By Jaspal Singh for TwoCircles.net
Why did India choose to adopt European nation state in spite of its long history of various other state formations? What was the attitude of various political parties to European nation-state in India? Several young friends have asked me these questions. Both of these questions are important and are connected to the present realities of the misery of masses of people of India.
Anti-colonial movement in India came to be led by the merchants and industrialists who had amassed a great deal of wealth by their collaboration with the British merchants and their creation in India the colonial state. Tata, Birla, Bajaj, Sarabhai, Modi, Thapar, Mahindra and other business houses had come into being at the “pleasure of the British” and functioned under this “pleasure of the British”. They became partners with the British in the loot and plunder of India. They did not want to break with the British. They only wanted more concessions from them. They were also the financiers of Congress party. Therefore the leadership of the Congress party did not want independence for a long time. Independence from Britain was accepted in 1930 by Congress leadership reluctantly due to the immense pressure from the rank and file membership, which was engulfed in a furious anti-colonial movement.
These merchants and industrialists saw the benefits of European nation state to their mentors in Britain and India and had greatly benefited from it. It was a mechanism to transfer wealth from masses of people to a handful of powerful people. Their assets had multiplied many folds due to this alliance and collaboration. They dreamed of the days when they would take control of this state and all the resources of India, but they were not sure that British would ever leave India. But the Second World War and the back of Britain being broken by it changed the equation. Britain was unable to hold India. They saw the state fall in their lap with the transfer of power in 1947, with a bloodbath, well organised by their minions. Like the British merchants, they were elated at having given this state, which would ensure and legalise their control over all the resources of India. They ensured to perpetuate the interest of the British merchants and companies and had no interest in looking for other state formations that had existed in India before the British or innovate new formations based on the experience of the 300 years of European nation state. Over the years since 1947, these merchants and industrialists have used this state to bring more and more resources under their control to maximise their profits in all sectors. The socialistic pattern of society, liberalisation, development, Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas etc. became a battle cry of these merchants and industrialists just like in Europe, to take control over the whole country. Demonetization, GST and Aadhar are the latest avatars to monopolise and financialize all the resources. One country One tax, one market articulated by Arun Jaitley is the demand of monopolies and financial oligarchy. Just like one country one language and one religion was earlier. It is being presented as a necessary step to “catch up ” with the West and China.
If one looks at the political parties in India, it can be seen that their vision for India was right from their inception European. None of them was informed by Indian statecraft. Congress was formed in 1885 by a British civil servant and declared its loyalty to the Crown. Muslim league was formed in 1906, once again with the help of British. There was no difference in their vision. Both of them wanted to continue European nation state. They wanted greater participation in it. They did not dream of taking full control or Independence. The Communist Party was founded in 1925 and its leadership was also enamoured by the European nation state and did not want any innovation. Jana Sangh was formed in the fifties of the last century and had no idea to do anything else but to continue the European nation state, in spite of some of its people talking about “Vedic Socialism”. All other parties that came into being later, including Aam Admi Party, have no other vision.
Just as the merchants in Britain, who had made a compromise with the landed aristocracy, they also compromised with landlords and Rajas in spite of talk of land reforms their latifundial were kept intact. This has enabled them to amass great wealth and concentration of this wealth into fewer and fewer hands. The European nation state and its levers true to their nature have benefited them tremendously.
Now with all the technological, security, banking and ideological infrastructure in place, they are getting ready to evict 800 million people off their lands and take control of it, giving the old arguments of ” wasting resources” and ” efficiency” and that agriculture is not profitable. They are already doing it in Bastar, Jharkhand, Orissa and other areas. APCL, an investment company stole 36000 acres of land from farmers with the connivance of state in Madhya Pradesh using forged documents. Remember Chidambaram saying that they want 80% of India to live in cities? So this is going to play out in coming times. Just like Europe and the US in the 18th and 19th century, it is going to cause bloodbaths and genocide. Land theft is the standard policy of banks and monopolies. British merchants burnt the whole countryside of Scotland and forced the Scottish farmers to the coastal areas, so they can raise sheep for wool. In 1930s bankers and real estate sharks forced millions of farmers in the US to leave their lands. At that time 80% of US population was engaged in agriculture. Now only 2-3 % of the population is engaged in agriculture. These 800 million Indians are not going to leave their lands without resistance. Will they succeed? It is an open question. It all depends on unity, organisation and consciousness of the people.