16 SOCIAL SCIENTIST the place of foreign capital should be examined so as to ensure that the economic controls remain with the nationals of the country.3 The report's recommendations were vigorously opposed by the business chambers as well as by the conservative forces within the ruling Congress party. As a consequence of this pressure, and the relative weakness of the anti-capitalist forces, the Industrial Policy Statement which followed less than three months later on 6' April substantially reduced the areas reserved for the state and took a 'softer' position towards foreign capital.4 Under the 1948 Industrial Policy Statement only three industries were to be exclusively reserved for the state, with new undertakings in six more reserved for the public sector. The EPC report's recommendation of a five-year period for the takeover of private units operating in reserved industries was not only extended to 10 years, but it was further stated that "the whole matter will be reviewed and a decision taken.... at the time." In other words, the takeover of these private sector units even after 10 years, was by no means certain. In regard to foreign capital, it was acknowledged "that participation of foreign capital and enterprise...will be of value to the rapid industrialisation of the country." But, unlike the EPC report, while it was reiterated that "the major interest in ownership, and effective control should always be in Indian hands...."It was further stated that powers would be taken "to deal with exceptional cases.... to serve the national interest."5 Exactly a year later, on 6 April 1949, Nehru made a "Statement on Foreign Investment in India," in the Constituent Assembly (Legislative). Therein the earlier policy of more or less strict regulation of foreign capital was explicitly discarded, as it* arose from (the) past association of foreign capital and control with foreign domination of the economy of the country. But circumstances today are quite different... Indian capital needs to be supplemented by foreign capital not only because our national savings will not be enough for the rapid development of the country.... but also because in many cases scientific, technical and industrial knowledge and capital equipment can best be secured along with foreign capital.6 The statement also explicitly assured foreign investors that foreign investments would be treated on a par with similar Indian enterprise, and further, in yet another withdrawal from the earlier postions, stated that "Government will not object to foreign capital having control of a concern for a limited period, if it is found to be in the national interest....."7 The Indian big bourgeoisie, as represented by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI),8 reacted very strongly to the new policy. Ironically, FICCI which, as we have seen above, was by no means consistently anti-foreign capital during the freedom struggle, now urged the ruling Congress to revert to its 'Swadeshi* policy and to reconsider its position.9 However, not all sections of the big bourgeoisie were as hostile. For instance, G.D. Biria, in an address to the United Commercial Bank annual general meeting, just after the statement, welcomed the new policy as he was