MARCH 28
Political Realism
Prior to 1947, it was taken for granted that all that was needed to set India on the right path was the gaining of its independence, and that subsequently a socialist economy would be an automatic guarantee of national progress. That these were patently misguided and shortsighted views becomes more glaringly obvious as the country staggers from one debacle to the next. And now, in 1996, we are on the brink of a fresh set of elections. Do we have any guarantee that the results of these elections will even be relevant to the future progress of the country as a ground reality?
In this context a number of meetings are being held in the name of vital electoral and political reforms, and there is the inevitable spate of critical articles in newspapers and journals. I myself have participated in several of these meetings and have been reading the relevant journalistic commentaries.
After listening to fellow participants and duly taking stock of what the press has to say I have formed the impression that there is a nationwide acceptance of the existence of two distinct political entities—the clean and the corrupt. It is held that the corrupt community is entirely made up of politicians, while the clean community is composed of their critics. This premise, however, is basically flawed, even the most cursory appraisal of events is sufficient to demonstrate the error of this supposition.
After independence, our political team, which came to power in 1947, consisted of the members of Mahatma Gandhi’s “clean community.” But once these individuals were perched on the pedestals of power, their behaviour was such that Gandhiji felt constrained to ask, “Who is going to listen to me now?” there was even a book published on Gandhiji with the title “Ab meri kaun sunega?”
Many years later, in the 1966 elections, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia made his entry into the political scene. With great fervour and enthusiasm he launched a movement which he called ‘non-Congressism.’ And in the field of election he did defeat the members of the “corrupt community,” at least in the states, so that the members of the “clean community” came into power. However, it very soon became apparent that this had simply been a matter of replacement—the exchanging of one corrupt community for another.
After the general elections of March 1977, this scene was re-enacted, only on a larger scale. In this historic election the supposedly corrupt community had met with a stunning defeat. All those who now came into power belonged to the supposedly clean community. In the words of Lok Nayak Jaya Prakash Narayan, this was ‘a total revolution.’ But it very soon became evident that this entire supposition was quite wrong. The clean community, the Janata Party, soon fell a prey to corruption, a state of affairs which led to the collapse of the government in August 1979, even before the completion of its term.
The truth is that this notion of there being distinctly separate corrupt and clean communities is entirely baseless. Corruption, far from being a vice peculiar to one community or another, stems from the human weakness of individuals. As Lord Acton very aptly observed: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In this world there are certain things which have to be tolerated as necessary evils. Imperfect government clearly falls into this category and, as such, should be borne with. This is a piece of realism which is inescapable if there is ever to be an end to the political unrest which threatens to place stability beyond our reach. Over and above this, we must also realize that a government cannot do absolutely everything for us. Even if it so desired, it could perform only in certain restricted spheres, for it has its limitations. It is thanks to our lack of political awareness that we vote governments into power and then, before they have even completed their terms in office, we set about toppling them. If we want political stability in our country, we shall have to curtail our expectations of the governments we elect. Without this, no progress will ever be made.
As a matter of history, our form of government is based on the British model. But if you go to Britain during the elections you will find no excessive furore among the people, as happens in our country, the reason being that the British consider their government to be just one of the many institutions in their society. They know that the government’s contribution to national construction can be only partial. We, on the contrary, have come to regard the task of national construction as something which falls entirely within the purview of the government. It is such misguided and inflated expectations which give rise to unnecessary excitement before the elections and the subsequent unnecessary despair.
During his term in office, in the course of the second world war (1939-45), Sir Winston Churchill inspired his people with the watchword: “Go to it!”
We, on the other hand, have adopted as our motto: “The government will do it!”
This realistic approach of the developed countries, which entertains only limited hopes of the government’s performance, is what has enabled them to involve themselves in non-political fields in the full conviction that it is they themselves who must perform the necessary tasks. Unlike them, having come to regard every task as the government’s responsibility, we have failed as a people to shoulder the burden of national reconstruction. This is a matter of the utmost importance, but we have allowed our attention to be diverted—in the political process—to matters of infinitely less importance. This shift in emphasis has resulted in our paying dearly for the many lacunae in the building of our nation.
Those of us who travel to Germany or Japan are amazed to see the progress that has been made in these countries. And we would do well to consider what the key is to such success. It is, in fact, that there the people are far less interested in elections and government than they are in non-governmental organizations for national construction—those, for instance, which are concerned with educating people, bringing awareness to them, particularly about consumerism, inculcating civic sense, organizing public sanitations, inducing respect for the law, checking adulteration of food and medicine, etc., and eliminating noise and air pollution. There are innumerable other social arenas in which the people of the developed countries engage themselves having set up efficient organizations and associations to this end.
The satisfactory performance of these tasks at the social level provides us with the foundation on which to build the system of a better government. Prior to 1947, we used to lay the blame for all evils at the door of the British. With this lingering tendency to fasten the blame on others, we began to expect all reforms and progress to stem from the post-independence government. This is the principal reason for the rot which has set in this country in the present day.
A study of developed countries’ newspapers reveals much less coverage of political news and commentaries as compared to economic and scientific news. By contrast, in our country, political events are given the maximum coverage, our press having become almost totally politicized in its orientation. The need to correct this lopsidedness is something which cannot be over-emphasized.
As mentioned above, Gandhiji—after 1947—lamented: “who will listen to me now?” Mahatma Gandhi had concluded that there would be no response to his admonitions, but that was because they were addressed to those leaders who had reached the seats of power after independence. If, however, his life would not have been cut short so ruthlessly and he could have the opportunity to address himself to the average citizens of India, the result would have been quite the opposite. Then he would have found people giving him their rapt attention.
The truth of the matter is that when the national movement was launched in India, our entire energy was channelized towards gaining political freedom, while the task of educating the people was almost totally ignored. After independence, the chief task which should have been taken in hand by the Mahatma’s followers was the cultivation of this long-neglected field. They were in a position to launch a campaign of intellectual awakening through the media. They could have had statements and articles published in newspapers and journals throughout the country which would have inculcated awareness and reformed public thinking. Had such a concerted, continuous struggle been waged through the media, a whole new generation of socio-politically conscious people would have come into existence within the space of just a few years. A country possessed of such a well-informed population cannot fail to make progress.
But to return to present day government, regardless of what I have written above on the tolerance of its demerits I must emphasize that I am in no way advocating status quoism. We must proceed with our efforts towards the rectification of our political institutions, which will entail, inter alia, electoral reforms, because our democracy, as yet immature, is still far from perfect. Our democratic system must be at least brought to the standard prevailing in Japan, Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. However, we should not concentrate on the amelioration of political institutions to the exclusion of all else, for the total relegation of non-political issues to the background would cause the country to suffer in many other ways.
The need of the hour is to remedy former neglect. To this end, a team of competent persons should engage itself immediately in the task of mass education by exploiting whatever means are at the disposal of the media. This should continue until India turns into an ‘aware nation’, and our society comes to consist of individuals who can think on the national scale and who have come to acquire what Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru called “the scientific temper.”
I am not, I repeat, in favour of status quoism. I write only to stress what our starting point should be if we want a real future for our country, and along what lines we must continue our efforts on the political front. In principle, we have opted for democracy as our political system. But our democracy is still in its infancy. It has yet to ripen and bear fruit. If this is to become a reality, we must launch our reform campaign on a long-term rather than a short-term basis.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, once observed: “Freedom is in peril—defend it with all your might.” Seeing the political rot that has set in our country I would say: “Democracy is in peril—save it with all your might.”
On this note, I should like to make an appeal for freedom and fairness in the coming elections, freedom and fairness being necessary conditions of true democracy. After independence, we may have had freedom in our elections, but fairness is something which has been sadly lacking—the horrendous results of which are there for all to see. Now that the country is going to the polls, I appeal to the people to decide unanimously to do their utmost to give the country fair elections, so that it may be saved from further erosion and so that it may be taken forward on the path of progress as would be expected in any civilized country.
If an election is to be really fair, election campaigns must be launched on the basis of truly national issues and no attempts should be made to misguide voters. Moreover, while votes are being cast, vote rigging should be refrained from at all costs. And so on.
Another important point is that the winning party must place itself at the service of the nation, rather than use its success merely to ensure its victory at the next election.
By the same token, the defeated party must accept its defeat with equanimity, and wait until the next elections before attempting to come to power. It should refrain absolutely from launching negative campaigns directed at ousting the victorious party.
The progress of the country is your own progress. Make the country your concern. It is in your own hands.
