Relations of the Indian National Congress and Left Politics with Working Class Movements in India

Introduction: The Indian National Congress and the burgeoning left-wing political movements in India recognized the crucial role of the working class in the freedom struggle. This discussion examines the connections between these political forces and the working-class movements during the Anti-Partition Movement, Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience Movement, and the Quit India Movement. Additionally, it will briefly discuss the significance of the Workers and Peasants’ Party in this context.

The Rise of the Working Class and Political Mobilization

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the growth of industrial centers in India, leading to the emergence of a substantial working class. This class, facing harsh working conditions and economic exploitation, became a significant force in the national struggle.

Shared Struggles: The working class shared a common struggle against colonial exploitation, often facing low wages, long hours, and unsafe working conditions.
Political Alliances: Both the Indian National Congress and left-wing parties sought to mobilize the working class, recognizing their potential to strengthen the nationalist movement.
Urban Centers of Resistance: Industrial cities became centers of working-class resistance, with strikes and protests becoming increasingly common.
Ideological Diversity: The Congress and the left, however, held different ideologies regarding the role of the working class. The Congress aimed to integrate them into the broader nationalist struggle, while the left emphasized class struggle and socialist ideals.

Working Class Movements and Key Phases of the Freedom Struggle

1. Anti-Partition Movement in Bengal (1905-1911)

Early Working Class Involvement: The Anti-Partition Movement saw early forms of working-class mobilization, particularly in the industrial areas around Calcutta.
Swadeshi and Boycott: The Swadeshi and Boycott movements encouraged the use of indigenous goods, impacting industrial production and creating awareness among factory workers.
Limited but Growing Consciousness: While the working class was still in its nascent stages of organization, the movement contributed to the growth of political consciousness among them.

2. Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922)

Increased Labor Activism: The Non-Cooperation Movement witnessed a surge in labor activism, with numerous strikes and protests across the country.
Congress Support: Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress sought to incorporate the working class into the movement, recognizing their potential to disrupt the colonial economy.
All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC): The formation of the AITUC in 1920 provided a platform for organized labor and facilitated the coordination of working-class struggles.
Regional Strikes: Significant strikes occurred in Ahmedabad, Bombay, and other industrial centers, demanding better wages and working conditions.

3. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-1934)

Economic Hardships: The Great Depression exacerbated the economic hardships faced by the working class, leading to increased labor unrest.
Congress Involvement: The Congress continued to engage with the working class, organizing protests and strikes in support of the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Leftist Influence: Left-wing parties and trade unions played a more prominent role in organizing working-class movements during this period.
Strikes and Protests: Strikes and protests occurred in various industries, including textiles, railways, and ports, demanding economic relief and political rights.

4. Quit India Movement (1942)

Urban Uprisings: The Quit India Movement witnessed significant urban uprisings, with the working class playing a crucial role in disrupting industrial production and transportation.
Strikes and Sabotage: Workers engaged in strikes and sabotage, hindering the war efforts and demonstrating their commitment to the freedom struggle.
Underground Resistance: Many workers participated in underground resistance activities, providing support to nationalist leaders and disrupting colonial infrastructure.
Differing Left Stance: As noted in the previous discussion on peasant movements, the Communist Party of India (CPI) initially did not fully support the Quit India Movement. However, many individual communists and left-leaning workers actively participated in the anti-colonial struggle during this time, highlighting a complex and sometimes divergent relationship.

The Workers and Peasants’ Party

The Workers and Peasants’ Party (WPP) emerged in the late 1920s as a significant political force that specifically aimed to organize and mobilize both the industrial working class and the peasantry.

Formation and Ideology: Inspired by socialist and communist ideologies, the WPP sought to unite workers and peasants under the banner of class struggle against both colonial rule and local exploitation by landlords and capitalists.
Key Leaders: Prominent leaders associated with the WPP included S.A. Dange, Muzaffar Ahmed, and Kazi Nazrul Islam.
Activities and Influence: The WPP organized trade unions and peasant associations, led strikes and protests, and advocated for the rights of the working class and peasantry. They played a significant role in raising the political consciousness of these groups and linking their struggles to the broader anti-colonial movement.
Relationship with the Congress and Left: The WPP initially collaborated with the Indian National Congress, seeking to push the Congress towards more radical socio-economic policies. However, ideological differences and the Congress’s more moderate approach eventually led to friction. The WPP also had close ties with the emerging communist movement in India, with many of its leaders later becoming prominent figures in the Communist Party of India.
Significance: The Workers and Peasants’ Party represented a crucial attempt to forge a united front of the working class and peasantry, highlighting their central role in achieving both national liberation and social justice. While its direct influence was somewhat limited in the long run due to internal divisions and government repression, it played a vital role in politicizing the working class and peasantry and advocating for their specific demands within the larger freedom struggle.