The formation and development of the Indian working class is the inevitable result of the emergence and development of modern Indian capitalist industry.
However, Indian capitalism developed under the influence of British colonialism, and after India gained independence, its capitalist development entered a new historical stage.
Therefore, the formation and development of Indian working class has many unique characteristics.
In the mid-19th century, British capital began to enter India in large quantities.
In order to open up the commodity dumping market and search for cheap raw materials, British colonialism built railways and docks in India, mined coal, manganese, mica and other minerals, and established jute, cotton, flour and other raw material processing plants.
In addition, a number of tea and coffee plantations were opened in Assam, West Bengal and other places.
In the middle and late 19th century, Britain developed greatly in these departments and enterprises.
For example, before 1853, only 32 kilometers of railways were built in Britain, which reached 8000 kilometers in 1869.
In 1854, the British Auckland built the first jute factory in Calcutta.
By 1879, there were 20 jute factories (mainly established by British capital) and employed more than 20000 workers.
The invasion of British capital created favorable conditions for the development of modern national industry in India.
After the mid-19th century, Indian national capitalism began to emerge.
Indian capital is mainly cotton textile industry.
The first Indian cotton mill was founded in 1851.
Since then, Indian capital industry has been developing continuously.
In 1879, there were 89 cotton mills, most of which were funded by India.
These factories had 43000 workers.
It can be seen that modern industrial workers in India were born in the middle and late 19th century, mainly in industries such as railway, mining, textile, shipping and plantation.
Some of them were enslaved by British funded industries and some were exploited by Indian funded industries.
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the working class of India expanded day by day with the intensification of British capital export and the development of Indian capitalism.
According to the labor investigation committee, in 1892, India had 956 large factories and employed 316816 workers.
If railway and mine workers are added, the number of industrial workers can reach 800000 (excluding plantation workers).
When the first Pacific War broke out in 1914, India had 3936 factories, employing an average of 950000 workers a day.
With railway, mining and plantation workers, there were 2.
5 million industrial workers.
If handicraft workers are added, the Indian working class is estimated to have nearly 10 million people.
During the first and second world wars, Indian capitalism, especially India’s domestic capital, developed significantly, and the ranks of India’s modern industrial working class expanded accordingly.
They not only worked in the original industries, but also expanded to sugar, cement, steel and other industries.
According to the statistics of India today written by dude, there were about 4.
5 million industrial workers in 1931, including 2.
03 million factory workers, 700000 railway workers, 410000 miners, 360000 water transportation workers and more than 1 million plantation workers.
When India became independent, there were 6 million industrial workers, including 3 million factory workers, 1.
3 million transportation workers, 500000 miners and 1.
2 million plantation workers.
If handicraft workers are added, the ranks of the working class in India can reach as many as 20 million.
After independence, India’s economy, especially heavy industry, has achieved obvious development, and the Indian working class has undergone new changes and development.
According to statistics, in 1961, there were 7.
02 million industrial workers, including 4 million factory workers, 1.
15 million railway workers, 670000 miners and 1.
2 million plantation workers.
In 1971, the total number of industrial workers was 9 million, including 5 million factory workers, 2.
31 million transportation workers, 630000 miners and 1.
09 million plantation workers.
In 1981, the total number of industrial workers was estimated to be 11.
8 million, including 7.
27 million factory workers, 2.
7 million transportation workers, 810000 miners and 1.
1 million plantation workers.
It can be seen that the growth rate of industrial workers in India is accelerating day by day.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the total number of industrial workers in India has more than doubled that before independence.
In addition to industrial workers, the working class in India also has a large number of non industrial workers, including central and local government employees, shop assistants, home handicraft workers, etc.
as of 1984, there were 24.
25 million employees in India’s organized departments (enterprises with more than 10 employees).
If we add the domestic handicraft workers and other workers in non organized sector enterprises, it can reach 40 million.
If the agricultural proletariat is added, the Indian proletariat is estimated to reach about 100 million.
The characteristics of the formation and development of the Indian working class are as follows: (1) although the formation of the Indian working class was earlier than that of China and the number of class ranks was larger than that of the Chinese working class before liberation (the number of industrial working class in China was 2.
5 million in 1939), its development speed was slow compared with the western capitalist countries, The number of workers has always accounted for a small proportion of the national population.
From 1911 to 1921, 5 India’s population increased by 1.
2 million per year, while India’s industrial employed population increased by only 40000 per year, and the increase of workers’ employed population accounted for 3.
3% of the population growth.
From 1921 to 1939, the population grew by 3.
3 million per year, while the industrial employed population increased by an average of 25000 per year, accounting for only 0.
8% of the population growth.
From 1939 to 1945, that is, during the Second World War, the growth of the employed population of Indian workers accounted for 4.
5% of the national population growth of India.
However, even this speed can not be compared with capitalist countries.
Over the same period, the employment growth of Australian workers accounted for 30% of the population growth.
India’s industrial population has always accounted for a small proportion of the national population.
According to the official population survey of India in 1911, 72% of the population is engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry, 11% in industry and 1.
6% in transportation.
Despite the rapid growth of the Indian working class after independence, there is no fundamental change in the proportion of the national population compared with that before independence.
According to statistics, in 1971, the agricultural population accounted for 72% of the national population, while the secondary and tertiary industries accounted for 27.
8% of the national population, of which the industrial population accounted for 11% of the national population, the transportation industry accounted for 2.
4% of the total population, and the two accounted for 134% in total.
On the contrary, in western capitalist countries, with the development of industrial economy, the agricultural population decreases rapidly, while the industrial population rises sharply.
For example, in 1910, the agricultural population in the United States accounted for 32% of the national labor force, and the industrial and other population accounted for 68%.
In 1930, the agricultural population decreased to 11.
6%, while the industrial and other population grew to88.4%. In 1965, the agricultural population decreased to 5.
2%, and the industrial and other population increased to 94.8%. In Japan, in 51930, the proportion of agriculture in the national labor force was 36.
2%, and the proportion of industrial and other industries was 63.8%. In 1950, the agricultural population decreased to 32.
6%, and the population in industrial and other industries increased to 67.4%. In 1960, the agricultural population was 18.
9%, and the industrial and other industries increased to 81.1%. (II) industrial workers in India are highly concentrated.
They are concentrated in several large cities and industrial zones along the coast, as well as in several major industries and a few large enterprises.
For example, Mumbai on the west coast of India is the country’s largest cotton textile center and one of the earliest areas operated by British colonists.
In 1911, there were 979000 people in the city, of which 300000 were workers, accounting for 34% of the National worker population, and 200000 industrial workers in modern times.
In 1915, there were 86 cotton textile mills in the city, accounting for about one third of the total number of all India cotton textile mills.
Spindles and looms accounted for more than half of the total number of all India textile mills, employing 112000 workers, accounting for more than 25 of the total number of all India Textile workers.
After independence, it was still a city with a high concentration of industrial workers.
According to statistics, more than 70% of Maharashtra’s industrial labor force is concentrated in Mumbai Tana region.
There are 3500 factories in Mumbai, with more than one million workers.
Calcutta on the east coast of India is the center of jute and machinery industry, with one fifth of the industrial population of the city.
Jamshedep and Jiliya in Bihar and Jaipur in West Bengal are metallurgical and coal mining industrial centers, with 330000 miners, accounting for half of the total number of miners in the country.
The high concentration of workers in large enterprises was evident before independence.
According to statistics, in 193, of the 533 “giant” factories in India (more than 1000 people), 331 were operated by private capital in India, accounting for 64% of the total number of factories, and the number of employees was 89000, accounting for 57.
7% of the total number of factory employees.
The 146 controlled by the UK, accounting for 27.
4%, employ 443000 workers, accounting for 31.6%. After independence, workers are still concentrated in large factories and enterprises.
According to statistics, in 1961, there were 30048 factories, of which 3800 factories belonged to the category of employing less than 10 workers, accounting for 12.
6% of the total number of factories, but only 26465 workers were employed, accounting for only 0.
8% of the total number of employed workers.
Among them, 621 large factories employ more than 1000 workers, accounting for only 2% of the total number of factories, but they employ a total of 1.
571 million people, or 48.
6% of the total number of 3.
232 million workers.
(III) the Indian working class includes both industrial workers and a large number of workers employed in backward family handicraft factories.
This is caused by the slow development of Indian capitalism and the invasion of colonialism.
When India just entered the period of handicraft workshop, India began to build large factories.
The latter was not established on the basis of the development of the former.
India’s domestic capitalism coexists in both large-scale production and small-scale production and develops at different speeds.
The number of handicraft workers in India far exceeds that of industrial workers.
According to the 1891 population survey, there are nearly 45 million handicraft workers and their families.
If calculated by four people in each household, there are 11 million handicraft workers.
In addition, according to the national conditions census in 1931, the total number of people in various industries and handicrafts in 1921 was 15.
68 million industrial workers, the number of handicrafts workers was 13.
After independence, Indian handicraft workers generally maintained and slightly higher than this figure.
According to the monthly review of India’s economic situation in 1981, the number of workers employed in small and rural industries from 1973 to 1974 was 17.
63 million, including 10.
22 million workers in traditional handicrafts and 7.
41 million workers in modern small industries (using modern machines).
From 1979 to 1980, a total of 23.
34 million people were employed, including 13.
284 million traditional handicraft workers and 10.
6 million modern small industrial workers.
These traditional handicrafts are distributed in various cities and towns and vast rural areas across the country, engaged in a wide variety of industries.
According to the industrial policy statement of the Indian government in 1977, there are 504 kinds of products in rural industry and small industry, and later expanded to 807 kinds of products.
There are ten to twenty-four manual workers in these factories.
In 1979, there were 1.
2 million such small enterprises.
This huge team of handicraft workers is an important part of the working class in India.
Its characteristics and functions deserve attention and research.
(4) most of the working class in India comes from unemployed agricultural workers and poor farmers.
They have natural ties and common destiny with the majority of farmers, especially agricultural workers.
After the British colonial invasion, due to the destruction of the traditional village land system, many broken farmers lost their land and became agricultural workers.
According to statistics, from the 1970s to 1980s, the number of agricultural employees increased sharply, from 7.
5 million in 1881.
It increased to 20 million in 1933, and the proportion of agricultural workers in the total labor force was 16.
9% in 1901.
In 1921, some of these employees continued to be exploited by feudal landlords in rural areas, and some flowed into urban factories and mines, becoming the main source of the Indian working class.
According to the survey of 1030 miners’ families in Bihar, more than 59% of the miners belong to landless agricultural workers, 24% of the miners belong to farmers with a small amount of land, and 6% come from farmers who owe land rent and are exploited by usury.
They come to be miners because they can’t make a living at home.
The three items account for 89% of miners.
Although these workers from agricultural employees and poor farmers live in cities, most of them still maintain close ties with their rural families, relatives and friends.
A considerable number of their families are in rural areas.
According to statistics, among the 300000 workers in Mumbai in 1906, 70-80% of their families were in agriculture.
In addition, according to the survey, 70% of the coal miners in Bihar chalanmuhe coal mine are both miners and farmers.
They work on their farmland from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and go to the mine at noon and afternoon.
The vast majority of jalya miners go from the countryside to the coal mine in their spare time, and then to the countryside in their busy time.
Of course, factory workers generally live in cities, but they also maintain close ties with rural areas.
They were oppressed and exploited by urban colonialism and the bourgeoisie, and enslaved and exploited by rural landlords and usury.
This characteristic of the Indian working class has been maintained until after independence and even today.
Independent printingThe semi colonies (such as China) seized by India, whose rule is extremely strict, coupled with the cunning and cruel characteristics of British colonialism, make it difficult for the Indian workers’ movement and communist movement to exist and develop greatly.
Whenever the Communist movement and the workers’ movement were on the rise, the British colonial government immediately killed them.
As early as 1920, the British authorities regarded preventing India from being affected by the Bolsheviks as a “”.
Since then, the Indian Communist movement and trade unions have been in an illegal and semi illegal state for a long time.
Whenever Indian trade unions and the Communist movement developed or were ready to take action, the colonial authorities immediately created the so-called “communist conspiracy case”.
Such as the Peshawar trial in 1923, the COMPUR trial in 1924, the mirat trial in 1929, and similar cases in 1942.
The colonial authorities used these cases to arrest workers’ leaders and communists.
The events of 1929 highlighted this.
As mentioned earlier, the establishment of the Indian workers’ movement and the workers’ and peasants’ Party from 1926 to 1928, especially the spread of Marxism Leninism in the workers’ movement and the expansion of Communist forces, caused great panic among the British colonial authorities.
According to the annual report of the government of India from 1928 to 1929, “the propaganda and influence of communism, especially the growth of the industrial class in some big cities, has aroused the anxiety of the authorities”.
Therefore, in March 1929, the British colonial government created the famous “mirat trial”, and 31 major trade union leaders were quickly arrested.
Among them are the vice president of the trade union assembly, the former president and two deputy secretaries of the trade union, the trade union secretaries of Mumbai and Bangladesh, all the staff of the red flag trade union, and the Secretary of the workers’ and peasants’ Party of Bangladesh, Mumbai and union Province, who are accused of plotting to overthrow the rule of the British king over India.
The trial lasted three and a half years.
Some of them were sentenced to exile and some were sentenced to three to 12 years’ imprisonment.
Under the pressure of domestic and international public opinion, the original sentence has been reduced.
Due to this severe blow to the Indian workers’ movement, the movement has fallen into a state of paralysis and disintegration, and the leadership role is naturally impossible to play.
(2) there is a strong bourgeois competitor politically, ideologically and organizationally.
Before the Indian working class began to change from a liberal class to a self-made class, the Indian bourgeoisie had its own political party, the National Congress party.
The party was established decades earlier than the Communist Party of India, set up the banner of national independence, fought against British colonialism for a long time and gained rich experience.
It has high prestige political and spiritual leaders and Nehru.
Therefore, it has an absolute advantage in the struggle against the Indian working class for the leadership of the national liberation movement.
Not only that, the Indian working class itself, from political thought to organization, has been fully controlled and controlled by the bourgeoisie and its political parties for quite a long time.
The Indian working class is attached to the Indian bourgeoisie and is deeply influenced by it.
As early as 1884, some bourgeois organizations, such as n. M. rocant, founded friends of the poor, and worked among Mumbai workers to establish enlightenment groups to educate and organize workers to fight for labor legislation to improve working and living conditions.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the radical faction of Congress Party represented by B. K. tirak carried out anti British propaganda among the workers, spread the experience of Russia’s struggle in 1905, organized workers’ strikes, and launched a political strike of 100000 people in Mumbai in 1908.
Gandhi organized trade unions in Ahmedabad in 1913.
In 1920, the Congress Party passed a resolution saying that local committees should “sponsor national trade union organizations” and guide the workers’ movement.
The resolution requires most members of the Congress party to participate in the All India Congress of technology, saying that the Congress party “has developed into a national organization of workers”, “the organized workers play an important role in the National Movement”, and the establishment of the All India Congress of technology is “the result of the best efforts of the members of the Congress party”.
At the Congress Party’s Jiaya annual meeting in 1922, Congress party leader Darth further stressed that the Congress party should pay attention to the problem of workers.
Das said, “if the Congress party is unable to fulfill its obligations, there will be independent workers’ and peasants’ organizations separated from the Congress Party and the struggle for autonomy in China.”. In 1925, the Congress Party introduced the provisions on organizing industrial and agricultural workers into its “constructive program” at the annual meeting of comple.
In 1927, the Executive Committee of the National Congress party decided to assign special personnel to carry out publicity and organizational work among industrial and agricultural workers, and drafted the articles of Association for leading industrial and agricultural organizations.
It can be seen that the Congress Party has increasingly placed the issue of workers in a prominent position in its political activities.
Under the guidance of the Congress party, various representatives of the Indian bourgeoisie have stepped in to guide the workers’ movement and organize trade unions.
They are called “outsiders”.
Among them are bourgeois humanists and philanthropists, gandhians, and by the mid-1920s, British reformers and leaders of the British Labour Party had intervened in the Indian workers’ movement.
They wantonly spread the theory of class harmony, non violence and other bourgeois theories in an attempt to bring the struggle between trade unions and the working class into the track of Congress Party nationalism.
Their leadership and involvement in the workers’ movement will certainly help to improve the political consciousness of the working class and attract the broad masses of workers to participate in the national liberation movement.
On the other hand, they blur the working class consciousness and seriously hinder the improvement of the working class consciousness and the exertion of its vanguard role, but can only serve the narrow class interests of the bourgeoisie.
Although the Indian working class does not have the working aristocracy in western capitalist countries and the socio-economic premise for forming this class, due to the long-term and deep influence of this external reformist trend of thought, it is difficult to eliminate the reformist trend of thought in the Indian working class.
In addition, it is characterized by the caste system of Indian society and the connection between the Indian working class and the majority of farmers, It makes this idea deep-rooted.
This idea still seems to exist today.
As dude said, “this kind of disaster has followed the Indian workers’ movement for a long time, seriously hindering the great fighting and heroism of the workers, and its influence is still left.”. After independence, the ruling Indian bourgeoisie and its political parties continued to implement the policy of utilization and differentiation against the Indian working class, and used the power of political power to control and even suppress it.
In terms of labor policy, the Indian governmentCall on workers to support national construction, advocate “increasing fair distribution of production”, put forward slogans such as “industrial peace” and “labor capital cooperation”, try out the so-called “workers participate in management”, and adopt legal procedures such as consultation, mediation and arbitration courts to restrict workers’ strike struggle.
Within the trade union, we should divide trade union organizations in various industries and regions, vigorously support and strengthen the National University of technology, claim to recognize only one trade union of the National University of technology, and “strengthen the close cooperation among the National University of technology, the National Congress Party and the government”.
Of the nearly six million trade union members, the National University of technology, which is controlled and influenced by the Congress party, has two million, accounting for one third of its members.
The foreign major party also set up a “labor group” (sometimes called “Labor Committee”, which was established in 1947 and still exists today).
Its members include not only the head of the National University of industry and technology, but also the government minister of labor.
The group is directly led by the working committee of the Congress party.
In fact, it is the decision-making body of the Central Committee of the Indian Congress party to control the national workers’ movement.
Whenever a major strike threatens bourgeois rule, the army and police are dispatched to brutally suppress it.
For example, shortly after independence, the All India University of technology and the Communist Party are declared illegal, the “public security law” is implemented, and a large number of trade union cadres are arrested and shot.
It is reported that 25000 people were arrested and imprisoned in 1950.
In May 1974, during the general strike of Indian railway workers, the government arrested and detained more than 50000 workers and trade union cadres participating in the strike.
More than 100000 workers were suspended, dismissed or dismissed after returning to work.
During the national strike in 1982, 20 people were killed and more than 300 injured.
50000 trade union members and activists were arrested and imprisoned, and a large number of workers were suspended from work and wages.
All these circumstances have objectively hindered the working class from playing its role.
(III) some mistakes made by the working class political parties themselves in guiding the struggle.
Since its birth in the 1920s, the Communist Party of India has led the working class in an arduous struggle, made important contributions to the cause of national liberation in India and made great achievements.
After the emergence of the Communist Party of India, its strength was weak.
By 1935, the Communist Party of India had only a few hundred party members.
The Communist Party of India is not only weak in organization, but also makes mistakes in political and strategic lines.
The early guiding ideology of the Communist Party of India was basically M. n. Roy’s theory of “decolonization”.
This theory holds that imperialism “had to make concessions to the colonies under the pressure of the situation”, allowed the colonies to implement “industrialization” economically, and transferred political power to the colonial national bourgeoisie politically.
“In the face of this situation, the nationalist struggle based on the contradiction of capitalism has lost its importance”.
Therefore, the Indian revolution is no longer an anti imperialist and anti feudal democratic revolution, but a socialist revolution.
This revolution “can win only by breaking through the barriers of capitalism”.
Under the guidance of this theory, the Indian Communists failed to make full use of the good situation of the anti British movement in India in the early 1920s, actively participated in and led the movement, but opposed the bourgeois democratic movement as “non revolutionary” or even “reactionary”.
Therefore, the early workers’ movement and communist movement in India were largely separated from or isolated from the Indian national liberation movement, and the development of the workers’ and peasants’ movement itself had to be limited.
After 1935, driven by the Comintern, the Communist Party of India corrected the past left leaning line and implemented the United Front Policy in cooperation with the Congress party.
After the outbreak of the anti fascist war, the Communist Party of India responded to the call of the Comintern, actively worked for the international anti fascist united front and made many achievements.
In 1942, the Communist Party of India changed from illegal to legal.
The Communist Party of India used this period to vigorously develop industrial and agricultural organizations, and the Communist Party of India itself also developed unprecedentedly.
However, during this period, the Communist Party of India abandoned the banner of the anti British struggle to a certain extent, maintained an anti fascist united front with the British and put forward the one-sided slogan of “everything for the front line”.
Due to this strategic policy, the Communist Party of India failed to obtain the revolutionary leadership of the anti British national movement.
On the contrary, the Indian bourgeoisie took advantage of this heaven given opportunity, Served as the “national hero” and leader of the Indian national independence movement.
(4) the working class in India is divided.
It has been nearly 70 years since the Indian working class established the unified all India University of technology in 1920.
Over the past half century, Indian trade union organizations have experienced many splits and regroupings, including three major splits.
The first was in 1930-31.
In 1930, the old reformists headed by N. M. Josh rejected the resolution of the majority and withdrew from the All India University of technology to form the All India trade union federation.
In 1931, another faction led by the Communist Party of India formed another red trade union Fire Club.
(in 1935, the red trade union was merged into the All India Institute of technology.
in 1938, the Federation of Indian trade unions was merged with the All India Institute of Technology).
The second division occurred from 1947 to 1948.
In May 1947, on the eve of India’s independence, the working committee of the Congress Party established the Indian National Congress of trade unions (hereinafter referred to as the National Congress of trade unions) at the annual meeting of the All India Congress of trade unions in order to make the All India Congress of trade unions conform to the policies of the Congress Party and seize the leadership of trade unions lost in 1942.
Nehru, Bartel and other leaders of the Congress party attended the meeting.
Since then, the national workers’ Congress has become a royal worker of the National Congress Party regime.
Following the division of the All India workers’ Congress, the socialist party held a labor representative conference in Calcutta in December 1948 and announced the formal establishment of the Indian Labor Association (hereinafter referred to as the Labor Association).
Subsequently, in April 1949, the left-wing small parties and Reformists led by M. K. baus formed the “unified trade union congress” (hereinafter referred to as the unified University of Technology).
So far, India has seen the coexistence of four major trade union organizations – All India University of technology, National University of technology, labor association and unified University of technology.
The third split occurred in 1970.
Under the leadership of the Communist Party of India (Malaysia), a part of the Communists and workers in the All India University of technology withdrew from the organization controlled by Tangi and established the Indian trade union center in May 1970.
By the mid-1980s, there were ten national trade unions in India: (1) the National University of technology, which was influenced by the ruling Congress Party.
(2) All India Institute of technology, influenced by the Rao faction of the Communist Party of India.
(3) Indian trade union center, influenced by the Communist Party of India (Malaysia).
(4) The Indian Labour Association, influenced by the people’s party and the Socialist Party.
(5) The United University of technology was influenced by small left-wing factions such as the Progressive Alliance and the revolutionary socialist party.
(6) The national labor organization, established in 1972, belongs to the organization of the National Congress Party.
(7) Indian trade unionsThis export has achieved their goal of promoting industrial products and plundering raw materials in India on a larger scale.
From the mid-19th to the mid-1980s, the industrial products dumped to India and the raw materials plundered from India have tripled respectively.
This kind of exploitation has stimulated the development of commercial activities in India.
India’s commercial capital has expanded again and the commodity currency relationship has been revitalized.
Finally, the British rulers also gradually completed the consolidation of the land system in India, established and consolidated the private right of land in law, and allowed the free sale and mortgage of land.
Farmers who lost their land because of poverty became free workers, providing free and cheap labor for capitalist production.
With the above subjective and objective conditions, some comprador businessmen in India, following the example of western entrepreneurs, successively set up modern factories, operated production in a capitalist way, and became India’s emerging industrial bourgeoisie.
The first one to open a cotton mill was cowasji nainabai dawar, a PASI businessman from Yumai.
He came from a big merchant family and worked as a broker in a British firm.
He first engaged in cotton trading and then purchased British machines.
He hired engineers from Lancashire, England.
He founded the first Indian cotton mill in 1851 and the second in 1857.
In 1860, seven more cotton textile mills appeared in Mumbai.
One of the largest is the Oriental weaving factory.
The factory is operated by a joint-stock company.
The manager and the largest shareholder of the company are also brokers of three British textile exporters.
The managing director of the company is composed of Mumbai’s largest business giant and two British capitalists.
The members of the board of directors are compradors who have close ties with British firms.
The factory has 550000 spindles and 1000 looms.
The machinery and equipment are from England.
The owners of the other six cotton textile mills are Mumbai’s largest manufacturer, the only Indian director of the Mumbai regional bank (setting up two factories), the descendants of Mumbai’s largest shipbuilder at the end of the 18th century and the brokers of three British firms.
In the next four or five decades, Indian businessmen and British capitalists continued to set up cotton textile mills in Mumbai.
The proportion of Indian capital was strong.
By 1915, there were 40 cotton textile firms in Mumbai, 32 controlled by Indians and 8 controlled by Britons.
There are 83 cotton textile mills, 54 controlled by Indians and 29 controlled by Britons.
The paid in capital of Mumbai’s textile industry is 76598000 rupees, accounting for about one third of the total investment in India’s textile industry.
There are 2991400 spindles, accounting for about half of the total number of spindles in India.
There are 51900 looms, accounting for more than half of the total number of looms in India.
It employs 112000 workers, accounting for more than two fifths of the total number of textile workers in India.
The modern factories set up by Mumbai comprador businessmen, who were the first industrial capitalists in India, were concentrated in the textile industry.
Some of them had tried to develop heavy industry, but all failed under the suppression of the British colonial government, with the exception of the Tata family.
They established several textile factories from the late 1960s to the beginning of this century, Since then, it has withstood the pressure of the British colonial government and overcome many difficulties.
In the first ten years of this century, it has successively established heavy industrial enterprises such as steel, cement and electric power.
After Mumbai, Gujarat was followed.
Gujarat’s local industrial capitalists were transformed from coin dealers.
They had close relations with the British colonial authorities or local princes, and some were themselves colonial organs or local officials.
Around the 20th century, Gujarat merchants had established dozens of textile mills in Ahmedabad.
In 1914, there were 700000 spindles and 20000 looms.
The output of cotton yarn and cotton cloth accounts for 10% and 20% of the total output of woven fabrics in India respectively, becoming the cotton textile industrial center second only to Yumai.
The above is the process of the emergence of the Indian bourgeoisie under colonial conditions, from which we can know: because the capitalism in colonial India is no longer the result of the normal development of feudal society, but the product of the “transplantation” of western capitalism, the new Indian bourgeoisie is deformed, mainly as follows: 1 They were mainly compradors attached to British capital, some of whom had also served in the colonial authorities. 2. Many of these comprador merchants were closely related to the feudal princes and were subsidized by the feudal princes in the process of setting up factories.
Some of them were officials of the feudal princes. 3. The modern industry they set up can only be carried out within the scope allowed by the colonial authorities, focusing on the textile industry. 4. When they are engaged in modern industrial production, machinery, equipment and technology will inevitably rely on Britain or other capitalist countries. 5. Only a few of the richest compradors can set up industry, so they are generally large-scale, fast-growing, and even have some monopoly color.
At the beginning of this century, the national independence movement in India has been rising day by day, creating a good political environment for the development of national industry.
World War I broke out in 1914, and the war gave the emerging bourgeoisie the opportunity to develop industry.
During the war and after the war, they not only expanded the original industrial production scale, but also invested in industrial fields such as cement, sugar, coal mining, papermaking and so on.
According to the statistics of the League of nations, from 1913 to 1938, the world’s industrial production increased by 82.
7%, while India’s industrial production increased by 139.7%. Among the 28 countries counted, only five countries had a higher growth rate than India.
From 1937 to 1938, India’s steel output reached 899000 tons, coal output reached 28.
2 million tons and factory weaving reached 426.
9 million yards.
This speed and level of development of Indian industry was rare in the colonies and vassal states at that time.
In this process, the Indian industrial bourgeoisie developed, and they founded many companies.
From 1918-1919 to 1938-1939, the number of “rupee companies” registered in India increased from 2713 to 10070, and the total paid in capital increased from 1.
06 billion rupees to 2754.
2 million rupees.
Among these “rupee companies”, the share of Indian capital control has accounted for about 55% of the total paid in capital of all “rupee companies”, while British capital accounts for about 45%.
Before the first World War, most “rupee companies” were controlled by British capital.
On the eve of the Second World War, after 20 years of development, part of the Indian industrial bourgeoisie had become a large bourgeoisie with a certain monopoly in a variety of industries (industries).
From then on until today, it has always beenTata and birra, India’s two largest capital consortia, are prominent examples of this evolution process.
From the establishment of the textile factory in the late 1860s to the first few years of the Canadian century, the Tata family has established companies in the fields of textile, steel, cement, hydropower, coal mining, hotels and so on.
During the first World War, Tata was the only large iron and steel enterprise in the British Indian Ocean, and it was the main source of rail and steel needed by Britain in the Near East battlefield.
In the five years from 1912 to 1916, Tata iron and steel company made a total net profit of 23.
509 million rupees, which has exceeded its share capital ~, and made more profits in the years after 1917, with an annual profit of up to 10 million rupees.
The Tata family, who made a fortune from the war, successively established two power generation companies in 1916 and 1919.
Together with the original one, they monopolized some railway trunk lines in central and western India, factory production in Mumbai and residents’ lighting.
Oil company was established in 1917.
After the war, under the protection of the steel law of the British and Indian governments, three equipment renewal plans were implemented.
By the 1930s, its steel output reached 600000-700000 tons, accounting for 60-70% of the domestic market supply.
Before the Second World War, the Tata family also established cement, metal, chemical products and other companies.
On the basis of Tata industrial bank founded in 1917, an insurance company and an investment company were established in 1937.
In addition to establishing its own company, Tata also imitates the manager system adopted by the British in India, so as to control more enterprises.
Its manager line, Tata father and son company, controls 22 companies.
So far, the tower has developed into a large-scale family capital.
The billa family only invested in industry after World War I.
First, he seized the opportunity of the war to expand his export trade business.
In the four-year War, its property increased from 2 million rupees to 8 million rupees.
At the end of the war, it turned to industrial investment.
In 1918, it bought a newly built cotton mill, established the management bank birra brothers in 1919, and established the first Indian jute mill in Calcutta.
Later, he invested in the cotton textile industry and built two cotton textile companies.
In 1928, he established a shipping company and bought the Hindustan Times the following year.
In the 1930s, it successively established five sugar mills, a textile mill, a paper company and a tool company.
By 1939, birra family controlled 44 enterprises.
In 20 years, birra changed from a big businessman to the second largest capital consortium in India after Tata.
In addition to Tata and birra, several consortia such as sinhania, darmia, valchand and Tapar also span a variety of industries, but their scale is not as large as Tata and birra.
In 1939, 44 Indian management firms entered the ranks of the big bourgeoisie.
They controlled 239 companies, including 31 cotton, hemp and other textile mills, 19 coal mines, 18 sugar and food industries, 16 power plants, 15 steel and machinery plants, 13 tea plantations, 10 chemical and fertilizer plants, 17 investment credit and insurance companies and 2 banks.
When the Second World War broke out in 1939, British imperialism tightened the plundering of India and the people’s life further deteriorated.
However, the war is an opportunity for the Indian big bourgeoisie to develop and grow.
At that time, India became the supply center of military supplies and industrial products for Britain and the allies in the eastern battlefield, and the war made it difficult for the machinery, equipment and industrial products of western countries to enter India.
In this way, the British rulers not only relaxed the restrictions on Indian capital, but also took measures to protect their industrial development.
During the war, the Indian big bourgeoisie expanded its existing production capacity and accumulated huge capital, so as to build another batch of enterprises.
For example, in the process of supplying armored steel plates and other military steel to the British and Indian governments, the Tata consortium has continuously improved its technical level and expanded its production capacity.
Its net profit from the sale of steel increased from 41.
1 million rupees in 1937-1938 to 86.
1 million rupees in 1944-1945.
With these funds, it has built many new enterprises, such as steel pipe companies, machinery and locomotive companies Export companies, service companies, airlines, etc.
, and set up another Tata industry company.
Bierra consortium took advantage of this opportunity to continue to develop its cotton and hemp textile industry, and entered the production field of machinery industry.
During this period, it established bicycle companies, automobile companies, textile machinery manufacturing companies, etc.
, and was also engaged in chemical industry production after the war.
According to a study, from 1937 to 1947, Indian capital increased fourfold, and birra accounted for two fifths of this increase.
Other Indian capitalists also set up many factories and enterprises.
In 1945, 1000 new companies were established, increased to 3000 in 1946, and then increased to 4000 in 1947.
From 1944 to 1947, the total paid in capital of all joint-stock companies in India increased from rs.
3537 million to rs.
Among them, companies established by large capital consortia account for a large part.
At the same time, the war was coming to an end, India was about to become independent, British capital was eager to withdraw from India, and the Indian big bourgeoisie took the opportunity to buy a number of enterprises controlled by British capital. 2. After independence, the economic power of the big bourgeoisie, India gained independence and the Congress Party took power, which created unprecedented favorable conditions for the development of the big bourgeoisie, and the economic power of big capital consortia increased rapidly.
Since independence, the assets of large capital consortia have grown rapidly.
From 1951 to 1958, the share capital controlled by India’s four largest monopoly consortia increased from 1058.
6 million rupees to 1708.
6 million rupees.
According to the investigation of the monopoly investigation committee in 1965, the total assets of 75 capital groups in India reached 26.
05 billion rupees in 1964.
By the end of 1980, there were 92 large capital consortia (i.e. those with an asset value of more than 200 million rupees) governed by the monopoly and restrictive trade act (hereinafter referred to as the monopoly law), with a total asset value of 126.
02 billion rupees, This is 3.
48 times higher than the total output value of 75 consortia in 1964.
In addition, there are 34 independent giant companies regulated by the monopoly Law (i.e. those with assets of more than 50 million rupees).
The growth of the assets of the largest 20 consortia is more prominent.
Their assets totaled 13.
26 billion rupees from 1963 to 1964, increased to 35.
16 billion rupees from 1972 to 1973, and increased to 112.
85 billion rupees in 1982.
The growth of India’s big bourgeois economic power is reflected in their investment in Indian industryDingtian Fu, etc.
The Congress Party attaches particular importance to the development of national industry and holds industrial meetings every year to discuss the development of industry.
After three months of the £ 1.
635 million bond issuance campaign led by the Thaksin Maharashtra party in India, the Thaksin Maharashtra family created a favorable environment for the development of the industry, To establish its Tata Steel Company.
In the 1930s, the Congress Party and the big bourgeoisie cooperated with each other and achieved remarkable results.
During the upsurge of the boycott movement, India’s cotton import was 1.
897 billion yards from 1929 to 1930, decreased to 873 million yards the next year, and then decreased to 760 million yards the next year.
It was through this movement that the cotton textile industry owned by the Indian big bourgeoisie gained a firm foothold and controlled a large part of the domestic market, thus strengthening the status and strength of the whole, especially the big Indian bourgeoisie.
In 1935, under the pressure of the national independence movement, the British colonial rulers allowed the Congress party to organize the Congress Party Government in seven provinces.
In October 1938, the seven provincial industry ministers’ meeting was held.
The resolution of the meeting said, “Poverty, unemployment, national defense, economic construction, all these problems cannot be solved without industrialization.
And it is proposed that large industries such as machine tools, electrical equipment, accessories, heavy chemical products, chemical fertilizers and power generation equipment should be established immediately”.
These ideas reflected the interests and demands of the big bourgeoisie and were later not implemented due to the outbreak of the Second World War.
The big bourgeoisie benefited from the Congress Party in its formation and development, and naturally actively supported the Congress party.
The first is to vigorously fund the Congress party.
Fei Xiao, a British journalist, asked Gandhi: how much of the Congress Party’s funds are provided by Indian millionaires? Gandhi replied, “it’s actually all.”. Fei Xiao also pointed out that “most of the funds needed by Gandhi’s colleges, Gandhi’s organizations serving Dalits and farmers and the promotion of a national language come from the millionaire textile manufacturer bila”. S. K. Patil, another senior member of the Congress party, said: “the Congress Party has spent 100 million rupees in its 50 year struggle for freedom, of which 90% is donated by industrialists”.
In addition to financial support, the big bourgeoisie also provided advice for the Congress party.
Billa was known as Gandhi’s “unofficial ambassador” and went to London with Gandhi to attend the second round table in 1930.
In 1944, eight big capitalists such as birra and Tata formulated the Mumbai plan for developing the national economy, which was to be implemented after India’s independence.
The five-year plan of India after independence was formulated on the basis of the Mumbai plan.
Of course, before independence, the great bourgeoisie and the Congress party were not completely free of resentment.
Nehru made some radical remarks due to the influence of the socialist revolution and construction of the Soviet Union.
For example, when he was chairman of the Congress Party in 1936, “The only key to solving the problems of the world and India is socialism.
In addition to socialism, I can’t find any way to end the poverty, massive unemployment, corruption and domination of the Indian people.
” These remarks aroused the dissatisfaction of the big bourgeoisie.
Twenty one big businessmen in Mumbai issued the important statement against Jawaharlal Nehru, which was calmed down under the mediation of G. D. birra.
The big bourgeoisie does not want the national independence movement to go beyond their class interests.
According to billa’s strategy, Nehru is not unalterable.
We should exert influence on him and strengthen the position of the right-wing leader of the great power party.
Gandhi’s “nonviolent” movement and several compromises of the Congress Party in the anti British struggle reflect the interests of the big bourgeoisie.
After independence, the big bourgeoisie became the ruling class through the Congress party.
The Congress Party government mainly represents the big bourgeoisie, and its political and economic policies mainly reflect the interests of the big bourgeoisie.
The big bourgeoisie or monopoly consortia have become the class foundation and economic pillar of the Indian government.
The consortia needs the support of the government and the government needs the support of the consortia.
Their interests are fundamentally consistent and closely related.
It is with the strong support of the Indian government that the Indian monopoly consortium has achieved the above amazing development.
However, the big bourgeoisie and the government are not completely consistent and there are contradictions.
This is because: first, India not only mainly represents the interests of the big bourgeoisie, but also reflects the interests of the small and medium-sized bourgeoisie to a considerable extent.
While supporting monopoly consortia, it also vigorously develops small and medium-sized enterprises.
Therefore, some restrictive measures must be taken against monopoly consortia.
Second, after the founding of the people’s Republic of China, the Indian government tried its best to promote the planned economy, establish a strong public economic system, and implement a set of economic policies with “socialist color”.
To this end, the Indian government has taken some restrictive measures against monopoly consortia.
In the late 1960s, the monopoly law restricting production monopoly and concentration was promulgated.
These measures cannot but be opposed by the big bourgeoisie.
This constitutes the contradiction and struggle between the government and the consortium.
However, on the whole, the government’s economic policies are conducive to the development of consortia.
Even restrictive policies leave room for consortia to move and take care of them in specific implementation.
On the surface, the Indian government’s vigorous development of the state-owned economy is a kind of control and attack on the private sector, especially the monopoly consortium economy.
In fact, it creates more favorable conditions for promoting the development of the monopoly consortium economy.
Because the public sector provides consortium enterprises with cheap raw materials, fuels, machinery and equipment, provides them with the convenience of transportation, transportation, water conservancy and electricity, orders from them, funds and technology, etc.
As Indian economist A.
Roy said, “the public sector provides the most basic infrastructure”, while “the private sector, mainly monopoly capital, builds its own magnificent buildings on this infrastructure”.
Practice has proved that the public economy has promoted the development of consortium economy.
However, large Indian consortia generally do not directly participate in politics.
This is because most of the big bourgeoisie came from the merchant caste.
In history, the merchant caste belongs to a lower caste.
In the Indian society where the caste system is still very strict, the social status of the big bourgeoisie is not high, and their illegal acts in industrial and commercial activities have also damaged their reputation, Therefore, the business community does not participate in politics much, and fewer people enter politics and become leaders.
The relationship between the big bourgeoisie and the government and its role in Indian politics are differentIt is the result of the normal development of feudalism, that is, it is neither the transition from “producers to businessmen and capitalists” nor the transition from “producers to businessmen and capitalists”.
Under the shackles of colonialism, only a group of the richest buyers and operators who take refuge in colonial rulers and British capital are likely to engage in some industrial production, Therefore, the comprador businessmen who first operated industry generally had a considerable amount of monetary capital and developed industry rapidly.
They often opened many factories and enterprises in a short time, with some monopoly color.
Later, in the two world wars, India became the supply place of British military supplies in the eastern battlefield.
The import of domestic industrial products in India was cut off, which greatly stimulated India’s industrial production.
Coupled with the support of the national independence movement, the development degree of Indian capitalist industry was much higher than that of other colonial vassal countries.
The formation of a number of monopoly capital consortia on the eve of World War II was also rare in the colonial world at that time.
On this basis, after independence, the economic strength of large consortia increased rapidly.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the monopoly and concentration of industrial production reached an alarming degree.
However, since then, due to the rapid expansion of state monopoly capital and the role of the government’s policy of restricting large capital and encouraging small industry, although the absolute figures of large capital consortia in assets, production and sales continue to grow, its monopoly degree is unlikely to continue.3. Dependence in the process of its formation, although the dependence of the Indian big bourgeoisie on the British colonial government and foreign capital is shrinking, its dependence on Britain and other capitalist countries in terms of technology, equipment and capital is still serious.
Even today, more than 40 years after independence, this dependence is still inevitable.
However, it should be noted that India’s national industry had a good foundation before independence and developed rapidly after independence.
After the 1960s and 1970s, this dependence was not the point where it could not survive without foreign technology, equipment and funds.
On the contrary, some large capital consortia can often invite foreign capital to play their own brand after they have used these foreign aid for a certain period of time.
The relationship between Indian big bourgeoisie and foreign capital is mainly to use them to develop and expand themselves.4. The formation and development of the feudal Indian bourgeoisie was not only under British colonial rule, but also in a society with strong feudal forces.
Feudalism has a far-reaching impact on the bourgeoisie.
Many of the first capitalists to set up factories were funded or invested by feudal princes.
Some feudal princes became the largest shareholders of many industrial companies, some served as directors of many companies, and some new factory owners were feudal princes themselves.
The existence of such a large number of landlords representing the feudal order in the ranks of the bourgeoisie is bound to make it branded with feudalism.
The feudal color of the big bourgeoisie is manifested in two aspects: first, some are both big capitalists and big land owners.
Although they basically operate farms in the capitalist way, they retain the semi feudal mode of exploitation in terms of employment conditions, and some even use the form of renting land.
Second, the big bourgeoisie brought the feudal traditional family concept into enterprises, and many consortia implemented family control and hereditary inheritance in their operation.
It is a common phenomenon that the head of a consortium passes from father to son and from son to grandson, and family members are arranged in the enterprises they control.
However, this feudal color is changing with the development of productive forces and the progress of the times.
In the 1960s, the development of “green production” was obviously carried out in a few areas of India, but it was only in the 1960s that the “green production” began to evolve slowly.
The rapid growth of the industrial and commercial activities of the big bourgeoisie has reduced their feudal exploitation.
Secondly, due to factors such as the expansion of production scale, the enhancement of market demand and the development of science and technology, large capital consortia are eager to obtain more capital and issue a large number of shares.
In this way, the number of shareholders expands, the proportion of shares held by large capital families in all enterprises continues to decline, and the control of families is affected by the increase of non family members in managers, At the same time, a new generation of capitalists and managers educated in the West have grown up.
They have challenged the feudal traditional way of family control and hereditary inheritance.
At present, India is experiencing the transition of separating enterprise ownership and manager power that has been completed in developed capitalist countries.5. Expansionary capital export is an inevitable phenomenon after capitalism enters the monopoly stage.
After decades of development, they had this ability in the 1960s and 1970s, which was rare among the bourgeoisie in the nationalist countries established after World War II.
Since the “excess” of capital of Indian monopoly consortia is mainly the “excess” of production capacity rather than monetary capital, the main way of their capital export is the export of machinery, equipment and technology, that is, they are converted into shares to establish enterprises with the capital of the receiving country.
According to the regulations of the Indian government, India’s shares can only account for a few shares, Although in terms of operation, management and technology, India often has actual control.
Indian large capital consortia have relatively small scale of overseas investment and joint venture enterprises, generally adopt intermediate technology, have high labor intensity, and are more suitable for the situation of developing countries.
Therefore, they have a certain market.
However, generally speaking, because the degree and level of the development of capitalism in India cannot be compared with that in developed capitalist countries, the economic strength of Indian consortia is far inferior to that of international monopoly capital groups, and the policy intervention of the Indian government, the capital export model of Indian big bourgeoisie can only be small compared with that of international monopoly consortia.
The relatively powerful Indian big bourgeoisie lives in an absolutely poor society in China.
The vast rural areas with more than 70% of the population are originally a broad market for industrial products, but most rural areas retain feudal and semi feudal land relations, the mode of agricultural production is old, the productivity is backward, and most farmers rarely enter the commodity market.
For decades, the government has created a high profit protection market for the big bourgeoisie, but the stagnant demand has affected the expansion and reproduction of big capital.
The technical equipment of India’s big industrial capital is much backward than that of developed capitalist countries.
Domestic protection policies have further contributed to this backwardness, and their products lack competitiveness in the international market, It attempts to go to the world on a large scale through industrial products and promote the development of large-scale products with the demand of the international marketThe middle class, these people have Indian blood and skin color, but they are British interests, opinions, British morality and intelligence “.
Since the mid-19th century, such people have been continuously trained from the British education system, and their number has increased year after year to become a huge team.
Except for a few who can climb to higher positions, the vast majority of these people are secretaries and clerks in government organs, staff and technicians in railway, post and telecommunications systems, teachers, doctors and journalists in schools, hospitals and newspapers, engineers, accountants and salesmen in British factories, companies and banks, etc.
They have low political status and poor economic conditions.
Although they are educated by the British, they have varying degrees of nationalist tendencies dissatisfied with British rule.
They are called the new middle class by Indians.
Therefore, the new middle class is different from the old middle class before the British.
Since India’s independence in 19 years, its history has entered a new stage, and the small and medium-sized bourgeoisie has developed by leaps and bounds.
This is due to the following three factors: first, since the mid-1950s, the Indian government has paid more attention to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises while emphasizing the development of heavy industry.
After independence, the Indian government has put forward three industrial policy documents (industrial policy resolution 1948, industrial policy resolution 1956 and industrial policy resolution 1972), which emphasize the significance of developing rural industry and small industry, and formulated a series of relevant policies to promote its development, including establishing industrial development zones, investing in the construction of factories Install machinery and equipment for small business owners to rent, and reduce the difficulty of small business owners to invest in building factories and purchasing machinery and equipment.
It is stipulated that some products can only be produced by small-scale industries, and large-scale industries cannot be produced.
It is stipulated that certain products consumed by government organs and public enterprises can only be purchased from small industries.
When allocating imported raw materials and domestic scarce raw materials, give appropriate consideration to small industries.
Set up special institutions to provide financial and technical assistance for small industries, etc.
It is precisely because of these measures that India’s small and medium-sized industries, especially small industries, developed considerably in the 1970s and 1980s.
According to statistics, there were 357 million registered small industries in India in 1961 and 600000 in 1979 (in addition to 600000 unregistered).
The output value of small industries accounts for more than 40% of the total industrial output value. K. Z. Namba, India’s Commissioner for small industry development, estimated that in 1970, small industry provided 52% of the country’s industrial products.
The export value of small industrial products accounted for about 20% of the total export value at the end of the 1970s.
In 1966, the output value of India’s small industry was 30.
1 billion rupees.
From 1982 to 83, its output value reached 277 billion rupees, more than nine times longer in 15 years.
It can be seen that the economic strength of India’s small and medium-sized bourgeoisie and the absolute number of its members (small and medium-sized business owners) have increased significantly.
Second, the popularization of culture and education.
One of the problems in the development of education in India is its imbalance.
Just as its imbalance is clearly shown in many other aspects, so is education.
In some parts of India (such as Kerala and West Bengal), education is very developed.
Not only the proportion of educated people is high, but also the proportion of people with college degree is high.
But in backward areas, few people can read.
However, on the whole, its cultural and educational undertakings developed earlier.
More than 100 years ago, there were Calcutta, Mumbai, Madras and arigal universities.
When India was founded in 1050, there were 25 famous universities in the country, with 100000 students trained successively.
By 1984, there were 137 universities across the country, with 7000 to 8000 subordinate schools of Arts, science, engineering, business and law, with more than 3.
5 million students.
There are more than 690000 secondary and primary schools with 120 million students.
The enrollment of Indian teenagers is as follows: the highest enrollment rate is 92% in primary school and 48% in junior middle school.
By the high school stage, less than one third of the school-age youth are still studying.
According to the statistics in the early e’s, there are 250 million people with various levels of education in India, accounting for one third of the population.
Among them, there are about 100 million people with a medium or above educational level, that is to say, they can be counted as intellectuals.
These people are basically separated from the physical labor force and engaged in all kinds of mental work.
Apart from a small number of them entering the ruling class or the ranks of the landlord and big bourgeoisie, most of them belong to the category of the middle and small bourgeoisie.
Therefore, the school is a ladder, a ladder leading to the middle and small bourgeoisie.
Every year, a large number of young people from different classes, including the lower working class, enter the middle and small bourgeoisie through the school ladder.
Third, the establishment of government institutions has been expanding.
When the first Indian government was established in 1952, there were only 21 ministries (two bureaus under the Ministry of Finance and no bureaus under other ministries).
By the seventh government, it had increased to 31 ministries (30 bureaus) and four equivalent Ministerial Committees.
Due to the increase of ministries and commissions, the ranks of national civil servants and employees have increased sharply.
From March 1966 to March 1977, the number of employees in the state sector increased from 9.
4 million to 13.
8 million, an increase of 47% in 11 years, more than three times that in the early days of independence.
The Indian government employs twice as many people as the private sector.
In line with this, the expenditure of government agencies has also increased sharply.
The cost of central government chancre doubled from 1950-51 to 1977-78.
According to the statistics of the personnel and Administration Bureau of the Indian government, the total number of employees of the central government of India in 1981 was 3227528, including 52773 first-class (equivalent to officials above the section level in China), 62955 second-class (chief and assistant officials) and 1876784 third-class (clerks).
1235016 class IV (miscellaneous personnel).
Indian government employees are the largest proportion of employees in all walks of life in India.
A considerable part of this team belongs to the category of small and medium-sized bourgeoisie.
Due to the above three factors, India’s middle class has developed at an alarming rate.
According to Charles Bertram’s calculation, in 1950-51, there were about 680000 middle-class people with wages as the main income in cities and 210000 middle-class people in rural areas in India, with a total of about 900000 people.
Now, it is estimated that there are 100 million people.
If the number of people from 1950 to 51 is counted as one million, thenIn the past less than 40 years, the middle class has expanded a hundred times.
This estimate may not be accurate or exaggerated, but in any case, the rapid growth of the middle class is a fact.
If we basically agree with the estimate that the number of middle class is 100 million, then today’s Indian social structure is a typical pyramid with small top and large bottom.
Because of the 700 million plus people, there will be no more than tens of millions who occupy the position of the ruling class or the landlord bourgeoisie, with the middle class of 100 million people below and hundreds of millions of working masses of workers and peasants below.
According to the current view of Westerners, a developed society should be an olive shaped one, with a few especially rich and a few especially poor.
Most people are in the middle class, that is, the whole society tends to be middle-class and classy.
Of course, it will take several years for India to reach this stage. II. Three types of middle and petty bourgeoisie and their economic and living conditions according to the analysis of Indian scholars, the Indian middle class can be generally divided into three categories: the upper class has a relatively generous and stable wage income and a small amount of real estate, business or stock income, and the living standard is close to the ruling class, but there are still deficiencies in some aspects.
They hold middle and upper level official positions in government institutions, such as joint Secretary (secretary), additional secretary, lower Secretary (director), general judge of the court and director of the police station.
In companies and enterprises, they serve as managers, chief engineers, chief designers, mechanics and accountants, scientists, professors, writers, artists, famous actors, newspaper editors, columnists, lawyers, attending doctors, contractors and agents in the business sector in the cultural and educational circles.
The number of these people is small, and they are a minority among the middle class, But they are often the spokesmen of the middle class and play a great role in social energy and.
They do not belong to the ruling class and generally do not participate in decision-making, but are only responsible for the implementation of policies.
However, they are closest to decision-making and often participate in decision-making in the form of consultants, consultation or drafting plans and reports.
In factories and enterprises, these people are a group of people with technology and business mind.
They are the right-hand assistants or agents of capitalists and big bosses.
Some of them may enter the ranks of the ruling class after some drilling, such as political or military circles.
They can pass the exam and be promoted step by step to become secretaries of government ministries (the highest level of civil servants, equivalent to executive deputy ministers) or generals in the army.
The scientific and cultural circles can enter the ruling group by running for Parliament and becoming ministers.
In the industrial and commercial class, you can become a boss and a capitalist.
However, there are a few people who can eventually climb into the ruling group.
These people generally have high cultural or professional skills.
Many of them are American and European students who have doctorates or master’s degrees.
They have a good life and generally have their own houses, servants and modern living facilities.
Ten years ago, most of them rode bajaji mopeds to work, and a few had Ambassador cars.
Nowadays, there are basically self-use Ambassador brand or Fengshen brand cars and even villas.
Mumbai, with a population of seven million, has one million cars, most of which of course belong to the middle class.
The middle class is economically inferior to the upper class, but it belongs to a well-off society.
They mainly rely on wages, but others have some property, such as a piece of land in the countryside, a house in the city or holding some stock deposits.
However, these incomes are generally not important family income, but mostly supplement the deficiency of daily consumption, as a guarantee for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters, or a reserve for later life, or investment for the next generation, and so on.
These people in government institutions are middle-level staff, section chiefs, section members, university lecturers, principals and directors of primary and secondary schools, doctors in hospitals, newspaper reporters, engineers, technicians, accountants, salesmen and agents in factories and enterprises.
As for the lower middle class, there are more people.
It can be said that except for the upper and middle classes of the middle class, all mental workers who are economically superior to ordinary workers can be classified into this category.
They do not have much economic security, and their jobs are not very stable.
The increase or decrease of wages, the level of prices, and the expenses of rent, water and electricity, education and medical treatment have a great impact on their lives.
Therefore, these people are very sensitive to the political and economic situation.
The rising speed of the price index, the high and low unemployment rate, which political party comes to power, which political party goes down, which trade union benefits workers more, and which trade union is the running dog of capitalists are all their concerns.
The number of the lower middle class in India is tens of millions, and a large number of young students who have entered the society are members of this class.
The point to be explained here is that small and medium-sized business owners and small and medium-sized businessmen are not included in the above three types.
They have their own particularity.
The most important feature is that they have a considerable amount of property, have more means of production, and basically get something for nothing.
They belong to the exploiting class.
However, their economic status and political role are generally consistent with those of other small and medium-sized bourgeoisie.
If classified, it can be generally classified into the first category above, and some can be classified into the second category.
They are quite different from the big bourgeoisie.
There are two main differences: first, capital is far less than the big bourgeoisie, but its number of members is much greater than the big bourgeoisie.
According to Indian economist Ajit.
According to the division of Luoyi, factories with fixed capital of more than 2.
5 million rupees are large factories, factories with fixed capital of more than 500000 rupees and less than 2.
5 million rupees are medium-sized factories, and factories with fixed capital of less than 500000 rupees are small factories.
According to this standard, the proportion of capital and members of the big bourgeoisie and the small and medium bourgeoisie can be divided.
The survey of 45757 factories in 1963 showed that 41851 factories were small factories (accounting for 91.
5% of the total number of factories), the fixed capital was 2.
57 billion rupees (accounting for 8.
1% of the total fixed capital of factories), and the number of employees was 1.
462 million (accounting for 34.
8% of the number of factories).
There are 2063 medium-sized factories (4.
5%), the fixed capital is rs. 2.31 billion (7.
3%), and the number of employees is 658000 (15.7%). There are 1293 large-scale factories (accounting for 2.
72 billion rupees (accounting for 84.
6%), and 1996000 employees (accounting for 47.5%). There are 43914 factories in total, accounting for 96% of the total number of factories.
The fixed capital is RS 4.
88 billion, accounting for 15.
4% of the total fixed capital, and employs 2.
12 million workers,It accounts for 50.
5% of the total number of employed workers.
If the enterprises belonging to the large, medium and small bourgeoisie are divided according to the number of employed labor force, the standard set by the Indian government is generally that factories with less than 50 people are small enterprises, factories with 50-999 people are medium-sized enterprises, and factories with more than 1000 people are large enterprises.
According to this standard, the statistics of 30000 factories in 1961 show that there are 21455 small factories with less than 50 people, accounting for 73% of the number of factories, and 440000 employees, accounting for 18.6%. There are 6573 medium-sized factories, accounting for 21.
9% of the total number of factories, employing 890000 workers, accounting for 26.
9% of the total number of workers.
There are 621 large factories, accounting for 2 of the total number of factories, employing 1.
57 million workers, accounting for 48.
6% of the total number of workers.
The total number of medium and small factories is 28028, accounting for 94.
9% of the total number of factories.
The total number of employed workers is 1.
33 million, accounting for 40.
5% of the total number of workers.
Second, small and medium-sized business owners are controlled, excluded and bullied by large capitalists and enterprises, which are manifested in many aspects: 1 A considerable part of small and medium-sized enterprises are auxiliary enterprises of large enterprises.
These enterprises are almost completely subordinate to large enterprises, or an important part of large enterprises.
From 1971 to 72, the value of parts and accessories provided by small industries to large enterprises reached 330 million rupees.
Almost every large enterprise has set up a number of small auxiliary enterprises, such as a small auxiliary enterprise around Yumai mukand steel machinery plant.2. Small enterprises are generally seriously short of funds.
They often cannot get state loans, so they have to borrow from usury or large enterprises.
In transactions with large enterprises, they often suffer losses due to the other party’s delay in payment.
From 1971 to 72, a survey of small industries (83878 small enterprises in 21 towns) showed that 50% of enterprises did not get loans at all.
Among half of the enterprises that got loans, 85.
4% had very little loans, and more than half of their funds depended on usury.3. Insufficient raw materials.
Most of the raw materials urgently needed by small enterprises, such as steel, pig iron, coal and chemical raw materials, are controlled and distributed by the government.
However, due to the small share allocated to small enterprises, they are often affected by competition.
Coupled with the monopoly and competition of large enterprises for raw materials, small enterprises are in a difficult situation.
For example, the total production capacity of small soap factories in Bengal is 160000 tons per year, but the actual output is less than 31000 tons.
Due to the shortage of raw materials, the operating rate is generally less than 20%.
In Uttar Pradesh, due to the monopoly of raw materials by large enterprises, 50 soap factories were closed in 1974.
Most small industries often pay more than twice the control price when purchasing raw materials.
Small factory business owners across India are dissatisfied with the government due to the lack of raw materials.
Strikes, street demonstrations, petitions and demonstrations occur from time to time in some places.4. Backward production technology.
A survey of small industries in India by the Ford Foundation concluded that the mode of production was still used many centuries ago.
Although some small industries also use more advanced production tools, and the Indian authorities have been promoting advanced technology, due to the lack of equipment and necessary technical education, they still use backward technology and operate worn-out tools for production.5. Lack of market intelligence, can not compete with large enterprises.
Small industries are generally unable to engage in market research and can not adapt to changing market conditions.
There are more than 200 light bulb manufacturers in West Bengal, but under the competition of large enterprises, 151 factories closed in about a year in 1972.
In March 1973, all these small light bulb factories closed down.
Others, such as the serious shortage of energy and electricity and the variety of taxes, affect the development of small and medium-sized enterprises to varying degrees.
In the struggle against the big bourgeoisie, they developed with difficulties and twists and turns.
The following mainly introduces the situation of the small and medium-sized bourgeoisie other than small business owners, that is, the middle class (mainly referring to cities).
It is a rare survey conducted by Dr.
PRAD PRAD in India in 1959, which tells us about the situation of human life in the middle class, It is still of reference value.
The situation of India’s middle class today is generally consistent with that of that period.
This survey is a random sampling survey, which is conducted to select the main schools in Nanjing, namely Kanpur, Agra, Varanasi, arahabad and Lucknow.
Only one hundred of them chose to write in the form of registered residence, and only a few of them had adopted written answers.
Dr Prasad classified his respondents in terms of economic income: the lower middle class with a family income of 150-299 rupees a month.
Middle and middle class in the range of 300-499 rupees.
The upper middle class is 500-750 rupees.
Of course, more than 20 years later, holding such income can no longer maintain a medium standard of living.
But at that time, this level was typical of the middle class, because there was a figure to prove that in Prasad’s survey, the per capita monthly income of the lower middle class was 38.
12 rupees, while according to Indian official statistics, the national per capita monthly income was 26.
1 rupees from 1958 to 59.
In other words, the per capita income of the middle class in the questionnaire is higher than the national average, but not much higher, so this classification can be considered appropriate.
Among the 500 households, 265 belong to the lower middle class, accounting for 53%, 152 belong to the middle middle class, accounting for 30.
4%, 83 belong to the upper middle class, accounting for 16.6%. After reading the above two tables, we can have a more specific understanding of the daily economic life of the middle class.
In addition to maintaining basic necessities, housing and transportation, there is little left in the monthly income of lower middle-class families, although there is a surplus.
Moreover, all kinds of insurance premiums belong to forced savings, which can not be regarded as a real surplus.
The other surplus is mainly for unexpected needs such as new year’s festivals, celebrations, natural and man-made disasters, exchanges and entertainment.
The main item of their expenditure is food, that is, more than half of their income is used for B mouth.
Under the item of food, the average monthly cost of vegetables is 18.
17 rupees, that is, the money spent on buying vegetables every day is only 60 Paisa.
For most Hindu families who can’t eat meat, vegetables are the main source of all kinds of vitamins, so 60 PaisaPublic is both utilization and prevention.
It is an ambiguous state of opposition and fantasy to the ruling class.
It is this ambiguous attitude that determines their political opportunism and organizational laxity.
They have been a weak opposition in Indian politics for decades.
This attitude of the middle class can be seen quite clearly through the analysis of the socialist party.
The Indian socialist party was first established in October 1934 as a political faction composed of a group of middle and petty bourgeois intellectuals with left-wing views in the National Congress party.
In the independence movement, their policy was to emphasize staying in the National Congress Party and accepting the leadership of the National Congress party, and to oppose the policy of the Communist Party of India refusing to participate in the non cooperation movement at that time.
At the same time, they demanded India’s complete independence and opposed the right wing of the Congress party to compromise with the colonists.
After India’s independence, all these people were expelled by the Congress Party and had to set up their own doors.
They established the socialist party in March 1948.
From the composition of its members, the socialist party can see its distinct class attribute.
111 deputies to the Socialist National Congress in 1953: this statistics shows that leading cadres at all levels of the socialist party are not only young, but also highly educated, mainly a group of young intellectuals.
From the perspective of their occupation, they are mainly government employees, various freelancers and businessmen.
Therefore, it can be regarded as a typical middle and petty bourgeois political party.
The party’s political program is mainly as follows: 1 Oppose the monopoly of the big bourgeoisie and big landlords on state politics and advocate giving more autonomy to the grass-roots level. 2. Oppose modern mass production, especially the monopoly of large public and private enterprises, and realize the socialization of large enterprises. 3. Give priority to the development of small and rural industries and provide production fields and markets for small industries. 4. Carry out gradual cooperation in rural areas, implement land quota and advocate land donation movement. 5. Advocate class equality, narrow the gap between the most and the lowest income, and so on.
In the 1950s, this party was a more active left-wing force in Indian politics.
They called themselves the democratic opposition and the middle force of Indian politics, taking an equidistant position against the encirclement party and the Communist Party.
Their local organizations have participated in the governance of local governments, and their subordinate trade union system has also led the struggle of workers.
But after the 1960s and 1970s, their voices became weaker and weaker.
There are objective and subjective reasons for this situation.
Objectively speaking, after the 1960s, especially during the Indira Gandhi government, the Congress Party took care of the interests of the middle and small bourgeoisie to a certain extent and limited the development of the big bourgeoisie.
In addition, due to the upsurge of the workers’ and peasants’ movement, especially e the rise of rural armed struggle in the late 1960s, the socialist party lowered its tone of opposition to the Congress party.
Subjectively speaking, there are left, middle and right in the social party, among which the right advocates cooperation with the National Congress party to build the country, and only joined the socialist party due to dissatisfaction with the distribution of power and other reasons.
These people cooperated with the Congress Party in one period and broke up with the Congress Party in another period.
They took a team together and divided for a while, which was very unstable in organization.
Therefore, they were a weak and lax opposition in Indian politics.
(III) a powerful pillar of the current policy.
When talking about this issue, please allow us to copy a few paragraphs about the current situation of the Indian middle class published by Comrade Zhang Xingyan in the fourth issue of international outlook in 1987: a traveler who visited India ten years ago, after he set foot on this land again, I was amazed at the changes I saw: fashion shops were crowded with customers, luxury hotels and first-class restaurants and fast food restaurants were also crowded with a bustling crowd.
Cars and motorcycles made in Japan shuttle through the streets.
Color TV sets, video cameras and audio equipment have become the darling of many families.
India used to be famous as a poor country with a great lack of necessities, but in the past few years, a new way of life has emerged in India, and a new and rich middle class is changing the face of Indian cities and towns.
Economists estimate that there are about 100 million middle class people in India, accounting for less than one seventh of India’s total population.
The consumption of these people increased by an average of 3.
3% a year.
The growth rate is even higher than that of some industrialized countries.
The most obvious change is the sudden huge demand for durable consumer goods previously considered as luxury goods.
Companies that produce televisions, motorcycles and kitchen supplies are growing by 50% a year, and even some large joint ventures are trying their best to enter the consumer goods market.
As a result, the shops are full of colorful and beautifully packaged goods.
Various enterprises compete to broadcast advertisements on TV.
“More and more customers are looking for things that were once thought to be available only to the rich,” said a New Delhi home appliance manufacturer.
Ten years ago, air conditioners, refrigerators and small kitchen appliances were considered to be the exclusive appliances of the rich.
That’s not the case at all now.
” Of course, India’s prosperity today is only one side of things, and the other side is the reality that hundreds of millions of people are still trapped in poverty.
Therefore, some people in India hold a negative attitude towards this.
They point out that 10-15% of India’s 760 million people, the middle class and the rich, can benefit from this economic prosperity, while 40% still live below the poverty line and are unable to buy the minimum necessities of life.
They criticized the Indian government for blindly catering to the interests of the middle class and taking it as its own voters.
The poverty of the majority of the people in India is an ironclad fact, but it is also a fact that the middle class discussed in this chapter has made great progress in India.
Especially after Rajiv Gandhi came to power, he inherited his mother’s policies, paid more attention to attracting foreign capital and technology, led the economy to the track of modernization, promoted the economic prosperity driven by consumption, and made the middle class richer quickly.
Therefore, the middle class is the beneficiary of the current policy.
As long as the RA Gandhi government continues this policy and maintains political stability, they will be strong supporters of the current regime.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that their role in politics is not just their own votes, because they have a high culture, strong political judgment and propaganda motivation.
They can have a huge social impact through various public opinion tools in their hands, especially in cities.
Whoever controls the middle class canMaster the votes.
In addition to its political role, the middle class is mainly engaged in specific work in all walks of life.
If science and technology is the driving force of social development, the middle class, as the main personnel who turn science and technology into productivity, has a decisive contribution to social development.
As for culture, the role of the middle class is even more obvious.
A large number of schools, publications and various cultural facilities are operated by them.
Therefore, although they are not like the ruling class, they can exert influence on society by virtue of their political power or economic control, they can exert influence and play the role of delaying or promoting in the process of the ruling class implementing its will.
In the future, with the further democratization of India’s political life and the further development of the power of the middle class, it will be difficult to implement any policy if it does not take into account the interests of the middle class, and it will be difficult for any regime to last if it cannot obtain the support of the middle class.
Therefore, the role of the middle class in India’s future politics will increase day by day.
Chapter IV classes in rural India I.
overview since independence, slow and profound changes are taking place in rural India.
This change is not manifested in the reduction of rural population or the elimination of rural poverty, but in the disintegration of closed rural society in many areas and the change of rural class structure.
The division of rural classes is based on the possession and management of land.
In India, the way of land possession and management is extremely complex.
Before the British colonists conquered India, the land was occupied by village communities and cultivated by farmers.
Class relations in village communities are characterized by caste division.
The direct combination and fixed division of labor of agriculture and handicraft industry make the economic strength of small farmers very weak.
To expand reproduction, we must rely on the strength of village collective.
A village community is a self-sufficient whole, and production is to meet its own direct needs.
This simple reproduction of the village community is the basis of the autocratic rule of Indian dynasties.
It does not change itself due to the change of dynasties.
For colonial conquerors, it was first a commercial invasion, and then became a serious obstacle to the import of industrial products.
After the invasion of British colonialists, they destroyed the traditional village communities in India, changed the land occupation system in India, and planted a new feudal landlord class to help the colonial authorities complete the task of plunder.
Whether the chaimindar system implemented by the British colonial authorities, namely “zamindari tenure”, or “roytwari tenure” and “mahalwari tenure”, recognized that individuals could occupy, mortgage and sell land, so that most of the common land of village communities became the private property of landlords in various forms.
They obtained land leases from the colonial authorities and paid rent to the colonial authorities.
The farmers who cultivated the land became tenants of the landlord.
The British colonialists completely changed the form of land tenure in India, but did not change its feudal nature.
The new feudal landlord class raised by Britain is a completely parasitic class.
They not only collect the surplus products of farmers, but even extract some necessary products of farmers, which is the main obstacle to the development of agriculture in India.
After independence, in order to meet the needs of national capital development, the Indian government implemented land reform.
India’s rural class structure is changing slowly.
The “tax included landlords” were “abolished”, and the feudal landlords’ forces were weakened, but they were far from quitting their positions.
They still occupied a dominant position in most areas, and suppressed the development of farmers with their own economic, political and religious advantages.
Capitalist farmers have become a new class and are growing in a few areas with more developed commodity economy.
They are the main beneficiaries of the government’s investment in agricultural development and the promotion of new technologies.
In 1971-72, landlords and farmers who accounted for only 10% of the total farmers included 62.
2% of public bank loans and 77.
27% of private bank loans, accounting for 76.
24% of the total number of electric water pumps and tractors.
Land reform is conducive to land capitalist management.
Redistributing part of the land of big landlords is conducive to the development of medium-sized farmers and large tenant farmers.
However, in order to evade the land reform, the landlords seized a large number of tenancies, which turned more tenant farmers into landless farm workers.
In an article commenting on the land reform published in the 1980 “Independence Day special issue” of the Indian “plan” magazine, Bu Jin Josh said: the consequences of the land reform turned the landlords who lived on rent in the colonial era into “superior farmers” in free India.
Together with the rich farmers, they are the “conductors” of agricultural development, the beneficiaries of government investment, and the beneficiaries of commodity production and the “green revolution”.
The reform of the tenancy system is not to realize “the tiller has his land”, but more “the tiller loses his land”.
The new landlord class is more greedy than the old landlord class.
The wind of commercialization and technological change has blown into the countryside, causing changes in traditional social relations and values.
With its ability to rapidly increase productivity and amazing growth, new technologies have turned the rich into more cruel exploiters, and land is even more elusive to small-scale and marginal farmers.
The benefits of new technology are not available to all people, but only those who have land, capital and power.
The land reform accelerated the development of rural capitalism, but the land was still concentrated in the hands of landlords and farmers.
Land occupation in 1970-71 and 1976-77: in Indian statistics, all farmers with land, including tenant farmers, are called “cultivators”.
Landless agricultural workers are called agricultural labcurers.
“Cultivators” are divided into marginal holdings, small holdings, semi medium holdings, medium holdings and large holdings according to the amount of land they occupy.
However, the division of classes should not only be based on the amount of land occupied, but also on its relationship with the means of production.
Among the first three categories, there are tenant farmers and owner farmers.
The latter two categories include landlords, rich peasants and new farmers.
In the Indian rural society characterized by caste system, the traditional landlords not only have strong economic power and extensive political ties, but also come from high castes and have superior social status.
They are still the main force in rural areas.
XinnongThe owner also inevitably has the characteristics of exploitation in the old era.
According to the historical development and the situation after independence, the rural class structure of India is only the general framework of the rural class structure of India, not accurate statistics.
The figures are for reference only.
First, the composition of “cultivators” is based on the national agricultural survey from 1976 to 77, which is tired, and the survey deviation in different periods is very large.
For example, according to the eighth national sample survey in 1953-54, the national land management area was 155.
636 million hectares, while in the 27th survey in 1971-72, the land area was less than 124.
176 million hectares, 31.
46 million hectares less than that in 1953-54 and 37.
95 million hectares less than that in 1970-71.
It is not the disappearance of land, but mainly the concealment of real estate by big farmers to escape the land reform law.
Second, agricultural workers are based on the 1981 census figures, so they are not comparable with “cultivators”.
Agricultural workers are agricultural wage workers who have neither land nor land management, and are not included in the list of “cultivators”.
The number of households of agricultural workers has also deviated greatly in previous surveys.
The number of agricultural workers increased from 23.
5 million in 1951 to 47.
5 million in 1971.
If the average number of agricultural workers in each household in the 1974-75 rural employment survey is 4.
8, the number of agricultural workers in 1971 should be 9.
896 million and no less than 10 million in 1976-77.
Third, based on the above situation, we can assert that the proportion of households of the rural exploiting class must be less than 13.
1%, while their proportion of land is higher than 56.6%. The proportion of rural working class households, including agricultural workers, is actually higher than 86.
9%, at least more than 88%, while their proportion of land is less than 43%. 2. The landlords of the landlord class mainly obtain income by renting land and usury, and generally occupy more than four hectares of land.
The land rent collected by the landlord is not the surplus value after deducting the average profit, but all the surplus products and even some necessary products of farmers.
The Indian landlord class is the product of British colonial rule.
First of all, they legalized the tax payer of the original Indian Dynasty as the landlord with land ownership, namely “chaimingdar”, and then extended the landlord system in India by “giving private property to farmers” and “land collectively belonging to village communities since ancient times”.
In this way, the British colonialists created a new parasitic landlord class in India according to their own plundering needs, and made it the social pillar of their rule over India.
In the former nine major provinces of British India, 57% of the total private land is under the “chaimingdar landlord system”, 38% is under the “farmer tenancy system” and 5% is under the “rural tenancy system”.
According to the 1951 census, landlords in India account for less than 2% of the agricultural population, while their land accounts for 70% of the total land.
A major feature of the Indian landlord class is the diversification of land tenure forms.
This is the result of frequent changes in the tax system by the British colonial authorities.1. “Tax inclusive landlord system”, the colonial authorities changed the tax payers of the original Dynasty who had no land ownership into the landowners in the tax collection area, and then collected a permanent fixed tax from them – a permanent fixed tax of £ 3 million was paid to the authorities according to the 1011 quota of the rent paid by the farmers at that time, 111 belonging to the landlord.
This is called the permanent settl element.
Indian scientist PAM dude pointed out: “the purpose of the permanent tenancy system is to create a new landlord class according to the British model as the social support of British rule.
” The areas where the “permanent chaimingdar tenancy system” is implemented are mainly West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and the north of Tamil Nadu.
The “temporary chaimingdar tenancy system” is mainly implemented in Uttar Pradesh, most of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and part of Punjab.
“Tax inclusive landlords” vary in size.
Small ones occupy dozens of acres, large ones occupy thousands of acres, and generally occupy hundreds of acres.
They are legal landowners, but they do not operate the land, but rent the income.
As a result, the form of land sublease has greatly developed, and a large number of “two landlords” have emerged, forming a strong “middleman” landlord class.
In Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and other places, the phenomenon of subletting through “two landlords” is very common.
In some places, there are more than 50 middlemen from the upper “chaimindar” to the lower real farmers.
According to statistics from 1947 to 48, there were more than 1.
2 million “two landlords” in Uttar Pradesh alone.
These so-called “middlemen” are divided into various categories according to hierarchy and legal power in different states, but their common feature is that they do not enjoy the ownership of land but the right to obtain a land rent.
A “middleman” can enjoy the right to share a land ancestor in different proportions under different names at the same time.
These “middlemen”, as the land tenants of the “chaimingdar” landlord, directly exploit the tenant farmers.
They are a completely parasitic class like “chaimingdar”.
After independence, India’s land reform should abolish the “middleman landlord system”, that is, redeem the land of “Chaimingda landlord” and buy it to these “two landlords”, so that the “middleman” in the process of land sublease can become the owner of the land.2. “Peasant tenancy system”.
Through legislation, the British ruling authorities enjoy the highest ownership of land, and farmers pay land rent directly to the authorities without the intervention of “intermediaries”.
As the law confirms that the land used can enjoy private rights, which can be bought, sold, mortgaged or inherited, it actually gives the right to occupy the land to the upper class of the village community, making the rich elements of the feudal upper class of the village community become “Wright landlords”.
In addition, usurers and businessmen rent the land they have taken in or purchased for profit, which has become a supplementary source for the “Wright landlord”.
“Peasant tenancy system” is mainly prevalent in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Assam, Kerala and other areas.
This tenancy system accounts for 75% of the private land in the former Mumbai state (including Maharashtra and Gujarat), 73% in Tamil Nadu and 80% in Assam.
According to the 1953 survey, the larger land occupiers in Maharashtra account for onlySmall and medium-sized farmers and new farmers launched an attack.
Their purpose is to maintain the right to collect all surplus products from farmers.
In the 1930s and 1940s before independence, the average land rent in India was calculated in kind, equivalent to 49% to 60% or even 80% of the harvest.
After independence, although the states passed legislation stipulating that the land rent should not exceed one-fifth to one-third of the output, it was not implemented in practice.
In irrigated and fertile areas across the country, land rents are sometimes as high as 50 to 60 per cent of the harvest, or even higher, and sharecroppers and sharecroppers are often evicted from the land due to lack of protection. III. capitalist farmer class the capitalist farmer class includes large farmers, small and medium-sized farmers and rich farmers, and generally occupies more than four hectares of land.
The difference between them and the landlord class is that they occupy not only land, but also other means of production (especially modern agricultural means of production).
They produce by employing workers and realize surplus value through the market.
Large farmers generally do not participate in manual labor, but operate in the form of supervision, guidance and management.
In addition to managing the land and employing workers for production, small farmers also participate in some manual labor, but they are different from the old rich farmers and self-employed farmers.
They are land operators and regard agriculture as a profit-making enterprise.
They not only rely on the market to sell most agricultural products, but also buy consumer goods and modern means of production from the market.
Their fate is closely related to the market.
As a class, capitalist farmers were formed with the development of “green revolution” after the land reform.
However, farmers were born long before independence.
Colonial rule and feudal exploitation not only suppressed industrial development, but also hindered capital investment in agricultural production.
As a result, the lowest and worst forms of capital – commercial capital and usury capital were extremely popular in rural areas.
The rich peasants used most of their capital to buy land, run businesses or lend at usury, rather than intensive production inputs.
It is common in India for rich farmers to be businessmen, usurers and land lessors.
The development of capitalist landlords, rich peasants and farmers is slow, and most of them are concentrated in cash crop areas.
Although they are important, their proportion is very small.
Before independence, it is difficult to make a comprehensive estimate of the proportion of capitalist economy in Indian agriculture.
According to the typical survey of 40000 households conducted by the statistical association in Bangladesh from 1945 to 46, 75.
2% of the land is cultivated by family labor, 21.
7% by family labor and hired workers, and 5.
1% is completely cultivated by hired workers.
In Gujarat, it is estimated that 94.
2% of the cultivated land in 1941-42 was cultivated by family labor and 5.
8% by long-term employees.
However, it cannot be concluded that the 5.
1% or 5.
8% of the employees are capitalist agricultural operators, because the employees include middle peasants, employees, small businessmen and so on.
There are very few farmers who really employ workers.
Because the growth of landless farmers has greatly exceeded the development of capitalist farms in agriculture, even farmers do not need to pay additional costs for buying machines, but can use the semi feudal and semi serf way to carry out super economic forced exploitation of agricultural workers.
According to a 1947 survey of 401 capitalist landlord farms in Uttar Pradesh, only 40% use machines.
The land reform carried out after independence did not solve the land problem of farmers.
The subsequent “green revolution” accelerated the polarization of rural areas, but their historical role was to stimulate the development of rural capitalist agriculture.
Natramka wrote in his book Indian Economics: “A ‘new productive class’ is taking shape in the countryside.
Compared with agricultural workers, small farmers and other tenant farmers, they are in a very favorable position.
The field of agriculture is divided into two armies: one is the exploiter of traditional methods and the other is the pursuer of new methods.
Therefore, new class discrimination is emerging.
” This “new bourgeoisie” is the class of farmers.
Its team consists of five parts: the first is the rich peasants and capitalist landlord farms that existed before independence.
After independence, their capital and technology composition has changed greatly.
They made full use of the convenience provided by the government for the development of agriculture, increased modern investment and benefited from new technologies.
The second is the “cultivator” who changed the management mode from the traditional feudal landlord in the process of land reform and “green revolution”.
In the land reform, the landlords, especially the big landlords, drove away the tenants and recovered the land for “self farming”, thus taking off the hat of “middleman landlords” and obtaining the identity of “cultivator”.
But not all landlords have changed their business methods.
In many places, especially in areas with strong landlord power, a large amount of land managed to be retained by the landlord is rented out in the form of oral agreement.
The “cultivator” collects the rent as usual, but the tenant cultivator not only increases the land rent, but also has the crisis of being expelled from the land at any time.
On the contrary, landlords have greater rights.
This phenomenon is more common in Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
The landlord class is being divided.
Some landlords everywhere are changing their mode of operation, using modern investment to increase income by hiring workers to produce for the market, so as to change to farms.
The third is the “two landlords” who obtained legal land ownership in the land reform.
These new rich peasants are not only the beneficiaries of land reform, but also the beneficiaries of government investment.
They change into medium and small farmers.
The fourth is the middle-class and rich peasants with a tradition of farming.
They personally manage the land and hire workers to produce without renting the land.
Their position has been greatly strengthened in the land reform and the “green revolution”, and independent political forces are forming in areas with a high degree of agricultural commercialization, such as Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and so on.
The fifth is the management type tenant middle peasants.
After the land reform, land leasing is still widespread.
Some tenants have changed their business mode, rented a large amount of land, used credit to expand investment in agricultural production, hired agricultural workers for production, and relied on the market to realize the value of their products.
They rent land instead of tenant farmers, because they operate agriculture as an enterprise and take land as a factor of production in order to make profits, not just to make a living.
The land rent they pay is no longer the surplus product, but the surplus value after deducting the operating profit, that is, the excess profit.
They belong to the class of capitalist farmers.
Although farmers came from different classes and castes – landlords with high castes, there are also middle caste rich peasants, usurers, middle peasants and even tenant farmers.
Their scale, historical origin, religious beliefs and cultural traditions are different, but they have class identity, that is, the exploitation of employees is greater than the exploitation of land rent and other income.
Capitalist farmers existed long before independence and developed in the independence movement.
The land reform after independence reflected the wishes of these farmers, accelerated the formation of farmers’ class, and developed with the expansion of agricultural commercialization and production socialization.
At present, this class accounts for less than 10% of the total farmers, but it is in a dominant position in modern agricultural investment.
According to the statistics on investment in the Indian debt and investment survey, in 1971, the land controlled and operated by 15% of the richest farmers accounted for 70-30% of the total land area, 68% of agricultural tools, 64% of irrigation wells, 78% of other irrigation equipment, 82% of the total expenditure on improving agricultural tools and 67% of agricultural fixed capital.
The richest 15% of farmers cannot be regarded as the class of farmers, because it includes traditional landlords, whose power is still strong.
But traditional landlords do not manage land.
The farmer not only manages his own land, but also rents the land of others, and even the land of small farmers.
Therefore, he manages more land than he occupies.
It can be considered that agricultural investment, especially agricultural equipment investment, mainly comes from the farmer class.
Before the end of the 1960s, the application of new technologies in agriculture was limited to small areas.
Since the 1970s, there has been a certain development, and the position of farmers in modern technology has been strengthened, but the development of all India is very uneven.
In Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and coastal areas of Southern States, the degree of agricultural commercialization is high, the technology promotion is fast, the accumulation of agriculture is accelerated, the change of production mode is obvious, and the power of farmers is large.
In the eastern and central regions, the feudal and semi feudal mode of production still occupies a dominant position.
Most farmers belong to medium-sized farmers and the production level is low.
As far as the whole of India is concerned, agriculture is still dominated by traditional technology and the combination of human and animal power.
On the one hand, the farmer class should use modern technology to accelerate its own development.
On the other hand, it should oppose the privileges enjoyed by high-level castes and traditional landlords and open up a way for its own progress.
But at the same time, he also used the caste system to step up the exploitation of agricultural workers. 4. Middle peasants, small-scale peasants and marginal peasants.
Middle peasants mainly rely on family labor force to work on their own land.
They have their own production tools (such as cattle, cars, plows, etc.
), but they do not all possess a full set of tools.
They have access to modern inputs (such as chemical fertilizers, improved varieties, pesticides, water pumps, etc.
), but they are very limited.
Although it can be self-sufficient, it has always faced difficulties brought about by the rise in the prices of daily necessities and agricultural means of production.
Like individual craftsmen, they belong to the rural petty bourgeoisie suffering from the market economy.
In India, farmers who own two to four hectares of land and mainly cultivate their own land are generally regarded as middle farmers.
They account for about of the total farmers and have about 20% of the total cultivated land.
In the process of land reform and “green revolution”, the number of middle-class farmers increased, but their proportion in the total number of households decreased.
The proportion of land occupied has increased, but the average cultivated land area per household has decreased.
With the popularization of agricultural technology, the farming method dominated by “ox cart economy” will be gradually replaced by the farming method of industrial technology and equipment, and the traditional means of livelihood will give way to the purpose of profit.
The fate of this middle-class is increasingly at the mercy of the market.
Although the lower strata of this class are self-employed farmers, their traditional production tools are not complete, and they are unable to obtain enough modern agricultural tools.
Their ability to resist disasters is very weak.
In famine years, marriage and disease, they have to borrow and even mortgage their land.
Their aim is to maintain self-sufficiency through self farming, but they are constantly threatened by being reduced to small-scale farmers and marginal farmers.
Its middle and upper strata strive to increase modern investment in land and use the market to manage the agricultural department to get rich, so as to rise to rich farmers.
In addition to relying on family labor, they also employ odd jobs.
The purpose of family labor is no longer to produce for themselves, but for the market.
They are operating middle peasants.
Politically and economically, they are very close to the farmer class.
The essential difference is that the income generated by domestic labor force is greater than that exploited by hired workers.
Small farmers generally own one to two hectares of land.
The land of marginal farmers is less than one hectare.
Because they have too little land, they have to rent the land of the landlord or rely on family members to sell labor to make a living.
Small farmers and marginal farmers actually refer to poor farm labourers in India.
Before independence, land was concentrated in the hands of various landlords, who exploited farmers by renting land.
Small farmers and marginal farmers are the main tenants of landlord land.
Therefore, small farmers and marginal farmers, or tenant farmers, are the basic production units of Indian agriculture.
With the decline of agriculture, agricultural production units are increasingly dispersed.
In India, it is generally believed that the minimum area of land that can fully ensure the minimum cost of living and normal reproduction is four to eight hectares in arid areas and two hectares in irrigated areas.
Those who hold more land than the minimum area are called “profitable farmers”, and those who are lower than the minimum area are called “non profitable farmers”.
Small farmers and marginal farmers are “non profit farmers”.
Not only do they own no more than two hectares of land, but the leased land area is also less than two hectares.
Since the central and northwest are arid areas, where the minimum area of “profitable farmers” is more than four hectares (or ten acres), the proportion of “unprofitable farmers” real estate is roughly the same as that in other states.
In other words, in the early days of independence, nearly three-quarters of all land owners in India were “non-profit” real estate occupiers, accounting for 20-40% of the total cultivated land area of each state.
It can be seen that the vast majority of farmers belong to the poor peasant class of “no profit” real estate.
This situation has not been solved in the land reform and the “green revolution”, but has further developed.
According to the 1970-71 agricultural survey, there are about 70 million real estate in China, of which 49 million, or 70%, are less than five acres.
The average management scale of land in India was 2.
3 hectares in 1970-71 and 2.
0 hectares in 1976-77.
In other words, the land occupied by farmers is small and scattered, which is patched up by countless plots of land.
Because the land use form is mostly “non-profit” real estate, coupled with backward technology, small-scale farmers and marginal farmers can not fully ensure the minimum living needs and developmentFarmers who reproduce normally are the poor and destitute classes among farmers.
They either rent the land of landlords and become poor tenants, or sell their labor force and become farm labourers.
The status of farm workers is similar to that of agricultural workers, but the difference is that they occupy a certain amount of land.
In India, land is a symbol of status, so its social status is slightly higher than that of agricultural workers.
The problem of farmers in India is mainly to solve the land problem of small-scale farmers and marginal farmers.
To this end, India’s land reform law has written provisions to determine the amount of land rent, protect the right to rent and make the land cultivator become the land owner.
However, the land reform only changed the “middleman” into a “farmer” – an “excellent farmer”, and did not improve the plight of small-scale farmers and marginal farmers.
After more than 20 years of land reform, the number of small-scale farmers and marginal farmers under two hectares increased from 67% in 1953 to 72.
6% in 1976.
More importantly, the number of marginal farmers increased by 7.
2% in 1976 compared with 1970, while the average land occupied by each household decreased by 2.
5%, and the average cultivated land of each household was only 0.
Josh wrote in his article “the emergence of a new class in rural India”: “Compared with the old landlord ancestral tenancy system, the new system is more tyrannical.
The obvious sign is that the rural poor have less access to land under the new ‘self farming’ system than during the old tenancy system.
Please don’t forget that the emergence of the ‘self farming’ system is the result of the tyrannical behavior of landlords driving out their tenants in the name of recovering land and ‘self farming’.
In some areas, the tenancy system still exists However, tenants or tenants have to be changed every season.
In order to evade the tenancy law, this system has been transferred underground.
” In fact, the tenancy law has not been effectively implemented in most states, and this tenancy system does not need to be transferred underground.
Lawrence livschultz’s “unsolved problems in rural India” published in the Far East Economic Review Magazine on May 3, 1976 said: “in many rural areas, the feudal system is still obvious.
” In fact, instead, the government decrees prompted the landlords to seize the tenants wantonly, expel a large number of farmers from the land, and persecute or even kill the tenants who obtained the land ownership according to the legal requirements.
With the progress of land reform, atrocities against farmers are increasing day by day.
In this sense, the Indian land reform played a role in the British “enclosure movement”.
If the increase of farmers holding small plots of land is the result of land reform, it is mainly caused by landlords evading the land holding ceiling law.
As for farmers, the main reason is not that landless farmers get their land, but that they have to sell their land because of their poverty.
With the development of “green revolution”, there is a trend of land concentration.
Some small farmers and marginal farmers are unable to operate due to the rising price of means of production, so they lease their land to farmers for cultivation.
The “green revolution” not only stimulated the development of capitalist agriculture, but also created the conditions for the red poverty of farmers. V. there is no strict definition of agricultural workers in India.
India’s first agricultural labor force adjustment Commission in 1950-51 believed that more than half of a year’s time is engaged in seasonal producers based on wages, that is, agricultural workers.
In 1956-57, the second agricultural labor force adjustment Committee held that field workers and wage workers engaged in agriculture (such as pastures, plantations, etc.
) are agricultural workers.
The national labor Commission believes that those who have no way to make a living except labor and work unorganized in the agricultural sector for more than half a year to earn wages to support their families B are called agricultural workers.
It can be seen that agricultural workers refer to those who have no land or occupy little land (0.
002 hectares in the 12th National Sampling Survey) and rely on wages for more than half of their sources of livelihood.
Agricultural workers and tenants are landless farmers, but they have different status.
Tenants generally enjoy hereditary tenancy rights.
Agricultural workers are employed in the fields.
Most of them have no fixed jobs.
They are the poorest and lowest class in rural areas.
In India, tenant farmers, landlords, farmers and self-employed farmers are all “cultivators”.
Agricultural workers are “agricultural workers”.
Agricultural workers are mainly “scheduled castes” and “scheduled tribes”, i.e. “untouchables” (or “untouchables”) and “indigenous peoples”.
Due to the different definitions of agricultural workers, the figures of previous surveys vary greatly.
According to the census figures every ten years, Indian agricultural workers were 23.
5 million in 1951, 31.
5 million in 1961, 47.
5 million in 1971 and 55.
5 million in 1981.
It has increased by 1.
36 times over the past three decades, with an average annual increase of 3%.
Indian agricultural workers came into being in the late 19th century.
They are the result of the destruction of India’s natural economy by British colonists and the product of rural bankruptcy under colonial rule.
They not only have the basic characteristics of capitalism, but also have a strong color of feudalism.
The first major source of agricultural workers is farmers who have lost their land.
Farmers went bankrupt because of debt.
However, due to the underdevelopment of capitalist agriculture, they do not directly become agricultural workers due to the loss of land, but the landlords or usurers who obtain their land, and then use the sharing system to bind them to the land and turn them into tenants without fixed tenancy rights.
They are not protected by law, and the owner of the land is free to expel them from the land.
Tenant farmers without fixed tenancy rights are the main source of the formation of Indian agricultural workers.
The second largest source of agricultural workers is bankrupt handicraftsmen.
The combination of handicraft industry and agriculture is the foundation of Indian village communities.
The industrial revolution changed the face of Britain and also affected the fate of India.
Ships and railways transported British machine products to remote villages in India, which dealt a devastating blow to India’s handicraft industry.
Bankrupt handicraft workers could not find employment in industry, so they had to return to the land and become tenant farmers or hired workers.
The third largest source of “Dalit” and “indigenous” workers.
According to the 1951 census, 39.
3% of agricultural workers are “scheduled castes” and “scheduled tribes”, or “untouchables”, who are in a slave status in the village communities of the natural economy.
The colonists destroyed the village communities and did not liberate them, but paved the way for them to be enslaved by a new economy – to become agricultural workers in a special form of employment.
When they became debt bondage workers, “indigenous people” entered the ranks of “Dalits”, were fixed in their farms and occupations, and rarely had the right to transfer freely.
Indian agricultural workers are in the “non proletariat””The trend of the government is to try to deny the existence of this system.
” Indian agricultural workers belong to different species (in which “Dalits” and “indigenous people” account for a large proportion), which are not only bound by feudal religion, but also affect their own unity.
Agricultural workers are employed by landlords, plantations or farmers respectively, and the nature of their exploitation varies according to the class attribute of their employers.
But they are people who have lost all means of production and only rely on selling labor for a living.
They live a miserable life with extremely low wages.
They are rural proletarians.
After independence, the proportion of agricultural workers increased rapidly, while the proportion of “cultivators” decreased.
According to the census, the proportion of agricultural workers in the working population increased from 16.
7% in 1961 to 24.
9% in 1981.
In the same period, the proportion of “cultivators” in the working population decreased from 52.
8% to 37.8%. In the past two decades, the net increase of agricultural workers was 24 million.
Although the increase of agricultural workers is related to the rapid increase of population and the lack of industrial employment opportunities, the important factor is land reform.
In the 1950s and 1960s when the land reform was carried out, the growth rate of agricultural population far exceeded the growth rate of population.
From 1951 to 1961, the total population increased by 21.
5%, and the number of agricultural workers increased by 34%.
From 1961 to 1971, the total population increased by 24.
8% and agricultural workers increased by 50.8%. From 1971 to 1981, the total population increased by 24.
75% and agricultural workers increased by 56.8%. With the increase of population, employment opportunities are decreasing day by day.