LIBERALISM AND INDIA

P. RAJESWARA RAO

The expression liberalism came into common use first in Spain, subsequently in France, and then in England. The word ‘Liberal’ as a party label gained currency in Britain as a result of sympathy felt for the Spanish Liberals. But the great corpus of ideas, which constitute the doctrine of liberalism, are as old as humanity itself. Causes of the decay of liberalism are to be found in the technique of war, and in the technique of production, in the increase of propaganda facilities, and in nationalism. Though paradoxical, yet it is true, that liberalism is the one doctrine which drew the attention of its admirers only when it ceased to occupy the centre of the stage. As per the chosen description published by the “New York Herald Tribune” in 1949, it has ceased to be either a concrete programme of action or a consistent body of doctrine. It is the most disputed term of our generation. It is a philosophy of property just as protestantism is connected with capitalism.

Benthamite Liberalism of the 19th century in England, which was the seed-bed of several useful legal, social, constitutional and religious reforms, was not without its effects on India. The movements of liberal thought, which developed in England during the course of one or two centuries, were compressed into a few decades in an Indian setting in India. Principles of Civil Liberty, Rule of Law and Freedom of the Press constitute the background of Indian liberalism. It may not be out of place to note that Raja Ram Mohan Roy sympathised with Naples when it was attacked by the Austrian Government and he opposed Spanish Imperialism in South America. He was inspired by the British Liberal Party’s attitude towards the national movements in Italy, Greece, and South America. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s contribution to the freedom of the press flowed from Milton’s ‘Areopagetica’ a notable source of English Liberalism. Like Macaulay who pleaded for religious liberty during a debate on ‘Civil Liberties’ for Jews, Ram Mohan Roy launched a campaign against Suttee.

Liberalism was responsible for the enunciation of a new principle in Anglo-Indian relations, that Britain’s greatness was founded on India’s happiness. Though the earlier stalwarts like Mahadev Govinda Ranade, Phirozesha Mehta, Gopalakrishna Gokhale, Rash Behary Ghosh and others, represented the liberal tradition in India, the Indian National Liberal Federation was actually founded only when the Congress rejected the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, popularly known as dyarchy, and began to take to unconstitutional means, by way of direct action, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. It is necessary to distinguish it from the South Indian Liberal Federation, which is a communal organisation known as the Justice Party, designed to foster the interests, of the non-Brahmin community, in the composite State of Madras. Throughout the world Liberalism suffered an eclipse after the First World War. The swing of the pendulum was, ever since, either to the extreme left or right, but it has never rested at the centre.

The Liberal Party in India was never a mass organisation, but a mere collection of individuals, personally eminent but politically without any popular following. They established a tradition of sincere conviction, sustained service, and sound patriotism. They were no respectors of persons. Their mind revolted against, the emotional exploitation of a situation. They stood for Civil Liberty, Rule of Law and Freedom of the Press. They were unruffled under the gravest provocation and were never rude to anybody. In moments of crisis their cold logic might not have received the attention it deserved. Their approach was objective and their conclusions were dispassionate. They felt that politics were vulgar without a liberal touch. They were throughout constitutionalists. As a matter of fact they supplied the constitutional background for the other parties and organisations in India.

Sir Surendra Nath Banerjee was the President of the First Conference of Liberals held on 1-11-1918 at Bombay. To many, separation from the Congress was a painful wrench. They contributed to build up the institution with their life-blood. They nursed it from infancy to adolescence, from adolescence to maturity. They could not but secede because the differences, between them and those who captured the Congress, were fundamental. Each followed their line of work with something of the bitter reminiscences familiar to the members of the Hindu joint family, broken up under the pressure of internecine strife. The extremist Congress sites were the loudest in their denunciation of the Liberals. The meetings organized by the Moderates were broken up by noisy demonstrations and rowdyism. The words ‘traitor’ and ‘shame’ became familiar terms applied to Moderates. There was more brute-force than soul-force in these exhibitions. The ancient spirit of tolerance that has been our heritage disappeared, and practices have been encouraged that were disastrous to the interests of the country, and tended to demoralise the people.

The achievements of each member of this party were unique. The persuasive eloquence and poise of Rt. Hon’ble Mr. V. S. Sreenivasa Sastry raised the status of India in the estimation of the English-speaking world. He was a true servant of the country throughout his life. The only official position he ever accepted was the post of Agent-General in South Africa, in an honorary capacity, at the instance of Mahatma Gandhi. Even ill health, advancing years and pecuniary difficulties could not tempt him. The positions he declined were a legion. He declined to be the Chief of the Interim Ministry in Madras during 1937, before Sir K. V. Reddy Naidu was sent for. Similarly he refused to accept the presidentship of the Council of State, a seat on the Viceregal Cabinet, and membership of the Secretary of State’s India Council in London. Thinking public wondered–whether he was a statesman or a politician. But every one agreed that he was a patriot at heart. As a matter of fact, he thought as he felt and acted as he thought. On this score he was often misunderstood. When he disapproved of the Home Rule Movement inaugurated by Dr. Annie Besant, it was said that he was responsible for her internment, since he happened to enjoy the privilege of friendship with Lord Pentland, the then Governor of Madras. It hurt him deeply but he suffered the indignity silently. He was unsparing in his criticism of the sayings and the doings of the British rulers. Eternal conflict raged in him between extremist inclinations and moderate convictions, between the principle and the expediency, the ultimate and the immediate. People were bewildered when he proposed cheers to the British Empire at the Imperial Conference. Mr. T. R. Venkatrama Sastri who resigned his post as Law Member in the Government of Madras, three days after he assumed office, as the control over the Police was taken away from him, was a faithful chela of Sri Srinivasa Sastri in every respect. He was the last to preside over the successive gatherings of the liberals from time to time and the celebrated its Silver Jubilee under his auspices. He continued the hobby of issuing statements on all public problems even from his sick-bed. Mr. A. D. Mani, as the Editor of the ‘Hitavad’ of Nagpur, popularised the liberal way of thinking. Mr. E. Vinayaka Rao of Madras was a loyal camp follower. Sri G. K. Devadhar, Sri P. Kodanda Rao, and Sri Lakshmi Narayana Sahu of the Servants of India Society have all along been good Liberals.

Next come the trio that preserved and fostered Liberalism to the last breath of their life. Sir P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer, the great Jurist, was reputed to be an erudite scholar and the most accurate thinker in India. Sir C. Y. Chintamani, the distinguished Editor of the ‘Leader’, the leading daily that moulded public opinion in Upper India for over three decades, was rightly regarded as the index of Indian politics. He resigned his ministership in U. P., as a protest against interference in the discharge of his duties. Sir Chimanlal Setalwad, a leading lawyer and the distinguished father of Mr. M. C. Setalwad, a former Attorney-General of India, was noted for his keenness and clarity. These three persons proudly proclaimed their faith from house-tops as a panacea for all political ills. Chintamani’s respect for constitutionalism was so intense that he never advised anyone to non-co-operate on any issue, but suggested that it would be increasingly difficult for the people to co-operate. On the puppet stage of the Montford regime they spoke the language of Fox and Pit. They could be pithy and epigramatic as Bacon, quaint, whimsical and allusive as Lamb, learned and mock-serious like the Editor of the ‘London Times’.

Sir Ferozeshah Sethna, Sir H. P. Mody and Sir Cowasjee Jehangir, the Parsi knights, were purposive and businesslike in their approach. Mr. G. A. Natesan the founder-Editor of the celebrated monthly “The Indian Review” was the self-appointed publicity agent in the cause of Liberalism. But for his efforts most of the distinguished Liberals would have remained unknown. Sir M. Ramachandra Rao’s deep study and love of blue-books endowed him with the authority of a natural element over any problem he tackled. By virtue of his receptivity and range, Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyer is a class by himself among the Liberals. Sir R. P. Paranjpye with his characteristic mathematical precision popularised the rational approach to public problems. Pandit Hridaynath Kunzru, President of the Servants of India Society, who is also the President of the Indian Council of World Affairs, is sincere and steadfast in his devotion to the principles of Liberalism. It is no exaggeration to say that from Ranade to Gokhale, from Gokhale to Sastry and from Sastry to Kunzru it is a sort of an apostolical succession. They stand for a real sense of dedication and not for misplaced faith in infallibility. They are select and cultivated. They may not prosper but they uphold values which are of the utmost significance to the future of the country.

Mr. N. K. Basu and Sir B. P. Roy Chodhury of Bengal, Sir Maharaj Singh and Sir Jagadish Prasad of U. P., Prof. D. R. Gadgil of Poona and Sri D. V. Gundappa of Bangalore were active Liberals. No doubt some title-holders and landed aristocracy joined this party to further their personal ends. But Liberals as a whole wielded power and influence with honour, dignity and independence.

Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Dr. M. R. Jayakar deserve special mention. The one supplemented the other. Sapru was a great scholar in Persian and Urdu, whereas Jayakar was devoted to Sanskrit and was well-versed in our epics and classics. Sapru personified Islamic culture and Jayakar represented Hindu Dharma. Sapru began his career as a Congressman, supported the Home Rule Movement of Dr. Besant, joined the Liberals and ultimately in his own words became a political orphan. But he was always an admirer of the British traditions and the Commonwealth. At the Imperial Conference Sapru was reported to have said that he was proud to proclaim that it was India which made the Empire imperial. Dr. Jayakar began his public career as a Swarajist and oscillated between Liberalism and Hinduism. Thus Sapru and Jayakar formed a comprehensive and full personality. They were such as to be, separately rare, and wonderful in combination. Ardent love of constitutionalism was common to both. Their contribution to the conclusion of the pandhi-Irwin Pact and the Poona Pact is a matter of history. During the Second World War, their efforts as constitutional experts at the Non-Party Leaders’ Conference brought the national demand to the forefront in spite of severe repression and stifling of public opinion. Their study was marked by industry and thoroughness. They gave the correct lead on crucial issues and tendered the proper counsel at the opportune moment.

Mr. P. N. Sapru, Son of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, was a Liberal till he joined the Congress. There are others who conformed to the principles of Liberalism and turned out useful work.

Sri Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and Prof. P. N. Banerjee also come under this category. Sri Madhusudan Das of Orissa, the first popular minister under dyarchy, was the foremost among such persons. Similarly Sri N. M. Joshi, the labour leader, though nominated to the Central Assembly, was a power to be reckoned with. Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya could not join the Liberals on account of his personal loyalty to the Congress. Mr. A. Rangaswamy Iyengar, Editor of the “Hindu” was a Liberal at heart. Similarly Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha, Nestor, of Bihar, Mr. P. R. Das, President of the All-India Civil Liberties Council, Dr. E. Raghavendra Rao, who held every position that was open to an Indian during the British regime with credit and distinction, Sir R. K. Shanmukham Chetty who distinguished himself as the President of the Central Assembly, and Dewan of Cochin, and the first Finance Minister of Independent India, Sir N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar and Sir V. T. Krishnamachari the trusted administrators. Sir M. Visweswarayya, the father of Planning in India, Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy, the great Advocate, Mr. B. Siva Rao, the noted journalist, Dr. C. R. Reddi, and Dr. A. L. Mudaliar, the eminent educationists, Dr. John Mathai, the great Economist, retired civilians like Sir C. D. Deshmukh, Sri V. P. Menon and Sri B. Rama Rao and his talented brother Sir B. N. Rao and Gen. Carriapa, last but not the least, Sir Mirza Ismail, with a long and distinguished career as the Dewan of Mysore, Jaipur, and Hyderabad, adopted the liberal approach. Liberals, as was pointed out by an Irish Judge, “are not helpful in winning freedom, but they are useful in preserving it in tact.”

Liberals as a party do not exist at present. But they constitute a force in every party. The late Sri Bulabhai Desai, Sri V. Ramadas Pantulu, Sri Satyamurty, Dr. Ansari, Sri B. G. Kher, Sri M. S. Aney, Dr. B. C. Roy, Pandit G. B. Pant, Sri Sriprakasa, Sri T. T. Krishnmachari, Dr. P. Subbarayan, Sri C. Subramanyam, Sri Morarji Desai, Sri V. V. Giri, Sri Anantasayanam Ayyangar and Dr B. Gopala Reddy, among the leading Congressities, are near to the Liberals. Sri C. Rajagopalachari, Sri K. M. Munshi, Prof. M. Ratnaswami, Sri M. R. Masani, and Prof; N. G. Ranga of the Swatantra Party, Sri J. P. Narayan, the Sarvodaya Leader and Prof. J. B. Kripalani embody liberalism. The present and the former Presidents of India (Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and Dr. Rajendra Prasad) are noted for their liberal approach. Similarly even among the communists it is alleged that Sri P. C. Joshi and Sri S. A. Dange have adopted the liberal methods of approach. Mr. Frank Anthony, the Anglo-Indian Leader, is in reality a Liberal.

The role of the Liberals in India is neither properly understood nor adequately appreciated. ‘Their days of power are gone and these are the days of their influence’, as Rt. Hon’ble Sastri used to say. Though the active role of the Liberals in India is now a thing of the past, they left their beneficent impress on the course of our constitutional evolution, which should be remembered with gratitude by generations yet unborn. Their work lies buried in the forgotten columns of contemporary newspapers and in the reports of various committees. They took their stand on old foundations and tried to broaden and liberalise them with a view to build a grand structure. We are too near them to assess the benefits of their role with impartiality and detachment. The task must be left to the future historian.

In India thought is always free though conduct is regulated by social conventions. Vichaara Swatantraha Aachaara Samaaja Samaya Tantraka. From the days of the Rigveda we invited noble thoughts from every side Aano Bhadraha Krutavoyantu Viswathaha. Our motto is that truth is one though sages call it by different names–Ekam Sat Vipraaha Bahudhaa Vadanti. Whatever be the truth of the Shakespearean dictum ‘Neither a borrower nor a lender be’, we have all along been both borrowers and lenders. Sankaracharya held out the ideal of “Homage to all Gods”–Sarva Deva Namaskaaraha. He was rightly described as Jagat Guru (Universal teacher). He successfully influenced the thoughts of Schopenheur in Germany, Compte in France and Emerson in America. Emperors Asoka, Harsha and Akbar upheld this tradition. Even in modern India Bharataratna Dr. Bhagavan Das successfully blended ancient tradition with modern temper in his monumental work “The Essential Unity of All Religions” which deserves to be read, re-read and digested inwardly. Scholarly in exposition, judicious in presenting rival systems of thought, this great philosopher and thinker imparted to our composite and catholic heritage the quality of a vital tradition. Thus our national tradition has all along been one of live and let live, of tolerance and of toleration, and above all, realization of unity in diversity. It is hoped that we will soon succeed in raising a pantheon dedicated to the great liberal-minded men and women of our country. Such an institution will be an honour to the dead and an incentive to the living. In that temple of peace and reconciliation all feuds will be forgotten.

Back