ont11,ohia 011 Democracy

this implies-> socialism · d"iv1"dua I. D'ign11y

' of man 365
for the m .
, . . oerati~ thinking and this dignity is:ictu~ies a bigger place in
dtJ!l l't' I I'
onlY by the ~~•ca cqua Jty _but also through cc::
a1nect by ·
•~ividual

22 ~pg AS he says h . ynroots arc still partly in the h om1c wen.·

II" · n 100 muc m uenccd by the huma . . 191 century and I

t
ioet,ee I • Th h nis11Iberal lrad' .
.1 complete y . oug he was innu 111On to get
~-o~~u,iditionbulitdidnotsatisfyhimcom;~~~ Marx and the
1
NEHRU AND LoHIA ON DEMOCRAcy s0'1~ urges of the individual which are the ess: Y f ~seiti&norcd
"'1'1n nee O his personality.
,411oUT DEMOCRACY
ehru is widely acclaimed as one of the architects f_of,4Sbl his .ear1·y years, Nehru 's I"dcas about dem.
Jaw ah ar IaI N . b. . . or
modern India. His pcrson·ahty was a rare com mallon of an 1ntcllcciuai
,oon""
ed
.;1 with two themes : nationalism an:rac~ w,.ere closely
If f soc1a ism Whil
and a practical political Icade~. H~ belonged to a group of WcsteilJ , alism meant sc -ru Ie or India and the est bl" h · e
educated Indian elite who drew msp1rauon from the mtcllectual tradition 11uon . bl a 1s mcnt of a
ign conslltuent asscm y to frame a consft 1- . .
· of the West, particularly the modern 1f1beral democfi·rauc .thought or so.ere . d .I i u ion, soc1ahsm
, 1._, econon11c an socia democracy. Broadly speaki h' .
I9th and 20th centuries. Nehru h1mse1 was a pro1I ,c wntcr and his ,mPicu , • h . ng 1s idea of
racy was quite compre ens1ve, It was not mere!
writings and speeches consist of numerous volumes. Here we shall JelllOC Y a means to
.<e government;. democracy offers society someth· f
discuss his views on democracy. eliiCI 111 • mg o the
, ... t human valucs ... 11 transforms the discipline which · ,
During the Nehru era, there_wer"e t"."o broad models or ~g•- . . If d" . r . IS Imposed
bylhe.~ut')onty mt~ se - 1sc1p m_e_. According to Nehru, ,1 would
democracy. The first was the liberal demo~r~t1c _model which valued 1 1
say ·•at
u, , democracy
, .. 1s not on
. y po 1t1cal and. economic but someth·mg
individual liberty, freedom of expression, hm11_a11~ns on the powers of of mind ... it 1_nvolves_equa_hty of opportunity 1~ all ~,le in political
the government, fundamental rights, consutuuonal government,
111cteconom1c domam._It mvol~cs freedom of md1v1dual to grow and
representative government, sovereignty of the people, m_ajority rule . make the :best of his capacity and ability, It involves a certain
etc. The other was popularized by USSR and other communist countries : ,erance'of others and even of other's opinion when they differ from
known as 'peoples' democracy which made the will of the majority JOU, It 'involves a ~ertain search for truth, It is a dynamic and not a
subservient to the intellectual insight of the chosen few known as the 1110c thing and as 1t changes 11 may be that its domain will become
'vanguard of the proletariat.' Its emphasi_s was on the impersonal wider and wid_er. Ultimately, it is a mental approach applied to our
forces and objective social process. It stnved to create a classless economic ·problems'. In short, for Nehru democracy was political
society and the withering away of the stale. Nehru and other leaders frie<lom, ·social and economic equality and a certain attitude and
of the underdeveloped countries developed a third model of democracy approach to the problems on the part of the individual and society.
which was neither purely liberal nor purely totalitarian. Nehru tried 10
give a new meaning to democracy based upon his own experience, 8.ISIC CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT
though he closely followed the Western liberal model of democracy.
As explained above, Nehru was influenced by the political ideas
Nehru inherited the classical liberal model of democracy as of Locke, Bentham, Mill as well as the Marxist socialist tradition. He
represented by Locke, Bentham and Mill with ideals of humanism and 'fried to cpmbine the political democracy with the economic and social
(364) democracy, The basic characteristics of his democratic thought can
be cnumeraied as follows :
 , and Lohia On Democracy
An Introduction to Political Theory and Th ~ehfll . .•
366 o~gh, 367
.... ation of the government'. Elections ser
IndIV. idualism .• As a•liberal
• •
humanist, Nehru looked at s .
• • OC1a1 (o, v•
• .n0se in democracy and that is •10 ascert . h
ve a very ·
important
problems from an individuahsuc ~1~! of view. ~espect for mdividua1, "'hr- · . am t e vie f
r- torate ·on maJor problems and to enable ·th ws o the
his dignity, creativity and respons1b1ht~ his thought. As he Said el~ representatives'. I
e e ectorate to select
'I do believe that ultimately it is the md1v1dua_l that counts. Every me1r
individual has an importance and he should be given full opponunit '' nie government in a democracy is a party
.. I . government Nehru
10 develop'. And this good of the in~ividual could b_e n:alised only in~ , nd in the po I111ca parlles more than merely 1. .
,ou . . h •
·
po ll1cal results A
democratic society. Also this could be the only cntenon for the rol ocratic state as to give full expression 10 a v • .:
dem . . p 1· . . . ar1e1y of opm1on
of the government for interfering in the Ii ves of the people. The /aiss/ . isling m the society. o 1t1cal parties provide free fl d
e~ • h • . ow an exchange
faire of 19th century was inadequ_ate. He fi~ly believed that th~
0f thought. But e .was
. , d • m favour• of strictly disciplined pan1es. . Not
authoritarian governments were in direct oppos1t1on to the democratic nly disc1plme po1111ca1parties are necessary for efficient .
f be · ,· government
ones because they did not give opportunity to the individual O
Ibey should a so .. m a pos111on
. to represent
. the masses s· .
. 1m11ar1y a '
development. In this context, he opposed both Fascism and Russian Stronger
. oppos111on party
. 1s. a1so desirable.
. As he said, 'th e ,,ormauon
.'
communism because they both ignored the individual. ofa separate party either with some ideological difference •
/ 1 . • • • 1
orp acmg
·greater emphasis on cert~m ~alters 1s a natural development which I
STRUcnJRE OF DEMOCRACY f~r my party have no obJecllon whatsoever.'
At the structural level of the democratic government, Nehru
believed in representative democracy functioning through a well DEMOCRACY AS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EQUALITY

connected web of institutions such as written constitution, popular
sovereignty, fundamental rights, universal adult franchise; regular
elections, parliamentary majority rule and responsible political panics.
Nehru wrote that the extension of political equality through the
gradual widening of the right to vote was one of the principle.trends
in the development of democracy. This development rests on the
revolutionary promise that despite obvious human inequalities, each
person should be treated as having eql!al political and social value.
Political equality, though not sufficient, is still the basis on which to
build other equalities. He wondered how in quite advanced countries,
democracy was still male democracy. As he wrote, 'I am a convinced
believer in adult franchise for men and women and though I believe
there are difficulties in the way, I am sure that the objections raise~ to
its adoption in India have no /great force and are based on fear of
privileged classes and interests'.
Nehru believed that the ultimate authority lies with the people and
the government must give expression to the wisheds of the people.
And there must be an electoral machinery to ascertain the general will
of the people. People's participation can be ensured by regular elections.
As he wrote, 'democracy is based on active and intelligent interest of
the people in their national affairs and in the elections that result inthe
, Nehru wrote. 'Democracy means equality and democracy can ·
flourish in an equal society' . However, the society Nehru inh()rited
was full of pronounced social and economic inequalities whether based
upon ~aste system or class division between rich and poor. Hence he
put foi;ward his theoretical proposition that political, economic and
social freedom could not be separated. It was an integrated concept.
He emphasized that equality in a democratic society was not equality
ofpo~~essing vote but economic and social equality also. He believed
that pn the ~hole, democracy is a great leveller but people differ
educaiionally, economically and otherwise also. All human beings are
not equal ·and there must be a society in which there is equality of
opponunity to lead good life. Similarly he called for the removal of
special privileges because democracy must mean removal of disparities
if it is lo become mass democracy. Freedom and poverty are
inc9mpatible. Nehru also saw the contradiction between capitalism
and democracy. In the context of India; Nehru· also·was aware that
caste was the greatest obstacle to social equality. As he said, 'in the
context of society of today, the caste system ihat goes with it is
W hQII~ incompatible, reactionary and restrictive barrier to progress.
There is no •equality in status and opportunity within its framewo~k
nor can there be political democracy and much less economic
democracy. In social democracy, caste and democracy are
 a,rd I.,ohia On Democracy
An lnfroduction to Political Theory and Though, ~ehfl'
368 · ....In Ind"1a 11· w1·1 I be neces 369
•ndustnes
II d sary to hav the . .
. t
contradre ory.
In short according to Nehru, democracy mea
• fu d ns ,.-r
~•;,rfl
..,,ner
atively contro e . Such a system f
d . o dcmoc .
e big indu•'"'-
- ...s
. · hilosophy which seeks a n amentaI transformati f.ll"r,.,d careful an continuous plan . rat1c COllcctivi·s
creatrng a soc1a1p . t d b th on •11 n.,., , mng and d m
of structure, a society which is not domrna e y _e ucge of private ~ging needs of people. a aptation to the
• d"1vr·dual greed , as well as casteless. society based on the
protirt an d rn
cooperative effort and where there is opportunrty or all to develop. riCJLIATION 8E1WEEN LIBERTY AND l.'-
The aim of democracy is to contnbut~ to the free development of the MrD ""'lUALITY M
l""'rdAJORITY AND INORny
individual at social, economic ao d pohucal levels. 'yS f )" .
· In the context o po. lltcal .versus econom1c . dem
EcONOMIC DEMOCRACY---SociALISM AND PLANNING fullY aware of the d1fficul11es involved . . ~racy, Nehru
~om· with economic justice in the mo;" recon~ihng individual
Nehru avoided the false dichotomy of pol!tical and economic want to preserve individual freedom bem society. As he said,
democracy. Democracy for him was a_dynam1c ideal ar:d he thought . . . utatthesa •
. ·~ot escape centrahzallon m modem s . , me lime, we
m
it was impossible to continue to talk ~ern:is of the nghts of man. Clfl" . . .
· iralizauon arising out of industrial"izat·
. oc1ety . Apart f h
rom t e
There is no democracy without economic JUStrce and economic justice cen
., ancement, ther~ was also problem of nat" 1
ion and te h I ·
.c no og1cal
by itself cannot ensure democracy.. It includes a social _order for the ,,.v f ·1· . mna secunty Hen h
welfare of the people ensuring adequate means o_f hvehhood, public was not averse o curtru mg mdividual liberty i th 1 ·. cc e
ownership, control and distribution of the matenal_resources of the .... society. Similarly, on the question of maiorityn el arger mte_rest of
""' . h f , ru e versus mmorit
community, non-concentration of resources rn a few hands etc. These ·ng . hts • he· said
, t at undamental rights were ·important but n Yt
could be achieved, according to Nehru , through socialism and planning. ,.,.,,,scant.
,-.,·- · h
Unless you balance the ideas of freed
· om and cquahty
.0
In the modem complex society, the problem was how to combine . t,oth of wh1c are important and each of which has to be 1. .
· d d" · 1m1tcd to
democracy with socialism, how 'to maintain individual freedom and .,,..,e
,.,,.. extent m or er to , coor mate with the other• you w1-11 not solve
initiative and yet have centralized social control and planning of the the problems . . of today fd . As Eclurd Heimann
. has remarked 'E,veryth"mg
economic life of the people, on national as well as the international ·to the insutuuons
. ,
o emocracy
. .
hmges on the reconc1·11·at·1000f l"be
I rty
plane'. He advocaied democratic socialism to better the economic · and'cquahty_ Nehru_ tned to build a concept of democracy which was
conditions of the masses. It was to be achieved without violence and rornprehens1ve and mcluded a synthesis of the two. Still in the ulti
class war and through parliamentary democracy. For this, he argued anaiysis it was liberty which was given precedence because
that no nation could think of development unless it has a properly said. 'ultimately it _is the individual that counts'. e
planned economy. It will be an economy, Nehru said, in which socialist
principles and ideal would pre:,,ail generally along with a fair share of (oNCLUSION
capitalism. Qn the w~ole, Nehru'·s concept of democracy was carefully
For this he strongly pleaded for the establishment of the Planning conceptualized taking into consideration various Indian conditions and
Commission in order to assess the national resources and their proper adapting to its realities. He defined democracy in terms of freedom in
· utilization in a systematic order and in accordance with the needs and which human values could be realized. At political level, some of the
necessities of the nation. elements included were representative ·government, popular
sovereignty, parliament, majority rule and responsible political parties,
Planning was an inevitable process of socialist economy in a
adult franchise, elections etc. It called for a structure of society in
democratic structure. He declared that 'economic change will have
which economic and social equality will gradually be attained. An
to be in the direction of a democratically planned collectivism.... a
lastly, democracy also included a certain attitude and approach to the
democratic collectivism need not mean an abolition of private economy
problems on the part of the individual and society.
and property but it will mean the public ownership of the basic and
f ··
 f{ihrU and Lohia 011 Democracy
370 An Introduction to Political Theory a11d Tho Ugh,
, , . 371
·•'hile picad mg or soc1a1ism, he alwa
LOHIA ON DEMOCRACY " . , . ys stOOd de
wanted it to prosper m countnes like India. Bu or mocracy and
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia was the most controversial .figure of . mind that democracy should behave . the was very clear in
h1S h . f. in such a w h
Indian politics. He was the contemporary of Nehru, Gandhi, Jaiprakash should feel t e sensation o 11. As he wrot , ay t at millions
Narayan, and Narendra Dev during the freedom move~ent. But he
...ocracy live to the people would be to c, The only way to make
de,.. 'bl cut up sovc .
did not make any compromise with Nehru at the cost of his principle tinY bits as poss, e so that the comm · . reign power into
astownship. can un derstan d pohtical
.. on man in the .II
affairs and ma . _vi age and
and parted ways with him after independence. In .fact there we res
these two men with so much similarity an d yet so d1vcrgence as w (hem'. The purpose of democracy should be kc intcl! 1&cnt use of
see in Nehru arid Lohia. Roth had their education in foreign land c working principle for the people. It should wa~:~ake II a live and
both had their own internatio_nal conl~~ts wll. h men who always ' the people so that they become the makers of th . P'.he tempers or
mauered to shape the international poh11cs. Both were the chosen · , suffer to be its tool. cir dcSlmy ratherthan
leaders of the Indian masses. Both were dear to Gandhi. But they had
different ideas and vision of politics, policies and programmes, of fWO QUESTION MARKS ABOUT DEMOCRACY
status quo and revolutionary change. In fact when Nehru ruled, Lohia · Lohia's understanding of the term democ , ·d' ·
resided more than twelve times in Nehru's ~ails for op~sing the wrong . racy 1s 1ffercnt from
the usual one. He says that democracy is usually d Ii d
policies of his government. Many took him ·as a philosopher, others • f e inc as the rule of
the. people; a kmd o government
, . where ruler and the ru led arc combined
.
admired him for his organization of thought and few took him as one
in the same person. •This unity of the ruler and the rul Cu., •IS ac h'ICVcd
who was capable 10 translate his ideas into reality. He condemned
both capitalism and communism and called for the establishment of a through represent~llve democracy, The people are given the right to
third force based upon socialism. He believed that the world was still \vote. and ,elect their rulers.
. But .this
, type ,of democracy , accord'mg to
a victim of exploitation where man is subjected to tyranny and the Lohia, rais~~ two quest1on~-(1) 1s the citizen really sovereign? and
goodness and creativeness is being denied to him on one excuse or (ii) i_s the c~t1zen free and npe eno_ugh in intellect to make proper use
the other. He was conscious of the progress of the two biggest of his vote. In other words, only 1f the voter is sovereign and is free
countries of the world i.e., America and Russia but he wanted the · and mature in ·intellect, can democracy as the rule of the people be
world to go a step further. Here we shall consider his views on justified.
democracy. Explaining the the first question, Lohia says that the voters elect
Lohia was a staunch believer in democracy but he wanted it 10 be . the legislature which frames the laws and to whom the executive is
aggressive i.e. , aggressive to the extent that the feudal ownership as responsible. The legislature does not have control over the entire
also the industrial and capitalist ownership must come 10 an end. He apparatus of the state such as army, police, judiciary, schools etc, On
wanted the lovers of democracy to agitate, protest, demonstrate and the either hand, the state though nominally sovereign has to function
even do civil disobedience to the injustice, imparity, corruption and within the society and is concerned with protecting the life and property
exploitation present in the society. He wanted democracy with of the people. Here its powers are limited by the laws of its own
socialism-democracy as a means and socialism as an end. He wanted existence. It will not destroy its own base. On an examination of the
socialism not only for the bread hungry and thirsty millions but he felt representative institutions, it is found that they are all dependent on
that it was a good step for the progress and upliftmenl of the backward the;_capitalist system. The real power lies in the hands of 1he
cou_nt~ies like In~ia. He preferred ii because he believed that through industrialists, bankers and financiers. Justice is also dependent on the
socialism mankind could be saved from the bigger and terrified •laws of pro~rty. The voter cannot function in the frontal opposition
destrucuon which the existing world order would give 10 the world. to this social system and is consequently unable 10 disrupl this social
 and I,o/Jia On Dtmocracy
~ehfU

372 An Introduction to Political Thtory .and Though, ess, The need of the hour is IO 373
11(:IPl • lake de
·cal conclus1on. mocracy forth .
system even if so desired, The democratic state is not entirely dependent
upon an equal adult vote. Privileges either of birth or experience arc . ...ocJtAcY AS A METHOD AND As AN E
p.,., FFORT
entrenched in the upper house or in the judiciary· The voter creates u,hia splits democracy into two-o
the legislature bu! ii has 10 function within an eco_nomic system. In ;,acy as an Effort. Democracy as emocracy as a Mtth d
other words, 1he voter inspile or being given !he nght to vote has a dt111 . I · I h ame1hod · o and
a peacetu soc1a c ange. Throu h . gives an oppon .
very limited role 10 play. · for , . . . . . g un1vcrs I unny
resentattve mstttut1ons, discussion d' a adult franch'
reP . , 1aloguc and 1sc,
The second question is whether !he vo!Cr is free and ripe in inlelleci ·vcs an opportumty to c1ect !he rulers w'th panicipation ·11
g1 f" d t out a bl ,
10 make proper use of his vole. According 10 Lohia, represcma1ive ·oJence. As an e ,ort, emocracy contin _ny OOdshcd and
v1 . . . . I. ua 11 y aspire
instilulions exist side by side wilh !he system of educ~tion and culture , .;,uality, JOJUS!lce, exp 01tation discri . . s to remove the
1n•, . . f. • minat1on and
Iha! arc entirely unrepresentative. This system of education is dictated for 'die progress, vc ru 1e o the people. paves the way
by the same financiers and the ruling caste which limits the sovereignty
In its initial stage, the democratic em :
of !he adult voter. They are !he owners of newspapers, subsidize the . 1· . . . ort en 1!Sled the b
by the capita 1s1 society m its fight against th i ase created
political parties and have a monopoly over higher education. In fact
!he modem democracies are not interested in imparting freedom and dernocra1ic liberties·
of the person freedo cf eudal order such as
' m o thought
,. ociation and the representative institut· , expression,
maturity of mind to ils citizens. .,5 - . . b ions. In fact the . h
formed the minimum ase of safety from wh .. se ng ts
In shon in 1he modem democracy, the citizen is not a free and · • · ere a cn1zen could k
ihe wrongs an d m1us1tces. These rights lim't d h auai:
mature citizen as to make proper use of it because democracy . . bl d h . .
state and ena e t e c111zens to express and O . I e t e authority f h
. o le
functions in !he context of capitalist society. Democracy as the rule . · rgamze against w
and injustices. Also the representative institutions bl d rongs
of people is contaminated and mullified by the rule of property. The ·
iodehberate an d reason out poh11cal'affairs
•• But.,1-1ena e the citizen s
state is also an instrument of the capitalist class. Democraci~s · ·d h · · • .. wasarulebasedon
propeny. It ignore t e mJust1ce and wrongs caused b h
functioning within such a state and society cannot result in the rule of f · D
t,ase o society. emocracy reduced itself 10 a mcth d
Yt c property
the people. d .h o . 0 emocracy
began to be e~~a~e hwit representative institutions in the false belief
Simultaneously, explaining the positive aspect of democracy, Lohia ihat 1hey esta 1s t e ru Ie of the people. It is helpless against the rule
points oul that democracy has also been equaled with 'temple of lire' of prope_rty. The true c?aracter of the state is forgotten. The
which purges humanity of its dross. During the last two hundred . democratic_v~te a~d the m'.n1mum civic liberties confuse men's mind
years, democracy has served as a battle bf freedom bolh against the andc~ate an 1llus1o~ary p1~ture of the democratic state as an organic
feudal privileges as w~II as the rule of one nation over the other. renec11on of the entire nation. The democratic state is equated with
Democracy challenged the privilege with equality, tyranny and force ihegrant of liberties and settlement of disputes among different classes.
with consultative reason of equal citizenry, and serfdom with freedom. But if we see this democracy from the point of view of the propenyless
Similarly against foreign domination, democracy brought into action sections, its weakne~s becomes apparent. Giving the example of
!he same passion for equality, reason, freedom and u~ity. Through all Britain, Lohia says that over one-tenth of the population had to live on
these struggles, !he emphasis of democracy has been the combination ashrinking unemployment dole, unsecured employment and fear of
of rulers and !he ruled on the one hand and destruction of inequality, old age. Such a state of affairs only breaks and humiliates the individual
injustice and reaction on the other. and he is devoid of that freedom and nobility which is the essence of
However, during all these struggles, democracy functioned within democracy. The successive Reform Acts only achieved a victory of
the capitalist system. Against the rule of property, democracy proved
 ~,~I'll and l,11/rla On Dtmocracy
374 An /nt1Vldu ctl1m to Polit/cc,/ Thtt1')' m,d Th<111sl11 , , I' h 375
iddlc clau ~re ,cc mg t cir way towards ace ,
the democratic method, It wu the copitnliit owncnhip of the sc,clcty ~ration ol the working c:lasa in establi1hin I ep1rna the aulldina
which worked 1ho people' s dc~tlny and dcmocrocy was thought to socl•ii•n1 hus ucquircd ugeneral appeal and it ~s ;~~~le of the peopJc,
consill of minimum 11ovo111mentnl lnlcrferencc, Tho vo1ious welfnn: ,ween democracy und the bourgeoisie Th ng • final wedac
lcai•lntlon Kuch as fnc1ory nets, housing, cducntion etc. only touched ~.son
,.. ,
freedom nnd national unity 11 only,'o cddcmocratlc erron of
, E , ,, un lo be po 'bl
the surface of the cnpltnlist abuse. Though dcmocrncy ns n method ,,.,1 11111oc1c1y. vcn 111 the colonial count , Hi c within
I,.. 1 I h h r1c1, the meH
tbO property ru e us rcuc ed the muaca and 1h
t'C stricts 1hc use of violence in support of un 11llomn1ive government,
but it incren10s 1he dnlly violence of cnpltnllsl ownership of society. ?
iook up 10 cupilolism us the general doctrine 0 1 c~~ainly do not
,oeiol democracy wus dcmocrutic allcmpl 10 1 k ~ieiy, Po11-war
nae 10 end

Democratic effort ICl he renl must aspire 10 nn end of this daily violence.
Such II d01nocrncy is o bourgeois prejudice, IOOialconditions for nn nlliuncc of the working cl: c ad vaniaac of the
ssos against the rule of property, In short socss' a,n ho1herexploi1cd
In the context of dcmocrncy ns an i:J]'ort, Lohia gives the cxnmplc Cl. ' ic Y 11$ now c
of Ru,sln ofter the revolution. The: new Russinn constitution lnicl down wI s1ogc wh_en the democratic method can ncgat Ih d o~e
J be h . , e c emocrauc
effort, ,,,e mu1uu wnr tween
'l'h
certain dis1inc1fundnmentul rights of the people such as right 10 work , t e two will end up in th d' .
.be . c rsrupuon
10 leisure, mnintcnuncc in old ugc, illness, incnpnci1n1ion and eclucution. or democracy.
,
Th c vote on d II r11es of cxpres•ion and
• h• . b •
, .
organrzauon
Suc!h democrutlc rights were given n theoretic cert11in1y nnd wns 11 ,re inadequote, t c~ must e supplemented with the strikes and
grcn1 ndvance 1owurds democracy. In order to protect the civil lihcnies, 1wgglc1 of the cxplo11cd , classes.
. But it must avoid the uscorv10 , 1cnce
the Russinn consti1111ion gunrnnteed 1h01 the printing work, pnpcr, In these struggles. Lohm bchcvcd that 1heorc1icolly, social conditions
public buildings, sll'Cels, pusinl and telegraph services were pluced .at thal have created a brood front for socialism also enable the peaceful
the disposal of the employees und their organizations. The Russian ,uccess of democracy. The adult vole must be reinforced by direct
example showed that there was need 10 extend the democratic method action which. alone can bridge the gap between the dcm~ratic effon
of civil liberties and representatives governments 10 include the right and democratic method so vital to democracy.
10 a secure nnd cnpable economic existence. Lohia conceded that the
Lohia not only emphasized the unity of democratic method and
means to nchievc this democratic effort in Ru ssian were not always
democratic action but also gave a blue-print of a socialist society
democratic nnd their ill effects became evident very soon. But any
a1temp1 10 judge the Russian example on the touchstone of the based upon democratic principles. It consisted the following principles :
democratic method alone neglecting the achievements and the extent (i) Maximum anainnble equality
of democratic effort will be wrong. Russian example revculcd (ii)Social ownership of the means of production
fundamental weakness of democracy as practised elsewhere und
(iii)Small unit technology
extended ii in a direction 1101 a11emp1cd before. ·
(Iv) Four-pillar state
UNITY or Mmmo AND EFf'ORT-DEMOCRACV WtTH S0<:1AUSM (\o)A decent standard of living
As stated above, Lohia rejected both capitalism and communism (vi) World parliament and government.
and called for a third force. This third force he called socialism. He Explaining the above clements, Lohia says that like democracy
believed that while capitalism and communism arc tied up in the mesh tocialism is also a doctrine of equality, A democratic society needs 10
of old and dying world, socialism is a creed of chan~ and justice. be Ill equal society. Equality according to him stand~ for such an
After the world wars, both types of democracy-capitalist and 'ordering of social forces as will balance a share in the toil of living
communist-hove lost appeal: Through a series of struggles, the ~ilh a share in its gains also i.e. the social forces would be arranged
working class has come 10 adopt u the objective of their political in such a way thateaoh may get its due'. He tenns this as 'the principle
action the end of property rule. Similarly the peasantry and lower
 ' ond Lohia On Democracy
~e/lfll
An Introduction to Political Theory and Thought 377
376
·iways, hydro electric_ projects are ltCCcss .
of immediacy' i.e., the maximum and imi:"cdiate at~nability relevant ustrY should be nauonalized, the sman7· _While the large scale
to the current situation in relation to the '.deal. Lo~1a regards equality •!ed by the state and village governments nn machines could be
as 'high an aim of life as truth or bcau'.y ._He bcheve~ th~t 1f there is . : bY •peasant cooperatives' . as •ts producers as well
no equality among the individuals, then Justice, human d1~1ty: morality,
fourthly, along with the abolition of lar e .
brotherhood. freedom and universal welfare cannot ll?unsh·m society.
Inequality disunites men. Though twentieth c_entury 1s _suffering from
the worst form of inequality but at the same time man 1s also fighting
so wanted the all powerful state to •disap
r seal~ industry, Lohia
~ukhamba (four pillar) State. He says 1 'paving the way for
th
it organized on two pillars; the centre atd e st ate has hitherto
against inequalities and injustices as he has never done be_fore. In this 1,eC 'd 'd . . an the provmc B .
context, Lohia referred to the Sapta Kranll (s~ven re;olullons) taking [(!er 10 prov• e w1 er part1c1pation, it sho Id be . e. ut m
0
~•!
place in the context of equality. Th_ey are : equahty between men
-uars-village, district, province ·and the c/ tre organized_on four
vested with autonomous power ofaction ;d dan_d_cach umt should
and women, (ii) abolition of inequaht,es based on colour,
atters The four pillar state should be both an e CCJSionson specified
(iir) elimination of inequalities of birth and caste, (iv) national freedom 111 • ct· xecut,ve and Jeinslati
or ending of foreign influence, (v) economic equality through increased ....ngement-exten mg to the aspects of pr d . .,. ve
..,-· . I . d . o uct,on, ownership
production, (vi) protecting the privacy of life from all collective administrauon, p anmng, e ucauon and the like Th . '
. .b · e sovereign power
encroachments, and, (vii) limitations on armaments. of the state s.hou Id b.e so d1stn uted that each liltle community . hves
.
Seco11d/y, Lohia believed that the root cause of inequality is that the way .of hfe that 11. chooses.
. It should represent the seIf·SU ffi1c1ent
.
village as well as the mtelhgent ~nd vital village. In short, democrac
the gifts of nature and instruments of production are privately owned demands both economic and pohucal decentralization. Y
for personal benefit. This leads to economic exploitation which is a
major hurdle in the way of democracy. Here his solution was two- Fifthly, Lohia talks of decent standard ofliving against the routine
fold : destroy the attachment to property in the minds of men and 'increased standard of living' . Standard ofliving means a set of good
abolish private property in the means of production and establish which' form regular consumption of individual. Whereas increase~
ownership of the whole community. standard of living means continuous increase of goods, a decent
standard of living requ_ires that these goods should be made available
Thirdly, in contrast to the communist fad for big machines, Lohia
to all. Equal distribution of goods get priority here. According to Lohia,
was in favour of 'small unit technology '. Here he was close to Gandhi the fight between the have and have-nots will be reduced in a decent
than to Nehru. He believed that the large scale factory which produces
stand~d of living.
in great number is incapable of abolishing the poverty of the large part
of mankind. He feared that if India uses large scale technology, a And lastly, Lohia pleads for the establishment of a world"parliament
hundred million people will need to be liquidated. His idea of small unit with powers to enforce peace and promote economic developmenL
technology was that labour should have direct contact with the machine hshould_establish an internal pool of capital resources and shall take
and should master and adapt to its operation. This was also necessary 'from each country according to its capacity and give to each country
because the villages and towns have abundant raw-material and the according to its needs.'
small unit technology will help the industry to be take.n to village
rather than villager to the industry, thus making the massive social
. dislocation of industrialization unnecessary. It will also serve the social ODO
aims of decentralization and democratization which large scale industry
cannot serve. However, it does not mean that large scale industry
should not exist. He was of the opinion that large scale industry like