Consider the following statements regarding the Indian capitalists, with respect to the National Movement:

1. They preferred constitutional means of struggle, as opposed to mass civil disobedience.

2. The capitalists determined the course of the Congress-led movements.

3. The Indian capitalists did not boycott elections to the Legislative Assemblies.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

1. The Indian capitalist class had its own notions of how the anti-imperialist struggle ought to be waged. It was always in favour of not completely abandoning the constitutional path and the negotiating table, and generally preferred to put its weight behind the constitutional forms of struggle, as opposed to mass civil disobedience.

2. As for the capitalists determining the course of the Congress – led movements (many of them, in specific areas, led or supported by socialists and communists), again there is little evidence to support this view. The Congress launched or withdrew movements based on its own strategic perceptions arising out of its understanding of the nature of the colonial state and its current postures, the organizational, political and ideological preparedness of the people, the staying power of the masses, especially when faced with repression, and so on. It did not do so at the behest and not even on behalf of the capitalist class. In fact, almost each time the Congress launched mass movements, e.g., in 1905-08, 1920-22, 1930, 1932 and 1942, it did so without the approval of either the capitalist class as a whole or a significant section of it.

3. Further, the Indian capitalists’ support to constitutional participation, whether it be in assemblies, conferences or even joining the Viceroy’s Executive Council, is not to be understood simply as their getting co-opted into the imperial system or surrendering to it. They saw all this as a forum for maintaining an effective opposition, fearing that boycotting these forums completely would help ‘black legs’ and elements that did not represent the nation to, without any opposition, easily pass measures which could severely affect the Indian economy and the capitalist class. However, there was no question of unconditionally accepting reforms or participating in conferences or assemblies. The capitalists were to ‘participate on (their) own terms,’ with ‘no compromise on fundamentals,’ firmly rejecting offers of co-operation which fell below their own and the minimum national demands.’