BY
V. LINGAMURTY, M.A.
(Lecturer,
Maharaja’s College, Vizianagram)
The
emergence of India as an independent democratic republic has brought to the
forefront the problem of realignment of political parties.1 The
Constitution has provided a democratic machinery which stands comparison with
the best of the democratic constitutions in the world. But one of the essential
parts for its smooth and successful working has yet to be created, namely, well
organized political parties. Modern political theory and practice have shown
that “party warfare is as much the life-blood of democracy as liberty.” Parties
constitute such an integral part of the democratic structure that democracy,
partyism and representative government are used in modern political terminology
as synonymous terms. In the Lord Bryce, “no free large country has been without
them. No one has shown how representative government could be worked without
them.”2 India during the period of her bondage developed parties,
which were more in the nature of factious groups creating separatism in the
country than political parities in the Western sense of the term. Some of them
were fostered by the British to make their position secure in India, Was not
the Muslim League, which later on caused severe headache even to the British,
their own creation as a counter blast against the Congress? The Rt. Hon.
Srinivasa Sastri once remarked that the British raised the devil but could not
put down the ghost. In Republican India the continuance of such parties formed
under her bondage is undesirable, nay harmful. So the crying need of the hour
is the reorganisation of parties in India.
But
is there need for political parties at all? The Humanists in our country
attribute the present crisis in democracy to the party system. They argue that
the political parties help to depress the already low standards of Nationality
and morality in politics. The idea of a non-party democracy is, however, not a
novel one. Rousseau once remarked that there can be no true common will in the
presence of parties. Washington, the first President of America, warned his
people against the rise of political parties. But the conception of non-party
democracy is of little significance to students of current politics, for it is
not found anywhere in practice. Such a system might have existed in a
city-state where there was direct democracy but not in the modern nation-state
where there is indirect and representative democracy. In the words of Graham
Wallis, “the party has come into existence with the appearance of
representative government on a large scale.” So the problem in India today is
not one of avoidance but the creation of political parties on a sound basis.
The
Indian National Congress, which served as the voice of India, towers high among
the political parties in the country. It is so all-inclusive and broad-based
that all sections of people are allowed become its members. Even the Communists
and the Socialists, till recently, worked under the banner of the Congress. The
heterogeneous composition of the Congress created certain misconceptions about
its nature. It is remarked that the Congress is not a party but a platform and
“front populaire”. It was described as a platform, for it was in the nature of
an educational organisation providing eloquent speeches and carrying on
propaganda. It is also said that the Congress is the “front populaire”, for it
consisted of conflicting classes. Popular fronts are loose confederations of
parties or alliances between independent organisations for specific and limited
purposes. But it is wrong to consider the Congress merely as a platform and
“front populaire,” because it is a well-knit, disciplined and organised party.
Though it consisted of different groups, all those worked only under the banner
of the Congress, and were bound by its constitution. Another of the
misconceptions about the Congress is that it is described as a totalitarian
organisation and is compared to the Nazi party in Germany and the Communist
party in the U.S.S.R. But the comparison is based on a wrong analogy, for the
Congress party never stood in the wav of the formation of new parties. In fact
the position of the party system in India is comparable to that of Hungary,
where there was only one major party which controlled the Government till the
outbreak of the second World War.
The
need for a reorganisation of our party system becomes evident from a study of
the bewildering variety of parties that have sprung into existence today. It
will be a revelation to those who hold the Indian National Congress as the only
party in India, for there are at present nearly 25 political parties, besides
the Congress, in India. They are (1) the Socia1ist Republican Party (2) both
the wings of the Forward Bloc (3) Bolshevik Party (4) Revolutionary Socialist
Party (5) Revolutionary Communist Party (6) Socialist Unity Centre (7) Workers
and Peasants League (8) Revolutionary Workers Party (9) Desh Sevak Party (10)
Bihar Kisan Sabha (11) Workers and Peasants Party of Maharashtra (12)
United Trade Union Congress (13) People’s Party of the Central Provinces (14)
Majdoor Krishak Party (15) Praja Mandal (16) Azad Hind Fouj of Bengal and U. P.
(17) the Bolshevik Majdoor Party (18) the Communist Party (19) Socia1ist Party
(20) and the Rashtriya Svayam Sevak Sangha. Besides these mention has to be
made of the Hindu Maha Sabha the Radical Democratic Party. The latter has,
however, ceased to be a political party and has assumed the title of the
Radical Humanist Party. The Muslim League, which was next to the Congress in
its following, has now ceased to be a party to be reckoned. Many of these
parties are in the nature of groups with little stability and less following.
With the exception of three or four, namely, the Congress, the Socialists, the
Hindu Maha Sabha and the Communists, the rest can be compared to what are
described as ‘groupments’ in France. Even the so-ca1led major parties require a
new colouring for playing a worthy role in a democratic polity.
The
Congress Party which played a unique part in the fight for freedom, now
occupies an anomalous position. Though a great change has come in the political
structure of India, a corresponding change has not yet been brought about in
the structure of the Congress. It continues to be a heterogeneous organisation,
taking into its fold people of divergent and conflicting interests. No doubt
the Communist Party was expelled from the Congress in 1946 and the Socialists
came out of its fold in 1948. Still the heterogeneous nature of the Congress has
not yet changed. Even today its doors are kept open to all organisations and
people. This becomes evident from a recent statement made by Dr. Pattabhi
Sitaramayya permitting the members of the R.S.S. to join the Congress. The
Congress President observed that “no one has the power to say to anybody today
that he cannot enlist himself on Congress rolls provided he is twenty-one years
of age and signs the Congress objective.” This is a feature which makes the
Congress anomalous under the changed conditions. As long as it carried the
freedom fight there was need to bring all section of people under the banner of
one party. But the continuance of the same structure with capitalists as well
as labourers, zamindars and peasants, will not only stifle its future progress
but will pave the way for its disruption and decay. It is high time for the
Congress Party to discontinue as a heterogeneous organization.
The
attainment of independence and the sudden death of Mahatma Gandhi have given
rise to many evils in the Congress organisation. As it is said by Lord Acton,
“power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Having succeeded the
British, the Congress has become intoxicated with power and a prey to all the
temptations connected with it. As long as the towering personality of Gandhiji
was there, the followers of the Congress were put under [restraint from
resorting to evil means. But with his disappearance the flood-gates of
corruption, bribery and nepotism have been thrown open, and they have swept
away all sense of political integrity and morality. Nor is the Congress
ignorant of the evils that have crept into it, as can be seen from the
resolution on the ‘Standards of Public Conduct,’ passed at the Jaipur session
of the Congress. The resolution stated: “Unfortunately, contact with power has
affected many Congressmen and there is a tendency to use this power and
position for self-interest. The spirit of disinterested service and of
constructive work for the public cause gradually ceases to be the motive power
which moves large numbers of people.” The longer such evils are permitted to
continue, the greater will be the danger for the party and the nearer will it
proceed towards its own demise.
The
attainment of independence raised the problem of the relationship between the
Congress Party and the Government. “Spoils belong to the victors,” has become
the motto of the Congressmen. Every person who wore a Khadi cap has begun to
think that it is his privilege to secure some reward. As Mr. J. B. Kriplani
trenchantly remarked, “the spirit of sacrifice and idealism that sustained us
and made us what we were is being replaced by competition in our politics.” The
members of the Provincial and District Congress Committees assumed airs of
authority over the State Governments and administrators which proved
detrimental to efficiency in administration. Their interference with the
day-to-day work of the Government became so frequent that the Congress Working
Committee had to pass the following resolution: “The Working committee resolves
to direct all Provincial Congress Committees that they should not pass any
no-confidence resolution against any Congress Ministry, but,
if they have any grievances against the Congress Ministers, they should bring
them to the notice of the Central Parliamentary Board or the Working
Committee.” The relationship between the Congress and the Government is
succinctly put by the highest dignitary of the Congress, Dr.
Pattabhi Sitaramayya, in his presidential address at the Jaipur session. He
remarked, “the Congress is really the philosopher while the
Government is the politician. The latter has power and the former
influence……The Congress is like a benevolent and elderly mother-in-law and
Government is like a tactful and young daughter-in-law. All the power is in
reality vested in the latter through the husband.” The Congress President will
have to play the role of the Chairman of the Labour Party. In Great Britain the
members of the Labour Party in Parliament are put under the discipline not of
the National Executive but of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Similar should be
the position of the Congress Party in India.
In
the wake of independence there has come disunity in the Congress ranks. The
scramble for ministerial and other administrative jobs has led to the formation
of groups and cliques in the Congress Party, one group discrediting the other.
The rise of the ‘rebels’ in the U. P. Congress and the squabbles among the
rival groups of Congressmen in Madras, form an eye-opener as to the degeneracy
of the Congress. In fact, today the Congress has more enemies within it than
outside it. The divisions in the Congress Party have turned parliamentary
government in some States into parliamentary anarchy. Any further continuance
of such unhealthy trends will spell disaster to the Congress Party.
The
Congress Party has exhibited a lack of foresight in its organisation. Any party
can maintain its stability only by building a second front in the rear. The
Congress Party has not so far taken the necessary care to infuse the young
blood into the party and create trained personnel to succeed the elders at the
top. One is at a loss to know the future of the Congress with the disappearance
of the few at the top, who are attaining the age of retirement from active
service. If the younger men in the Party are not brought into the limelight,
the Congress will have to go, along with the elderly members at the top, into
the grave.
It
is high time to reorganise and revitalise the Congress and place it on a sound
basis. It should cease to be heterogeneous in nature. It must administer an
effective check to the rising wave of corruption in the Party. In its programme
also a great change has to be brought about. It should give
up the policy of hesitancy in abolishing grave economic inequalities in the
country. In some States, though the zamindari system is abolished, absentee
landlordism is permitted to continue. Moreover, while the Congress has shown
righteous indignation against the zamindars, it has kept silent over the big
capitalists and mill-owners. Even the taxation policy of the Congress Party in
the States and at the Centre reveals its bourgeoisie nature. The Congress will
fail to introduce Socialist legislation at the peril of its very existence. If
it shows the necessary vision and brings about a new orientation in its
economic policies and programmes, it will be able to play the role of the
British Labour Party in India.
Next
to the Congress, the Socialist Party occupies an important position in India,
and since the second World War it has been gaining in prominence. However, like
all other opposition parties, its strength lies in the weakness of the
Congress. It has no individuality of its own, for it differs very little from
the Congress in its ideology. It takes its inspiration from the principles of
Gandhiji and trades on the names of Congress leaders like Pandit Nehru. This
explains the limited strength of the Patty in our country. One is even led to
think that the Socialist Party may lose the little strength that it has gained,
if the Ccmgress revitalises itself.
This,
however, does not mean that the Socialist Party has no programme of its own.
Unlike the Congress, it stands for the abolition of all types of capitalism and
for the nationalisation of industries. In its foreign policy it advocates
withdrawal from the Commonwealth and neutrality in international politics.
Criticising the devaluation policy of the Government of India, Asoka Mehta, the
Socialist leader, remarked that “devaluation of the rupee is the first major
tie-up of our country with the British Commonwealth.” It stands for a society
in which the material needs of every individual are satisfied and everyone
given full opportunity and freedom to develop his self. The disappearance of
such a Leftist party will not be in the interests of the country, for it will
playa very useful role as an opposition party. In a parliamentary democracy a
healthy opposition party is as important as the party in power. As Ivor
Jennings remarked, “if there be no opposition there is no democracy; the
opposition is once the alternative to the government and a focus for the
discontent of the people.” 3 A Leftist party like the Socialists in
the opposition bench will enable healthy and constructive discussions which
form the life breath of democracy.
The
Hindu Maha Sabha is another party with a limited following but many admirers.
It came into existence as a counterblast against the Muslim League and even
today it is more in the nature of a religious organisation than a political
party. In Feb. 1948 the Working Committee of the All-India Hindu Maha Sabha
resolved to suspend its political activities and to work for “the creation of a
powerful and well-organised Hindu Society in Independent India.” But a later
resolution passed by the All-India Council of the Hindu Maha Sabha in Dec. 1948
denotes its re-entry into politics. It resolved “to rally all the national
elements on a common platform so that their full weight may be felt in the
political field of the country.” The Hindu Maha Sabha is a severe critic of the
Government’s policy towards Pakistan and is opposed to all peaceful
negotiations with that country. In the internal field the Hindu Maha Sabha
stands for the reorganisation of States on a linguistic basis and attacks the
retention of some princes as Rajpramukhs of the States. In the external field
it wants India to secede from the Commonwealth. The goal of the party is the
creation of a strong Hindu polity.
The
contradiction in the policy and programme of the Hindu Maha Sabha is quite
palpable. While on the one hand it makes proclamations “for building up a truly
democratic State,” it at the same time wants to work for the establishment of a
Hind State. Political philosophy and practice attest that a democratic State must
be a secular State. A party based on communal or religious foundations can
never be a democratic State, and a party guided by religious considerations
will be a communal but not a political party. A party like the Hindu Maha
Sabha, by ceasing to be a communal party, can play the role of a conservative
party in the country. Students of practical politics have to note that a
conservative party can serve a useful purpose in acting as a restraint on
ambitious programmes. Radicalism tempered by conservatism enables the healthy
progress of a State.
The
Communist Party has become a ‘problem party’ in every State. Nakedness and
hunger form the fertile ground for the progress of the Communist Party. Though
the fundamental tenets in communism, namely, economic and political equality
and liberty, are favoured by many, the Communist Party is liked by few. Its use
of terrorism and force has brought it into disrepute and it is subjected to
banishment in some States. As Pandit Nehru remarked, “In the name of an economic
doctrine they (Communists) are at the present time trying to coerce and commit
all manner of atrocities…….If any group of people in the country want to
declare War on the State, then the State is at war with them.” No State which
stands for democratic principles can tolerate a terrorist party, for democracy
is based on rational and peaceable methods. Communism has come to mean the
negation of constitutionalism. Political parties must be given freedom as long
as they work to achieve their objectives by constitutional means. But a party
which resorts to violent means to subvert the State itself and takes its
inspiration from an outside country can never be given freedom. In our country
the activities of the Communist Party are confined to a few localities like
Malabar and the border districts of Hyderabad and Krishna. As in Western
Democracies, in India too the Communist Party can make little headway.
A
realignment of parties in India requires a new Constitution for the Congress
Party, so as to make it homogeneous. Parties like the Hindu Maha Sabha must
abandon communal considerations and adopt economic and political programmes.
Such a change will enable the Congress and the Socialist parties to act as the
Liberal and Leftist parties, and the Hindu Maha Sabha as a Rightist and
Conservative party in India. A realignment of parties on such lines is
necessary bring about a renaissance in the political life of the country. The
future of political parties in India also raises the question of the system of
party organisation – two or multi-party system. The presence of divergent
interests in our country may give rise to a number of small groups. The
multi-party system, which is developed many countries on the continent of
Europe, has not proved conducive to the stability of government. It has made
parliamentary government in France parliamentary anarchy. The two party system
not only makes it easy to form the government but also gives stability
continuity to it. It is all the more necessary to an infant democracy like
India which requires governmental stability more than anything else. The
organisation of parties on political and economic principles, and the
development of the two-party system, will enable the smooth and successful
working of Indian democracy.
1 A
political party is defined as “an association organized in support of some
principle or policy which, by constitutional means, it endeavours to make the
determinant of government,” (The Modern State - MacIver)
2
Modern Democracies -Vol. I pp. 134.
3 Cabinet
Government. P.385.