The Congress: Which Way?

THE CONGRESS: WHICH WAY

The Congress is now a political party among other political parties. It is not the national origanization which it was, though its roots are still deeper and broader than those of any other political party. But even when it represented the nation’s aspira­tion for freedom, it was a kind of a party, though it worked also as a national platform. Such a platform would be useless now as, in spite of the continuance of a kind of emergency necessitated by the provocation of Pakistan, the fight for economic and social freedom is infringing on national solidarity.

Far-seeing, Gandhi always interpreted freedom in the larger sense and wanted the Congress to be an organization of the poor, but he lived long enough to see that the class composi­tion of the Congress would not permit it to work for the designed end. In his ‘testament’, he, therefore, wanted the Congress to transform itself into a Lok Sevak Sangh, leaving its political elements to form various political parties. It was good advice subject to one condition and that is that the character of the Congress should change, that it should become an organiza­tion of peasants and workers, which alone can work for a peasants’ and workers’ republic, that, if in other words, it means that it should go to the left, it should go in that direction. That condition has not been fulfilled and is not likely to be filled.

The Congress has become an instrument not suited to its declared purposes. On this assumption the Socialists left it, they also felt that the Congress had ceased to reflect, social and economic change. On the other hand, the Congress, as Mr. Shankerrao Deo admits, is burdened with undesirable elements. We would call them reactionary elements.

Any viewpoint can be accommodated in the Congress. A Congressman can be a believer in Hindu-Muslim unity or a disbeliever; he may believe in Capitalism or Socialism; he may believe in control or decontrol; he can be for prohibition or against prohibition; he can sympathise with the RSS or repudiate it. This is not merely individual or provincial angularity but utter confusion. When a policy is framed, it may not be executed; on vital questions there may be no policy at the proper time. It seems inevitable in a vast country but, with clear objectives and a cohesive organization, the confusion would be un­necessary.

Even two years ago we suggested that the Congress should be organically built out of labour and peasants; the Socialists are attempting it but not the Congress. There is the middle class, a foreign-created, uncreative class, which is essentially a job-hunting class. It is natural for this class to be transfigured into every conceivable ideology but all ideologies are agreed that the challenge of the time is the challenge of labour and peasants.

The Congress, according to all rules of logic and history, cannot, composed as it is, survive the challenge of labour and peasants. Neither labour legislation nor zamindari abolition is adequate for it. The entire impulse for national reconstruction must come from the people and minus labour and peasants the people are few. From these needs Congress leadership should be able to know what kind of organization the Congress should be.

If it cannot be such an organization and if all that the Congress leader or the Congress worker can do is to gather enough support, and enough force, for whatever the Congress governments do, the sap will dry up, the roots will wither and the soil will become sterile for the Congress. It can only be a collection of ruling juntas, if not families, a potential Kuomintang going the Kuomintang way, inspiring little loyalty in the forces of law and order.

Here one amazing fact must be recorded. If the Congress is still functioning cohesively and with some method in its madness, it is not because of its organization, Gandhi’s heritage, the com­pulsion of emergency, great as it has been, or habit but because of Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, who are national leaders and in national emergency have transcended party barriers. Even for them, such eminence, and such dual unity, must in a democracy seem illusory. At least, the Congressman who is aware of the crisis in the Congress is asking whether the two leaders realize that whatever strength the Congress possesses today is the strength of their personalities, in spite of the frequent badgerings of party discussions. But the democratic process of party discussion is no guarantee for the people of continued progress.

A tilt and the progress vanishes and even now slowly behind a programme of progress, reactionary elements are gathering strength, the capitalist, the communalist and the power-grabber. The leader­ship needs rethinking, if necessary regrouping, and even a battle of ideologies in time would be worth something, if the country was to find a party adequate to its purpose.

Fortunately or unfortunately, an opportunity is present for the Congress because there is no other comparatively strong party. Even the number of legislators necessary under the new Constitution is so great that it would mean a huge effort, barring coalitions. If the leadership thinks it can still put an end to drift, it has to present a single ideology, define membership, enforce discipline without fear or favour. There need be no more waiting on time. It should not be “after me, the deluge.”

What should the Congress be, taking all its deficiencies together? It may seek its destiny in one of two ways: it can become more of a mass party or it can become a purely parliamentary party. The odds are against the first alternative, for at the present pace, the Congress can only pretend to be a mass party and provoke other parties to greater effort in this direction.

But the Communists would not be true to their creed, unless they make their party a mass party and lead it to violent conflict with the state. The Socialist Party is, from the very paucity of its numbers, in two minds, whether to prepare for elections or to build its strength among labour and peasants. At least, in a country where trade unionism is developing, there is bound to be a party in the country and in the legislature with trade union ing.

The problems which the country faces are beyond the capacity of incipient parliamentary democracy and the only guarantee of the success of parliamentary democracy so far in this country is the multiplicity of clauses and schedules of the Constitution. If the Congress has lost the inspiration of popular will, it will be no use preserving a bogus mass character.

Acharya Kripalani’s alternative would be more practicable. It would at least give a chance to parliamentary democracy by creating proper atmosphere and precedents. For, if the Congress does not work parliamentary democracy with proper respect for its spirit and form, other parties cannot be expected to work it.

Much of the confusion in the Congress can be cleared, if it makes up its mind on this difficult and puzzling issue. For a mass party’s organizational character is bound to be different from that of a parliamentary party. If a decision is taken, it will be easy to define the functions and position of the Congress President, the relationship between the party in the country and the party in the legislatures, between the party and the Government, the need for discipline and the need for freedom.

Considering the gathering tempo of the revolutionary process, we would expect the Congress to develop into a revolutionary mass party making use of the Constitution for quick attainment of social and economic progress. If the leadership does not want to grasp the dynamics of progress it would be better for the Congress to behave in the way Acharya Kripalani has recommended.

Unless this issue is decided, it is no use trying to tighten up the organization or reflect what is bogus membership and what is real. The present drift and the impact of confusion on rigidity can drive the country only to a mad career of violence. And part of the confusion and violence is the appearance of warlords in the Congress, ready to lead their followers in group assaults for power.
–Editorial, National Herald: February 16, 1950