Disobedience Movement of 1930-31 ). On both these occasions the bourgeoisie groups who have financed and actually controlled the movements , and the bourgeois and petty bourgeois politicians who have actively led them , have been extremely careful to restrain their followers and prevent them from becoming revolutionary . It is a fundamental mistake to consider either the Non-Cooperation Movement or the Civil Disobedience movement as revolutionary . Neither movement has demanded complete independence from British imperialism . A Section of so called “ left ” leaders of Congress ( principally messrs Jawaharlal Nehru , Srinivas Iyengar and Subhas Chandra Bose ) launched the Independence League , but the formation of this organization was simply a demagogic device , having no serious purpose to secure independence behind it .
Complete Independence to the ordinary Congress leader is a “ phrase ” with which to keep the rank and file contended , and perhaps to threaten the government . Not only that , the two movements did not put forward the required programme for the people and directed attention away from the fundamental revolutionary question of the “ seizure of power ”. The leaders have consistently refused to contemplate the use of violence believing religiously in non violence . They have not hesitated directly to sabotage and oppose the beginnings of the revolutionary movement of the masses . The classic example is the termination of Non Co-operation movement shamming the reaction of masses on police in the Chauri Chaura incident . The Civil Disobedience movement ( 1930-31 ) was started confessedly with a double aim : 1 ) to bring pressure to bear upon government , 2 ) to check the growing “ violence ” ( that is revolutionary spirit ) of the masses . And it is certain that the second one i . e . the defeat of the Indian revolution , has been more successful .
Therefore , the Indian bourgeoisie cannot pursue a revolutionary policy . It may act for a time in more or less vigorous opposition to imperialism but
November - 2021 it can never go to the point of revolution against imperialism . In its actual political activity it is normally as much concerned to check the beginnings of the revolutionary movement of the masses as it is to oppose the government ; and when seriously threatened by the mass revolution , it will become directly and actively counter revolutionary , and will join with imperialism against the masses . The bourgeoisie represents for a time a force wavering and vacillating between the counter revolutionary bloc and its allies ( the princes and landlords and the loyal upper classes ) and the revolutionary block ( workers and peasants and the town poor , the petty bourgeoisie and the revolutionary youth ) assisting to a certain extent , especially in the early stages , in the growth of the revolutionary movement , but later coming more and more to hamper its growth , to confuse the issue and mislead it , and eventually , as the revolution gathers strength , finding itself forced to line up more and more definitely with the forces of counter revolution .
In regard to the ultimately counter-revolutionary role of the national bourgeoisie there can be no doubt . The clearest case is that of China . There the national bourgeoisie , after deserting the revolution in 1927 , joined with imperialism to crush the revolutionary movement of workers and peasants and instituted a unparalleled White Terror and physical extermination of the cadres , none of the most terrible in history ( 20,000 were executed in 8 months ). Can the Bourgeoisie Compromise with Imperialism ?
The question arises : Will the opposition between imperialism and the Indian bourgeoisie continue indefinitely , or that there are objective possibilities of a satisfactory compromise between them ?
The general line of policy of Imperialism is : the restriction of the development of industry , the control of finance and banking etc ., this policy gives no basis for a compromise at all satisfactory to the desires of advancement of the Indian bourgeoisie .
This line of policy is necessitated by the position of the world and the general decline in the economic power of British imperialism . It is not in position to grant substantial concessions but must on the contrary try by all means to increase its exploitation and the strength of its political dictatorship in India .
It uses its entire means to consolidate its position . A vigorous and deliberately provocative manner was used to suppress the Non-Cooperation Movement ( 1920-22 ) and the Civil Disobedience movement ( 1930-31 ). The result is the surrender of Bourgeois Class . Neither the Simon Commission Report , nor the First or the Second Round Table Conference made any firm suggestions for compromise .
If Imperialism makes any concessions to the bourgeoisie , it will be a serious loss to Imperialism itself . Therefore , there is no objective basis for a lasting compromise really satisfactory to the aspirations of the Indian bourgeoisie . Compromise of a permanent character will come , if at all , only when the mass revolutionary movement drives the bourgeoisie into open counter- revolutionary alliance with Imperialism ( the temporary Irwin – Gandhi pact has been set at naught by Imperialism within a very short time after its adoption ). There is no objective basis for a final compromise . The compromise which may be reached will be a surface compromise only , based on no real concessions by Imperialism . The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Front
As established that Bourgeoisie cannot lead the Indian revolution and will ultimately oppose the revolution , the petty bourgeoisie also cannot lead the revolution . This class , especially the urban petty bourgeoisie certainly includes large sections which are objectively interested in the success of the revolution and will gain by it . But the petty bourgeoisie as a class is incapable of leading the revolution . Strictly speaking it is not a class at all . It is a heterogeneous group of strata and sections having roughly similar economic standards but no homogeneity of economic functions and no other social bond to unite it . And the political
15