SYMPOSIUM 63 Naqvi presupposes the stage of socialist revolution. Whereas, when enumerating the enemies of the revolution—the monopoly and big bourgeoisie and the feudal and semi-feudal classes—he presupposes the stage of People's Democratic revolution. He also maintains that the middle and small bourgeoisie and the small and medium kulaks may get neutralised. What happens to the big kulak, who surprisingly is found neither in the camp of revolution or counter-revolution ? Naqvi's position may then be briefly summarised as follows : up to this point state power was wielded by the bourgeois class, state policies subserved "the interests of the bourgeoisie as a class, and capitalism as a system of economic and political power". "The enterprising rich and upper middle farmers. . . never had it so good" $ "all in all, it is the bourgeoisie as a class, including the kulak normally considered part of the national bourgeoisie, which has gained most from the agrarian policies hitherto pursued by the Indian Government". If this analysis is correct, if there is no long-term conflict between the big bourgeoisie and the middle and small strata, then the main blow of the revolution must be against the entire bourgeoisie, including its rural Counterpart and the question of neutralising the national bourgeoisie does not arise. Where then does the question of the People's Democratic stage of the revolution come in; why should the middle and small bourgeoisie and kulaks begin to "even support the struggle" directed against the state in which they exercise state power? The fundamental aim of the People's Democratic stage is the overthrow and abolition of feudal and semi-feudal interests and precedes the stage where the struggle is against a state "all bourgeois" in character. / These are questions to which Naqvi's analysis can give no answers —and with good reason. Strategy and analysis stand in contradiction. Methodological in consistency also has its own logic. 1 It is curious to note Naqvi*s assertion at this point in his argument, of the factual error that ''the left parties", all along characterising the economic policies of the Indian Government as representing the capitalist path of economic development, "have . . . been demanding the pursuit of a non-capitalist path". While it is not clear what is the explicit link with the preceding argument, the fact remains that only one left party—the CPI—has made such a demand. 2 Though it should be pointed out that only a few from among the earlier complex substrata of tenants, in fact, made good. 8 The most marked change in structure in the last 10 years has been the decrease in the number of tenants and increase in landless labour, rather than the increase in size of holdings and number of rich peasants. KITTY R MENO»