MARCH 28 Political Realism

MARCH 28 Political Realism Prior to 1947, it was taken for granted that all that was needed to set India on the right path was the gaining of its independence, and that subsequently a socialist economy would be an automatic guarantee of national progress. That these were patently misguided and shortsighted views becomes more glaringly obvious as the country staggers from one debacle to the next. And now, in 1996, we are on the brink of a fresh set of elections. Do we have any guarantee that the results of these elections will even be relevant to the future progress of the country as a ground reality? In this context a number of meetings are being held in the name of vital electoral and political reforms, and there is the inevitable spate of critical articles in newspapers and journals. I myself have participated in several of these meetings and have been reading the relevant journalistic commentaries. After listening to fellow participants and duly taking stock of what the press has to say I have formed the impression that there is a nationwide acceptance of the existence of two distinct political entities—the clean and the corrupt. It is held that the corrupt community is entirely made up of politicians, while the clean community is composed of their critics. This premise, however, is basically flawed, even the most cursory appraisal of events is sufficient to demonstrate the error of this supposition. After independence, our political team, which came to power in 1947, consisted of the members of Mahatma Gandhi’s “clean community.” But once these individuals were perched on the pedestals of power, their behaviour was such that Gandhiji felt constrained to ask, “Who is going to listen to me now?” there was even a book published on Gandhiji with the title “Ab meri kaun sunega?” Many years later, in the 1966 elections, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia made his entry into the political scene. With great fervour and enthusiasm he launched a movement which he called ‘non-Congressism.’ And in the field of election he did defeat the members of the “corrupt community,” at least in the states, so that the members of the “clean community” came into power. However, it very soon became apparent that this had simply been a matter of replacement— the exchanging of one corrupt community for another.