Sixty-six years ago, in September 1959, when Jayaprakash Narayan was writing the foreword to ‘A Plea for the Reconstruction of Indian Polity’, he went beyond issues of elections, electoral systems, his understanding of Mahatma Gandhi and democracy even though the slim book begins with Gandhiji’s quote: “…may it be reserved to India to evolve the true science of democracy by giving a visible demonstration.” As India marks fifty years of the proclamation of Emergency in 1975, with debat – es on responsibilities of the Election Commission, and the government proposal for ‘one na – tion, one election’, the plea of JP (as Jayaprakash was endearingly addressed) is worthy of being understood in its entirety.

JP acknowledged his debt to Gandhiji’s thoughts on elections. “It is necessary to emphasise that the issue before us cannot be narrowed down merely to that of a better electoral system than the present one. The issue is a much more comprehensive one, namely, that of the nature of the polity most suitable for us at this juncture. Further it is also necessary to remember that polity, whether its nature, does not function in a vacuum, but has to fit into the larger social entity and subserve the larger social purpose.” He added, “Our present political institutions have to be ba – sed on principles that had been enunciated and practised in ancient Indian polity, because (a) I believe that would be in line with the natural course of social evolution and (b) those principles are more valid from the point of view of social science than others.”

The present Western polity, he pointed out, was based upon an atomised society, the State being made up of an inorganic sum of individuals. “This is both against the social nature of man and the scientific organisation of society. Ancient Indian polity was much more consistent with these both,” he commented. JP goes on to formulate general considerations about democracy. “First of all, let it be pointed out that the problem of democracy is basically, and above all, a moral problem. Constitutions, systems of government, parties, elections ~ all these are relevant to the business of democracy. Unless the moral and spiritual qualities of people are appropriate, the best of constitutions and political systems will not make democracy work. The moral qualities and mental attitudes most needed for democracy are:

1) concern for truth;

2) aversion to violence;

3) love of liberty and courage to resist oppression and tyranny;

4) spirit of cooperation;

5) preparedness to adjust self-interest to the larger interest;

7) readin – ess to take responsibility;

8) belief in the fundamental equality of man;

9) faith in the educability of human nature.”

These nine qualities are held sacrosanct by JP, whom the nation revers as Loknayak Jayaprakash. The moral problem is now highlighted: “These qualities are not in-born in man. But he can be educated in them and trained to acquire and practice them. This task, let it be emphasized, is beyond the scope of the State. The quality of life of society should itself be such that it inculcates these values in its members. Prevailing social ethics, the family, religious and educational authorities and institutions, the example that elites set in their own lives, the organs of public opinion ~ all these have to combine to create the necessary moral climate for democracy to thrive.

Thus, it should be clear that the task of preparing the very soil in which the plant of democracy may take root and grow is not a political but an educative task.” Having spent formative years studying in the US, absorbing tenets of American democracy, JP quoted from CE Merriam’s ‘The American Party System’: “it is true now as in the days of Jefferson that education is the foundation of democracy, only we now come to recognize that this must be a social education, including the business of living with others in the great cooperative enterprise of democracy… Social and political education must begin in the school, not at the polls. If this education stops at the schools, it is likely to be sterile.” JP voiced his concern over one particular moral attitude, peculiarly relevant to the fate of democracy in modern society.

“The present is par excellence a materialist age; and whether it is capitalism, socialism or communism, it is the material values that overshadow all other values of life. Man is a mixture of matter and spirit ~ and every man has material needs that have to be satisfied…if the material needs become unlimited and over-riding activity of mankind becomes an unending endeavour to satisfy the insatiable hunger for more and yet more, there is an imbalance established in human affairs and life becomes wholly materialistic. This is exactly the situation in the West, inspite of its adherence to Christianity, one of the noblest spiritual ways of life.”

The political thinker-activist in JP said, “All this may appear to be irrelevant to the question of democracy. I emphatically hold to the contrary, because it seems patent to me that dem – ocracy cannot coexist with the insatiable hunger for more and more material goods that modern industrialism ~ capitalist, socialist or communist ~ has created. I believe that for man really to enjoy liberty and freedom and to practice self government it is necessary voluntarily to limit his wants. Otherwise, the greed for more and yet more will lead to mutual conflict, concern, spoilation, war; and to a system of production that will be so complex as to bind democracy hand and foot and deliver it to a bureaucratic oligarchy.”

He pointed out that it is undeniable there is a conflict today between two values of life, namely, between wanting more goods and wanting more freedom. Those, however, who believe in freedom should have no difficulty in making the choice. Which of the two choices India will make will not depend upon Parliament or any type of political action, but among other things, upon the example that the elite of society will set in their personal lives. JP goes back to Adam Smith, the greatest of western philosophers, who declared: “By each man following his own individual interest with the minimum of restriction, the public wealth will be best promoted.”

Gandhian stalwarts like Pyarelal commented: “Glaring economic inequalities and other evils of unrestrained competition under capitalistic individualism have since caused the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction and the necessity of State action to mitigate these evils has come to be universally recognised. But experience has shown that once the State begins to interfere it is led, by the very logic of its ac – tion, to regulate more and more of the people’s lives and activities, and those who stand for democratic values, faced with the ‘competitive efficiency of their totalitarian rivals’ are forced to either ‘adopt totalitarian methods of control’ or else ‘by clinging to outworn democratic forms’.”

Here, wrote JP: “We have to resolve the following dilemma: when there is liberty it leads to abuse and necessitates State interference and when there is State interference it leads to curtailment of liberty. How then to preserve liberty and prevent its abuse? There are no political means by which the dilemma can be resolved, there are only moral means. The obverse side of the medal of liberty is responsibility. If the individual is not prepared to take social responsibility, if he uses liberty for self aggrandisement and neglects or hurts the interests of others, some form or other of state-ism becomes inevitable. It is here that the pertinence and wisdom of Gandhiji’s concept of trusteeship becomes evident. The only democratic answer to State-ism and totalitarianism is trusteeship. But trusteeship cannot be practised without voluntary limitation of wants. An individual cannot function as a trustee unless he is prepared to share his possessions with his fellow men: he cannot do so unless he has learned to curtail his wants.

Thus voluntary limitation of wants, rejection of materialism and unlimited pursuit of material satisfactions, is essential for the achievement and preservation of democracy.” JP shared the lecture of Dr EF Schumacher the eminent Western economist, advisor to governments like UK and Burma, titled ‘Economics in a Buddhist country’. Schumacher said, “What today is looked upon as science of Economics is based on one particular outlook of life, on one only, the outlook of the materialist…Economics as a science has arisen only in the West at a time when western materialism ruled supreme throughout the world… When will they take cognizance and admit that other systems of economics are possible and necessary and are even already available in rudimentary form?

I can mention only one such teaching, propounded by the greatest man of our age, Mahatma Gandhi. Are professors and students of Economics even aware of Gandhi as an economist? And yet he had much to say on economic matters; he has laid the foundation for a system of economics that would be compatible with Hinduism and, I believe with Buddhism too…” A ‘nayak’ for all times, the Loknayak posed the problems, pointing to the road ahead for democracy and our happiness.

 (The writer is a researcher on history and heritage issues, and former deputy curator of Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya )

Advertisement