How does Ranade compare with others ? Comparisons are always odious and unpleasant. At the
same time it is true that there is nothing more illuminating than comparisons.
Of course in making them one must bear in mind that to be interesting and
instructive comparisons must be between those that are alike. Fortunately there
is field for comparison. Ranade was a social reformer and as a social reformer he
could be usefully compared with other social reformers. Particularly
illuminating will be the comparison between Ranade and Jotiba Phule. Phule was born in 1827 and died in 1890. Ranade
was born in 1842 and died in 1901. Thus Phule and Ranade were contemporaries and both were foremost social
reformers. Some may perhaps demur to the wisdom of comparing Ranade
with other politicians. This can only be on the ground that Ranade
was not a politician. To say that Ranade was not a politician is to impose a very narrow and
very restricted meaning upon the term politician. A politician
does not merely trade in politics but he also represents particular faith
covering both—the method as well as the metaphysics of politics. Ranade
was the founder of a school of politics which was distinctive for its method as
well as for metaphysics. Used in this sense Ranade was a politician and could
be usefully compared with other politicians. Comparisons of Ranade with social
reformers and with politicians cannot but be illuminating and there is enough
material for such comparisons. The question really is one of time and taste. Time will not permit any extensive comparison
of Ranade being made both with social reformers as well as with politicians. I
must really choose between comparing Ranade with social reformers or with
politicians. This is a matter of taste. Left to myself I would have preferred
to use my available time to compare Ranade with Phule. For I regard social Reform more fundamental than
political reform. Unfortunately my taste is different from the taste of the
audience and I feel that in detaining the audience I must be guided more by its
likes and dislikes than my own. The ardour for social reform has cooled down.
The craze for politics has held the Indian public in its grip. Politics has
become an appetiser—a mastic the more one tastes it the more one craves it. The
task I am undertaking is a very unpleasant one and if I venture upon it, it is
only because it is my duty to expound fully and the desire of the public to
know truly the value of Ranade's political philosophy and his place among politicians
of today.
Who are the present day politicians
with whom Ranade is to be compared ?
Ranade was a great politician of
his day. He must therefore be compared with the greatest of today. We have on
the horizon of India two great men, so big that they could be identified
without being named—Gandhi and Jinnah. What sort of a history they will make may be a matter
for posterity to tell. For us it is enough
that they do indisputably make headlines for the Press. They hold leading
strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the Muslims. They are the idols
and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare them with Ranade. How do they
compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to make some observations upon their
temperaments and methods with which they have now familiarized us. I can give only my
impressions of them, for what they are worth. The first thing that strikes me
is that it would be
difficult to find two persons who
would rival them for their colossal egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is
everything and the cause of the country a mere counter on the table. They have
made Indian politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for
them ; indeed they do not occur to them
until they happen. When they do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it,
they overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They choose to
stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They
wall themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to their
inferiors. They are very unhappy at and
impatient of criticism, but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed a wonderful stagecraft
and arrange things in such a way that they are always in the limelight wherever they go. Each of
course claims to be supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a
small wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for himself. Pius IX during
whose sacred regime as Pope the issue of infallibility was raging said— " Before I was Pope I believed in Papal
infallibility, now I feel it." This is exactly the attitude of the two leaders whom
Providence—may I say in his unguarded moments—has appointed to lead us. This
feeling of supremacy and infallibility is strengthened by the Press.
One cannot help saying that. The language used by Gardiner to describe the Northcliffe brand of journalism, in my opinion, quite appropriately describes the present state
of journalism in India. Journalism in India was once a profession. It has now
become a trade. It has no more moral function than the manufacture of soap. It
does not regard itself as the responsible adviser of the Public. To give the
news uncoloured by any motive, to present a certain view of public policy which
it believes to be for the good of the community, to correct and chastise
without fear all those, no matter how high, who have chosen a wrong or a barren
path, is not regarded by journalism in India its first or foremost duty. To accept a
hero and worship him has become its principal duty. Under it, news gives place
to sensation, reasoned opinion to unreasoning passion, appeal to the minds of
responsible people to appeal to the emotions of the irresponsible. Lord
Salisbury spoke of the Northcliffe journalism as written by office-boys for
office-boys. Indian journalism is all that plus something more. It is written
by drum-boys to glorify their heroes. Never has the interest of country been
sacrificed so senselessly for the propagation of hero-worship. Never has
hero-worship become so blind as we see it in India today. There are, I am glad
to say, honourable exceptions. But they are too few and their voice is never
heard. Entrenched behind the plaudits of the Press, the spirit of domination exhibited
by these two great men has transgressed all limits. By their domination they have demoralised their
followers and demoralized politics. By their domination they have made half
their followers fools and the other half hypocrites. In establishing their
supremacy they have taken the aid of " big business " and money magnates. For the first time in our country
money is taking the field as an organised power. The questions which President
Roosevelt propounded for American Public to consider will arise here, if they
have not already arisen : Who shall rule—wealth or man ? Which shall lead, money or
intellect ? Who shall fill public stations,
educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs of corporate Capital ? For the present, Indian politics,
at any rate the Hindu part of it, instead of being spiritualised has become
grossly commercialised, so much so that it has become a byword for corruption.
Many men of culture are refusing to concern themselves in this cesspool. Politics has become a kind
of sewage system intolerably unsavoury and unsanitary. To become a politician
is like going to work in the drain.
Politics in the hands of these two
great men have become a competition in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi
is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have the
Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the All-India
Congress Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working Committee and its
Council. The session of the Congress must be
followed by a session of the League. It the Congress issues a statement the League must also
follow suit. If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim
League's Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the
Congress President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must
have his. If the Congress must address an: appeal to the United Nations, the Muslim League must not
allow itself to be outbidden. When is all
this to end? When is there to be a settlement? There are no near prospects.
They will not meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah insists that
Gandhi should admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that Jinnah should admit
that he is one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has there been such a
deplorable state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one sees in these two
leaders of India. They are making long and interminable speeches, like lawyers
whose trade it is to contest everything, concede nothing and talk by the hour.
Suggest anything by way of solution for the deadlock to either of them, and it
is met by an everlasting " Nay ". Neither will consider a solution of the problems
which is not eternal. Between them Indian politics has become
"frozen" to use a well-known Banking phrase and no political action
is possible.
How does Ranade strike as compared to these two ? I have no personal impression to give. But reading what others have said I think I
can say what he must have been like. He had not a tinge of egotism in him. His
intellectual attainments could have justified any amount of pride, nay even
insolence. But he was the most modest of men. Serious youths were captivated by
his learning and geniality. Many, feeling completely under his sway, responded
to his ennobling influence and moulded their whole lives with the passionate
reverence for their adored master. He refused to be satisfied with the praises
of fools, and was never afraid of moving in the company of equals and of the
give and take it involves. He never claimed to be a mystic relying on the inner
voice. He was a rationalist prepared to have his views tested in the light of
reason and experience. His greatness was natural. He needed no aid of the stage nor the technique of an assumed
eccentricity nor the means of a subsidized press. As I said, Ranade was
principally a social reformer. He was not a politician in the sense of one who
trades in politics. But he has played an important part in the political
advancement of India. To some of the politicians he acted as the teacher who
secured such signal successes and who dazzled their critics by their
brilliance. To some he acted as the guide, but to all he acted as the
philosopher.
(1) We must not set up as our ideal something which is
purely imaginary. An ideal must be such that it must carry the assurance that
it is a practicable one.
(2) In politics, sentiment and
temperament of the people are more important than intellect and theory. This is
particularly so in the matter of framing a Constitution. A constitution is as
much a matter of taste as clothes are. Both must fit, both must please.
(3) In political negotiations the
rule must be what is possible. That does not mean that we should be content
with what is offered. No. It means that you must not refuse what is offered when you know that your sanctions are inadequate to
compel your opponent to concede more.
These are the three main doctrines
of Ranade's
political philosophy. It would be quite easy to illustrate them by appropriate
quotations from his writings and his speeches. There is no time for that nor is
there any necessity, for they must be clear to every student of Ranade's
speeches and writings. Who could quarrel with Ranade on these three propositions and if there be one, on
which? On the first only a visionary will quarrel. We need not take any notice
of him. The second proposition is so evident that we could only ignore it at
our peril. The third proposition is something on which a difference of opinion
is possible. Indeed it is this which divided the Liberals from the Congressmen.
I am not a liberal, but I am sure the view Ranade
held was the right one. There can
be no compromise on principle, and there should not be. But once the principle
is agreed upon, there can be no objection to realize it by instalments.
Graduation in politics is inevitable, and when the principle is accepted it is
not harmful and indeed it may in certain circumstances be quite advantageous.
On this third proposition there was really no difference between him and Tilak,
except this : Tilak would have the possible maximised by the application
of sanctions ; Ranade would look askance at sanctions. This is all. On the rest they
were agreed. The absence of sanctions in Ranade's political philosophy need not
detract much from its worth. We all know what sanctions are available to us. We
have tried all, old as well as new, with what effect I need not stop to
describe.
NEXT-PART
RANADE, GANDHI AND JINNAH-X
Comments
Social Counter