Speech
of
Prakash
Karat
At
the
20th
Anniversary
Meeting
of
Marxbadi
Path
on 26th August, 2000
I
The
purpose
of
conducting
a
Marxist
analysis
of
Indian
society
should
be
to
outline
a
roadmap
of
how
to
end
the
multifaceted
exploitation
of
the
Indian
people.
The
primary
goal
of
any
revolutionary
movement
in
India
should
be
directed
towards
eliminating
the
system
of
social
and
class
exploitation
which
has
kept
the
largest
mass
of
humanity
in
any
single
country
in
the
thrall
of
oppression.
In
terms
of
numbers,
India's
poor
constitutes
the
single
largest
contingent
of
the
world's
poverty
stricken.
There
are
poorer
people
in
the
countries
of
sub-Saharan
Africa,
but
in
sheer
numbers
the
goal
of
eliminating
world
poverty
cannot
succeed
without
the
elimination
of
poverty
in
India
and
South
Asia.
That
more
than
fifty
years
after
independence,
there
is
no
substantial
denting
of
the
problem
of
mass
poverty
in
India
is
a
standing
testimony
to
the
enduring
forms
of
old
exploitation
which
are
now
combined
with
newer
varieties
of
globalised
capitalism.
It
would
be
the
central
purpose
of
the
talk
to
establish
that
only
by
applying
the
method
of
Marxism
and
the
theory
and
practice
of
scientific
socialism
that
the
Indian
people
can
emancipate
themselves
from
the
vicious
cycle
of
hunger,
disease,
illiteracy
and
poverty.
In
the
recent
period
the
Communist
Party
of
India
(Marxist)
has
been
engaged
in
undertaking
a
Marxist
analysis
of
contemporary
Indian
society.
As
a
Marxist-Leninist
Party,
the
CPI(M)
has
been
updating
its
strategic
programme.
It
is
the
programme,
which
determines
the
path
of
the
Indian
revolution
and
the
strategy
to
be
adopted
to
achieve
basic
social
transformation.
In
the
course
of
the
discussions
in
preparing
the
draft
of
the
updated
programme,
and
in
the
subsequent
ongoing
discussions
within
the
Party,
a
number
of
issues
have
been
thrown
up
for
discussion,
for
clarification
and
for
a
Marxist
formulation
of
the
issues
involved.
Applying
Marxism
to
Indian
conditions
today
is
an
exciting
and
challenging
endeavour.
At
the
beginning
of
the
21st
century,
if
we
look
around,
it
is
true
that
socialism
has
suffered
setbacks
both
at
the
ideological
and
material
levels.
The
disappearance
of
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
regimes
of
actually
existing
socialism
in
Eastern
Europe,
mark
shrinkage
in
the
field
where
Marxism
held
sway
even
if
in
a
flawed
fashion.
Outside
the
four
existing
socialist
countries,
China,
Vietnam,
Cuba
and
North
Korea,
India
holds
an
important
position.
It
is
one
of
the
major
countries
where
mass
communist
parties
exist
and
where
the
traditions
of
the
left
movement
are
still
a
vital
force.
The
fact
that
the
Left
has
always
constituted
either
the
second
or
the
third
largest
bloc
in
parliament
over
the
last
five
decades
testifies
to
both
the
mass
influence
and
the
vitality
of
the
communist
movement.
It
becomes
a
major
responsibility
of
those
who
subscribe
to
Marxism
and
who
believe
that
a
party
based
on
the
tenets
of
Marxism-Leninism
is
essential
for
a
revolutionary
movement
to
consistently
engage
themselves
in
sharpening
the
tools
of
Marxist
methodology
and
build
up
the
theoretical
resources
for
enriching
and
sustaining
the
class
struggle
that
is
taking
place
and
will
continue
to
develop
in
the
coming
days.
This
no
doubt
is
a
challenge
in
a
situation,
where
worldwide,
the
ideological
offensive
against
socialism
has
sharpened
in
the
concluding
years
of
the
20th
century.
Marxism
as
an
intellectual
current
is
dismissed
in
the
advanced
capitalist
countries.
In
the
erstwhile
socialist
countries
of
Russia
and
Eastern
Europe,
it
is
subjected
to
intellectual
censorship
in
many
forms.
The
globalised
communications
and
media
empires
controlled
by
the
transnational
corporations
do
not
even
go
through
the
pretense
of
formally
acknowledging
the
existence
of
anti-capitalist
currents.
It
is
in
such
a
situation
that
in
India
Marxists
have
to
not
only
keep
the
faith,
but
to
nurture
Marxism
so
that
it
becomes
once
again
a
revitalising
and
creative
force.
The
updating
of
the
Party
programme,
provides
the
opportunity
for
a
significant
section
of
the
Communist
movement,
the
CPI(M),
to
engage
in
a
critical
appraisal
of
the
theory
and
practice
of
the
communist
movement.
Strategy,
as
all
communists
know
is
vital.
No
strategy
and
all
tactics
is
the
recipe
for
opportunism.
While
strategy
devoid
of
a
living
analysis
of
classes
and
their
interrelationship
can
be
reduced
to
a
dogma.
Fifty
three
years
after
independence
and
36
years
after
the
CPI(M)
adopted
its
programme
in
1964,
when
we
look
back
at
the
way
State
and
society
in
India
has
developed,
an
inescapable
reality
is
the
relentless
development
of
capitalism.
As
Marxists,
we
know
that
the
State
is
controlled
and
run
by
the
ruling
classes
and
the
mode
of
production
in
society
determines
the
relations
of
production
on
which
basis
the
relationship
between
classes,
the
mode
of
extraction
of
surplus
and
the
nature
of
the
superstructural
relations
in
society
develop.
The
Indian
capitalist
class
is
today,
after
more
than
five
decades
of
post
independence,
a
class
which
has
expanded
and
undergone
some
important
changes.
At
the
time
of
independence
itself,
there
was
a
big
bourgeoisie,
which
dominated
this
class
as
a
whole.
But
the
outlook
of
this
big
bourgeoisie
has
undergone
a
significant
change.
It
was
the
big
bourgeoisie
which
spelt
out
the
type
of
capitalist
development
that
was
undertaken
in
India
from
the
1950s:
a)
a
class
which
understood
the
international
situation
and
its
own
base
in
Indian
society.
It
needed
the
Indian
State
to
accumulate
capital
and
develop
capitalism.
The
State
capitalism,
which
the
Indian
ruling
classes
sponsored,
played
a
two-fold
role.
It
enabled
the
development
of
capitalism
within
a
constrained
framework.
A
model
of
capitalist
development
without
a
thoroughgoing
agrarian
revolution,
which
necessitated
a
compromise
with
landlordism
and
the
development
of
agrarian
capitalism
from
above
relying
on
landlords
and
the
rich
peasants.
(b)
The
subordinate
position
of
the
Indian
bourgeoisie
vis
a
vis
world
capitalism
required
the
organic
link
with
foreign
finance
capital
and
reliance
on
this
imperialist
capital
to
advance
the
path
of
capitalist
development.
(c)
Such
a
capitalist
development
could
have
a
relative
degree
of
autonomy
in
a
situation
where
there
was
the
existence
of
the
Soviet
Union
and
a
socialist
bloc;
the
bourgeois-landlord
classes
in
India
could
utilise
the
conflicts
between
the
two
blocs
and
maneouvre
to
strengthen
its
own
position
to
a
limited
extent.
The
big
bourgeoisie
was
the
pivot
around
which
both
the
alliance
with
landlordism
and
the
collaboration
with
imperialist
capital
could
take
place
for
the
specific
type
of
capitalist
development
that
was
undertaken.
A
major
change
has
come
about
in
the
attitude
of
the
big
bourgeoisie.
The
big
bourgeoisie
is
no
more
an
advocate
of
State
capitalism.
It
is
no
more
as
dependent
on
the
State
as
before
for
capital
accumulation
and
investment.
Four
decades
of
capitalist
development
under
the
old
regime
(till
the
eighties)
has
enabled
the
big
bourgeoisie
to
kick
off
the
crutches
of
State-sponsored
capitalism
and
embark
on
the
new
path
of
liberalisation.
This
path
has
also
come
about
in
a
new
world
conjuncture
--
The
neo-liberal
offensive
which
built
up
momentum
in
the
1980s
and
which
has
now
established
itself
triumphantly
worldwide
with
the
dismantling
of
the
Soviet
Union.
The
big
bourgeoisie
remains
the
key
target
for
the
people's
democratic
revolution.
The
struggle
against
the
big
bourgeoisie
has
to
be
waged
in
these
new
conditions.
It
is
necessary
to
recognise
the
strength
and
the
potentialities
of
the
enemy
while
exploiting
its
weaknesses
and
contradictions.
As
in
the
case
of
all
big
bourgeoisie,
in
India
too,
the
growth
of
the
big
bourgeoisie
has
meant
a
steady
concentration
of
assets
and
the
means
of
production
in
the
hands
of
this
narrow
strata.
From
the
beginning,
the
big
bourgeoisie
has
been
dominated
by
family
owned
businesses.
Fifty
years
after
independence
this
remains
so.
New
families
and
companies
have
entered
the
ranks
of
the
big
bourgeoisie.
But
the
concentration
of
assets
and
wealth
continues.
The
richest
100
capitalists
have
a
personal
wealth
of
Rs.
50
thousand
crore.
This
is
only
the
wealth
accruing
from
shares
held
in
companies.
The
development
of
the
productive
forces
have
not
resulted
in
either
an
equitable
distribution
of
assets
or
an
equitable
distribution
of
incomes.
A
problem
which
has
arisen
in
the
post-liberalisation
era
has
strategic
implications.
A
section
of
the
regional
bourgeoisie
which
earlier
had
no
durable
links
with
foreign
capital
and
was
therefore
considered
as
part
of
the
non-big
bourgeoisie
which
had
its
conflicts
and
contradictions
with
the
big
bourgeoisie
is
today
in
the
opposite
camp.
The
Chandrababu
Naidu's
and
others
of
his
ilk
representing
the
regional
bourgeois-landlord
classes,
are
today
enthusiastic
advocates
of
collaboration
with
foreign
capital
and
privatisation.
Strategically
the
shift
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
classes
towards
collaborating
with
imperialism
does
pose
difficulties
in
putting
up
resistance
and
rallying
the
classes
whose
vital
interests
are
affected.
The
big
bourgeoisie
has
some
regional
allies.
All
these
features
have
to
be
integrated
into
our
class
analysis
while
working
out
the
strategy
to
counter
and
fight
back
the
ruling
classes.
The
big
bourgeoisie
cannot
and
will
not
be
anything
but
the
harbinger
of
a
counter-revolution.
The
landlords,
except
for
the
category
of
small
landlords
who
do
not
mainly
live
off
the
surplus
extracted
from
the
agricultural
workers,
will
remain
united
with
the
big
bourgeoisie
in
opposing
any
worker-peasant
led
movement.
It
will
be
building
castles
of
sand
to
rely
on
the
rich
peasants
and
the
non-big
bourgeoisie
to
forge
a
powerful
front
against
imperialism,
or,
the
big
bourgeoisie.
There
will
be
occasions
on
which
these
classes
can
be
mobilised
and
sections
of
them
will
make
the
cross
over
to
the
democratic
side.
But
this
is
something
which
will
not
happen
without
the
core
of
the
strategy
of
an
Indian
revolution
being
addressed.
II
The
big
bourgeoisie
dominated
capitalist
development
has
some
specific
features,
which
must
be
taken
into
account
while
working
out
the
strategy
of
a
democratic
revolution.
Firstly,
the
development
of
capitalism
in
agriculture
has
assumed
certain
specific
forms
and
led
to
changes
in
the
relations
of
production.
Increasingly
capitalism
is
the
mode
of
production
in
agriculture.
Landlord
is
a
term,
which
defines
more
than
before,
capitalist
landlord.
There
is
ofcourse
the
phenomenon
of
semi-feudal
landlordism
but
that
also
is
in
a
period
of
transition.
The
development
of
capitalism
has
led
to
differentiation
among
the
peasantry
which
requires
a
clear
understanding
for
developing
the
agrarian
movement.
The
rich
peasants
are
a
motive
force
for
the
development
of
the
new
type
of
capitalist
relations.
They
are
part
of
the
developing
agrarian
bourgeoisie
which
primarily
produces
through
hired
labour.
It
has
an
antagonistic
contradiction
with
agricultural
workers
and
it
is
opposed
to
any
further
measures
for
land
reforms
and
re-distribution
of
land.
While
increasingly
sections
of
the
rich
peasants
identify
with
the
capitalist
landlords,
at
the
same
time,
they
hold
powerful
influence
among
other
sections
of
the
peasantry.
The
middle
and
small
peasants
are
bound
with
the
rich
peasants
through
caste
and
social
and
cultural
ties.
At
the
same
time,
the
development
of
capitalism
in
agriculture
has
produced
a
rural
proletariat
which
is
expanding.
If
the
agricultural
workers,
poor
peasants
and
the
small
artisans
are
put
together,
they
constitute
no
less
than
70
per
cent
of
the
rural
work
force.
Any
strategic
perspective
for
an
agrarian
revolution
has
to
rely
on
this
semi-proletarian
mass
of
the
peasantry
and
the
agricultural
workers
if
we
are
to
develop
a
powerful
movement
against
the
bourgeois-landlord
order.
In
the
rural
areas,
increasingly,
there
is
a
nexus
of
the
rural
rich,
the
capitalist
landlord,
the
contractor,
the
real
estate
owners
and
big
traders
who
constitute
a
powerful
bloc.
They
ruthlessly
put
down
any
signs
of
revolt
by
the
rural
poor
against
the
established
order.
In
social
terms,
this
bloc
is
heterogeneous
and
varies
from
region
to
region
in
terms
of
caste
and
social
composition.
In
some
regions
the
old
upper-caste
landlords
hold
sway
over
this
rural
rich
combine
while
in
others
the
upper
strata
of
the
landed
castes
among
the
OBCs
have
acquired
the
role
of
the
dominant
strata.
Any
Marxist
analysis
of
the
concrete
conditions
will
recognise
that
capitalist
development
in
agriculture
is
widespread,
prevalent
and
becoming
predominant.
While
it
is
essential
for
concrete
study
to
work
out
specific
slogans
in
different
parts
of
the
country
and
regions,
a
fact
often
blurred
and
indistinct
is
that
capitalist
relations
of
production
exist
in
all
parts
of
the
country.
It
is
true
that
there
are
three
broad
categories
of
regions.
The
areas
where
capitalist
relations
have
advances
like
in
Punjab,
Haryana,
West
UP,
parts
of
Maharashtra,
Andhra
etc.
Then
there
are
the
regions
where
capitalist
relations
are
mixed
up
with
semi-feudal
forms.
Thirdly,
there
are
the
Left-led
states
where
land
reform
laws
have
been
implemented
leading
to
reduction
in
concentration
of
land
ownership.
Even
in
the
states
where
land
reforms
have
been
substantially
implemented
under
the
existing
laws,
the
essence
of
the
capitalist
relations
of
production
continue
to
develop.
A
tenant
who
has
benefitted
from
land
reforms
through
abolition
of
intermediaries
in
a
state
like
Kerala
or
the
tenants
(bargadars)
who
have
benefitted
from
security
of
tenure
in
West
Bengal
are
subject
to
the
same
laws
of
capitalist
development
as
their
counterparts
in
other
states
and
regions.
Disregarding
the
formal
tenurial
and
property
forms,
rich
peasants,
capitalist
farmers
and
landlords
emerge.
Middle
peasants,
given
the
vast
number
of
smallholdings
and
fragmentation
of
land,
continue
as
a
substantial
strata
in
the
agrarian
sector.
But
all
valid
statistics
and
data
show
the
growing
number
of
landless
and
near
landless.
This
is
the
poor
peasant
and
agricultural
worker
masses
which
will
be
the
main
base
for
the
agrarian
movement
even
in
a
situation
where
the
Left
has
been
able
to
render
all
sections
of
the
peasantry
substantial
benefits
within
the
existing
bourgeois-landlord
system.
The
development
of
an
agrarian
capitalist
class
in
West
Bengal
and
Kerala
is
part
of
the
all
India
phenomenon
in
agriculture
and
there
can
be
no
exceptionalism
to
this
basic
development.
The
recent
spurt
of
attacks
on
the
rural
bases
of
the
CPI(M)
in
West
Bengal
are
targeted
at
the
rural
poor
and
is
an
attempt
by
the
agrarian
new
capitalist
class
and
bested
interests,
both
old
and
new
to
counter
and
roll
back
the
gains
made
by
the
poor
peasants
and
agricultural
workers.
With
capitalist
development,
the
rural
proletariat,
in
the
main
the
agricultural
workers,
have
to
be
organised
as
a
strong
and
independent
force
to
counter
this
offensive
of
the
rural
rich
nexus.
III
While
dealing
with
the
ruling
classes,
Marxism
does
not
look
at
only
the
economic
role
of
the
exploiting
classes.
It
analyses
the
social
role
played
by
that
class
in
particular.
In
the
case
of
India
a
distinct
feature
of
the
class
structure
is
the
overlaying
of
the
caste
structure
and
consciousness.
In
the
early
days
of
the
communist
movement,
there
was
optimism
that
capitalist
development
would
shatter
some
of
the
antiquated
caste
relations.
While
it
is
true
that
the
inter-penetration
of
caste
and
class
has
proceeded
with
the
development
of
capitalism,
it
would
be
highly
simplistic
to
view
class
categories
without
its
caste
dimensions.
As
EMS
Namboodiripad
pointed
out
both
the
bourgeoisie
and
the
working
class
have
the
imprint
of
caste
consciousness
on
them.
"As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
very
growth
of
capitalism,
the
rise
of
the
bourgeois
and
proletarian
classes,
was
and
is
coloured
by
the
persistence
of
the
old
varna-caste
society.
Neither
of
the
two
major
classes
of
the
emerging
capitalist
society,
the
bourgeois
and
the
proletariat,
could
shake-off
the
pre-capitalist
modes
of
thinking
and
culture."
The
modern
Indian
bourgeoisie
which
saw
its
rise
in
the
early
part
of
the
20th
century
has
in
the
past
hundred
years
been
unable
to
shed
its
caste
moorings.
The
development
of
capitalism
and
modern
bourgeois
practices
do
not
exclude
caste.
In
fact
caste
has
reinvented
itself
in
social
and
political
terms
and
is
very
much
part
of
the
consciousness
of
all
the
classes
which
exist
in
India
today.
In
agrarian
relations,
the
position
of
the
dalits,
the
scheduled
castes
is
distinctive
as
wage
labourer
and
as
unfree
labour.
No
other
caste
category
in
India
faces
the
type
of
exploitation
which
is
visited
upon
those
outside
the
varna
system.
The
abolition
of
the
caste
system
and
all
forms
of
caste
oppression
has
to
be
a
fundamental
goal
of
the
democratic
revolution.
It
is
not
enough
to
say
that
the
abolition
of
landlordism
and
feudal
relations
will
ensure
the
end
of
the
caste
system.
Life
and
experience
in
bourgeois-landlord
India
confirm
that
untouchability
does
not
only
exist
but
is
widespread.
Forms
of
untouchability
and
exclusion,
direct
or
disguised,
is
still
practiced
by
the
bulk
of
those
who
belong
to
the
chaturvarna
system.
The
communist
movement
which
does
not
engage
in
a
direct
fight
against
this
type
of
oppression
will
not
be
able
to
rally
the
truly
proletarian
masses
in
the
rural
areas.
As
the
CPI(M)'s
Draft
Updated
Programme
states:
"The
problem
of
caste
oppression
and
discrimination
has
a
long
history
and
is
deeply
rooted
in
the
pre-capitalist
social
system.
The
society
under
capitalist
development
has
compromised
with
the
existing
caste
system.
The
Indian
bourgeoisie
itself
fosters
caste
prejudices.
Working
class
unity
presupposes
unity
against
the
caste
system
and
the
oppression
of
dalits,
since
the
vast
majority
of
the
dalit
population
are
part
of
the
labouring
classes.
To
fight
for
abolition
of
the
caste
system
is
an
important
part
of
the
democratic
revolution.
The
fight
against
caste
oppression
is
interlinked
with
the
struggle
against
class
exploitation."
(para
5.11,
draft
of
the
updated
programme)
It
is
imperative
that
all
forms
of
caste
oppression
direct
or
otherwise
be
taken
up
as
an
instruments
of
oppression
to
be
fought
and
rolled
back
in
the
course
of
building
the
people's
democratic
front.
As
for
the
working
class,
which
is
the
dialectical
opposite
of
the
other
modern
class,
the
bourgeoisie,
in
Indian
conditions,
caste
consciousness
remains
embedded
within
the
class
consciousness.
Unless
there
is
a
powerful
and
effective
campaign
against
the
caste
system
as
such
and
it
is
integral
to
the
main
agenda
of
the
working
class
movement,
it
will
not
be
possible
to
counter
the
growing
caste
appeal
and
divisiveness
which
will
affect
the
unity
of
the
working
class.
The
fight
against
untouchability,
the
social
and
economic
oppression
of
a
vast
mass
of
the
downtrodden,
requires
addressing
the
demands
of
the
dalits
as
a
special
category.
This
does
not
mean
accepting
the
petty
bourgeois-driven
ideas
of
caste
exclusiveness
and
identity
politics
which
is
being
embraced
by
a
number
of
vocal
and
militant
dalit
sections.
As
B.T.
Ranadive
pointed
out:
"All
variants
which
sought
to
fight
the
anti-caste
struggle
in
isolation
from
the
main
class
struggles
of
our
times
have
failed
and
produced
pitiful
results"
(Caste
&
Property
Relations,
p23).
It
is
basically
a
class
approach
which
recognises
the
need
for
forging
the
unity
of
all
oppressed
sections.
It
is
an
expression
of
what
Lenin
stated
as
the
basic
duty
of
the
working
class,
championing
the
fight
against
all
oppressions
which
in
India
includes
the
most
heinous
type
of
oppression
of
the
scheduled
castes.
IV
In
Indian
society,
in
numerical
terms,
the
petty
bourgeoisie
constitutes
a
vast
section.
In
strict
Marxist
terms,
there
is
not
only
an
urban
petty
bourgeoisie,
but
a
vast
mass
of
the
small
propertied
class
in
the
rural
areas,
are
also
part
of
the
petty
bourgeoisie.
As
such
they
are
an
important
component
of
the
democratic
revolution.
What
is
called
the
middle
classes
in
popular
parlance
are
active
and
vocal
players
in
the
Indian
political
spectrum
today.
One
of
the
major
problems
confronting
the
communist
movement
are
the
changes,
which
have
come
about
in
what
are
called
the
middle
class.
In
a
period
when
State
capitalism
was
the
norm,
the
Indian
middle
class
subscribed
to
the
Nehruvian
path.
A
path
which
opened
up
possibilities
for
this
class
to
develop,
get
jobs
and
for
its
intellectual
to
play
a
role
in
the
development
of
independent
India.
The
middle
classes
are
a
heterogeneous
lot.
It
includes
managerial
and
administrative
personnel,
there
is
the
technical
and
scientific
personnel,
there
are
shopkeepers,
school
teachers,
salaried
employees
and
so
on.
The
shift
in
the
path
of
development,
the
change
in
the
outlook
of
the
ruling
class
and
the
consequent
path
of
liberalisation,
have
brought
about
some
significant
changes.
Upto
the
seventies,
substantial
sections
of
the
middle
classes
were
attracted
towards
a
Left
or
Left-of-centre
ideology.
As
an
intermediate
class
it
was
able
to
adopt
this
position
without
getting
into
any
major
conflict
with
the
ruling
class.
But
the
development
of
capitalism
and
the
qualitative
change,
which
has
come
about,
has
brought
differentiation
within
the
middle
class/petty
bourgeoisie.
As
far
as
the
urban
middle
classes
are
concerned,
an
upper
strata
which
constitutes
a
minority
has
benefitted
from
the
era
of
liberalisation.
Not
only
has
there
been
an
increase
in
their
incomes,
especially
if
they
are
working
for
the
islands
of
high
income
generating
sectors,
but
also
the
expanded
opportunities
for
their
sons
and
daughters
abroad
have
enabled
them
to
acquire
assets
which
enables
them
to
enter
the
portals
of
the
bourgeoisie
and
adopt
their
class
outlook.
This
strata
has
irrevocably
turned
away
from
any
social
project
which
includes
the
rural
and
urban
poor.
Another
substantial
strata
of
the
middle
class
has
illusions
about
liberalisation.
This
is
more
of
an
ideological
condition
which
can
be
countered
and
these
sections
won
over.
They
are
not
pro-imperialist
and
their
patriotic
instincts
will
bring
them
into
conflict
with
the
pro-imperialist
direction
taken
by
the
ruling
classes.
The
bulk
of
the
middle
classes
are
those
who
fall
victim
to
the
depredations
of
the
liberalised
free
market
economy
and
the
highly
unequal
segmentation
of
wealth
and
assets
implied
in
this
process.
These
are
the
sections
who
must
be
linked
up
to
the
workers
and
peasants
and
popular
democratic
movements.
At
present,
(given
the
weakness
of
the
Left
and
democratic
forces)
sections
of
the
middle
classes
have
become
susceptible
to
the
path
of
an
authoritarian
Hindutva.
The
new
values
of
the
market
of
self
interest
and
self
gratification
hold
an
appeal
which
transcends
their
material
conditions
and
blunts
their
democratic
instincts.
Unlike
the
middle
classes
in
the
advanced
capitalist
societies,
the
Indian
middle
class
are
imbued
with
religiosity.
These
are
conditions
ripe
for
the
growth
of
Hindutva
type
of
authoritarianism
where
both
democracy
and
secularism
will
be
casualties.
The
reversal
of
this
trend
and
the
link
up
of
the
petty
bourgeoisie
with
the
working
people
can
be
accomplished
only
through
a
relentless
ideological
battle.
It
cannot
be
accomplished
by
harping
back
to
the
old
Nehruvian/Gandhian
framework.
The
big
challenge
before
the
Left
is
to
construct
a
radical
vision
which
can
attract
the
middle
class,
except
for
the
upper
strata,
towards
a
restructuring
of
Indian
society
in
political,
economic
and
cultural
terms.
This
cannot
be
fully
accomplished
without
strengthening
the
movement
of
the
basic
classes.
It
is
only
when
the
class
based
movements
of
the
workers
and
peasants
develop
that
the
petty
bourgeoisie
can
be
won
over
in
larger
numbers.
But
in
the
interregnum,
it
is
important
to
vigorously
work
among
the
middle
classes
to
tap
their
latent
anti-imperialism
and
mobilise
their
democratic
instincts
against
the
ravages
of
crony
capitalism
and
feudal
ideologies.
Marxist
theory
and
practice
in
India
must
learn
to
deal
with
the
complexities
of
society
and
marshal
all
resources
for
the
central
task
of
a
democratic
revolution.
The
chinks
and
gaps
in
our
understanding
must
be
filled
up.
Fifty
per
cent
of
the
population
are
women.
Gender
oppression
is
as
old
as
class
societies.
Engels
talked
of
the
origin
of
patriarchy.
Indian
Marxists
have
generally
found
it
convenient
to
neglect
this
strand
of
Marxist
thought.
The
Dialectics
of
Nature
by
Engels
was
studied
but
not
the
insights
in
the
Origin
of
the
Family,
Private
Property
and
the
State.
The
gender
problem
is
also
a
class
question
for
us.
According
to
one
estimate,
127
million
women
exist
in
the
work
force.
There
can
be
no
working
class
movement
of
any
depth
and
effectively
without
these
women.
The
Updated
Programme
has
sought
to
update
our
understanding
of
the
women's
question.
"….five
decades
of
bourgeois-landlord
rule
have
perpetuated
patriarchy
in
every
sphere.
Women
are
exploited
at
different
levels,
as
women,
as
workers
and
as
citizens.
Processes
of
liberalisation
have
brought
in
their
wake
newer
forms
of
gender
exploitation,
in
both
the
economic
and
social
spheres,
leading
to
increased
violence
against
women.
Economic
independence
and
an
independent
role
in
social
and
political
life
are
basic
conditions
for
the
advance
of
women.
Resistance
against
this
unequal
status
and
the
women's
movement
for
equality
are
part
of
the
movement
for
social
emancipation."
(Para
5.13,
updated
draft
of
the
Party
Programme)
V
The
question
of
democracy
in
Indian
society
is
posed
in
a
complex
and
variegated
fashion.
At
one
level,
independent
India
has
had
a
functioning
political
democracy.
The
1950
republican
Constitution
provided
for
a
parliamentary
democratic
system
which
has
been
the
main
vehicle
for
political
activities
at
different
levels.
That
this
is
essentially
a
bourgeois
democracy
limited
by
the
nature
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
system
does
not
detract
from
its
existence
which
is
a
considerable
achievement.
In
a
great
measure,
the
survival
of
democratic
rights
and
norms
however
limited
for
Indian
citizens
is
due
to
this
political
system
having
taken
root
and
survived
many
vicissitudes.
It
is
definitely
relevant
therefore
for
Marxists
to
defend
and
ensure
the
existence
of
a
parliamentary
democratic
system
as
part
of
the
overall
struggle
for
democracy.
But
a
Marxist
approach
cannot
be
confined
to
this.
It
has
to
go
beyond.
Democracy
cannot
be
interpreted
as
purely
electoral
democracy
and
the
right
to
vote
for
citizens
every
five
years
to
elect
their
governments
in
the
centre
and
the
states
and
in
the
local
bodies.
Democracy
is
concomitant
to
equity
both
economic
and
social.
Social
and
economic
equity
is
required
for
the
existence
of
real
democracy.
With
the
development
of
capitalism
in
India
and
its
entrenchment,
India
is
also
witnessing
the
divorce
between
the
"political"
democracy
and
the
economic
and
social
aspects
of
democracy.
With
liberalisation
this
has
become
more
pronounced.
Governments
may
come
and
go,
prime
ministers
and
cabinet
personnel
may
change,
parties
may
alternate
in
power,
but
no
change
in
the
basic
economic
policies
can
be
contemplated
which
would
mean
exercise
of
real
democracy
for
the
citizens.
In
fact
the
detachment
of
political
democracy
from
the
economic
and
social
structure
under
liberalisation
will
only
lead
to
the
demand
for
restricting
and
attenuating
political
democracy.
Authoritarianism
of
a
creeping
variety
has
already
set
in.
As
we
meet
in
Calcutta
today
the
higher
judiciary
is
discussing
various
measures
to
restrain
and
restrict
the
right
of
association
and
protest
through
mass
demonstrations
and
rallies.
Already
there
is
a
Supreme
Court
endorsement
of
the
prohibition
of
bandhs.
The
Kerala
High
Court
has
now
decreed
that
hartals
are
also
illegal
and
unconstitutional.
The
Marxists
had
been
the
first
to
warn
that
liberalisation
will
have
its
repercussions
on
the
democratic
system.
The
priorities
of
big
capital,
both
Indian
and
foreign
are
hostile
to
the
democratic
aspirations
of
citizens
and
the
arena
of
sovereignty
exercised
by
the
Indian
nation
State.
VI
Marxist
analysis
points
to
the
intensification
of
the
contradictions
between
the
people
and
the
bourgeois-landlord
system
which
is
increasingly
collaborating
with
imperialism.
Without
losing
sight
of
the
present
correlation
of
forces
in
the
world,
our
own
application
of
Marxism
to
Indian
conditions
teaches
us
to
take
up
the
central
task
of
organising
the
working
class
to
lead
the
mass
of
the
poor
peasantry
and
agricultural
workers
to
develop
the
basis
of
an
alternative
class
front.
The
growth
of
communal
ideology
and
the
authoritarian
tendencies
can
be
fought
back
only
if
the
main
fire
is
directed
at
the
big
bourgeoisie,
landlords
and
imperialism.
With
the
abject
dependence
of
the
big
bourgeoisie
to
imperialism,
it
is
possible
to
develop
a
widespread
anti-imperialist
movement
on
a
whole
range
of
issues
affecting
the
Indian
people.
With
the
direct
entry
of
imperialism
into
agriculture,
even
sections
of
the
rich
peasants
and
small
landlords
will
develop
contradictions
with
imperialist
capital.
The
small
scale
industrialists,
the
medium
entrepreneurs
are
being
adversely
affected
by
liberalisation.
The
working
class
and
the
communist
movement
is
being
presented
with
a
historic
opportunity
to
forge
a
wider
platform
in
defence
of
national
sovereignty
which
has
been
compounded
by
the
ruling
classes.
The
big
bourgeoisie
was
always
more
collaborationist
and
compromising
towards
imperialism.
Given
a
correct
approach
and
tactics,
it
will
be
possible
to
forge
a
wider
unity
of
the
workers,
peasants,
petty
bourgeoisie
and
small
bourgeoisie
to
isolate
it.
The
present
conjuncture
of
an
aggressive
imperialist
sponsored
globalisation
has
its
ideological
and
political
impact
on
our
society.
The
Left
is
told
to
lay
down
arms
metaphorically.
They
are
expected
to
surrender
ideologically
and
become
acceptable
social
democrats
--
of
the
Tory
Blair
variety.
Refusal
to
do
so
invites
calumny,
abuse
and
as
we
see
in
West
Bengal
today
growing
violence
directed
at
supporting
the
Left.
Despite
all
the
resources
of
the
media
and
the
State
apparatus
with
the
ruling
classes,
this
is
a
sign
of
weakness.
The
Communists
are
feared
because
Marxism
provides
them
with
the
weapons
to
fight
the
big
capitalists,
the
big
landlords
and
their
imperialist
mentors.
Fifty
years
of
capitalist
development,
five
decades
of
social
and
economic
disparities
and
distortions
in
society
can
all
be
fought
only
if
there
is
a
powerful
movement
of
the
workers,
poor
peasants
and
the
agricultural
labour.
They
will
constitute
the
core
of
a
left
and
democratic
alternative
which
is
an
interim
stage
towards
the
people's
democratic
front.
The
Left
in
India
and
the
communists
in
particular
have
to
take
up
the
task
of
developing
the
class
struggle.
This
class
struggle
will
develop
and
intensify
when
the
workers
and
agricultural
labour
and
the
poor
peasants
are
organised
and
mobilised
to
fight
for
their
rights.
But
this
alone
does
not
constitute
the
class
struggle.
The
class
struggle
is
in
the
realm
of
ideas
and
ideology
too.
It
is
in
the
struggle
to
transform
the
thinking
of
men
and
women
and
the
social
relations
in
which
they
are
engaged
in.
Here
there
can
be
no
escape
from
the
fact
that
Marxism
is
the
only
method
and
viewpoint
which
can
provide
these
classes
with
the
intellectual,
political
and
organisational
resources
for
fighting
for
emancipation.