Posterity is always interested in
the last words and last regrets of great men. The last words of great men are
not always significant of their experience of this world or their vision of the
next. For instance the last thoughts of Socrates were to call Crito
and say, "
We owe a cock to Aesculapius;
discharge the debt, and by no
means omit it." But their last regrets are always significant and worth
pondering over. Take the case of Napoleon. Napoleon before his death at St.
Helena showed evidence of being uneasy over three capital points which
constituted his last regrets. They were: that he could not have died at some supreme moment of
his career ; that he left Egypt and gave up
his Eastern ambitions ; and last but by no means the
least his defeat at Waterloo. Had Ranade any supreme regrets? One thing is certain that Ranade
if he had any, could not have the same regrets such as those which disturbed
the peace of mind of Napoleon. Ranade lived for service and not for glory. It mattered very
little to him whether the moment of his death was glorious or inglorious or
whether he died as a hero, as a conqueror or a master or whether he died as a common man sometimes does
of common cold. As a matter of fact Ranade was not troubled by any regrets. So far as record goes Ranade
does not seem to be conscious of any act or event about which he had any regrets. He died a
happy and a peaceful death. But it is worth-while asking could Ranade have any regrets if he
came to life today ?
I am sure there is one matter over which he
will feel extremely grieved— namely the present condition of the Liberal Party
in India.
What is the present position of the
Liberal Party in India ? The Liberal Party is a casualty. Indeed this is a
very mild expression. The Liberals are " the contemptibles " of Indian politics. To use the language of Norton
used in another connection they are disowned by the people, unowned by the
Government, having the virtues of neither, but possessing the vices of both. There was a time when the Liberal Party
was the rival of the Congress. Today the relation of the Liberal Party to the
Congress is that of a dog to his master.
Occasionally the dog barks at his master but for the most part of his life he is content
to follow him. What is the Liberal Party if not the tail of the Congress ? Many are asking, why do not the
Liberals merge in the Congress—so useless has their existence become. How can Ranade help
not regretting the collapse of the Liberal Party ? How can any Indian help regretting it ?
The collapse of the Liberal Party
is a tragedy to the Liberals. But it is really a disaster to the country. The
existence of a party is so essential to a popular Government that it is
impossible to conceive the possibility of getting on without it. As an eminent
American historian says :
" It is easier to imagine the demolition of any
part of our constitutional organization, the submersion of a large part of what
the constitution describes, than to imagine our getting on without political
combinations : they are our vital institutions."
Indeed to attempt to govern a
country by the mass of voters without the control and discipline of a Party is,
to use the language of James Bryce :
It is undeniable that a party is an
essential adjunct to Popular Government. But it is equally undeniable that
the rule of a single party is fatal to Popular Government. In fact it is a
negation of Popular Government. The case of Germany and Italy furnish the most
cogent evidence on this point. Instead of taking a warning from the
totalitarian States we are taking them as models to copy. The one party system
is being hailed in this country in the name of national solidarity. Those who
are doing so are failing to take note of the possibilities of tyranny as well as the possibilities of
misdirection of public affairs which is inherent in the one party Government.
To have Popular Government run by a single party is to let democracy become
a mere form for despotism to play its part
from behind it. How under one party Government the tyranny of the majority
ceases to be an empty phrase and becomes a menacing fact has been our
experience, in India, under the Congress Regime. Were we not told by Mr. Rajgopalachariar that the separation of the Executive and the
Judiciary which was necessary under the British is no longer necessary ? Does it not show the Despot's
taste for blood ? Despotism does not cease to be despotism because it
is elective. Nor does despotism become agreeable because the Despots belong to
our own kindred. To make it subject to election is no guarantee against
despotism. The real guarantee against despotism is to confront it with the
possibility of its dethronement,
of its being laid low, of its
being superseded by a rival party. Every Government is liable to error of
judgement, great many liable to bad administration and not a few to corruption,
injustice and acts of oppression and
bad faith. No Government ought to be free from criticism. But who can criticize
a Government ? Left to individuals it can never
be done. Sir Toby has left behind advice as to how one should deal with one's
enemy. He said : " soon, so soon as ever thou seest him, draw, and as thou drawest, swear horrible " But this is not possible for an
individual who wants to stand up against a Government. There are various things against
individuals successfully playing that part. There is in the first place what Bryce
calls the fatalism of the multitude, that tendency to acquiesce and submit due
to the sense of insignificance of individual effort, the sense of helplessness
arising from the belief that the affairs of men are swayed by large forces
whose movements cannot be turned by individual effort. In the second place
there is possibility of the tyranny of the majority which often manifests in
suppressing and subjecting to penalties and other social disabilities persons who do not follow the
majority, of which some of us have good experience during the Congress regime- In the third place there is the
fear of the C.I.D.
The Gestapo
and all the other instrumentalities which are at the disposal of the Government to shadow
its critics and to silence them.
The secret of freedom is courage,
and courage is born in combination of individuals into a party. A party is
necessary to run Government. But two parties are necessary to keep Government
from being a despotism. A democratic Government can remain democratic only if
it is worked by two parties—a party in power and a party in opposition. As Jennings
puts it :
" If there is no opposition there is no
democracy. ' His Majesty's Opposition ' is no idle phrase. His Majesty
needs an opposition as well as a Government."
In the light of these considerations who could deny
that the collapse of the Liberal Party in India is not a major disaster ? Without the resuscitation of the Liberal Party or the
formation of another party the fight for freedom will result in loss of freedom
for despotism is antithetical of freedom whether the despotism is native or
foreign. It is a pity Indians have lost sight of this fact. But I have no doubt
those who are shouting that the Congress is the only party and that the
Congress is the nation will live to rue their
decision.
Why has the Liberal Party
collapsed? Is there something wrong in the Philosophy of Ranade ? Is there anything wrong with the men in the Liberal
Party ? Or is the working of the Liberal
Party at fault ? I for one hold that there is nothing fundamentally
wrong with the philosophy of Ranade. Nor can it be said that of the two the
Congress has the best cause and the Liberal Party the best men. The Liberal
Party has both. To my mind what has brought about the collapse of the Liberal
Party is the complete lack of organization.
It may not be without interest to
expose the weaknesses in the organization of the Liberal Party.
As pointed out by Pendleton
Herring in his volume on Politics of Democracy the organization of a party is spread
over three concentric rings. The centre ring represents the oligarchy in
control of the party organization—what is called the High Command. There are associated with it, its workers
who are primarily concerned with securing their livelihood through the party
organization whether as party officials or through public office. They are called professional
politicians and constitute the party machine. Surrounding this inner group—the
High Command and the machine—there is a large circle of persons bound to the
party by ties of tradition and emotional loyalty. They think of the principles
professed by the party. They are more concerned with its ideals and symbols
than with the acts of the professional party workers and leaders. They vote for
the party ideal rather than for the party record. Outside this second ring lies that vast body of
people who are not attached to any party. It is a floating population. The reason for their being unattached is either
because they are aimless, thoughtless or because they have particular interests
which are not included in the platform of any party. Those outside the second ring constitute the most
vital field of action for a political party. They are the prize which a party
must capture. To capture this prize it is not enough to enunciate principles
and formulate policies. Men are not interested in principles and policies. But
they are interested in accomplishing things. What is necessary for a party is to bring about
concerted action. For in the words of President Woodrow Wilson,
given Self-Government with a
majority rule, things can be accomplished not by individual voice but by
concerted action. Now for concerted action what is necessary is the
crystallization of individual opinions into public opinion. This crystallization
or building up of public opinion as a sanction behind a particular principle becomes
the main functions of a party. Theoretically, political parties are agencies for
the expression and execution of public opinion but in practice parties create, direct, influence and often
control public opinion. Indeed this is the chief function of a party. For this,
a party must do two things. In the first place it must establish contact with
the masses. It must go out among the masses with
its wares—its principles, policies, ideas and candidates. In the second place
it must carry on propaganda among the masses in favour of its wares. It must
animate them and enlighten them, to quote Bryce again " Give the voters some knowledge of the political
issues they have to decide, to inform them of their leaders, and the crimes of
their opponents ". These are the basic factors from which concerted
action can arise. A party which fails to forge concerted action has no right to call
itself a party.
Which of these things the Liberal
Party has done as an organization ?
The Liberal Party has only the
High Command. It has no machine. Not having any machine the high command is
only a shadow. Its following is confined to that second concentric ring consisting of persons
who are bound by ties of tradition. The leaders have nothing to evoke emotional
loyalty. They have no war cry to gather a crowd. The Liberal Party does not
believe in mass contact. It would be difficult to imagine a party so completely
isolated and insulated from the main mass of people. It does not believe in
conversion. Not that it has no Gospel to preach ; but like the Hindu religion it is a nonproselytising creed. It believes in
the formulation of principles and policies. But it does not work for giving effect to them. Propaganda and concerted action are anathema to the
Liberal Party. Individual voices and annual meetings and clamour for invitation
when a Cripps
arrives or when the Viceroy decides to invite important individuals have become
the limits of its political activity.
Is there any wonder if the Liberal
Party has fallen into disrepute ? The Liberal Party has forgotten the most elementary
fact that organization is essential for the accomplishment of any purpose and
particularly in politics where the harnessing of so many divergent elements in a
working unity is so great.
Who is responsible for this
collapse of the Liberal Party in India ? However much we may regret to have to say it, I think
it will have to be admitted that the responsibility for this catastrophe does
to some extent fall on Ranade. Ranade belonged to the Classes. He was born and bred among them. He never became a man of
masses. The Liberal Party has no machine and the reason why it did not forge a
machine is because it did not believe in mass contact. This aversion to mass contact is the
legacy of Ranade.
In avoiding mass contact the party is following the tradition left by Ranade. There is another legacy of Ranade to the Liberal Party and that relates to the false
faith in the driving force of principles and policies. Mazzini once said: " You may kill men, you cannot kill a great idea."
To me it appears to be a most mistaken view. Men are mortal. So are ideas. It
is wrong to hold that an idea will take roots pro prio-vigore. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs
watering. Both will otherwise wither and die. Ranade
agreed with Mazzini
and did not believe that the fructification of an idea needed the resources of
strenuous husbandry. If the Liberal Party is content with mere formulation of
principles and policies it is also because of this tradition of Ranade.
What is the duty of the Liberals.
All Liberals I know will say our duty is to follow the master. What else could
be the attitude of a devout band of
disciples ? But can anything be more mistaken
or more uncritical ? Such an attitude implies two things. It means that a
great man works by imposing his maxims on his disciples. It means that the
disciples should not be wiser than the master. Both these conclusions are
wrong. They do injustice to the master. No great man really does his work by
crippling his disciple by forcing on them his maxims or his conclusions. What a
great man does is not to impose his maxims on his disciples. What he does is to
evoke them, to awaken them to a vigorous and various exertion of their
faculties. Again the pupil only takes his guidance from his master. He is not
bound to accept his master's conclusions. There is no ingratitude in the
disciple not accepting the maxims or the conclusions of his master. For even
when he rejects them he is bound to acknowledge to his master in deep reverence
"
You awakened me to be myself: for that I thank you." The master is not entitled to less. The
disciple is not bound to give more.
It is therefore wrong to the master
as well as to himself for the disciple to bind himself to the maxims and
conclusions of his Master. His duty is to know the principles and if he is
convinced of their value and their worth, to spread them. That is the wish of
every Master. Jesus wished it, Buddha wished it. I am sure the same must be the
wish of Ranade. It follows that if the Liberals have faith in, and love and respect for Ranade their
supreme duty lies not merely in assembling together to sing his praises but in
organising themselves for spreading the Gospel of Ranade.
What
hope is there of the Liberals coming forward to fulfill this duty? Signs are
very depressing. In the last election the Liberals did not even contest the
seats. That of course is in itself a matter of some surprise. But this pales
into nothing when one recalls the announcement made by the Rt. Hon'ble Srinivas Shastri—the Leading Light of the Liberal Party— that he wished the Congress to succeed ! ! There is no parallel to this except in the treacherous and
treasonous conduct of Bhishma who lived on the bounty of the Kauravas
but wished and worked for success to their enemies the Pandavas.
This shows even the Liberals had lost faith in the gospel of Ranade. If this is
the general condition of health of the Liberal Party it is better if the party
died. It would clear the way for a new orientation and spare us the tedium of
idle clatter of liberals and liberalism. For such an event even Ranade may express satisfaction from his
grave.
Comments
Social Counter