Aditya Mukherjee: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class, 1920-1947.

Aditya Mukherjee Imperialism, Nationalism and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class, 1920-1947 Sage, 2002, 461 pp. ISBN: 0-761-99564-1 (hbk) 45 (pounds sterling)

'This work describes and analyzes the process of the emergence and evolution of the Indian capitalist class and its relationship with imperialism and nationalism, providing simultaneously a comprehensive economic history of colonial India in the first half of the twentieth century' (p. 14). As these (Mukherjee's own) words in the preface attest, the hero in this history is the Indian capitalist class as a 'mature, politically conscious, all-India class' (ibid.). And it is no less than a hero, as we will see below.

As a description of a process of class formation, for the variety of sources consulted and the richness of penetrating detail, the book is quite successful, and I doubt that any future intervention on such matters will face the risk of ignoring this work. It is not, however, a 'comprehensive economic history' of the period studied. Except for some interspersed comments, it lacks the usual discussion of structural factors, the weight and evolution of different economic sectors, the path to industrialisation, capital-labour relations, and so on. Besides this, unfortunately, it is unlikely that a casual reader not specifically interested in economic history will find the entire book easily palatable. As an analysis, the work is rather more difficult to assess.

Mukherjee's objective is to show how the Indian capitalist class emerged in the context of struggles against other classes, 'and (in the context of colonial domination being the central contradiction in Indian society) particularly against the metropolitan bourgeoisie and the colonial state' (p. 19). (In fact, although these conflicts are highlighted throughout the book, and those with foreign capital especially in Chapter 10, struggles with other classes--or what we would properly call class struggles--are not studied.) The consideration of colonialism as the 'central contradiction' of Indian society (pp. 19, 63, 71) sets the tone for the discussion. The author seeks to save the capitalists from the accusations levelled at them by what he calls 'ultra leftists', of being 'subservient', 'dependent' or 'pro-imperialist'; or of being divided into 'national' and 'comprador' factions, thus being too weak and traitorous to be of any help in the task of achieving national liberation.

Nothing of the sort happened, Mukherjee contends. He proceeds to show how, through a process of economic and political struggle, the Indian capitalists took advantage of the crisis faced by British imperialism during the two world wars and the Depression in order to increase their hold over the Indian economy, which put them in a much stronger position than other colonial bourgeoisies facing imminent independence. The Indian bourgeoisie, showing 'remarkable maturity' (an often-repeated phrase--see pp. 79, 127, 149) was able to set up solid and effective class organisations, especially the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, which has existed since 1927. It fought against imperial interests in most sectors of the economy, with big business wresting control from imperial capital in sectors such as shipping, automobiles, locomotives, chemicals and banking, in a process of economic concentration which was an instrument of struggle against imperialism ('big', Mukherjee blissfully comments, 'could also be beautiful', p. 44). He describes the mechanisms by which the colonial authorities sought to secure the exploitation of India through monetary and financial manipulations; the creation of a reserve bank to safeguard British interests (the remittances on account of home charges, the servicing of foreign loans, etc.); tariffs and industrial policy (or rather the lack of it); and the responses of Indian capitalists to all these issues. In all of these responses, it is argued, Indian capital was decidedly anti-socialist, but not pro-imperialist, as most of the Indian Left has always claimed. Its particularly 'reformist' strategy for overthrowing imperialism was meant to secure the maintenance of capitalism. In order to achieve this, the Indian bourgeoisie consciously adopted the ideology of an 'industrial national bourgeoisie', relied on nationalist leaders to voice their concerns (and it is remarkable in how much they coincided), and hegemonised the national movement, ensuring that the National Congress remained within the parameters of bourgeois ideological hegemony. They ultimately succeeded because the Left did not understand that in colonial India, capital was an ally in a common struggle, and there was 'up to a point' (which is never specified) 'a genuine unity of interests between the national bourgeoisie and the rest of society as all of them were oppressed by imperialism' (p. 72). The Left, resorting to crude class reductionism, myopically expected the bourgeoisie to betray the national movement and so was easily cast aside in the fight for hegemony over the masses. 'What the Left needed to do', is the tough verdict, 'was to identify and recognize all the socially positive aspects of the Indian bourgeoisie, and then undertake the difficult and real task of demonstrating why, despite these positive aspects, the bourgeois class perspective was inhibiting or preventing social progress along the most desirable lines' (p. 74). A difficult task indeed! There seems to be here a sort of 'cry wolf' trap. There are quite obvious dangers in letting the masses be assured that the oppressors and exploiters are not that bad--that they have 'positive aspects' (in contrast, the Left--here called 'Stalin-Marxist'--with its characteristic disdain for 'democracy', appears to have none: pp. 415, 438). If the identity of interests between the bourgeoisie and the masses jointly forming 'the nation', is indeed real, if it is not an ideological sham (and Mukherjee is somewhat ambiguous regarding this), one could begin to ask some questions. In what moment does that identity of interests cease to exist, and become a hideous oppression that must be fiercely opposed? Perhaps at the moment of political independence, as if dictated by decree; or maybe it continues forever, as long as the nation exists? How can the Left recognise and salute the heroic achievements of the capitalists in their struggle for the common good without risking being discredited for eternity? Is the quarrel between metropolitan and colonial bourgeoisies as socially and historically fundamental as the struggle between exploiters and direct producers? On all of this hinges the question of the 'central contradiction' in colonial societies and its theoretical and empirical status.

We may see the use of labour legislation as a case in point. Mukherjee mentions that the colonial authorities sought to hamper Indian industrialisation by enacting labour legislation, thus inhibiting the comparative advantage of lower labour costs. He notes bitterly that labour protection was 'of course' the last thing that was likely to aid India in its industrialisation; and he concedes, in a footnote, that nationalists since the nineteenth century, like capitalists in the twentieth, had opposed such legislation (pp. 175-6). The Left, ultra- or otherwise, should support protective legislation to better the work conditions of the workers. To avoid denouncing this 'negative' aspect of capitalists/nationalists, at least until the nation has achieved statehood or has attained industrialisation, or has become competitive in the world market, etc., seems a rather self-defeating strategy.

To conclude, Mukherjee has demonstrated that the Indian bourgeoisie's behaviour cannot be described simply as 'pro-imperialist'; but I remain unconvinced that this was so because of an identity of interests of bourgeoisie and other classes, as opposed to simply being due to pure class interest on the part of the bourgeoisie. And the recipe for the Left strikes me as implausible. Empirically, this book remains a rich source of information on very important issues. Analytically, its claims are highly debatable and not very convincing.