ALTERNATIVE
GOVERNMENT
By
Prof. D. GURUMURTI, M.A., Ph.D.
To
a reflective student, the broad fact that emerges from the current political
situation in India, is the urge to provide an alternative to the Congress
Government. Several forces have contributed to bring this urge to the
forefront. The primary force is the stagnation in the life of the common man.
Four years of Congress rule finds the common man in utter privation of food,
clothing and average comfort. The promises held forth during the freedom Struggle
of three decades have not fructified. The great magician, the maker of souls,
awakened the inner springs of national strength by his miraculous power and
made all sacrifice and suffering holy in the cause of national emancipation.
Freedom was won. In four years the victory has tasted flat. A mood of
disappointment and disillusionment has come over the nation. The argument that
India has, ever since freedom, been passing through an exceptionally critical
time owing to the consequences of the partition of India, the aftermath of the
economic inflation due to the second world-war (during which the country’s
resources had been fully exploited, leaving the present Government to reap the
whirlwind of economic failure), the insurgence of Communism, mortal danger to
national security both inside and outside, the Kashmir question and the
Hyderabad trouble,–this argument has failed to reconcile the common man to his
lot.
The
second force that has encouraged the urge for an alternative Government is the
unpopularity of the Congress Governments in the Satee and at the Centre, their
many sins of omission and commission. The inefficiency, nepotism and corruption
of the machinery of administration have been frequently exposed on the floor of
the legislatures, both Central and the States’. In their mad rush to take
advantage of the accession to power, everybody who was anybody in the freedom
struggle had become a prey to the temptation to cash in his supreme
qualification of jail delivery by scrambling for licenses, priorities, free
gifts of land and a multitude of pursuits of self-seeking. The interference in
the day-to-day administration of the Services, the direct access to the
Ministers by the rank and file of Congressmen, have been demoralising in their
effects. Misplaced enthusiasm embarking on costly
schemes, with insufficient equipment of skill and integrity
in the personnel for execution of the schemes, has lowered the prestige and
damaged the confidence reposed in the leadership, The moral equipment of the second
rank and third rank of Congressmen has not been adequate to the needs of the
situation. Top-rank leaders, by having to stand up in defence of their
obviously unsatisfactory followers and henchmen, have been compelled to assume
a prudistic attitude of taking offence at criticism while being unable to clear
the Augean stables of party misdeeds. The creation of a privileged class of
Congressmen, who, because of the prestige won by their part in the freedom
struggle and because of their jail delivery, must be considered above reproach,
has undermined the moral foundations of the whole party. In the words of
Bertrand Russell, there is no instance in history of a privileged class not
abusing its power. He instances the Communist Party of Russia after its achieving
power: “Lenin supposed that the Communist Party, having acquired a unique
position of political and economic domination, would devote itself unselfishly
to the welfare of the masses and divest itself of privilege at the earliest
possible moment.” But men are not made like that. This was exactly Mahatma
Gandhi’s stand when he recommended the dissolution of the Indian National
Congress on the achievement of freedom. His judgment was overruled by the
Congress leadership with the consequence that is now faced by the country.
The
third force behind the urge for an alternative Government is based on theory.
The democratic form of Government requires system of different parties. In the
words of Sir Ernest Barker, “national parties, each reflecting some general
trend of thought pervading all the society, which will submit to the
electorate a number of candidates for its choice, and not only so, but will
also, along with the candidates, the programmes of policy for which the
candidates stand–such a system of parties is a necessary part of any system of
representation: it provides the electorate with the organised data of
choice–alike in candidates and programmes–without which it would choose in the
void.” The dangers of one-party rule are well known. “The system of party may
exaggerate itself into the mastodon of a single totalitarian party.” One party
in absolute power develops totalitarian trends. The presence of a rival party
capable of gaining power by persuading the electorate is a wholesome check. The
impatience of opposition manifested by a party in power with a steam roller
majority should be curbed for healthy democratic functioning.
Three
instances will bring out this need. In the last session of the Indian
Parliament, a Bill amending the Constitution was passed. Three very contentious
steps were taken. The members of the house were keenly divided in opinion and
because the Congress Party has an overwhelming majority, the passing of the
Bill was a foregone conclusion. But the measures were difficult to reconcile to
the idealistic leanings of several party men, who sought permission of the
leader for freedom of voting. This was refused and the country was dissatisfied
with the action of the leadership. Similarly in the case of the ‘Hindu Code
Bill’ opinion was keenly divided, and when the leader openly proposed to stake
his position on it, he was fortunately persuaded to hold it over. In the Madras
State, when a senior leader brought forward a demand for inquiry on certain
alleged charges, he demanded freedom of voting for party men which was refused.
These three instances clearly prove the danger of the abuse of steam-roller
majority where, in the name of party discipline, difference of opinion is
stifled; the debates are robbed of all reality and a few lone voices of
opposition from the same persons every time fall flat. The supreme merit of
democracy, according to Bertrand Russell, is that it provides a legal method of
securing a change of Government. If a change is made impossible, it breeds
revolution. This is the major factor that has strengthened the Socialist Party
of India and the recently formed Praja Party.
Mahatma
Gandhi’s intuition was profound. His recommendation that the National Congress
must be dissolved on the achievement of freedom is based on the principle of
equity. The national struggle for freedom under the leadership of the Congress
evoked certain powers and justified its heroisms by the achievement of
independence. To make use of the prestige of that leadership for functioning as
a party seeking power in the new era, is unfair to the many that have
contributed to the consummation devoutly wished, without formally belonging to
the organisation. On the dawn of independence the duties of holding the country
together during the transition and of framing the Constitution automatically
cease. It is the time for political parties to form on different platforms and
face the electorate, each on its own promise and potentiality. It is in this
context that the Socialist Party of India and the Praja Party newly formed
deserve the attention and consideration of the electorate. This is also the
time for Pandit Nehru to form his own party and place his programme before the
country, instead of lending his personal prestige and showing misplaced loyalty
to the rank and file of corrupt Congressmen, who have brought the reputation of
the great national organisation to lower depths. At the meeting of the
All-India. Congress Committee at Ahmedabad, Pandit Nehru in a mood of
introspection and self-examination castigated his fellow Congressmen. He looked
round the great national organisation and found a rot had set in which was
eating it up from inside. While, on the one hand, some of the fine spirits that
made the Congress great were still present, he was chagrined to detect some
kind of blight had seized the organisation. What were these old war-horses,
comrades of the freedom struggle, doing now? Why had they not stemmed the rot?
What had made them ineffective? He reflected on the speeches of the members of the
A.I.C.C., on the topics of discussion and was aghast to observe all of them
were trivial and showed utter failure to concentrate on fundamental issues.
Quite
pathetically he remarked: “We apply our minds to petty details and troubles and
complaints. What is the agenda of a Congress Committee when it comes together?
From top to bottom organisational matters, disciplinary matters: who has to be
kicked out and who has to be elected. Do you ever discuss any major problem of
the day and what you are going to do about it? Do you go to a village or a
mohalla and do an odd bit of work?” Nehru admits: “It is a patent fact that the
Congress does not enthuse itself or others.” He feels sure that if the Congress
does not recapture the old spirit it will be better dead than alive. Six months
later, Pandit Nehru has seen the futility of his efforts at purity and at
unity. Is it not time that he comes to the right conclusion now at least, in
time for the first general elections of Republican India, resign from the Congress
and form his own “Nava Bharat” Party with its own platform and programme?
Can the Socialists form the alternative Government
for India! Over a year ago, the Socialist Party of India announced an 18-point
programme for national revival which may be considered the basis of their
election manifesto. Expounding it Sri Jaya Prakash Narayan, the leading light
of the party, proclaimed what he called Democratic Socialism. The concept of
Democratic Socialism is self-contradictory, for democracy has as its basic principle
the fullest respect for the freedom of the individual, while Socialism is based
on the principle that State control is fundamental for achieving the greatest
social good. Democracy works on the principle that the people’s will should be
sovereign as expressed by the choice of the electorate, by the freedom of press
and platform and by free assembly. Socialism believes in controlling the
available means of wealth and providing the conditions by the State for the
fullest good of the people. The two ideologies cannot be unified. The postulate
of full individual liberty democracy cannot be reconciled with the absolute
control enunciated by Socialism. The fact is that Socialism is ideologically
identical with Communism. Both aim at a classless society, at the collective
control of wealth, production and distribution, at the socialisation of all
aspects of life. The difference is only in method: Communism makes violence
essential; Socialism fights shy of it. The word democratic is tacked on to
Socialism to dissociate itself from violence. However it is highly problematic
if the objective of Socialism can ever be fulfilled by avoiding the methods of
Communism. Russia and Britain are two eye-openers. Marxian Socialism led to
Bolshevik Russia. Democratie Socialism shows the perilous State of Britain
where individual enterprise and nationalisation are in an uneasy conflict.
The
Socialist plan proposes to abolish poverty by depriving the rich of their
wealth and distributing it to the many have-nots. If all the millionaires,
ex-rulers, zamindars are dispossessed and their wealth distributed, it will be
a drop in the ocean. The total of such wealth is computed at two thousand
crores; this if distributed to forty crores will give fifty rupees for one year
to everyone. It will not alleviate poverty. The fact is that wealth has to be
produced in order to be distributed. They propose to provide 12.5 acres of land
per family. But all the available land cannot suffice for even fifty per cent
of the population at that rate of distribution. The plan demands
nationalisation of essential industries. Here again the fate of State-owned
industries has been uniformly one of failure. The coal industry in Britain can
teach a lesson. The Socialists admit that capital, machinery and technical
personnel are not available. But they would harness the immense man-power of
the country by providing a climate of egalitarianism and social justice and
some industrial activity suited for its absorption. But when pressed what
exactly is the suited activity they are beautifully vague. Foreign capital is
to be invited, but what happens if nationalisation militates against it? Pious
platitudes about the village state, decentralization, rural economy, etc.,
tirades against restrictions of fundamental freedoms, lead nowhere. The fact is
that the Socialist Party has no effective alternative to the present
Government, either in ideology or personnel.
The
Krishak Mazdoor Praja Party is in no better case. Its main protagonist starts
with an avowal of no ideological difference with the Congress. His main plank
is improvement in the methods of work. Purification, a moral crusade, a change
of personnel are the main objectives. The scores of dissidents from the
Congress, dissatisfied with the personal aspect of Congress leadership, do not
hold much hope of making a better appeal to the electorate. The Mahasabha with
its strongly communal outlook, the Communist Party with its alien ideology and
technique out of tune with the people, do not provide any effective
alternative.
The
consideration of the question of an alternative to the present Government leads
to the conclusion that it is better for the country to start afresh with a
clean slate; that new parties should be formed by leading protagonists with a
new platform, programme and plans. The disintegrating and discredited National
Congress may very well dissolve itself to make the ground free for fresh
parties and groups round different leaders. Mahatma Gandhi’s wisdom will then
prove itself.
But
if the Congress resolves to contest the elections, and is led by Pandit Nehru
and the front rank leaders, there can be no question about their success. The
prestige of Mahatma Gandhi’s name and the leadership of his chosen heir and
successor will carry the organisation through to power. A corrupt and
demoralised following will continue to reap the benefit. Democracy requires a
greater diffusion of general education and a wider political experience than
the masses of India possess. Further, the personal magic of great leaders will
prevail. But one hopes that for the good of the country the Congress will
dissolve itself.