The Indian Polity -The Fourth Phase

THE INDIAN POLITY - THE FOURTH PHASE

Are we in the fourth phase of Indian polity? Is India passing through the crucial phase when people have to make up their minds about the priorities that should govern the system? Can India get to the Gandhi - Nehru framework or should we allow the drift to continue? Primarily the issue centres around the values that India under Mahatma Gandhi and later under Pandit Nehru generated. Non-violence, democracy, secularism and unity and integrity of India were the widely accepted ideals which stood the test of time, nay the test of fire during those fateful days of partition of India. Under Gandhiji’s leadership which can be called the first phase of modern Indian polity, the greatest mass movement, as a historian put it, of modern times was launched. If Karl Marx, as Laski observed, found communism a chaos and left it a movement, Gandhi wrought order, out of a diffuse struggle. The uniqueness of the Gandhian movement was aptly summed up by Andre Malraux who said that usually we come across revolutions without ethics or ethics without revolution but Gandhiji launched a great revolution which was ethical too. The manner in which Gandhiji resolved the tradition - modernity dicho­tomy also came in for special mention by Modernity dichotomy also came in for special mention by Morris - Jones. Gandhiji, wrote Morris - Jones, used Hindu concepts for modern political purposes and modern concepts for the reinvigoration of traditional life. That was how ‘the shock of two cultures’ was overcome. The relevance of the idiom and the ethic was fully grasped by the people. More significantly Gandhiji gave shape and substance to the awakened spirit by providing an institutional framework. The launching of all India institutions like the All India Spinners Association, All India Basic Education Society was of enormous significance. First of all Gandhi sought to inject into a hitherto fragmented society a sense of ne - ness. Language, region and religion should not come in the way of promoting Indian unity. Secondly, social and economic emancipation came to be regarded as important as political emancipation under Gandhiji’s leadership. “I am not” declared the Mahatma “interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India from any yoke whether.” Sarvodaya, as everyone later understood, meant the good of all as against the good of the greatest number. Thirdly, the message was clear and unequivocal that for the upliftment of the people effective mobiliza­lion of popular support and involvement of all sections of the society were vital. Government alone should not be entrusted with the task of liberating the people from bondage, not be entrusted with the task of liberating the people from bondage, political, social or economic. There were and there should be limits to state power. Voluntary effort and social action should be institutionalised. Fourthly, there was no ideological or doctrinaire rigidity in the approach of the Mahatma whether it was public life or private issues or whether it was politics or social life. He crusaded for a social order in which faith and science would be brought to the service of mankind “avoiding the risks inherent in a materialistic approach.” There can be no politics without morality according to the Mahatma who evolved a synthesis of cultures and a blend of intellectuality and pragmatism. Gandhiji may have been against “a mechanical copying of revolutions in the West in all their varying phases” but he was not opposed to the basic tenets of socialism. In fact some writers interpreted it as ‘Gandhian socialism’ which was indigenous. His opposition was to mechanisation that would enslave man but not to the concept of economic equality. All action should be governed by selflessness, non-attachment and non-violence and spiritualisation of politics was possible through the integration of mind and body. Hiren Mukherjee felt that Gandhiji’s Abhaya was greater than his Ahimsa. Gandhiji, as a writer aptly remarked, lived for as well as in mankind. Under his leadership the Indian spirit was liberated even before Independence in the political sense was attained. It was that spiritual strength the capacity to sacrifice, suffer and endure that enabled India to overcome a series of shocks, like the partition holocaust, threats from across the border and the assassination of the Mahatma himself.

It was this legacy that Nehru not only inherited but strove manfully to uphold and strengthen. The process begun by Gandhiji continued with a new vigour under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership. The Nehru era lasted for nearly twenty years from 1946 to 1966 just as the years from 1920 to 1947 are generally described as the Gandhian era of modern India. What is important is how Nehru carried on the work of the Mahatma though there could be some areas in which Nehru adopted a new approach to suit the require­ments of a growing nation. Broadly speaking non-violence, com­munal harmony and emancipation of the Harijans and the weaker sections continued to be the main goals of the polity. In fact they are as much relevant today as they were sixty years ago when the Mahatma introduced them. We may today give them new and modern names like social justice and national integration but the content is almost the same. Non-violence found a new expression in Nehru’s approach when he gave to the strife-ridden world non­alignment. The immediate inspiration for Nehru was the Mahatma though for both Gandhi and Nehru the inspiration had its origins in the Indian tradition as moulded by the Buddha and Ashoka. The adoption of the Westminster type and the operation of a democratic government required mature political and administrative leadership which fortunately for India was available at both the national and State levels. In leaders like Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji, India had men of rare wisdom who could visualise the future needs of a newly liberated country and a hetero­genous society. The administrative system inherited from the British was highly professional in its approach and the Indian leaders moulded it to play a more positive and dynamic role in conformity with the goals of the system. If Patel was the great architect of Indian unity Nehru emerged as the maker of modern India com­mitted to the path of democracy, socialism and secularism. The launching of several revolutions simultaneously which Rajani Kothari described as the challenge of simultaneous change was a unique feature of the new system. Political emancipation was to be supplemented by economic and social change. Rapid changes in the form of industrialisation and expansion of educational facilities were to accelerate the pace of development. Nehru created an institutional frame-work for such a progress and the Planning Commission, Community Development Programmes followed by the Panchayati Raj institutions were among the many such infrastructural facilities created to bring in social and economic change through democratic methods. Parliamentary system of government struck roots and its working drew the admiration of the usually cynical Western press. Delhi, wrote a British newspaper, was the School of Asia and Nehru’s democracy was likened to Athens of Pericles. Nehru’s foreign policy earned for India high respect in the comity of nations and Delhi became a diplomatic stopover for world states­men. Despite his undisputed sway over the masses Nehru never allowed politics to become personalized. Among his most notable contributions was the manner in which State institutions acquired a high degree of professionalism. Equally significant was the fact that Nehru seldom permitted the erosion of the Gandhian ethic which constituted the moral bone of the Indian system. Not that there were no threats; nor for that matter is it suggested that Nehru was thoroughly Gandhian in his style of functioning. But the point is that by and large the framework of action rested on the value system shaped by Gandhiji during a crucial phase of modern Indian history. That was why despite the 1948 war with Pakistan and the 1962 conflict with China or even the 1965 Indo - Pak war and persisting economic problems the system retained its capacity to fight and overcome a crisis without breaking up. There was no doubt that India took upon herself responsibility possibly beyond her capacity. Nehru was himself disappointed in his last years with certain trends that were surfacing in the Indian system and his inability to check them. The Chinese aggression was a shattering blow to Jawaharlal Nehru and as Hiren Mukherji ob­served Nehru did not seem to recover from it. The Nehru legacy, however, lasted for a few more years after his death.

The third phase began roughly around 1967 when Indira Gandhi assumed power in the real sense of the term after com­pleting a year of ‘probation’ under Kamaraj’s guidance. “I am,” she declared “a child of politics whereas my father was a saint who strayed into politics.” She was not only a child of politics but almost became its victim during those turbulent early years of her Prime Ministership. It was a different Indira Gandhi who emerged after the two critical periods-one caused by intra-party feuds and struggle for supremacy and the other caused by the threat that emanated from outside in the form of exodus of thousands of refugees from East Pakistan. She displayed a firmness that bordered, not unoften, on ruthlessness. Like her father she aimed at rapid economic and social change but unlike him she was prepared to place ends on a higher pedestal than means. In the process she contributed to the process of deinstitutionalization which damaged the system as a whole. But to put the entire blame on her for “the criminalisation of politics” would be an exaggeration. Mrs. Gandhi had two alternatives as she understood the situation. Either she should become a victim of politics or the game. She did not hesitate to play the latter role. In the process of strengthen­ing her own position she contributed to an enormous increase of State power. There is no denying the fact under her dynamic leadership India made rapid strides on many fronts and both in national and international politics. But some of the forces she let loose in the task of achieving the goals and targets became unmanageable like the notorious Frankenstein monster. The politi­cian-bureaucrat combine became “a double headed monster” like what the Europeans had groaned under in the medieval times. Hand in glove the politician and the bureaucrat began to exploit the system for their own benefit. When thrown apart, due to personal differences, the situation became even worse. Corruption assumed gigantic proportions. T.A. Pai who was a minister in Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet aptly put it thus: “If a peon accepted money it was called bakshis; if a clerk took it, it was called mamool; if an officer took it became bribe; if a minister took it, it was called party funds.” Combined with these dangerous elements lately have been money and muscle power. The rise of a dangerous breed of people supported by black money and muscle dragged politics into the streets. The result is the rise of the politics of populism. Political leadership has in some areas passed into the hands of persons of dubious credentials who masquerade as the champions of the poor and the downtrodden. The vast majority of the illiterate and semi-literate people who find the established institutions beyond their reach have been lulled into thinking that there can be instant solutions to their chronic problems. Violence and mass protest enable them to receive attention which they would never be able to get otherwise. Morris-Jones cautioned: “India may have to live with problems she cannot solve.” The ‘Seventies and the’ Eighties have become the most dangerous decades (Selig S. Harrison’s prophecy almost came true though not the way he had predicted). The Gandhian ethic has been reversed. The Gandhi-Nehru frame­work seems to have disappeared. The causes could be many. Those responsible for that too are numerous – politicians, bure­aucrats, elite groups, intellectuals, industrialists and many others.

It is against that ground that we should view the fourth phase of the Indian polity. This is the phase that immediately concerns us and eventually the future generation. The responsibility for reviving the values of the first two phases rests not only on the ruling Congress Party and the persons at the helm of affairs but on every person at all levels. It is not easy to put, the derailed institutions on the rails. Institutions can be revived only when the values of the past are placed on the high pedestal. It is not necessary for us to wear khadi and make heavy personal sacrifices as was done in the Gandhian era. Gandhiji was highly modern in outlook though he appeared traditional in his dress and style of living. We can be traditional and simple in our dress and mode of living and still be modern in outlook. Unless we revive spirit of those times and accept tolerance, non-violence and mutual respect we cannot hope to put an end to the politics of greed and hatred. That is not an impossible task because most of the people of India, literate or illiterate, subscribe to the view that there is no alternative to the Gandhi - Nehru framework and all of us are proud of that legacy. The fourth phase is a crucial one. It can be a turning point in our history. It can regain for India peace and prestige, even if India cannot overnight become affluent. If millions of poor and illiterate people could march hand in hand behind the Mahatma for political freedom, cannot millions of people unquestionably better off than their forbears, vow now to walk in the footsteps of Gandhi and Nehru in quest of the sacred goal?