Al-Risala (English), October 1989

Transplanting Fabianism in Indian Soil

1989 10 October 19-23 Transplanting Fabianism in Indian Soil (1937)

The Non- Hitlerian Approach

The German, Adolf Hitler, used always to keep a special pistol with him for his own protection. The 32 calibre gold-washed pistol with its ivory handle, floral engraving and Hitler’s inscribed initials was carried off from Hitler’s Munich apartment by US soldiers at the end of World War II, and was recently auctioned for $ 114,000. This is the largest sum ever spent at a public auction on a military collector’s item.1

Shortly before the second world war, Hitler achieved tremendous popularity in what was then an undivided Germany, and was soon to assume the powers of a dictator. His expansionist (“Lebensraum”) policies found great favour with public, aimed as they were at conquering Britain and pushing Germany’s borders outward to the limits of Europe, and beyond into the vast territories of the USSR. But in spite of all Germany’s military might, and a powerful alliance with Italy and Japan, the final result was a humiliating defeat which left Germany crushed and finally divided into two separate regions under the control of the USSR, Britain, France and the USA. Not only had Germany expanded its territory, but it had also lost its national identity in being divided into East and West Germany. At the bitter end, on April 30, 1945, Hitler shot himself dead with the very pistol which he had kept on him for self-defense all throughout this period. Hitler had ruined himself along with his nation.

How Hitler Shot into Prominence

The Great Depression, that is, the economic slump in the US and Europe that began in 1929 lasted almost a decade. During this period, for a variety of reasons, industrial produce piled up in warehouses but failed to find consumers in the market. As a result the factories were closed down. “A long decline in economic activity ensued, until in 1932 one out of every four US workers was unemployed. The Depression at once affected the European economy, rendering jobless millions of workers in Germany, Great Britain, and other industrial countries. By 1932, the total value of world trade had fallen by more than half, as country after country took measures against the importation of foreign goods. The Depression had important consequences in the political sphere, strengthening extremist forces and lowering the prestige of liberal democracy.”2

1. The Times of India, November 21, 1987.

Whenever faced with any great calamity, the public attributes it more often than not to the misguided policies of the government. As a result, a pervasive atmosphere of mass unrest is generated against those in power. This being the way of public psychology, it is in no way surprising if those who rise in protest against government mismanagement are hailed by the people as their true saviours. The fierier the oratory, the more in earnest the orator is deemed to be. On the other hand, anyone who attempts to make a cool rationalization of the problem in terms of the prevailing circumstances is regarded with suspicion, and seen as the agent of a callous and indifferent set of rulers. The general opinion about a quiet, sincere analyst is that he is only making insidious attempts to divert public attention from the true focus of activity. It was just such a set of circumstances as were exploited by Hitler during the Great Depression in Germany (1929-1939). He was vociferous in laying the blame for all of the country’s afflictions upon the government of that period, and began making rabble-rousing speeches against it. In consequence, he soon became the most popular leader in the eyes of the German public. With the mass support he received-thanks to the economic depression–he turned the Nazis into the largest party in the Reichstage (German Parliament). Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January, 1933, and proceeded to establish a dictatorship in Germany.

A Different Example

British history, during the same period and under the same depressed economic conditions, took quite a different course. It was realized, of course, that a change of system was necessary if the lot of the common man was to improve, but the group which took it upon itself to investigate the prevailing conditions, and to decide upon and promote reform, was very different from Hitler’s Nazi party in its style of thinking and functioning. Founded in London as far back as 1833, with the aim of ending the evils of the capitalist system, the Fabian Society was composed mainly of intellectuals. The composition of its membership might have made it too exclusively elitist in its activities had it not been for the efforts of one of the society’s leading lights, George Bernard Shaw, (1856-1950) to attract large numbers of ordinary people to the movement by writing articles and making speeches which were to the common man’s taste. To further their cause, the young Shaw organized a procession consisting mostly of middle class people, but when it reached those parts of London where the prominent capitalist lived, some of the participants began to indulge in violence and stone throwing, breaking windows and injuring people. This very first experiment, having taken the ugly turn that it did, turned the leaders of Fabian society against processions and demonstrations as methods of functioning. Since it was evidently extremely difficult to make the public restrict themselves to peaceful demonstrations, they agreed that the Fabian should struggle to achieve their constructive aims without resorting to the ways of protest and demonstrations. Subsequently, the Fabian society adhered strictly to non-demonstration methods such as the use of the press, meetings, academic research, etc. Under the influence of the leading intellectuals of the Fabian society, they stressed the ‘inevitableness of gradualism’.3 2. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. IV, p. 696.

The deliberate renunciation of demonstrations as a method of achieving one’s goal is a very difficult policy to adhere to in the world of today. It means being content with consolidation, where what is obviously desirable is extension. Then, where innumerable opportunities present themselves to court fame and popularity, one has to subdue this urge and remain content with anonymity. The Fabian society seems to have been singularly successful in following such a policy, for although it played such a great role in British history, its leaders were consistent in foregoing any personal glory.

Because of its moderate way of thinking and avoidance of demonstrations, the Fabian society never became a popular movement in Britain. Even at its zenith in 1946, its members did not number more than 8,500. It was always looked upon as a movement of the intellectuals and it did, in fact, have profound influence upon the intellectual class of Britain. George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb (founders of the London School of Economics) and Clement Atlee were some of the more prominent intellectuals who came under its influence. An important stage was brought about in its development when its members joined the British Labour Party, quickly becoming its virtual brain. When the Labour Party came to power in 1945, fifty per cent of its members were Fabians, the most notable being Mr. Clement Atlee. This is quite remarkable considering that the membership of the Fabian society represented barely one per cent of British population.

Prior to 1945, the Conservative Party, headed by Sir Winston Churchill, had been in power, and it was during this period that freedom movements were gaining momentum in the British colonies. Churchill, known for his consummate oratory, has gone down in history as saying: ‘I have not become His Majesty’s first minister to preside over the liquidation of His Majesty’s empire.’

His policy of opposition to colonial freedom was leading Britain in the same direction as Hitler’s policy had lead Germany. Pursued to its logical conclusion, it would have lead to armed confrontation with the far-flung British colonies, who would have been put through pitched battles and all the other horrors of war before gaining their freedom. In the final stages, they would ultimately have had to suffer even greater cruelty and oppression than hitherto. British losses would also have been very great in terms of manpower and the national budget, and whatever political and economic ties Britain had with its colonies would have been destroyed forever.

Fortunately, at the end of World War II, in 1945, the Labour Party came to power, and it began to rethink the whole colonial situation, their realistic approach led them under the influence of its Fabian members, to the conclusion that under the prevailing conditions, it would be difficult for Britain to retain its hold over the colonies, who would sooner or later, struggle to freedom. They saw that if Britain could grant them their independence without bloodshed, it would, in so doing, gain a great deal more than it would lose. It was thanks to the Fabian brain that Britain made its historic decision in 1947 to give India (and, subsequently other countries) its freedom.

3. Encyclopaedia Britannia, vol. IV, p. 20.

As a result of this realistic decision, Britain gained enormously. On the one hand, it was able, to, a large extent, to safeguard its international economic interests and, on the other, to retain its international political prestige through the British Commonwealth of Nations.

A Lesson for India

Although post-independence circumstances in India have not made it possible for anyone to become “Hitler,” most of our leaders have, nevertheless, begun to follow in his footsteps in that they identify some communal or national affliction, publicly espouse the cause of the sufferers and, blaming the government for the general malaise, begin lam basting those in power. Not only do they get up and make fiery speeches against the authorities, but they set in motion a whole terrain of processions, demonstrations, and rallies whose sole target of abuse is the government.

The public, quickly whipped up to a state of mass hysteria by such leaders, crowd around them in frenzied hero-worship. Such movement gain such strength that they can even cause the government of the day to fall. But we should give careful thought to the notion that “a revolution is a successful effort to get rid of a bad government and set up a worse.”

A recent example of just such a revolution in India was that launched by Jai Praksh Narain (1902-1979). In spite of the Janata Party’s electoral success after the emergency, this “total revolution” ended in total failure.

The Need of the Hour

The most pressing need of the hour is to launch movements in the country patterned on the Fabian Society’s style of functioning, at both communal and national levels. Soon after India gained its independence, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) formulated a plan for setting up a party of this type, which he named the Jan Congress. He stressed our need for a purely non-political party which would work towards the intellectual training of the public, and remain selflessly constructive in its functioning. For the Jan Congress to be successful, it would have meant the great leaders of the Congress voluntarily relinquishing the personal gains of power politics, and earnestly devoting themselves to this task in a quiet, unpublicized way. But no leader was willing to make a political sacrifice of this nature, so that after Gandhiji’s death, his scheme, too, eventually died a natural death.

For the last twenty years, the writer has himself been the promoter of a quietly constructive, non-agitational movement and, by the grace of God, our mission is progressing satisfactorily. It is my sincere wish that all those who are earnestly concerned about the future of our country, should adopt this selfsame approach. There is no better way of creating a new and brighter future for the nation.