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.