JAT-PAT-TODAK MANDAL OF LAHORE-III
Let me now turn to the Socialists.
Can the Socialists ignore the problem arising out of the social order ? The
Socialists of India following their fellows in Europe are seeking to apply the
economic interpretation of history to the facts of India. They propound that
man is an economic creature, that his activities and aspirations are bound by
economic facts, that property is the only source of power. They, therefore,
preach that political and social reforms are but gigantic illusions and that
economic reform by equalization of property must have precedence over every
other kind of reform. One may join issue on every one of these premises on
which rests the Socialists' case for economic reform having priority over every
other kind of reform. One may contend that economic motive is not the only
motive by which man is actuated. That economic power is the only kind of power
no student of human society can accept. That the social status of an individual
by itself often becomes a source of power and authority is made clear by the
sway which the Mahatmos have held over the common man. Why do millionaires in
India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs ? Why do millions of paupers in India
sell their trifling trinkets which constitute their only wealth and go to
Benares and Mecca ? That, religion is the source of power is illustrated by the
history of India where the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater
than the magistrate and where everything, even such things as strikes and
elections, so easily take a religious turn and can so easily be given a
religious twist. Take the case of the Plebians of Rome as a further
illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light on this
point. The Plebs had fought for a share in the supreme executive under the
Roman Republic and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul elected by a
separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which
was an assembly of Piebians. They wanted a Consul of their own because they
felt that the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the Plebians in
carrying on the administration. They had apparently obtained a great gain
because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul had the power of
vetoing an act of the other Consul. But did they in fact gain anything ? The
answer to this question must be in the negative. The Plebians never could get a
Plebian Consul who could be said to be a strong man and who could act
independently of the Patrician Consul. In the ordinary course of things the
Plebians should have got a strong Plebian Consul in view of the fact that his
election was to be by a separate electorate of Plebians. The question is why
did they fail in getting a strong Plebian to officiate as their Consul? The
answer to this question reveals the dominion which religion exercises over the
minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the whole Roman populus that no
official could enter upon the duties of his office unless the Oracle of Delphi
declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess. The priests who were in charge
of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were all Patricians. Whenever therefore
the Plebians elected a Consul who was known to be a strong party man opposed to
the Patricians or " communal " to use the term that is current in
India, the Oracle invariably declared that he was not acceptable to the
Goddess. This is how the Plebians were cheated out of their rights. But what is
worthy of note is that the Plebians permitted themselves to be thus cheated
because they too like the Patricians, held firmly the belief that the approval
of the Goddess was a condition precedent to the taking charge by an official of
his duties and that election by the people was not enough. If the Plebians had
contended that election was enough and that the approval by the Goddess was not
necessary they would have derived the fullest benefit from the political right
which they had obtained. But they did not. They agreed to elect another, less
suitable to themselves but more suitable to the Goddess which in fact meant
more amenable to the Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians
give up material gain for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show
that religion can be a source of power as great as money if not greater ? The
fallacy of the Socialists lies in supposing that because in the present stage
of European Society property as a source of power is predominant, that the same
is true of India or that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion,
social status and property are all sources of power and authority, which one
man has, to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage;
the other is predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If
liberty is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which
one man holds over another then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that
economic reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source
of power and dominion is at any given time or in any given society social and
religious then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the
necessary sort of reform.
One can thus attack the doctrine of
Economic Interpretation of History adopted by the Socialists of India. But I
recognize that economic interpretation of history is not necessary for the
validity of the Socialist contention that equalization of property is the only
real reform and that it must precede everything else. However, what I like to
ask the Socialists is this : Can you have economic reform without first
bringing about a reform of the social order ? The Socialists of India do not
seem to have considered this question. I do not wish to do them an injustice. I
give below a quotation from a letter which a prominent Socialist wrote a few
days ago to a friend of mine in which he said, " I do not believe that we
can build up a free society in India so long as there is a trace of this
ill-treatment and suppression of one class by another. Believing as I do in a
socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in perfect equality in the treatment of
various classes and groups. I think that Socialism offers the only true remedy
for this as well as other problems." Now the question that I like to ask
is : Is it enough for a Socialist to say, " I believe in perfect equality
in the treatment of the various classes ? " To say that such a belief is
enough is to disclose a complete lack of understanding of what is involved in
Socialism. If Socialism is a practical programme and is not merely an ideal,
distant and far off, the question for a Socialist is not whether he believes in
equality. The question for him is whether he minds one class
ill-treating and suppressing another class as a matter of system, as a matter
of principle and thus allow tyranny and oppression to continue to divide one
class from another. Let me analyse the factors that are involved in the
realization of Socialism in order to explain fully my point. Now it is obvious that
the economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come about unless
there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That seizure of power
must be by a proletariat. The first question I ask is : Will the proletariat of
India combine to bring about this revolution ? What will move men to such an
action ? It seems to me that other things being equal the only thing that will
move one man to take such an action is the feeling that other man with whom he
is acting are actuated by feeling of equality and fraternity and above all of
justice. Men will not join in a revolution for the equalization of property
unless they know that after the revolution is achieved they will be treated
equally and that there will be no discrimination of caste and creed. The
assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that he does not believe in
caste, I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance must be the assurance
proceeding from much deeper foundation, namely, the mental attitude of the
compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal equality and
fraternity. Can it be said that the proletariat of India, poor as it is,
recognise no distinctions except that of the rich and the poor ? Can it be said
that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed, high
or low ? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected from
such a proletariat in its action against the rich ? How can there be a
revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front? Suppose for the
sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution does take place and
the Socialists come in power, will they not have to deal with the problems
created by the particular social order prevalent in India ? I can't see how a
Socialist State in India can function for a second without having to grapple
with the problems created by the prejudices which make Indian people observe
the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean. If Socialists are not to
be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if the Socialists wish to make
Socialism a definite reality then they must recognize that the problem of
social reform is fundamental and that for them there is no escape from it.
That, the social order prevalent in India is a matter which a Socialist must
deal with, that unless he does so he cannot achieve his revolution and that if
he does achieve it as a result of good fortune he will have to grapple with it
if he wishes to realize his ideal, is a proposition which in my opinion is
incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account of caste after
revolution if he does not take account of it before revolution. This is only
another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, caste is the
monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you cannot
have economic reform, unless you kill this monster.
Comments
Social Counter