Also on the “Socialism” of the Indian National Congress – A Discussion with Comrade Zhang Shulan

I recently read Comrade Zhang Shulan’s article “The ‘Socialism’ of the Indian National Congress: Review and Prospects” (published in *Marxist Studies*, Issue 8, 2010, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang’s Article”) and found it quite enlightening. Zhang’s Article systematically explores the background, development process, and essence of the Indian National Congress’s “socialism,” and also offers a prospect for the future of Indian “socialism.” I believe that these analyses in Zhang’s Article are of considerable reference value for further academic research on the “socialism” of the Indian National Congress. However, upon reading, I feel that some viewpoints in Zhang’s Article seem open to discussion, and I am writing this article to seek advice from Comrade Zhang Shulan.

笔者最近拜读张淑兰同志的《印度国大党的“社会主义”：回顾与展望》（载《马克思主义研究》2010年第8期，以下简称“张文”）一文，颇受启发。张文较系统地探讨了印度国大党“社会主义”的产生背景和发展过程及其本质，并对印度“社会主义”的未来进行了展望。笔者认为，张文的这些分析对学术界进一步研究印度国大党的“社会主义”颇有参考价值。不过，拜读之余觉得张文有观点似乎值得商榷，特撰此文向张淑兰同志请教。

I. On the Understanding of the Concept of the Indian National Congress’s “Socialism”

一、关于印度国大党“社会主义”概念的理解问题

I believe it is first necessary to clarify what exactly the Indian National Congress means by the concept of “socialism”; otherwise, it would be impossible to discuss the matter with Comrade Zhang Shulan.

笔者觉得首先要弄清印度国大党所谓的“社会主义”这一概念究竟是指什么；否则，就无法与张淑兰同志商榷。

(1) The Indian National Congress’s so-called “socialism” sometimes refers to “socialist theory or doctrine.” On August 15, 1958, Nehru clearly stated in his article “The Basic Approach”: “But I think that many of the ideas of socialism have gradually become mixed into the structure of capitalism.” [1]1 Jawaharlal Nehru, “The Basic Approach,” *Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches*, Vol. 4 (New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1964), p. 142. In January 1964, the Indian National Congress’s *Bhubaneswar Resolution* pointed out: “The ideology of the Congress can be summed up as democratic socialism based on democracy, human dignity, and social justice.” [2]2 Indian National Congress, *Bhubaneswar Resolution*, January 1964. Here, “socialism” and “democratic socialism” both refer to “socialist theory or doctrine.”

（一）印度国大党所谓的“社会主义”有时是指“社会主义理论、学说”。1958年8月15日，尼赫鲁在《基本方法》一文中明确指出：“不过我认为社会主义的许多观点已逐渐掺和在资本主义的结构之中。” 1964年1月，印度国大党《布巴内斯瓦尔决议》指出：“国大党的思想体系可以概括为：在民主主义、人的尊严与社会正义基础上的民主社会主义。” 这里“社会主义”和“民主社会主义”均指“社会主义理论、学说”。

(2) The Indian National Congress’s so-called “socialism” sometimes refers to “the socialist path.” In December 1956, Nehru stated in his article “Our Socialist Economy”: “We are trying to build a new type of socialism—a middle path between the orthodox practices of communism and capitalism. Through this socialism, we will lead the people to a new land of prosperity.” [3]3 Jawaharlal Nehru, “Our Socialist Economy,” *Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches*, Vol. 3 (New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1958), p. 18. Here, “socialism” refers to “the socialist path.”

（二）印度国大党所谓的“社会主义”有时是指“社会主义道路”。1956年12月，尼赫鲁在《我们的社会主义经济》一文中指出：“我们正在努力建设一种新型的社会主义——一种在共产主义和资本主义国家的正统的实践之间的中间道路。通过这种社会主义，我们将把人民引向繁荣新天地。” 这里的“社会主义”是指“社会主义道路”。

(3) The Indian National Congress’s so-called “socialism” sometimes refers to “socialist methods or policies.” In August 1958, Nehru stated in “The Basic Approach”: “If socialism is adopted in a backward and underdeveloped country, it will not suddenly reduce the backwardness of that country.” [4]4 Nehru, “The Basic Approach,” p. 143. Here, “socialism” refers to “socialist methods,” because Nehru continues in the same article: “It must be remembered that poverty will not suddenly become wealth by the magical adoption of socialist or capitalist methods.” [5]5 Ibid. For this reason, Nehru argues in this article: “Socialism is basically a method different from capitalism.” [6]6 Ibid.

（三）印度国大党所谓的“社会主义”有时是指“社会主义方法、政策”。1958年8月，尼赫鲁在《基本方法》一文中指出：“如果在一个落后和不发达的国家里采用社会主义，是不会突然使这个国家的落后程度减少的。”这里的“社会主义”是指“社会主义方法”，因为尼赫鲁在文中继续说道：“必须牢记，不会由于魔术般地采用了社会主义或资本主义的方法，贫穷就突然变成富有了。”正因此，尼赫鲁在此文中认为：“社会主义基本上是同资本主义不同的一种方法。”

However, the Indian National Congress also uses the term “socialist policy.” For example, on April 13, 1973, a report from the Congress Parliamentary Board stated: “Congress MPs unanimously agreed that the Congress has decided to vigorously implement its established policy of democratic socialism.” [7]7 Congress Parliamentary Board Report, April 13, 1973. In fact, the Congress also regards “socialist policy” as “socialist methods.” For instance, in January 1964, the Congress’s *Bhubaneswar Resolution* referred to “planning” (“planned development”) as a “socialist policy,” while also calling “this policy” of “planning” (“planned development”) a “socialist method.” [8]8 Indian National Congress, *Bhubaneswar Resolution*, January 1964.

但印度国大党也有“社会主义（的）政策”这一提法。如：1973年4月13日，国大党议会局的一份报告里说：“国大党议员们一致认为，国大党已经决定大力推行它的民主社会主义的既定政策。” 事实上，国大党又将“社会主义政策”看成是“社会主义方法”。如：1964年1月，国大党《布巴内斯瓦尔决议》将“计划”（“计划化”）称为“社会主义政策”，同时将“计划”（“计划化”）“这一政策”称为“社会主义的方法”。

(4) The Indian National Congress’s so-called “socialism” sometimes refers to the so-called “socialist society (social formation).” After India gained independence, Nehru repeatedly stated: “Much can be said about socialism, but I want to emphasize one thing: the entire structure of capitalism is based on a society of a certain kind of greed. To some extent, perhaps the tendency toward greed is inherent in our nature. But a socialist society must rid itself of this tendency toward greed and replace it with a spirit of cooperation.” [9]9 Jawaharlal Nehru, *The Discovery of India* (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 521. From the subsequent sentences, the “socialism” in the preceding phrase “about socialism” refers to “socialist society.” Another example: in August 1958, Nehru stated in “The Basic Approach”: “If socialism is adopted in a backward and underdeveloped country, it will not suddenly reduce the backwardness of that country. In fact, there will emerge a backward, poor socialism.” [10]10 Nehru, “The Basic Approach,” p. 143. Here, the first “socialism” refers to “socialist methods,” and the latter “socialism” refers to the so-called “socialist society.”

（四）印度国大党所谓的“社会主义”有时是指所谓“社会主义社会（形态）”。印度获得独立后，尼赫鲁多次说道：“关于社会主义，可以说很多，但是我想强调一件事，资本主义的整个结构是以某种贪得无厌的社会为基础的。从某种程度上说，也许贪得无厌的倾向是我们身上固有的本性。但是，社会主义社会必须摆脱这种贪得无厌的倾向，要用合作的精神来取代它。” 从后面的文句来看，前面“关于社会主义”中的“社会主义”是指“社会主义社会”。再如，1958年8月，尼赫鲁在《基本方法》一文中指出：“如果在一个落后和不发达的国家里采用社会主义，是不会突然使这个国家的落后程度减少的。事实上会出现一个落后的贫困的社会主义。” 这里的前一个“社会主义”是指“社会主义方法”，后一个“社会主义”是指所谓“社会主义社会”。

The above shows that the Indian National Congress’s so-called “socialism” has different meanings on different occasions: sometimes it refers to “socialist theory or doctrine,” sometimes to “the socialist path,” sometimes to “socialist policies or methods,” and sometimes to the so-called “socialist society,” and so on. Zhang’s Article states that after the Congress’s Avadi session in January 1955, the Congress’s documents often abbreviated “socialist pattern of society” to “socialism.” I agree with this statement. However, I also believe that the Congress’s so-called “socialism” does not necessarily always refer to the so-called “socialist society” (“socialist pattern of society”).

以上表明，印度国大党所谓的“社会主义”在不同的场合有不同的含义，有时是指“社会主义理论、学说”，有时是指“社会主义道路”，有时是指“社会主义政策、方法”，有时是指所谓“社会主义社会”，等等。张文说，1955年1月国大党阿瓦迪年会后，国大党的文件中常常把“社会主义类型社会”简称为“社会主义”。笔者同意这一说法。但笔者还认为，国大党所谓的“社会主义”并不一定就是指所谓“社会主义社会”（“社会主义类型社会”）。

II. Before the 1980s, “Socialism” Was Always Both a Goal and a Tool of the Congress

二、20世纪80年代之前，“社会主义”始终是国大党的追求目标和工具

Zhang’s Article argues that “from 1955 to 1967, socialism was the goal of the Congress”; “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool.” I do not fully agree with these two viewpoints in Zhang’s Article.

张文认为，“1955－1967年，社会主义是国大党的追求目标”；“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”。笔者不完全同意张文的这两个观点。

First, I believe that whether in the period 1955–1967 or in 1967–1980, “socialism” was always a goal pursued by the Indian National Congress.

首先，笔者认为，无论是在1955－1967年，还是在1967－1980年，“社会主义”始终是印度国大党的追求目标。

(1) From 1955 to 1967, “socialism” was the goal of the Congress. I agree with Zhang’s Article on this point. As Zhang’s Article states, in January 1955, upon Nehru’s proposal, the Congress’s Avadi session passed a resolution to build a “socialist pattern of society” in India, making the construction of a “socialist pattern of society” the party’s overall goal. The Congress as a whole accepted the “socialist program.” [11]11 Indian National Congress, *Avadi Resolution*, January 1955. Additionally, in January 1964, the Congress’s Bhubaneswar session further clarified the aim to establish a “democratic socialist society” in India. [12]12 Indian National Congress, *Bhubaneswar Resolution*, January 1964. Thus, from 1955 to 1967, “socialism” (here referring to “socialist society,” i.e., “socialist pattern of society” or “democratic socialist society”) was the goal pursued by the Congress.

（一）1955－1967年，“社会主义”是国大党的追求目标。张文持这一观点，笔者表示赞同。正如张文所说，1955年1月，由于尼赫鲁的提议，在国大党的阿瓦迪年会上通过在印度建设“社会主义类型社会”的决议，把建设“社会主义类型社会”作为全党的奋斗目标。国大党作为一个整体接受了“社会主义纲领”。另外，1964年1月，在国大党的布巴内斯瓦尔年会上进一步明确要在印度建立一个“民主社会主义社会”。可见，1955－1967年，“社会主义”（这里是指“社会主义社会”亦即“社会主义类型社会”或“民主社会主义社会”）是国大党的追求目标。

(II) 1967–1980: “Socialism” Remained the Goal of the Congress Party. Comrade Zhang’s article argues that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool”; in other words, from 1967 to 1980, “socialism” was not the goal pursued by the Congress Party. This is open to question. Because, as Comrade Zhang’s article itself states, Indira Gandhi, who basically controlled the Congress Party after Nehru’s death, pointed out: “I am not a communist. … But I believe that with our efforts we can establish a socialist type of society in India.” [13]13 Indira Gandhi, quoted in Zhang Shulan, “On the ‘Socialism’ of the Indian National Congress,” p. 3. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Furthermore, the Constitution of the Indian National Congress, effective from 25 June 1967, clearly states: “The object of the Party is to strive for the welfare and progress of the people of India and, by peaceful and constitutional means, to establish a socialist state based on parliamentary democracy in India.” [14]14 Constitution of the Indian National Congress, effective 25 June 1967, Article I. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Indira Gandhi, on 18 July 1970, in the foreword to the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–1974), also wrote explicitly: “With the completion of this Plan, we shall move into another period, advancing toward our goal, namely, a prosperous, democratic, modern and socialist society.” [15]15 Indira Gandhi, Foreword to the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–1974), 18 July 1970. (The original source is not provided in the text.) The Indian government’s memorandum on the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–1974) also clearly states: “It is necessary to build a truly democratic and socialist society in which people both fairly share and fairly benefit.” [16]16 Government of India, Memorandum on the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–1974). (The original source is not provided in the text.) Finally, in a document titled “An Approach to the Fifth Five-Year Plan” issued by the Indian government on 30–31 May 1972, it still clearly states: “The basic premise of our Five-Year Plans has been to advance along socialist lines, in order to achieve rapid economic development, expand employment, reduce inequalities in income and wealth, prevent the concentration of economic power, and foster the values and attitudes appropriate to a free and just society.” [17]17 Government of India, “An Approach to the Fifth Five-Year Plan,” 30–31 May 1972. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Clearly, from 1967 to 1980, “socialism” (here referring to a “socialist society”) remained the goal of the Congress Party.

（二）1967－1980年，“社会主义”仍然是国大党的追求目标。张文认为，“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”，换言之，1967－1980年，“社会主义”不是国大党的追求目标。这是值得商榷的。因为，正如张文所说，在尼赫鲁去世后基本上控制国大党的英迪拉•甘地指出：“我不是共产主义者。……但我相信可以用我们的努力在印度建立社会主义类型的社会。”此外，1967年6月25日起生效的《印度国大党章程》明确指出：“本党宗旨在为印度人民谋求幸福与进步，以和平与宪法规定的方式，在印度建立一个以议会民主制为基础的社会主义国家。” 英迪拉•甘地1970年7月18日在四五计划（1969－1974）前言里还明确地写道：“随着此计划的完成，我们将迈进另一个时期，朝着我们的目标亦即繁荣的、民主的、现代的和社会主义的社会前进。” 印度政府在“四五计划”（1969－1974）备忘录中也明确地写道：“必须建立一个真正民主的和社会主义的社会，在这个社会中，人们既公平地分担也公平地分享利益。” 最后，印度政府于1972年5月30－31日在一份题为《对第五个五年计划的探讨》的文件里仍然明确地写道：“我们五年计划的基本前提已经是沿着社会主义路线前进，以求得迅速发展经济，扩大就业，减少收入与财富的不平等，防止经济权力的集中，形成一个自由公正的社会所应有的价值观和态度。” 显然，1967－1980年，“社会主义”（这里是指“社会主义社会”）仍然是国大党的追求目标。

Here the author takes the opportunity to analyze the reasoning in Comrade Zhang’s article. Comrade Zhang’s article argues that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool”; in other words, from 1967 to 1980, “socialism” was not the goal pursued by the Congress Party. It gives two reasons:

这里笔者顺便分析一下张文的理由。张文认为，“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”，换言之，1967－1980年，“社会主义”不是国大党的追求目标。其理由有二：

The first reason is: Indira Gandhi said, “Socialism is not the same in every country. Socialism is not our main objective; our main objective is to eliminate the poverty of the people. Socialism is only a tool and a path.” [18]18 Indira Gandhi, quoted in Zhang Shulan, “On the ‘Socialism’ of the Indian National Congress,” p. 3. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Comrade Zhang’s article uses this as one reason to argue for the view that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool.”

理由之一是：英迪拉•甘地说：“社会主义在每个国家都不是一样的。社会主义不是我们的主要目的，我们的主要目的是消除人民的贫困。社会主义只是工具和道路。”张文以此作为理由之一来论证其“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”这一观点。

In fact, the basic viewpoint of this statement by Indira Gandhi is consistent with Nehru’s earlier basic viewpoint. For example, in August 1958, in an article titled “The Basic Approach,” Nehru pointed out: the Congress Party “must think for itself,” “must find a path suited to its own conditions”; “democracy and socialism” “are not ends in themselves”; “our ultimate aim” is “the welfare of society” or a “welfare state”; “democracy and socialism are means to an end.” [19]19 Jawaharlal Nehru, “The Basic Approach,” August 1958. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Thus, from 1967 to 1980, Indira Gandhi’s “socialist thought” was essentially the same as Nehru’s earlier “socialist thought.” Since Comrade Zhang’s article acknowledges that “from 1955 to 1967, socialism was the goal pursued by the Congress Party,” it should also acknowledge that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism remained the goal pursued by the Congress Party,” and cannot say that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool.”

其实，英迪拉•甘地这段话的基本观点与以前尼赫鲁的基本观点是一致的。如：1958年8月，尼赫鲁在《基本方法》一文中指出：国大党“必须自己思考”，“要找出一条适合我们自己情况的道路”；“民主和社会主义”“不是目的本身”；“我们最终的目的”是“社会的幸福”或“福利国家”；“民主和社会主义是达到目的的手段。” 可见，1967－1980年，英迪拉•甘地的“社会主义思想”与以前尼赫鲁的“社会主义思想”基本上是一样的。既然，张文承认“1955－1967年，社会主义是国大党的追求目标”，那么也应该承认“1967－1980年，社会主义仍然是国大党的追求目标”，而不能说“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”。

Moreover, the “socialism” in the above statement by Indira Gandhi can be understood as referring to “socialist policies and methods.” In other words, in Indira Gandhi’s view, “socialist policies and methods” are not the same in every country. “Socialist policies and methods” are not the main objective of the Congress Party; the main objective of the Congress Party is to eliminate the poverty of the people. The Congress Party uses “socialist policies and methods” to eliminate the poverty of the people and achieve the goal of “the welfare of society” or a “welfare state.” Clearly, the “socialism” in this statement by Indira Gandhi does not refer to a “socialist society.” But Comrade Zhang’s article understands it as “socialist society,” and thus arrives at the view that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool.” This understanding does not conform to Indira Gandhi’s original intention.

另外，英迪拉•甘地上述这段话中的“社会主义”可以理解为是指“社会主义政策、方法”。换言之，在英迪拉•甘地看来，“社会主义政策、方法”在每个国家都不是一样的。“社会主义政策、方法”不是国大党的主要目的，国大党的主要目的是消除人民的贫困。国大党通过“社会主义政策、方法”消除人民的贫困，达到“社会的幸福”或“福利国家”这一目的。显然，英迪拉•甘地这段话中的“社会主义”不是指“社会主义社会”。但张文将它理解为“社会主义社会”，所以得出了“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”这一观点。这一理解并不符合英迪拉•甘地的本意。

From the above, it can be seen that this statement by Indira Gandhi cannot prove that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism changed from a goal into a tool.”

由上可见，英迪拉•甘地这段话并不能说明“1967－1980年，社会主义由目标变成了工具”。

The second reason in Comrade Zhang’s article is: “The Indian government wrote in the Fifth Five-Year Plan that ‘building a fully democratic socialist society’ is ‘the sole means of achieving these goals,’ including ‘consolidating the democratic political order, preventing the concentration of economic power, reducing inequalities in income and wealth, achieving balanced regional development, and forming the institutions, values and attitudes appropriate to a free and just society.’” [20]20 Zhang Shulan, “On the ‘Socialism’ of the Indian National Congress,” p. 3. (The original source is not provided in the text.) But Comrade Zhang’s article does not indicate the source of this material. To clarify this issue, the author consulted the full text of India’s Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974–1979), including its “Foreword” and main body, and did not find the material Comrade Zhang mentions. [21]21 The author states that the full text of India’s Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974–1979) was consulted and the quoted material was not found. On the contrary, the author found material indicating that “from 1967 to 1980, socialism remained the goal pursued by the Congress Party.” For example, in March 1971, after winning a major electoral victory, Mrs. Gandhi reorganized the Planning Commission, determined a “new direction” for economic policy, and made the implementation of “plans to accelerate the advent of socialism” the highest priority political task. [22]22 The author refers to Indira Gandhi’s reorganization of the Planning Commission in March 1971 and the prioritization of “accelerating the advent of socialism.” Under the “Prime Minister’s instructions,” the Indian government issued a document titled “An Approach to the Fifth Five-Year Plan” on 30–31 May 1972, reaffirming that “the basic premise of our Fifth Five-Year Plan” is “to advance along socialist lines, in order to achieve rapid economic development, expand employment, reduce the wide disparities in income and wealth, prevent the concentration of economic power, and create the values of a free and equal society.” [23]23 Government of India, “An Approach to the Fifth Five-Year Plan,” 30–31 May 1972. (The original source is not provided in the text.)

张文理由之二是：“印度政府在五五计划中写到‘建立一个充分民主的社会主义社会’是实现‘这些目标的唯一手段’，包括‘巩固民主的政治秩序，防止经济权力的集中，减少收入与财富的不平等，实现地区的平衡发展，形成一个自由公正的社会所应有的制度、价值观和态度’。”但张文并未标出此资料的出处。为弄清此问题，笔者查阅了印度“五五计划”（1974－1979）全文，包括其“前言”和正文，并未发现张文所说的这个资料。 恰恰相反，笔者倒发现有资料说明“1967－1980年，社会主义仍然是国大党的追求目标”。如：1971年3月，甘地夫人取得大选胜利后，重组计划委员会，确定经济政策的“新方向”，把执行“加速社会主义来临的计划”作为最优先考虑的政治任务。在“总理的指示”下，印度政府1972年5月30－31日出台了一份题为《对第五个五年计划的探讨》的文件，重申“我国第五个五年计划的基本前提”是“沿着社会主义路线前进，以求得迅速发展经济，扩大就业，缩小收入和财富的悬殊差别，防止经济权力的集中，创立自由、平等社会的价值观” 。

In summary, the author believes that the above two reasons in Comrade Zhang’s article both appear untenable.

总之，笔者认为，张文上述两个理由似乎均站不住脚。

The above shows that from 1967 to 1980, “socialism” remained the goal pursued by the Indian National Congress, where “socialism” refers to the so-called “socialist society” (i.e., a “socialist type of society” or a “democratic socialist society”). As Professor Atul Kohli of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University wrote in an article in July 1980: “India’s political leaders have repeatedly declared that they intend to move India in the direction of a socialist type of development.” [24]24 Atul Kohli, “The Politics of Economic Liberalization in India,” World Development, Vol. 8, No. 7/8, July 1980, p. 1. (The original source is not provided in the text.)

以上表明，1967－1980年，“社会主义”仍然是印度国大党的追求目标，这里的“社会主义”是指所谓“社会主义社会”（亦即“社会主义类型社会”或“民主社会主义社会”）。正如普林斯顿大学政治与国际事务教授阿图尔•科利1980年7月撰文所说：“印度的政治领导人再三宣称，他们要使印度朝着社会主义类型的发展方向前进。”

Secondly, the author believes that whether in 1955–1967 or in 1967–1980, “socialism” was always a tool of the Congress Party.

其次，笔者认为，无论是在1955－1967年，还是在1967－1980年，“社会主义”始终是国大党的工具。

(I) 1955–1967: “Socialism” Was a Tool of the Congress Party. As early as 1936, Nehru had already clearly pointed out: “As far as India is concerned, given India’s current position, I do indeed like nationalism. … Socialism will ultimately have to be the political garb that pushes nationalism forward. That is the common ground between socialism and nationalism; both endorse political independence.” [25]25 Jawaharlal Nehru, speech or writing from 1936. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Thus, at this time Nehru had already regarded “socialism” as a tool of the Congress Party (here, of course, only as a tool for achieving nationalism).

（一）1955－1967年，“社会主义”是国大党的工具。早在1936年，尼赫鲁就已经明确地指出：“就印度来说，就印度目前所处的地位来说，我确实喜欢民族主义。……社会主义将最终不得不作为政治外衣把民族主义推向前进。这就是社会主义和民族主义之间的共同点，两者都赞同政治独立。” 可见，此时尼赫鲁已将“社会主义”当成国大党的工具（当然这里只是当成实现民族主义的工具）。

In January 1964, the Congress Party’s Bhubaneswar Resolution pointed out: the task of the Congress Party is “to build a socialist society,” but the specific goals of this society are many; “the primary goal is the elimination of poverty, and all the evils that poverty brings.” The “method” adopted, i.e., the “socialist method,” is specifically the “socialist policy” of “planning” (“planned development”). [26]26 Indian National Congress, Bhubaneswar Resolution, January 1964. (The original source is not provided in the text.) Here, the “socialist policy and method” of “planning” (“planned development”) becomes the tool of the Congress Party for building a “socialist society,” including “eliminating poverty.”

1964年1月，国大党《布巴内斯瓦尔决议》指出：国大党任务是“要建立一个社会主义社会”，但此社会具体目标有很多，“首要的目标是消除贫困，以及贫困带来的全部邪恶。”采用的“方法”亦即“社会主义方法”，具体说是“计划”（“计划化”）这一“社会主义政策”。 这里，“计划”（“计划化”）这一“社会主义政策、方法”成为国大党建立“社会主义社会”包括“消除贫困”的工具。

Furthermore, the renowned Indian economists Ruddar Datt and K.P.M. Sundharam, in evaluating the “democratic socialist society” that Nehru strove to build, also clearly pointed out: “In a society built on the principles of democratic socialism, socialism and democracy are the means of creating such a society, in which all people enjoy equal opportunities for education and work, and the exploitation of one class by another is abolished.” [27]27 Ruddar Datt and K.P.M. Sundharam, *Indian Economy*, p. 186. It is evident that they too regard “socialism” (here referring to “socialist policies and methods”) as the tool or means by which the Congress Party establishes a “socialist society.”

此外，印度著名经济学家鲁达尔•达特和K•P•M•桑达拉姆在评价尼赫鲁努力建设的“民主社会主义社会”时也明确地指出：“建立在民主社会主义原则基础上的社会里，社会主义和民主是创造这样一个社会的手段，在这个社会里，所有人都享有平等的受教育和工作的机会，并且废除了一个阶级对另一个阶级的剥削。” 很明显，他们也认为“社会主义”（这里是指“社会主义政策、方法”）是国大党建立“社会主义社会”的工具、手段。

(2) 1967–1980: “Socialism” remained a tool of the Congress Party. Comrade Zhang’s article holds this view, and the present author also agrees. As Comrade Zhang’s article states, Indira Gandhi pointed out: “Socialism is not the same in every country. Socialism is not our main objective; our main objective is to eliminate the poverty of the people. Socialism is only a tool and a path.” Here “socialism” refers to “socialist policies and methods.”

（二）1967－1980年，“社会主义”仍然是国大党的工具。张文持这一观点。笔者也对此表示同意。正如张文所说，英迪拉•甘地指出：“社会主义在每个国家都不是一样的。社会主义不是我们的主要目的，我们的主要目的是消除人民的贫困。社会主义只是工具和道路。”这里的“社会主义”是指“社会主义政策、方法”。

In summary, before the 1980s, “socialism” was always the goal pursued by the Indian National Congress (here “socialism” refers to “socialist society”); “socialism” was also always a tool of the Congress Party (here “socialism” refers to “socialist policies and methods,” such as “planning”). For this reason, in India there is the expression “the Congress Party’s ‘socialist’ policies and objectives.” For example, in 1964, the Indian Communist Mohan Kumaramangalam used the phrase “the Congress Party’s ‘socialist’ policies and objectives” in his article “A Review of Party Policy Since 1947.” [28]28 Mohan Kumaramangalam, “A Review of Party Policy Since 1947,” in *Documents of the Communist Party of India*, Vol. 9, p. 322.

综上所述，20世纪80年代之前，“社会主义”始终是印度国大党的追求目标（这里“社会主义”是指“社会主义社会”）；“社会主义”也始终是国大党的工具（这里的“社会主义”是指“社会主义政策、方法”，如“计划化”）。正因此，在印度，有“国大党的‘社会主义’政策和目的”这样的说法。如：1964年，印度共产党人莫汉•库马拉曼加拉姆在《评一九四七年以来党的政策》一文中使用了“国大党的‘社会主义’政策和目的”这一说法 。

III. On the Nature of the Indian National Congress’s “Socialism”

三、关于印度国大党“社会主义”的本质

Regarding the nature of the Indian National Congress’s “socialism,” Mr. Zhu Mingzhong, in his article “A Critique of Nehru’s Socialist Thought” published in *Contemporary Asia-Pacific* (Issue 8, 1998), stated: “The theory of building a ‘socialist-type society’ in India, proposed by Nehru in 1955, and the theory of establishing ‘democratic socialism,’ which he further advanced in 1964, are essentially the same in nature. They are neither orthodox Marxist socialism nor pure Western-style capitalism, but a synthesis of socialism and capitalism—what he called a ‘middle path.’” Comrade Zhang’s article cites this passage and regards it as “the view of Chinese academic circles.” In fact, Mr. Zhu’s assessment above is merely one opinion within Chinese academia. Indeed, after Mr. Zhu’s article was published, the present author published “Also a Critique of Nehru’s Socialist Thought – A Discussion with Mr. Zhu Mingzhong” in *Contemporary Asia-Pacific* (Issue 12, 1998), arguing that “Nehru’s socialist thought, in its essence, does not go beyond the category of capitalism,” even though Nehru subjectively believed his “socialism” to be a “middle path.” “Nehru’s socialism is by no means a ‘middle path’; it is state monopoly capitalism, whose fundamental nature remains capitalist and does not alter the essence of capitalist relations of production.” In reality, the mainstream view in Chinese academia is that Nehru’s “socialism” is capitalist in nature, or is described as “bourgeois nationalism,” [29]29 See Gao Kun and Zhang Minqiu, *A History of Political Thought in South Asia*, p. 418. “reformed capitalism,” [30]30 See Chen Fengjun, *A History of Modern Indian Society*, p. 312. “hidden capitalism under the signboard of socialism,” [31]31 See Liu Hong, “On the Nature of Nehru’s Socialism,” *World History*, 1994, Issue 1. or “state capitalism.” [32]32 See Wang Hongsheng, “An Analysis of the Nature of Nehru’s Socialism,” *South Asian Studies*, 1996, Issue 2.

关于印度国大党“社会主义”的本质，朱明忠先生在《当代亚太》1998年第8期发表《评尼赫鲁的社会主义思想》一文，说道：“1955年尼赫鲁提出在印度建设‘社会主义类型社会’的理论，1964年，他又进一步提出建立‘民主社会主义’的理论，这两种理论在本质上是一样的。它们既不是正统的马克思主义的社会主义，也不是纯粹的西方式的资本主义，而是社会主义与资本主义的一种综合，用他的话说是一种‘中间道路’。”张文引用朱先生的这段文字，并看成是“我国学术界认为”。其实，朱先生的上述评价只是中国学术界的一种看法。事实上，朱先生的文章发表后，笔者在《当代亚太》1998年第12期发表了《也评尼赫鲁的社会主义思想——与朱明忠先生商榷》一文，认为，“尼赫鲁的社会主义思想就实质上而言并没有超出资本主义的范畴”，虽然尼赫鲁主观上认为他的“社会主义”是“中间道路”。“尼赫鲁的这种社会主义绝不是‘中间道路’，而是国家垄断资本主义，其根本性质仍然是资本主义，并没有改变资本主义生产关系的本质。”实际上，中国学术界的主流观点是，尼赫鲁的“社会主义”属于资本主义性质，或曰“资产阶级民族主义” ，或曰“改良资本主义” ，或曰“挂起社会主义招牌的隐蔽的资本主义” ，或曰“国家资本主义” 。

The abstract of Comrade Zhang’s article clearly states: The Indian-style “socialist-type society” represented by the Congress Party “essentially follows a middle path that synthesizes capitalist ‘democracy’ and socialist ‘fairness.’” However, in the main text, after citing Mr. Zhu’s assessment above, Comrade Zhang offers her own view: “Since its independence, India has always been a capitalist country. Before the 1980s, India was, in essence, a national capitalist country, but one with a strong socialist tendency.” Clearly, Comrade Zhang’s article presents two different views on the nature of the Congress Party’s “socialism.” If we take the view in the main text—namely, “national capitalism with a strong socialist tendency”—as the standard, then the present author believes that this view is basically acceptable. The only shortcoming is that the modifier “with a strong socialist tendency” seems somewhat inappropriate.

张文的“内容提要”里明确地说道：以国大党为代表的印度式的“社会主义类型社会”，“实质上走的是把资本主义的‘民主’和社会主义的‘公平’综合起来的中间道路”。但张的正文里在引用朱先生的上述评价之后，谈了自己这样的看法：“印度自独立之日起就一直是一个资本主义国家，80年代之前的印度，从本质上讲是民族资本主义国家，但是一个具有浓厚的社会主义倾向的民族资本主义国家。”很明显，张文在关于国大党“社会主义”本质的看法上同时出现了两个不同的观点。如果以正文里的观点亦即“具有浓厚的社会主义倾向的民族资本主义”这一观点为准，那么笔者认为，张文的这一观点基本上是能够接受的。美中不足的是，其中的“具有浓厚的社会主义倾向”这一修饰语用得似乎不大妥帖。

The present author believes that the following assessment is more suitable for evaluating the nature of the Congress Party’s “socialism”: In essence, the Congress Party’s “socialism” is non-scientific socialism; specifically, the Congress Party’s “socialism” before the 1980s was a national capitalism that politically accepted the Western parliamentary democratic system, economically adopted certain policies resembling socialism, and integrated India’s own conditions. A brief analysis follows.

笔者觉得下面这样的评价似乎更适合于评价国大党的“社会主义”本质：从本质上讲，国大党的“社会主义”是非科学社会主义的；具体而言，20世纪80年代之前的国大党“社会主义”是政治上接受西方议会民主制度和经济上采用某些类似社会主义的政策、并结合印度自身情况的民族资本主义。下面对此略作分析。

(1) Politically, it accepted the Western parliamentary democratic system. Nehru believed that Western capitalist countries were politically democratic. Therefore, he politically accepted the Western capitalist system, especially deeply influenced by the British parliamentary democratic system. [33]33 See S. Gopal, *Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography*, Vol. 1, p. 245. Consequently, his “socialism” advocated a British-style parliamentary democratic system in politics. In practice, after India’s independence, Nehru, as Prime Minister, insisted on combining Western parliamentary democratic politics with Indian nationalism. The Constitution of the Republic of India, which came into effect in January 1950, stipulated that India is a sovereign, “socialist,” secular democratic republic; it adopted a British-style parliamentary democratic system, with regular elections based on universal adult suffrage; and it established a political system of separation of powers and mutual checks and balances.

（一）政治上接受西方议会民主制度。尼赫鲁认为，西方资本主义国家在政治上是民主的。所以，他在政治方面接受西方资本主义制度，尤其是深受英国议会民主制度的影响。 正因此，他的“社会主义”主张政治上实行英国式的议会民主制度。从实践上看，印度独立后，尼赫鲁作为总理，坚持把西方议会民主政治与印度民族主义相结合。1950年1月，生效的印度共和国宪法规定，印度是主权的、“社会主义”的、世俗的民主共和国；采取英国式的议会民主制度，实行成人普选权基础上的定期选举；建立三权分立、相互制衡的政治体制。

(2) Economically, it adopted certain policies resembling socialism. Nehru believed that socialist countries were economically equal. Therefore, he economically adopted policies resembling socialism, especially deeply influenced by Soviet economic policies and methods. Before India’s independence, Nehru stated: “I have long been inclined towards socialism and communism, and the Soviet Union greatly interests me. But there are many things in the Soviet Union that I do not like—for example, the brutal suppression of all opposition, the insistence on uniformity in everything, and the unnecessary violence in implementing policies.” [34]34 Jawaharlal Nehru, *An Autobiography*, p. 361. Hence, his “socialism” advocated economically adopting policies resembling socialism. [35]35 See B.R. Nanda, *Jawaharlal Nehru: Rebel and Statesman*, p. 198. In practice, from the early 1950s, various activities to build “socialism” were carried out in India’s urban and rural areas. In industry, a planned economy (“planning”) was implemented to manage the economy, and a large “public” sector was established (through nationalization policies); in rural areas, “land reform” and various types of cooperatives were promoted; “social justice” and “social equality” were advocated, along with the “elimination of poverty.”

（二）经济上采用某些类似社会主义的政策。尼赫鲁认为，社会主义国家在经济上是平等的。所以，他在经济方面采用类似社会主义的政策，尤其是深受苏联经济政策和经济手段的影响。印度独立前，尼赫鲁就说道：“我早就倾向于社会主义和共产主义，苏联使我很感兴趣。但是，苏联有许多事情我不喜欢——例如残暴地取缔一切反对的意见，什么事情都要搞成一模一样，在执行政策时采取不必要的暴力。” 所以，他的“社会主义”主张经济上采用类似社会主义的政策。 从实践上看，50年代初开始，印度城乡开展了建设“社会主义”的各项活动。在工业中实行计划经济（“计划化”）以管理经济，并建立庞大的“公营”经济（推行国有化政策）；在农村进行“土地改革”和建立各种类型的合作社；提倡“社会公正”和“社会均等”，“消灭贫困”。

(3) It integrated India’s own conditions. Nehru believed that after independence, India’s wholesale adoption of the views and methods of Western capitalist countries and socialist countries would be harmful to India’s “socialist” construction; India’s “socialism” should not only combine the essence of Marxist socialism and Western capitalist democratic systems but also be practical and pragmatic, and must suit India’s conditions. [36]36 See Michael Brecher, *Nehru: A Political Biography*, p. 312. In practice, Nehru’s “socialism” combined socialist public ownership of the means of production with capitalist private ownership, implementing a mixed economic system adapted to India’s own conditions. In this system, the public and private sectors developed simultaneously, diverse economic components competed in the market according to their strengths, while ensuring the dominant position of the public sector in the national economy. In addition, it adhered to non-violence, that is, carrying out change through peaceful and cooperative means, such as buying out certain domestic and foreign enterprises to bring them into the public sector, and so on.

（三）结合印度自身情况。尼赫鲁认为，独立后印度完全搬用西方资本主义国家和社会主义国家的观点与方法对印度的“社会主义”建设有害；印度的“社会主义”不仅要把马克思主义的社会主义与西方资本主义民主制度两者的精华结合起来，而且是实际和实用的，必须适合印度的情况。 从实践上看，尼赫鲁的“社会主义”将生产资料社会主义公有制和资本主义私有制结合起来，实行适应印度自身情况的混合经济体制，在此体制里，公营和私营经济同时并举，多元的经济成分在市场竞争中各尽所长，同时确保公营经济在国民经济中的主导地位。此外，奉行非暴力主义，亦即通过和平和合作的方式进行变革，如赎买本国和外国的某些企业。使之成为公营经济，等等。

In sum, the author holds that, in essence, the “socialism” of the Indian National Congress before the 1980s was a national capitalism that politically accepted the Western parliamentary democratic system and economically adopted certain policies resembling socialism, while integrating India’s own conditions. This view seems more appropriate than the view in Comrade Zhang’s article of “a national capitalism with a strong socialist tendency.”

总之，笔者认为，从本质上讲，20世纪80年代之前的印度国大党“社会主义”是政治上接受西方议会民主制度和经济上采用某些类似社会主义的政策、并结合印度自身情况的民族资本主义。这一看法似乎比张文中“具有浓厚的社会主义倾向的民族资本主义”的看法更妥帖点。

The above is merely the author’s humble opinion, with many shortcomings. I respectfully request Comrade Zhang Shulan and colleagues in the academic community to offer criticism and correction.

以上仅系笔者一点浅见，不足之处太多。敬请张淑兰同志和学术界同仁批评指正!

References:

参考文献：

[1]1 Jawaharlal Nehru, “The Basic Approach,” *Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches*, Vol. 4 (New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1964), p. 142. Jawaharlal Nehru, *The Discovery of India*, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 1956.

[1] 尼赫鲁：《印度的发现》，北京：世界知识出版社，1956年。

[2]2 Indian National Congress, *Bhubaneswar Resolution*, January 1964. Compiled by the Shanghai Society of Scientific Socialism and the Information Office of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, *Selected Translations of Contemporary Socialist Thought in Asia, Africa, and Latin America*, Shanghai: Printing Factory of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, 1982.

[2] 上海科学社会主义学会、上海社会科学院情报所合编：《当代亚非拉社会主义思潮资料选译》，上海：上海社会科学院印刷厂，1982年。

[3]3 Jawaharlal Nehru, “Our Socialist Economy,” *Jawaharlal Nehru’s Speeches*, Vol. 3 (New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1958), p. 18. Edited by Zhou Qing, Chen Feng, and Chen Youwen, *Contemporary Eastern Political Thought*, Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Publishing House, 1993.

[3] 周青、晨风、陈友文主编：《当代东方政治思潮》，广州：广东人民出版社，1993年。

[4]4 Nehru, “The Basic Approach,” p. 143. Tao Jiyi, “A Comparison of the Socialist Thought of Nehru and Sukarno,” *Contemporary Asia-Pacific*, Issue 6, 1999.

[4] 陶季邑：《尼赫鲁和苏加诺的社会主义思想之比较》，载《当代亚太》1999年第6期。

[5]5 Ibid. Shang Quanyu, “Nehru and Modern India,” *Quarterly Journal of South Asian Studies*, Issue 3, 1993.

[5] 尚劝余：《尼赫鲁与现代印度》，载《南亚研究季刊》1993年第3期。

(Editor: Zhang Qiao)

（编辑：张 桥）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑