Renunciation was the watchword of Congress politics in the
hey-day of the non-co-operation movement. Congress leadership in those days was
built on sacrifice. There was no end to the things that Gandhi called upon
people to give up by way of patriotic effort, and in the list of prescriptions
that Young India abounded in, you
will find, if you turn the back pages, these two:
(1)
“There
should be no privacy in a house”.
(2)
“Husband
and wife should sleep in separate rooms.”
* * *
People hung on the directions that Gandhi gave week after
week, and the pontifical pages of Young
India were reverently scanned by devotees all over the country who excelled
with each other in treating their contents as sacred gospel. Many miracles occurred
in consequence and were duly broadcasted for the benefit of aspirants far and
near. Hopeless drink-addicts became teetotalers. The wealthy, bred to luxurious
ways, took to simple living. The lascivious turned virtuous. Dandies took pride
in clothing themselves in rough sack-like Khadi which was the only sort of
Khadi then made. Lawyers till then glorying in acquisitive competitive zest in
fee-collection in vindication of processional eminence, suddenly turned their
backs on the law courts. Das and Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Prakasam, C.R. and a
host of others from mofussil towns precipitated themselves into whole-time
national service abandoning not only lucrative careers, but also the very means
of making a living. The abstemious spirit ran riot so wildly in the wake of
non-co-operation that some went to the length of casting off their very shirts.
In the orgy of renunciation that prevailed at the time, the credentials of
patriotism were at times sought to be established even through such feats as
giving up salt, chillies, sweets and ghee, shaving the head completely and
voluntary adoption of celibacy in marriage.
* * *
Sacrifice may give joy to the soul but it is not sacrifice
unless it entails some sort of discomfort or physical suffering. The more the
voluntariness of the sacrifice, the greater its public effect. There is a lot
of in-voluntary penury in the world, but it cuts no ice as a source of
influence, whereas when a rich man discards of his own accord the benefits of
his position and makes common cause with the less fortunate, what he suffers is
converted into political capital in proportion to the degree and duration of
the suffering. It was because of this political capital created by the past
sacrifices of Congress leaders that in the recent elections people rallied so
splendidly in support of their nominees irrespective of individual fitness. The
move recently made in some provinces to raise ministers’ salaries is therefore
a political blunder of the first magnitude. It reverses the whole gear of the
process by which the Congress acquired influence with the people in the past.
* * *
If a Congress Prime Minister were to refuse to take a pie more
as salary than the amount he had been spending previously for personal and
household needs, he would have enriched himself beyond measure, infinitely in
excess of any value in cash that a rise in salary may bring. Administrative
responsibility calls for certain necessary facilities if efficiency is to be
maintained. Ministers should economise time and move quickly and have cars.
They must have telephones. They must be enabled to work while they travel and
have saloons. They must be healthy and strong and have proper food and good
houses. They must be empowered to buy whatever books they need. In all other
respects, they must cultivate commonness of humanity with the millions of poor
people who look up to them eagerly hoping for great benefits to come, rather
than with the aristocrats of society who have a nice time and dread change.
* * *
One difference between Gandhi and Lenin is that Gandhi is
unlikely to be harnessed to actual State administration while Lenin never lost
a moment in seizing power when the opportunity came. Lenin passed from
political leadership to administrative power. The Leninist tradition is more
deserving of adoption by Congress ministers in the matter of fixation of
salaries than the one left by the system of rule about to be dislodged.
* * *
Work was Lenin’s supreme passion. Within two months of
assuming control, it is reported that he “nationalized the land and mineral
resources, nationalized the banks, separated Church and State, secularized education,
opened the universities and secondary schools to the general public, gave
workers’ committees full control over production, established an eight-hour
day, and set up a Supreme Economic Council for planning and control.” Decree
after decree poured from his pen in an endless stream. The peasants and workers
were urged to learn how to run their districts. When they complained of the
strain of the novel experience, or lagged behind on account of ingrained
apathy, Lenin egged them on, shouting “Try! Make mistakes! Learn how to govern!”
When the weary head of a department once came into his office and wished to
resign, Lenin shouted at him “I order you to continue working and not to hinder
me in my work”.
* * *
Around Lenin were men excelling in qualities that he lacked,
who constantly called into fierce question the wisdom of the policies advocated
by him. Trotsky was more colourful and a great orator. Zinoviev was an adept in
the manipulation of public opinion. Stalin was a superior military organizer.
Lenin triumphed over them all because of the flexibility of his judgment and
action which never affected in the slightest degree the inflexibility of his
purpose. He never committed the unscientific blunder of subordinating facts to
wishes. He never coerced or cajoled. He always convinced. An admirer of Lenin
gives this account of how he used to deal with critics and opponents:
“At a crucial mass meeting Lenin’s appearance was greeted
with jeers and hoots by an antagonistic crowd. Standing on the platform, a
short, stocky, shabby, unimpressive figure, he waited calmly for the tumult to
subside. The uproar gave way slowly to muttered imprecations, and at last to an
uneasy silence, as the keen eyes continued to study the crowed without a trace
of rancor or irritation. Omitting any preamble, Lenin began to speak. His voice
was clear and friendly; he confined himself carefully to facts; there was
nothing for the audience to take issue with, nothing to do but listen.
Systematically he explained the reasons for his position, talking in simple
short sentences, answering the questions in the minds of the crowd before they
were voiced, presenting his ideas with homely illustrations and analogies,
substituting unsleeping common sense and incisive logic for intoxicating
rhetoric. When he had finished he was wildly cheered; the opposition was
smashed. For he had done more than persuade his audience that he was right; he
had made them understand why he was right.”
* * *
Before the force of the passion for work that filled the soul
of Lenin, the whole Czarist structure of inflated civilian bureaucracy came
fumbling down. It was bound to. When the head of the State toiled without
respite for a commoner’s wage, the poor came into theirown and no officer of
Government dared to exploit the past in defence of a privilege of his own.
* * *
History has lessons to teach for all. The Congress Government
should be warned in time against divorcing itself from the people it has to
serve by leaning too much towards the ways of those that exploit them. There
should be no room for parliamentary secretaries loitering indefinitely without
work in the verandahs of the Secretariat. Inside the Cabinet itself, misfits
should be removed in the public interest.—(June 22, 1946)
S A K A.
No comments:
Post a Comment