FEBRUARY 21
Nation Building
“Politicians are to be blamed for all corruption.” “Politicians have failed in fulfilling the expectations of the people.” This is the gist of what is being said everywhere. The question is, who are these politicians? These are the very people who have been glorified as freedom fighters for the last fifty years. Before independence, these freedom fighters played a heroic role for this country, but after independence, they have plunged the nation into a morass of iniquity.
Directly or indirectly it is these freedom fighters who are in control of all important political offices, hence it is they who are responsible for all the attendant evils. This was destined to happen after the country began to slither down the wrong course in 1948. As we know, Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, peeping into the future, had suggested that the Congress as a political party should now, after gaining independence, be dissolved.
Why did Gandhiji have to make such a suggestion? Some commentators have pointed out that he was motivated by the fear that these freedom fighters, already waiting to be compensated for their sacrifices, might turn into exploiters in post-independence India. (The Hindustan Times, May 24, 1995)
As it happened, Gandhiji’s worst apprehensions came horribly true. After assuming the rule of political leaders, the freedom fighters of the past began to recoup the price of their sacrifices with interest. Even their friends and relatives joined with them in their campaign to ensure for themsleves a never-ending compensation. Consequently, the nation is now in a terrible pall of darkness, as is visible to all and sundry.
At the point we have reached today, no superficial reform can bring salvation to the country. It is possible to expend one hundred crores from the state treasury by holding to the condition of identity cards for elections, but such superficial plans can never ameliorate the body politic. We shall have to carve out a far more serious plan of action.
After independence we should have done exactly what the British people did. For them, Winston Churchill’s position was one of a super freedom-fighter who had successfully saved Britain from being vanquished by Hitler. But in the 1945 elections, they voted this same Churchill out of power, and instead brought in Clement Attlee, a social reformer who as a member of the Fabian Society, had quite actively participated in the non-political field.
The same task needed to be performed after independence in India. The freedom fighters should have been awarded pensions and other facilities in acknowledgement of their services, but when it came to assigning political power, such persons should have been sought out who had already established their reputations in social service in the field of education, social reform, scientific research, etc.
Those who emerged as heroes in the age prior to independence had well-developed warlike qualities which were essential in a period of clash and confrontation, whereas after independence we needed heroes possessing just the opposite qualities. At that time as now, it was necessary to have people who believed in love instead of hatred, in peace instead of confrontation; in short, in a constructive rather than a destructive approach. By making the team of freedom fighters into leaders of the second phase, the nation took the wrong turning at the very outset.
By reason of the psychology of their rise to power, the main concern of freedom fighters was to maintain the superior political position they had come to acquire. This mentality produced all sorts of abhorrent forms of evil, such as we have been experiencing today.
It was thanks to the extraordinary glorification of the freedom fighters that we were unable to see any of their acts in a critical light. For instance, the involvement in the Bangladesh war in 1971 was undoubtedly a wrong decision, but since this decision had been taken by a freedom fighter government, it came to be regarded as having been right without anyone having given the matter any real thought.
A similar, ill-considered involvement, stirred up the dormant problem of Kashmir and resulted in enormous economic losses. It is a fact that after a long period of time the Pakistanis had actually consigned the problem of Kashmir to oblivion. The issue of Kashmir was no longer, actively, on their political agenda. But when the involvement of India broke Pakistan into two, all Pakistanis were set to avenge this division of their country. In revenge, they re-opened the issue of the closed front of Kashmir. Sooner or later, nothing could have stopped Bangladesh from being separated from Pakistan. But our involvement caused this break to be wrongly attributed to us and thus a chapter which had already been closed was unnecessarily reopened.
What we required in New Delhi was a team imbued not with fighting spirit but with wisdom, who could run matters of state not on the basis of strength but with sagacity and understanding. True statesmanship means accomplishing 99 per cent of one’s tasks with wisdom and one per cent with other factors. Today there is much talk of change and reform in the constitution. Articles are being published on this subject. Seminars are being held. But to me, this matter is being examined at a superficial level. No one reflects upon why the constitution, which has set up a record in the history of constitutional documents had to be amended eighty times and why, despite this the problems, for which these changes were made, remain unresolved. It is apparent that after these repeated experiments the actual problem is now not one of change in the constitution, but of changes having failed to achieve the desired results. It is in record that Dr. Rajendra Prashad in his valedictory address to the constituent Assembly, said that everything cannot be written in the Constitution, and stressed the need for healthy political conventions. But again the enthusiastic “freedom fighters” failed to adhere to this advice and everything was written down in the constitution.
As a result, the constitution no longer remained a simple document; it became instead a bundle of fanciful, romantic wishes. The attempt to include everything in the constitution rendered it unrealistic. It became an aggregate of contradictory and unattainable goals. Instead of becoming a practicable document, it assumed the form of a legal monolith.
Many examples can be cited of how our present constitution overreaches itself. For instance, the article on our national language declares that “For a period of fifteen years the English language shall continue to be the official language of the Union. Thereafter the official language shall be Hindi in Devnagari script.”
To make such an announcement was simply wishful thinking, for matters of language are decided by historical factors rather than by legal articles. Since historical forces were not in favour of this article, it has remained totally ineffective. It amounted to dictating history, and no one is powerful enough to do so.
Similarly, article 44 relating to a uniform civil code, clashes with article 25 which establishes religious freedom. It is totally impracticable to have contradictory articles. If we wanted to enact article 44, we should have to delete article 25 from the constitution. And vice versa.
1. Such issues should tell us that attempt to make the constitution more comprehensive by making amendments to it must be abandoned. Instead, it needs to be reduced in size to make it into a more condensed and practicable legal document, just like the constitutions of the developed countries.
2. Another point to ponder is what had been advised by Dr Rajendra Prashad in his capacity as Chairman of the Constitution Assembly, that is, instead of heaping article upon article, stress must be laid on establishing healthy traditions in political and national life.
3. By healthy political traditions I mean, establishing one’s base on political work and not on political stunts; setting up a free and fair election process; accepting defeat after losing in the elections; keeping national interest above personal political interest; resigning from office after major blunders (scams, etc.); endeavouring to win elections on the basis of principles rather than on the basis of money; respecting the law at all times, even when it is against oneself. The opposition should be a vehicle of healthy criticism rather than an agency out to down the ruling party; it should show willingness to run a coalition government, avoiding differences, etc., in case where there is no majority of a single party in the Assembly.
4. At this moment there are two prominent parties on the political scene in the country, Congress and the BJP. But to my way of thinking, both have outlived their usefulness as regards the larger interests of the country.
Congress leaders must know that by remaining in power for a long period of time they have exhausted the public’s patience. Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It should be added that remaining in power over a long period of time renders a person or a party unfit to rule. Congress should admit this and voluntarily opt for retirement. Otherwise, future historians will record its role in dismal terms.
The elements composing the BJP from the very outset have demonstrated a negative mentality. These are the people who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. In the words of one of my Hindu friends, next feat they performed was the demolition of Ayodhya’s historic mosque. In this way, they have shown themselves up as being unsuitable for constructive work in the country.
The BJP leaders point out that the secularism of the Congress is pseudo-secularism and to replace it they have offered the concept of Hindutva. Perhaps they do not know that Hindutva is not the alternative for pseudo-secularism. It is this error in thinking which has caused the BJP to fail as a party. No significant work of national construction may be expected from it.
In a large country like India only those who possess a universal outlook are capable of governing. Individuals who think along sectarian lines instead of being broad-minded, are not suitable for India’s leadership.
5. Now the hour has come to form a fresh political party composed not of “freedom fighters” but of educational and social activists. It is only such people who can save India from ruination.
In the last three years I have travelled extensively all over the country. During my tours I have found that there are tens of thousands of individuals in our country who are capable of positive thinking, and are actively involved in the field of educational and social reform. They pine for the welfare of the country. All these people can be gathered at the platform of a new political party.
Today we stand at the most critical juncture of our history. To build a new and brighter future for our country, we have to work, on the one hand, for mass education, an outline for which I have already presented in The Hindustan Times of May 19, 1995. An equally important task is the formation of a new political party on the lines discussed above. To me the future of the country rests on the rigorous performance of these two tasks.
6. As a first step in the right direction I propose that a political meeting be convened at the All India level; this should not include those whose political records are marred in the eyes of the public. Only those should be invited to it whose records are clean and who are actively, practically involved in some field of national construction. This political convention can become the basis for a party with fresh vigour, capable of providing the right leadership to the country.
