The growth of socialist thought as a philosophy of social and economic reconstruction is mostly the product of the Western impact on India. One of the leading saint-philosopher of India, Ghosh‘s criticism of the middle class mentality of the leaders of the Indian National Congress and his plea for the social development of the "proletariats" in his articles to the magazine ―Indu Prakash in 1893, B, G. Tilak's reference to the Russian Nihilists in the Kesari in 1908, C.R.Das‘s reference to the glorious role of the Russian Resolution the modern international system, and particularly his emphasis on the role of the trade union movements in the structural development of the social and political system of India, in his Presidential address at the Gaya Session of the Indian National Congress in 1917, and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's eloquence in relation to the New Economic Policy of 1926 and. other growths in the Soviet Union in his articles and books such as Soviet Russia, Autobiography; and Glimpses of World History, are some of the examples of the impact of the Soviet thoughts and thoughts on the minds of the leading Indian thinkers and political leaders.
One of the leading figures of the freedom thrash about in India, Lala Lajpat Rai was measured through some critics as the first writer on Socialism and Bolshevism in India. The Marxist leader, M.N.Roy was extremely critical of Lala Lajpat Rai‘s writings, particularly his book, The Future of India. He measured him as "a bourgeois politician with sympathy for socialism". Roy, in his book, 'India in Transition and Indian Problem was also critical of the bourgeois attitude of the leaders of the Indian National Congress. Roy was not a blind follower of Russian communism. He measured Russian communism as a form of state capitalism. In his book, Russian Revolution, he regarded the Russian Revolution as "a fluke of history.
HISTORY OF SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
The socialist movement became popular in India only after the First World War and the Russian Revolution. The unprecedented economic crisis of the twenties coupled with the capitalist and imperialist policies of the British Government created spiraling inflation and rising unemployment in the middle of the masses. Just as to John Patrick Haithcox, imperialism was measured as a form of capitalist class government planned to perpetuate the slavery of the workers. The success of the Russian Revolution under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky and the economic growth of that country inspired intellectuals and political leaders of the developing countries of the Third World including India.
A number of radical groups and youth leagues opposing the policies of the British government were born in India. A left wing was created within the Congress Party under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. In November 1928 an organisation described the Independence for India League was created under the leadership of S. Srinivas Iyengar. Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose were its joint secretaries. This left oriented pressure group within the Congress spearheaded the movement for complete political, social, and economic independence. In the Lahore Session of the Congress, in 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru, with the help of this left wing group, got a resolution for complete independence passed. After this resolution for independence was passed, the Independence for India League got slowly disintegrated.
Throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century a number of political parties based on religion, caste, and society came into subsistence in India. Just as to a leading social scientist, Gopal Krishna, "Articulate political parochialism - feature of a society where primary loyalties continue to centre approximately caste and society, social and geographic mobility was minimal and attitudes were not enlightened through an awareness of the superior national society - resulted in the early formation of communal and caste parties, seeking in their own method to participate in the procedure of political modernization.
The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), the precursor of the Jan Sangh, was born in 1925. The Justice Party, an anti-Brahmin movement in the Madras Presidency, came into subsistence in 1917. Both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha were shaped in 1906.
As a result of the impact of the Russian Revolution, mainly of the left parties were shaped in the Third World countries. The Communist Party of India (CPI) was born in 1925. This left party was connected with the Communist International of Moscow. Besides, a lot of radical splinter groups also were born in dissimilar parts of India.
The Communist Party, with the help of the Communist International and the British Communist Party, made rapid progress in the field of trade union movements till the Sixth Comintern Congress in 1928. With the criticism of the Congress Party as an instrument of 'bourgeoisie nationalism' and Gandhism, which Lenin regarded as 'revolutionary', as an "openly counter- revolutionary force", the Communist Party got alienated from the masses as well as from the freedom thrash about. M.N.Roy also started his radical group in 1930 after he was expelled from Comintern in 1929,
The failure of the two civil disobedience movements of 1930 and 1932 and the compromising attitude of the Congress at the two Round Table Conferences made a number of young leaders disillusioned. Throughout this time, Gandhi also suspended his Satyagraha movement and started concentrating on constructive programmes. Several Congressmen measured this development as failure of Gandhi‘s non-violent thrash about. In this atmosphere of disillusionment an effort was made to form the Congress Socialist Party, a Marxism oriented organisation within the Congress Party in 1934.
The socialist groups were also shaped in Punjab, Bengal, Benares and Kerala. In Poona the task of forming the socialist party within the Congress was entrusted to Chattopadhyay, Yusuf Meherally and Purshottam Trikamdas. Other leaders who were instrumental in the formation of the Congress Socialist Party were: Jayaprakash Narayan, Minoo Masani, Asoka Mehta, Achyut Patwardhan, N.G.Goray, M.L.Dantwala, Acharya Narendra Deva, Dr.Rammanohar Lohia and S.M. Joshi. While in prison, these leaders prepared the blue print for the Congress Socialist Party. Therefore the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) was born out of the disillusionment with the civil resistance movement, growth of constitutionalism, and anti-national role of the Communist Party of India and its alienation from the national mainstream. Some socialist critics are of the opinion that if the Communist Party of India would not have shown its anti-Gandhi and anti-freedom thrash about mentality, and the Congress Party would not have been dominated through the conservative elements, perhaps the Congress Socialist Party would never have been born at all.
Throughout the thirties, Jawaharlal was measured as a great champion of the socialist philosophy. Every young leader of the Congress Party looked upon him as the symbol of socialism. In a letter to Minoo Masani on December 1934, Nehru welcomed the "formation of the socialist groups within the Congress to power the ideology of the Congress and the country."
Through 1934, several socialist groups were shaped in dissimilar parts of the country. It was then realised that these groups were to be brought under one socialist platform. Jayaprakash Narayan organized a conference of socialist members in Patna in May 1934. He also revived the Bihar Socialist Party. The All India Congress Socialist Party was shaped at this conference. Gandhi‘s decision to withdraw the civil disobedience movement and the revival of the rightist Swaraj Party precipitated the formation of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934. Gandhi‘s favorable attitude towards the Swarajists like B.C.Roy, K.M., Munshi, Bhulabhai Desai and others and the Congress decision to withdraw the civil disobedience movement and launch parliamentary programmes in the forth-coming Patna meeting on 18 May 1934, made socialist forces in the Congress to make the Congress Socialist Party on 17 May 1934.Acharya Narendra Deva was made the chairman and Jayaprakash Narayan as the organizing secretary, of the committee to draft the constitution and the programmes of the Congress Socialist Party.
CONGRESS SOCIALIST PARTY: PROGRAMMES AND POLICIES
The birth of the Congress Socialist Party in May 1934 was a landmark in the history of the socialist movement of India. While assessing the programmes and policies of the Congress Socialist Party, it will be desirable to keep in mind the contribution of the Meerut Conspiracy case in spreading the ideology of the early 1930s. Besides, the creation of the All India Kisan Sabha in 1936, and the role of the Youth League and Independence for India League can never be ignored in the growth of the socialist thought in India. The Congress Socialist Party provided an all India platform to all the socialist groups in India. The publication of the Party and the writings of the socialist leaders inspired the youth of India in dissimilar parts of the country to take up constructive programmes for the upliftment of the downtrodden. Ashok Mehta‘s Democratic Socialism, and Studies in Asian Socialism, Acharya Narendra Deva's Socialism and National Revolution, Jayaprakash Narayan‘s Towards Thrash about (1946), and Dr. Rammanohar Lohia's The Mystery of Sir Stafford Cripps (1942) played a important role in spreading the messages of socialism in India.
It was declared in the Socialist conference of 1934 that the vital objective of the Party was to work for the "complete independence in the sense of separation from the British Empire and the establishment of socialist society." The Party membership was not open to the members of the communal organisations. Its vital aim was to organize the workers and peasants for a powerful mass movement for independence. Programmes incorporated a planned economy, socialization of key industries and banking, elimination of the use through Princes and landlords and initiation of reforms in the regions of vital needs.
The ideology of the Congress Socialist Party was a combination of the principles of Marxism, the thoughts of democratic socialism of the British Labour Party, and socialism mixed with the Gandhian principles of Satyagraha and non-violence. The Party was under the power of deep Marxist thoughts in its formative stage. The leading members of the Congress Socialist Party belonged to dissimilar streams of thought. Just as to Masani, ― I was a staunch democrat of the Labour Party type and had little sympathy with communist methodology or technique though I was a rather starry-eyed admirer of the October Revolution in Russia.... JP on the other hand was a staunch believer in the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever that may mean. Marxism was the bed rock of his socialist faith.
Some of the leaders of the Congress Socialist Party like Acharya Narendra Deva and Jayaprakash Narayan were the strong supporters of the Marxist trend in the CSP. Through 1940s, JP came under the spell of Gandhi and the Gandhian socialism. Through 1954, he was disillusioned with the functioning of party politics. He left CSP and joined the Sarvodaya movement, Other leaders like M.L.Dantwala. M.R.Masani, Ashok Mehta, and Pursottam Trikam Das were the followers of the principles of the British Fabian socialism. Masani left the CSP in 1939 and became a strong supporter of free enterprise. He was instrumental in the formation of the Swatantra Party in 1959. Achyut Patwardhan and Dr. Rammanohar Lohia was the follower of Gandhian methodology in the Party. Patwardhan became a follower of J. Krishnamurti in 1950 and left all party politics. Dr. Lohia sustained to be a prominent Gandhian socialist leader throughout.
The ideological differences in the middle of the leaders of the Congress Socialist Party had a deep impact on the policies, programmes and organizational development of the Party. In the formative stage of the Party, all the leaders remained jointly because of their strong sense of nationalism, camaraderie, and brotherhood, and what is often referred to as their "rigorous personal friendship‖. Just as to Madhu Limaye, they were all from a similar urban, middle class, highly educated background. They were also young and idealistic, possessed a strict code of ethics and had great "respect for values of truth and decency. Of all the leaders, JP was the mainly prominent cohesive factor. He was measured as the mainly significant leader of the socialist movement. Because of his organizational capability and strong Marxist approach, the Party, in the formative stage, followed the Marxist approach and principles."
The 1936 Meerut Thesis put emphasis on the Party to follow and develop into a national movement, an anti-imperialist movement based on the principles of Marxism. Just as to this thesis, it was "necessary to wean the anti-imperialist elements in the Congress absent from its present bourgeois leadership and to bring them under the leadership of revolutionary socialism." This task can be accomplished only if there is within the Congress an organized body of Marxian socialists....Marxism alone can guide the anti-imperialist forces to their ultimate destiny. Party members necessity so fully understands the technique of revolution, the theory of practice of the class thrash about, the nature of the state and procedure leading to the socialist society.‖ This thesis was adopted at the Faizpur Conference of the Congress Socialist Party in 1936.
The socialists played an significant role in the 1942 Quit India Movement, and in organized trade union movements of the country. Their rising popularity was neither lilted through the leading members of the Congress nor through the communists and the Royalists. The communists were not part of the nationalist thrash about against the British imperialism. They also did not like the popularity of the trade union movements under the leadership of the socialists. They criticized them as fascists and symbol of 'left reformism'.
The Congress leaders were not extremely sympathetic to the role of the socialists inside the Congress organisation. The socialists of the Congress, particularly the CSP members, were opposed to the constitutional arrangements of the 1935 Act and did not like the Congress decision to participate in the elections in the states although ultimately persons like Acharya Narendra Deva participated in the elections. The Congress decision to form ministries in the states after the elections in 1937 was opposed through the socialists. Leading members like Jayaprakash Narayan of the CSP were influenced that this extremely constitutional arrangement would make obstacles in the growth of the 'revolutionary mentality in the Congress'. In his statement at the Nasik Conference 6f the Congress Socialist Party in 1948, Jayaprakash Narayan said, ― Looking back, though, and in spite of the years, I still consider it was wrong to have accepted offices then. While it acquiesced no advantage, it gave birth to a mentality of power politics within the Congress that threatens now to become its undoing."
The soft attitude of the Congress organisation towards the landlords, its policies concerning the Princely slates, and its opposition to the Kisan movements in the states also embittered the connection flanked by the socialists and the leading members of the Congress. The Congress organisation was not extremely sympathetic towards the Kisan movements under the leaders of the CSP, They even went to the extent of passing an official resolution at the Haripura Session in 1938 asking its members not to associate with the Kisan organisations. The victory of Subhas Chandra Bose against Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Gandhi‘s candidate, was not extremely much liked through the Congress leaders. In March 1939, a Congress resolution moved through G.B. Pant, asked the newly elected Congress President Subhas Chandra Bose, to nominate the members of his Working Committee as per the advice of Gandhi. At this critical moment of the CSP, its members were divided on the issue of support towards Bose. Jayaprakash Narayan and the communists in the organisation wanted to support Bose. Dr.Lohia, Masani, Ashok Mehta and Yusuf Meherally were not in favor of Bose as they thought that the decision to support Bose would result in the polarization of the national movement into two camps and would ultimately weaken the nationalist thrash about against the British government. The decision through the socialist members to abstain from voting on the resolution, shocked Bose to such an extent that he decided to resign from the Presidentship and form his own party, the Forward Bloc. All these growths weakened the CSP as an emerging organisation of the socialist: forces in the country. In the Nasik Convention of the CSP, in March 1948, the socialists ultimately took the decision to leave the Congress and to form the Socialist Party of India.
In 1952, immediately after the first national election, the Socialist Party and the Krishak Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) of J.B.Kripalani took a decision to merge into a single organisation.
The socialist organisations in India then had two vital objectives:
They wanted to develop into an all-India organisation for social and economic reconstruction and Development of the weaker sections of the social structure and also as an ideological framework for political emancipation of India.
The Bolshevik theory of democratic centralism deeply influenced the ideological deliberations of the Congress Socialist Party till the independence. With the attainment of independence in 1947 and death of Gandhi in the after that year, the Congress Socialist' Party underwent a important transformation. It moved absent from the communist principle of democratic centralism and Marxist methodology towards the region of democratic socialism. Also, in order to achieve a mass base, the CSP diluted some of its earlier ideological frameworks and methodology. Soon the electoral procedures of adjustments, alliances, and even mergers were undertaken with political organisations that neither whispered in democratic procedures nor in the principles of nationalism, socialism and democracy. From a revolutionary path, it moved towards parliamentary methods of coalitional approach.
The Congress Socialist Party adopted the principle of democratic socialism in the Patna Convention of the party in 1949 more seriously. While emphasizing its ideological purity the party was more careful in relation to the its constructive behaviors in the middle of the peasants, poor and the working class. In its well-known Allahabad Thesis of 1953 the party proposed to go for all electoral alliance adjustment with the opposition parties. But the Party was not prepared to have any united front or coalition with any political party. In the Gaya session of the Party statements the separate identity of the Congress Socialist Party was also emphasized. The Party was reluctant to have any electoral adjustment or coalition with the Congress, Communist or Hindu Fundamentalist Party or Organisations. But this attitude was toned down and diluted throughout the Common Elections of 1957 and thereafter.
In 1952, the Congress Socialist Party strongly advocated for the greater synthesis of the Gandhian ideals with socialist thought. Dr. Rammanohar Lohia as the President of the Party put emphasis on a decentralised economy based on handicrafts, cottage industries and industries based on small machines and maximum use of labour with small capital investment. Throughout the Panchamarhi Socialist Convention in May 1952, this row of thought of Dr. Lohia did not impress many Socialist leaders of the Party. In June 1953, Ashok Mehta‘s thesis of the "Political compulsion of a backward economy pleaded for a greater cooperation flanked by the Socialist and the Congress Party. As a counterpoise to Ashok Mehta‘s thesis, Dr. Lohia offered the "Theory of Equidistance. This theory advocated equidistance from the Congress and the Communists through the Socialist parties. As a result of these two streams of thought the Congress Socialist Party was divided into two clamps. Some of the members even thought of quitting the party to join the Congress.
One of the prominent leaders of the Congress Socialist Party, Acharya Narendra Deva was not in favor of the Socialists to join the Congress. He was a staunch believer in the principle of dialectical materialism of Marx. He said, "We can perform the task before us only if we attempt to comprehend the principle and purposes of Socialism and to understand the dialectical method propounded through Marx for the correct understanding of the situation and create that understanding the foundation of true action we necessity create our stand on scientific socialism and steer clear of utopian socialism or social reformism. Nothing short of a revolutionary transformation of the existing social order can meet the needs of the situation. He whispered in the moral governance of the world and primacy of moral values. He measured socialism as a cultural movement. He always emphasized the humanist base of socialism; he was not in favor of the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence in its entirety. He was in favor of broadening the foundation of mass movement through organizing the masses on an economic and class-conscious foundation. He was in favor of an alliance flanked by the lower middle class and the masses. He said that "They could become class conscious only when an appeal was made to them in economic conditions" to understand India. He pleaded for an alliance flanked by the Socialist movement and the National movement for a colonial country. He said that political freedom was an "inevitable stage on the method to socialism". He was a strong supporter of George Sorel‘s Syndicalist Theory of ―Common Strike". He said, "In India, unlike Russia, the proletarian weapon of strike has not yet been the signal for mass action; but the working class can extend its political power only when through by its weapon of common strike in the service of the national thrash about, it can impress the petty bourgeoisie with the revolutionary possibilities of a strike.
Throughout the socialist movements in the pre independence stage, and subsequently throughout the 1940‘s, 50's and 60‘s, greater emphasis was put on the acceleration of agricultural manufacture, cooperative, land ceiling, reduction of unemployment, and the raising of the livelihood standards of the suppressed and backward societies. The socialist party always advocated for the separation of the judiciary from the administration and its decentralization on the rows of the Balwant Rai Mehta committee statement. The vital philosophy of the Socialist thought in India was based on a synthesis of secularism, nationalism and democratic decentralization procedure.
SOCIALIST THOUGHT OF DR. RAMMANOHAR LOHIA
Rammonohar Lohia articulated his approach in what he described Seven Revolutions such as equality flanked by man and woman, thrash about against political, economic and spiritual inequality based on skin colour, removal of inequality flanked by backward and high castes based on traditions and special opportunity for the backward, majors against foreign enslavement in dissimilar shapes, economic equality, planned manufacture, and removal of capitalism, against unjust encroachments on private life, non proliferation of weapons and reliance on Satyagraha were the vital elements of his thought. In his book on Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Lohia made an analysis of principles of democratic socialism as an appropriate philosophy for the successful operation of constructive programmes. He said, ―Conservatism and communism have a strange identity of interest against socialism. Conservatism holds socialism as its democratic rival, and does not fear communism except as a threat of successful insurrection. Communism prefers the continuance of a conservative government and is mortally afraid of a socialist party coming to office, for, its chances of an insurrection are then deemed".
Lohia made a important contribution in the field of socialist thought in India, He always laid greater emphasis on the combination of the Gandhian ideals with the socialist thought. He was a proponent of the cyclical theory of history. He whispered that through the principles of democratic socialism the economy of a developing country could be improved. Although Dr. Lohia was a supporter of dialectical materialism he put greater emphasis on consciousness. He was of the opinion that through an internal oscillation flanked by class and caste, historical dynamism of a country could be insured. Just as to Dr. Lohia, the classes symbolize the social mobilization procedure and the castes are symbols of conservative forces. All human history, he said, has always been "an internal movement flanked by caste and classes - caste loosen into classes and classes crystallize into castes". He was an exponent of decentralised socialism. Just as to him small machines, cooperative labour and village government, operate as democratic forces against capitalist forces. He measured orthodox and organized socialism "a dead doctrine and a dying organisation".
Lohia was extremely popular for his Four Pillar State concept. He measured village, mandal (district), province and central government as the four pillars of the state. He was in favor of villages having police and welfare functions.
He propounded his theory of New Socialism at Hyderabad in 1959. This theory had six vital elements. They were egalitarian standards in the regions of income and expenditure, rising economic interdependence, world parliament system based on adult franchise, democratic freedoms inclusive of right to private life, Gandhian technique of individual and communal civil disobedience, and dignity and rights of general man. In his Panchamarhi conference address in 1952 he said, ―The tensions and emptiness of contemporary life appear hard to overcome, whether under capitalism or communism as the hunger for rising standards is their mother and general to both. Capitalists expected their ideal kingdom to arise out of each man‘s self interest operating under a perfect competition; communists still expect their ideal kingdom to arrive out of social ownership in excess of means of manufacture. Their general fallacy has now shown up that the common aims of society do not inevitably flow out of sure economic aims. An integrated connection flanked by the two sets of aims has to be set up through the intelligence of man."
Lohia advocated socialism in the form of a new civilization which in the languages of Marx could be referred to as "socialist humanism‖. He gave a new direction and dimension to the' socialist movement of India. He said that India's ideology is to be understood in the context of its civilization, traditions, and history. For the success of democratic socialist movement in India, it is necessary to put primary emphasis on the removal of caste system through systemic reform procedure. Referring to the caste system lie said, ―All those who think that with the removal of poverty through a modem economy, these segregations will automatically disappear, create a big mistake." He often highlighted the irrelevance of capitalism for the economic reconstruction and development of the Third World countries.
Lohia was opposed to doctrinaire approach to social, political, economic and ideological issues. He wanted the state power to be controlled, guided, and framed through people's power and whispered in the ideology of democratic socialism and non-violent methodology as instruments of governance.
Lohia was deeply influenced through Leon Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution". He preached and practiced the concept of "permanent civil disobedience" as a peaceful rebellion against injustice. To him the essence of social revolution could be achieved through a combination of jail, spade and vote. His theory of ―immediacy was extremely popular in the middle of the youth. He wanted that organisation and action necessity continue as parallel currents and strongly pleaded for "constructive militancy and "militant construction".
Lohia was influenced that no individual's thought could be used as the sole frame of reference for the ideology of any movement. Although he was in favor of Marx‘s theory of dialectical materialism, he was aware of its limitations. He emphasized both the economic factors and human will as significant elements of development of history. He was influenced that "logic of events" and "logic of will" would govern the path of history.
He was not influenced through the Marxist thesis that the revolutions were to happen in the industrially urbanized societies. He said that communism borrowed from capitalism its conventional manufacture techniques; it only sought to change connection in the middle of the forces of manufacture. Such a procedure was unsuitable for the circumstances prevailing in India. He pleaded for small element technology and decentralised economy. For him the theory of determinism was not a solution for the custom bound Indian society where class distinctions and caste stratifications rule the day. The Marxist theory of class thrash about is not an answer for the intricate social structures of India.
Lohia was influenced that the concept of "welfare-statism" was not an answer for the social and economic progress of countries in the Third World. The Marxist concept of class thrash about had no lay for the peasant because he was "an owner of property and an exacter of high prices for their food." Dr. Lohia always emphasized on the role of peasants in the economic, political and social growths of the country. Just as to him, "Undoubtedly, the farmer in India, as elsewhere, has a greater role to play, than whom none is greater, but others may have equal roles to play. The talk of subsidiary alliances flanked by farmers and workers and artisans and municipality poor necessity is replaced through the concept of equal connection in the revolution." He gave a call for the civil disobedience movements against all shapes of injustice and for the creation of a new world order.
Lohia was of the view that the universal male power and obnoxious caste system as the two vital weaknesses of India's social structure and pleaded for their eliminations at all stages. He said, "All politics in the country, Congress, Communist, or socialist, has one big region of national agreement, whether through design or through custom, and that is to stay down and disenfranchise the Sudra and the women who constitute in excess of three-fourth of our whole population." He appealed to the youth to be at the forefront of the social reconstruction procedure to eliminate these social evils. He said, "I am influenced that the two segregations of caste and women are primarily responsible for this decline of the spirit. These segregations have enough power to kill all capability for adventure and joy. Poverty and these social segregations are inter-connected and thrive 'on each other's worms. He asserted, "all war on poverty is a shame, unless it is, at the similar time, a conscious and sustained war on these two segregations.
Religion and politics, said Lohia, are deeply inter-connected and have the similar origin. Although the jurisdictions of religion and politics are separate, a wrong combination of both corrupts both. He was of the view that both religion and politics could be judiciously administered to develop the infrastructures of the political systems. He said, "Religion is extensive term politics and politics is short term religion. Religion should work for doing well and praising goodness. Politics should work for fighting the evil and condemning it. When the religion instead of doing something good confines itself to praising the goodness only, it becomes lifeless. And when politics, instead of fighting evil, only condemns it, it becomes quarrelsome. But it is a information that imprudent mixture of religion and politics corrupts both of them. No scrupulous religion should associate itself with any scrupulous politics. It creates communal fanaticism.
The main purpose of the contemporary ideology of keeping religion separate from politics is to ensure that communal fanaticism does not originate. There is also one more thought that power of awarding punishment in politics and religious orders should be placed separately, otherwise it could provide impetus to conservatism and corruption. Despite keeping all the above precautions in view, it is all the more necessary that religion and politics should be complementary to each other, but they should not encroach upon each other's jurisdiction.
As a socialist thinker and activist, Lohia has carved out for himself a unique lay in the history of Indian socialist thought and movement. Although there has been a tendency in the middle of the modern researchers not to recognize him as an academic system-builder in the custom of Kant, Hegel or Comte, his democratic socialist approach to seem at ideology as an integrated phenomenon is now being widely accepted throughout the world.
SOCIALIST THOUGHT OF JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN
Jayaprakash Narayan popularly recognized as JP was a confirmed Marxist in 1929. Through the middle of 1940s he was inclined towards the Gandhian ideology. Till 1952 JP had no faith in non-violence as an instrument of social transformation procedure. The transformations of the Russian society in the late 1920s had thereafter changed his outlook towards Marxism and the procedure of dialectical materialism. Soviet Union was no more an ideal model for him for a socialist society. The bureaucratized dictatorship with the Red Army, secret police and guns produced an inherent disliking for the Soviet Pattern of development. He was influenced that it did not produce "decent, fraternal and civilized human beings". He said in 1947, "The method of violent revolution and dictatorship might conceivably lead to a socialist democracy; but in only country where it has been tried (i.e. the Soviet Union), it had led to something dissimilar, i.e. to a bureaucratic slate in which democracy does not exist. I should like to take a lesson from history".
JP was influenced that there was inter-connection flanked by nature of the revolution and its future impact. He was influenced that any pattern of violent revolution would not lead to the empowerment of people at the grassroots stage. He said, A Soviet Revolution has two parts: destruction of the old order of society and construction of the new. In a successful violent revolution, success lies in the destruction of the old order from the roots. That indeed is a great attainment. But at that point, something vital happens which almost strangles the succeeding procedure. Throughout the revolution there is widespread reorganized revolutionary violence. When that violence assisted through other factors into which one require not go here, has succeeded in destroying the old power structure, it becomes necessary to cry halt to the unorganized mass violence and make out of it an organized means of violence to protect and defend the revolution. Therefore a new instrument of power is created and whosoever in the middle of the revolutionary succeeds in capturing this instrument, they and their party or faction become the new rulers. They become the masters of the new state and power passage from the hands of the people to them. There is always thrash about for power at the top and heads roll and blood flows, victory going in the end to the mainly determined, the mainly ruthless and best, organized. It is not that violent revolutionaries deceive and betray; it is presently the logic of violence working itself out. It cannot be otherwise.
JP was extremely much critical of dialectical materialism on human development. He was influenced that this methodology would affect the spiritual development of man. His concept of Total Revolution is a holistic one. He used this term Total Revolution for the first time in a British magazine described The Time in 1969. Underlying the emphasis on the Gandhian concept of non- violence and Satyagraha he said, ― Gandhiji‘s non violence was not presently a plea for law and order, or a cover for the status quo, but a revolutionary philosophy. It is indeed, a philosophy of total revolution, because it embraces personal and social ethics and values of life as much as economic, political and social institutions and procedures."
The concept of Total Revolution as enunciated through JP is a confluence of his thoughts on seven revolutions i.e. social, economic, political, cultural, ideological and intellectual, educational and spiritual. JP was not extremely rigid concerning the number of these revolutions. He said the seven revolutions could be grouped as per demands of the social structures in a political system. He said, "For instance the cultural may contain educational and ideological revolutions. And if civilization is used in an anthropological sense, it can embrace all other revolutions. He said, ―economic revolution maybe split up into industrial, agricultural, technological revolutions etc. likewise intellectual revolutions maybe split up into two - scientific and philosophical. Even spiritual revolution can be viewed as made of moral and spiritual or it can be looked upon as part of the civilization. And so on. The concept of total revolution became popular in 1974 in the wake of mass movements in Gujarat and Bihar. He was deeply disturbed through the political procedure of degeneration in the Indian politics of the time. Throughout his Convocation Address at the Benaras Hindu University in 1970 he said, "Politics has, though, become the greatest question spot of this decade. Some of the trends are obvious, political disintegration is likely to spread, selfish splitting of parties rather than their ideological polarization will continue; the devaluation of ideologies may continue; frequent change of party loyalties for persona; or parochial benefits, buying and selling of legislatures, inner party indiscipline, opportunistic alliance in the middle of parties and instability of governments, all these are expected to continue.''
JP was deeply moved through the mutilation of democratic procedure, political corruption and fall of moral standards in our public life. He said that if this pattern of administrative procedure continues then there would not be any socialism, welfarism, government, public order, justice, freedom, national unity and in short no nation. He said, "No ism can have any chance, democratic socialism symbolizes an incessant thrash about for the establishment of a presently, casteless, social and economic order under a democratic system in which an individual is provided with proper environment." In his address in Patna on 5th June 1974 he said, "This is a revolution, a total revolution. This is not a movement merely for the dissolution of the assembly. We have to go distant, extremely distant".
In a letter to a friend in August 1976, JP defined the character of the Total Revolution. He wrote, "Total revolution is a permanent revolution. It will always go on and stay on changing both our personal and social lives. This revolution knows no respite, no halt, certainly not complete halt. Of course just as to the needs of the situation its shapes will change, its programmes will change, its procedure will change. At an opportune moment there may be an upsurge of new forces which will push forward the wheels of change. The soldiers of total revolution necessity stay certainly busy with their programmes to work and wait for such an opportune moment."
JP‘s Total Revolution involved the growths of peasants, workers, harijans, tribal people and indeed all weaker sections of the social structure. He was always interested in empowering and strengthening India's democratic system. He wanted the participation of people at all stages of decision-creation procedure. He wanted that electoral representatives should be accountable to his electors, not once in five years but if is unsuitable before the expiry of his five year term he should be replaced. The political representative necessity is continuously accountable to the public. He wanted electoral reforms to be introduced in the political system to check the role of black money in the electoral procedure of the country. He said that some type of machinery should be recognized through which there could be a major of consultation with the setting up of candidates. This machinery should "stay a watch on their representatives and demand-good and honest performance from them. Concerning the statutory provision for recalling the-elected representatives he said 'I do recognize of course that it may not be extremely easy to devise appropriate machinery for it and that the right to recall may be occasionally misused. But in a democracy we do not solve troubles through denying to people their vital rights. If constitutional experts apply their minds to the problem, a solution may eventually be establish.
JP was deeply disturbed through the growth of corruption in the Indian political system. He said "I know politics is not for saints. But politics at least under a democracy necessity know the limits which it may not cross." This was the focal point of JP‘s Peoples Charter which he submitted to the Parliament on 6th March 1975. He said "Corruption is eating into the vitals of our political life. It is disturbing development, undermining the administration and creation a mockery of all laws and regulations. It is eroding people‘s faith and exhausting their proverbial patience."
JP wanted a network of Peoples Committees to be recognized at the grass roots stages to take care of the troubles of the people and the programmes for development. He wanted the economic and the political power to be combined in the hands of the people. Analyzing his economic programme he said, "A Gandhian frame laying emphasis on agricultural development, equitable land ownership, the application of appropriate technology to agriculture such as improved labour, rigorous apparatus and gadgets..., the development of domestic and rural industries and the widest possible spread of small industries.
JPs programme of Antyodaya meaning, the upliftment of the last man was an essential aspect of his socialist thought. On 21st march 1977, in a statement he said, ―Bapu gave us a good yardstick. Whenever you are in doubt in taking a scrupulous decision keep in mind the face of the poorest man and think how it will affect him. May this yardstick guide all their actions." Right to work was an integral part of his concept of Total Revolution, he said ―Once the state accepts this obligation, means will have to be establish for providing employment to all. It is not so hard to do so." JP was also scrupulous in relation to the social reforms such as elimination of dowry system, development of the circumstances of the harijans and abolition of the caste system in India's political system.
Analysing his concept of an ideal state, he said in 1977 that "the thought of my dream is a society in which every individual, every resource is dedicated to serving the weak, a society dedicated to Antyodaya, to the well being of the least and the weakest. It is a society in which individuals are valued for their humanity, a society in which the right of every individual to act just as to his conscience is recognized and respected through all. In short, my vision is of a free, progressive and Gandhian India."
Minoo Masani said, ―All through the vicissitudes and jig-jags of JPs life, there has throughout been a non-violent means for total revolution." JP, throughout his career, highlighted the role of students and youth in the field of people‘s movement. He said "Revolutions and not brought in relation to the through those who are occupied in the race for power and office whether in the government or in non official organisations. Not also through those who are totally preoccupied with the burden of providing bread to their families and are wary of adopting any risky step. The youth of a country alone are free from these constrains. They have idealism, they have enthusiasm, and they have a capability to create sacrifice from which older men shrink." In his letter to youth in August, 1976 he said, "for the extensive and endless battle for Total Revolution there is a require of new leadership, the forces of history are with you. So go ahead with full confidence. Victory is certainly yours." Throughout his life JP has always tried to put men in the centre of picture. JP said, ―In the society that I have in view for the future, man should inhabit the central lay, the organisation should be for man and not the other method round. Through that I mean that the social organisation should be such as allows freedom to every individual to develop and grow just as to his own inner nature, a society which believes in and practices the dignity of man, presently as a human being."
Post a Comment