Also on the Indian National Congress's "Socialism": A Discussion with Comrade Zhang Shulan
I recently read with great interest Comrade Zhang Shulan’s article, "The 'Socialism' of the Indian National Congress: Review and Prospect" (published in Marxism Studies [1], 2010, no. 8; hereinafter referred to as "the Zhang article"). The Zhang article systematically explores the background, developmental process, and essence of the Indian National Congress’s (INC) "socialism," while offering an outlook on its future. I believe these analyses provide valuable reference for the academic community's further research into the INC's "socialism." However, upon reading, I feel some of the Zhang article's viewpoints are open to discussion, and I have written this article specifically to exchange views with Comrade Zhang Shulan.
I. On the Understanding of the Concept of "Socialism" within the Indian National Congress
I believe we must first clarify what exactly the INC means by the concept of "socialism"; otherwise, it would be impossible to engage in a discussion with Comrade Zhang Shulan.
(1) The "socialism" of the INC sometimes refers to "socialist theory or doctrine." On August 15, 1958, Nehru explicitly pointed out in his article "The Basic Approach" that: "I suppose that some kind of socialism is gradually permeated into the structure of capitalism." In January 1964, the INC's Bhubaneswar Resolution stated: "The Congress ideology may be summed up as democratic socialism based on democracy, dignity of the individual and social justice." Here, both "socialism" and "democratic socialism" refer to "socialist theory or doctrine."
(2) The "socialism" of the INC sometimes refers to the "socialist path." In December 1956, Nehru noted in "Our Socialist Economy": "We are trying to build up a new type of socialism—a middle way between the orthodox practices of the communist and capitalist countries. Through this socialism, we shall lead the people to a new world of prosperity." Here, "socialism" refers to the "socialist path."
(3) The "socialism" of the INC sometimes refers to "socialist methods or policies." In August 1958, Nehru stated in "The Basic Approach": "If socialism is introduced in a backward and underdeveloped country, it does not suddenly make it any less backward." Here, "socialism" refers to a "socialist method," as Nehru continued: "It must be remembered that it is not by some magic adoption of socialist or capitalist methods that poverty suddenly leads to riches." Precisely for this reason, Nehru argued in the same text: "Socialism is basically a different method from that of capitalism."
However, the INC also utilizes the formulation "socialist policy." For instance, a report from the Congress Parliamentary Board on April 13, 1973, stated: "Congress MPs were unanimous that the Party had decided to push ahead vigorously with its established policy of democratic socialism." In fact, the INC also regards "socialist policy" as a "socialist method." For example, the January 1964 Bhubaneswar Resolution referred to "planning" (or "planned-ness") as a "socialist policy," while simultaneously calling "this policy" of planning a "socialist method."
(4) The "socialism" of the INC sometimes refers to a so-called "socialist society (social formation)." After India achieved independence, Nehru remarked on several occasions: "One can say a lot about socialism, but I want to emphasize one thing: the whole structure of capitalism is based on a certain acquisitive society. To some extent, perhaps the acquisitive tendency is inherent in us. But a socialist society must get rid of this acquisitive tendency and replace it with a spirit of cooperation." Looking at the subsequent phrasing, the word "socialism" in the opening phrase "About socialism" refers to a "socialist society." Furthermore, in August 1958, Nehru noted in "The Basic Approach": "If socialism is introduced in a backward and underdeveloped country, it does not suddenly make it any less backward. In fact, we then have a backward and poverty-stricken socialism." Here, the former "socialism" refers to a "socialist method," while the latter "socialism" refers to a so-called "socialist society."
The above indicates that the "socialism" of the INC holds different meanings in different contexts: sometimes referring to "socialist theory or doctrine," sometimes to the "socialist path," sometimes to "socialist policies and methods," and sometimes to a "socialist society," among others. The Zhang article states that after the 1955 Avadi Annual Session, INC documents often used "socialism" as a shorthand for a "socialistic pattern of society." I agree with this assertion. However, I also believe that the INC's "socialism" does not necessarily always refer to a "socialist society" ("socialistic pattern of society").
II. Before the 1980s, "Socialism" was Consistently the INC's Objective and Instrument
The Zhang article argues that "from 1955 to 1967, socialism was the INC's objective," and "from 1967 to 1980, socialism shifted from being an objective to becoming an instrument." I do not entirely agree with these two perspectives.
First, I believe that throughout both periods—1955–1967 and 1967–1980—"socialism" remained the consistent objective of the Indian National Congress.
(1) From 1955 to 1967, "socialism" was the INC's objective. I agree with this view held by the Zhang article. As the Zhang article notes, in January 1955, at Nehru's proposal, the INC's Avadi Session passed a resolution to build a "socialistic pattern of society" in India, establishing it as the goal for the entire Party. The INC as a whole accepted a "socialist program." Additionally, the January 1964 Bhubaneswar Session further clarified the intent to establish a "democratic socialist society" in India. Thus, during 1955–1967, "socialism" (meaning a "socialist society," a "socialistic pattern of society," or a "democratic socialist society") was indeed the INC's objective.
(2) From 1967 to 1980, "socialism" remained the INC's objective. The Zhang article's contention that "socialism shifted from being an objective to becoming an instrument"—meaning it was no longer an objective—is open to question. As the Zhang article itself mentions, Indira Gandhi, who essentially controlled the INC after Nehru's death, pointed out: "I am not a communist... but I believe that with our efforts we can establish a socialistic pattern of society in India." Furthermore, the Constitution of the Indian National Congress, effective since June 25, 1967, clearly stated: "The object of the Indian National Congress is the well-being and advancement of the people of India and the establishment in India, by peaceful and constitutional means, of a Socialist State based on Parliamentary Democracy." In her preface to the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–1974) on July 18, 1970, Indira Gandhi also explicitly wrote: "With the completion of this Plan, we shall move into another period, advancing toward our goal of a prosperous, democratic, modern, and socialist society." The Indian government's memorandum for the same plan also stated: "A truly democratic and socialist society must be established, in which people share both the burdens and the benefits equitably." Finally, in a document titled "Towards an Approach to the Fifth Five-Year Plan" dated May 30–31, 1972, the Indian government still clearly wrote: "The basic premise of our five-year plans has been to move along socialist lines to seek rapid economic development, expand employment, reduce inequalities in income and wealth, prevent the concentration of economic power, and shape the values and attitudes required for a free and just society." Clearly, between 1967 and 1980, "socialism" (meaning "socialist society") remained the objective of the INC.
Here, I would like to analyze the reasons provided in the Zhang article. The Zhang article offers two reasons for its claim that socialism became an instrument rather than an objective during 1967–1980:
The first reason is a quote from Indira Gandhi: "Socialism is not the same in every country. Socialism is not our primary aim; our primary aim is the eradication of the people's poverty. Socialism is only an instrument and a path." The Zhang article uses this to argue its point.
In reality, the fundamental viewpoint in this passage by Indira Gandhi is consistent with Nehru’s earlier views. For example, in August 1958, Nehru stated in "The Basic Approach" that the INC "must think for themselves" and "find a path suitable for our own conditions"; that "democracy and socialism" are "not ends in themselves"; that "our final aim" is "social well-being" or a "welfare state"; and that "democracy and socialism are means to an end." It is evident that Indira Gandhi’s "socialist thought" during 1967–1980 was essentially the same as Nehru’s earlier thought. Since the Zhang article acknowledges that socialism was the INC's objective from 1955 to 1967, it should also acknowledge it remained so from 1967 to 1980, rather than claiming it shifted toward being merely an instrument.
Furthermore, the "socialism" in Indira Gandhi’s passage can be understood as "socialist policies and methods." In other words, in her view, "socialist policies and methods" differ by country and are not the primary aim; rather, the primary aim is the eradication of poverty. The INC uses "socialist policies and methods" to eradicate poverty and achieve the aim of "social well-being" or a "welfare state." Clearly, "socialism" in this specific context did not mean "socialist society." However, because the Zhang article interpreted it as "socialist society," it arrived at the conclusion that socialism had become a mere instrument. This interpretation does not align with Indira Gandhi's original intent.
Thus, this quote cannot be used to prove that socialism shifted from an objective to an instrument during 1967–1980.
The Zhang article’s second reason is: "The Indian government wrote in the Fifth Plan [2] that 'establishing a fully democratic socialist society' was the 'only means' to realize 'these goals,' which included 'consolidating the democratic political order, preventing the concentration of economic power, reducing inequalities in income and wealth, realizing balanced regional development, and shaping the institutions, values, and attitudes required for a free and just society.'" However, the Zhang article does not cite the source for this data. To clarify this, I examined the full text of India’s "Fifth Five-Year Plan" (1974–1979), including its preface and body, and found no such statement. On the contrary, I found data suggesting that socialism remained an objective. For instance, after Mrs. Gandhi’s landslide election victory in March 1971, she reorganized the Planning Commission and set a "new direction" for economic policy, giving highest priority to the political task of implementing "plans to accelerate the advent of socialism." Under the "Prime Minister’s directives," the Indian government issued "Towards an Approach to the Fifth Five-Year Plan" in May 1972, reiterating that the "basic premise of our country's Fifth Five-Year Plan" is to "advance along socialist lines to seek rapid economic development, expand employment, narrow the vast disparities in income and wealth, prevent the concentration of economic power, and create the values of a free and equal society."
In short, I believe both of the aforementioned reasons in the Zhang article appear untenable.
The above indicates that from 1967 to 1980, "socialism" remained the objective pursued by the Indian National Congress. Here, "socialism" refers to the so-called "socialist society" (that is, a "socialist-pattern of society" or a "democratic socialist society"). As Atul Kohli, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, wrote in July 1980: "India’s political leaders have repeatedly declared that they intend to move India in the direction of a socialist pattern of development."
Second, I believe that whether from 1955 to 1967 or from 1967 to 1980, "socialism" was always an instrument for the Congress Party.
(1) Between 1955 and 1967, "socialism" served as a tool for the Congress Party. As early as 1936, Nehru clearly pointed out: "In India, and with the position India occupies today, I certainly favor nationalism. ... Socialism will eventually have to advance nationalism as its political garb. This is the common ground between socialism and nationalism; both agree on political independence." [3] It is evident that at this time, Nehru already regarded "socialism" as an instrument for the Congress Party (though here only as a tool to achieve nationalism).
In January 1964, the Congress Party’s Bhubaneswar Resolution stated: The task of the Congress Party is "to establish a socialist society," but this society has many specific objectives, and "the primary objective is to eliminate poverty and all the evils that poverty brings." The "method" adopted was the "socialist method," specifically the "socialist policy" of "planning" (or "planned-ization"). Here, the "socialist policies and methods" of "planning" became the instruments for the Congress Party to establish a "socialist society" and "eliminate poverty."
Furthermore, the famous Indian economists Ruddar Datt and K.P.M. Sundharam, in evaluating the "democratic socialist society" that Nehru strove to build, also clearly pointed out: "In a society based on the principles of democratic socialism, socialism and democracy are the means to create such a society, in which everyone enjoys equal opportunities for education and work, and the exploitation of one class by another is abolished." Clearly, they also believe that "socialism" (referring here to "socialist policies and methods") was the tool and means for the Congress Party to establish a "socialist society."
(2) Between 1967 and 1980, "socialism" remained an instrument of the Congress Party. Zhang's article maintains this view, and I concur. As Zhang's article notes, Indira Gandhi pointed out: "Socialism is not the same in every country. Socialism is not our primary aim; our primary aim is the elimination of the people's poverty. Socialism is merely a tool and a path." Here, "socialism" refers to "socialist policies and methods."
In summary, before the 1980s, "socialism" was consistently the objective pursued by the Indian National Congress (where "socialism" refers to a "socialist society"); "socialism" was also consistently an instrument of the Congress Party (where "socialism" refers to "socialist policies and methods," such as "planned-ization"). It is precisely for this reason that in India, there is the expression "the 'socialist' policies and aims of the Congress Party." For example, in 1964, the Indian Communist Mohan Kumaramangalam used the phrase "the 'socialist' policies and aims of the Congress Party" in his article A Review of Party Policy Since 1947.
III. On the Essence of the Indian National Congress's "Socialism"
Regarding the essence of the Indian National Congress's "socialism," Mr. Zhu Mingzhong published an article titled "On Nehru’s Socialist Thought" in Contemporary Asia-Pacific (Issue 8, 1998), stating: "In 1955, Nehru proposed the theory of building a 'socialist-pattern of society' in India, and in 1964, he further proposed the theory of establishing 'democratic socialism.' These two theories are essentially the same. They are neither orthodox Marxist socialism nor pure Western-style capitalism, but rather a synthesis of socialism and capitalism—in his words, a 'Middle Way'." Zhang's article quotes this passage from Mr. Zhu and regards it as the "consensus of the Chinese academic community." In fact, Mr. Zhu's evaluation represents only one perspective within Chinese academia. Following the publication of Mr. Zhu's article, I published "Another Critique of Nehru’s Socialist Thought—A Discussion with Mr. Zhu Mingzhong" in Contemporary Asia-Pacific (Issue 12, 1998), arguing that "substantively speaking, Nehru’s socialist thought did not transcend the framework of capitalism," even though Nehru subjectively believed his "socialism" was a "Middle Way." "Nehru’s brand of socialism was by no means a 'Middle Way,' but rather state monopoly capitalism; its fundamental nature remained capitalist and did not change the essence of capitalist relations of production." [4] In reality, the mainstream view in Chinese academia is that Nehru’s "socialism" was capitalist in nature—variously described as "bourgeois nationalism," [5] "reformist capitalism," [6] "covert capitalism under a socialist banner," [7] or "state capitalism." [8]
The "Abstract" of Zhang's article explicitly states: The Indian "socialist-pattern of society" represented by the Congress Party "essentially follows a 'Middle Way' that synthesizes capitalist 'democracy' and socialist 'fairness'." However, in the main text, after quoting Mr. Zhu’s aforementioned evaluation, Zhang offers the following view: "India has been a capitalist country since the day of its independence. Before the 1980s, India was essentially a national capitalist country, albeit a national capitalist country with a strong socialist inclination." Clearly, two different viewpoints regarding the essence of Congress "socialism" appear simultaneously in Zhang's article. If we take the viewpoint in the main text—namely, "national capitalism with a strong socialist inclination"—as the definitive one, then I believe Zhang's view is fundamentally acceptable. The only flaw is that the modifier "with a strong socialist inclination" seems somewhat inappropriate.
I feel the following evaluation is perhaps more suitable for assessing the essence of Congress "socialism": in essence, the "socialism" of the Congress Party is non-scientific socialism; [9] specifically, the Congress "socialism" prior to the 1980s was a form of national capitalism that politically accepted the Western parliamentary democratic system and economically adopted certain policies resembling socialism, while integrating them with India's specific conditions. Let us briefly analyze this below.
(1) Political acceptance of the Western parliamentary democratic system. Nehru believed that Western capitalist countries were democratic in political terms. Therefore, in the political sphere, he accepted the Western capitalist system, being especially deeply influenced by the British parliamentary democratic system. Precisely because of this, his "socialism" advocated for a political system of British-style parliamentary democracy. In practice, after India's independence, Nehru as Prime Minister persisted in combining Western parliamentary democracy with Indian nationalism. The Constitution of the Republic of India, which came into effect in January 1950, stipulates that India is a sovereign, "socialist," and secular democratic republic; it adopts a British-style parliamentary democratic system, implements periodic elections based on universal adult suffrage, and establishes a political system of separation of powers with checks and balances.
(2) Economic adoption of certain policies resembling socialism. Nehru believed that socialist countries were egalitarian in economic terms. Therefore, in the economic sphere, he adopted policies resembling socialism, being especially deeply influenced by Soviet economic policies and instruments. Before India’s independence, Nehru remarked: "I have long been drawn to socialism and communism, and the Soviet Union interests me greatly. However, there are many things about the Soviet Union I do not like—for instance, the brutal suppression of all opposing views, the insistence on uniformity in everything, and the use of unnecessary violence in the implementation of policy." Therefore, his "socialism" advocated the adoption of policies resembling socialism in the economic sphere. In practice, starting from the early 1950s, various activities to build "socialism" were carried out across India’s urban and rural areas. This included implementing a planned economy ("planned-ization") in industry to manage the economy, establishing a massive "public sector" economy (pursuing nationalization policies), conducting "land reform" in the countryside, and building various types of cooperatives. It also promoted "social justice," "social equality," and the "elimination of poverty."
(3) Integration with India’s specific conditions. Nehru believed that after independence, it would be harmful to India’s "socialist" construction to completely transplant the viewpoints and methods of Western capitalist countries or socialist countries. He argued that India’s "socialism" must not only combine the essence of Marxist socialism with Western capitalist democracy but must also be practical and pragmatic, suited to India’s conditions. In practice, Nehru’s "socialism" combined the socialist public ownership of the means of production with capitalist private ownership, implementing a mixed economic system adapted to India’s own circumstances. In this system, the public and private sectors coexist, with diverse economic components each playing to their strengths within market competition, while ensuring the dominant position of the public sector in the national economy. Additionally, it followed non-violence—that is, carrying out transformations through peaceful and cooperative means, such as the moderate buyout of certain domestic and foreign enterprises to incorporate them into the public sector, and so forth.
In conclusion, I believe that the essence of the Indian National Congress’s "socialism" before the 1980s was a form of national capitalism that politically accepted Western parliamentary democracy and economically adopted certain policies resembling socialism, while integrating them with India's specific conditions. This view seems more appropriate than the "national capitalism with a strong socialist inclination" mentioned in Zhang’s article.
The above represents merely my humble opinion, and its deficiencies are many. I look forward to the corrections and guidance of Comrade Zhang Shulan and my colleagues in the academic community!