, he has to admit that so far from justifying hopes of a working-class character, it showed even amity to British rule. As for the peasants, they received a rude shock when, in the province of Bihar, their champions entered into a pact with the landlords, whilst “the entire labour movement . . . denounced a Trades Disputes Bill designed to interfere with the right to strike,” which was the act of the Congress Government of Bombay (page 231).

But the chief force in India is still wielded by Ghandi. He is the real spokesman of the peasants, the bulk of the Indian people. For him the future of India lies in the past, a return to the primitive agricultural community; he is the idol of the masses, the illiterate, half-starving millions, who have not yet been pulled out of the primitive slough of religious fanaticism, and are left to the mercies of money-lenders and their agents. Not content with their “legal” whack, they take advantage of that illiteracy to double-cheat their prey.

The author’s sympathy for Ghandism is evident by the approval with which he quotes the policy of the peasant leagues, “which is nothing less than the abolition of landlordism and the cancellation of peasant debts and reorganisation on such a basis that exploitation in every form would be ended and ownership vested in the cultivator himself” (page 221).

This raises the question: What does Dr. Shelvankar mean by Socialism ? What kind of India does he visualise that would justify the term “planned Socialist economy”? For Socialists private ownership of land, as well as any other form of ownership in the means of life, is not compatible with Socialism at all. On the contrary, the small land-owner is a particularly reactionary obstacle to the achievement of Socialism. Dr. Shelvankar reveals his misconception of Socialism when he refers to Russia as a Socialist country, and gives the Soviet state-capitalist order as the example which India must follow.

In fact, the author, like many other left-wing Indian nationalists, completely disguises, perhaps even from himself, the real issues of the Indian problem. The vexed questions of religious and caste differences are fobbed off under the theory of the British policy of “divide and rule.” This may or may not be true. But that they are able to do so depends primarily on the low level of understanding, and particularly class-consciousness, which inevitably exists among the Indian masses to-day.

An important omission from the book is the total absence of any appraisal of the international issues of which the Indian problem is only a part. The wars in Spain and China have apparently taught Dr. Shelvankar nothing, but their lessons have not been lost on Socialists. Backward and smaller countries cannot assume a ”national independence” that does not exist in fact. Even Russia has had to face the bitter tragedy and humiliation consequent upon a balancing of capitalist world-power. The chances of an independent India are nil.

Socialists have, of course, to aim to break down all barriers, whether of nation, race or religion, which to-day divide the workers of the world according to the convenience and benefit of their exploiters. And let it be noted by cynics, pessimists and opponents of Socialism alike: The world to-day is more interdependent than ever before. The conflict raging at present will leave its mark in every corner of the globe. In India it will have far-reaching effects.

Socialists everywhere feel the deepest sympathy for the Indian masses in their struggles to raise their heads from under the yoke of poverty, of domination, alien and native. The problem of India is part of a world-problem; a world-wide movement for the achievement of Socialism is the only solution.

Sid Rubin

Notes by the Way: Premier Blum Faces Crises (1937)

The Notes by the Way Column from the April 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Premier Blum Faces Crises

The Popular Front Government in France is in difficulties. But at least it can be said for Blum and his Labour and Radical colleagues in the Cabinet that they have done their best to justify themselves in their short period of office. Elected on a definite programme of social reforms, they ably and energetically set about applying them. In quick succession they legislated for a 40-hour week and annual fortnightly holiday with pay, for nationalisation of the armament concerns, control of the Bank of France, and of prices. Large sums of money were allocated to public works to reduce unemployment, and civil servants had pay cuts restored. In short, Blum’s Government behaved as if it believed in its programme and was determined to apply it. In this their behaviour is in marked contrast with that of the two British Labour Governments. Nevertheless, though they tried to make the most of the possibilities of the situation, they are faced with increasing difficulties, all due to the fact that they have got to work within the framework of capitalism. They cannot abolish capitalism, because the population of France is not prepared for such a step. They must, therefore, choose between two evils, either to enforce measures opposed by the French capitalists—in which case the Government loses the votes of its capitalist supporters in Parliament, and has to resign—or to frame its programme so that capitalists will accept it—in which case it comes into conflict with working-class interests and wishes. Faced with that dilemma in the matter of further expenditure, the Blum Government has reluctantly had to retreat.

It needs to borrow in order to finance Government expenditure. It can only borrow from those who have property, i e„ the capitalists. If it does not please them with its policy and secure their confidence they refuse to lend and, indeed, had transferred much of their money abroad. The Blum Government, unless it were prepared to take over the property of capitalists generally for the community—which would be suicidal, since the majority of the population are opposed to it—had to come to terms with the capitalists.

As the City Editor of the News Chronicle put it: —

  One sympathises with the natural reluctance of a Socialist Government to pour profits into the laps of capitalists, but such feelings must give way before the pressure of circumstances.—(News Chronicle, March 6th.)

So now M. Blum has had to ask civil servants to forego expected wage increases. He is curtailing Government expenditure and deferring expected further reforms, and is allowing those who shipped their gold abroad to profit by the devaluation of the franc on bringing it back to France.

Naturally, this forced retreat is being criticised by the Communists and Trade Unionists, who should, however, have been aware from the outset that the difficulties are those which arise inevitably from the existence of a Government which thinks it can combine a working-class programme with the administration of capitalism.

The Daily Herald, organ of the British Labour Party, supports Blum’s Government, but it has to admit that the continued existence of the Government depends on the gamble that capitalism in France quickly experiences one of its periodical phases of boom. The Daily Herald editorial, on March 13th, 1937, admits that Blum’s Government “could hardly for long endure if there were to be a trade setback and a rise in unemployment.” Yet every Socialist, and even many Labourites, know that sooner or later there is bound to be that trade setback and rise in unemployment.

There is fundamentally only one way in which capitalism can be administered—the capitalist way. While social reforms can alleviate particular evils arising from capitalism for a time, it is unquestionably better that the responsibility for running the capitalist system should be left to the avowed supporters of capitalism. The workers should struggle to raise or defend their standard of living, but not attempt the impossible task of administering capitalism, or put their trust in the Parties which do this.

Putting Labour or Popular Front Governments into office merely makes them the prisoners of the capitalist class.

#    #    #    #

The Communists Road to Peace

There was a time when Communists were permitted to tell the truth about capitalism, but that was long enough ago. Now they talk flapdoodle like the statement which follows, delivered at a luncheon given by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce at the British Industries Fair. The speaker, Mr. Maisky, Ambassador in this country of Soviet Russia: —

  He hoped that the outcome of the Fair would be strengthened commercial relations between Great Britain and other countries, for peace defended, to a very great extent on healthy and vigorous trade relations.—(Times, February 20th, 1937. Italics ours.)

The Daily Worker should let its readers have an article on this Cobdenite view of “friendly capitalist trade,” plus some extracts from Lenin’s writings in answer to it.

#    #    #    #

London Labour Party's Victory

In 1934 the London Labour Party, for the first time, obtained a majority on the London County Council. At the elections in March the Labour group increased its seats from 69 to 75, and the Municipal Reformers' seats fell from 55 to 49. The votes polled at the last three elections have been as follows: —

1931 Labour, 214,000.
         Municipal Reformers, 288,000.
1934 Labour, 340,000.
         Municipal Reformers, 300,000.
1937 Labour, 444,000.
         Municipal Reformers, 403,000.

It will be seen that this year, after three years of Labour Party rule, about 200,000 additional voters took the trouble to vote and divided themselves nearly equally between the two parties. Even so, only 43 per cent. of the electors troubled to vote, so little difference does the choice between Labour and Municipal Reform on the L.C.C. represent.

The truth is that some of the more wide-awake propertied interests in London realise that there are many problems of administration, traffic control, health services, housing, and so on, which stand a better chance of being dealt with energetically by Mr. Herbert Morrison and his party than by the Municipal Reformers. They are, therefore, prepared to support the Labour candidates, at least for the time being. The question of Socialism was never brought into the election fight, except as a red herring, by some Municipal Reformers. This dodging of real issues led to an amusing attitude on the part of the Municipal Reformers. Their leader, Mr. W. H. Webbe, quoted a recent remark made by Mr. Morrison to the effect that the Tories are to-day more a party of social reform than ever before, and that “the real issue of politics is no longer social reform versus reaction: it is more like Socialism versus social reform" (Daily Telegraph, February 8th, 1937). Having said this, one might suppose that Mr. Morrison intended to fight for Socialism against his social reform opponents. Not a bit of it. His programme was all social reform and no Socialism. As the Solicitor-General, Sir Terence O’Connor, pointed out: “It was a most remarkable document, coming from a Socialist, and they might think, as he did, that it was nothing more than a smoke-screen to gull a few more pink Liberals." (Times, February 12th, 1937)

All that can be said is that Mr. Morrison, on his social reform programme, completely outmanoeuvred the rival social reformers. For those who attach importance to such things as the triumph of one social reform group over another, it was a great and glorious victory: but it leaves capitalism fat and flourishing.

#    #    #    #

A New Stage in India

The inauguration of the new constitution in India opens up promising developments in politics and social questions. In the provincial Parliaments the Congress Party, the Party which seeks Indian independence, will be strongly represented, and will in some cases have a majority, and be able to form the Government. From a tactical point of view they will be foolish to refuse the opportunity of doing so. Whatever they may decide at the moment, they will sooner or later have to take office or see their own supporters drift away. De Valera learned this in Ireland, when his party tried the policy of staying away from Parliament.

The new constitution is an advance on the old, if only because it brings a much larger number of people into politics by giving them votes. Political interest, elections, propaganda, discussion, these are all part of the experience needed before the Indian workers will become Socialist. It is true that many of them believe that they are Socialists already. They have adopted the name, and the leader of the Congress Party, Pandit Nehru, calls himself a Socialist. He and his followers are, however, of the “not here and not now" type, of whom we have many in Europe. That is to say they claim that Socialism is the paramount issue, but they subordinate it to other issues, capitalist ones. Nehru’s contention is that Socialism must be dropped for the present, while Indian workers and peasants join hands with their own exploiters—the Indian capitalists and landlords—to win independence. The Indian Labour Journal, supporting this view, says:—

  What India needs now is soldiers of anti-imperialism and Socialists later.—(Indian Labour Journal, November 29th, 1936.)

How often have we heard this before, always as a prelude to working-class betrayal and disillusionment. It was the cunning slogan of the capitalist hacks in Germany and England during the War, and of the Nationalists in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, and in every country where local propertied interests have used nationalism as a weapon in their fight against foreign rivals. Indian independence is not at present a practical policy. If the British Empire were broken up India would only fall to some other Empire. But even if it were a practical policy, the Indian workers would find their native capitalists every whit as powerful and brutal as the foreign ones.

Actually, events will themselves force the Indian workers to read the signs of the times, despite the lead given by their Nehrus and other so-called Labour and Socialist guides. One of the principal purposes of the concession of partial Home Rule by the British ruling class to Ireland, Egypt, India, etc., is that it forces the local capitalists and their politicians to accept responsibility for maintaining capitalist law and order against the workers, and thus expose their fraternity with the British capitalists.

The British Government does this because it strengthens the basis of imperial capitalism; but it happens also to be good for the working class movement. In time it compels the Irish, Indian and Egyptian workers to recognise that their class interests make them opponents of the native capitalist class and allies of the workers of other lands.

The first salutary lesson of this kind happened in India, when the elections were barely over. The Congress Party in Bihar, supported by the local landlords, won a majority. One of the vote-catching promises in the Congress programme was reform of the system of land tenure for the benefit of the smaller peasantry. Promptly, the villagers celebrated. "their” victory by forcibly taking possession of the crops on their landlords’ fields. (Times, March 10th, 1937.) What did the landlords do? They “asked the authorities for military protection.” Thus do hard facts of the class-struggle break through the flimsy talk of Nehru about the bonds of Indian nationality.

India is on the march, and the Indian workers will ultimately triumph through Socialism and against the unsound advice of the self-styled Socialists.

Edgar Hardcastle