BY PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A.

Among the dynamic personalities in India of the present day, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru occupies a prominent place. Two years of reflection has confirmed him in the faith that what the country requires is a new ideology for the success of the revolutionary movement; and in a contribution which he recently made to the Press, he gave publicity to this ideology with his usual vigour and force. It is sure to give a new orientation to the policy and programme of the Indian National Congress and react also on the work of the other political organisations in the country. In the course of his essays he observes as follows: - ‘In India as in other Asiatic colonial countries, we find a struggle today between the old nationalist ideology and the new economic ideology. Most of us have grown up under the nationalistic tradition and it is hard to give up the mental habits of a lifetime. And yet we realise that this outlook is inadequate; it does not fit in with the existing conditions in our country or in the world.’ In his view the cause at issue is not so much ‘Nationalism’ versus ‘Imperialism’ as the ‘Rich’ versus the ‘Poor’ the ‘Classes’ versus the ‘Masses’. He wants that the revolution should be carried on in the name of this new issue and that the efforts of all political organisations should be directed to preparing a proper ground for it.

In evaluating the new ideology at its proper worth, two truths of great importance have to be kept in mind, one relating to the nature of revolutions and the other regarding the evolution of man’s life in society. It is in the nature of every revolution to bring about a change in almost every aspect of the life of the community, whatever its starting point or ostensible object might be. It might begin as a religious, a political, or an economic movement; but it is sure to spread its influence over every other department of life. Religious revolutions like Christianity and Islam, the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth-century Europe and the Sikh religious movement in India, inaugurated changes of a far-reaching nature, as much in the political and economic fortunes of peoples as in their religious life. They were responsible for the destruction of old empires and the establishment of new ones in their place; they strengthened despotisms in some cases and the cause of political freedom in other cases. Simiiarly, political revolutions like the French Revolution affected not only the form and spirit of government but also the economic and religious outlook of the European nations. The same is true of the greatest political revolution in modern Indian history. The Battle of Plassey and the consequent establishment of British power was not merely a violent political change. It introduced changes of a fundamental character in the economic, the religious, the social, and the cultural life of the Indian people. The Industrial Revolution in eighteenth-century Europe led to democracy and to a new conception of the functions of the State. It brought about the decay of religion and the growth of materialism. All this is but natural. Human life is a unity. It is a whole made up of interdependent parts, and the release of a vital force which affects one part–religious, political, or economic–is bound to affect the other parts also. Man craves after a proper balancing of his activities, and when the balance existing at any particular time is upset by a movement from one direction, he automatically establishes a new balance by setting in motion strong forces from other directions.

The second truth to be grasped is that human life is ever imperfect and incomplete. Progress is only relative. There are always a thousand and one obstacles to the development of human personality. Suffering and misery of one type or other are always present. The actual life of man falls very much short of the ideal conception which he is able to form of it and the ideal can be approached not by improvement in one particular field alone but by, steady improvements in all fields. There is no need to regret that a movement is started to improve social conditions alone, or political conditions alone, for there is nothing like too much of progress in any one or other set of conditions. Progress in any direction is always initiated by a few individuals, the great heroes of history–a Caesar, a Buddha, a Christ, a Marx, or a Gandhi, and the particular direction depends on the temperament of such men and on the special needs of their age. If we once recognise that there is inexhaustible scope for revolutionary changes in all spheres of human life and at all times, and if we also realise that changes in one sphere are bound to react on other spheres also, it may not be a matter of very great importance whether the revolutionary ideology is political, economic, or religious in character. Whatever the starting point, the ultimate goal will be the same.

The ideology is the central principle or doctrine in whose name a revolution is attempted. It may be a spiritual principle like the ‘Path’ of the Buddha, the ‘Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man’ of Christ; it may be a political doctrine like ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.’ What is of greater importance for our purposes is the laying down of some criteria for judging the value of any ideology proposed. There are two essential points to be considered in this connection. One is whether the ideology has the momentum to gather round it a disciplined revolutionary party like, for instance, the Apostles of Christ and the early Christian martyrs. And the second, whether it is able to make an attractive and effective appeal to the masses, at least to the extent of getting from them their passive sympathy if not active co-operation. The preference which has to be given to any ideology will depend on the extent to which it is able to satisfy these requirements. For it is always to be noted that revolutions are the work primarily of disciplined and efficiently organised minorities who have a firm faith in the mission and message of a great leader. They are the active minority who possess the courage, the daring, and the preparedness to face consequences, however serious they may happen to be,–men who do not shirk to take any measures they consider expedient and necessary for securing the end which, according to their ideology, gives meaning to life. As a revolutionary force it is valuable, not in proportion to the intrinsic truth which it embodies but to the extent to which it is able to gather round its banner a party and make an appeal to the inert masses.

Jawaharlal Nehru is now convinced that the Marxian ideology, with its emphasis on class-warfare and the abolition of private property, is what the country is in need of at present. His is an appeal to the proletariat, the landless and the capitalless labourers, the rackrented tenants, the borrowers at usurious rates of interest, to all those who are economically exploited. His ideal is the creation of a classless society in which all distinctions between the rich and the poor will disappear.

Everyone is aware that this is no new ideology. Its prophet was Karl Marx and its greatest achievement is Soviet Russia. It is now about a century old and it was in its name that the Czardom and all for which the Czardom stood was overthrown. It was to defeat and destroy it that Fascism was organised in Italy and Hitlerism in Germany. Some of the leading thinkers of England sympathise with it, and in the Labour Party there are not a few who wish to adopt it completely. The emergence of this ideology in India and its triumph would mean the overthrow not merely of the zamindar and the factory-owner, the mining capitalist and the large-scale producer of steel and paper, but also of the peasant-proprietor, the petty shopkeeper and the tradesman, the tool-owning artisan and handicraftsman. The success of its regime will reduce the clerk and the manager, the machine driver and the machine designer, the mason, the architect, and the engineer to the same economic level.

The question to be considered is whether this ideology will make a better and a more effective appeal and meet with a greater measure of practical success than the ideology of nationalism with which we have become familiar for the last thirty to forty years. Jawaharlal Nehru and its other exponents regard it as more effective in appealing to revolutionary sentiment, perhaps on the ground that it answers to a much more urgent need in our country than anything else. If there is one circumstance which is responsible for stunting the growth of Indian humanity, it is the appalling poverty of the masses. Their standard of living is horridly low. What they possess in respect of food, housing, clothing, and the other elementary needs–not to speak of comforts and luxuries–is so very much less than what any rational individual will regard as the bare minimum of subsistence. And all this in a country where there are individuals rolling in unearned wealth. The zamindar and the sowcar and the capitalist owner of big business are not unfamiliar figures even in this land of poverty. Besides these, there are the Indian Princes and their hangers-on, wasting their crores and lakhs here and in the capitals of Europe. In recent years there has come into existence a class of professional people–lawyers, doctors, etc.,–who have been able to accumulate large fortunes. And above all come the class of government servants, whether they belong to the Heaven-born service or services like the Police, the Public Works, Revenue, Judiciary, Agriculture and Co-operation. In these Services, standards have been set by the European members whose salaries begin in hundreds and go up to thousands, and it has become possible for several Indians entering the ranks of government service with its time-scale, promotion based on seniority, and comfortable pension, to make fortunes, indulge in money-lending and absentee landlordism, and investment in city real property. Disparity between the rich and the poor is as wide here as in any Western country–and perhaps wider–and an ideology that holds out the hope that the poor will be raised to the level of the rich and economic equality achieved, is sure to attract a large section to its banner. Hunger and thirst are among the commonest instincts; and when a doctrine is put forward which appeals to them and which professes to do away with poverty and the indefensible possessions of the rich, it may appear at the outset that it will satisfy the essential requirement of an ideology.

There is also another consideration which makes it specially efficacious at the present juncture. Middle-class unemployment has become an acute problem in this country, and many among those that are unemployed are highly trained intellectuals who have received the benefits of University education untempered, as in many countries of the West, by reverence for inherited tradition. As is known to every one, higher education in this country is exotic in its character. It has not its roots in the soil; it has not grown out of the spiritual and social traditions of the people. It is something superimposed on the youth of the land. These youths were absorbed until a few years ago into the comfortable ranks of government service or the lucrative white collared professions. Now they find themselves unwanted everywhere, compelled to drag on a weary existence. To these the new ideology is sure to make an intellectual as well as an emotional appeal and many among them will become its faithful devotees. The economic depression which has severely hit all classes of people except the government servants, will also bring additional recruits to this cause from among the more intelligent and adventurous sections of the peasantry and businessmen who feel that, for no fault of theirs, many of them have been compelled to become bankrupts.

It, therefore, appears at first sight that the new ideology may succeed. There is also another thing in its favour. It is more concrete in character than nationalism which is the other competing ideology. To the people of this land nationalism is still an abstract idea. To grasp it requires more effort and imagination. Differences of caste and creed are so very much on the surface and impress themselves so very much on the mind and life of the average man that he is unable to see the unity of common interests beneath these differences. Among the more educated there is a vague sort of internationalism sponsored by persons like Dr. Tagore. Even Jawaharlal Nehru regards nationalism as narrow in its outlook and a cause not so worthy of being fought for.

There are not wanting others who wish to revolutionise modern Indian life by an appeal to religion and the unfolding of a new scheme of spiritual values. No one who has studied the history of the world will deny its efficacy in bringing about a revolution. In all epochs when an appeal was made in its name, whether it was in India, in Europe, or elsewhere, thousands of men and women were prepared to sacrifice themselves and their all in its cause. The Crusades and the religious wars of sixteenth and seventeenth-Century Europe, the Maharatta and the Sikh movements in India, bear testimony to this. But may one doubt whether at present religion has any inherent vitality in it? Somehow it is at a discount in most parts of the world and so also among many of the Indian leaders. Moreover, religions in India as elsewhere have become institutionalised and have turned out to be the primary cause of strife and schism. Under these circumstances it may not be able–unless something extraordinary happens–to give the stimulus for a powerful movement.

The contest is therefore, in the main, between nationalism and Marxism as preached by Jawaharlal Nehru, and there is no reason to conclude that the latter will really and in the long run be a more attractive and successful ideology than the former, and that it has to be given a preference over the former as a workable doctrine. After all, in matters like these, it is the workability of a principle that affords the best test of its value. Even though, on a superficial examination, the new ideology appears to attract a large section of the masses, it will have to face the opposition of more or less the same forces as nationalism itself. If in this country an appeal made in the name of nationalism is found to be inadequate and to have little chance of success, an appeal in the name of Marxism cannot be expected to fare better. It may even fare worse.

The new ideology will have arraigned against it the large majority of the people of the country–not merely the zamindar and the capitalist but also the peasant-proprietor who is the backbone of rural India. Even the tenants in the zamindari areas have a preference for property and are anxious to become the owners of the land they are cultivating. While they may sympathise with a revolutionary movement which aims at the expropriation of the zamindar and the talukdar, they will strenuously oppose the abolition of private property. The Indian Princes will throw all their weight on the side of the existing social and economic order. And until the capitalistic order is overthrown in England itself, the Government of India established by law will strenuously oppose the new ideology with all the might of the Empire behind it. In fact the new ideology will have to face the opposition of the established government backed up by the propertied classes. And it has become clear from the events of recent years that the opposition to nationalism comes from practically the same quarters. How can one therefore hope that Marxism will succeed where nationalism is failing? And for any revolutionary movement to make progress, one has to work on the psychology of the people. Propaganda is necessary for the purpose. If propaganda in favour of nationalism is difficult because of the muzzling of the Press and the ordinance regime, is it not more difficult to carry on propaganda in favour of Marxism? There is no guarantee that the new ideology will be able to overcome the obstacles created by differences of caste and creed, that the workingmen will feel primarily that they are workingmen and not Muslims or Hindus. If in an economic fight there is a prospect of their sinking their religious differences, there is no reason to think that they will do the same in the cause of nationalism. But the difficulty is the same in either case. Communalism is rampant throughout, and if the nationalistic ideology has not yet succeed in killing it, the new ideology will not have a better prospect.

The new ideology appeals to differences between class and class; it will create more of faction and bitterness and hatred. It will strengthen and consolidate the forces of opposition. Nationalism as an ideology is more unifying in its character: it will create more of solidarity, and in countries where the issue, between Marxism and nationalism has so far been fought, the victory has been on the side of nationalism. It will, therefore, be a wiser policy for leaders not to stress on class-war at present but carry on their struggle in the name of nationalism.

BACK