IDEOLOGY, CONGRESS A^D PEASANTS IN 1950s 41 developed in the nationalist ranks till 1947, and 'at no stage did a break in the Congress occur over ideology'. His assumption is that the 'ideological openness enhanced the possibility of transforming the Congress and the 'responsibility for the failure' to effect 'a basic transformation of the Congress ideology' lies not in 'the inevitability of the stranglehold of the right wing OJT Gandhi over it' but has to be 'basically located in the theories and practices of the left'. The right wing, he stresses, was 'willing to go quite far in accommodating the left go long as it remained within the parametres of class adjustment and peaceful change'. He has many more observations such as pro-poor orientation of the Congress ; basing politics on the poor and the shift from PCP to STS (Struggle Truce Struggle)3. None among the 'left'4 in India ever undermined the historical necessity of fighting colonialism nor does any Marxist historian undermine it in his analyses. But at the same time what we believe is that any class or group of the Indian society which sided with colonialism was in itself a constituent of the 'primary contradiction' and would not agree to it being projected as an inner or secondary contradiction in the name of having a united front. Such a possibility could have been there only if the Indian landlords sided with the INC but this was not the case.6 It has, while fighting colonialism become fashionable to cite Mao on class adjustment6. What should be taken into account is that Mao advocated this at a time when Japanese imperialism was trying to make inroads in China and the landlords were not the active supporters of imperialism. Even then Mao adopted and advocated a cautious approach towards them and the aim of agrarian rcvolotiun was never forgotten. In India the INC never had agrarian revolution as its aim, either as a primary or a secondary goal. Moreover, imperialism was firmly entrenched here having the active support of the landlords—not only individually but also from their class organisations. If combating imperialism was the only issue, the sort of class adjustment being advocated had been in a way experienced by the Indian people way back in 1857 which ultimately resulted in the princes and landlords throwing in their lot with imperialism and further oppression of the peasantry. It would not be a vague generalisation to state that in rural India the British authority was known more so through the landlords than/ any other leverage of the Raj.7 In the imperial language they were the forces of order, the loyal supporters and the 'bulwark against the disintegrating forces'.8 They played a dominant role in strengthening the British authority and opposed any kind of anti-British activity. To quote the Nawab of Chattari (in 1939):9 . . .the greatest of all services the zamindars had rendered was the maintenance of law and order in the rural areas. Bipan Chandra acknowledges that 'the zamindars and landlords did not support the Congress except individually' they 'either supported . . .officially sponsored organisations or had . . . their own political parties'.10 Yet^