Editorial: Disillusionment in India

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.