There are many intellectuals in our country who can be described as 'pro-imperialist but anti-Hindutva'. This of course is not the way that they would describe themselves. In fact the word 'imperialism' would not figure in their vocabulary; they would consider it as obsolete Marxist jargon. But this is precisely what makes them 'pro-imperialist' in our perception. By not recognizing imperialism as a category they accept imperialism's ideological positions as 'true theory': they see 'liberalization' and 'globalization' not as a process of exposing the country to the caprices of international finance capital, and hence of robbing it of its economic sovereignty and subjecting it to deflation that brings in its train stagnation and a squeeze on the poor, but as a means of 'developing' and 'modernizing' the country; they see the imperialist offensive against Iraq not as part of an agenda of imposing a new super-imperialist world order, but as being essentially dictated by the motive of getting rid of a ruthless dictator. Many among them might even oppose the Anglo-American attack on Iraq, but the reason for their opposition would be either a general pacifism or the fact that the imprimatur of the United Nations was not obtained for it. But they would never see the attack as being imperialist, and as being directed against the interests of the people of Iraq by an aggrandizing superpower. In short, they would swallow, with some reservations at best, imperialism's own propaganda about itself of being a purveyor of freedom, democracy and enlightenment: some might see it perhaps as an objective consequence, even if not intended, of making third world countries 'open out to the West'.

The fact that these intellectuals are nevertheless anti-Hindutva should come as no surprise: they see Hindutva, like other inherited and intrinsic vices of 'backward' third world societies, as a phenomenon that can be got rid of only with the help of imperialism, with the 'opening out to the West' which would entail a spread of democracy, development, modernism and good 'governance' (a term propagated by the World Bank and much in fashion today). In short they see no contradiction between being 'pro-imperialist' and being 'anti-Hindutva'. On the contrary they see the two as being perfectly consistent, one following from the other. The fact that the BJP government, which thrives on Hindutva, also happens to be the most pro-imperialist government in the history of post-independence India, the fact that imperialism plays ball with Hindutva, as it did with Islamic fundamentalism at one time, to advance its own predatory interests, would be dismissed by these intellectuals as matters of little moment, showing at best that Hindutva is not really as dangerous as is often made out to be.

This entire trend of thinking can be broadly characterized as 'the third way', distinct as much from the Left as from the hardcore Right (which is supposed by the protagonists of this tendency, quite mistakenly and with a grotesque misuse of the term, to be 'nationalist'). Needless to say there are wide variations in the positions adopted by the protagonists of this tendency, but the above broad characterization covers its essence. The basic inspiration for a 'third way' has always come from social democracy; the 'third way' of today is inspired by contemporary social democracy, represented typically by the aggressive Tony Blair. The fundamental characteristic of social democracy has always been, and continues to be, the non-cognition of imperialism as a category, a characteristic that lay at the core of Lenin's split from the Second International. The Blairite version of social democracy does not just compromise with imperialism; it is aggressively imperialist. But while being imperialist, and neo-liberal with a vengeance (it is instructive that Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has sung paeans of praise for arch-monetarist and free marketeer Milton Friedman), it does undertake certain kinds of domestic reforms against hereditary privilege (for instance those relating to the House of Lords). His version of 'the third way' has many takers among Indian intellectuals, from Amartya Sen to a host of resident and non-resident Liberals.

'Third way' intellectuals usually swear by social sector development. But the fiscal crisis, which 'liberalization' advocated by them necessarily accentuates, results in a reduction in the resources available with the State for social sector expenditure. The resolution of this conflict is found through the advocacy of the use of larger foreign resources for the social sector. Since imperialist agencies like the World Bank, foreign governments, especially social democratic governments promoting the 'third way', and foreign NGOs come forward with 'aid' for social sector expenditure, 'third way' intellectuals can combine the advocacy of both 'liberalization' and 'social sector development' on the strength of this. What is more, the fact of imperialist agencies being interested in financing social sector schemes allows the promotion of the idea that imperialism is indeed a progressive modernizing force. (In addition 'third way' intellectuals ask for cuts in government expenditures in other avenues, including subsidies to the poor and support for the peasantry, and privatization of public sector assets, in order to finance increased social sector expenditures, thus providing a facile reconciliation between their advocacy of 'liberalization' and their concern for the social sector, which, interestingly is never accompanied by any concern for the peasantry).

A 'third way' tendency of 'liberal reformism' that steers clear of both the Left and the hard Right, and that remains firmly linked to imperialism even while attempting a degree of domestic reforms, has always existed in third world countries, but as a minor, subsidiary tendency. Imperialism has on occasions promoted it as a counter to the Left, but without much success. The classic example was in Vietnam where, as a desperate last-ditch effort to thwart the success of the Communist-led Liberation Struggle, US imperialism got rid of the corrupt and ruthless Thieu–Ky duo who were ruling South Vietnam as imperialist puppets, and installed the 'Liberal reformist' regime of 'Big Minh'. But this substitution was of no avail. The nature of contradictions of a third world society is such that it necessarily requires confronting imperialism, de-linking the country from the global structures erected under the hegemony of imperialism. In the absence of this all talk of domestic 'liberal reforms' remains just empty talk. Not surprisingly therefore the pro-imperialist 'liberal reformist' tendency has always remained a marginal force in the third world.

Why then, it may be asked, has it once again come into some sort of vogue in the very recent times in countries like ours? An obvious reason of course has been the strengthening of imperialism and the decline for the moment of the socialist challenge. In addition however there are factors linked to the political economy of a society pursuing 'neo-liberal' economic policies. These policies, while attacking the industrial workers and the agricultural labourers, have also led to a worsening of the condition of the bulk of the peasantry; at the same time they have opened up, at least for the time being, some new opportunities for the urban middle class and the self-employed professionals. Many of these beneficiaries of liberalization also have their relatives settled in metropolitan countries. As a result, a certain pro-imperialist feeling gets nurtured within this social group which, in absolute terms, is quite numerous. This adds to the pro-imperialist ideological effects of the generally compromising stance of the ruling bourgeoisie which has made the switch to a neo-liberal regime. In short, the social support base for pro-imperialist ideological positions has got enlarged. The victims of neo-liberal policies of course are far more numerous but the development of their anti-imperialist consciousness takes time. In the interim therefore there is a certain strengthening of pro-imperialist positions generally, including pro-imperialist liberal reformism, though it still remains the case that this particular tendency can never emerge as a dominant strand in societies like ours.

In this interregnum however it has the potential for causing a degree of ideological confusion and disruption within the ranks of the Left. The fact that it opposes domestic reaction and communal fascism, the fact that it shows concern for the spread of literacy, for the extension of education and health facilities, and the fact that it speaks in the name of the poor (though usually talking of the contradiction not between imperialism and the poor but between some supposedly privileged domestic group, such as the peasantry, and the poor) brings it naturally closer to the Left on a number of practical issues. Unless an ideological demarcation between the Left position and the 'third way' position is clearly made, this practical unity on issues provides an opportunity for the import of a pro-imperialist liberal ideological mish–mash into the ranks of the Left. But any attempt at such demarcation is invariably vilified in the bourgeois press and among the affluent urban middle classes as constituting yet another example of the Left being 'rigid, doctrinaire, dictatorial, anti-democratic and anti-free speech', etc.

There is a second mechanism through which such confusion and disruption can infect the ranks of the Left. This is because imperialism promotes the spread of 'third way' ideology, using, among other means, a number of foreign-funded NGOs. They are more than willing to finance joint practical programmes with the Left on issues of common concern, and in the situation of all-round deflation unleashed by the pursuit of neo-liberal economic policies there is often no alternative to relying on such funds. But the old adage 'He who pays the piper calls the tune' holds. Such funding becomes a way of blunting Left ideological positions. And even when these ideological positions are not blunted, defections from the ranks of the Left can always be encouraged through the use of money.

To say this is not to argue for shunning such joint practical action. But, the challenge which 'third way' ideologies can pose to the Left in the interregnum before mass popular movements against imperialism can be built, and hence the impact they have on the speed with which such movements can be built, must not be underestimated. By continuously harping on the theme of the so-called 'authoritarianism' of the communist system, imperialism and its local cohorts are continuously putting pressure on the Left to disarm itself ideologically. The propagation of 'third way' ideologies is a means of complementing this pressure. The Left has to be acutely conscious of this challenge.