Short notes on Rajini Palme Dutt’s writing on India

Rajni Palme Dutt is quite categorical that the ‘regenerating’ role of colonialism was rather limited and the situation has been reversed in his own times.

Dutt squarely holds colonialism and capitalism responsible for the poverty of the country. The process of plundering the resources of the country started quite early and was responsible for funding the capitalist development in Britain and other countries of Europe. Dutt divides the entire period of imperialist rule in India into three phases.

The first phase belonged to the merchant capital ‘represented by the East India Company, and extending in the general character of its system to the end of the eighteenth century’. Then came the domination by industrial capitalism ‘which established a new basis of exploitation of India in the nineteenth century’.

The third phase is that of financial capitalism which started in the last years of the 19th century and flourished in the 20th century. The phase of merchant capitalism was characterised by the monopolistic hold of the East India Company over the Indian trade. This was facilitated by its increasing territorial control from the second half of 18th century. Apart from this monopolistic control, Indian wealth was also plundered directly by the colonial state and privately by the servants of the Company.

The massive wealth transferred through this plunder made the Industrial Revolution possible in England. This started the search for a free market for the products of English industries. Thus, India had to be transformed ‘from an exporter of cotton goods to the whole world into an importer of cotton goods’. The monopoly of the East India Company had to be abolished now and this was achieved in phases and after 1858, the rule of India was transferred to the British Crown. This started the process of turning India into an uninhibited market for the British goods.

After the First World War (1914-1918), a new stage of imperialism was inaugurated in India. Although the older forms of getting ‘tribute’ and seeking India as market British goods still continued, there was now an emphasis or capital investment in India. According to Dutt, it was clear that by 1914 the interest and profits on invested capital and direct tribute considerably exceeded the total of trading, manufacturing and shipping profits out of India. Another area of Dutt’s concern was Indian nationalism. On the revolt of 1857 his view is that it ‘was in its essential character and dominant leadership the revolt of the old conservative and feudal forces and dethroned potentates’.

This is a view which is supported even today by several Marxist historians. Thus, it is only from the last quarter of the 19th century that Dutt traces the beginning of the Indian national movement. The premier organization of this movement was the Indian National Congress which was established in 1885.

According to Dutt, although the Congress arose from the ‘preceding development and beginnings of activity of the Indian middle class’, it was brought into existence through British official initiative as a safety-valve. In detail Dutt writes about the role of Hume and his alarm at the impending rebellion. Hume then contacted the officials of the colonial government and pleaded with them to help establish the Congress to stall the insurgency against the British rule.

It soon grew out of its original subservient nature due to pressure of populist nationalist feelings. It gradually became a strong anti-colonial force and started leading people’s movement against colonial rule. Dutt based his analysis of nationalism on its varying class base over the years. It was only after the War that the Indian masses – peasantry and the industrial working class – made their presence felt.

The leadership remained in the hands of the propertied classes who were quite influential in the Congress. These elements were against any radicalization of the movement and, therefore, tried to scuttle it before it could become dangerous to their own interests. He is particularly harsh on Gandhi whom he castigates as the ‘Jonah of revolution, the general of unbroken disasters … the mascot of the bourgeoisie’ for trying ‘to find the means in the midst of a formidable revolutionary wave to maintain leadership of the mass movement’.

Thus, the Non-cooperation Movement was called off because the masses were becoming too militant and a threat to the propertied classes within and outside the Congress. A similar fate befell the Civil Disobedience Movement which was ‘suddenly and mysteriously called off at the moment when it was reaching its height’ in 1932. Dutt thinks that this dual nature of the Congress could be traced to its origins.