[The resolution reprinted below was adopted by the national conference of the Communist League (Indian section of the Fourth International) held in Bombay December 30-January 2. The text contains minor stylistic changes made by Intercontinental Press.]
The midterm elections to the Lok Sabha [parliament] in March 1971 and the emergence of the "New" Congress party led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi as the ruling party at the Center with an overwhelming majority of seats in parliament, created a new political atmosphere in the country very different from what prevailed immediately after the general elections in 1967.
The Indian National Congress, which, as a party of the Indian bourgeoisie, dominated the political scene not only in the preindependence but also during the postindependence period, was seriously challenged from the right by various bourgeois parties (Jan Sangh, Swatantra party, DMK [Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam], etc.) in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, etc., on the one hand, and by the traditional left parties (CPI [Communist party of India], CPI(M) [Communist party of India (Marxist)), SSP [Samyukta Socialist party], PSP [Praja Socialist party], etc.) in states like West Bengal and Kerala, on the other. The Congress lost its absolute monopoly of power in several states although it retained its control at the Center.
The 1967 elections were held on the crest of nationwide struggles of masses peasants, white-collar emof workers, ployees, and students, creating a situa tion which could be considered prerevolutionary and which could have been transformed into a revolutionary situation for the overthrow of capitalism had there been an independent revolutionary leadership of the working class capable of leading the emerging mass struggles towards a socialist revolution.
The traditional workers' parties, particularly the CPI and CPI(M), instead of utilizing their gains in states like West Bengal and Kerala to organize an allout assault against bourgeois property relations from both the parliamentary and extraparliamentary fronts, resorted to opportunist class-collaborationist politics and functioned as defenders of the capitalist system. As participants in multiclass coalition governments in different states, they objectively helped Indian capitalism to buy up mass discontent and tide over its deep-rooted crisis temporarily. Their class-collaborationist role also helped discredit the traditional left parties as corrupt stooges of capitalism, indistinguishable from traditional capitalist parties.
In the process, working-class parties like the CPI and CPI(M) entered a phase of organizational disintegration. There was a major revolt inside the CPI(M) against the opportunist policies and parliamentary illusions of the leadership, leading to the emergence of the Maoist CPI(M-L)
[Communist party of India (Marxist-Le ninist)] and various other so-called Naxalite tendencies, some of which, however, degenerated into adventurist terrorist groups isolated from mass movements.
Against the background of the crisis facing the traditional working-class parties and the absence of a revolutionary Marxist alternative, the crisis facing Indian capitalism precipitated a major split also in the Congress, the main traditional party of the bourgeoisie. But the differences between the "Old" Congress and the "New"
Congress centered essentially around their respective strategies for overcoming the crisis threatening bourgeois rule as a whole.
The Indira Congress took advantage of the confusion in the left movement to project a radical image of itself, with its pseudosocialist slogans of "Ban poverty," "Socialist reforms," etc., and to rally be hind it the middle-class intelligentsia and youth - another strata of the population disillusioned with the working-class parties. This image was further sought to be strengthened by some of the legislative reforms, such as nationalization of major commercial banks and general insurance, abolition or privy purses, etc., raising new hopes among the masses and creating new illusions regarding the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism being achieved under the leadership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. This was reflected in the sweeping victory of the New Congress at the polls and the rout of all other "opposition"
parties of both the right and the left.
The performance of the Indira government after the midterm poll, however, demonstrated - despite the attempt to introduce minor reforms in the capitalist framework - its inability to solve even the elementary problems confronting the masses, such as food, jobs, and shelter. On the contrary, capitalist rule entered a phase of deeper crisis, threatening to undermine the capitalist economy as a whole. Mass struggles of workers, peasants, and students, clamoring for a quick solution of their problems, erupted in different states. In the process, the initial euphoria about the Indira government began rapidly to decline.
Meanwhile the Indian economy, tied as it is to foreign imperialist powers, was affected by the impact of the crisis facing international capitalism as a whole. "al dependence on imperialist givers" had increased, despite the assistance received from the Soviet Union. Internal industrial production had fallen, and an inflationary trend had hit the economy, with the prices of essential commodities skyrocketing.
The specter of mass unemployment was assuming gigantie proportions.
It was at this time that the national liberation upsurge erupted in Bangladesh against the military junta of West Pakistan, creating a new revolutionary situation in the entire subcontinent. The prolonged armed struggle of the people of Bangladesh led by the Mukti Bahini against the West Pakistani army led to nationwide mass solidarity action in support of Bangladesh in India.
The Indian government at first extended lukewarm support to the Bangladesh liberation movement and gave limited material assistance to the Mukti Bahini guerrillas operating from the Indian side of the border, but its main strategy was to confine the entire national upsurge within the capitalist framework under the leadership of the Awami League, a party of the incipient bourgeoisie of Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, with the international solidarity action in support of Bangladesh gaining momentum in the face of the West Pakistani junta's genocide, a new militant leadership of the revolution was emerging, not only challenging the hegemony of the Awami League backed by the Indian government but also opening the prospect of the revolution being transformed into an anticapitalist, socialist revolution. Fearing the repercussions on the entire Indian subcontinent of a victorious revolution in Bangladesh, the bourgeois state decided to intervene militarily and install a government led by the Awami League in Dacca.
The objective of the Indian government was clearly that of establishing a bourgeois regime subservient to its needs. The armed intervention has helped the Indira government, however, to build a chauvinist climate its favor, especially after the "liberation" of Bangladesh and the military reverses suffered by the West Pakistani military junta— despite the support it received from U.S. imperialism and the Maoist bureaucracy of China.
The thirteen-day war has given, politically speaking, a new lease of life to the bourgeois regime in India, though of temporary duration. This does not mean that the political and economic crises facing the regime are being resolved; on the contrary, they have been accentuated.
In the first place, the nationality problem that manifested itself in Bangladesh is already finding its expression in West
Pakistan, despite the attempts of the socalled civilian regime of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which replaced the discredited regime of Yahya Khan, to assume a militant garb with seemingly radical reforms of the capitalist framework in West Pakistan. The West Pakistan economy is facing total ruination after the loss of Bangladesh and the devastation caused by the war. The unresolved nationality problem, especially of the people of NWFP [North West Frontier Province], Baluchistan, and Sind clamoring for autonomy and inde pendence, has erupted into the open.
The political crisis facing the bourgeois regime in West Pakistan will have its rein the entire subcontinent percussions sooner or later, posing the problem of nationalities in India as well. While Bangladesh has been carved out as a separate nation as a resuit of the war, there is every likelihood of the tension between India and West Pakistan being perpetuated on the western borders, with Indian troops occupying some parts of Pakistani territory and Pakistani troops occupying some parts of Indian territory. Bhutto is already threatening to avenge the defeat suffered at the hands of the Indian army. The unsettled border problem is being utilized by the bourgeois rulers of the two countries to build up a nationalist hate campaign of their people against each other as a part of the larger strategy of diverting the attention of the people from their basic problems in the name of fighting an "external enemy."
Already there are the unresolved "disputes," like that of Kashmir, between the two countries, which will assume sharper proportions with the unsettled nature of
"cease-fire" line. Although the the new troops of the countries are committed to withdraw from the occupied territories, there is no guarantee that this will materialize and that normalcy will return soon. The masses of the workers and peasants of both India and Pakistan cannot be a party to the predatory warlike game of their capitalist rulers. By common struggles they must break the artificial barrier imposed between them and must move in the direction of overthrowing their capitalist regimes and building
Federation of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and other states of the Indian subcontinent with the right of self-determination guaranteed to. all nationalities.
The bourgeois state in India is arming itself with emergency powers to suppress mass movements under various garbs. In states like West Bengal, a policy of physical liquidation of militant cadres of mass organizations is being pursued. The Indira government has announced its plans to hold
I elections to the state legislative assemblies in March with the primary object of exploiting the present national chauvinist climate in favor of the Congress. The capitalist rulers fear that the worsening crisis facing the Indian economy would erode the popular base of the ruling party if the present situation continues.
New struggles of masses of workers, rural poor, and white-collar wage earners are already emerging, posing a serious challenge to the bourgeois state and leading to a new revolutionary situation in the country, for the successful consummation of which there is the urgent need to construct a new revolutionary Marxist party of the working class.
The traditional workers' parties in India, particularly the CPI and CPI(M), because of their class-collaborationist policy in relation to the bourgeois state, are unable to fulfill this historical responsibility of providing such a leadership. The CPI, as a Stalinist party subordinating its national line to the foreign-policy exigencies of the Soviet bureaucracy, identifies itself with the Indian bourgeois rulers. The CPI(M) initially adopted a pro-Peking stance but in recent years has oriented to a position of critical support to both the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies and has sought to evolve an independent identity of its own in the Sino- Soviet conflict. The CPI pursues a policy of open collaboration with the Indira government as a part of its strategy of forging a four-class national democratic front, whereas the CPI(M) follows a policy of political opposition to the Indira government on the parliamentary and extraparliamentary fronts in pursuance of its strategy of forging a four-class people's democratic front led by the working class. Like the CPI, the CPI(M) suffers from the illusion of parliamentary transition to socialism in India. But it is the only major working-class party with a substantial mass base that is capable of conducting a meaningtul struggle against the bourgeois state on a national scale at the present juncture.
Several centrist formations in the working-class movement, like the RSPI [Revolutionary Socialist party of India], RCPI [Revolutionary Communist party of India], etc., have also undergone a process of disintegration. There are, howsome of the further "Naxalite" ever, groups, which are disillusioned with Maoism, and regional parties like the Lal Nishan party are orienting to a program of revolutionary mass struggle against capitalism. The Communist League, as the inheritor of the Marxist-Leninist traditions of the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky, is the only revolutionary tendency in the Indian working-class movement that projects a clear perspective of an anticapitalist, socialist revolution as the only way out of the present stagnation facing the Indian economy.
The Communist League, therefore, proposes to seek united action with the
CPI(M) and similar parties wherever possible in the struggles of the masses against the bourgeois state. Along with this, the Communist League will endeavor to build united fronts of mass organizations of workers and peasants to coordinate their struggles on their partial trade-union and economic demands on a national scale. The party recognizes that even the partial struggles of the masses assume a revolutionary significance against the background of the deepening crisis of Indian capitalism.
As a first step to achieve its objective of building a new revolutionary workingclass party, the Communist League will seek to forge a revolutionary front of parties and groups that stand for mass struggles against the bourgeois state on the basis of an anticapitalist, socialist program. The party will also initiate a dialogue with like-minded parties and groups on the tasks confronting the Indian revolution in the coming period on the basis of the experiences of the Fourth International, the world party of the working class.