Columnist
|
|
|
| | Indian National Congress:Chinks in the armour | | Presidential elections uncover a weakening organization | | The election of Pranab Mukerjee has exposed the chinks that have developed in an organization, once taken as a pride of India. In the vanguard of freedom movement, the party did India a lot of good, withstanding its failures on certain fronts. The organization failed to hold minorities in its fold, though there were periods of total amity during the long existence of the organization. Both in the pre-independence and the post-independence period, minorities developed reservation whether the organization has the wherewithal to cater to their interests. In the pre-independence period, the reservation led to the division of the country. And in the post-independence period, minorities sought alternative avenues. The backward classes, Dalits, Advasis started to work-up their own political parties. This led to fragmentation of Indian polity. And mushroom growth of parties extended to seeking regional relief. Thus regional parties came into being, which dimmed the national perspective. Before we seek to study the outfall of multiple failures of Congress, we may look at its historical background.
With the growth of mainly Hindu middle class, having a minor sprinkling of an odd Christian (Anglo Indians mostly) a Muslim or a Parsee--bye product of social engineering by the British ruling class, political awakening was a natural outfall. The British contingency plans were put in operation. Some, so called ‘well meaning English men and women’ apparently moved by the plight of Indians under foreign rule helped shape an organization to voice concerns. They are recorded in history as Annie Beasant and Lord. Hume. Thus, the organization christened as ‘Indian National Congress’ emerged in 1885 A.D.
Congress in its formative years was an organization of middle or upper middle class urbanites, mostly eminent lawyers. Seated on costly French tapestries in cozy drawing rooms decorated with Persian rugs, they engaged in debate, a political resolution would come up. This would be drafted in King’s English, after debating each word, each sentence and couched in mildest of languages. The final draft would be handed over to representatives of English press. After a period of time, RAJ would respond sympathetically, creating the impression of a democratic environment. The whole exercise was meant to assuage the political feelings of the educated Indians. However Congress had some talented, well meaning members, albeit without mass base. Amongst those, Feroze Shah Mehta, Dada Bhai Naroji, Gopal Krishan Gokhle, Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak. There was a Muslim too---Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a Bombay lawyer, with a razor sharp intellect. He was to play a leading role in years ahead.
This was the scenario, when Mahatma Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915, where he had conducted a few successful experiments in Satyagarah…the path of truth and non violence. Gandhi changed Congress culture. From cozy drawing rooms to Indian pandals was a huge change. In the Indian traditional pandals, elders would sit cross legged on floor and debate issues concerning the society. The change was swift, with an impact, Indians identified with. Mere resolutions gave way to meaningful action. Mahatma first leaned to set his own house in order.
In order to have India’s major minority on his side, he supported the Muslim quest to save the ‘Khalifat’ in Turkey. The move aborted, Turks were not as keen, as enthusiastic as Indian Muslim in retaining the ancient institution. However Gandhi had the Muslim leadership on his side--among them Ali brothers, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Azad. He could not retain Jinnah, who would not identify with the changed scenario in Congress. Political movement for him was all about constitutional rights, obtainable in law courts and fresh legislation in assemblies. Exasperated with the changed Congress culture, he left India for London. He was disinclined to return, until he relented to repeated requests of Muslim leadership. He did that, only after he was convinced that Muslims had a case. He never looked back.
Mahatma Gandhi apart from Khalifat fiasco got everything right, whether it was Champaran, Salt Satyagarah or Quit India movement. However in his march, he had to adjust to lot of doublespeak and duality of purpose. He did adjust up to a point, on principles, he would not compromise. When Chura-Churi violence took place, in spite of prevailing air of non-violence, he suspended the movement, which had attainted the crescendo. His colleagues in Congress objected, they had the British Raj pinned down. Gandhi would not relent. Non-violence was his Dharma…his supreme religion in fact…Ahimsa Parmo Dharma. For his colleagues, it was a matter of convenience.
Secularism was not only his creed but a matter of political expediency. He got accused of minority appeasement. Even his own colleagues in Congress were not convinced that they need to go beyond a limit to address minority concerns. Sardar Patel readily comes to mind, so does Rajinder Prasad. In his quest to paint poverty in rosy colours, probably an effort to make it tolerable to teeming millions, he was rebuffed by Nehru. He did not see any beauty in poverty. Ever a dreamer, Nehru wanted glass houses for all Indians. Sarojini Naidu, called the nightingale of India, due to her poetic prowess, commented on Gandhi’s love of poverty in her usual light-hearted manner, relating that “he does not know how much it costs the Congress to keep him in poverty, he loves”.
Championing equality in socio-economic sphere, he thought ‘Charkha’ and cottage industry was all that industrialization entails. Raj Gopalacharya stood for accommodating capitalists and encouraging capital investment in major industries. This was an anathema to Nehru, the ‘Fabian Socialist’ and the socialist camp in Congress. Nehru’s backtracking on socialism; whenever it suited his political convenience had Jayprakash Narayan, an avowed socialist and his ilk fuming.
Gandhi’s championing of backward classes especially ‘Dalits’ was misunderstood. Dr. Ambedkar, the Dalit leader was particularly incensed by calling his class ‘Harijans…children of God’! Empathy, Ambedkar yelled, is what they desire and deserve, not sympathy. Unconvinced, that they would get justice, they deserved in Hindu fold, Ambedkar and his ilk converted to Buddhism. It was the same Ambedkar, who was to frame the constitution of free India. This he did with the acidic comment “When Hindus needed Ramayana, they turned to Valmiki and when they needed a constitution, they turned to me”! He was alluding to the fact of Valmiki being a Dalit, as he was!
Gandhi managed the conglomerate that was Congress, as only he could. Convinced, it would not hold for ever in a selfless manner, he wanted it disbanded as a political outfit in the post independence phase while continuing to provide social services. Even in pre-independence period in early forties, Congress was coming apart. Subash Bose, nursing his unceremonious exit as Congress President, joined Axis powers. He had earned Gandhi’s displeasure and thought it proper to dispel non-violence of his erstwhile leader and opt for violent confrontation, by raising Indian National Army with Japanese support. Nehru was batting for democracies, even while Britain was holding India, against her wishes. However Gandhi had no difficulty in taking Nehru on board. He could rope in his political ward, any time he wanted to. With Independence fast approaching, the equation changed. Nehru was not alone in losing his cool and obedience to his erstwhile leader. There were others, who were simply overtaken by the events.
While Congress was passing through its various phases, India’s largest minority, the Muslims were assessing where and how they do fit in the conglomerate. Some had fears of a space crunch, leading to initiation and institutionalisation of a separate political front--the Muslim League, which led ultimately to division of the country. Pakistan was created. The creation of Pakistan however left many Muslims still living in India. The minority problem remained. Congress did not live up to its commitment…there simply wasn’t equal justice for all.
Economy---the much propagated socialism had India growing at around 3 %, what was called ‘Hindu Rate of Growth’. How and why was it related to Hinduism remains beyond comprehension? Last decade of 20th century had India turn around to provide greater space to private sector. Capitalism brought in cronyism too. Around 8 % growth for a considerable period did not lead to fair distribution of national riches. A survey reveals that the elite—the upper Class has merely 2 %, 40 % middle class shows—4% in upper middle class, 10 % in middle middle class and 26 % in lower middle class. 58% are thus still in lower class. This clearly shows lop sided development. Such an economic structure cannot be conductive to sustained growth rate. Hence growth rate has fallen to around 7% and might dip further, given an uneven growth.
The Congress has multiple fault lines, dynastic rule being one of its legacies. The organization has developed a propensity to lose its political assets. Pranab Mukerjee is a prime example. A deft politician, a fine practitioner of political art has been apparently elevated to the highest constitutional position in the country. However many believe, he would have much more to contribute in active politics. In Congress culture, anyone getting bigger than his shoes is hardly tolerated. Hence Pranab Babu has to henceforth cool his heels in the comfort of Rashtarpati Bhavan.
To get its nominee elected as President, Vice President was once cakewalk for Congress. No more, the party needs crutches to walk on. Maya, Mulayam and Mamta provided the needful to see Pranab Babu through…a sad commentary on a powerful political combine of yore.
Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]
Feedback on: iqbal.javid46@gmail.com |
|
|
|
|
Comment on this Story |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|