Module Detail

Political Science
Subject Name

7: Political Theory and Thought: Western and

Paper Name
Indian Traditions

Socialist Intervention : RAM MANOHAR

Module Name/Title
LOHIA

Module Id

Pre-requisites

 To explore the main currents of Lohia’s

Objectives
political thought.
 To elucidate the basic components of
Lohia’s social thought.
 To understand Lohia as an interventionist
“non-congressism, ‘Sapta Kranti’ welfare state ,
Keywords four pillars
Role Name Affiliation

Professor Ashutosh
Principal Investigator Panjab University,
Kumar
Chandigarh

Dr. Krishna Menon Lady Shri Ram

Paper Coordinator College, University of
Delhi.
Dr. Vandana Arora. Panjab
Content Writer/Author Associate Professor, University,Chandigarh
(CW) Deptt of Laws

Prof. Pampa Mukherjee

Content Reviewer (CR) Panjab University,
Chandigarh

Professor Ashutosh
Language Editor (LE) Panjab University,
Kumar
Chandigarh
 RAM MANOHAR LOHIA

SYNOPSIS

Abstract
Learning Objectives
Introduction
Life sketch

 Early Life and Education

 Contribution to the Indian National Movement
 Movements after Independence
 Non-Congressism

Lohia socialism

 Panchamarhi Conference of Socialists and Lohia’s Theory of Socialism

 Maximum attainable equality
 Rejection of Casteism in all sphere of Life
 Evil of Casteism
Four pillar state

 Organization of State
 Co-operative Decentralization of Power/Socialism
  Concept of Small Unit technology
 Belief in Literacy and Hindi Language

Relevance of Ram MonoharLohia’sThought

 6 Programmes Socialist Agenda

 Sapta- Kranti
Conclusion
References

Self Assessment

Abstract

A veteran freedom fighter, great visionary thinker, founder of the Indian socialist
movement, a practitioner of Gandhian techniques of resistance and an active exponent of the
idea. he was deeply influenced by the freedom struggle, Congress politics, and student and
youth movements. He formed ‘Azad Dasta,’ an underground group and established his
centres at Mumbai, Kolkata and Nepal. His programmes of ‘Dam Bandho’ in this phase of
inflation and economic crisis caused by consumerism, ‘Jati Todo’ in the rising wave of
casteism, ‘Angreji Hatao’ in a downtrodden phase of Indian languages and ‘Himalaya
Bachao’ with growing insecurity on the borders are more relevant than ever. Throughout his
life, Lohia was a man of action and a hero in leading powerful people’s movements against
Portugal’s colonial rule in Goa (1946), against the Rana regime and for the restoration of
democracy in Nepal (1946, 1949), In Lohia’s framework of social-economic transformation,
politics is the real moving force. In his concept of politics, theory and practice, struggle and
constructive work, democracy and civil disobedience (symbolically represented by spade,
ballot and jail) are combined together.

KEY WORDS :

“Non-congressism, ‘Sapta Kranti’ elimination of colour discrimination, revolution

against birth and caste based inequality, revolution against colonialism and for the
establishment of world parliament, revolution against inequality generated by private capital
and for the growth of capital through planning, revolution against armament, and in favour of
mass civil disobedience offer an alternative to create a just social system, ‘Himalaya Bachao’
LEARNING OBJECTIVE

 To explore the main currents of Lohia’s political thought.

 To elucidate the basic components of Lohia’s social thought.
 To understand Lohia as an internationalist

Introduction

Lohia made a significant contribution in the field of socialist political thought in

India, He always laid greater emphasis on tile combination of the gandhian ideals with the
socialist thought. Lohiawas a proponent of the cyclical theory of Illusory. He believed that
through the principles of democratic socialism the economy of a developing country could be
improved. Although Dr. Lohia was a supporter of dialectical materialism he put greater
emphasis on consciousness.
He was of the opinion that through an internal oscillation between class and caste,
historical dynamism of a country could be insured. According to Dr. Lohia, the classes
represent the social mobilisation process and the castes are symbols of conservative forces.
All human history, he said, has always been "an internal movement between caste and classes
– caste loosen into classes and classes crystallise into castes".
He was an exponent of decentralised socialism. According to him small machines,
cooperative labour and village government, operate as democratic forces against capitalist
forces. He considered orthodox and organized socialism "a dead doctrine and a dying
organisation".

Life Sketch

 Early Life and Education

Dr. Ram ManoharLohia was born at Akbarpur in U.P. on March 23, 1910 and died on
October 12, 1967.As regards Dr Lohia’s background, he received primary education at
Akbarpur, passed High School from Mumbai (1920-25) in first division, Intermediate from
Varanasi (1925-27) and did graduation (BA in English Hons) in first division from Calcutta
University (1927-29). Due to his deep interests in debates and extra-curricular activities, he
missed first division in Intermediate examination. In Varanasi, he made wide reading of
Hindi literary texts and tried to understand Indian philosophy. After graduation, he went to
Germany in 1929 to complete his Master’s Course and to obtain the doctorate degree. He
obtained his doctorate degree in 1932 in Economics on “Economics of Salt Satyagraha” from
Humboldt (Berlin) University under the guidance of Late Prof. Werner Sombart — a noted
economist.

 Contribution to the Indian National Movement

Upon his return to India in 1933 he joined the freedom movement at a young age. He
was associated with the Congress Socialist Party in the Congress in I934. With the formation
of the P.S.P. in 1952, he was with it for a few years. Later on when the Samyukta Socialist
Party came into existence, he joined it. He died in 1967. Lohia was a great orator. He was
also a prolific writer. Some of his important works were “Aspects of Socialist Policy” (1952),
Marx, Gandhi and Socialism (1962), The Caste System (1964), Fragments of World Mind
(1966), etc. Besides, he had wide interest in history, philosophy, literature and painting, etc,
as well. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia - a veteran freedom fighter, great visionary thinker, founder
of the Indian socialist movement, a practitioner of Gandhian techniques of resistance and an
active exponent of the idea.. Since his early student days, he was deeply influenced by the
freedom struggle, Congress politics, and student and youth movements. During his stay in
Mumbai and Kolkata, he developed command over Marathi and Bangla languages. In
Germany, he wrote his Ph.D thesis in German. He had good understanding of French. The
impact of Hiralal Lohia -- his father, his academic background, freedom struggle,
participation in student movements, his polyglot character and close understanding of the
socialist, communist and the Nazi movements in Germany played a crucial part in moulding
the political orientations and influencing intellectual insights of Dr.Lohia. At the early stage
of 1942, socialists in Congress were mainly instrumental in motivating Gandhi Ji to launch
‘Quit India’ movement. Dr Lohia was a moving spirit behind the ‘Quit India’ movement and
a leading light along with, Achyut Patwardhan, Aruna Asaf Ali, and Usha Mehta in
organizing underground revolutionary movement in 1942-44. He formed ‘Azad Dasta,’ an
underground group and established his centres at Mumbai, Kolkata and Nepal.

He operated the underground ‘Congress Radio Station.’ Lohia was arrested in May
1944 in Mumbai and sent to the most notorious Lahore Fort Jail. He had to undergo the worst
type of torture in jail. Dr Lohia and JP were almost the last political prisoners who were
released from jail in April 1946. He formed ‘Azad Dasta,’ an underground group and
established his centres at Mumbai, Kolkata and Nepal. He operated the underground
‘Congress Radio Station.’ Lohia was arrested in May 1944 in Mumbai and sent to the most
notorious Lahore Fort Jail. He had to undergo the worst type of torture in jail. Dr Lohia and
JP were almost the last political prisoners who were released from jail in April 1946.

Lohia laid emphasis on the ‘policy of equi-distance’ from Congress and communists.
As fallout, the KMPP led by Acharya Kripalani and the Socialist Party decided to merge
together in September, 1952 and the new Party was named as the Praja Socialist Party (PSP).
The differences among Lohia, JP and Ashok Mehta were growing on the issue of cooperation
with the Congress-led government. To resolve the differences, a special convention of the
Socialist Party was held at Betel in June 1953. In the first week of Jan, 1954, during the
Allahabad Conference of the PSP, there was some patch up. Acharya JB Kripalani was
elected Chairman of the party and Lohia was elected its General Secretary.

During 1952-54 Lohia tried to revitalize the Indian socialist movement by giving
fresh theoretical, ideological, programmatic and agitational foundations to it. The imprint of
Gandhian framework was obvious on Lohia’s ideology when he emphasized on
decentralization, constructive programmes, nonviolent protests and satyagraha. He wanted
that the Socialist Party should place equal emphasis on vote (Ballot), agitation (Jail) and
constructive work (Spade). For the reorganization of Indian polity and economy, his
emphasis was on the democratic decentralization through ‘Chaukhambha Raj’ where power
and economy were to be equally divided among villages, districts, provinces and the Centre.
In the place of reservation, he pleaded for the principle of ‘Vishesh Awasar’ under which 60
per cent of the political and economic space for a time specified period was to be secured for
the backward classes — comprising Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Castes,
backward among minorities and women. In the place of class struggle based on violence and
the elimination of class enemies, he practiced the instruments of collective actions through
civil disobedience and satyagraha against injustice, exploitation and tyranny. There was an
unfortunate division in the socialist movement in India in 1955. In the place of PSP, Lohia
revived the Socialist Party and as its Chairman, he worked very hard at the organizational,
agitational, ideological fronts and launched a number of programmes to give the Socialist
Party a distinct identity.

 Movements after Independence

 His programmes of ‘Dam Bandho’ in this phase of inflation and economic crisis
caused by consumerism, ‘Jati Todo’ in the rising wave of casteism, ‘Angreji Hatao’ in a
downtrodden phase of Indian languages and ‘Himalaya Bachao’ with growing insecurity on
the borders are more relevant than ever. Throughout his life, Lohia was a man of action and a
hero in leading powerful people’s movements against Portugal’s colonial rule in Goa (1946),
against the Rana regime and for the restoration of democracy in Nepal (1946, 1949), struggle
in Rewa state (1950), peasant’s struggle in Kagodu, Shimoga, Karnataka (1951), peasant’s
movement against increase in canal tax rate in UP (1954), movement in Manipur for the
establishment of state assembly (1955) and All India Satyagraha launched by the Socialist
Party (1957). In these movements, he was imprisoned and was mostly released by Courts. He
was arrested In the USA he was detained (1964) for protesting against racial discrimination,
and when the State Department apologized to him; he replied that they should apologize to
the Statue of Liberty. There was a movement against hunger death in Bihar. He was arrested
in that connection and was released by the Supreme Court (1965).

His struggles against the Government’s callousness continued unabated and he was
arrested in connection with ‘UP Bandh’ (1966), jailed during the students’ strike in Delhi and
was again released by the Supreme Court (1966). During the process of his struggles, he
developed techniques of peaceful collective action, non-violent civil disobedience against
injustice and remodeled methods of mass protests through Satyagraha. Dr. Lohia was elected
to the Lok Sabha in 1963. On his initiative, the first vote of no confidence motion against
Nehru government. During the process of his struggles, he developed techniques of peaceful
collective action, non-violent civil disobedience against injustice and remodeled methods of
mass protests through Satyagraha. Dr. Lohia was elected to the LokSabha in 1963. On his
initiative, the first vote of no confidence motion against Nehru government was moved in the
Lok Sabha and his speech delivered at that time against the working of the Government is
regarded as a landmark in Indian Parliamentary history. His strategic move to give concrete
shape to the ‘non-congressism’ and the formation of the Sanyukt Socialist Party (SSP) were
the two major developments in Indian politics during 1963-67.

 Non-Congressism

Lohia was the conceptual and practical architect of ‘non-congressism.’ The political
outcome of this experiment was visible in the 1967 elections when the non-Congress
governments were formed in nine States. At the time of the peak of his political glory, at the
age of 57 only, his life journey came to an end in October, 1967. In Lohia’s framework of
social-economic transformation, politics is the real moving force. In his concept of politics,
theory and practice, struggle and constructive work, democracy and civil disobedience
(symbolically represented by spade, ballot and jail) are combined together. Like Marx, his
emphasis was on struggle but he discarded the idea of violence. He tried to refine the
Gandhian techniques of nonviolence and Satyagraha (often based on fast and individual
actions) by accepting non-violent methods of struggle but adding to it the mass based civil
disobedience against injustice and exploitation. He disagreed with Marxist theses of forces of
production, surplus value and imperialism as the last stage of capitalism. Lohia is of the view
that the techniques of production (huge machines, heavy technology, mass production)
remain the same in the capitalist and the communist systems. The only difference between
them is on the forces of production and the ownership of the means of production. The
private ownership of the means of production in the capitalist system is replaced by the state
ownership in the communist system but labour as a major force of production does not
benefit from the surplus profit, the labourer remains alienated and does not become the
master of his products. To correct the anomaly of both systems,

Lohia’s emphasis is on small machine driven tools of production and ownership under
the control of cooperatives and communities. In Marxist analysis, imperialism is the last stage
of capitalism. Lohia does not agree with this proposition. By citing concrete examples from
the economic history of India, England, Western Europe and Africa, he has marshaled
evidence to prove that imperialism practiced by England and other Western European
countries greatly contributed to the rise of capitalism in Europe. The rise of the first phase of
Capitalism in England was the result of the loot and capital flow from Bengal to England,
followed by the occupation and economic exploitation of the whole of India, leading to the
capture of Africa and South-east Asia which led to the strengthening of the capitalist system
in Europe. The same story was repeated in the case of Spain, France and Holland where the
growth of capitalism largely depended on the imperialist expansion and the exploitation of
resources of their colonies. With the collapse of communism in Soviet Russia, East Europe,
rejection of it by China and the recent global economic crisis generated by capitalism based
on market economy, the relevance of his theory of ‘equi-distance’ has to be properly
understood. He propounded that the Indian and Asian socialism should be different from the
European Marxist thought process of socialism, since historical, material and social
conditions are different in the two continents.
 In this unequal world order, his theory of seven revolutions or ‘SaptaKranti’ for
building a society based on male-female equality, elimination of colour discrimination,
revolution against birth and caste based inequality, revolution against colonialism and for the
establishment of world parliament, revolution against inequality generated by private capital
and for the growth of capital through planning, revolution against armament, and in favour of
mass civil disobedience offer an alternative to create a just social system. Apart from politics,
his books – ‘Marx, Gandhi and Socialism,’ ‘Wheel of History,’ ‘Fragments of a World
Mind,’ ‘Will to Power’ and dozens of other booklets are clear testimony to his intellectual
prowess. He had close contacts with leaders of the socialist movement all over the world and
had personal equations with some of the great minds of the world. This is evident from Harris
Wofford’s book ‘Lohia and America Meet,’ and Rama Mitra’s ‘Lohia Thru Letters.’ On the
mind of some of the great names in Indian literature, art, films, journalism, judiciary and
social sciences, there are unending imprints of his personality and thoughts. In several Indian
universities, Lohia’s thoughts are incorporated in the course and around a dozen Ph.D. theses
have been prepared on different aspects of his thoughts.

Lohia’s Socialism

Ram Manohar Lohia occupied a unique place in the evolution of the socialist thought
in India. He was the first socialist thinker in India who refused to accept the Russian or
western model of Socialism for India. His dynamic and uninhibited approach to various
problems distinguished him from other political leaders. Lohia showed great originality in his
enunciation of socialism. His concept of socialism developed at a fairly young age. He was
one of the founders of the Congress Socialist Party and the editor of its chief organ ‘Congress
Socialist’. His socialistic ideology developed in the Company of Acharya Narender Dev,
Achyut Patwardhan, Jai Prakash Narayan, Ashok Mehta and others. He did pioneering work
in the advancement of new policy having link with the socio-economic development of the
people of our sub-continent. He rebelled against everything that attacked upon the freedom of
the individual.

Lohia was a socialist who firmly believed that socialism, if it were to lead the people
to progress and prosperity must be based on the Indian 226 conditions. Lohia wanted to give
firm foundation to the theory of socialism by chalking out a programme of action for the
realization of the final goal. Socialism has the reputation of much interpreted and less
understood philosophy.

 Panchamarhi Conference of Socialists and Lohia’s Theory of Socialism

In India socialism means differently to different people. Many thought Socialism

would either merge with communism or would become on ally of capitalism. To remove all
such misconceptions Lohia placed his original thesis of Socialism, while presiding over the
Panchamarhi Conference of Socialists in May 1952. The basic postulates of the new socialist
theory were stated thus:

1. Both Capitalism and Communism are based upon centralized power which is incapable of
bringing about a radical transformation in society.

2. Both capitalism and communism believe in the same method of production. The only
difference between them is that in capitalism some individuals or groups make profit and in
communism even though there is no individual profit system, a centralized power, class or
party, monopolises the benefits. Society does not in reality enjoy economic, political and
individual freedom.

3. If we look at communist countries and the so-called free democratic states and analyse the
actual conditions of the people, there it is quite clear 227 that both are incapable of ushering
in social transformation, people’s freedom and people’s culture. Therefore, both have to be
eschewed.

4. Socialism does not believe in restricted capitalism or mixed economy. It does not believe
that this would ever pave the way for socialism.

5. The political and economic objectives of socialism are to establish a free and decentralized
society by eliminating capitalism and centralized political and economic influence from
society.

Lohia felt that the interests of communism and conservatism are against socialism.
Conservatism holds socialism as its democratic survival and does not fear communism,
except as a threat of successful insurrection. Communism prefers the continuance of a
conservative government and is mortally afraid of a Socialist Party coming to office, for its
chances of an insurrection are then dimmed. Until communism revolts successfully, it is a
doctrine of support to the bourgeoisie. The party of socialism according to Lohia, must have
power and organization so that it can use them in the service of whatever action may be
deemed appropriate at the time. In order to build up such power and organization the party
should continually strive to become a spokesman of 1 Presidential Address of Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia to the Special Convention of the Socialist Party, Panchamarhi 23rd May
1952, Western Printers and Publishers, Fort, Bombay, 1928 the people, organizer of its will,
resister against injustice and accomplisher of reconstruction. It must be ready ever to take
part in constructive action to be enlightened by it in turn and to resist injustice.

The orthodox and organized socialism was, therefore, “a dead doctrine and dying
organization”, for Lohia. Lohia had made a strong plea for a ‘New Socialism’ consisting of
the following fundamental principles:

(A) Maximum attainable equality

(B) Social Ownership

(C) Small-unit technology

(D) Four-pillar state

(E) A decent standard ofliving

(F) The World Parliament and Government.

 Maximum attainable equality

Equality was central point of the Lohia’s concept of socialism. In his own words,
“Socialism is a doctrine of equality. Unless, we are careful it may deteriorate into a doctrine
of inequality.”3 Lohia’s concept of equality was unique. According to him equality did not
mean identity of treatment or identity of reward. Because this was not possible as far as
capacity and need of people differed. Equality to him was an abstract concept.

Equality stood for such an arrangement of social forces that each may get its due i.e.
balancing a share in the toil of living with a share in its gain. He maintained that if there was
no equality among the individuals and also among the nations, justice, human dignity,
morality, brotherhood, freedom and universal welfare could not flourish in society. Lohia
recommended ‘seven-fold’, revolution to fight against inequality and injustice. This
‘sevenfold’ revolution was revolting for equality between man and woman; the abolition of
inequalities based on colour; elimination of in equalities of birth and caste; economic equality
through increase in production; national freedom or ending of foreign influence; protecting
the privacy of individual life from all collective encroachments and limitation on armaments.

According to Lohia, of all injustices, plaguing the earth, those arising out of the
inequality between man and women were perhaps the bedrock. Inequality between man and
woman had so become part of human habit and nature that it seeped into everything else.
Most of humanity suffered from one inequality or another, but one half of it was weighted
down further. Woman’s participation in collective life was exceedingly limited. Even in
Russia, which boosted of having achieved equality between the sexes, equal status and
privileges was not achieved. Unequal employment practices were a very small expression of
women’s inferior position, often insidiously concealed.

Man has ever been actuated by two contrary impulses towards woman. He wants his
woman to be bright, intelligent, handsome and the rest in short, a very living person. He
wants her to be wholly his. Nobody can be wholly another’s, unless she or he were reduced to
the spiritual status of a tree or a dog. In the mind of the male, therefore, resides a grievous
clash between wanting her to be his woman, as also alive and beautiful, therefore, to be free
and at the same time unfair.” So long as this grievous clash resided in the mind of man, a
woman would not be allowed to acquire equal status in society. Giving her equal opportunity
would not solve the problem of inequality between the sexes. When a group of people is held
down by debility, physical or cultural, the only way to bring it up to equality with others is
through conferment of preferential opportunities.

 Rejection of Casteism in all sphere of Life

The second revolution was directed against the tyranny of colour. Political life in
India is not clean. Nepotism, jobbery, opportunism, flattery non-adherence to truth and a
tendency to twist doctrines to suit particular motives are some of the traits of ‘Dvija’
leadership.” Lohia rejected the communist point of view that these ills were connected with
the kind of socio-economic system we had a socialism would do away with most of them.

It was necessary for the abolition of the caste system that the political leadership
should come from among the ‘Sudras’, it should be broadminded, truly national and
respected by all sections ofthe society. The ‘Sudras’ coming to the position of power and
leadership must not think of only their communities but be concerned with the interests and
welfare of all. Lohia opined that it was in the self-interest of the ‘Dvijas’ to struggle for
destroying the caste system, because so long as the caste system survived, the country could
not develop and gain in strength.

Consequently, it would not count for much internationally and present ‘Dvijas' rulers
of the country would continue to be regarded as the ‘Sudras’ of the international caste system.
He made a forecast. “The day ‘Dvijas' came to realise this, they shall view the abolition of
caste with a different outlook-----When ‘Dvijas’ and ‘Sudras’ line up together with the
common objective of smashing the international caste system, all-round progress is bound to
result.”

Lohia did not emphasize on education, particularly university education, while

picking up the ‘Sudras’ for positions of leadership. “When I speak of leaders arising out of
Sudras, I do not mean that they should necessarily be educated. The real criterion is that they
should have courage, honesty and a grasp of fundamentals.” The system of caste, according
to Lohia, worked toward, the suppression of vast number of our people. It also gave rise to
hypocrisy and false consciousness.

According to Lohia, there were some reasons why a vast number of people submitted
to the evils of casteism:

The first reason was that caste gave them insurance, indeed, on less than an animal
level, more than it did to the high castes. They would feel helpless without it. Often one got
the impression about these lower-castes as though their strenuous labour of the day were but
a preparation for the caste feasts and rituals that were to follow. Anything that interfered with
them must appear to them as highly undesirable.

The second reason was that the people who were victims of castes had for them many
myths of religion that justified their inferior situation and transferred it into a symbol of
sacrifice and luster.

According to Lohia, a long tradition of ideological subjection had made the so-called
low caste stagnant. Centuries had instilled into them a meek acceptance of the existing
aversion to change, sticking with the caste in times of adversity as of good, and the search of
high life through worship, rituals and general politeness. Lohia was against any
discrimination in the matter of admission to educational institutions and was of the view that
everyone must get full and equal opportunities for education. He favoured only one type of
schools for children of all castes. To Lohia, caste was ossified class, and class was mobile
caste. An oscillation between caste and class had been a law of history. Caste structure of
Indian.society had led to political injustice.

 Evil of Casteism

In India there was a ruling class which was firmly entrenched in position of power
and was mobile. This ruling class had three features; it belonged to high caste, it had English
education and it possessed wealth. Wealth and education were confined to the high caste. The
factor of high caste freeze the whole situation into an almost impossible immobility, for over
90 per cent of country’s ruling classes belonged to the high castes, and most of them
possessed both of other characteristics of wealth and English education, while some
possessed only one or the other.

According to Lohia, caste had caused shrinkage of abilities and opportunities and as a
result, ninety per cent of the population had become mentally paralyzed. The process of
shrinking of ability and opportunity once started went on indefinitely with the result that
certain privileged sub castes among the ‘Brahmins’ or the ‘Kayasthas’ acquired more
privileges while the vast majority was continually deprived and became less able. In Lohia’s
own words, “caste restricts opportunity, restricted opportunity constricts ability. Constricted
ability further restricts opportunity. Where caste prevails, opportunity and ability are
restricted to ever narrowing circles of the people.”

According to Lohia, the all political parties of India were led by the ruling castes. No
matter how much they may strive with one and another and whatever irreconcilably
conflicting principles they may display, they presented one solid phalanx of distinguished
people against the mass and were tied to one another through these hundreds of webs of
distinction into a single fraternity. Lohia pleaded for continued awareness to check the poison
of casteism.

The system of equal opportunity could not solve that problem, for when everybody
would have an equal opportunity, the castes, with five thousand year old traditions of liberal
education, would be on the top. Therefore, “not equal opportunity, but preferential
opportunity can pull down the walls of these narrow coteries.” The fourth out of the seven
revolutions mentioned by Lohia, was the revolution for ending the foreign rule or influence
from all parts of the world. According to Lohia “people’s freedom has perhaps always been
the grand passion of man. It certainly is in our time. Nothing energizes so much as the
concept of country, nation, people the land of the mother or the father. To overrun countries,
to conquer people, to rule over them or at least to take tribute has been pastime of powerful
armies in recorded history.” National freedoms were on the way to become man’s
irremovable property. The talk there was of national freedom in the political sense. People
would not be allowed to exercise direct rule over another. But that did not mean that the
desire for economic exploitation of other people had vanished from man’s minds, or that the
lust for political domination over alien people Lohia distinctive feature of the empires of old
had been completely eliminated. “Hidden imperialism” of various types were appearing.
Most pernicious and root of all else was productivity imperialism. Accidents of history had
equipped some peoples with a production apparatus of vastly superior yield.

The Four-Pillar State

“The four-pillar state”, was one of the important features of the Lohia’s socialism. In
order to achieve true socialism Lohia evolved the concept of four-pillar state. Four-pillar state
was an arrangement when a constitution was framed on the basis of the four-pillar state has
four pillars

 The village
 The district
 The province
 The centre,

of equal majesty and dignity. The four-pillar state was obviously not a mere executive
arrangement. It was not as if superior parliaments legislate and the village and district organs
were left with the execution of the laws. The four-pillar state was both a legislative and an
executive arrangement. It was a way of life and to all spheres of human activity, for instance,
production, ownership, administration, planning, education and the like. The four pillar state
provided a structure and a way. The community of a state was to be so organized and
sovereign power so diffused that each little community in it lived the way of life that it chose.
Through these various ways of life a 245 common strong bond united the numerous
communities into a state. The state, therefore, was to be organized in such a manner that it
could allow the widest opportunity for popular participation,
Organization of State

“Sovereign power must not reside alone in centre and federating units. It must be
broken up and diffused over smallest region where a group of men and women live.” The
idea of such a state however, did not represent the idea of a self sufficient village but of the
‘intelligent and vital village.’ Under such a structure of the state each little community would
live intelligently and strive after the integrity and unity of the nation. In the four-pillar state
the armed forces of the state might be controlled by the centre, the armed police by the
province but all other police might be brought under district and village control. While
industries like the railways or iron and steel might be controlled by the Centre, the small unit
textile industry of the future might be left to district and village ownership. While price fixing
might be a central subject the structure of agriculture and the ratio of capital and labour in it
might be left to the choice of the district and the village. A substantial part of state revenues
should stay with the village and the district. As far as possible the principle of election might
be applied to administrative, instead of nominations or selections. Economic decentralization,
corresponding to political and administration decentralization might be brought about through
maximum utilization of small machines.

The four-pillar state raised above the issues of regionalism and functionalism. It
diffused power also within people’s organizations and corporations. Lohia opined that four-
pillar state might indeed appear fanatic to many in view of the special conditions of the
country, its illiteracy, its fears and superstitions and above all, its castes. The village
representatives may indeed be selfish and ignorant and raise caste above justice. And yet to
give him power seemed the only way to deliver the people from inertia as well as an
administration that was both top-heavy and corrupt. Lohia believed that by giving power to
small communities of men, democracy of the first grade was possible.

 Co-operative Decentralization of Power/Socialism

The four pillar state ensured effective and intelligent democracy to the common man.
“The Four-Pillar State”, Ram Manohar Lohia wanted private property to go, except such as
did not occasion employment of one person by another. He was not in favour of ownership of
property by the state exclusively at the centre as it was disastrous both for bread and freedom.
Part of property must be owned by the village and the province as much as by the centre and
by co-operative reconstruction of economy consisted of following items: (a) Reclamation of
waste land (b) Small unit-technology (c) Equal distribution of land (d) Food army (e)
Abolition of land revenue (f) Emphasis on small and medium schemes of irrigation. (g)
Restrictions of expenditure and consumptions.

Lohia was in favour of small-unit technology to remove poverty. He believed that the
large scale factory which produced goods in great numbers was incapable of abolishing the
poverty of the larger part of mankind. Lohia’s concern for Socialism inspired him to advocate
the small unit technology which was consistent with the demands of justice and equality and
suited India in view of the peculiarities of India’s problems. He said, “If India used large
scale technology, a hundred million people would need to be liquidated. If our agriculture
were mechanized on this basis over 80 million farmers would be driven into cities. I know
that capitalists and communists alike say that large scale industry would absorb them. But
there is one snag to absorb them, our capital equipment per person would need to be raised
from $ 35 to about $ 1,000, and this would take hundreds of billions of dollars.” The large
scale technology was also connected with “the waste of war, the economy of is destructions
as well as its preparation.’’ Therefore, the attempt to achieve industrial development on the
Euro-American pattern in the underdeveloped world would be fruitless and destructive, for
the developing countries had neither enough of productive equipment, with which to produce,
could can they afford ‘block use of science and heavy large unit techniques’ or the
inequalities in income-distribution.

Therefore the solution consisted in “decentralized socialism with all its appropriate
forms of small machines, cooperative labour, village government and so forth.” Lohia wanted
the small unit machine run by electricity or oil to be used in abundance. According to him
technology which the modem age had kept ever changing, would have to make a
revolutionary break with the present. The problem would not be solved by going back to
earlier machines discarded by modem civilization, but by investing new ones with a definite
principle and aim. That machine should be available to village as much as to city.

He aimed economically at a technology that rationalized economy not sector by sector

nor region by region but as far as possible in all sectors and regions at the same time. The
small unit machine of Lohia should not require a large capital investment. Such a machine
was not the product of decentralization in space, which modem civilization in Europe and the
US had started talking about, but it was the embodiment of the whole principle of
decentralization, in space and in time so as to avoid complexity and achieve immediacy. This
machine would not only solve the economic problem of the underdeveloped world, it would
also enable a new exploration and achievement ofthe general aims of society.

 Concept of Small Unit Technology

An important aspect of Lohia’s small-unit technology was that labour should have direct
contact with his machine, he should be its master and adept in its operation. A pre-requisite of
such small-unit technology was that capital and the means of production should be under
social ownership. No man should be hired for labour by another. Lohia did not reject the
large scale industry completely. The heavier machines in steel works or in hydro-electric
projects were certainly necessary, but emphasis was very much on the small unit machine.
Industrialization by means of the small-unit machine, according to Lohia, would have several
advantages “Villages and towns of our country have abundant raw material of various kind.

 Belief in Literacy and Hindi Language

Lohia pleaded for the replacement of English by the Indian languages, preferably by
Hindi, English had to be banished because

(i) It was a foreign language

(ii) It was the language of the privileged class.
(iii) It created barriers between the masses and the classes.
(iv) It made for unnecessary burdens upon the students who as a result met with
failures, and thus time went much wasted,
(v) It stood in the way of the language of India, and
(vi) It produced a slavish mentality in the Indian gentry who wrongly believed that
only English could lead them to knowledge and progress

There was need to liquidate mass literacy. Lohia was of the view that the nation must
take up the task of spreading literacy and imparting efficient education to the whole
population as its first and foremost duty. He believed that, “the education up to the Middle
standard should be free and compulsory and that educational facilities should be provided
free or cheap at higher stages, particularly to the Scheduled castes, tribes and other poorer
sections of the society. Free or cheap residential facilities should also be provided to these
sections.”Lohia wanted to have uniform pattern of education that is a uniform pay-scale for
all the teachers and uniform standard of books for all the students. Children of Bhangi,
Brahmin, Kurmi, Kisan, Prime Minister and President should go to the same school and get
the same education. This was according to Lohia, “the first necessary reform for India
without which nothing can be done.

Relevance of Ram Manohar Lohia

Today - The relevance of the ideas and opinions of some Intellectuals may be far
reaching and visionary during their lifetime might be felt incredible by their contemporaries
but that does not mean they remain lay waste forever. There is another group of evangelists
whose profession is to make irrelevant ideas significant and earn a living whether they are
useful or useless to common people. Religion and faith based on hypocrisy and hegemony
might make a few ideas always appear in public domain but with little relevance to aid the
victims of unkindness of time.

We have in India some great men like Mahatma Phuley, M.N.Roy, Ambedkar, Ram
Manohar Lohia etc in the modern times whose ideas are found relevant whenever the society
is dragged in to chaos and bigotry. Lohia whose 105th anniversary is celebrated on 23rd
March is an occasion to review some of his ideas along with one of our greatest patriots
Bhagat Singh who was hanged by the imperialists on 23rd March. There are interesting
happenings that are significant in the recent past to remember Lohia. The collapse of Soviet
Union experiment, the crisis in Europe, the emergence of neoliberal policies along with the
resurrection of fundamentalism, control of caste and corporate media and the inconsequence
of the poverty of Indians in public debates call for a reflection on the ideas of Lohia once
again. Though some scholars have published fascinating papers and books on Lohia during
the centenary year in 2010, it is an occasion not burdened with any obligations to remember
him as a custom, but to really understand his relevance today.

Unlike several other Indian leaders, Lohia did not go to England for his higher
studies as he abhorred the Anglo-Saxons (though Germans do come under Saxons, they never
claim so). He was trained by one of the foremost economic historian of his times Sombart
and his contemporaries included the famous Schumaker whose ‘Small is Beautiful’ derived
ideas from Gandhi and Buddha. His approach to the study of Indian problems is indigenous
and critically drawn from Indian philosophical thought.

It is very illuminating to read his ‘Marx, Gandhi and Socialism’ one of his very
important contributions to Indian thought, Lohia used several examples from Indian thinkers
like Shankara to illustrate his point. He was very critical about Marx being at the same time
being a Marxist and used his theory of surplus value for his analysis. His major criticism
against Marx was that he had used his European background for the study of Asian or Indian
problems that are different. He was of the opinion that his lack of knowledge about the Asian
society made him to draw extreme generalizations that did not allow him to draw meaningful
conclusions and in a way made him irrelevant in the Indian context.

One of the examples that he used to attribute to Marx is about the economic crisis
and the appropriation of appropriators. This did not happen in the capitalist advanced
countries of Europe, but only occurred in Asia and Russia. In fact this criticism is taken by
some of the followers to an unconstrained extent to denounce Marxism. Lohia’s criticism
about Soviet Union of Stalin era did not last long. It is here I think we need to revise some of
our reflections on Lohia to make him relevant. The critics and admirers of Lohia should not
hesitate to recognize that the limitations of Marx and Soviet model and even China do not
exist anymore to extend the logic. If we do not realize this fact we would be fighting only
with a shadow. Similarly the Marxists who were critical about Lohia’s approach to
Communism may consider the changed circumstances in the World and the relevance of
Socialist programme advocated by Lohia and the need for a reassessment of his ideas to bring
all the progressive forces on one platform to fight capitalism and its Siamese twin
fundamentalism. The frequently cited metaphor of Marxism by most of our Indian activists
and intellectuals is about the base and super structure.

 Programmes Socialist Agenda

It is gone to such an extent that some of the materialist interpretations of history has
rejected the blatant reality of caste and hoodwinked intellectuals like Ambedkar and Lohia as
those who squandered time and resources on a super structure issue that will blow off once
economic emancipation of the poor is achieved. Lohia has spelt out his socialist agenda in
terms of 6 programmes as;

1 maximum attainable equality,

2 social ownership,

3 small and indigenous technology,

4 four pillars of state,

5 decetralisation of industry, and

6 world parliament and government.

One of the examples that he used to attribute to Marx is about the economic crisis and
the appropriation of appropriators. This did not happen in the capitalist advanced countries of
Europe, but only occurred in Asia and Russia. In fact this criticism is taken by some of the
followers to an unconstrained extent to denounce Marxism. Lohia’s criticism about Soviet
Union of Stalin era did not last long. It is here I think we need to revise some of our
reflections on Lohia to make him relevant. The critics and admirers of Lohia should not
hesitate to recognize that the limitations of Marx and Soviet model and even China do not
exist anymore to extend the logic. If we do not realize this fact we would be fighting only
with a shadow. Similarly the Marxists who were critical about Lohia’s approach to
Communism may consider the changed circumstances in the World and the relevance of
Socialist programme advocated by Lohia and the need for a reassessment of his ideas to bring
all the progressive forces on one platform to fight capitalism and its Siamese twin
fundamentalism. The frequently cited metaphor of Marxism by most of our Indian activists
and intellectuals is about the base and super structure.

 Sapta- Kranti

These goals perhaps Lohia thought could be achieved through his seven point revolution
or ‘saptakranti’. They are

a) Equality between men and women

b) Shun colour discrimination
c) Annihilation of caste and status based on birth
d) Revolution against colonialism
e) Revolution against private capital
f) Revolution against armaments
g) Creation of world parliament.

Unfortunately very few left thinkers seem to have taken these ideas very seriously and
never interrogated them. However, his ardent followers are also to an extent responsible for
this apathy who failed to raise these issues for public debate at all India level. The followers
of Lohia were confined to Hindi belt and a few pockets of social groups, though they were
supported by the bahujan majority (may be due to the Lohia legacy). Some of the intellectual
contributions of Lohia are found to be still valid after the emergence of North Atlantic
hegemony which Lohia detested during his lifetime. Let us look at three of his important
ideas like capitalism and Imperialism, limited personality of Rama and capitalist production
relations.

Conclusion

Lohia being an indigenous thinker correctly strategized his political move to bring
equity and equanimity ( samta and samtvam) in a caste ridden Hindu society. In this process
Lohia is far ahead of his caste man and mentor Gandhi and also Marxists. Lohia was one of
the ardent supporters of democratic decentralization and power to the victims of caste system.
Perhaps it was in this context he has encouraged the lower castes in the positions of party and
power politics to provide adequate representation to the real proletariat. The main purpose of
the modern ideology of keeping religion separate from politics is to
“Ensure that communal fanaticism does not originate. There is also one more
idea that power of awarding punishment in politics and religious orders should
be placed separately, otherwise it could give impetus to conservatism and
corruption. Despite keeping all the above precautions in view, it is all the more
necessary that religion and politics should be complementary to each other,
but they should not encroach upon each other's jurisdiction. "
As a socialist thinker and activist, Lohia has carved out for himself a unique place in
the history of Indian socialist thought and movement. Although there has been a tendency
among the contemporary researchers not to recognise him as an academic system-builder in
the tradition of Kant, Hegel or Comte, his democratic socialist approach to look at ideology
as an integrated phenomenon is now being widely accepted throughout the world. Religion
and politics, said Lohia, are deeply inter-linked and have the same origin. Although the
jurisdictions of religion and politics are separate, a wrong combination of both corrupts both.
He was of the view that both religion and politics could be judiciously administered to
develop the infrastructures of the political systems. He said, "Religion is long term politics
and politics is short term religion. Religion should work for doing well and praising
goodness. Politics should work for fighting the evil and condemning it. When the religion
instead of doing something good confines itself to praising the goodness only, it becomes
lifeless. And when politics, instead of fighting evil, only condemns it, it becomes
quarrelsome. But it is a fact that imprudent mixture of religion and politics corrupts both of
them.
 Not particular Lohia was convinced that the concept of "welfare-state" was not an
answer for the social and economic progress of countries in the Third World. The Marxist
concept of class. Struggle had no place for the peasant because he was "an owner of property
and an exacter of high prices for their food." Dr. Lohia always emphasized on the role of
peasants in the economic, political and social developments of the country. According to him,
"Undoubtedly, the farmer in India, as elsewhere, has a greater role to play, than whom none
is greater, but others may have equal roles to play. The talk of subsidiary alliances between
farmers and workers and artisans and city poor must be replaced by the concept of equal
relationship in the revolution." He gave a call for the civil disobedience movement against all
forms of injustice and for the creation of a new world order religion should associate itself
with any particular politics. It creates communal fanaticism.