Can Asia Industrialize Democratically?

In January 1953, Asoka Mehta, one of the leaders of the Indian Praja Socialist Party, published a pamphlet—really a little book—entitled Socialism and Peasantry. In this study Mehta tried to find an answer to the most difficult and important question facing all Asians: Is there an indigenous and democratic way for the people of Asia to raise their economic level without succumbing to traditional imperialism, Russian domination, or yielding to new absolutisms?

We present in this and the forthcoming issue of DISSENT two sections of his pamphlet, which form independent articles. For reasons of space a good deal of supporting statistical data has been eliminated; a few minor grammatical changes have been made. The study was originally written in English, and the style and language have not been tampered with.—The Editors.

Recently, a newspaperwoman said to me: “When I am in England I feel like a Conservative, in Italy I feel like a Socialist, in India I feel like a Communist.” When asked what she meant by this, she explained that the need for change in India was so pressing that only a regime ruthless, determined and full of drive, could grapple with the immensity of the problem.

The naivete of the young lady is widely shared. R. H. S. Crossman, in the New Fabian Essays, has advised Western socialists to “accept both intellectually and emotionally the fact that Communism outside Europe is still a liberative force.” That other alternatives are not available is further made clear in his next paragraph. “Outside this limited area (of West Europe and North America), in this present century, the social conditions for a bourgeois revolution are not present, and that is why, in the absence of any alternate instrument of modernization, Communism often becomes the chosen instrument of history.”

Because of ossified and stubborn difficulties, “the chosen instrument of history” for development has to have a sharp point and decisive thrust. Communism, with its distinctive theory and organization, is believed to have the requisite point and thrust. The Communists believe that power is social, is generated in the course of all types of action (not simply the narrowly “political”) and is latent in all institutions. They view politics as omnipresent. As a consequence they have discovered and utilized vast new areas of political potential in institutions and mass organizations.

This unceasing and unbounded struggle, associated with the politicalization of every facet of society, gives the Communists the following advantages:

(1) By co-ordinating initiative in diverse organizations, like a party, trade union, a cooperative or a family unit, operational effectiveness is much heighten...