Consider the following statements regarding the Indian capitalists:

1. The Indian capitalists class grew with largely an independent capital base and not as junior partners of foreign capital.

2. The capitalist class argued against the comprehensive land reforms, including co-operativization of production, finance and technology.

3. The Indian capitalists took a consistently and openly anti-imperialist position.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

At the outset, it must be said that the economic development of the Indian capitalist class in the colonial period was substantial and, in many ways, the nature of its growth was quite different from the usual experience in other colonial countries. This had important implications regarding the class’s position vis-a-vis imperialism.

1. First, the Indian capitalist class grew from about the mid-19th century with largely an independent capital base and not as junior partners of foreign capital or as compradors.

2. Second, the capitalist class, on the whole, was not tied up in a subservient position with pro-imperialist feudal interests, either economically or politically. In fact, a wide cross section of the leaders of the capitalist class actually argued, in 1944-45, in their famous Bombay Plan (the signatories to which were Purshottamdas Thakurdas, J.R.D. Tata, G.D. Birla, Ardeshir Dalal, Sri Ram, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, A.D. Shroff and John Mathai) for comprehensive land reforms, including co-operativization of production, finance and marketing.

3. Third, in the period 1914-1947, the capitalist class grew rapidly, increasing its strength and self-confidence. This was achieved primarily through import substitution; by edging out or encroaching upon areas of European domination, and by establishing almost exclusive control over new areas, thus accounting for the bulk of the new investments made since the 1920s.

4. Indian capitalists began to correctly perceive their long-term class interest and felt strong enough to take a consistent and openly anti-imperialist position. The hesitation that the class demonstrated was not in its opposition to imperialism, but in the choice of the specific path to fight imperialism. It was apprehensive that the path chosen should not be one which, while opposing imperialism, would threaten its own existence, i.e., undermine capitalism itself.