Revolution Betrayed

1947 And Its Place In History
By Rajesh Tyagi



Year 1947 is marked in India's history by the fact that it was the dead end of
our National Struggle, i.e. our common goal as a nation- the goal of
emancipation from domination of Colonialism. Indian Bourgeois, which under
Gandhian leadership hitherto had been putting up a meek resistance against the
colonial rule, took the reigns of power in its own hands, not through
resistance, but with consent of Colonial masters. It came to power, not as a
result of any hostility towards imperialism, but as its agent, willfully
surrendering all posts to the enemy, adapting itself to the neo-colonial regime,
marked by large scale export of capital instead of goods, and economic
domination of imperialism instead of direct political rule. Becoming just
another link in the chain of world capitalism, the renegade Indian bourgeois
ceceded from national struggle, separated itself from the masses of people- the
workers and peasants, who were now to reel under double yoke of capitalism,
domestic as well as global. Indian bourgeois, not only adapted itself to the
global domination of Imperialism, but sheltered under its wings the forces of
local reaction, under domination of landlords in countryside. The 60 years
history of Indian bourgeois is the history of its more and more adaptation to
world capitalism, collaboration with local reactionaries and consequently its
perpetually hostile position towards working people of India. The mission of
complete emancipation from the yoke of imperialism, now renounced by the
bourgeois, ceased to be a national goal, i.e. the common goal of all social
classes and became a class goal, a goal for the working classes. Our common
struggle as a ‘Nation’ against Imperialism, thus came to an end, paving way for
‘class struggle’ waged by working classes, not only against imperialism- global
capitalism, but also against its local lackeys- Indian Bourgeois and landlords,
who had stabbed the national struggle in the back by joining the bandwagon of
Imperialism.
1940’s was a decade of unrest, witnessing a big upsurge in the tamper of masses
and was full of radical activity of people. The tide of mass struggles was
rising to unprecedented proportions, acquiring ever new heights and varied forms
of struggle. Old individual terroristic immature methods had already cleared the
way for actions by broad masses of workers and peasants, and the unarmed
protests were spontaneously growing over to armed struggle, here and there.
Despite the ‘pious’ wishes of bourgeois leadership of Gandhi-Nehru, mass
resistance to imperialism was acquiring more and more militant forms. From 322
in 1940, total number of workers’ strikes in 1942 had become 694, with number of
participants rising from 4,50,000 in 1940 to 7,72,000 in 1942. Peasant revolts
in countryside had become very frequent and had a reciprocal effect on the
struggle in urban centres. The ‘August Rebellion’ was offshoot of this tide,
where people on their own had taken to armed struggle, pushing aside the
Gandhian farce. 2,000 perished and 60,000 were taken prisoners, to be put in
special camps for shortage of jails. Such tremendous energy was generated by the
wave of mass struggle. The then leadership of the CPI, treading the path shown
by the Comintern under Stalin, instead of calling upon the masses for forcible
overthrow of British rule and seizure of power, by riding the wave of 1942, held
back the proletariat, openly opposed the ‘August Revolution’ and called for
support to war efforts of British Colonialists against axis powers. This was
done when British Imperial power was already perplexed by the takeover of Burma
by Japan and arrest of Anglo-Indian armies stationed there. Congress was banned,
while ban on CPI was lifted. The working people, prime actor on the stage of
history at that moment were thus pushed back, leaving the field open for
free-play of bourgeois leadership under Gandhi, demeaning the role of working
class and its party.

The bourgeois, thus got the hegemony over the liberation movement. After
comparatively peaceful years of 1943-44, marked on the one hand by famine in
which 50 lakh perished, and on the other by division and disintegration among
the radical forces on the question of attitude towards the war efforts of
Colonial rule, there came another mighty wave of radical upsurge in 1945-46. In
August 1945 armed clashes between workers and the police first took place in
Benaras and were then repeated in Bombay and spread to other regions in the form
of riots. Mass protests then started to mark the opposition of people of India
to the support being sent by British rulers to France and Holland to suppress
their colonies. Porters refused to load the ships destined to Indonesia.
Nationawide protests then took place against award of sentences to officers of
Indian National Army. Mass demonstrations soon developed in general strike,
where broad sections of people took part. Barricades were erected first in
Calcutta and then in Bombay. In 1946, once again Calcutta was barricaded by the
protestors, and the unrest spread to other parts of the country-to towns and
villages. At some places people took to armed struggle against British regime
and their lackeys-landlords. Army was called to suppress the movement and could
suppress it with great violence. During this period both strikes of workers and
peasant rebellions were touching new heights in their magnitude and form of
struggle. Unrest was spreading to armed forces also. A strike of sailors and
porters on warship ‘Talwar’ started with partial demands which were soon
reinforced with political demands. Twenty other warships present in the area
then joined the strike, with Coast guards following the course. Pilots in Royal
Air-force at Bombay Air force Station were already on strike and were joined
first by Calcutta Airmen and then strike spread to other Air Force Stations.
Battleships were sent to suppress the rebellion in Navy, but failed to quell the
rebellion, even after a full fledged gun-battle. The victorious sailors marched
on the roads of Bombay with arms in hands and were joined by workers and
students. General strike broke out in support of strikers on 22nd February.
Congress and Muslim League, both, instead of supporting the rebellion, called
for surrender and sent Sardar Vallabhai Patel as common emissary to persuade the
strikers to surrender. Army was called to crush the rebellion by force. 300
killed, 1700 wounded. Rebellion could be crushed with brute force, but it showed
that the old days have gone forever. 1946 saw more than 2000 strikes in which 20
lakh workers participated and 13 million work-days were destroyed. Peasant
rebellions were also spreading. 11 districts in Tibhaga peasant Struggle in
Bengal, In Layalpur Punjab, Bombay, Hyderabad, Telangana, Kashmir, Basti, Balia
in UP were centres of peasant revolt. Kerala and Tamilnadu were also witnessing
peasant revolts. Similarly, Bombay, Kanpur, Calcutta, Nagpur, Mysore, Madras
were all scenes of workers’ movement.

The active resistance of the working people to the Imperialist rule in India,
growing beyond false preaching of Gandhi and defying the false leadership of
Congress, frightened the British Imperialists, but more than them the Indian
Bourgeois and Landlords. The upsurge of working masses, especially in the fourth
decade of 20th century, forced them to fall into the arms of each other.
Possibility of an imminent forcible overthrow of colonial rule and taking over
of the power by the revolutionary people, was looked upon as a real threat, not
only by the Imperialists but by the Indian bourgeois also, which was hardly
interested in any emancipatory cause of the national liberation movement, but
was eager to take the reigns of power in its hands and integrate itself into the
system of world capitalism.
During the fourth decade, when working people were engaged in life and death
struggle against British Imperialism, the bourgeois-landlord leadership of
Congress and Muslim League, was engaged in hobnobbing with Imperial rulers for
concessions and whatever share in power structures could be grabbed. The
bourgeois as a class was busy to grow itself on the plunder and devastation of
people- first famine and then war. Enriched through extreme exploitation of
peasants, artisans, workers and small producers, during the famine of 1943-44,
the bankers and traders had amassed great wealth and had grown into- capitalist
class. After famine, now World War-II came to their service. The Indian
Bourgeois strove to gobble big contracts for war supplies from colonial regime,
during the World War-II. Further enriching itself through these war contracts,
the Indian Bourgeois was not only becoming shareholder in British joint stock
companies but were opening their own companies. World War-II, led to weakening
of British Imperialism and thus the end of British Imperial monopoly, with
United States emerging as the big gainer out of the war. British Imperial power
was under double pressure. US was demanding re-division of the booty collected
from colonial exploitation, while Indian bourgeois, taking for a ride, the wave
of mass struggle against colonial domination, was contending for more and more
concessions for itself and landlords.

The Imperialists, frightened by the high tide of mass struggle, sent Cripps
Mission, proposing concessions, prime among them the Constituent Assembly, based
upon communal proportion and an Interim Government headed by the British
Viceroy. Bourgeois parties happily conceded. Thereafter, came the infamous
Mountbatten plan- for division of India on communal lines- as an integral part
of the design for transfer of power to it. The renegade bourgeois leadership
eager to assume power in exclusion of working people- capitulated, and thus born
the celebrated ‘freedom’.

The local bourgeois, joined hands with international capitalism to avert the
possibility of a successful social revolution in India. Capitulating to the
British colonialists, the Indian bourgeois with support of landlords, shamefully
accepted the blueprint for peaceful transfer of power, with partition of India
on religious lines, as its core scheme, wherein 27 lakh people perished in
violence. The Indian capitalist class having its origin in cities, joined the
bandwagon of global capitalism, strengthening themselves with support from
landlords in countryside, presenting itself to be contender for political power
as against the growing strength of working people. It assumed power not as an
independent contender for it, but as lackey of world capitalism. It then
co-opted itself and behind it the landlords, to the economic and political
structures of world capitalism, mainly imposed by British imperialism.

This is how ‘1947’ presents itself to the prognosis of history, as a turning
point on Indian Political scenario –i.e. the virtual end of our national goal,
the goal of attaining freedom from the yoke of Imperialism. The slogan of
‘freedom’ became immediately redundant and obsolete, as a national goal, after
the bourgeois and landlords turned their back to the aims of the national
movement and entered into open collaboration with Imperialists.

1947, is marked by advent of bourgeois democracy, i.e. the dictatorship of the
bourgeois and the landlords, totally dependent upon global capitalism. The
dictatorship coming through an agreement between the local and international
bourgeois at the back of and against the struggling people. The national
struggle is stabbed in the back.

However, at the threshold of 20th century, the world capitalism has already
exhausted its revolutionary energies, growing into completely parasitic form-the
modern imperialism, and was reeling under a state of permanent decay. Losing its
revolutionary vigour, the Bourgeois had become incompetent to carry out even the
bourgeois democratic tasks, any further. Resultantly, in all parts of the world,
where democratic revolutions were impending and democratic tasks were yet to be
accomplished, the same could not be done, except through a Proletarian
revolution, supported by peasantry, resulting in dictatorship of the
Proletariat. Where political power was captured by Proletariat, the democratic
tasks were rapidly carried out, but where the power fell to the hands of the
bourgeois, the revolutions were stifled and retarded immediately after initial
sparks.

This happened for two reasons. Firstly, in all countries, the bourgeois joined
hands with local reactionary elements-the landlords and foreign
reactionaries-the imperialists, as against its own proletariat, adapting itself
to double reaction and thus becoming totally counter revolutionary. And secondly
because the bourgeois in these countries was even weaker to take to development
of productive forces on its own. In fact, there was no room left for independent
growth of capitalism in separate countries, after the era of global parasitic
capitalism has set in. Thus, wherever proletariat failed to capture power for
itself, or did not strive for it and it consequently fell to the hands of
bourgeois, the countries took to the capitalist path of development, resulting
in arrest of productive forces by local reaction at home, and total dependence
outside, thus becoming a link in the world capitalist chain.

India matured for a bourgeois democratic revolution, while confined in the
clutches of British colonialism, very late in time, when British bourgeois had
already lost its initial revolutionary vigour and had entered in the state of
decay. In its own land, it was facing hostility from its proletariat, while in
colonies it was face to face with colonial people, pursuing the barbaric policy
of colonialism. In colonies, under its domination, it bound the masses hand and
foot, depriving them of all benefits delivered by world capitalism, blocking all
avenues of its awakening to the new light generated by the capitalism in its
youthful past, while simultaneously making the colonial people to bear the worst
burdens of it, especially in the days of its overall decay. Colonial rule in
India was based upon adaptation of production relations of medieval ages,
prevalent in India, by the decaying capitalism of Europe.

Theoretically speaking, there could have been two possibilities around 1947.
Either the Working class in conjunction with peasantry could have seized the
power for itself in a revolutionary manner- by forcible overthrow of colonial
regime and in exclusion of the bourgeois-landlords at home; Or the Bourgeois
could have received the power for itself in conjunction with the landlords, not
as a consequence of struggle against colonial rule, but through intrigue upon
the people, bargaining separately with colonial regime. The prospects of first
possibility- the revolutionary seizure of power by proletariat with the aid of
peasantry, were artificially dimmed by 1947, because of the bogus policy of
Comintern in 1940’s to hold back the working people from forcible overthrow of
British power in India, rather directing them to collaborate with it. The flames
of Russian revolution, which had sparked great zeal in National Liberation
Struggle around the second decade, were extinguished by the infamous ‘popular
front’ policy of Comintern, forging an alliance with capitalist parties,
nationally and internationally, mainly British Imperialists, on false pretexts.
Given this policy, no independent and determined offensive could be taken by the
Proletariat to seize power for itself. Taking benefit of the passivity of
proletariat, Bourgeois in collusion with landlords, first established its
political hegemony over the National liberation movement and its main
platform-Congress, in opposition to the working classes, and later after taking
state power in its hands in agreement with Imperialists, grew this hegemony into
its full fledged dictatorship. The second possibility thus turned into a tragic
reality- leading to establishment of the bourgeois dictatorship. The bourgeois
power, thus, came to be established in collusion with Imperialists and in
partnership with landlords. Bureaucracy and standing army continued to be the
mainstay of this reactionary bourgeois power, as before.

Such peaceful transfer of political power, having its ideological roots in the
false preaching of Gandhian path, virtually averted the prospects of a forcible
overthrow of colonial rule in a revolutionary way by the revolutionary masses
rising in armed revolt and further concentrated the power in the hands of
bourgeois class, in exclusion of the Proletariat and peasantry. The bourgeois in
conjunction with landlords happily grabbed this opportunity to seize the state
power for itself in exclusion of revolutionary masses- the Proletariat and
peasantry. Peaceful transfer of Political power was thus advantageous for both
the colonialists and local bourgeois, with implied motive to avert the prospects
of a revolt of masses under the leadership of the proletariat.

What was transferred in 47 was the political power, while the economic network
for neo-colonial exploitation was kept intact in the hands of Imperialism. Even
after transfer of power to its hands, the Indian bourgeois remained connected to
Imperialism with thousand strings and instead of making attempt to resist
Imperialist exploitation and domination, became its permanent ally.
Capitulation, and not resistance to imperialism, has remained its underlying
policy. Even the political Independence which the bourgeois celebrated with so
fanfare was not absolute, but was restricted and deformed and which has
continued to vanish into thin air with passage of time.

Post 47’ scenario is marked on the one hand by increasing mutual adaptation
between the Indian bourgeois and landowning class at home, and with the World
Capitalism on International scale, to exploit and dominate the Indian people,
and on the other by unceasing struggles of the Proletariat and peasantry against
this bloc of reactionaries.
1947, goes in the history of India as culminating point of the anti-colonial
national struggle, fought by different social classes together, against the
British rule. With the cessation of capitalists and landlords from struggle
against Imperialism and establishment of bourgeois democracy under their
domination, the common national goal has come to an end, leaving nothing to be
shared in common between the bourgeois and proletariat.

There are trends in revolutionary movement of today, which do not recognise the
advent of bourgeois democracy in 1947, preaching that no transfer of political
power had taken place at all and the Country continues to be a semi-colony.
These trend, roughly appearing under the banner of ‘Maoism’ prescribing the
‘Chinese path’ as a way out, are desperately searching for revolutionary
sections in bourgeois, with ‘national-bourgeois’ character, deeming them to be
an ally in their so-called ‘New-democratic’ revolution. This misconception
emerges out in the first instance from the incorrect evaluation of character and
growth of modern imperialism in general and secondly by miscalculating the 1947
and its aftermath
1947, did witness the transfer of political power from direct domination of
British colonialists, to the hands of Indian bourgeois, as an agent of world
capitalism, a spoke in the neo-colonial machine. The Indian bourgeois, having
assumed the political power for itself, had continued to collaborate with all
reactionary elements –the landlords inside, the Imperialists outside, and
gradually this collaboration has perfected itself, as against the proletariat
and Peasantry. Indian Bourgeois class is linked to these reactionary elements
through hundred thousand threads. This collaboration of bourgeois with
reactionary forces of feudal society at home and Imperialism abroad, is in the
first instance voluntary, stemming out of the utter political and social
weakness of the Indian Bourgeois, has determined the nature and development of
Indian Capitalism, in Asiatic manner- weak, deformed, capitulationist, growing
only in slow evolutionary process and resulting in an overall degeneration of
economic, political, social and cultural life of the country.
The bourgeois class becoming the master of political power, could not advance
the bourgeois revolution at any notable pace, for two reasons. Firstly, it came
to power at a time when the world had already ushered into an era of proletarian
revolution and general decay of bourgeois class had set in. Secondly, the Indian
Bourgeois finding itself unable to cope with the advent of radical mass upsurge
on its own, colluded from the very beginning with landlords inside and
Imperialists outside. Barring initial few gimmickries by a section of Congress
leadership under Nehru, neither it remained interested in the progress of
bourgeois revolution nor it could have advanced it for its alignment with the
reactionary forces.
As illegitimate heir of the colonial regime, bourgeois has assumed power in
India, as agent of world capitalism, revealing its totally comprador character.
The democratic tasks, which were accomplished in Europe, to a great extent, by
the bourgeois revolutions, (when bourgeois was youthful and revolutionary) thus
could not be accomplished by this degenerated comprador bourgeois class in
India, even after 60 years of transfer of power to its hands in 1947.
The bourgeois revolution was thus consciously hamstrung by none but the coward
and capitulationist bourgeois, who utterly failed to accomplish its historic
mission. It is this special character of 1947 which highlights the contrast
between the advent of bourgeois democracy through powerful bourgeois-democratic
revolutions in Europe, to the meek, capitulationist and retarded emergence of
bourgeois democracy in India, hand in hand with forces of inertia against any
revolutionary advance.

This failure of Indian bourgeois in forwarding the revolution has resulted in
overall decay of the social and political life of the country, leaving the power
in the hands of worst elements of bourgeois and landlords. The rising crime and
rampant corruption, are glaring expressions of the fact that the bourgeois rule
in India has grown in total misrule led by the worst elements of bourgeois
world-the power brokers, smugglers, corrupt and criminals.