Indian Parties – A Realignment

INDIAN PARTIES –A REALIGNMENT

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 awayall 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.