| Krupskaya
tells us in her Memories of Lenin that when she and
Lenin were in exile in London at the beginning of the
twentieth century, they would often take omnibus rides
in the areas of London frequented by the bourgeoisie;
they would also walk along the streets of the working
class areas, where omnibuses did not ply. Lenin was
so struck by the contrast between the two Londons that
he would often refer to ''two nations'' within one country.
Now, six decades after India's independence, which came
as the result of a prolonged anti-colonial struggle,
in the course of which the modern Indian nation was
born, we are in the process of slipping into the reality
described by Lenin: ''two nations'' within one country.
The so-called ''two nation'' theory which was used to
justify the partition of the subcontinent was palpably
false: the Hindus and the Muslims did not constitute
separate and distinct nationalities. But neo-liberalism
has spawned a more plausible division of the country
into two ''nations'', a term that may not stand up to
strict scrutiny under the canons of Marxist theory,
but nonetheless contains a rich description, reminiscent
of Lenin, of the Indian context.
What is striking about this hiatus is that one of these
two nations, the ''nation of the rich'', believes that
it belongs to the first world, would like to be accepted
within the first world as belonging to it, and is even
in the most ''fortunate position'', in its own perception,
of being acceptable to the first world, even though
as a slightly inferior relative. The other, ''the nation
of the poor'', remains stubbornly stuck in the third
world, experiencing the same agrarian crisis, the same
unemployment, and the same privations on account of
cuts in government expenditures in areas that matter
to it, that pervade the entire third world. Some have
referred to this hiatus as the ''secessionism of the
rich'' within the third world, but, no matter how we
describe it, the phenomenon is unambiguously present:
a fracturing of the nation into two quite distinct components.
This transition from a situation where the whole nation-in-the-making
was waging an anti-colonial struggle, to one where the
nation-that-came-into-being is getting fractured into
two distinct components, can be understood in class
terms as a shift in the position of the big bourgeoisie
vis-à-vis imperialism. From leading the anti-imperialist
struggle of the people, and hence belonging to the camp
of the people, notwithstanding all its tendencies to
vacillate and compromise, it moves into a position where
it carries its collaboration with imperialism to a point
where it effectively deserts the people, or does a volte
face against the people. It does so not only because
of the intense pressures upon it from the side of imperialism
in the era of globalization, but also because its ambition
of building a relatively autonomous capitalism, autonomous,
that is, vis-à-vis imperialism, runs into serious
contradictions, even as imperialist globalization opens
up new pastures for it.
The two most significant components of the policy of
the post-colonial State, both aimed at asserting this
relative autonomy, were: the public sector, and non-alignment.
The distinguished Marxist economist, Michael Kalecki,
whose overall characterization of the post-decolonization
regimes as ''intermediate regimes'' was rather off the
mark, was nonetheless accurate in identifying these
two elements as the key elements of State policy. The
public sector, built up in most third world countries
with the support of the Soviet Union, was a bulwark
against metropolitan capital. It was used for building
up a domestic industrial base, for achieving technological
self-reliance, for developing the skill base of the
economy, and for providing the overall setting in which
domestic capitalists, including the newly emerging peasant
and landlord capitalists of the agricultural sector,
could prosper. And non-alignment made it possible to
keep the requisite distance from imperialism, to keep
a door open to the Soviet Union which was so essential
for the relative autonomy of the capitalist development
path that was pursued.
Imperialism had always attacked both these elements
of third world State policy viciously. It had attacked
the public sector first by boycotting it, and later
by infiltrating and subverting it through the so-called
''aid'' provided by its agencies like the World Bank.
And it had attacked, and does so to this day, the policy
of non-alignment. From the days of John Foster Dulles
right to the days of Condoleeza Rice, this attack has
been relentless.
It is instructive that precisely these two elements
of State policy are being sought to be abandoned in
the period of globalization. The public sector is being
sought to be privatized, and would have been privatized
but for the intervention of the Left. And non-alignment
is being sought to be abandoned in favour of a closer
strategic alliance with imperialism, of which the Indo-US
nuclear deal is clear example. What this points to is
the volte face on the part of the big bourgeoisie, the
shift in its position vis-à-vis imperialism,
the replacement of its project of a relatively autonomous
development of capitalism by an alternative project
of bourgeois development through greater collaboration
with imperialism in the context of globalization. To
go back to the Leninist description, one of the ''two
nations'', the ''nation of the rich'' consisting of the
big bourgeoisie and its hangers-on, wants to become
part of the first world.
It is a hallmark of this ''nation of the rich'' within
the country that it sees itself as the sole and true
nation, as the embodiment of the nation as a whole.
It simply pretends that the other ''nation'' within the
country, the one facing the massive agrarian crisis
thanks to the same process of globalization, the one
reeling under the impact of unemployment and underemployment,
the one steeped in debt and hunger, the one consisting
of the marginalized and the economically disenfranchised,
simply does not exist. And the media at its command,
the opinion-forming devices it controls, work overtime
to obliterate the marginalized, to present the ''nation
of the rich'' as the ''true nation''. The la dolce vita
of the former is passed off as ''India shining''. The
economic bonanza reaped by the former is passed off
as the ''nation's progress''.
And nowhere has this role of the so-called ''opinion
makers'' manifested itself so clearly as in their response
to the Left's rejection of the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty.
One commentator was simply amazed how anybody could
reject such a relationship with the US, when ''our children''
go there! One newspaper (The NIE August 23) editorially
commented: ''the Left's knee-jerk opposition to the Indo-US
nuclear deal again suggests a lack of empathy for the
national consensus, and a sympathy for China's position
on the issue.'' Obviously, since no sample survey covering
the entire country has been conducted on the issue,
the ''national consensus'' referred to in the editorial
is the consensus among the SMS-sending crowd! The nation
apparently consists of those whose children go to the
US, and those who send SMS messages to the questions
accompanying the so-called TV ''discussions'' where the
audience is drawn from the same crowd. The ''nation of
the rich'' simply appropriates for itself the mantle
of the Indian nation!
The more sophisticated defenders of the deal do not
explicitly refer to the strategic alliance with the
US. They continue to profess commitment to non-alignment
but argue the need for the deal in terms of the country's
energy requirement. And the still more sophisticated
defenders even drag in climate change, which makes carbon-based
energy sources dangerous, to buttress their argument.
Interestingly however no cost-benefit analysis has ever
been cited to argue the case for nuclear energy. No
convincing case has ever been made out on purely energy
grounds for having such a deal. The energy argument
serves as a cover for having a strategic alliance with
the US, which is the objective of one of the ''two nations''
into which the country is getting increasingly divided.
Non-alignment, autonomy visavis imperialism, breaking
loose from the shackles of globalization that leads
to the dispossession and expropriation of petty producers,
and having an autonomous State that can intervene in
favour of the marginalized, and will do so because of
the pressure of having to face the electorate, are what
the ''nation of the poor'' needs. But this is precisely
what the ''nation of the rich'' abhors. The interests
of the ''two nations'' are sharply contradictory. (This
explains why the Prime Minister's ''packages'' for the
peasants have not stopped the spate of suicides, since
these ''packages'' have been worked out ensuring their
compatibility with imperialist globalization).
The fracturing of the nation into ''two nations'' and
the growing ascendancy of the ''nation of the rich'' for
which it needs the support of imperialism, has serious
implications for the country's future. The most obvious
relates to democracy. Broad-based democracy, democracy
based on universal adult franchise as we have known
it, is basically in the interests of the poor, since
political empowerment gives them some opportunity for
arresting or even reversing the process of their economic
marginalization. On the other hand, such broad-based
democracy which threatens the ascendancy of the ''nation
of the rich'' is anathema for it. The attempt of the
latter therefore is always to attenuate democracy, to
make it hollow, to reduce the effectiveness of the people's
political choice. Not that it necessarily wishes to
do away with universal adult franchise, but it wishes
to enfeeble its significance. It wishes to institutionalize
the kind of democracy which the Americans push everywhere:
''the government must be chosen by the people but must
follow the policies we like''. Indeed the very instance
of a government pushing ahead with a nuclear deal (which
it would have done but for the opposition of the Left),
even though a majority in the parliament is opposed
to such a deal, throws light on the kind of ''democracy''
that the ''nation of the rich'' and its imperialist backers
want.
There are a number of ways in which a democracy that
has struck roots among the people, that has captured
the people's imagination, and that is vigorously used
by them to assert themselves, is sought to be enfeebled.
These vary from a substitution of parliamentary democracy
by a Presidential form of government; to a substitution
of politicians by bureaucrats and technocrats as the
heads of government even within a parliamentary democracy
(to facilitate which a process of vilification of politicians
is unleashed by the bourgeois media and ''opinion makers'');
to the institutionalization of a uniformity among all
political Parties on policy issues, ostensibly for the
sake of ''development''. One national daily has even called
upon both the Prime Minister and the CPI(M) to quickly
reach a settlement (for which, needless to say, the
latter must abandon its opposition to the nuclear deal),
so that the ''stock markets are not disturbed''! The interests
of finance capital in short must take precedence over
the people's interests, and the country's future.
The introduction of capital account convertibility greatly
increases the voice of finance capital in the country's
affairs; and it is instructive that in the very midst
of the stand off between the Prime Minister and the
Left, a committee has been appointed to work out the
modalities of introducing capital account convertibility.
You may think it is a case of bull-headed obtuseness;
but it is a part of a strategy.
|
