THE attainment of freedom by non-violent means, the peaceful integration of over five hundred Princely States with People’s India, the framing of the country’s Constitution, the establishment of a sovereign, democratic Republic within the short period of just over three years are indeed achievements unparalleled in history, of which any organization can legitimately feel proud. And yet they do not mark our journey’s end. As Prime Minister Nehru has repeatedly told us, they are but important stages of the great pilgrimage we have undertaken.

The common destination set for us by the Father of the Nation has been differently defined from time to time. The underlying idea has remained the same, namely, political, economic and social freedom for the country, the welfare of its teeming millions, the banishment of poverty, hunger, disease, ignorance and, above all, inequality and exploitation from our midst. And to attain these objectives Mahatma Gandhi showed us the way of simple living and high thinking, the way of self-help and mutual cooperation, in short, the way of Sarvodaya.

Unfortunately for the country, within a few months of the advent of political freedom Gandhiji’s voice was silenced under tragic circumstances, depriving Congress and the people of the benefit of his leadership and far-sighted advice. For the last three decades of his life, the period during which the people had fought a unique struggle for freedom against a mighty power, it was he who had led and controlled Congress. He did most of the thinking, not only about current problems, but also about the future and the shape of things to come. The Congress organization could, therefore, in most difficult times, effectively lead the people.

According to Gandhiji, the secret of true leadership was to be a little ahead of the people, not to go too far ahead of them, and never to lag behind them. He himself always thought far ahead. Physically he is not with us today, but he has left sufficient light to guide us. I hope his words have not ceased to ring in our ears, to urge us forward on his path. I am one of those who believe that due to our failing and exigencies we may have to deviate from this path, but the deviation cannot be for long or in a direction contrary to that indicated by him. Ultimately, we must resume the true course.

The British left India in a terrible mess. Conditions would have deteriorated further if a democratic organization like the Congress had not taken charge of the administration to guide the state. This was indeed the sole consideration which impelled the Congress leadership not to accept Gandhiji’s advice to convert Congress, after the attainment of freedom, into the Lok Sevak Sangh.

However, because of the unexpected and perplexing problems which arose from the country’s partition, and also due to its own inherent weakness, it failed to come up to the expectations of the people, particularly in tackling their day-to-day problems and providing quick remedies for the ills from which the country had suffered for a long time. This provided an opportunity for the opposition parties, particularly the Communists and the communalists who had kept away from the national struggle, to raise their heads and exploit the people.

Any other party in the position of Congress would have immediately stifled all such opposition, as has been done in many other countries. But Congress, founded on democratic traditions, could not resort to any such action. After Gandhiji’s murder, the Congress Party in the Central Legislature unanimously passed a resolution banning all communal parties, but the leadership of the party did not implement this resolution with the result that the Hindu Mahasabha, the Muslim League and the Akali Dal have continued to function as before and have tried their best to undermine nationalism and create trouble.

 

What is worse, the Congress government removed the ban on the Community Party, which was then underground and had been responsible for many violent activities, making the already difficult task of administration still more so. In spite of these anti-national activities, that Congress was able to maintain law and order, peacefully integrate feudal states and formulate the country’s Constitution on the basis of democracy and social justice, greatly redounds to the credit of its leadership.

However, notwithstanding these remarkable achievements, and others too, the premier political party is not what it should be. Much of its vigour and dynamism have been lost; the sense of dedication and the spirit of selfless service is fast disappearing. The organization has developed cracks and fissures, while the ranks are riven with cliques and rivalries. Its solidarity and strength have been greatly undermined; discipline seems to be at a discount. Many stalwart freedom fighters have left with their followers to form rival parties, and although they have been unable to make much headway, and some have even returned, the damage to the organization remains unrepaired.

Unfortunately for the organization, even those who remained in it have not worked as a united team. They have split into groups and factions for personal ends, not for ideological reasons. Factions function openly in practically every state, and the central leadership has failed to deal with them effectively.

 

Nor have the new entrants, whose number is very large, added in any way to its strength or prestige. Very few among them have joined Congress because of an ideological appeal or a patriotic urge. Most of them never came near Congress during the freedom struggle. Even now they are largely actuated by opportunism and self-interest. There is no ideological unity or clarity of purpose. This leads to considerable conflict and confusion both in the party organization and the administration.

The successful working of democracy postulates that no individual be indispensable. For every important job there should be not one but a number of individuals duly qualified and trained. It is regrettable that Congress, with all its advantages, has failed to fulfil this basic requirement. That the same persons have to hold important posts simultaneously, or be frequently moved from one position to another, is neither a sign of strength nor does it reveal any foresight or planning by the party’s leadership.

Ad hoc appointments to high officers may have been justifiable twelve years ago; today, they cannot but smack of undue preference, if not favouritism, and cause unnecessary bitterness and discontent within the party. If the leadership had so desired, during the last twelve years, members could have specialized for the positions they were to hold. For one reason or another, no attention has been paid to this organizational aspect. This is all the more deplorable for we have not only lost some of our best leaders, but most of those in high position now are on the wrong side of sixty.

 

It is instructive to recall in this connection how Mahatma Gandhi, starting from scratch, built up a countrywide leadership. He always took particular care to have trusted lieutenants in every part of the country. With their cooperation and support, he was able to carry out various activities, and the mass movements which he launched achieved phenomenal successes. In every province, and even in important districts, he had someone or the other on whom he could safely depend to carry out his policy and implement his programmes.

For his other manifold activities, constituting what is known as the constructive programme, Gandhiji had not only separate collaborators, but also separate organizations. Behind them all, he remained the principal driving force, a friend, philosopher and guide.

Though Gandhiji himself worked very hard to the end, he did not rest content until he had produced bands of selfless and trained workers devoted to different activities. He always tried to organize in such a manner that the work would go on without him. There were persons who thought that by putting an end to his physical existence, they would wipe out everything which he stood for. But due to his foresight the country was saved from a great crisis, for his trusted lieutenants were able to tide over and defeat the evil intent of the miscreants behind Godse. I am afraid, however, that the lesson of this great tragedy has been lost upon us.

 

This brings me to the most vital question which has been vexing the Congress Party and the people. Who After Nehru? Undoubtedly, for the last twelve years, Jawaharlal Nehru has been a source of great strength to Congress; yet, though it may sound paradoxical, the party’s present weakness and our future apprehensions arise from this fact. No building which rests on a single pillar, no matter how strong, can be considered safe. It must give way sooner or later. To secure the edifice a broad-based foundation has to be provided before it is too late.

Without Prime Minister Nehru’s great popularity and hold over the people, many shortcomings of Congress would not have remained hidden. These have sapped the strength and vitality of the organization and provide the greatest danger to democracy. They can only be ignored at the country’s peril.

Prime Minister Nehru occupies an unrivalled place in the country and has also achieved a unique position in the world. He works harder than most and shoulders a great responsibility. Any other person, working for so long under such conditions, would not have survived the stress and strain. Even Jawaharlal Nehru cannot be expected to continue in this manner. Naturally, the people are anxious to know which are his trusted colleagues who share his views and enjoy the public confidence, and which can be depended upon to carry out his policies and hold the country together, overcoming all the fissiparous forces that unfortunately stalk the land today.

 

It is unfortunate for the country that Prime Minister Nehru has not been able to build up a second line of leadership. He is undoubtedly aware of popular anxiety. His only answer, ‘after me the people’, indicates the state of his mind. In the ultimate analysis true democracy is always the responsibility of the people. But the people are not ready for it. Neither are they sufficiently alert or active, nor has any party, including Congress, made an earnest effort to prepare the people for possible developments in the future.

Moreover, it should be remembered that Congress does not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the people. This is clear from two general elections. The official report on the last general elections reveals that the party in power, the Congress Party, secured only 47.74 per cent of the votes polled against 45 per cent in the first general elections; the Praja Socialist Party 8.92 per cent, the Communists 8.42 per cent, the Jan Sangh 4.63 per cent, the remainder going to the Independents and others.

This means that those who do not want Congress to rule the country exceed those who do. In other words, Congress is in office, not because of its strength, but because of division in the ranks of its opponents and the weakness of other parties. The situation has not improved since the last general elections, notwithstanding the hectic efforts of Congress leaders following the prime minister’s threatened resignation.

At that time, while bowing to the will of the party and his colleagues, the prime minister laid bare the working of his mind, revealed the urges of his heart and poured out his agonized soul. He disclosed that he had been greatly perturbed and oppressed by the suffocating and murky atmosphere surcharged with communalism and other reactionary ideas, the falling ethical standards and fading moral values in Indian public life, the vulgarity and coarseness creeping in to undermine public interest and by the waning spirit of service and missionary fervour in the Congress rank and file.

The prime minister did well to draw pointed attention to things that had been troubling him most and expressed his great concern for the difficult tasks ahead; he underlined his intense desire to prepare himself, the Congress organization and the people for these. But what touched me most was his reference to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. He used the following words: ‘Our great leader Gandhiji, remember, was actually assassinated … I mean to say there are all kinds of forces – good forces, forces of darkness, everything mixed up…’ I felt, and still feel, that this reference should serve to arouse in us a sense of duty and an awareness of the serious danger ahead.

On behalf of Congressmen and the Congress organization, the Congress president was the foremost in assuring his whole-hearted support to the prime minister. He referred to the great responsibility that had been cast on them by the prime minister’s acceptance of their request to withdraw his resignation and the imperative need to ensure that the causes of his anxiety were removed as soon as possible.

 

Pandit Pant, the deputy leader, was also reported to have told the members of the Congress Party in equally emphatic words: ‘While we have forced him to revise his decision, let us remember that it is the duty of every one of us to see that we on our part behave in a becoming and befitting manner.’ He asked members to resolve that they would stand by what Pandit Nehru had said, that they would not only profess but practice what was right and proper and, so far as it lay with them, they would see that the things which hurt him so deeply did not happen again.

 

Subsequent developments in various state Congress organizations and Congress parties in the legislatures show that these solemn assurances did not produce the desired effect; indeed the position has been deteriorating in certain states. I repeat what I had emphasized at that time, something to my mind more important than had been stressed by the Congress President and Pandit Pant – that if, for any reason, those holding positions of responsibility in the organization and the administration were mentally out to tune with the prime minister, morally unable to conform with ethical standards required, or with him, they should at least have the decency to get out of his way and not embarrass him by their continued association and weaknesses.

Here is an extract from what I wrote then: ‘Unless the Congress High Command was prepared to face facts, to be as harsh as truth, with themselves and others, in spotlighting the weak and worn out links, and to be as merciless as the surgeon’s knife in amputating the diseased limbs, for no healing process can start till then, I am afraid the prime minister’s present quest and efforts may not yield better results than in the past. If the prime minister had acted with a little more courage and greater firmness during the first general elections, or even in the last, I am sure Congress would have been in a much stronger position today. By going against the wishes of the state bosses, Congress might have lost a few more seats, but it would have maintained with the people its past prestige and vindicated the high principles for which we profess to stand. I am one of those who believe that the only way to bring Congress back to its old moorings, to make it as fine an organization as it once was in its selfless service to the people for the regeneration of India, is to stand by those principles we profess irrespective of the consequences to ourselves, our friends and relations. Thereby we shall do our duty by Congress and the country, even though we may have to go out of office, not in one but all the States and the Centre, provided we leave a more pure, more efficient and a cheaper administrative machinery then we started with and a rejuvenated Congress organization, as vivid, strong and popular as in the pre-Independence period.

‘For an organization which, with popular support, could wrest power for the people from alien rulers, it should not take long to get it back… If the Congress apparatus is damaged beyond repair, by our clinging to office and compromising with our basic principles, we might be able to remain in power for a few years longer, but I have no doubt we shall be guilty of betraying Congress and the country. This conviction has been greatly strengthened by certain incidents from the lives of two of our revered leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru, and which fully illustrate how organizations are strengthened by adhering to principle and not yielding to personal considerations and pressure of circumstances.’

 

I think very few persons will dispute the Congress claim that there is no other party in the country which can replace Congress. On that account alone additional responsibility has been cast on the party to set its own house in order and to set an example in running its organization, to establish standards of public behaviour and to efficiently carry on administration in a manner which not only inspires public confidence but also wins the admiration of its political opponents.

I have no doubt that Congress still has the capacity and the chance to retrieve lost ground and vindicate its position as the premier political party. I am equally convinced that if it does not change its ways, radically and speedily, it is bound to disintegrate and fade away without playing its historic role. Indeed it would be a great tragedy, with frightful consequences to the people, for which history will blame us; posterity will brand us as traitors who betrayed a great and glorious cause, sanctified by the suffering and sacrifice of millions of people, for petty and personal ends.

 

In any case, the responsibility of Jawaharlal Nehru will continue, whether or not he remains in office. He has, therefore, not only to pay greater attention to the overwhelming of the Congress organization and work more vigorously and effectively to rid it of its evils than before, but also to devote some time and energy to the education and organization of the people with a view to making them realize their duties and responsibilities in the great task of national reconstruction. People look to him with great hope and affection, and it would be extremely unfortunate were the impression to gain ground that his writ does not run far, or that he is unable to have his way because of others.

Having been an optimist all my life, I still hope the Congress leadership will rise, equal to the occasion, and taking a long-range view of things, act in a statesman-like manner. Statesmen, unlike pygmy politicians, always bear in mind the next generation, not just the next election.

 

* Originally titled, ‘Some Reflections’. Reproduced from ‘The Party in Power’, Seminar 1, September 1959, pp. 35-37.