New Wave regular newsletter no. 5

New Wave is a revolutionary socialist organization committed to building a Bolshevik Leninist Party in India and the Fourth international globally

Issue no. 5 May 2013 www.newwavemaha.wordpress.com www.litci.org/en

Index :

1) On the garment worker's struggle in Bangladesh

2) Interview with a Nepali Bolshevik

3) Note 2 on the Indian economy ( studying the role of foreign capital )

4) To the Young political workers of India

Editorial

1

On the Garment workers struggle in Bangladesh :

The garment workers in Bangladesh are up in arms against the chronic exploitation and mistreatment meted at them by the garment bosses. The tipping point was reached when the 8 storied tall Rana plaza collapsed killing several hundreds of worker's families living there. Already reports are coming out involving workers attacking textile factories burning them down. Bangladesh has been tense since the Shahbag uprising which mobilized students and a large section of the progressive petty bourgeois intelligentsia for the trial o war criminals responsible for crimes against humanity during the 1971 liberation war. Soon after the movement had began, workers struggles emerged after the disastrous fire in the Tazreen garments factory which used to supply to Wal Mart. The garment worker's movement has gained a new vigor, aided by the disintegrating pre-revolutionary political situation. The garments industry – an industry steeped in brutality :

Bangladesh's economy is dependent entirely on the most shameful exploitation of it's poor. This reflects clearly upon the condition of garment workers which has been exposed by the deadly disasters plaguing the sweatshops which dominate the industrial landscape

of bangladesh. The garments industry is one that has been historically notorious for the exploitation of cheap labor starting from manchester's cotton factories in the 19th century and to the sweatshops of bangladesh of this century. The textile industry in Bangladesh remains a labor intensive one where profits are based upon reducing as far as possible the cost of employment, including safety for workers.

In this context it is very important to note that the bulk of the 3 million workers employed by the industry are women workers. The bosses prefer employing women workers due to their particular skills in sewing as well as difficulties in organizing for struggle. The latter is the main reason behind the preference for women workers in this industry. It is the desire of the factory owners for control and discipline over the workers under their employ which is indispensable to allow for the vicious exploitation which is imposed upon their workers. The importance of the industry and vested interests :

The garments industry alone accounts for 70% of bangladesh's exports and 10% of it's GDP. This 'economic strength' is sought on the basis of minimum wages of as low as rs. 1700 *( $34) per month. It is no surprise then that every major textile and garments producer is seeking more investments into bangladesh

2

Garment workers riot after the Rana plaza collapse burning factories

to perpetuate the exploitation of it's people. Equally unsurprisingly, many major international retail companies led by the likes of Wal mart have used Bangladesh as a preferred sourcing destination. Of late, this 'favorable' situation has attracted among others, heavy Indian investments into the garments sector, attracting up to $600 million *( out of a total of $935 million dollars of investments ) last year alone.

Apart from major foreign interests, there are powerful politically linked indigenous capitalists who run the majority of the 5100 garments factories in Bangladesh. The Rana plaza at Savar belonged to one such garment oligarch, Sohel Rana. Politically, he was a leader of the youth wing of the Awami League which is the ruling party of Bangladesh. These companies are by and large dependent on exports to advanced countries primarily the USA which corners the lion's share of Bangladeshi textile exports.

Bangladesh's garments industry is a major beneficiary of proletarianization which has been brought about by, among other things, ecological terror imposed by India through it's dam building *( by blocking the natural flow of water from rivers across the border thus drying many rivers in eastern and western districts of Bangladesh) and domination over Bangladesh's sovereign EEZ (through holding key strategic islands near the Bangladesh border and sealing off direct access to the bay of bengal). Indian capitalism has played a vital role in ruining bangladeshi agriculture in these two ways. In addition to that, India has played a key role in providing political and military security to the ruling government in Bangladesh which has been of critical importance in defending this most vicious impoverishment in the Bangladeshi countryside. We see the results of this proletarianization in the deaths in the garment sector disasters.

It is the combination of various economic and political factors together with the context of proletarianization of bangladeshi society which has made the bangladeshi textile sector the second largest in the world, second only to the likes of China. Character of existing struggles :

One of the highlights of the movement of the garments workers is it's spontaneity. The norm of most struggles of textile workers in bangladesh

hitherto has been to conduct wildcat strikes against their bosses. A nationwide strike too has been undertaken before, but by and large, the strikes of garment workers have been sporadic and spontaneous. Notable instances have been the strike of textile workers in 2006 and again around 2009 following the soldier's mutiny. Among the demands made by the workers, the chief among them have included fair wages, decent working conditions and dignity of work. It is notable in this context that most of the 3 million workers employed in the garments industry are women workers. This is partly so as a deliberate policy of the garment factory owners who take advantage of the perceived weakness of women workers and the relative difficulties of organizing them politically and within trade unions to control them.

The nature of the present wildcat general strike has been characterized by 'plebian anger' directed against the very means of production in which they work. The first object of anger for the workers have been the garment factories themselves. Soon after the tragedy at Savar, garments workers have burnt several factories in protest. This action has been reminiscent of Marx's description of the initial period of struggle by the proletariat in the Communist Manifesto : “They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash machinery to pieces, they set factories ablaze”. However, unlike the primitive workmen of the mid 19th century that Marx described, the garments workers aren't interested in 'restoring the abolished status of the medieval workman' but in achieving higher standards of welfare and better conditions of work !

This combination of plebian anger with a more advanced trajectory of struggle is a potentially revolutionary combination which can open the way for further more advanced struggles in the near future and gives the garments workers' fight immense importance in the socio-political landscape of Bangladesh. What is severely lacking in this picture is the presence of an organized revolutionary force which can channelize this raw energy and lead the workers through more advanced tactics in their battle against the viciously exploitative garment bosses and their imperial protectors.

At the same time, the nature of the industry compels us to assume an internationalist perspective for the

3

worker's struggle in Bangladesh. We must be ready to form a solidarity of textile workers and retail trade workers in india and the US respectively to support the struggle of the workers in Bangladesh. Support from the Indian working class is critical for the struggle in Bangladesh, as it is Indian capitalism which has through it's agencies ensured the political domination over Bangladesh which has made the exploitation in the garments industry possible. Likewise, solidarity from workers in US retail companies particularly those like wal-mart and others are critical in strengthening the fight in Bangladesh and thwarting the chain of capitalism which runs from Bangladesh to the Americas and Europe.

Demands to put forth :

The struggle of the garments workers reveals all that is corrupt and exploitative about capitalism in Bangladesh. To fight this system, we must place forth demands which correspond to the deepest needs of the workers. A gamut of transitional demands must be built in order to give a consistently revolutionary direction to the struggle of workers.

1) Compensation for all aggrieved workers and punishment for the garment bosses :

The most pressing immediate struggle aims immediately at the compensation for the workers who have lost life and limb due to the factory collapses at Rana plaza and Tazreen garments. The government must be pressed to give immediate compensation to

the workers and their families not only to cover their health costs but to cover loss of prospective loss due to loss of income. In addition to this, the owners of Rana Plaza and Tazreen garments must be brought to book for their criminal negligence that has resulted in the death of nearly 500 workers.

2) A guarantee for decent working condition and labor practices : The core of the struggle of garments workers is to achieve decent working conditions including proper safety in factories and a living wage. The workforce in Bangladesh is notoriously underpaid and 'cheap'. This situation must be alleviated by the immediate implementation of a law guaranteeing a minimum living wage which covers the basic needs for a family of 4 and which would be adjusted to inflation and cost of living index. With each rise in inflation there must be a proportional rise in the living wage.

3) Nationalization of the garments industry : Private garment factories both local and foreign are responsible for the worst labor practices in Bangladesh. But they get away with this because of their political protection. The only solution for destroying this vicious matrix of exploitation that characterizes the Bangladeshi garments industry is to nationalize the industry and place it under worker's control. This is a precondition for any real advance in decent working conditions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4

The famous 'last embrace' of two dead workers at Rana plaza

Notes on the Indian economy part 2 - Focussing on the role of foreign Capital

Whilst part 1 of the study explained the dynamics empowering Big capital in India and what role the informal sector and proletarianization plays in that regard, part 2 is intended to understand the role and nature of foreign capital in India and what role it plays, both social , political and economical in the Indian context. To begin with , I would like to state, that the dynamics of Capitalism and imperialism are such that though it may be moribund, and destructive in essence, it is not undynamic, nor are imperial relations static. Equally so, just as there cannot be a single monopolist corporation determining the entire economy on a local or regional or even national basis, there cannot be a single monopolist imperialist country that assumes all of imperialism unto itself. This is an impossibility at least under Capitalism. The imperialist system, at least in the understanding in the Leninist sense, does not undo competition but distorts and degenerates it. The earlier liberal capital is now totally wiped out and replaced by monopoly capitalism which forms the main body of Capitalism in our epoch. With the end of liberal Capitalism we saw between the period of the last half of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, an end to Colonial capitalism.

Colonial Capitalism is distinguishable from its successor, imperialist capital, in that the former is solely based on trade and productivity, whilst the latter is based more and more on Export of Capitalism, and the predominance of Finance Capitalism. In the epoch of Colonial Capitalism, the main imperialist countries would construct a foreign policy that hinged on opening more and more markets for trading of goods. Here, the free exchange of Capital (Which is a definitive feature of Capitalism in any form) would take place through the freeing up of trade by creating direct colonies or in some cases spheres of influence. Competition between rival imperialists would then for the most part be determined by which imperialist possesses how many colonies and how well they can hold on to these colonies. With the advent of imperialist capitalism and the predominance of finance capital and the export of capital gaining greater and greater importance, this most outmoded form of colonial imperialism would be eclipsed in totality. Two cases highlight the drawbacks of Colonial capitalism in the epoch of imperialism, one is the Spanish colony of Cuba which even though a colony of Spain, was economically dominated by Germany and America.

5

Wal-mart, Tesco and Carrefour are the 3 major retail investors with plans on investing in India after the opening of the retail sector

The other would be the British Colony of India oddly named the "Empire of India" where 95% of British investments into India were diverted to maintaining the bureaucracy and the armed forces. Both these examples reveal perfectly how Colonialism had outlived its utility. America which is the dominant imperialist of our times, emerged to this position without having to construct a colonial empire unlike Britain. What it lacked in an external empire was compensated for by a rich and massive internal sphere which remains strong till today.

America's rise to imperialism is a reflection of the dynamics of our present epoch i.e. the epoch of imperialism. In our epoch, that is the epoch of imperial capital, the free exchange of capital compels countries to adopt policies which hinge on opening more and more markets for the export of Capital as it is this exportation of Capital which assumes primacy over trade. Whilst, trade in goods is not undone by this and in fact never will be undone by this, it does serve to subordinate the trade of goods and its dynamics. This is done by either subordinating, the trade in goods to the need for financing this trade *( often this would mean financing large trade deficits ) whilst on the other hand, it would be done by attaining direct control of the chain of trade through direct or indirect investments across borders. What this means is, unlike the direct political and territorial capture of power under Colonialism, modern imperialism behaves in a much more indirect and often surreptitious manner to create what we understand as semi-colonies. The semi-colony is distinguishable from a direct colony in that it does not require for the imperial country to rule over these countries directly but it would be enough for them to rule indirectly, often through favored proxies be it within a democratic parliamentary framework or by the destruction of the same and the imposition of dictatorships. Both regimes display nearly the same degree of harshness in curbing the proletariat of these countries.

When we take all of this into consideration a picture emerges of the imperialist world economy which is far more anarchic, far more competitive, and overall 'freer' than its predecessor of colonial capital where territorial fetters would isolate trading blocs and inter-imperialist conflicts would take place with a much more tangible territorial dynamic. In our epoch, this territoriality is lost. What is also lost is

the linear relation where metropolitan trading countries with superior financial or manufacturing prowess could effect a clear cut exploitation of agricultural countries through colonizing them. Modern imperialist capital having attained far greater flexibility and having completed the task of effecting free exchange of capitals throughout the world, exploits not only the people of agricultural countries but of all countries anywhere and everywhere. Thus, emerges the tendency of imperialist capital to move towards areas of other imperialist capital within the same nation. In many cases, Imperialist countries in their sub-imperialist phase invite the forces of foreign capital to aid in the process of accumulation and opening up large internal markets. Whilst colonial capitalism fettered and often subjugated its colonies to backwardness and technological isolation, imperialist capital opens up markets to higher ever greater technical advances and opens the way for the flooding of the markets with its capital. However, both serve the almost identical ends in that they tend subjugate the markets they enter into to their own capitals and fulfill the domination of those markets thereby destroying or driving out of competition or marginalizing domestic capital be it petty or large. This becomes difficult or almost impossible to accomplish when Imperial capital enters the sphere of other like capitals. With this dynamic in mind we may now see the role of foreign capital in the Indian context.

When considering India's development of Capitalism, several unique features emerge particularly in its post colonial history but also in its colonial history. India was perhaps the first major Asian power to be opened up to the full force of foreign capital and was in fact the first country to be subjugated by it. In historic terms what this would represent is the worldwide victory of the bourgeois-capitalist mode of production over feudal or quasi-feudal modes of production. India had till 1757 in fact, controlled 70% of the world's trade and had a GDP many times larger than Capitalist Britain ! however, India had not undergone a revolution, neither had it revolutionized the means of production, therefore, this fantastic control of wealth which it had was destined to melt away when faced with the decidedly superior forces of bourgeois-capitalist modes of production. And it was no less than Britain, the most powerful of the European countries which was also the first European power to undergo a bourgeois revolution successfully, which carried out this task. Marx had cited a dual role for the English East India company which had come to rule over India

6

eventually. The two aspects of its rule over India was both destructive ( destruction of the native pre-capitalist economy and polity and society ) as well as creative ( the creation of a capitalist economy, polity and society replacing its pre-capitalist predecessor ) . However, Marx had also noted that in his notes on India, that it has always seen convulsive political changes without requisite social change. British colonialism was the first force to attempt to consciously try to end this dichotomy and achieve it partially.

However, the peculiar nature of colonial capital with its focus on control over trade, meant that competition would focus more on destroying the potential for its erstwhile pre-capitalist economic superior rather than creating a new base for Capitalism to flourish. The destruction of Indian polity and economy was thorough, but the destruction of India society's structure was slow. The result was the loss of the old world without a gain of the new. The reactionary burden of the old society would be preserved and concretized by economic and political subjugation and impoverishment. Nevertheless, the creative aspects did in fact develop as slow as they did, and Indian society was in course of time morphed to suit more advanced Imperialist exploitation, but the vast colonial economy which the Empire had created in India and on the basis of which lay the enslavement of the whole of the Asian continent, would not be undone so easily. The colonial fetters remained and continued to slow down and distort the entry of imperial capital into India, till the point of time where it became unbearable for the colonial masters. The creation of a native Indian bourgeois was one of the consequences of British colonialism, but even this in time grew too large and influential for the decaying and dying British Capital to control. The two world wars of the last century were the death knell to the old Empire and paved the way for new empires to take its place. The United States of America would be the foremost gainer of this destruction, being unfettered and unburdened by colonialism and having conveniently escaped the destruction of its European counterparts, and possessing a vast internal market of its own, and having vanquished both the great powers of Germany and Japan, it had a formidable military apparatus as well! The contraction of European Capital from the world stage left a huge area of the world out of the bound of imperial capital which in most cases would be kept out by the revolutions in

Asia and eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. Whilst, the presence of the Soviet Union and China served to limit the penetration of imperial capital in Asia, the overbearing presence of America and Europe over Latin America and Africa would do the opposite allowing in time for the complete domination of these continents by the forces of imperialist capital. India however, managed to withstand this onslaught by virtue of sheer historical circumstance as well as the cunning of the Indian bourgeois. In addition to this, the inheritance of British colonialism gave India access to a large sphere of influence around its own neighborhood as well as an armed force to defend it. In course of time, India managed to crowbar its way onto becoming a centre of Big capital gaining quite recently, the ability to export Capital as well. But this ability has come at a price, costing both in terms of economic sovereignty as well as social and political destruction and degeneration.

India having entered its independence, with numerous colonial and even pre-colonial burdens would naturally have to resort to the most drastic measures to allow the development of Capitalism. However, this has had to be balanced with the need to pacify its immediate class enemy in the form of the Indian working class and peasantry. India's polity thus emerged both bonapartist as well as bourgeois democratic! Completing neither the one nor the other. Colonial Capital's shared destructive characteristic with imperial capitalism is seen in the manner they destroy weaker forms of capital and how larger more technically advanced capitalism dominates over technologically less advanced forms. Indian Capital has been no different in this regard. the destruction of the countryside which was initiated by the British was exacerbated and intensified under the rule of the Indian bourgeois which being now surrounded by two very powerful but opposing forces of global Stalinism in the Soviet union and world imperialism through the US-UK alliance, has had to exploit and defend its internal sphere aggressively. The result of this was statism. This statism was both a consequence of monopoly capital as well as an arbitrary reaction to external and internal pressure and a product of the weaknesses of Indian capitalism owing to a hundred years of fettered Colonialism. However, as Statism grew and consolidated reaching a high point with the nationalization of banks and 'Indianization' of foreign companies, it consolidated the sub-continental sphere for Indian capitalism to dominate over. However, India's statism was not absolute nor did it end the

7

existence of foreign capital and in fact as early as 1950s, foreign capital was still being invited through joint ventures to aid Indian capital in developing itself. But balancing this with the prevalence of the state in the economic life of India, meant that these foreign capitals could exist only through political protection and cover accorded by the bourgeois and its political formations in particular through that of the congress party. Another area for the penetration of foreign capital in these early years had been through state based construction or power projects and as ancillaries to defense where vital technologies in India's armed forces were still lacking. In time the wall of statism and its consequent welfarism ultimately became a drain for the Indian bourgeois and an unwanted fetter for the development of Capital. All along however, this retained legitimacy through the continued existence of the threat of foreign capital as well as a steam valve to pacify the working class. The Nationalized corporations of India as well as the welfare measures they supported were and are corrupted and exploited to suit the ends of the bourgeois often through extra legal means and in a most brazen manner. The existence of Bonapartism in India adds to this crude form of exploitation of the working class. The statist economy which India had created however, could only survive the external pressures of imperialism with the preponderant protection of the Soviet Union.

After 1991, this protection would be lost. With it would also be lost a tremendous fortress of the working class and a great negative wave of reaction would ensue where imperial capital would find it easier to move into areas previously untouched by it, as well as intensification of the exploitation of the areas where it was already present. This was accompanied by the expansion of the export of Capital and the further domination of finance capital over other capitals. All of this was a sign of the rate of profits falling back and returning to pre-world war trajectories of imperialism, only without its colonial - territorial fetters. The Indian bourgeois would now have to adjust to a new world order where statist subsistence could no longer hold against imperialism, and where the domestic bourgeois had itself consolidated a large enough internal sphere to survive in competition against foreign businesses. The dismantling of statism had thus begun in the 1990s and with it, a massive penetration of foreign capital into India, the like of which had not been

seen in the 40 years preceding it. But this opening up of capital was not a one way affair, no sooner, than a massive inflow of capital began, an equally robust development of capital exports began to take off from India which soon surpassed capital imports! The fate of the capitals which had already invested in India would now be determined by fierce competition with new foreign rivals and an empowered domestic capitalist class equipped with greater access to the world markets as well as technologically developed. The earlier privileged positions would now be naturally challenged as the Indian bourgeois opened up the Indian markets to World Capitalism. Along with these external pressures, foreign capital and domestic private capital *( In particular small to middle private capitals ) still had to deal with a vast State sphere which continues to exist in India and takes an increasingly active role in building and consolidating a base for Indian capitalism to develop and expand further till it becomes a major global player as a fully imperialist country. This is naturally contingent upon the completion of Capitalist domination over the rural countryside and over petty capital sectors in urban India. This has by and large been achieved in the urban sphere through the penetration of financial capital which is still statized considerably but has yet to complete its penetration into the countryside. Additionally, the dominance of services and manufacturing over petty capital remains unfinished. Furthermore, big Indian capital is still a new player in the world stage and in comparison with its foreign peers is still a junior in terms of high technology and financial support. This warrants the continued existence of the state in the economic life of the country, not to mention the continued albeit weakened threat from the working class which still requires statism and welfarism to handle.

With the opening of the Indian markets, the Indian bourgeois has in fact strengthened not only itself, but also the world bourgeois by giving it access to a huge market of yet unproletarianized populations of peasants and petty bourgeoisie with a strong and able state apparatus which most African and South east Asian countries can't boast of. However, they have also subjected the entrant foreign capitals to domestic competition compelling them to resort to more exploitative practices than their domestic rivals. What this also entails for foreign capital investing in India is a need to avail the advantages of scale, to compete with more established and naturalized domestic capitals. Thus, it has been seen that most of the foreign capital that has entered in the form of direct investments have

8

been through big investments and made by big corporations. And in most cases, the foreign capitals which continue to hold dominating positions remain the very corporations who had managed to buy or deal their privileged positions before the complete opening of the Indian market to World Imperialism. This gives the foreign corporations a much more organized form, as well as exploitative characteristic. The proletarians employed in these companies particularly in the manufacturing sector would be subjected to harsh management practices many a times in conflict with labor laws, (their privileged status allowing them to flout labor laws at will and gaining the protection of the state for the same) as well as focused attacks on any attempt to organize in resistance or agitation. The best example of the contradictions of foreign capital are revealed through the Maruti-Suzuki corporation in India, where the Suzuki motor corporation itself grew by the blessings of the Indian bourgeois and in particular the blessing of its political leadership in the

Congress party, which ironically uses the blessing hand as its symbol! The workers organized in these sectors face the most advantageous position in terms of communist organization *( owing to the large organized nature of foreign capitalist concerns ) as well as the worst conditions of work *( owing to the need for foreign companies to cut down on labor costs to compete with more well entrenched national rivals ) . From the ranks of these workers a vanguard can very well emerge in India, however, the trajectory of their struggle is limited in that it does not expropriate the main enemy of the Indian working class which is the Indian bourgeois. Nor do these struggles aim at securing state corporations away from the serpentine grip of the Indian bourgeois making them organizations of the working class which is what they should be ! The vanguard of the working class would therefore, come from both these ranks organizing and struggling in unison and coordination with each other against a shared enemy which is the Indian bourgeois.

[Read also our report on the General strike of February 2013 from the New Wave blog: newwavemaha.wordpress.com /2013/02/27/report-on-the-general-strike/ ] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9

The ongoing struggle at Maruti reveals the contradictions within foreign capital

Interview with a comrade from Nepal :

In this interview with a radical bolshevik student from Nepal, Bibhusit Bista, we publish a set of responses to some important questions pertaining to Nepal and the revolutionary process over there, understanding what are the political and social forces at work in determining class struggle in Nepal.

1) The Nepali revolution was a landmark in recent world history. It was what can rightfully be called as the first 'Spring" of the 21st century. It was also important as a part of the revolutionary struggle in South Asia where monarchy was abolished. But since the beginning of the revolution, there have been many negative developments and it appears that the social agenda is not being pursued. The revolution appears to have stopped at the achievement of a republic. Would you agree that the revolutionary process has ended at the republic ? What is the present situation in Nepal and what is the future of class struggle in Nepal ?

1. The 'speciality' of Nepali revolutions/uprisings till date is that all of them have ended in reaction. Be the 1950 revolution against Ranas, 1980 students' uprising, 1990 uprising or lately, the 2006 uprising. One of the chief features is the class-collaborationist, Menshevik line adopted by Communist Party of Nepal during these events. Its failure to recognize the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie has always applied brakes to the evolving revolutionary situations. With their continuity of this tradition, this time by the Maoists, Nepal has once again fallen to a period of reaction. The UCPN-M seems to have adopted Menshevik theories while CPN-M led by Mohan Baidhya look unclear. What's common to both is their insistence on aligning with the non-existing revolutionary bourgeoisie which is supposed to be ally of the working class. The revolutionary tide seems to have receeded. With the recent split in the Maoist party, there is a chance of revolutionary

polarisation. But here in Nepal, there's no genuine revolutionary alternative.

2) The recent statements from the Maoist leadership in Nepal has stated that they would like to 'normalize' relations with india and also called for greater foreign investment in Nepal. There have been many other overtures from the Maoists in Nepal which seem to indicate a reversal in policy of the revolution. Our question is, what do you feel has been the role of the Maoists in the development of the revolutionary process ?

2.The Maoists actually played an important role in the development of revolutionary processes. But they are also equally responsible for giving it a death-knell. There's a great significance of the "People's War" in unfolding the latter political developments in Nepal. The political consciousness it aroused, mainly among the peasants and the social gains in their base areas have a great importance. Even the 2006 uprising became effective only after Maoists joined it. In a country where almost 80% of the population are peasants, Maoism appeals a lot to them. But when put in practice, it starts showing its faults. Vice-chairman of UCPN-M and Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai believes that to sustain the Nepali revolution, it's essential to take one of our neighbours in confidence. In this case, India. He also sees the indispensability of "national capitalism" before the transition to socialism. But that is totally a defeatist position resulting directly from the Stalinist two stage theory.

10

Snapshot of the April uprising of 2006 which deposed the monarchy

3) Can you give us an overview of the classes and parties in Nepal and what role they play and are playing presently ? Which political force has been in the leadership of the working class, students and peasants respectively ? Which segment played the vanguard role in the revolution and what was the role of each sector of society during the revolution in 2006 ?

3. Peasantry constitute around 75%-80% of the population. They are mainly represented by Maoists. As we've seen before, a part of it have played a revolutionary role. The industrial proletariat is mainly under the reformist CPN(UML). But recently Maoists have also gained some hold but the unions are full of corrupt bureaucrats. The working class has been totally misled and there's a dire need for a revolutionary, militant alternative. Speaking of the working class, there's a large number of transnational proletariat working mainly in India and the middle east. Besides these, there's Nepali Congress Party which represents the bourgeoisie-landowners. There's also a monarchist party and some fringe parties, mainly representing a section of the prtty-bourgeoisie. There are 3 major students unions, of which Maoist affiliated ANNISU-R seems to be the largest. The other two are Congress affiliated NSU and ANNISU affiliated to CPN(UML) The April uprising of 2006 was a spontaneous one, Pretty much like the February revolution in Russia. We saw people from all walks of life take part in it-peasants, workers, doctors, civil servants, doctors, lawyers etc. We at times saw women leading the protests and strikes. The students mainly were the vanguard of the revolution. They were not only the vanguard but the guiding revolutionary force who called for republic and not just the reinstatement of parliament. The working class played all important role. The royal regime shook to its foundation once they went on a general strike. All we lacked is a farsighted revolutionary party with a revolutionary tactic.

4) With this background, what would you say would be the path of development for a Bolshevik Leninist *( Trotskyist ) party in Nepal ? Additionally, there was a clear hand of imperialism in the sabotaging of the Nepali revolution, in particular the Indian ruling class played a leading role in formulating the

compromise between Maoists and the republicans and monarchy. What do you feel about the need for an internationalist political approach in Nepal ?

4.I think we should start off with a Trotsky reading circle and build a party around it. There's a total absence of Trotskyist literature here in Nepal. People seem to be unaware of him and his ideas. So, for the formation of an organisation, we need to start from scratch. The Maoists are also being discredited by the masses. So, I think this is the perfect time to introduce Trotsky to the Nepali masses. The Indian ruling class has always been dominant in Nepali politics. Since the 1950 uprising, the leading revolutionary force have bowed down to them at the decisive moments. The same thing happened during the April uprising. The fate of the uprising was already sealed as a result of the compromise between the Maoists and the & party alliance, facilitated by the Indian ruling class. It will be foolish to expect the Indian ruling class to end its hegemony in Nepal and pave way for the proletariat to power. So, an internationalist approach is a must to advance the cause of the proletariat here in Nepal.

5) Of late there has been a concerted attack on Trotsky by the Maoist press. It seems as if there is a fear in the minds of the Maoists towards Trotsky and his ideas especially of permanent revolution. What is the situation of Trotskyism in Nepal ? Are there any groups or individuals involved in any kind of party or group building effort ?

5. Trotskyism in Nepal is infant. Nepali Communist movement has been dominated by Stalinism-Maoism since its beginning. People still view Trotsky from the eyes of the Stalin-era falsified history. Many of the seasoned Maoists seem to have the same view. The attack on Trotsky is typical of Stalinists-Maoists, here and elsewhere. Yes, they seem to fear his ideas and do everything they can to discredit him. But there's a new interest developing towards the revolutionary legacy of Trotsky and his ideas and I think that the future is bright for Trotskyism in Nepal. There are only a handful of Nepali Trotskyists I know of. Some of them are associated with International Marxist Tendency, which seems to be practicing the entryist tactic. But I have not known of any independent trotskyist group/organisation here in Nepal.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

11

To The Young Political Workers.

DEAR COMRADES,

Our movement is passing through a very important phase at present. After a year's fierce struggle some definite proposals regarding the

constitutional reforms have been formulated by the Round Table Conference and the Congress leaders have been invited to give this [Original transcription is unclear -- MIA Transcriber]…think it desirable in the present circumstances to call off their movement. Whether they decide in favour or against is a matter of little importance to us. The present movement is bound to end in some sort of compromise. The compromise may be effected sooner or later. And compromise is not such ignoble and deplorable an thing as we generally think. It is rather an indispensable factor in the political strategy. Any nation that rises against the oppressors is bound to fail in the beginning, and to gain partial reforms during the medieval period of its struggle through compromises. And it is only at the last stage — having fully organized all the forces and resources of the nation — that it can possibly strike the final blow in which it might succeed to shatter the ruler's government. But even then it might fail, which makes some sort of compromise inevitable. This can be best illustrated by the Russian example.

In 1905 a revolutionary movement broke out in Russia. All the leaders were very hopeful. Lenin had returned from the foreign countries where he had taken refuge. He was conducting the struggle. People came to tell him that a dozen landlords were killed and a score of their mansions were burnt. Lenin responded by telling them to return and to kill twelve hundred landlords and burn as many of their palaces. In his opinion that would have meant something if revolution failed. Duma was introduced. The same Lenin advocated the view of participating in the Duma. This is what happened in 1907. In 1906 he was opposed to the participation in this first Duma which had granted more scope of work than this

second one whose rights had been curtailed. This was due to the changed circumstances. Reaction was gaining the upper hand and Lenin wanted to use the floor of he Duma as a platform to discuss socialist ideas.

Again after the 1917 revolution, when the Bolsheviks were forced to sign the Brest Litovsk Treaty, everyone except Lenin was opposed to it. But Lenin said: "Peace". "Peace and again peace: peace at any cos t— even at the cost of many of the Russian provinces to be yielded to German War Lord". When some anti-Bolshevik people condemned Lenin for this treaty, he declared frankly that the Bolsheviks were not in a position to face to German onslaught and they preferred the treaty to the complete annihilation of the Bolshevik Government.

The thing that I wanted to point out was that compromise is an essential weapon which has to be wielded every now and then as the struggle develops. But the thing that we must keep always before us is the idea of the movement. We must always maintain a clear notion as to the aim for the achievement of which we are fighting. That helps us to verify the success and failures of our movements and we can easily formulate the future programme. Tilak's policy, quite apart from the ideal i.e. his strategy, was the best. You are fighting to get sixteen annas from your enemy, you get only one anna. Pocket it and fight for the rest. What we note in the moderates is of their ideal. They start to achieve on anna and they can't get it. The revolutionaries must always keep in mind that they are striving for a complete revolution. Complete mastery of power in their hands. Compromises are dreaded because the conservatives try to disband the revolutionary forces after the compromise from such pitfalls. We must be very careful at such junctures to avoid any sort of confusion of the real issues especially the goal. The British Labour leaders betrayed their real struggle and have been reduced to mere hypocrite imperialists. In my opinion the diehard conservatives are better to us than these polished imperialist Labour leaders. About the tactics and strategy one should study life-work of Lenin. His definite views on the subject of compromise will be found in "Left Wing" Communism.

12

(Bhagat Singh was a revolutionary socialist leader in the period of the 1920s and 1930s )

I have said that the present movement, i.e. the present struggle, is bound to end in some sort of compromise or complete failure.

I said that, because in my opinion, this time the real revolutionary forces have not been invited into the arena. This is a struggle dependent upon the middle class shopkeepers and a few capitalists. Both these, and particularly the latter, can never dare to risk its property or possessions in any struggle. The real revolutionary armies are in the villages and in factories, the peasantry and the labourers. But our bourgeois leaders do not and cannot dare to tackle them. The sleeping lion once awakened from its slumber shall become irresistible even after the achievement of what our leaders aim at. After his first experience with the Ahmedabad labourers in 1920 Mahatma Gandhi declared: "We must not tamper with the labourers. It is dangerous to make political use of the factory proletariat" (The Times, May 1921). Since then, they never dared to approach them. There remains the peasantry. The Bardoli resolution of 1922 clearly denies the horror the leaders felt when they saw the gigantic peasant class rising to shake off not only the domination of an alien nation but also the yoke of the landlords.

It is there that our leaders prefer a surrender to the British than to the peasantry. Leave alone Pt. Jawahar lal. Can you point out any effort to organize the peasants or the labourers? No, they will not run the risk. There they lack. That is why I say they never meant a complete revolution. Through economic and administrative pressure they hoped to get a few more reforms, a few more concessions for the Indian capitalists. That is why I say that this movement is doomed to die, may be after some sort of compromise or even without. They young workers who in all sincerity raise the cry "Long Live Revolution", are not well organized and strong enough to carry the movement themselves. As a matter of fact, even our great leaders, with the exception of perhaps Pt. Motilal Nehru, do not dare to take any responsibility on their shoulders, that is why every now and then they surrender unconditionally before Gandhi. In spite of their differences, they never oppose him seriously and the resolutions have to be carried for the Mahatma.

In these circumstances, let me warn the sincere young workers who seriously mean a revolution, that harder

times are coming. Let then beware lest they should get confused or disheartened. After the experience made through two struggles of the Great Gandhi, we are in a better position to form a clear idea of our present position and the future programme.

Now allow me to state the case in the simplest manner. You cry "Long Live Revolution." Let me assume that you really mean it. According to our definition of the term, as stated in our statement in the Assembly Bomb Case, revolution means the complete overthrow of the existing social order and its replacement with the socialist order. For that purpose our immediate aim is the achievement of power. As a matter of fact, the state, the government machinery is just a weapon in the hands of the ruling class to further and safeguard its interest. We want to snatch and handle it to utilise it for the consummation of our ideal, i.e., social reconstruction on new, i.e., Marxist, basis. For this purpose we are fighting to handle the government machinery. All along we have to educate the masses and to create a favourable atmosphere for our social programme. In the struggles we can best train and educate them.

With these things clear before us, i.e., our immediate and ultimate object having been clearly put, we can now proceed with the examination of the present situation. We must always be very candid and quite business-like while analysing any situation. We know that since a hue and cry was raised about the Indians' participation in and share in the responsibility of the Indian government, the Minto-Morley Reforms were introduced, which formed the Viceroy's council with consultation rights only. During the Great War, when the Indian help was needed the most, promises about self-government were made and the existing reforms were introduced. Limited legislative powers have been entrusted to the Assembly but subject to the goodwill of the Viceroy. Now is the third stage.

Now reforms are being discussed and are to be introduced in the near future. How can our young men judge them? This is a question; I do not know by what standard are the Congress leaders going to judge them. But for us, the revolutionaries, we can have the following criteria:

1. Extent of responsibility transferred to the shoulders of the Indians. 2. From of the Government institutions that are going to be introduced and the extent of the right of

13

participation given to the masses. 3. Future prospects and the safeguards.

These might require a little further elucidation. In the first place, we can easily judge the extent of responsibility given to our people by the control our representatives will have on the executive. Up till now, the executive was never made responsible to the Legislative Assembly and the Viceroy had the veto power, which rendered all the efforts of the elected members futile. Thanks to the efforts of the Swaraj Party, the Viceroy was forced every now and then to use these extraordinary powers to shamelessly trample the solemn decisions of the national representatives under foot. It is already too well known to need further discussion.

Now in the first place we must see the method of the executive formation: Whether the executive is to be elected by the members of a popular assembly or is to be imposed from above as before, and further, whether it shall be responsible to the house or shall absolutely affront it as in the past?

As regards the second item, we can judge it through the scope of franchise. The property qualifications making a man eligible to vote should be altogether abolished and universal suffrage be introduced instead. Every adult, both male and female, should have the right to vote. At present we can simply see how far the franchise has been extended.

I may here make a mention about provincial autonomy. But from whatever I have heard, I can only say that the Governor imposed from above, equipped with extraordinary powers, higher and above the legislative, shall prove to be no less than a despot. Let us better call it the "provincial tyranny" instead of "autonomy." This is a strange type of democratisation of the state institutions.

The third item is quite clear. During the last two years the British politicians have been trying to undo Montague's promise for another dole of reforms to be bestowed every ten years till the British Treasury exhausts.

We can see what they have decided about the future.

Let me make it clear that we do not analyse these things to rejoice over the achievement, but to form a clear idea about our situation, so that we may

enlighten the masses and prepare them for further struggle. For us, compromise never means surrender, but a step forward and some rest. That is all and nothing else.

HAVING DISCUSSED the present situation, let us proceed to discuss the future programme and the line of action we ought to adopt. As I have already stated, for any revolutionary party a definite programme is very essential. For, you must know that revolution means action. It means a change brought about deliberately by an organized and systematic work, as opposed to sudden and unorganised or spontaneous change or breakdown. And for the formulation of a programme, one must necessarily study:

1. The goal.2. The premises from where were to start, i.e., the existing conditions.3. The course of action, i.e., the means and methods.

Unless one has a clear notion about these three factors, one cannot discuss anything about programme.

We have discussed the present situation to some extent. The goal also has been slightly touched. We want a socialist revolution, the indispensable preliminary to which is the political revolution. That is what we want. The political revolution does not mean the transfer of state (or more crudely, the power) from the hands of the British to the Indian, but to those Indians who are at one with us as to the final goal, or to be more precise, the power to be transferred to the revolutionary party through popular support. After that, to proceed in right earnest is to organize the reconstruction of the whole society on the socialist basis. If you do not mean this revolution, then please have mercy. Stop shouting "Long Live Revolution." The term revolution is too sacred, at least to us, to be so lightly used or misused. But if you say you are for the national revolution and the aims of your struggle is an Indian republic of the type of the United State of America, then I ask you to please let known on what forces you rely that will help you bring about that revolution. Whether national or the socialist, are the peasantry and the labour. Congress leaders do not dare to organize those forces. You have seen it in this movement. They know it better than anybody else that without these forces they are absolutely helpless. When they passed the resolution of complete independence — that really meant a revolution — they did not mean it. They had to do it under pressure of the younger element, and then they

14

wanted to us it as a threat to achieve their hearts' desire — Dominion Status. You can easily judge it by studying the resolutions of the last three sessions of the Congress. I mean Madras, Calcutta and Lahore. At Calcutta, they passed a resolution asking for Dominion Status within twelve months, otherwise they would be forced to adopt complete independence as their object, and in all solemnity waited for some such gift till midnight after the 31st December, 1929. Then they found themselves "honour bound" to adopt the Independence resolution, otherwise they did not mean it. But even then Mahatmaji made no secret of the fact that the door (for compromise) was open. That was the real spirit. At the very outset they knew that their movement could not but end in some compromise. It is this half-heartedness that we hate, not the compromise at a particular stage in the struggle. Anyway, we were discussing the forces on which you can depend for a revolution. But if you say that you will approach the peasants and labourers to enlist their active support, let me tell you that they are not going to be fooled by any sentimental talk. They ask you quite candidly: what are they going to gain by your revolution for which you demand their sacrifices, what difference does it make to them whether Lord Reading is the head of the Indian government or Sir Purshotamdas Thakordas? What difference for a peasant if Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru replaces Lord Irwin! It is useless to appeal to his national sentiment. You can't "use" him for your purpose; you shall have to mean seriously and to make him understand that the revolution is going to be his and for his good. The revolution of the proletariat and for the proletariat.

When you have formulated this clear-cut idea about your goals you can proceed in right earnest to organize your forces for such an action. Now there are two different phases through which you shall have to pass. First, the preparation; second, the action.

After the present movement ends, you will find disgust and some disappointment amongst the sincere revolutionary workers. But you need not worry. Leave sentimentalism aside. Be prepared to face the facts. Revolution is a very difficult task. It is beyond the power of any man to make a revolution. Neither can it be brought about on any appointed date. It is brought can it be brought about on an appointed date. It is brought about by special environments, social and economic. The function of an organized party is to utilise an such opportunity offered by these

circumstances. And to prepare the masses and organize the forces for the revolution is a very difficult task. And that required a very great sacrifice on the part of the revolutionary workers. Let me make it clear that if you are a businessman or an established worldly or family man, please don't play with fire. As a leader you are of no use to the party. We have already very many such leaders who spare some evening hours for delivering speeches. They are useless. We require — to use the term so dear to Lenin — the "professional revolutionaries". The whole-time workers who have no other ambitions or life-work except the revolution. The greater the number of such workers organized into a party, the great the chances of your success.

To proceed systematically, what you need the most is a party with workers of the type discussed above with clear-cut ideas and keen perception and ability of initiative and quick decisions. The party shall have iron discipline and it need not necessarily be an underground party, rather the contrary. Thought the policy of voluntarily going to jail should altogether be abandoned. That will create a number of workers who shall be forced to lead an underground life. They should carry on the work with the same zeal. And it is this group of workers that shall produce worthy leaders for the real opportunity.

The party requires workers which can be recruited only through the youth movement. Hence we find the youth movement as the starting point of our programme. The youth movement should organize study circles, class lectures and publication of leaflets, pamphlets, books and periodicals. This is the best recruiting and training ground for political workers.

Those young men who may have matured their ideas and may find themselves ready to devote their life to the cause, may be transferred to the party. The party workers shall always guide and control the work of the youth movement as well. The party should start with the work of mass propaganda. It is very essential. One of the fundamental causes of the failure of the efforts of the Ghadar Party (1914-15) was the ignorance, apathy and sometimes active opposition of the masses. And apart from that, it is essential for gaining the active sympathy of and of and organising the peasants and workers. The name of party or rather,* a communist party. This party of political workers, bound by strict discipline, should handle all other movements. It shall have to organize the peasants' and workers' parties, labour unions, and kindred political

15

bodes. And in order to create political consciousness, not only of national politics but class politics as well, the party should organize a big publishing campaign. Subjects on all proletens [Original transcription is unclear -- MIA Transcriber] enlightening the masses of the socialist theory shall be wit in easy reach and distributed widely. The writings should be simple and clear.

There are certain people in the labour movement who enlist some absurd ideas about the economic liberty of the peasants and workers without political freedom. They are demagogues or muddle-headed people. Such ideas are unimaginable and preposterous. We mean the economic liberty of the masses, and for that very purpose we are striving to win the political power. No doubt in the beginning, we shall have to fight for little economic demands and privileges of these classes. But these struggles are the best means for educating them for a final struggles are the best means for educating them for a final struggle to conquer political power.

Apart from these, there shall necessarily be organized a military department. This is very important. At times its need is felt very badly. But at that time you cannot start and formulate such a group with substantial means to act effectively. Perhaps this is the topic that needs a careful explanation. There is very great probability of my being misunderstood on this subject. Apparently I have acted like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. I am a revolutionary who has got such definite ideas of a lengthy programme as is being discussed here. My "comrades in arms" might accuse me, like Ram Prasad Bismil, for having been subjected to certain sort of reaction in the condemned cell, which is not true. I have got the same ideas, same convictions, same convictions, same zeal and same spirit as I used to have outside, perhaps — nay, decidedly — better. Hence I warn my readers to be careful while reading my words. They should not try to read anything between the lines. Let me announced with all the strength at my command, that I am not a

terrorist and I never was, expected perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot gain anything through those methods. One can easily judge it from the history of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. All our activities were directed towards an aim, i.e., identifying ourselves with the great movement as its military wing. If anybody has misunderstood me, let him amend his ideas. I do not mean that bombs and pistols are useless, rather the contrary. But I mean to say that mere bomb-throwing is not only useless but sometimes harmful. The military department of the party should always keep ready all the war-material it can command for any emergency. It should back the political work of the party. It cannot and should not work independently.

On these lines indicated above, the party should proceed with its work. Through periodical meetings and conferences they should go on educating and enlightening their workers on all topics. If you start the work on these lines, you shall have to be very sober. The programme requires at least twenty years for its fulfillment. Cast aside the youthful dreams of a revolution within ten years of Gandhi's utopian promises of Swaraj in One Year. It requires neither the emotion nor the death, but the life of constant struggle, suffering and sacrifice. Crush your individuality first. Shake off the dreams of personal comfort. Then start to work. Inch by inch you shall have to proceed. It needs courage, perseverance and very strong determination. No difficulties and no hardships shall discourage you. No failure and betrayals shall dishearten you. No travails (!) imposed upon you shall snuff out the revolutionary will in you. Through the ordeal of sufferings and sacrifice you shall come out victorious. And these individual victories shall be the valuable assets of the revolution.

LONG LIVE REVOLUTION2nd February, 1931

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

16

Editorial :

We are pleased to present the 5th regular edition of the New wave newsletter. For this edition we are providing 4 articles which comprise three of the very essential subjects dealing with capitalism in South Asia as well as one historically significant article written by the revolutionary, Bhagat Singh. Firstly, we present our statement on the deadly tragedy of the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh which has now reached a death toll of 1127. Secondly, we present the interview with Comrade Bibusit Bisht from Nepal who explains the politics of Maoism in Nepal and the consequences of their leadership on the revolution in Nepal. Thirdly, we present our continuing series on notes on the Indian economy and publish note no.2 on the Indian economy focussing on the role of foreign capital. The note is an important study of the Indian economy and it's relation with international capital. Lastly, we present to you the most critical article written by Com. Bhagat Singh on the youth and politics. While written under colonial conditions, the article continues to be relevant in educating young political activists.

Each of these articles bear importance for further study and discussion and we welcome feedback on them from our readers. Feel free to contact us and contribute.

Contact us :

Name Email & phone Address

Adhiraj Bose [email protected] , 9331277293 /

Pushkar Ekbote [email protected], 9422616272 A – 10 Patil Paradise, Dattawadi, Singhad Road , Pune 30

Price : Rs. 20

17