CONNECTING POLITICAL ATTITUDES TO INDIAN CONTEXTS
In this section, we try to link the preceding theoretical account of political attitudes and ideologies to Indian situation. Basically, these matters fall within political science. But UPSC papers contain questions that involve application of theory portions of syllabus to current Indian problems. In order to help studentswithsuchquestions, we make a few observations, more by way of illustration than detailed exposition. We explain how best to deal with questions on current controversies.
Going back to Indian Independence movement, we note that it is neither radical nor revolutionary. It was avowedly peaceful. There were a few outbursts of revolutionary violence led by Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru and Bengali revolutionaries. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose also represents the radical strain of our Independence movement though he took help from Hitler. It no way detracts from Bose’s greatness. After all, the arch conservative Churchill said that he would be ready to shake hands with the devil to defend Britain.
Independence movement inaugurated democratic protest politics based on British model. The movement was largely middle class and urban centred. Gandhi, however, introduced elements of mass politics into it. It remained largely peaceful, operated within law, and used tactics covered by norms which democracy sanctions. (While appreciating the peaceful nature of Independence movement, we should not forget the partition which witnessed one of the greatest massacres in human history.) The Indian Independence movement occupies the middle segments of the political spectrum.
Indian politics are essentially centrist or moderate. There were unsuccessful attempts at communist insurrections in Telangana and Andhra soon after independence. But Naxals still represent this strain of radicalism seeking violent and extensive overhaul of society. Naxals have so far been reasonally contained by the Indian state. No political party is ready to give them free rein.
The moderate nature of Indian politics derives from the parliamentary democratic model which all parties including communists have adopted. Communists try to make the best of a bad bargain. As they cannot hope to seize state power, they settle for power sharing. They use rationalizations like ‘alliances with progressive, democratic, and secular forces’ for taking piggy-rides on the backs of stronger parties. As parties depend on numerous groups with diverse interests, they have to find compromise solutions. They cannot offend or ignore any sizeable group. Some people observe that diversity is an existential feature of Indian society.
Democracy is based on rule of law and is unfavourable to extreme or sudden changes. In a more self congratulatory note, we observe that Indian people, barring occasional emotional outbursts, shun extremes and are peace-loving. On the flip side, they may seem passive and lacking in spirit.
The economic policies of Indian state steered the middle course. Pandit Nehru was a socialist, and was influenced by the Soviet model of growth. He induced Congress to pass a resolution in favour of the socialistic pattern of society. This concept, like so many other thoughts of Nehru remained vague and dreamy. However, government adopted certain socialist principles and polices such as planning, statecapitalism with largepublic sector, economicregulations, self-reliant industrialization, and strict controls on foreign trade, progressive taxes and the like. These might have retarded India’s growth. But we need to give due credit to Nehru for his pioneering efforts, for his emphasis on science and technology, and for creating top class institutions like IITs, IIMs, and research bodies. It will not be too farfetched to attribute ISRO’s recent successes to his vision.
Nehruvian economic policies were to the left of the centre. But they did evoke opposition. Rajaji founded the Swatantra Party which was conservative. Rajaji opposed the Soviet style of planning and favoured free enterprise. He opposed economic controls describing them as ‘licence, quota permit Raj’. Chaudhury Charan Singh, a peasant leader, can be cited as another example of conservative opposition. He objected in particular to ideas like state farming, collectivist farming and cooperative farming. He belongs to the conservative spectrum, and represents the ideal of independent peasant farmers.
Government let go of the old economic model in the nineties. Again, it was not any ideological fervour which prompted this switch into a new economic lane. The economy got into dire straits and ran out of foreign exchange needed even for essential imports. Government had to introduce economic reforms which can be summarized as liberalization, privatisation and globalisation. It adopted the pragmatic alternative. Cynics comment that it made a virtue of necessity.
There is consensus in India around current economic policies. Leftists oppose reforms but not too vehemently. The main political parties broadly agree on reforms. The passage and implementation of GST (notwithstanding the hype and hoopla in Parliament) represents a triumph of political accommodation over contention. It points towards paths to our future national progress.