THE CONGRESS: WHICH WAY
M. CHALAPATHI RAU
The Congress is now a political party among
other political parties. It is not the national origanization
which it was, though its roots are still deeper and broader than those of any
other political party. But even when it represented the nation’s aspiration
for freedom, it was a kind of a party, though it worked also as a national
platform. Such a platform would be useless now as, in spite of the continuance
of a kind of emergency necessitated by the provocation of
Far-seeing, Gandhi always interpreted freedom
in the larger sense and wanted the Congress to be an organization of the poor,
but he lived long enough to see that the class composition of the Congress
would not permit it to work for the designed end. In his ‘testament’, he,
therefore, wanted the Congress to transform itself into a Lok
Sevak Sangh, leaving its
political elements to form various political parties. It
was good advice subject to one condition and that is that the character of the
Congress should change, that it should become an organization of peasants and
workers, which alone can work for a peasants’ and workers’ republic, that, if
in other words, it means that it should go to the left, it should go in that
direction. That condition has not been fulfilled and is not likely to be
filled.
The Congress has become an instrument not
suited to its declared purposes. On this assumption the Socialists left it,
they also felt that the Congress had ceased to reflect, social and economic
change. On the other hand, the Congress, as Mr. Shankerrao
Deo admits, is burdened with undesirable elements. We
would call them reactionary elements.
Any viewpoint can be accommodated in the
Congress. A Congressman can be a believer in Hindu-Muslim unity or a
disbeliever; he may believe in Capitalism or Socialism; he may believe in
control or decontrol; he can be for prohibition or against prohibition; he can sympathise with the RSS or repudiate it. This is not merely
individual or provincial angularity but utter confusion. When a policy is
framed, it may not be executed; on vital questions there may be no policy at
the proper time. It seems inevitable in a vast country but, with clear
objectives and a cohesive organization, the confusion would be unnecessary.
Even two years ago we suggested that the
Congress should be organically built out of labour
and peasants; the Socialists are attempting it but not the Congress. There is
the middle class, a foreign-created, uncreative class, which is essentially a
job-hunting class. It is natural for this class to be transfigured into every
conceivable ideology but all ideologies are agreed that the challenge of the
time is the challenge of labour and peasants.
The Congress, according to all rules of logic
and history, cannot, composed as it is, survive the challenge of labour and peasants. Neither labour
legislation nor zamindari abolition is adequate for
it. The entire impulse for national reconstruction must come from the people
and minus labour and peasants the people are few.
From these needs Congress leadership should be able to know what kind of
organization the Congress should be.
If it cannot be such an organization and if
all that the Congress leader or the Congress worker can do is to gather enough
support, and enough force, for whatever the Congress governments do, the sap
will dry up, the roots will wither and the soil will become sterile for the
Congress. It can only be a collection of ruling juntas, if not families, a
potential Kuomintang going the Kuomintang way, inspiring little loyalty in the
forces of law and order.
Here one amazing fact must be recorded. If
the Congress is still functioning cohesively and with some method in its
madness, it is not because of its organization, Gandhi’s heritage, the compulsion
of emergency, great as it has been, or habit but because of Jawaharlal Nehru
and Sardar Patel, who are national leaders and in
national emergency have transcended party barriers. Even for them, such
eminence, and such dual unity, must in a democracy seem illusory. At least, the
Congressman who is aware of the crisis in the Congress is asking whether the
two leaders realize that whatever strength the Congress possesses today is the
strength of their personalities, in spite of the frequent badgerings
of party discussions. But the democratic process of party discussion is no
guarantee for the people of continued progress.
A tilt and the progress vanishes
and even now slowly behind a programme of progress,
reactionary elements are gathering strength, the capitalist, the communalist
and the power-grabber. The leadership needs rethinking, if necessary regrouping, and even a battle of ideologies in time would be
worth something, if the country was to find a party adequate to its purpose.
Fortunately or unfortunately, an opportunity
is present for the Congress because there is no other comparatively strong
party. Even the number of legislators necessary under the new Constitution is
so great that it would mean a huge effort, barring coalitions. If the
leadership thinks it can still put an end to drift, it has to present a single
ideology, define membership, enforce discipline
without fear or favour. There need be no more waiting
on time. It should not be “after me, the deluge.”
What should the Congress be, taking all its
deficiencies together? It may seek its destiny in one of two ways: it can
become more of a mass party or it can become a purely parliamentary party. The
odds are against the first alternative, for at the present pace, the Congress
can only pretend to be a mass party and provoke other parties to greater effort
in this direction.
But the Communists would not be true to their
creed, unless they make their party a mass party and lead it to violent
conflict with the state. The Socialist Party is, from the very paucity of its
numbers, in two minds, whether to prepare for elections or to build its
strength among labour and peasants. At least, in a
country where trade unionism is developing, there is bound to be a party in the
country and in the legislature with trade union backing.
The problems which the country faces are
beyond the capacity of incipient parliamentary democracy and the only guarantee
of the success of parliamentary democracy so far in this country is the
multiplicity of clauses and schedules of the Constitution. If the Congress has
lost the inspiration of popular will, it will be no use preserving a bogus mass
character.
Acharya Kripalani’s
alternative would be more practicable. It would at least give a chance to
parliamentary democracy by creating proper atmosphere and precedents. For, if
the Congress does not work parliamentary democracy with proper respect for its
spirit and form, other parties cannot be expected to work it.
Much of the confusion in the Congress can be
cleared, if it makes up its mind on this difficult and puzzling issue. For a
mass party’s organizational character is bound to be different from that of a
parliamentary party. If a decision is taken, it will be easy to define the
functions and position of the Congress President, the relationship between the
party in the country and the party in the legislatures, between the party and
the Government, the need for discipline and the need for freedom.
Considering the gathering tempo of the
revolutionary process, we would expect the Congress to develop into a
revolutionary mass party making use of the Constitution for quick attainment of
social and economic progress. If the leadership does not want to grasp the
dynamics of progress it would be better for the Congress to behave in the way Acharya Kripalani has
recommended.
Unless this issue is decided, it is no use
trying to tighten up the organization or reflect what is
bogus membership and what is real. The present drift and the impact of
confusion on rigidity can drive the country only to a mad career of violence.
And part of the confusion and violence is the appearance of warlords in the
Congress, ready to lead their followers in group assaults for power.
–Editorial, National
Herald: February 16, 1950