''Two Nations"
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.