February 4, 1961

Reconstruction of Indian Polity Defence of J P by William Carpenter

Rejoinder by W H Morris-Jones 'Morris-Jones' Critique of J P

"Both these notions ('participation' and 'consensus') thus seem to me to have their dangers if pushed to extremes as in J P's thesis. Nor am I persuaded that there is anything special in the spirit of Indian life or in the circumstances of Indian development which calls for such emphasis. No doubt there is much trus­tration and little pride and enthusiasm, and the plans suffer thereby. But there is no magic 'reconstructed policy' which will transform the situation. Neither the restoration of the day before yesterday nor the vis-sion of the day after tomorrow will help today's dilemma. What is called for is the much more humdrum acceptance of political life as it really is and the achievement of piecemeal reforms—the closer linking of politician and electorate, the building up of voluntary associations and the provision of adequate imme-diate incentives to greater individual efforts.'" ('The Unhappy Utopia — J P in Wonderland9, Economic Weekly, June 25, 1960.)

Carpenter's Defence

" We in the Western democracies must consider whether our characterisation at ' self-governing nations' is as meaningful as we now believe. Perhaps it is not sufficient to intermittently elect our lawmak-ers and then leave the work to them. While we must work out our own plans of reconstruction based on our cultural political heritage, this is yet a world wile problem and we have much to learn from each other. It ma'y be that J P has something to teach Americans regarding our ideal of ibigness'. "

Morris-Jones' Rejoinder

"There are ways in which man changes himself by changing his institutions but human material is not infinitely malleable. And men who assume that it is—and that is the tendency in radical reconstructors, whether or not they find their inspiration in a past or a future golden age—are in danger of inviting dis­illusionment or brute force. That is what Burke said to the French revolutionaries and events proved him terribly right. But I deny that distrust of radical reconstruction implies any smugness about what is. Im­provement is possible but if pain is to be minimised impatience has to be curbed. Men who are too intoler­ant towards established institutions cannot easily avoid getting intolerant with their fellowmen."

WILLIAM CARPENTER IN his ar t ic le in this j ou rna l W H

Morris-Jones has taken J P Narayan to task and applied that worst-of-alI Anglo-Saxon epithets to A Plea for Reconstruction of Indian Polity—"utopian". It may be in ter -cstinc to note that this is a conti­nuat ion of the argument that began when the Social Contract challenged the Hobbes-Locke conception of human nature and the role of po l i t i ­cal inst i tut ions in the good l i f e . For purposes of general or ientat ion, the forces are Hobbes, Locke, Freud and Morris-Jones a rgu ing that man has certain basic, unchangeable charac­teristics and the purpose of society is only secondary—to lessen, or medi­ate, the clash of interests w h i c h , a priori, must arise when selfish men e i the r — versus Rousseau, M a r x , F r o m m and J P, a l l of w h o m , re-pardless of other differences, have the basic message that man is what his society makes • h i m , and rat ional men w i l l app ly scientific method to society to "assure the preservation of human values about

wh ich there is ha rd ly any dispute in the w o r l d today". (A Plea...., p i v ) .

A basic difference in these two philosophies of human nature is exemplif ied in the three cri t icisms Morris-Jones makes of J P's Plea. He accuses J P of (1 ) a sort of histo­r ica l necessity, ( 2 ) of misunder­standing the meaning of "govern­ment by the people", and (3 ) of a s imple-minded approach toward "consensus".

Insofar as J P does c l a im to have the "most ra t ional and scientific" p lan , i e. insofar as "scient i f ic" is equated w i t h " t rue and only answer", he wou ld be gu i l ty of a certain dog­matism. Morris-Jones criticises J P for characterizing the Plea's propo­sals as " i n line w i t h the natural course of social evo lu t ion" and asks, " W h o tells J P wh ich course is 'na­t u r a l ' ? " However, it is not J P who claims his p lan is " n a t u r a l " , but Morris-Jones! J P's siress on "na­t u r a l " is better interpreted, in the context of A Plea, as bu i ld ing-on-

123

the-past. A true Utopian advocates great changes but w i t h no consider-a t ion of a nation's past and pre­sent cu l tu re ; one of the strong points of J P's plan, it seems to me, is that it bui lds on Indian inst i tut ions.

Natural Form of Polity

B u t we f ind Morris-Jones in several instances f a l l i n g in to the very error of wh ich he has accused J P: for instance, Morris-Jones say3 the present low level of par t ic ipa t ion of Indians in po l i t i ca l l i fe is "nor­m a l . " A n d . "self-government has several legi t imate meanings" but J P's is not one of them. Or , "men . do not want to do the govern ing ," it is only "common sense" to admi t that "government is always the work of a few." A n d . f inal ly , we must accept " p o l i t i c a l l i f e as it re­a l ly is . . . ."

Such statements as these about the natural f o r m of p o l i t y are good examples of what M a r x meant by the re laxat ion of social relat ion-

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL

February 4 , 1961 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y A N N U A L

ships: the re la t ion between the gov-erned and the governors in Western democracies seems to be as real to Morris-Jones as docs the relation between, say, sodium and chlorine in salt. It would make as l i t t l e sense to h i m to speak of achieving a gov-eminent "of by and for the people" by means oi l ier than those existant in the Western democracies, as it would to speak of combin ing sodium and chlorine in a different way and s t i l l obtain salt. Thus. Morris-Jones predicts that improvement in Ind ian pol i t ica l l i fe w i l l come on ly by fur­ther emulat ion of Western forms, and advocates such things as "the b u i l d i n g up of voluntary associa­t ions."

Well-worn Libel As to the people's pa r t i c ipa t ion in

governing themselves. Morris-Jones wou ld probably accept as correct the s t ructural denotations of J P's descript ion of Western pol i ty as "democratic o l igarchy" , but not the value connotations. "There may be many weaknesses in Western demo­cracy." Morris-Jones writes, "but it is not one of them that its modern theorists should admit that govern­ment is always the work of a few; this is only commonsense." Placing self-rule at the top of one's hierar­chy of pol i t ical values leads only to tota l i tar ianism, Morris-Jones claims, rephrasing the we l l -worn l ibel of Rousseau: "Satisfied w i t h nothing less than each man retaining his 'freedom' by taking ful l part in l ay ing down of the laws he is to obey. (Rousseau I ends by asserting that some men w i l l obtain their "free­dom' by being coerced...." It would seem that after two hundred years the meaning of Rousseau's words " . . . i t may be necessary to compel a man to be free... " should be clear, for this means nothing more than respect for I he rights of others, and an avoidance of the degrading effects i l legal power has upon the wielder of that power. * Here Morris-Jones discloses his heritage

The phrase from the- Social Con­tract in context: "Whoever shall refuse to obey the general wi l l must be constrained by the whole body of his fellow citizens to do so : which is no more than to say that it may be neccessary to cempel a man to he free . . . Only the recognition by the individual of the rights of the community can five legal force to undertakings entered into between citizens . . ." (Bock I, Chapter 7)

f r o m Hobbes and those w h o viewed "freedom'1 on ly as an absence of restraint. " I thought this was a free c o u n t r y ! " my l i t t l e seven-year o ld shouted this m o r n i n g at breakfast when I restrained her f rom de­vour ing a l l the sausages at the ex­pense of the rest of the f a m i l y .

It is in the value of participation in the m a k i n g and c a r r y i n g out of communi ty decisions that a va l id issue arises between the two t rad i ­tions, and it is here that Morr i s -Jones makes some pertinent com­ments on J P's Plea. He argues that in fact men do not want to trouble w i t h governing themselves; that " i f everybody wants t o j o i n i n " , the po l i t y is already diseased. He points out that in Western democra­cies the hiatus between governed and governors is f i l led somewhat by "vo lun ta ry associations" and urges Indians to promote the g rowth of these intermediate groups.

No 'a priori' Decision

J P's point , l take i t , is that Western experience w i t h this fo rm of par t i c ipa t ion has shown it to be in ­adequate — - i t does not produce the democratic citizen which both he and Morris-Jones would agree is the ideal. Roth would agree that the citizen of today's Western democracy is an improvement over the serf of feudalism, but Morris-Jones seems to think that any further radical re­forms in pol i t ica l relationships bet­ween governed and governors must be retrogressive; that is, representa­tive government a la England or the United Slates is the highest possi-ble f o r m of "government by the people."

J P presents an al ternative fo rm. Whether or not his p lan would re­sult in men behaving more l ike the ideal democratic cit izen than the alienated-men of today do cannot be decided a priori, but only after the proposals of A Pica have been given a t r i a l . To those who believe J P is on the r ight track, it is en­couraging to know that he presents his proposals to a pragmatical ly-oriented government, not hidebound to t rad i t iona l forms, and w i l l i n g to experiment.

Morris-Jones' t h i r d c r i t i c i sm of J P. that "consensus" is not va l id , seems to be only a difference of op in ion between them as to the degree that men w i l l subordinate their own interests to the good of the commu-

124

n i ty . J P's po in t , and Rousseau's be-fore h i m , is that the f o r m of gov-ernment goes a long way toward de termining whether persons in a communi ty w i l l realise that the well-being of a l l determines the well-being of each. A g a i n , whether such consensus can be obtained when a panchayat must distr ibute l imi t ed resources cannot be answered a priori. A n d it is certainly a possi­b i l i t y that po l i t i ca l parties serve to accentuate conflicts of interest. J P's proposals for other methods of choosing decision-makers deserve consideration.

The Ideal Jeffersoninn Citizen J P's trenchant cr i t icisms of West-

ern democracies for fa i lure to pro­duce the ideal Jeffersonian citizen unfortunately strike home. We in the Uni ted States have just concluded a great debate, but not one of us is the wiser as to the course the next Admin i s t r a t ion w i l l plot. We -do know we w i l l be "go ing f o r w a r d " — although it is wor th notice that Richard N i x o n in his last few speches just p r i o r to November 8 also agreed that he. too, planned to 'go f o r w a r d ' ' if elected. The Na­tion has apt ly characterized our laic campaign :

We live in a mass culture In which polities are carried on with the same marketing techniques that sell tooth­pastes and home appliances. The candi­date, like the advertiser, cannot afford to antagonize any large group or interest. When he is forced to talk of unpleasant things, he must pro­mise to restore (or prolong) the. happy state of affairs which existed when his party was in power. Such remedies as he offers must be specious, since real remedies are. expensive and in­volve difficult choices. He must not debate, for that would involve coming to grips with realities that would sure. ly frighten away voters who prefer to believe that everything wil l turn out all right if only we don't resort to thinking. (November 12, I960)

J P regards as the central point of his Plea the nature of I be com­muni ty , " i t s destruction in the West and the pr inciples of its reconstruc­t i o n . " We in the Western democra­cies must consider whether our cha­racterization as "self-governing nations" is as meaningful as we now believe. Perhaps it is not suffici­ent to in termi t tent ly elect our law­makers and then leave the work to them. W h i l e we must w o r k out our own plans of reconstruction based

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL February 4, 1961

on our cu l tu ra l -po l i t i ca l heritage, this is yet a world-wide problem and we have much to learn f r o m each other. It may be that J P has some­th ing to teach Americans regarding our ideal of "bigness." Several years ago we rented a home in a section of Los Angeles County wh ich had mushroomed so fast that the officials in charge of j u g g l i n g new school districts had overlooked this area w i th the result that our grade school required the election of a school

J AM grateful to Mr Carpenter for the attention he has given to

my art icle and for the oppor tun i ty he gives me to c la r i fy and empha­sise certain points in i t .

Let me admit at the outset that I do indeed intend "Utopian ' to be pretty damning when appl ied to something called A Plea for Re­construction, but I should be sur­prised and sorry i f only Anglo-Saxons could see why. I am to ld that J P is "building-on-the-past." This apparently makes his propo­sals realistic and justifies his c la im that they are " i n l ine w i th the natural course of social evolu­tion." But this w i l l not do. for two reasons.

First , the past that J P seeks to bu i ld on is too weak to bear a small hermit 's tent, let alone a re­constructed po l i ty . The l i t t l e v i l ­lage republics are uncertain, o rd i ­nary and remote: uncertain in the sense that, the extent in time and place of these 'self-governing com­munit ies ' is not established (J P quotes some English authorit ies in order to rebut any charge of ro­manticism—-but surely he knows that the English are the worst romantics of al l , especially about things histo­r ical and par t icular ly when they are in the process of changing t h e m ! ) ; o rd inary in the sense of not significantly peculiar to India , the main poli t ical features of these local societies being s imi lar to those of other early civi l isat ions; remote in that although some aspects of these ' republics ' survived (not only up to 1830 as J P says, but up to today) , i t is in its f u l l ­ness another w o r l d . I see no im­portant difference between a scheme based on such an appeal to the past and one thought up in the mind of a Godwin or a More .

But secondly, even if there had been at some t ime a 'communita"

board al l its own (an electorate of about 200 families compared w i t h al­most a m i l l i o n famil ies for the Los Angeles City School Hoard) . People in this neighbourhood had a real feeling of par t ic ipa t ion in the education of their ch i ldren , and spoke p roud ly of their plan for dental care for al l chi ldren in their school which no other school in the county could match. It was quite a contrast to the att i tude of parents in other neighbourhoods in which we

W H MORRIS-JONES rian" c iv i l i sa t ion in India , it is an altogether separate question whe­ther some k i n d of re turn to it is " i n the natural course of social evo­l u t i o n . " And I st i l l insist that the use of that phrase is f a i r l y des­cribed as evidence of 'historicist ' t h i nk ing and that when it is coupled w i t h the notion of scientific va l id i ­ty one is justified in saying, as I d id . that J P is s t i l l holding Marx 's hand.

Evidence of Experience Mr Carpenter finds that I am the

one gui l ty of pretending to know what is 'natural ' and then sanctifying i t , Al though it apparently proved impossible to catch me actually using the word , it seems that state­ments as to what is 'normal ' and usual are open to the same objec­t ion. Hut this is of course, not so. I may or may not be right about what is normal but the question is one to be decided by evidence. (I should l ike to know what evidence can be brought to show that mass pol i t ica l par t ic ipa t ion is anything but abnormal in modern pol i t i ca l systems which is what we are ta lk ing about.) I make no predic­tions about the future but if the evidence of experience points in one direct ion, I am entitled to say I should be surprised if it changes round completely.

This , it seems, puts me in the category of people who believe " that man has certain basic, un­changeable characteristics." This doesn't cause me anxiety and I might add that if I had to choose between the company of Hobbest Locke and Freud and that of Rous­seau, M a r x and F r o m . I w o u l d prefer the former. But things pre not so clear cut : Hobbes. for ins-stance. m i g h , have disagreed with the impl ica t ion that the work of deal ing w i th human conflicts was

125

have l ived who had no control over their schools whatsoever, and whose sole f o r m of par t ic ipa t ion was one of those "voluntary associations" the PTA (Parent-Teacher Associa­t ion) whose chief item of business at most, meetings seems to be the responsibil i ty for the next meeting's refreshments.

The. lesson would seem to be that we shall never know whether the people w i l l accept responsibil i ty u n t i l it is given us.

only 'secondary' and he might have endorsed the 'opposite' view that w i t h i n large l imi ts man is what his society makes h i m . Certainly my own position would be that whi le society certainly shapes man, this does not warrant (as Coleridge said) our expecting a l l change merely f rom 'change of constituted power'. How Malleable Is Human Material?

There are ways in which man changes himself by changing his institutions, but human material is not inf in i te ly malleable. A n d men who assume that it is—and that is the tendency in radical reconstruc-lors, whether or not they find their inspira t ion in a past or a future golden age — are in danger of in­v i t i ng disillusionment or brute force. That is what Rurke (I was surprised that Mr Carpenter d i d not couple me wi th h i m ! ) said to the French revolutionaries and events proved h i m ter r ib ly r ight . But deny that distrust of radical reconstruction implies any smugness about what is. Improvement is pos­sible, but if pain is to be minimis­ed impatience has to be curbed. Men who are too intolerant towards es­tablished institutions cannot easily avoid getting intolerant w i th their fellow men.

The Non-poIitical Man That is my reason for deplor ing

the excessive emphasis on part icipa­t ion and consensus;. The one leads to impatience w i t h the non-political man and the other leads to t i m i d i t y in discussion and the silencing of unpopular minori t ies . A n d both these mean an increase in unhapni-ness and a dimimution in the qual i ty of government At the end of the streets mass par t ic i ­pat ion ' and "id entity of interests', there stand the ugly figures of ty­ranny and conformi ty .

February 4, 1961 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y A N N U A L

126

February 4, 1961

I am ent i re ly in favour of more opportunities f o r par t i c ipa t ion . (Good luck to the l i t t le School Board in Los Angeles Coun ty ! ) Let local government? be democratised and let pressure groups f lourish! But don ' t start t h i nk ing that all men i t ! order to he free need to be par t i c ipa t ing in ' r u l i ng themselves'. I am unrepentant about Rousseau. If Rousseau wanted his words ". . . . i t may be necessary to compel a man to be f r e e " to mean the nice things Mr Carpenter says, i t is a very great, p i ty that he d id not make his meaning clear. A f te r 200 years, most commentators st i l l th ink that Rous­seau unfor tunate ly meant just what he said. ( M r Carpenter 's version

is more l i ke Locke.)

The po in t is f a i r l y s imple. There are admi t ted diff iculties about re­gard ing f reedom as merely absence of restraint but the two ma in alter­natives wh ich have emerged f r om the history of po l i t i ca l ideas are to my m i n d less at t ract ive. The first says we are free only when we l ive under laws wh ich we have prescr ibed fo r ourselves. Th is makes us unfree if we l ive in large states or are bored by po l i t i cs—both conclusions being undu l y ha rd—and leaves minor i t ies in an uncer ta in posi t ion, possibly to be coerced. The second says we are f ree on ly when we are do ing things wo r th do ing . Bu t who is to make the awfu l decision about what is

wor thwhi le , arid what is to be done about those who disagree? Coercion is again inv i ted.

To be sure, if we say f reedom is absence of restraint we have to go on to admi t that not al l freedoms can be al lowed, that some of your freedoms w i l l have to be l im i ted i f I am to enjoy some of mine. Free­dom thus ceases to be the only good t h i n g ; it has to take its place as a matter to be adjusted, and repre­sentative democracy becomes a de­vice for t r y i ng to do this w i t h least injust ice. Th is may not convince the hungry l i t t le g i r l who wants a l l the sausages, but the var ious forms of social education w i l l get the point across to her before l o n g !

A Report on Sardarnagar From Our Correspondent

The impression is widely held that a Congress session is little more than a yearly 'tamasha', dull and stereotyped in its proceedings and lacking in political importance.

This view is based on a misconception. The real significance of the annual session is twofold.

It serves an educative purpose, partly by reiterating the ideological position and practical commitments of the party, partly by turning itself into a sort of pub lie forum, where the ordinary citizen can be brought closer to the party deliberations through direct attendance or through reports in the press.

More important are the informal exchanges among the leaders which serve to consolidate existing alignments and facilitates new ones.

It also provides scope for interactions between the party and the Government,

Such an informal process is of the highest value in a country like ours which is virtually dominated by a single party and where therefore, intra-party exchanges and conflicts are of greater importance than battles among the parties.

T H E recent Sardarnagar session was no exception to the ru le.

The discussions were not a l l held in camera. Wha t was notable in the pandal in wh ich the A I C C mem­bers were seated du r i ng the Subjects Commitee meetings and the open sessions was that they were perio­d ical ly break ing in to small groups fo r consultat ions, decid ing on some strategy or canvassing support fo r some election or other. Top leaders or Cabinet Min is ters would very of ten move in to the pandal and j o i n in the del iberat ions. Outside the for­mal meetings, especial ly in the evenings, the camps of the var ious States were buzzing w i t h act iv i ty . One could get the real feel of the Congress in such places rather than in its f o r m a l proceedings. Except when, the T h i r d P lan and the par ty manifesto for the coming general elections were under discussion or when the P r ime Min is ter addressed

the session, the attendance of dele­gates was rather th in , most of them p re fe r r i ng in t imate discussions or gossip in the corr idors, the canteen or elsewhere. The leaders on the dias were engaging themselves in animated talks, qu i te regardless of the speeches being del ivered in the house and the amendments being moved. ln such an atmosphere, one sometimes fe l t l i ke sympathis ing w i t h the President, Sh r i Sanj iva Reddy, who was obl iged to give und iv ided attent ion to the h u m d r u m proceed­ings throughout the day.

At tent ion was largely focussed on

five issues (1 ) elections to the

Central Elect ion Commit tee of the

A I C C and the W o r k i n g Commit­

tee, ( 2 ) strategy fo r the next Gene­

ra l Elect ions, ( 3 ) prob lem of na­

t ional in tegrat ion, ( 4 ) Panchayat i

Raj and ( 5 ) proposal fo r the retire­

ment of Congressmen f rom power

after ten years, contained in the Congress President's address.

Election to Committees The two elections brought out

clearly the nature of I he relat ion­ship between the H i g h Command and the A I C C members As for the first election, the one to the Central Elect ion Committee, a deadlock had been reached at Raipur because of the inab i l i t y of Shr i A tu l ya Ghosh, who had been officially supported, and the Ginger Group nominee. Shr i Ra ju , to secure a two-thirds ma jo r i t y . The decision of the Presi­dent to complete this election first by adopt ing a new procedure (accord­i ng to wh ich i f the th i rd ba l lo t fa i led to resolve the deadlock, the candidate who secured a s imple ma­j o r i t y at the fou r th bailor was to be considered successful) left l i t t le room for fresh manoeuvres. It was contended fo rce fu l l y that it was anomalous to have one part of tfce

127