(First part of this article by Com. Mohan was published in the last issue (Sept.-Oct. issue) of New Democracy. We are here publishing second and concluding part of the article. – Editor)

 The Theory of Internal Colonies

Many theories came to the fore to analyse the reasons for the backwardness of third world countries. The hold of imperialism and its exploitation, the consequences of colonial plunder, the neo-colonialism in the post-world war world, the nature of bourgeoisie in the third world countries, the path of development for third world countries etc. – issues were debated. The anti-imperialist struggles were the background for these debates. Andre Gunther Frank came with his “underdevelopment of development” thesis, Immanuel Wallerstein came with his “world systems” theory. Emanuel put his ‘theory of unequal exchange’. Meanwhile ‘dependency theories’ came to the fore in Latin American countries. The proposition of ‘internal colonies’ had its origin in these theories. In India, A.K. Roy, Nirmal Sengupta and some others brought forward this proposition while debating Assam and Jharkhand questions. A. K. Roy described the situation of “internal colony as the one where no social bond (relationship) exists between the exploiters and the exploited, though they happen to live in the same location, as in South Africa.” He argued that the developed regions are exploiting the underdeveloped regions as colonies. He further states that the “internal colonialism” is a combination of caste system, regional inequalities and economic inequalities. (See A.K. Roy paper in 1981 Madras Seminar on National Question held by APRSU) Due to space constraint we do not intend to elaborate further. We confine ourselves to what Balagopal wrote in Telugu during a debate on the Assam question as we are in broad agreement with what he wrote then. (We are not concerned with his present opinions.)

“In India … the process of capitalists of one region extracting the capital from another region and investing it in their own region does not occur. To understand this, we should understand the origins of the monopoly bourgeoisie here. This big bourgeoisie is not an offspring of traders of medieval period in Indian . They began as agents and brokers to British colonialism and developed into monopoly capitalists in a course of time. As the traders of medieval era decayed with the disintegration of feudalism, these brokers and agents of British colonialism filled the vacuum. Thus they spread themselves over Southern India, Maharashtra, Orissa, Bengal and Assam. We find the Gujaratis, Marwaris occupying a dominant place not just in Assam but in Maharashtra, Bengal and Orissa as well. There could be some quantitative differences but qualitatively the same holds good. They have a strong presence in southern regions like Telangana and North Karnataka which politically had a closer relationship with North India."

“This Marwari-Gujarati-Parsi traders never had a regional character. They do not have the interest to invest the capital accumulated from other regions in “their own” region. Thus the Birlas may utilize the capital extracted from the predatory plunder in the Bihar mines to offset the losses of Sirpur Paper Mills, or may utilize it in their Hindustan Lever factories all over the country or may transfer that to Assam tea estates, or, this is more likely to happen, may stash it away in unaccounted manner. Leave alone industries, there is not even drinking water in “their own” land, Marwar (a desert on the western side of Rajasthan). The Tatas who accumulate capital from Jamshedpur, may give it off to A.R. Antulay as their contribution or they may use it to build a five star hotel in Srinagar or they may export it to counties like Algeria, Nigeria or Liberia (This is the new ‘in thing’). The industries of these big bourgeoisie were once concentrated around Calcutta. They were shifted to Bombay after 1947 due to various reasons ... tomorrow they may shift to any other place. Thus they have a very ‘broader’ outlook.”

“This is a qualitative difference, in my view. The capital is being accumulated into the hands of an all Indian big bourgeoisie. And without a transfer of capital accumulated from one region to another region- it would be unscientific to talk about “internal colonies.” This applies to Assam. This applies to Nagaland also. This applies even to Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. It is not that they are not to be supported. It is to say that it would be a mistake to understand the nationality question with the perspective of ‘internal colony theory.” (Balagopal, Srijuna, December, 1981)

It is ridiculous to attribute a regional character to either Ramoji Rao or Ramalinga Raju (Satyam Computers). The hold they exercise over state machinery comes not from their regional character but from their comprador character serving the imperialists. If one extends the theory of internal colonies, one would have to characterize Mauritius, Fiji, Nepal etc. as “external colonies”. The CRs understanding is that the comprador ruling classes have expansionist ambitions which operate within the limits set by the imperialist designs.

As stated above we cannot construe this as reckless usage of terms by Janashakti. If some one who is a non-Marxist uses the term, we may view that it is a response to acute oppression. A Marxist-Leninist organization has to correctly analyse the situation.

Some more Questions

The Janashakti’s formulation that Telangana is an internal colony raises some questions. What were they doing while Telangana was converted into an “internal colony” by the "coastal delta colonizers”? This process must have taken place after 1947 transfer of power as there was no Andhra Pradesh state as such prior to that. The principal task of the revolutionaries, according to their own understanding, should have been the fight against ‘colonial Andhra rulers.’ But till now they have been fighting the feudal landlords belonging to Telangana. (The problems faced by this movement are not discussed here) That means they were aiming their fight in a wrong way according to this present understanding. They will have to review and make self-criticism that they did not conduct their struggle to resolve the contradiction with the ‘colonizers.’ As already noted, Janashakti is negating its own history.

There are other questions too. Is it only Telangana that can be considered as an internal colony. Are there no other ‘internal colonies’? If so, what are the changes that should be made in the strategy and tactics of Communist Revolutionaries in India to fight their reality? Will the perspective that views India as ‘semi-feudal, semi-colonial’ still hold good? All these questions are to be answered by Janashakti.

These are not questions related to a mere phrase called internal colony. Janashakti has announced a certain programme based on this new understanding (we shall discuss that later).

The Janashakti has adopted a tailist approach, while claiming that the analysis of intellectuals reflects the truth. We have seen those intellectuals who criticized CRs for conducting the struggle with the slogan ‘land to the tiller.’ They criticized that with this narrow focus on ‘land’ the CRs could not conduct a comprehensive struggle to resolve the agrarian question. Now those very people are saying “First a separate statehood and other questions are to be addressed later.” The Janashakti, in order to appease these “intellectuals”, adopted an eclecticist approach.

Statehood for Telangana – can the Demand be Democratic by Itself?

The Janashakti and People’s War are coming forward with some strange arguments to justify the demand for a separate statehood for Telangana. There are mutually contradictory statements also. The root cause for these contradictions is eclecticist approach.

While Janashakti gave a call for ‘People’s Telangana’, CPI(ML)-People’s War calls for a ‘separate and democratic Telangana’. Apparently both organizations seem to suggest that they are not just for a separate statehood for Telangana but also for a people’s/democratic Telangana. Mere statehood is an inadequate solution, they admit. Here a question arises. While calling for a people’s/democratic Telangana, would it be proper to characterize the formation of a political administrative unit within this exploitative system as a democratic one by itself? Let us see what these comrades are writing.

Arguments of Janashakti: “Apart from the internal exploitative relations of production, the rule of the wealthy, upper caste, costal delta colonial rulers and their lackeys and the united Andhra Pradesh under such rule are acting as strong external factors. Vision 2020, globalization, unitary policies of the central govt. act as other strong external factors. Without eliminating these external factors, the development of Telangana paving way for the establishment of a democratic socio-economic system will not be possible. Thus the separation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh and a separate statehood for Telangana is not only necessary, but a genuine and democratic one.” (Draft Manifesto, point 14)

Further they write “Immediate break-up of the united Andhra Pradesh constituted by colonialism, discrimination and exploitation is a democratic one. Thus the Telangana state is democratic by itself.” (Jana Vimochana, 15-7/1-8-2001)

We have already written about the ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors. Here are some questions to Janashakti. Do they believe that a separate statehood for Telangana would eliminate “other strong external factors” like vision 2020, globalization, and unitary policies of Central Government? Does the Telangana state, if formed, function outside the framework of present globalization and unitary policies of the Central Government? We are aware of the ruling class organizations like TRS led by Chandrashekhar Rao which calls for Telangana as a geographical entity (i.e. mere separate statehood). Janashakti leaders admit that it is nothing but a ruling class Telangana. Then how can the separate statehood be a democratic one by itself?

Arguments of People’s War:  Comrades of People’s War argue, “Thus the Telangana region is a victim of quadruple oppression. It not only suffers from the oppression and ruthless plunder by the feudal-imperialist-comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie combine like any other region in India, but also confronts another ferocious predator and oppressor- the landlords and regional comprador bourgeoisie from the coastal region of AP. This Andhra bourgeoisie is now well integrated with Comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie and imperialist capital and has emerged as a most loyal agent of the imperialists in AP under the TDP Govt. of Chandrababu Naidu. The fight against this comprador bourgeoisie is also a fight against imperialist and comprador bourgeoisie.” (Peoples’s March, June-July 2001)

Here a question arises – The comrades of People’s War admit the fact that the “Andhra bourgeoisie is now well integrated with comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie” Yet, how are they treating it as a separate entity to characterize that Telangana is a victim of quadruple oppression? Let us for a moment hope that they are only saying this to stress on the oppression of Telangana. But would it be proper to equate the fight against comprador bourgeoisie of Andhra with fight against imperialism and comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie? Only to the extent that the bourgeoisie of Andhra is integrated with the CBB, it would also be a fight against imperialism. To the extent that the fight is not targeted against compradors in Telangana, it is not against imperialism. It is a serious mistake to equate the fight against “Andhra bourgeoisie” with the fight against imperialism and CBB. It is a fight against a section of comprador bourgeoisie and to that extent only it would be anti-imperialist. People’s War comrades themselves agree that “the feudal and compradors of Telangana are no less rapacious than those from the coastal region and serve the interests of imperialists equally well.” (People’s March, June-July 2001) In their eagerness to support the current agitation they are making strange and irresponsible statements.

“As long as they remain together with mutual mistrust and suspicion and with one region being exploited and looked down upon by others, the people of the backward region cannot identify the bigger enemies- feudalism, imperialism and bureaucrat bourgeoisie and can easily be diverted to target the people of the advanced regions whenever the ruling classes  face a critical situation. A division of such regions into separate states will only contribute to the reduction of tensions and mistrust between the people and unite them against the common enemies inspite of being in two separate states.” (People’s March, June-July 2001)

This again is a wrong statement. It is strange that People’s War comrades are writing this even as they claim that class war is “intensifying in the guerilla zones of North and South Telangana under the leadership of PW.” (ibid) Let us repeat what they have written. “As long as they remain together, mutual distrust and suspicion and with one region being exploited and looked down upon by others, the people of backward region cannot identify the bigger enemies- feudalism, imperialism and bureaucrat capitalism.” Then how could they intensify their class war? If people of backward regions cannot see the bigger enemies- feudalism, imperialism and bureaucrat capitalism, “as long as they remain together with mutual mistrust and one region being exploited and looked down upon by others” as they say, how could the communist revolutionaries build massive anti-feudal struggles in ‘backward’ Telangana? With statements like these People’s War comrades are negating their own history.

It is to be noted that these sort of arguments were prevalent in AP during the agitation for categorization of scheduled caste reservation quota. Some have argued (even within CR organizations like Janashakti) that unity is impossible as long as there is inequality, mutual mistrust, ‘exploitation of one region by other’, ‘people of one region looked down upon by others’. Inequalities, etc. do come in the way of our efforts to unite the people. They hinder the unity of the people. But it is an inescapable truth that unless people unite and destroy the exploitative system we cannot eliminate these factors hindering the unity. To argue or think otherwise i.e. ‘people cannot identify bigger enemy’ or ‘unity of people is impossible as long as they remain unequal' amounts to putting the cart before the horse. One cannot assume that the comrades of People’s War are not aware of these arguments in AP. Yet it is strange to note that they have chosen to write so.

It is not true that one region is exploiting other regions. Even if one assumes that to be true for argument sake, do the People’s War comrades believe that a separate statehood within the framework of this exploitative system can end such an exploitation of the regions by other regions?

It is incorrect again to say “A division of such regions into separate states will only contribute to the reduction of tensions and mistrust between the people and to unite them against the common enemies inspite of being in two separate states.’ At best, it could be an optimistic statement. However, it all depends upon how such separation takes place. If the ruling classes divert the people to target the people of other regions (as the comrades of People’s War admit that it is easy for them), and if communist revolutionaries fail to thwart such designs and if the antagonism escalates as a consequence, it would further complicate the process of unification of those states. Further, the ruling classes and the central government could find it useful to keep the people divided and entangled in disputes. Without caring for such consequences, it is naive to think that if today people are separated, tomorrow it will be easier to unite them. But, the comrades of People’s War seem to be precisely thinking along these lines.

[Here is an interesting fact to be noted. The People’s War comrades note that “Even as the class war is intensifying in the guerilla zones of North and South Telangana under the leadership of People’s War, several other forces cutting across party lines have been coming to the fore with the demand for a separate state for Telangana.” (People’s March, June-July, 2001) Even as the comrades claim that the class war is intensifying, in the recently held local body (panchayat) elections it is the TRS (Telangana Rashtra Samithi) – a ruling class outfit – that won in Nizamabad and Karimnagar, presumed to be the heartlands of guerilla zone of People’s War. The TRS only speaks of mere statehood of Telangana. And in Karimnagar, the person elected as District (Zilla) Parishad chairman is a landlord against whom the movement led by People’s War was initiated during late 1970s.]

Repression and the analysis of Janashakti

About state repression in Telangana, Janashakti leaders write “State repression has been continuing from the days of Nizam to this day under the name of curbing the Naxalite or red menace. It is suppression of communists, revolutionary communists. … This is nothing but the policy adopted by the state (government) to transfer the resources from Telangana and colonize Telangana.” (Jana Vimochana, 15-6, 1-7-2001)

They have written two paragraphs about the repression. In their analysis, Janashakti leaders view the repression as a part of the economic reforms implemented by Chandrababu Naidu as the agent of imperialism. We do not dispute that. At the same time there is a glaring omission. Nowhere did they mention the root cause for repression in Telangana continuing since the days of Nizam. The anti-feudal movement led by communists/CRs has been the target of the repression. The state repression has been continuing and it is meant to aid the exploiters (“local” to Telangana). It is not accidental that Janashakti leaders forget this fact. They are negating their history and are eager to build bridges with the landlords of Telangana.

Right Opportunism of Janashakti

We have pointed out the eclecticist analysis of Janashakti above. We have stressed that our criticism is not confined to the phrases or terminology used by Janashakti. They have formulated a right opportunist programme, strategy and tactics on the question of Telangana.

Janashakti leadership claims that they are not making the demand for statehood for Telangana with the perspective of BJP (which calls for smaller states as against larger states). Thus the Janashakti formulated an immediate and long term programme for the people of Telangana. According to Janashakti, democratic Telangana is a long term task wherein all the undemocratic, exploitative and oppressive systems and the exploitation of imperialists shall be rooted out. As a part of achieving that long term goal, they have come forward with an intermediate stage/demand. And within this intermediate stage/phase, they propose “the exploitation and oppressive rule of costal, upper-caste dominant colonial rulers and their lackeys in Telangana shall be the immediate targets of the Telangana statehood movement. The abolition of Vision 2020 and policies of globalization shall be the immediate target.” And in this programme the right opportunism manifests in a clear manner. Their demands include:

“3. The mobile and immobile properties that exist in Telangana of the coastal delta upper caste colonial rulers who are responsible for the special regional oppression, shall be seized and distributed among the people.

4. The other mobile and immobile properties of these colonial and upper caste rulers shall also be seized unconditionally and distributed among the people.

5. However, at this stage where we are fighting for statehood to Telangana we should not seize the properties of upper caste rulers of Telangana. But they have to shed their feudal, capitalist, upper caste exploitation and oppression and adopt an attitude that is beneficial to the workers, peasants, dalits, bahujans, women, adivasis and the middle class people.”

(Jan Vimochana, 15-6/1-7-2001)

That cat is out of the bag! Thus they have exempted the “upper caste rulers of Telangana” from their target at this ‘intermediate stage’. Thus they are considering the ‘upper caste rulers of Telangana’ as temporary and vacillating allies and are attempting to forge a united front at this ‘intermediate stage.’ This understanding is implicit in their characterization of Telangana as an ‘internal colony.’ The exploiters belonging to Telangana are treated by Janashakti as allies in the fight against ‘internal colonialism.’ Thus they have redefined the allies and enemies (strategy and tactics) based on the characterization of ‘internal colony’ and the ‘intermediate state’. Continuing in the same vein the Janashakti gave a call to “defeat the forces opposing statehood for Telangana” during the recent elections to local bodies in AP. It should be noted that this call resembles “Defeat Congress(I)” given by some CRs earlier.

Janashakti felt that this call for "Defeat Congress(I)" is a right opportunist one. One of the erstwhile organizations which later merged in CPI(ML)-Janashakti gave such call and difference of opinion was noted during the merger to form CPI(ML)-Janashakti. The official position of Janashakti was that such a call amounts to right opportunism. Here Janashakti leaders may argue that they are also criticizing TRS while giving a call to defeat those opposing statehood for Telangana. We should remember that the CRs who gave a call of "defeat Congress(I)" also criticized other ruling class opposition parties. However, the then Janashakti leadership argued that a call to defeat Congress(I) amounts to supporting other ruling class parties in practice. The present leadership of Janashakti seems to have quietly changed their policy on elections.

A concrete analysis of concrete conditions is necessary to adopt a policy on the question of Telangana. The CR organizations have adopted different positions. A debate should be held on these positions. As part of this we have tried to point out certain mistakes in the arguments of Janashakti and People’s War.

Whatever stance one may take on the issue of separate statehood for Telangana, it is an irrefutable fact that Telangana is underdeveloped and there are concrete reasons for this underdevelopment. Thus differences need not come in our way in identifying the concrete problems faced by Telangana. The ruling classes always attempt to keep the debate and slogans hollow to suit their interests. The intervention of CRs should expose such hollowness and mobilize people with a concrete struggle on concrete questions. CRs should be well prepared to face any eventuality.