Deification of Nationalisation

Governor, Rajasthan

Sri Jaya Prakasha Narain is reported to have referred, in a recent speech, to the tendency to deify nationalisation. I do not know if people have been provoked thereby into giving deeper and further thought to their ideas about socialism, as was apparently his intention, but some reactions to the language he used are already available. The fear has been expressed that such words, coming from a man like him, are liable to be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Some people are probably feeling jubilant: his words might appear to them to be indicative of that swing to the right which they have been advocating all along.

Both the alarm and the jubilation are unjustified. Jaya Prakasha Narain has not resiled from the position he has occupied so long and is, I believe, as good a socialist as he was before. But he knows very well that nationalisation is not an end in itself. The aim of all socialist endeavour is the emancipation of the individual, his freedom from exploitation of all kinds and an opportunity for him to rise to his full height. Nationalisation is useful in so far as it serves this end. It is conceivable that other methods of industrial management or a combination of nationalisation and other methods could be made equally effective. Today in India our minds are obsessed with the virtues supposed to be inherent in nationalization. Partly, this is due to the fact that we want rapid industrialisation. Another factor responsible for this heavy leaning towards nationalisation is the blind and unsympathetic attitude of the average Indian trader. And then, when for one reason or another, our policies fail to be successful, the scaling down of foodgrain prices is an example, we find it convenient and psychologically satisfying to curse the unnationalised sector. Be this as it may, nationalisation is not the whole, or even the essential core, of socialism. There are other things, at least equally important. This was perhaps what Jaya Prakashaji had in mind when he criticised the tendency to apotheosize nationalisation.

He referred at some length to one of these important things–Land Reforms–and Village Self-government. They have not received the attention they deserve. Tenure and other conditions must be created in which the cultivator can put forth his best effort and make farming a profitable business. This is a proposition about which it is hardly possible to have two opinions. The worker on land is as much an object of concern to socialist thought as the worker in the factory. There is no need to labour this point, nor is it necessary here to go into details of Land Reform. There is one point, however, to which reference might be made in passing. While there has been no worthwhile advocacy of the policy of complete nationalisation of agriculture, the claims of cooperative farming have been widely stressed and powerfully emphasised. At the same time, there are people in the country who see in cooperative farming all kinds of evil. It is no use trying to stifle criticism by saying that cooperative farming is now a part of our national policy and the question cannot be reopened. The best thing, in my opinion, would be to set up a Commission, representing all important shades of opinion and of experts in agriculture and land management. Such a Commission should go over the whole field, keeping before itself also the experience gained in other countries. The findings of such a Commission would provide powerful arguments either for or against cooperative farming and serve as a dependable guide to government in adopting a suitable land policy for the future.

But it must be borne in mind that no matter how far nationalisation and land reforms go, they do not go far enough. I am sure Jaya Prakasha Narain is very well aware of this, although he might not have had the time to refer to it. Socialism is much more than any combination of practical programmes about farm and factory. Politics and economics apart, it has important social and cultural aspects. In fact, it embraces all regions of the life of the individual and the community. Above everything else, socialism is an attitude of mind, a direction of approach to social problems, a philosophy of life. And this applies to democracy as well, the concept which, along with that of Socialism, forms the cornerstone of our national life.

Every one who is interested in the country can see for himself that while nationalisation and land reforms are being attended to, though perhaps not in right measure, the spiritual content of socialism and democracy is being totally neglected. As the Vice-President observed recently, one does not now find in the people the enthusiasm and will to sacrifice, that animated them during our fight for freedom. This spirit was recaptured for a short time during the early days of the Chinese invasion but no attempt is being made to keep it alive. Our leadership speaks only in terms of schools and houses and hospitals, roads and bridges and power houses, all very good things, no doubt; but to expect a nation to find in them something spiritually uplifting is to expect a man to lift himself with the help of his shoe strings. Our deification of matter will never provide us with food for the spirit, with ideals to live for and, if need be, to die for. If we want to make socialism and democracy vital parts of our lives, let us provide for them a sound philosophic basis which shall elevate us above our routine selves of every day existence.

I can only trust that this very important matter will soon receive the attention it deserves. The Congress appointed a Committee with Sri U. N. Dhebar as Chairman to find out how far its Bhuvaneshwar resolution about socialism is being implemented but no attempt has so far been made either by the Congress or any other party to work out a spiritual basis for the concept. Without such a basis, there is a danger of our best practical programmes some day foundering onthe rocks.