Volume 7, No. 2, February 2025
Editor: Rashed Rahman
Introduction
Marxism-Leninism is the scientific outlook of the working class, the science of socialism and of its construction by the working people, the science of socialist revolution. The temporary victory of revisionism in the international communist movement has given rise to the widespread circulation of perversions of Marxism-Leninism shorn, in the interests of world imperialism, of its revolutionary content. Before dealing with the specific revolutionary process in Pakistan, it seems desirable to us therefore, to restate very briefly the essential principles of Marxism-Leninism in relation to colonial-type countries in general, as these principles were developed by the Communist International, then the international vanguard of the working classes of all countries.
Part I: The Revolutionary Process in Colonial-type countries
A colonial-type country is one that is industrially relatively undeveloped and which is under the economic, and possibly also the political, domination of a Great Power – in the 20th century an imperialist power.
A colonial-type country may be:
1) a colony under the open, direct political rule of a dominating Great Power;
2) a semi-colony, nominally independent but with its economic system largely controlled for the benefit of the ruling class of a dominating Great Power; or
3) a neo-colony, a former colony that has become nominally independent but which continues to have its economic system largely controlled for the benefit of the ruling class of the same dominating Great Power that formerly ruled it directly.
The nominal ‘ruling class’ of a semi-colony or of a neo-colony is one that is dependent on the ruling class of the dominating Great Power.
The Relation of Classes in a Colonial-type Country to the Struggle for National Liberation
Sooner or later a struggle for national liberation from the domination of the Great Power concerned develops in every colonial-type country.
In the 20th century, in general, the classes in a colonial-type country which would be benefited by national liberation are:
1) the working class;
2) the urban petty-bourgeoisie;
3) the peasantry, and
4) the national bourgeoisie – i.e., that section of the capitalist class the interests of which are held back by the domination of the Great Power.
In the 20th century, in general, the classes in a colonial-type country that have interests that could be harmed by national liberation are:
1) the landlord class, and
2) the comprador bourgeoisie, i.e, that section of the capitalist class the interests of which (mainly commercial and financial) are dependent upon the domination of the Great Power.
The Necessity of Armed Struggle
Normally, the colonial administration of a Great Power in the case of a colony, or of the nominal ‘ruling class’ in the case of a semi-colony or neo-colony, possesses a state machinery of force, the essential core of which consists of armed men and the purpose of which is to maintain by force the subjection of the colonial-type country to the dominating Great Power. In order to achieve national liberation therefore, the revolutionary classes must build up their own revolutionary machinery of force, the spearhead of which must consist of armed men, strong enough to destroy the anti-national state machinery of force. The achievement of national liberation can, normally, be brought about only by armed struggle.
The Socialist Revolution
The social problems of the working class, the poorer strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie and the poorer strata of the peasantry cannot be solved by national liberation: these are exploited classes and, if the revolutionary process in the colonial-type country ceases with the achievement of national liberation, they continue to be exploited by the national capitalists and the rich (capitalist) peasants. The social problems of the working class, the poorer strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie and the poorer strata of the peasantry can be solved only by the abolition of exploitation in a socialist society, and this can only be brought about by a socialist revolution.
The class forces in a colonial-type country that stand to benefit from a socialist revolution are narrower than those which benefit from national liberation; they are:
1) the working class,
2) the poorer strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie, and
3) the poorer strata of the peasantry.
All other classes, including the national bourgeoisie and the rich (capitalist) peasants have interests that would be harmed by a socialist revolution. The achievement of a socialist revolution requires the leadership of the poorer strata of the peasantry by the working class.
The Stages of the Revolutionary Process in a Colonial-type Country
For the working class, the poorer strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie and the poorer strata of the peasantry, the primary objective significance of national liberation is as a preliminary to the socialist revolution. In a colonial-type country, national liberation is a necessary strategical preliminary to the socialist revolution because it enables certain class forces opposed to the socialist revolution to be defeated, partly or entirely, by a wider coalition of class forces than those that stand to gain from the socialist revolution. That is, in national liberation the national bourgeoisie and the rich (capitalist) peasants have an objective interest in, and so may be enlisted in, the national liberation struggle against the foreign dominating imperialists and their class allies within the country: the landlords and comprador bourgeoisie.
The revolutionary process in a colonial-type country must, therefore, be fought in two successive stages:
1) the stage of national liberation; the stage of national-democratic revolution – the aims of which are national and democratic and not socialist, and
2) the stage of socialist revolution.
Uninterrupted Revolution
It is in the interests of the working class, of the poorer strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie and of the poorer strata of the peasantry that there should be the minimum possible time-gap between the stage of national-democratic revolution and the stage of socialist revolution. It is, in fact, in the interests of these class forces that the stage of national-democratic revolution should pass without interruption into the stage of socialist revolution, without any intervening period of national capitalism in which exploitation continues. The uninterrupted transition from the stage of national-democratic revolution to the stage of socialist revolution can be achieved only if the leadership of both stages of the revolutionary process is in the hands of the working class. This involves a class struggle between the working class and the national bourgeoisie for the leading role in the national-democratic revolution. If the working class succeeds in wresting the leadership of the national-democratic revolution from the hands of the national bourgeoisie, the latter will inevitably desert the revolutionary forces and go over to the side of the anti-national forces – preferring a subordinate role in a colonial-type society to the complete loss of its ‘rights’ of exploitation in a socialist society.
The Necessity of a Marxist-Leninist Party of the Working Class
The working class cannot carry through this revolutionary strategy spontaneously. It can do so only if it is led by a disciplined political party based on Marxism-Leninism.
Part II:
Pakistan as a British Neo-Colony
The Origin of Pakistan
The concept of what is now the state of Pakistan appears to have first been put forward at Cambridge University in January 1933, when a group of Muslim students, headed by Chaudhuri Rahmat Ali, proposed in a pamphlet the establishment of a state carved out of those parts of India in which Muslims were in a majority. They suggested as the name of this state “Pakstan” – P (Punjab); A(“Afghanistan”, i.e. the North-West Frontier Province); K (Kashmir); S (Sind); Tan (Baluchistan). East Bengal, in which Muslims were also in a majority, did not figure in this earliest concept of what soon came to be called “Pakistan” (“Land of the Pure”).
In December 1906 the Muslim League (ML) had been founded by a group of pro-British landed aristocrats, headed by the Agha Khan and the Nawab of Dacca. Its ostensible aim was to work for the protection and advancement of the Muslims of India. At its 27th conference held in Lahore in March 1940, the ML, under the leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, adopted the concept of ‘Pakistan’ (now including East Bengal) as the basis of its programme. As the principal political organisation of the landlord and (later) the comprador bourgeois classes in the predominantly Muslim areas of the Subcontinent, classes which depended upon foreign imperialism for the maintenance of their social position, the ML was from its foundation objectively an instrument of British imperialism. And its adoption of Muslim separatism accentuated this role. It became the most important vehicle in the service of the British imperialists for splitting the Indian movement for liberation, and ML ministries were established in then India for a number of provinces with the support of the colonial authorities.
The Formation of Pakistan
In August 1947 British colonial rule over the Subcontinent came officially to an end and the latter was divided into the two Dominions of India and Pakistan. This partition was carried out on the basis of the predominant religious beliefs among the population. The boundaries were drawn and the property of the Indian Empire divided between the two Dominions in such a way as to create what was hoped would be a permanent state of tension between them, so strengthening the possibility of the continued domination of both by British imperialism. In fact, partition quickly led to mass shifts of population, the persecution of minorities and wholesale flights of refugees.
As a result of the religious basis of partition, the new Dominion of Pakistan consisted of two territorial regions in the west and east of the Subcontinent, separated by more than a thousand miles from each other. West Pakistan was more than five times the size of East Pakistan (310 thousand square miles against 55 thousand square miles), but East Pakistan had eight million (10 percent) more population than West Pakistan (51 million against 43 million).
The establishment of the Dominion of Pakistan was preceded by the setting up of a Constituent Assembly of 69 members, the appointment of Jinnah, leader of the ML, as Governor-General, the appointment of British commanders for Pakistan’s armed forces and the appointment of a government, headed by Liaquat Ali Khan, all but one member of which belonged to the ML.
In other words, the formation of the artificial state of Pakistan consisted essentially of the negotiated transfer of political power to the pro-imperialist landowning and comprador bourgeois classes represented politically by the ML. This transfer of power was not, of course, purely voluntary, but neither was it the result of an outright victory of the national-democratic revolution. The position was that the latter had developed to the point where the declining strength of British imperialism was no longer sufficient to enable it to continue to rule the Subcontinent in the old directly colonial way. It had become necessary to replace direct colonial rule by indirect neo-colonial domination. Sir Stafford Cripps virtually admitted to this when he told the House of Commons on March 3, 1947: “What, then, were the alternatives which faced us? These alternatives were fundamentally two…First, we could attempt to strengthen British control in India on the basis of an expanded personnel in the Secretary of State’s office and a considerable reinforcement of British troops. The second alternative was that we could accept the fact that the first alternative was not possible…We had not the power to carry it out.”
(To be continued)