CHAPTER - V

FREEDOM, EQUALITY, SOCIAL CHANGE AND JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN

Jayaprakash Narayan's entire life was a struggle in search

of a political faith that would preserve the cherished ideals of

'freedom and equality'. He wanted to evolve a political theory

which will not be limited by the contours of any established

ideology; a theory which depicted the ways and means of social

change in any society where freedom and equality were violated.

His views initially developed in the background of British rule

over India. As he witnessed India emerge out of the shadows of

colonialism, his approach to freedom, equality and social

change responded to the new circumstances. Before 1947, he

was the par t .and parcel of a long struggle against the British

rule. After independence, it was a far more a rduous fight

against the internal problems of this country. He witnessed

several important political developments in this country. He had

the moral courage to tu rn down offers to hold lucrative political

positions. By his candid statements, on a number of occasions,

he invited the wrath of the politicians in India. ̂

Yet he never gave up his zeal for freedom and equality. Till

the last day of his life, he experimented with the techniques of

social change. He left an optimistic message for the younger

generation that would be valid for people not only in India bu t

all over the world.

His political pilgrimage began with the struggle against

the might of the British Raj. In 1921, the country was under the

influence of the Non-cooperation movement initiated by Gandhi.

178

Jayaprakash was swept away by the spirit of patriotism and

anti-British feelings; he left his college and joined the

movement. At that time the concept of 'freedom' began to

inspire him. He identified freedom as freedom from British Rule.

Many years later, while he was being tried for treason at

Jamshedpur in 1940, he retorted to the British cillegations

claiming that a slave had no obligation to defend his slavery.

His only obligation was to destroy his bondage.

In several writings and speeches, he later on admitted

that during those formative years he was bitten by the bug of

revolution. He found the anti-British struggle led by Mahatma

Gandhi, the only means to uproot the British. In America, he

read M.N. Roy's classic work India in Transition. Roy's analysis

of the Indian scenario appealed to him most and it changed his

attitude towards the history of Indian political movements. Roy

had referred to three major views regarding the solution to

India's current problems. The British imperialists, led by

Montague, believed in the concept of slow progressive

development under the British Government. The Indian liberals

and constitutionalists, who had faith in British reforms,

provided the second view. They wanted to work out the reforms

contained in the Government of India Act 1919. The third

group, led by Bipin Chandra Pal and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, were

far more aggressive in their anti-British atti tude. Roy criticized

them severely because he felt tha t they wanted to revive old

structures. He ridiculed the revivalist at t i tude of these thinkers.

Roy had offered a fourth interpretation, the Marxist

interpretation, which captured the imagination and thought

process of young Jayaprakash Narayan. He prophesied that the

179

future of the Indian nation was going to be shaped by the

'inexorable evolution' of the progressive forces latent in Indian

society. 2

The Indian transition was the consequence of the

movement of social forces which were struggling to replace the

old decadent social structure.

Roy's views on agriculture, rural poverty and the condition

of the urban proletariat in India profoundly influenced

Jayaprakash Narayan. The Indian peasantry, he wrote, was

subject to double exploitation of foreign and domestic capital.

Roy felt tha t the growth of large-scale industry would determine

the future of India. It would increase the number of labourers

and the task of winning India's freedom would depend on the

working class and the peasantry; they would be organized and

fight on the grounds of class struggle. M.N. Roy's analysis of the

Indian society from a Marxist point of view demonstrated to J .P.

the merits of accepting Socialism as a necessary condition for

social change. His vision of political and economic freedom can

be traced from his article "Whither Congress? A Picture of

Swaraj (1940)"3, and from his letter written to 'All Fighters of

Freedom' [9^ August 1946).^ He wanted to convey the message

that:

1. The struggle for freedom did not cease with the

acceptance of British constitutional proposals. To the

struggle for liberty should be added the struggle for bread.

He was very categorical that without economic freedom for

the poor, political freedom would remain incomplete.

180

2. Socialism, as an ideology of social reconstruction, should

be applied to the Indian conditions to reorganize the

economic life of the country.

The issue of economic freedom, especially for removing

exploitation, inspired him to deal with the problem of equality in

Indian society. In the post second world war period, both

democrats and socialists were keen to establish an egalitarian

society. Socialism is based on the assumption that every human

being had equal rights to the material possessions of the

society. Inequality can be removed by establishment of a state

controlled economy by the working class who will put an end to

private property. On the other hand democracy is based on the

assumption that economic inequality can be reduced through

the policies of a welfare state. As a Marxist, J.P. suggested that

the abolition of private establishment and social ownership of

the means of production will remove the problem of inequality

in India. The initial success of the Soviet State in implementing

planned development of the economy impressed him and he

proposed that the state must regulate economic development in

India.

As information about the totalitarian policies of the Soviet

State reached this country, J.P. realized that freedom was being

sacrificed in order to promote equality. Even equality continued

to elude the common man in the socialist world because power

and privileges were cornered by the top brass in the communist

party and in the bureaucracy. He now tried to find answers to

two important issues:

181

a) How individual freedom could be protected against the

policies of a totalitarian state and dominance of a pcirty?

b) Could social change be achieved without endangering

liberty and equality?

He found the answer in the concept of democracy.

Democracy with its system of election, responsible government

and the existence of more than one political party will provide

the necessary safeguard against any encroachment on freedom.

Democracy and socialism mus t coexist and social chainge could

be brought about through democratic methods with the help of

a constitutionally elected government. Freedom and equality

cannot be sacrificed at the altar of progress. As a democratic

socialist, he wanted peaceful transition to socialism without any

use of violence. He rejected the idea of dictatorship of the

proletariat because it often led to total control by one political

party. He accepted democracy both as a means and as an end

and advocated that socialist India mus t accept democracy at

the political and economic leveP.

In A Plea for Reconstruction of the Indian Polity

Jayaprakash Narayan discussed the problems of democracy

particularly those problems tha t plague parliamentary

democracy. Jayaprakash was influenced by both M.N. Roy and

Gandhi in his ideas on democracy. In Swarcg for the People

Jayaprakash wrote, "Those who are acquainted with me know

well the influence of Roy on the evolution of my thought and the

high regard in which I have always held him...I am indebted not

only to Roy ...but most of all to Gandhiji."6 Like Roy he believed

182

tha t Lincoln's definition of democracy was inadequate for

contemporary democracies. Following Roy, he argued that real

democracy was nowhere to be seen in practice bu t he believed

that the quest for democracy must go on. The Socratic wisdom

in him pushed him to look for new definitions, ways and means

by which people could really govern themselves. "All tha t is

possible is to approach the ideal as nearly as possible."^

Democracy in the West stood for free conflict of ideas among

leaders and the people are expected to make a choice among

them. But modem Western democracy could at best be defined

as 'democratic oligarchy'. Like Gandhiji, he believed that unless

power is decentralized and based in the Indian villages,

democracy would not be successful in India. Parliamentary

democracy was based on the negation of the social na ture of

man. T h i s democracy conceives of society as an inorgainic mass

of separate grains of individuals: the conception is tha t of cin

atomized society."^ As a result, voting and elections are used by

political parties to divide and rule people,

"...Present day elections, manipulated by powerful, centrally controlled political parties with the aid of high finance and diabolically clever methods and super media communication represent far less the electorate than the forces and interests behind the parties It is not only in the totalitarian countries that the rape of masses happens. . . in a democracy there is competition between violators whfle there is no competition in totcilitaricinism."9

'Demagoguery' and 'centralism' were the other two pitfalls

of democracy. The former refers to the rat race among political

parties to catch votes; it is followed by false s tatements and

dishonest promises made by the power brokers. By centralism.

183

J.p. referred to the might of the modem state that operated

through the bureaucracy. The sovereign people only remain so

by name and the "individual voter is reduced to abject

helplessness."10 Jayaprakash Narayan also disapproved the

role played by organized interest groups in the modem

democracies. As a result of these groups, people remain

fragmented and are alienated from one another. J. P. also

criticized the party system and the method of election in a

parliamentary democracy. Political parties take advantage of the

faulty election procedure and created false impressions of

democracy. Elections involved huge expenses and mortgaged

democracy to moneyed interests. In these perfect observations,

J.P. could identiiy the malaise of democracy which has besieged

our society today.

He was also an ardent critic of modem Parliamentary

Democracy. Parliamentary Democracy was to him, a mere game

of numbers where political parties effectively controlled power

without paying any attention to the interest of the people;

freedom and equality were a myth in a Parliamentary system

because the people were only free to cast votes during elections

and rest of the time, the political parties enjoyed power and

utilized the state machinery for their own benefit. He believed

that only when political power is transferred to the toiling

masses the common man will enjoy freedom and equality.

Is there a solution to these problems or should we

continue to be pawns in the game of power politics? During the

Sarvodaya phase of his life, Jayaprakash Narayan provided the

answer by proposing to make future reconstruction based on

184

the t rue community. He preferred to call it 'communitarian

society or democracy'. The two key objectives that J .P. used to

describe his kind of democracy are 'communitarian' and

'participating'. Since democracy is truly echoed in the life of the

people, the local community was the school in which this way of

life was to be learnt. The foundation of polity, he argued that

mus t necessarily be self-governing, self sufficient, agro

industrial local communities. The highest political institutions

of the local community should be the General Assembly or the

Gram Sabha of which all adults of the village should be

considered as members. The selection of the executive or the

panchayat should be by general consensus of the Sabha. J .P.

also raised the question whether these village communities act

unanimously or not. "It may be questioned if there can ever be a

general consensus of opinion among villagei-s who are divided

into castes and factions and have conflicting interests."ii

This is indeed a very valid point and has greater relevance

today; the solution offered by Jayaprakash is unique, "...the

villages should be given an option to choose between the

method of selection by general agreement or by draAving lots." 12

These units mus t be given enough responsibilities that would

has ten their growth. For example, it should be the responsibility

of the village panchayat to ensure that the village becomes self

sufficient in food, shelter, clothing and primary education. The

next level of political s tructure would be the regional

community; here the gram panchayat would be integrated into

the panchayat samiti. J .P. believed tha t the panchayat samiti

would play the vital role in the political and economic life of the

country pairticularly in the sphere of planning and development.

185

TTie important point emphasized by J.P. is that the panchayat

samiti would be elected by the gram panchayat as a whole and

not by individual members. The next layer above the panchayat

samiti would be the district council and again it would be

elected by the 'samitis' and not by the individual members. In

similar manner the district councils of the state would come

together to create the state assembly. "The state assemblies in

like manner would bring into being the Lx)k Sohha. Thus the

political institution at each level is an integration of all the

institutions at the lower level."i3

Jayaprakash Narayan later on modified the election

procedure for Vidhan Sabha and Lok Sabha in his article

Swarcg for the People. Here he introduced the concept of

'Electoral Council'. Each gram sabha should select two

delegates to an Electoral Council. If more than two names are

proposed, there should be repeated balloting in order to

eliminate all bu t two of the nominees; this could be done by

dropping at each ballot the name receiving the least votes at the

previous ballot and the voters voting for the remaining names.

"The next step should be for the Electoral Council to be

convened for the chosen delegates of the gram sabhas of the

constituency concerned-whether of the Vidhan sabha or the Lxjk

sabha-to meet at a central place in the area. It should be the

task of the Electoral Council to set up candidates for election."i^

Jayaprakash was of the firm opinion that every constitutional

and educational measure should be taken to encourage the

Electoral Council to set up only one candidate for every seat. If

this does not happen, there should be nominations and then

votes taken on each name proposed and seconded. Persons

186

receiving not less than a given minimum number of votes

should be declared as candidates from the constituency for the

Vidhan Sabha or the Lok Sabha as the case may be.

The names of the candidates, selected by the Electoral

Council should be sent to the gram sabhas of the constituency

concerned. Each gram sabha should convene a general meeting

where votes would be taken for each candidate. J .P. then

suggested two alternatives for the next stage: a) the candidate

receiving the highest number of votes should be declared a s the

person a particular gram sabha wants to represent it. Of all

such individuals, the person receiving the highest number of

gram sabha votes is finally declared to be the member of the

Vidhan Sabha or the Lok Sabha as the case may be, b)

alternatively, the votes received by each candidate a t the

general meeting of each gram sabha should be recorded. Then

the votes that each has received at the different gram sabha

meetings all over the constituency should be added. The

candidate receiving the largest number of votes would become

the representative of the constituency.

The aim of J .P. was obviously to provide maximum

participation of the people at the grass roots level,

"This system of election, it will be seen, achieves several desired results. One, it binds structurally the upper storey of the democratic edifice with the lowest, lending prestige, strength and meaning to the gram sabhas and lifting them out of the possible morass of localism; two it gives direct opportunity to every adult citizen to participate in choosing the highest organs of democracy...to do so in an organized manner through the gram sabhas and the

187

Electoral Councils so that he might be in a position to exercise due influence over his representatives. The particles of sand are no longer separate little helpless things, bu t cohesive bricks of stone. A house built on a foundation of stone bricks is very different from a house built on sand."i5

This method he believed would ultimately keep political

parties at bay and would minimize their role. Jayaprakash

Narayan however reminded u s that the problem of democracy

was also a moral problem. His concept of democracy as an

expression of Sarvodaya polity could not ignore the fact that

"unless the moral and spiritual qualities of the people

appropriate, the best constitutions and political systems will not

make democracy work.^i^ The moral qualities and mental

atti tudes needed for democracy include concern for t ruth,

aversion to violence, love of liberty, spirit of cooperation,

preparedness to adjust self interest to the larger interest,

respect for other's opinions and tolerance and the courage to

resist oppression and tyranny. These qualities should be

inculcated in man through education, "...the task of preparing

the very soil in which the plant of democracy may take root and

grow is not a political bu t an educative task."!^ J .P. however

was unwilling to allot this responsibility to the state. It mus t be

the duty of society (or the community including the family,

religious and educational institutions) to preserve and hand

down the democratic values to the coming generations.

J .P. was convinced that political decentralization and

economic decentralization mus t coexist. Hence the issue of

reorganization of the economy was taken up by J .P. in Swaraj

for the People. Jayaprakash Narayan referred to a few essential

188

features and conditions of a decentralized economy in Swarcy

for the People. First, the economy must be a small-machine and

labor intensive economy. At the same time there should

conscious efforts to improve productivity through planning. He

also cautioned that there should be no imb£ilance between cost,

production, consumption and employment. Secondly, a

decentralized economy mus t aim at optimum utilization of local

and regional resources to satisiy the demands of a particular

region. To ensure this on a scientific footing, regional planning

would be necessary. J .P. wrote about industries at the village

level, at the block level and those at the district, state or Union

level. He particularly insisted that special measures needed to

protect small scale industries from large scale centralized

sector. Third, the process of industrialization mus t be linked to

and integrated with agriculture so that "every village or a t least

every small group of villages is developed as an agro-industrial

community. "18 'Agro-industrial community' is a term coined by

J.P. to emphasize the organic blending of agriculture and

industry; for instance, the industrial community would be

involved in food processing, manufacturing small articles of

daily requirement that would satisfy the local needs. This would

narrow down the gap between the urban and rural areas.

Fourth, J .P. also paid attention to the organizational aspect of

the industrial sector to ensure that it remains free from

bureaucratic corruption.

- Fifth, Jayaprakash assigned an important role to the

institutions of Panchayati Raj to play an important role in

economic development. He did not indulge tn going through the

details of this requirement, however made it clear that he was

189

not against modern techniques of production. His interest in

decentralization was to provide benefits to the masses. "In the

centralized sector ...the benefits of industrialization ...slowly

percolate down from the top to the bottom. In the west it took

no less than a century for those benefits to reach the common

man. It is obvious that in a country of such poverty as India

where even the articles of barest necessary are scarce, and

where unemployment and under employment are so chronic

and have such gigantic proportions a decentralized economy is

the crying need...if the aim of economic development is welfare

ofthepeople."i9

Jayaprakash was convinced that to establish such an

economy as mentioned above, 'rural education* was necessary.

The major thrust of this rural education should be large scale

practical adult education with special emphasis on training in

agricultural techniques. Moreover, a decentralized economy

would reduce the dependence of the states on the Centre

because the overhead costs will be minimized, it would utilize

small savings and there would be an element of voluntary labor

associated with it.

Jayaprakash Narayan's concept of economic and political

decentralization has cautioned us against the evils of both the

Leviathan State and the gigantic industrial organizations that

reduce man to the position of a cog on the machine. While his

concept of communitarian democracy showed us how the power

of the state can be reduced, his idea of an agro-industrial

community revealed how economic development could benefit

the common man. J.P. could not but emphasize the close link

190

between economics and ethics. He denounced the corruption

and dehumanization involved in the cult of money and wealth

cind the property relations of the capitalist order. He had closely

watched and had felt the pathos of h u m a n poverty and misery

hidden behind the glitter of economic development in the West.

Back in his own country, he realized how the imperialists had

ruined the Indian economy. The problem of economic

development was like a double edged sword; if equality was to

be ensured, it meant increasing state activity. The Western

experience had shown that any increase in the authority and

area of activity of the state led to corrosion of liberty. J ,P.

offered a moral solution to this dilemma. "There are no political

means by which the dilemma can be resolved, there are only

morad means. The obverse side of the medal of liberty is

responsibility. If the individual is not prepared to take social

responsibility, if he uses liberty for self aggrandizement and

neglects or hur t s the interest of others, some form of state-ism

becomes inevitable....The only democratic answer to state-ism

...is trusteeship."20 Hence like Gandhiji, he believed tha t all

property was a trust . "The community's economy is neither

exploitative, nor competitive; it is cooperative and co sharing."21

He argued that trusteeship could not be successful without the

voluntary limitation of 'wants'; in other words, the rejection of

materialism or unlimited pursui t of material satisfaction.

It mus t be remembered that J.P. was not against modem

technology but he wanted to sensitize u s about the negative

effects of reckless technological development. His message was

loud and clear: technological development mus t be harnessed

for the cause of common man. Technology has indeed reduced

191

h u m a n drudgery and the inhuman conditions of work but it h a s

been a mixed blessing. Technological development has escalated

the horrors of war and industrial hazards. Jayaprakash wanted

u s to look into this darker side of a technological society. He

also warned us about the problems of bureaucracy and

centralization. The 1960s and 70s saw the emergence of a set of

new values in the West as a reaction to centralism,

bureaucratization and the growth of giant economic cartels.

Ronald Inglehart calls this phenomenon as 'post materialism'.

Inglehart's cluster of post material values include giving people

greater say in the decision making process, making cities and

the countryside grow simultaneously and developing small scale

cooperatives.22 One can trace Inglehairt's new values in J.P. 's

ideas too.

Jayaprakash Narayan's ideas on political and economic

decentralization have inspired mixed response from the critical

world. Some thinkers have accepted them with a grain of salt.

Adi H. Doctor challenged the basic assumption that man is by

nature good and that his heart can be transformed by showing

selfless love.23 Doctor felt tha t the image of man and the over

emphasis on morality or moral development turned J.P.'s

assumptions into a Utopia. He found no logical argument

behind the idea that the state was an artifact imposed

deliberately on society. Countering this assumption. Doctor

argued that the state was also a moral institution, an agent of

society, a product of evolution and responsible to society for the

execution of its will. 'The state becomes a moral institution-a

legal system subservient to a moral order upheld by the

community at large."2*

192

J .p . also criticized parliamentary democracy as he had

little faith in majority rule. But Doctor felt that there is a thing

called the moral will of the community or what Ernest Barker

called a common conviction and "there is no alternative way to

arrive at the society's moral will except by finding out what most

people considered to be moral."25 Referring to J.P. 's ideas on

political parties, Dasgupta argues that political parties may

have certain defects but throwing them out is not the solution,

"...any experiment to keep the parties out of the picture in a

democracy is bound to fail had been cimply proved by the

growth of the Federalist and the Anti Federalist parties in the

USA. "26

Critics have also rejected J.P. 's proposals on communal

ownership of the natural resources as Utopian and unworkable.

Doctor had also criticized his contention tha t exploitation began

with the machine age; "Exploitation may begin with the bullock

cart and end with aeroplane."27 Doctor finally added an

interesting criticism to Jayaprakash 's dictum that 'small is

beautiful' (referring to the role of small village communities).

Doctor thinks that a smaller community has a greater

stronghold on an individual's daily life; moreover if the village

panchayat acted as a legislature, executive and judiciary at the

same time, it might increase the tyranny of the group over the

individuals.

W.H. Morris Jones argued that J.P. 's idea of

communitarian democracy envisaged some kind of identification

between the rulers and the ruled was a veiled threat to human

freedom similar to Rousseau's assertion tha t men could be

193

forced to be free. "Satisfied with nothing less than each man

retaining his freedom by taking full part in laying down of laws

he is to obey, he (Rousseau) ends by asserting that some men

will obtain their freedom by being coerced."28

The Marxists have criticized J.P. on the ground that he

ignored the role of revolutionary struggle in changing

parliamentary democracy. Marxists argue that parliamentary

democracy, as practiced in the West, should be rejected on the

ground that it protected the interest of the ruling class. The

struggle for removing the maladies of parliamentary democracy

mus t be a political struggle against the ruling class and its

party.

Many critics argue that Jayaprakash Narayan did not

clearly mention the role and position of the state in his scheme

of decentralization. But J .P. himself felt that " in a sarvodaya

world society the present nation states have no place. The

sarvodaya world view, and the individual standing at the centre

of Gandhi's oceanic circle is a world citizen. "29

In his vision of freedom, J.P. 's ideas seek to bcdance

individual freedom with the requirements of social change. He

believed that the state cannot crush the individual's freedom for

social change bu t the individual also has the moral

responsibility to respond to the needs of the society. Main must

learn to control his passion for material satisfaction; he mus t

learn to live in harmony. Cooperation and not conflict (or

competition) is the basis of life. No individual can survive in

isolation. In place of majority decision, he advocated the idea of

consensus. In society, consensus will only work when

194

individuals can control their selfish desires. In his concept of

Total Revolution, hence J,P. wrote about the importance of

education for the moral and spiritual development of man.

As far as his concept of equality is concerned, J.P. initially

laid profound emphasis on economic equality. Hence he

suggested abolition of private property as a method of dealing

with equality. In "Why Socialism", he explained in detail the

causes of inequality in our society.so Here he blamed private

property to be the root cause of in equality and it should be

abolished or replaced by social ownership. But later on, on the

eve of India's independence, he realized that the problem of

inequality had other dimensions as well and a comprehensive

policy was required to overcome it.

In My Picture of Socialisms^, he added other methods to

deal with the problem of inequality; they included equal

opportunity for self development, equitable apportionment of

national wealth and social, educational and other services

between all who labour and serve society. In a speech delivered

from the All India Radio, on April 13, 1977, he referred to the

social dimension of the problem of equality in India and

proposed that the caste system needed to be purged under Total

Revolution. It may be argued that during his younger years,

when he was committed to Marxism, he referred to abolition of

private property to be the only solution to the problem of

inequality in India. Here of course he was writing in terms of a

proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat that

would follow. As a democratic socicdist, he realized that equality

had social and political dimensions as well; it needed different

policies to deal with them.

195

Jayaprakash Narayan's concept of liberty and equality

has many levels. On one level, his concept echoes the idea of

rights and freedom guaranteed by the constitution. At a

different level, he talks about freedom as emancipation from

greed and materialistic desires. When he describes freedom as

the 'passion of his life', it brings an aura that can at best be

moral. David Selboume describes this in the following words: "it

brings his political philosophy upto that threshold of

mystification which Krishnamurti and Aurobindo crossed..."32.

Apart from freedom and equality, another concept that is

at the core of his political ideas, is the concept of change. If

freedom was the passion of his life, social change was his goal.

This can be observed from the following statement which he had

made with reference to social transformation,

"I mus t also confess that throughout, a fire has been continuously burning in my heart. I have always felt a great urge to change the present society which is based on injustice and exploitation. We will have to build up a new society where there will be equality and fullest freedom."^3

J.P. 's attention and interest to the various dimensions of

social change grew as he was studying in America and

preparing his dissertation "Cultural Variation". On his return to

India, as he travelled to different parts of the'-country, he

grasped the major socio economic problems in India and hence

he was looking forward to ideological foundations for changing

Indian society.

196

Social change may be briefly described as a movement of

society from one form to another. This movement may be

characterized in different ways, implying a transition from

simple form of society to a complex form, or from small to a

large and from worse to better or vice versa. Different social

scientists have tried to analyze the process of social

transformation and have pointed out to some essential features

of this process. Social change is accepted as a natural process

and imminent in every society..

Philosophers like Plato and Hegel have talked of the

march of history towards an absolute ideal which constitutes

the final goal of social development and growth. Marx also

affirmed that successive changes in different stages of social

growth. By referring to change as 'imminent', social scientists

indicate that the causes of change are inherent in the system

that undergoes change. Environmental factors only put

additional pressure on the system.

In most studies on social change there is recognition of

the principle of continuity as an essential feature of change.

Continuity here refers to the different stages a society goes

through to arrive at a particular stage of development. For

instance Marx has asserted that every society must go through

successive stages of economic development before it will come

to the highest stage of communist society. The basic

assumption here is that social change is not abrupt or

arbitrary; it is a rather continuous process through which

societies must pass. Some social scientists have cirgued that

change is a necessity because the dynamics of social change

tend to lead to a higher and better mode of life.

197

In his concept of social change, J.P. did not develop his

ideas as a fully objective theory of evolution of h u m a n society

through necessary stages; it is also not based on any

organismic concept of groAvth maturity and decay of societies.

While referring to the issue of social change in India,

Jayaprakash Narayan was particularly interested in dealing

with a 'simple' question: how to achieve change in Indian

society? He was clearly not interested in social change per se

bu t change as relevant to Indian society; change that can

establish a jus t social order putting an end to poverty and

exploitation. In his article "Models of Social reconstruction''34

J.P. refers to two models of social reconstruction tha t the

developing countries of the world have tried to follow: the

western model representing the ideals of individual liberty,

government by consent and rule of law have inspired these

countries. The socialist model with its concern for economic

equality has also guided the developing world.

He pointed out tha t both these models have certain

characteristics tha t should be rejected. The values of

competition and materialism of the western model have

distorted the growth of man and society. In the socialist world

emphasis has been laid on power and authority enjoyed by the

party and the state. This trend h a s restricted h u m a n freedom

by making everyone subservient to the state and the party. T h e

need of the hour is a balanced development between spiritual

and material growth of man and society. This assumption gives

us an insight into another important dimension of his concept

of social change- remaking of man and reconstruction of society

are inseparable. His pilgrimage from Marxian Socialism to

198

Sarvodaya was the outcome of this quest to balance individual

and social development. The final goal of social life is the

greatest good of all and not the 'greatest good of the greatest

number'- the most cruel maxim in J.P. 's terminology.3^

Like Gandhi, he accepted the idea that the individuEil

cannot be divorced from the society and society too is what its

individuals are. The perennial social process is possible when

individual good and social welfare are integrated into one whole.

Hence in his concept of Total Revolution, J .P. referred to moral

revolution that would help man to rise above petty materialistic

desires; such a revolution would teach individuals the spirit of

cooperation and harmony. Referring to the Bhoodan Movement,

he remarked that what was most important here was not how

much land has been acquired but the acceptance of the idea

that land belonged to society and property belonged to no one.36

J.P. believed that social change mus t be brought by a

non-violent revolution. This can be achieved by developing the

power of the masses . In this respect his concept of change was

closely linked to the Gandhian concept of change. The non­

violent revolutionary technique included five different kinds of

activities: organization, propaganda, agitation, struggle and

constructive work. Agitation, struggle and constructive work

will build up social consciousness and strength among the

people to fight injustice. J.P. 's concept of Total Revolution

included these as a part of his concept of social change.

The following points should be noted in J.P. 's concept of

change through Totad Revolution: 1) The process of change

199

must be a mass movement and not a movement of a few or a

vanguard. 2) It should not be characterized by centralism in

Ideology and organization. 3) the movement should be non

violent both in its objective condition( no arms should be used)

and subjective condition(it should firmly be rooted in the

thought process of the revolutionaries).

Thus, J.P.'s concept of Total Revolution sought to bring

change by mobilising people and use of people's power. In some

Total Revolution was the politicization of Sarvodaya movement

in order to give it immense strength and make it more relevant

to con temporary society.

The different phases of J.P.'s life were full of challenges

which he boldly accepted without compromising with the goals

of freedom and equality. His journey from a follower of

Socialism to an ardent supporter of Sarvodaya only reveals how

he sacrificed his personal life for the betterment of Indian

society. Even during the phase of Total Revolution, when he was

seriously ill and was hospitalized on a number of occasions, he

never hesitated to provide leadership to the people in the

struggle against authoritarian elements. His legacy will

continue to strengthen the democratic process in Indian society.

200

NOTES AND REFERBNCES

1. Vergese K. George, Jayaprakash Narayan The Eternal

Rebel, (New Delhi: Rupa and Co., 2002), p. 25.

2. Quoted in H.H. Das and P.S.N. Patro, Indian Political

Tradition, (New Delhi Sterling Publishers, 1988), p. 155.

3. Jayaprakash, Narayan, "What the Congress Socialist

Party Stands For", in India's Struggle For Freedom

Political Social and Ekionomic, ed., Yusuf Meherally,

(Gurgaon: Hope India, 2006), p . 118.

4. Ibid., p.66.

5. M.S. Wadhavekar, Political Thought of Jayaprakash

Narayan, (Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House, 1997),

pp. 82-87.

6. Jayaprakash Narayan, "Swaraj for the People", in Bimal

Prasad, ed., op cit., p.240.

7. Jayaprakash Narayan, "A Plea For Reconstruction Of The

Indian Polity", in Virender Grover, Political Thinkers of

Modem India (New Delhi: Deep & Deep 1990), p. 144.

8. Jayaprakash Narayan, "Reconstruction of Indian Polity",

in Bimal Prasad, ed., op cit., p .208.

9. Ibid., p.216.

10. Ibid., p.216-17.

11. Ibid., p.229.

12. Ibid., p.229-230.

13. Ibid., p .231.

14. Narayan, Jayaprakash, "Swaraj for the People", in Bimal

Prasad, ed., op cit., p.268.

15. Ibid., p.269-70.

201

16. Jayaprakash Narayan, "A Plea For Reconstruction of the

Indian Polity", in Virender Grover, eds., op cit., p. 146.

17. Ibid. p. 146.

18. Jayaprakash Narayan, "Swaraj for The People", in Bimal

Prasad, ed., op cit., p. 261-262.

19. Ibid., p .263.

20. Ibid., p . 147.

2 1 . Cited in Nitis Dasgupta, op cit., p.88.

22. Inglehart, Ronald, Silent Revolution: Changing Values

and Political Styles among Western Publics,

(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), pp.

40-59.

23 . Adi H Doctor, "A Critique of J.P,'s Polity", in Indian

Journal of Political Science, July-September, 1961.

24. Adi H.Doctor, Anarchist Thought in India^ (London:

Asia Publishing House, 1964.), p.94.

25. Nitis Dasgupta, op.cit., p.90.

26. Ibid., p .91 .

27. Ibid., P. 104.

28. W.H. Morris-Jones, Politics Mainly Indian, (Bombay:

Orient Longman, 1978), p. 102.

29. Jayaprakash, Narayan, "Evolution of My Own Thinking",

in Sandip Das, ed., op cit., p.27

30. Wadhavekar op cit., p.88.

3 1 . Jayaprakash Narayan, "Socialism : A System of Social

Reconstruction", in Yusuf Meherally, ed., India's

Struggle for Freedom Political Socio; and Ekionomic,

(Gurgaon: Hope India, 2006), p . 85.

202

32. Selboume, David, "Jayaprakash Narayan-A Political

Morality Re-Examined", in Sandip Das, op cit., p.295.

33. Jayaprakash, Narayan "Social and Human

Reconstruction", in Indian Political Thought From

Ranade to Bhave, D. Mackenzie Brown, ed., (Berkley:

University of California Press, 1961), p. 180.

34. Narayan, Jayaprakash, "Models For Social

Reconstruction", in Towards Total Revolution, Vol. I ,

ed., Brahmanand, (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1978),

p. 198.

35. David Selboume op cit., p.290.

36. Narayan Jayaprakash, "Social and Human

reconstruction", in D. Mackenzie Brown, ed., op cit.,

p. l81 .

203