Bachelor of Arts (Honours)

POLITICAL SCIENCE

BAPS-14

MODERN INDIAN POLITICAL

THOUGHT

Block-04
NEHRU, LOHIA AND J.P NARAYAN
UNIT 13: NEHRU: SECULARISM, SOCIALISM
UNIT 14: LOHIA: SOCIALISM
UNIT 15: J.P. NARAYAN: TOTAL REVOLUTION
UNIT 16: NEHRU, LOHIA, J.P. NARAYAN: A
COMPARATIVE STUDY
Course Writer Course Editor

Dr. Prabira Sethy Dr. Sachidananda Mishra

Assistant Professor, Political Science Retd. Prof from Ravenshaw University,
Institutional Affiliation: Maharaja Agrasen College, Cuttack, (Unit-14)
University of Delhi
(Unit-14)

Ms. Lisa Bhoi Dr. Antaryami Beriha

Academic Consultant, Political Science, Academic Consultant, (Political Science),
Odisha State Open University Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur
(Unit-13) (Unit-13 & 15)

Ms. Sital Samal Dr. Tarini Sen Barik

Academic Consultant, Political Science, Retd. Reader in Political Science,
Odisha State Open University (Women’s College Sambalpur)
(Unit-15) (Unit-16)

Ms.Tulasi Ray
Academic Consultant, Political Science,
Odisha State Open University
(Unit-16)

Course Coordinator

Ms.Tulasi Ray
Academic Consultant (Political Science)
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Material Production
Prof. (Dr.) Manas Ranjan Pujari
Registrar
Odisha State Open University

© OSOU, 2021. Development process and social movements in

contemporary India is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
4.0http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0
Printed by:
UNIT-13 NEHRU: SECULARISM, SOCIALISM

Structure

13.1Objectives
13.2 Introduction
13.3 Nehru: A Brief Profile
13.4 Nehru’s Concept of Secularism
13.4.1 Nehru’s Definition of Secularism
13.4.2 Secularism for Social Harmony
13.4.3 Secularism for an Egalitarian Order
13.4.4 Secularism for National Unity
13.4.5. Secularism for Protection of Minority

13.5 Nehru’s Concept of Socialism

13.5.1 Democratic socialism

13.5.2 Mixed Economy the basis of Democratic Socialism

13.5.3 Planning as the method of Democratic Socialism

13.6Nehru’s concept of Democracy
13.7Nehru’s views on Nationalism
13.8Summary
13.9Exercises
13.10 Reference

13.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to understand:

 Nehru’s philosophical foundation of political thought

 Political thoughts and ideas of Nehru
 Nehru’s views on Secularism
 Nehru’s views on Democratic socialism
 Nehru’s nationalist and international outlook

1
13.2 INTRODUCTION

Jawaharlal Nehru occupies a unique position in history as a freedom fighter and

builder of modern India. He was a writer, thinker, and statesman of great
eminence. Jawaharlal Nehru, a man with vision and dynamism was one among the
few Indians who had come out of the cocoon of luxury and dedicated his life to the
nation. He virtually laid the foundation for modern India, in his thoughts and
deeds. As the first Prime Minister of free India, he played a significant role in
determining the basic features of the Indian society and polity. Democracy,
Socialism, and Secularism can very well be considered as his precious
contributions to modern India. Therefore, Nehru has helped India to ride out many
crises by laying the most pragmatic foundation of democracy, secularism, planning,
and socialism.

Jawaharlal Nehru was a great Democratic Socialist of modern India. He was the
forerunner of the socialist trend in the Indian National movement and he was
instrumental in putting India on the socialist path. His primary objective was to
achieve socialism gradually within the democratic framework. He was one of the
few who did not take democracy for granted but sought to explain his conception.
He shows how it could be brought into harmony with the conception of socialism
and how it could be implemented. Nehru’s notable contributions to the realm of
learning in Indian history and Indian political thought were Glimpses of World
History, Autobiography, and ‘The Discovery of India’. He was instrumental in the
development of contemporary India.

13.3 NEHRU: A BRIEF PROFILE

Nehru was born on 14th November 1889 in an aristocratic higher caste Kashmiri
Brahmin family. His father Motilal Nehru was not only a reputed lawyer but also a self-
styled Englishman who ultimately left English and became the most dedicated freedom
fighter in the country. Swarupa Rani, the second wife of Motilal was the mother of
Jawaharlal Nehru and Nehru was the third son of Motilal. Because Motilal's first wife
died along with the son and the first son of his second wife had also died. Nehru was
the only one who survived to be adorned as the 'architect of modem India'. Nehru was
brought up under the guidance and control of his father Motilal who was the permanent
symbol of patriarchal magnificence. In the language of psycho-analysis Nehru was the
son of his father and Gandhi was the son of his mother.

Nehru’s early education started at home. In 1905 when he was only fifteen years of
age, was sent to England. Then he had his education at Harrow where he was
encouraged by Dr. Wood to read not only literature but also British History and
contemporary politics. In 1907, he joined the Trinity College, Cambridge, and took up
science as his subject of study. But all these years of study in England, Nehru imbibed
the tradition of British humanist liberalism. He subscribed to the philosophical ethos of
2
Mill, Morley, and also Gladstone. The writings of Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russell had a
great influence on Nehru. Nehru was a man of ideas. He was not a political philosopher in the
academic sense. Though he wanted to join in London school of Economics, he joined
the Inner Temple in London to study law. Nehru came back to India in 1912 after
staying in England for seven years. After coming from London, he joined as a Lawyer
in the United Province High Court but found the legal profession mostly uninteresting
and the behaviour of his colleagues quite rustic and purely professional.

When Nehru gradually entered Indian Politics it was in a state of 'fluidity' without any
concrete organization and ideology. Because the Indian National Congress had a split
in 1907 due to conflict between extremists led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and moderates
led by Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Nehru was drawn to the Servants of India Society
founded by G.K. Gokhale in 1905, but by temperament, he was an extremist and a
revolutionary. So he could not accept the ideology of the Servants of India Society
which was moderate. Moreover, for this reason, he remained an inactive member of
Congress for a long period. He for the first time met Mahatma Gandhi in the Lucknow
session of the Congress in 1916 and was tremendously influenced by his towering
personality. Jawahar also became a member of the Home Rule League led by Tilak and
Mrs Annie Besant, because Nehru was in search of an organization to fight against the
Britishers. His extremism sometimes entangled him in a conflict with his father who
was a moderate. The year 1916 was important for Nehru not only because of the
beginning of his political career, but also his marriage to Kamala Nehru. Despite his
western education, Nehru had remained an Indian in his heart and mind. Nehru was
overenthusiastic to participate in the Non- Cooperation movement launched in 1920.
He was arrested for his active role in the Satyagraha.

The year 1929 was a turning point in Jawahar’s life. Because his radicalism and sincere
effort to redefine the concept of Swaraj in terms of complete independence
materialized. He was elected as the president of the Indian National Congress in 1929
and his resolution called Purna Swaraj was carried out at midnight on 31st December
1929. In January 1936 he was again elected as the president of the Indian National
Congress for the second time. It was during this time Nehru came out with his ‘Socialist
ideas’ and strongly fought for its adoption both in the national and international sphere.
He described socialism as the only key to the solution to the world’s problems and
India’s problems. However, for the third time, he was elected as the President of the
Indian National Congress in 1937.

Jawaharlal Nehru, became the first Prime Minister of Independent India trying his level
best to change the destiny of India and making India a socialist, Secular, and non-
aligned state. In the international field, he could carve out a leading role for India by
devising the policy of Non-alignment and peaceful co-existence. But since the Indo-
Chinese war of 1962 in which India faced defeat, Nehru’s charisma started being
challenged both inside the parliament and outside. He boldly faced the challenges but

3
nature went against him. On 27th May 1964, he suffered a heart stroke from which he
never recovered. The maker of modern India was no more.

13.4 NEHRU’S CONCEPT OF SECULARISM

In the history of India's political tradition, Nehru was a secularist in his thought and
action. The secular foundation of Indian polity was laid by Nehru. Nehru regarded
secularism as the basic law of Indian nationhood. It grew as an integrative process. He
strongly believed that territorial integrity, political stability, and national identity can
be achieved only through secularism. Nehru's family background, western education,
individualism, and scientific outlook, prompted him to develop a secular outlook for
himself and a secular structure for the country. Nehru strove to modernize India's
medieval society by substituting technology for tradition and science for superstition.
His struggle against racism, obscurantism, and injustice was relentless.

According to Nehru, Secular philosophy meant neither irreligion nor only

material well-being. It contained spiritual elements also. His secular spirit inspired
him to establish a secular society based on justice and equality in an intensively
religious and rather medieval country like India. For him, Secularism was not only
a political doctrine, but a social one of revolutionary character which embraced all
religions and all communities in India. It refers to a social structure in which
individuals are not assigned to a hierarchical position in society based on their
faith and religion. It refers to a specific mental attitude that individuals and
groups have toward members of other religious groups. Inter-group and inter-
personal relations are not supposed to be affected by religion and religious
considerations.

13.4.1 Nehru’s Definition of Secularism

The definitions of secularism are many and varied. The Encyclopedia Britannica
defines secular as "non-spiritual, having no concern with religious or spiritual
matters". It is 'anything distinct, opposed to, or not connected with religion or
religious things, temporal as opposed to spiritual or ecclesiastical'. Secularism is
not opposed to religion as such; it is opposed rather to the use of religious
institutions, and religious motivations, in the legal-political and educative
processes.

Indian Secularism,' as Nehru defined it, was largely negative. Keeping in view India's
specific condition, he defined secularism in the dual sense to keep the state, politics, and
education separate from religion, making religion a private matter for the individual. He
developed this approach to acting as a crusader against communalism, the most powerful
contemporary Indian ideology after nationalism, and here there was no peer to Nehru.
Nehru strongly opposed the religious practices which were infected with the virus of
superstition, credulity, irrationalism, and intolerance. Rejecting the religious practices as

4
'ranked hypocrisy and selfishness, he remarked the less we talk of and worry about the
saint world, the more good we are likely to do to our fellow countrymen and country.
Nehru wanted every Indian to be scientific and rational keeping themselves away from
religious dogmatism. He was critical of Gandhiji's medieval approach to religion. He was
a democrat who always opposed the tyranny of the majority. Nehru emphasized the
promotion of scientific temper to search for truth based on testing and trial. According
to Nehru, Secularism has different dimensions which are discussed below.

13.4.2 Secularism for Social Harmony

Nehru was in favour of a secular state because he was convinced that secular provisions
would better ensure socio-religious harmony among the different groups. Especially a
country with diversified religious faiths would be benefitted from secularism. It would
establish the foundation of a stable society. Accordingly, the constitution of India under
Article 25-28 guarantees freedom to profess, propagate and practice any religion one
likes. Nehru was especially interested in a uniform civil code to be enumerated in
directive principles.

13.4.3 Secularism for an Egalitarian Order

Nehru also interpreted secularism as equal respect for all faiths and equal opportunities
for those who profess any faith. It means there will be no religious discrimination as in
a theocratic state which creates two classes of citizens - One having more opportunities,
the other less. Such provisions are anti-democratic. Equal opportunities for all religious
groups would guarantee socio-economic-political security to both majorities as well as
the minority. This will encourage the growth of an egalitarian order and act as the
foundation of democracy.

13.4.4 Secularism for National Unity

Nehru envisaged secularism for national unity and integrity. Nehru said, in a country
like India socially and economically retarded and entrenched by religious, ethnic,
linguistic, and tribal cleavages inhabiting a vast landmass, the adoption of secularism
was the pragmatic solution to its problems. Because secularism creates a scientific man
free from dogmatism and obscurantism. Such a scientific outlook prevents men from
communally judging anything and working for national unity. So secularism for Nehru
had both political and psychological implications. But to pursue secular ideals Nehru
emphasized mass education, urbanization, and industrialization.

13.4.5 Secularism for Protection of Minority

In the post-Independence era, Nehru's secularism emphasized the minority. Because

while he piloted many reform measures in the Hindu code, he hesitated to do so for the
Muslims, for which he had been severely criticized. But Nehru argued that while the
Hindu community had been intellectually prepared for changes in their law, Muslims

5
were not so. He hoped that as a result of education and propaganda, a uniform civil
code would be accepted by Muslims without resistance. There by he undoubtedly
sounded partial, but he was determined to create a sense of confidence among the
Muslims which was shaken as a result of the trauma of partition; the Christians were
assured of full freedom for evangelical work so long as it did not undermine national
unity and integrity of India. He gave special attention to Muslims and argued that
Hindus were safe anyhow in India but minorities should be protected even if the
majority had to sacrifice something.

13.5 NEHRU’S CONCEPT OF SOCIALISM

Nehru was one of the founding fathers of socialism in India. He was one among the
few Indians who underwent many strains and stress during his life to establish a
'Socialist India, free from exploitation, degradation, and subjection'. He was
instrumental in introducing socialist ideas into the socio-economic programs of the
Indian National Congress and the Indian constitution.

Nehru was very much moved when he saw countrymen suffering from poverty,
ignorance, and disease. He thought socialism was the only panacea. He brought to
bear on this central problem his modern mind and scientific temper. Scientific
socialism, tempered by his intense humanism thus became his intellectual . But
Nehru, despite his sympathy for the suffering of the masses was not a 'doctrinaire
dogmatic socialist'. He was not a socialist like Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. That was because
Nehru's socialism took different shapes in different periods. In his youth, Nehru was
drawn to British socialist ideas, at a time when, under the banner of the Fabian
Society, Shaw, Wells, the Webbs, and others were preaching the socialization of
essential services and basic industries within the framework of parliamentary
government, as the best means of eliminating poverty and ensuring work for all. His
attention was also drawn to the works of Marx and Lenin and the practical
achievement of the Soviet Union. Nehru himself said: "A study of Marx and Lenin
produced a powerful effect on my mind and helped me to see history and current
affairs in a new light."He was influenced by Fabian socialists like G.B. Shaw,
Bertrand Russell, and Webbs during his student career in Britain. He drank deeply in
Marxist literature from 1929 to 1939, visited communist countries like Russia and
China, and attended the Congress of oppressed nationalities in February 1927 in
Brussels but he did not follow any of the fixed models of socialism. Nehru's liberal
democratic views also shaped his views on socialism. Nehru once wrote 'I suppose I
am temperamentally and by training an individualist and intellectually a socialist". I
hope Nehru continued, "socialism does not kill or suppress individuality; indeed I am
attracted to it because it will release innumerable individuals from economic and
cultural bondage." Above all, he is a humanist in the best tradition of East and West.
His creed is best defined as democratic socialism and refined human materialism.

6
13.5.1 Democratic Socialism

Nehru was deeply concerned with India's independence and socio-economic changes.
The socio-economic conditions in India are different from other countries. So the same
technique of socialism should not be applied to all the countries. Moreover, Nehru's
political ideas were conditioned by some of the liberal democratic traditions of the
nineteenth century. He was very much concerned for individual freedom. He believed
that political freedom is a prerequisite of national development for the solution of social
and economic problems and of human dignity. It is a means to an end, the end being
the upliftment of the masses. Appropriately Nehru argued that democracy and
socialism are not contradictory but complementary to each other. Nehru wrote, "I do
not see why under socialism there should not be a great deal of freedom for the
individual; indeed for greater freedom than the present system gives..." Nehru argued,
that democracy without socialism will be mockery, and socialism without democracy
will lead to authoritarianism and regimentation. Above all, Nehru's objective was to
involve all sections of people in the process of socialism. Hence Nehru became the
progenitor of the idea of democratic socialism.

13.5.2 Mixed Economy as the Basis of Democratic Socialism

Nehru introduced Democratic socialism as a model of development which is based on

mixed ideology. It aims at the control by the state of the means of production of key
industries and the means of distribution like Railways, cooperatives, banks, etc. Nehru's
democratic socialism emphasizes a Mixed economy. Because Nehru allowed both the
public and private sectors to co-exist side by side. He preferred “selective
nationalization” of key industries rise. It is a true model of his democratic socialism,
most suitable for peculiar Indian conditions.

In 1956, the Industrial Policy Resolution was further clarified by a revised

Resolution under which the various industries were put into several categories.
The role of the Government and the Private Sector was mentioned. This
clarification was made to make both the Private and Public Sectors play a very
important role. Various regulatory measures adopted by the Government and
especially the Industrial Development Act had taken care of the proper direction
of the Industrial efforts. Nehru's concept of Socialism as 'expounded in the reso-
lution passed at Avadi was discussed subsequently at Ooty Seminar in 1959. In
December 1963 at the Jaipur Session of the A.I.C.C, the statement on Democracy
and Socialism was discussed. Later on, the Indian National Congress at its 08th
Session held on 9th and 10th January 1964 at Bhubaneswar adopted a Resolution
on "Democracy and Socialism." In pursuance of that Resolution, the Congress
President appointed a Sub-committee on 26th March 1964 to prepare a draft
report on the implementation of the said Resolution. Shri U.N. Dhebar was made
the Chairman of that Committee. The Committee submitted its Report to the
Congress President on 7th May 1964. The Working Committee accepted the

7
Report of the Sub-Committee and subsequently the same was passed at the
A.I.C.C. Session held at Bombay on the 15th, 10th, and 17th May 1964, At last,
Nehru was able to put all his ideas into the text of the Resolution and made the
Congress Party commit itself to implement all his ideas. Due credit h as to be
given to Nehru for having properly led the Congress Party in the right direction .

Democratic socialism is most suitable for peculiar Indian conditions. The Nehruvian
model aims at economic growth with social justice with adequate production and
generation of employment, and fair opportunities for growth must be provided for
everyone. But there must be equitable distribution of national resources. The
introduction of land reforms, changing of property rights, and the creation of
Panchayati raj structures are some of the milestones of Nehru's democratic socialism.

13.5.3 Planning As a Method of Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism of Nehru abjured Marxian methods of violence and class war. It
also eschewed the capitalist system of monopoly and privatization. He believed that
neither revolutionary socialism nor a capitalist system can preserve human values.
Hence Nehru evolved a peaceful method i.e., planning to achieve democratic socialism.
In other words, democratic socialism adopts planning as the method of change. To
Nehru, Planning is an inevitable process of a socialist economy in a democratic
structure. Planned development of the economy will ensure the establishment of a
classless society through cooperative efforts. Planning is a democratic method of
establishing a socialist pattern of society through law, persuasion, and cooperation.
Democratic socialism through planning was given a concrete shape at the Avadi
Session of Congress in January 1955.

The establishment of a Planning Commission in the year 1950 now (Niti Aayog)
and the era of planning that it started gave Nehru a chance to work simultaneously
for economic development and social justice. The Planning Commission became
his chief instrument to translate his ideas into practice. Nehru's concept of planning
was not based on planning in any Western country. Though he drew largely from
the experience gained by the advanced countries, he moulded the structure of
planning to suit the Indian conditions as well as to fit in with the basic tenets of
Democracy & peaceful progress.

Nehru considered planning as something dynamic, as a movement in thinking and

action, from the political to the social and economic plans. And such a movement
had certain basic objectives. The first objective was to establish a socialist state and
a democratic, socialist, and secular modem society. The socialism that Nehru
considered was "a growing dynamic concept, as something which is not rigid, as
something which must it with the changing conditions of human life and the
achievements of this country." This meant that there could be no fixed unchanging
dogma to his concept of socialism. Secondly, he wanted to make the State a

8
powerful engine of production and distribution so that equitable distribution of
income and wealth could be assured. But he wanted to go about this objective in
stages and not abruptly. Thirdly, he wanted to protect his concept of planning by
common consent and broad understanding. That is to say, his concept of planning
was based on the force of persuasion rather than the use of coercion.

He wanted to implement fully the principles mentioned in Article 39 of the

Constitution and also other relevant articles. He was not satisfied with the progress
of Indian Planning to achieve these objectives. Moreover, his socialistic creed was
criticized by many. So, in the 60th Session of the Indian National Congress at
Avadi (Madras), a Resolution on economic objectives was adopted. This
Resolution stated that "Planning should take place with a view to the establishment
of a socialistic pattern of society in which the principal means of production are
under social ownership or control, production is progressively speeded up, and
there is equitable distribution of the national wealth.”

But Nehru's democratic socialism has been subject to criticism. R.C. Pillai described it
as ‘welfare capitalism’. Bhambri remarks, that Nehru's concept of a 'Mixed economy'
encouraged and strengthened capitalism, whatever may be the criticism, if the
Nehruvian model of democratic socialism failed in India, it was more due to a lack of
commitment of the rulers and bureaucrats and less due to conceptual fallacies.

13.6 NEHRU’S VIEWS ON DEMOCRACY

Nehru with his charismatic personality and character of dominance was one among the
few who was committed to parliamentary democracy and democratic values. He was a
strong believer in the theory of parliamentary democracy. He as a political successor
of Mahatma Gandhi was a deep votary of the creed of the nobility of means. The
intellectual and social influence of the west largely shaped his liberal democratic ideas.
He desired India to catch up with the advanced industrial nations of the west. He wished
for India to compete with the West and to handle disputes most democratically. Nehru
read ideas of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Bentham, J.S. Mill, and Karl Marx.

Moreover, his strong faith in the ability of the common man, human equality, free
elections, and freedom of speech, free press, and parliamentary system implied that
Nehru was a genuine democrat. Nehru’s concept of democracy has different
implications. In the early years of the struggle for independence, democracy meant the
ideal of self-rule or responsible government. But during the later years, his socialist
ideas altered his views on democracy, emphasizing more and more economic aspects.
Broadly, he emphasized the equality of opportunity for all in the political and economic
field and freedom for the individual to grow and develop to the best of his personality.
Nehru emphasized equality and the integrated conception of political, economic, and
social freedom which could not be separated from one another. He criticized western

9
democracy where political power is the monopoly of the economically dominant class.
The democratic institutions are used to protect the privilege of the ruling class.

According to him, democracy means tolerance not merely of those who agree with us
but of those who don’t agree with us. It implies Nehru’s objective to establish a secular
democracy in which the Hindu majority would allow equal rights to Muslim and
Christian minorities. He made provisions in the Indian constitution for protecting the
cultural and religious rights of minorities. At the same time, while trying to achieve the
goal of a socialistic India during the most colonial period, Nehru underlined the
importance of nobility of means which is one of the most important democratic
approaches to achieve such goals. It is a clear indication of his sense of modernism that
he completely sidelined the non – democratic approach and wanted to ensure a path of
development with the effective participation of the people. There has certainly given
him the status of a modern political thinker.

13.7 NEHRU’S VIEWS ON NATIONALISM

Jawaharlal Nehru was a great prophet of Indian Nationalism. His contribution to Indian
Nationalism was unique and original. No doubt in the early part of his life he was
influenced by nationalists like Garibaldi who led the process of the Unification of Italy
and also by the militant nationalism of Aurobindo, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Vivekananda,
and others. But Nehru differed from all of them. His nationalism was progressive,
secular, and socialistic. He was against the aggressive nationalism of the Fascist and
Nazis. He worked for a synthesis between nationalism and internationalism.

Nehru gave a revolutionary dimension to Indian Nationalism. He emphasized the social

and economic freedom for all sections of the society in the place of poverty, inequality,
and exploitation. Despite strong opposition from the Right-wing within Indian National
Congress, he succeeded in getting party approval of his views in the Karachi resolution
on fundamental rights in 1931. This was their first step toward the goal of a ‘Socialist
pattern of society. His ideas on social and economic reforms also found expression in
the Congress election manifestoes of 1936 and 1946. In the post-Independence era,
Nehru had played an important role in integrating different parts of India and protected
the unity of the nation. Nehru believed that Central Government should be given more
power so that it can be strong and stable to protect national unity. He accepted pluralism
as a part of Indian Nationalism, but not at the cost of the unity of the country.

13.8 SUMMARY

Nehru's significance to India's independence movement and the development of

contemporary India cannot be overstated. Because of his selfless dedication for the
liberation of India, his perception and initiation of planning in India, his crusade against
communalism and regionalism, his untiring effort to give the basic minimum to every
Indian by a socialist pattern of society, his faith in individualism and democracy and

10
his vision of new world order, it is right that ‘Nehru was not one man but a procession
of men’. He was a prominent figure in the Indian National Congress. Even though he
was Mahatma Gandhi's pupil and heir, he had significant differences with him. While
Gandhi was a religious man, Nehru was not; he never shared Gandhi's views on the
spiritualization of politics, and he never agreed with Gandhiji's economic concepts of
trusteeship. He had the courage of Stalin and the heart of Gandhi. Social prejudices and
religious dogmatism never touched him. With his scientific temper and rational
humanist touch, he could silence even his bitter critics.

Nehru was an agnostic and so a secularist in politics. He discovered an answer to all

issues in science. Nehru taught scientific humanism and championed a scientific temper
throughout his life. Nehru was a political realist who approached all issues with a
pragmatic mindset. Nehru's political beliefs were revolutionary. Nehru was a staunch
nationalist who crossed the line into internationalism, an ardent believer in democracy,
and a champion of individual liberty and equality. He was a proponent of parliamentary
democracy and desired to establish a democratic state. Nehru was a Fabian socialist in
terms of economic beliefs. He picked a position that was halfway between capitalism
and Marxism. His campaign for a peaceful and secure world has been an important
contribution to the international arena.

13.9 EXERCISES

1. Critically explain Nehru’s view on democratic socialism.

2. Discuss the political ideas of Nehru.

3. State the evolution of Nehru's concept of socialism.

4. What are the characteristics of his theory of socialism?

5. Explain Nehru's scientific temper and his concept of scientific humanism.

6. Explain Nehru’s concept of Democracy.

7. Explain briefly Nehru’s international outlook.

13.10 REFERENCES

1. Chandra, Prakash, Modern Indian Political Thought, Vikas Publications

Pvt.Ltd. NewDelhi, 1998.
2. Varma,V.P., Modern Indian Political Thought, Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal,
Educational Publishers, Agra, 2013
3. Gupta, R.C., Great Political Thinkers, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal Educational
Publishers, Agra, 2009-10.

11
4. Mohanty, D.K (1997), Indian Political Tradition. AnmolPublicationsPvt.Ltd,
New Delhi.
5. Chakrabarty, B. and Pandey, R. K. (2009). Modern Indian Political Thought.
New Delhi: SAGE Texts.
6. Gouba, O.P. (2016). Indian Political Thought. New Delhi: Mayur Paperbacks.
7. Mehta, V.R. (1992). Foundations of Indian Political Thought. Delhi: Manohar
Publisher.
8. Padhy, K.S.(2017). Indian Political Thought. Delhi: PHI Learning pvt. Ltd.
9. Singh, M.P. and Roy, H. (2011). Indian Political Thought Themes and
Thinkers. Delhi: Pearson.
10. RAJASEKHARIAH, A. M. (1987). JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S
CONTRIBUTION TO SECULARISM IN INDIA-AN ESTIMATE. The
Indian Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 212–224.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855300

12
UNIT-14 RAM MANOHAR LOHIA: SOCIALISM

Structure

14.1 Objectives

14.2 Introduction

14.3. Life-Sketch

14.4 A Brief Background of Dr Lohia’s Socialism

14.5 Dr Lohia’s Concept or Blue-Print of Socialism

14.5.1Maximum Attainable Equality

14.5.2 Social Ownership of the Means of Production

14.5.3 Concept of Small Unit Technology / Machines

14.5.4 Model of ‘Four-Pillar State’

14.5.5 Emancipation of Women

14.5.6 A Decent Standard of Living

14.5.7Advocated for a World Parliament and World Union

14.5.8 Poverty Elevation Policy

14.5.9 Outlined the Plan of Food Army

14.5.10 Abolition of Caste

14.5.11 English Language to be replaced by Hindi

14.5.12 Abolition of Land Revenue

14.5.13 Education must be for the Reconstruction of Indian Society

14.5.14 Land and Agricultural Development

14.5.15 Role of Party and the Method of Socialist Revolution

14.5.16 Socialist Planning

14.6 Conclusion

13
 14.7 Summary

14.8 Exercises

14.9 References

14.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this unit, you will be able to:

 Delve into the Life-Sketch of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia.

 Familiarize with the background of Lohia’s socialism.
 Examine Lohia’s concept of Socialism.

“The people will listen to me perhaps after I am dead but listen they must someday.
What is wanted is a new type of leadership and a new quality among the people”.
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia

14.2 INTRODUCTION

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia has occupied an important place in the fundamental social and
political thought of modern India. He was one of the world’s greatest figures he put the
whole of his life into the service of humankind. He was a man of a wonderful blending
of wisdom, conscience and revolutionary vision. He was considered a powerful thinker
of socialist ideology. Along with he was being a strong campaigner for socialist
ideology in India, he was a great political fighter, patriot, and independent thinker and
he was also a fearless leader in one way. He connected religion with the welfare and
worldly prosperity of human beings but by not connect the religion with the soul and
divine. His thought was confined to putting an end to the problems and difficulties of
human beings. Not only did he participate in the freedom struggle of India but also
showed interest in the freedom struggle of Nepal and Goa for which he is considered
the symbol of the faith in human freedom. In his lifetime, he went 18 times to jail and
always made effort for social justice. Lohia had never used the word ‘social justice’ but
to put it into practice and in terms of establishing a casteless and classless society, he
gave much more emphasis to uplifting the weak and backward classes in every field as
well. However, Dr Lohia was a strong spokesperson for socialist ideology. In his view,
socialism was the only way to improve India and will bring it on the path of progress.
His socialism-related ideas were found in his books like ‘Socialism in India, Politics of
Socialism, Economics of Socialism, Economic Base of Socialism, and Socialist
Thought’, etc. etc. In 1939 he had a major role in the establishment of the Socialist
Party in India. In February 1947 Dr Lohia presided over the convention of the Socialist
Party of Congress which was held at Kanpur. In 1955 the Socialist Party was formed
under his presiding. Throughout his active politics, he tried his best to provide a strong
base for the ideology of socialism.

14
Dr Lohia is considered the disputed leader of Indian politics. He was a true socialist
and striking at the original goal and base of Capitalism and Communism he focused on
developing his ideology of Indian socialism. He tried looking at the problems of
socialist thought from Asia’s point of view. Contrary to Marxism, Lohia connected the
caste with the concept of class and recognised that history moves on from class and
caste struggle. Both these powers occupy an important position in Indian society and
without understanding it true socialism cannot be founded. Being a staunch supporter
of democracy, he tried to harmonise democracy with socialism wherein democracy will
be a medium and socialism will be an end. Lohia advocated such a type of democracy
in which the state’s power will be decentralised which he called it Five-Pillared State.
Under democracy, he emphasised citizencitizens’ies and activism of political
participation. Also, in the economic field, Lohia insisted on the establishment of the
Gandhian Village Republic in which every village will be made self-reliant. By
recommending World Parliament or World Government Lohia paved the way for
World Peace and economic equality. Thus, in India Dr Lohia has occupied a distinct
place in moving forward the ideology of democratic socialism.

14.3. LIFE-SKETCH

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia was a Vaish (his kinsmen dealing in Iron-Loha-so were
described as Lohia) born on March 22, 1910, in a village, Akbarpur in Faizabad district
of Uttar Pradesh. His father’s name was Harilal who was associated with the freedom
struggle. His mother named Chandra Devi was a devout woman. When Ram Manohar
was one and half years old when his mother died. He was raised by his grandmother.
But unfortunately, when he was ten years old his grandmother also expired. The
elementary education of Ram Manohar commenced in Tandon School and in
Visheswar Nath High School which was situated in Akbarpur. After the death of his
grandmother, he with his father went to Bomwhereine in 1925 he passed the
matriculation examination in the first division. For intermediate studies, he took
admitted to Banaras Hindu University. He passed BA from the Vidyasagar University
of West Bengal. After graduation and due to his educational qualification, he received
financial aid. This financial aid provided him with the opportunity to visit Berlin for
higher education. In 1932 he obtained a Ph.D degree from Berlin University and his
research topic was “Salt of India and Individual Satyagraha”.

Lohia was an original thinker, a unique leader and a rebel. He was mentally a man of
action. He had several campaigns for the removal of British statutes from India. In
1928, he led the college students to boycott the Simon Commission. He became a
founder of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934 and was the first editor of the Weekly
“Congress Socialist”. Due to Pandit Nehru’s recommendation, he became the Secretary
of the Foreign Department of the Indian National Congress (INC). Lohia was the most
controversial figure in Indian Politics. Because he was a great critic of Congress. He
condemned both Capitalism and Communism and called for the establishment of a third
force based upon Socialism.
15
The approaching shadows of the Second World War led him along with some other
younger leaders to propose the launching of a Satyagraha for Indian independence. He
took an active part in the freedom struggle of India from 1938 to 1946. During this
period, he was arrested & imprisoned several times. Lohia took an active part in the
Quit India Movement in 1942 and was one of the leaders who went underground. He
set up Secret Radio Stations in Bombay & Calcutta & also worked for “Azad Daste” in
Nepal territory. He was arrested by the British Government for obstructing the supply
of the material for the War. He formed the Socialist Party at Hyderabad and himself
became Chairman & Editor of its organ, “Mankind” in 1956. He was elected to the Lok
Sabha in 1963. In 1964 the Socialist Party merged with the Praja Socialist Party which
then came to be known as Samyukta Socialist Party.

As a member of Parliament, Dr Lohia contributed a lot, especially in the field of

advocating the cause of women & the downtrodden. The works of Dr Lohia included
the ‘Why Swaraj and How (1937), Equidistant Theory (1953), Wheel of History
(1950), Aspects of Socialist Policy (1952), The Will to Power & Other Writings
(1963), Towards the Destruction of Castes & Classes, Marx, Gandhi & Socialism,
The Culprits of the Division of Bharat, Power Determination, History of Socialist
Movement (1969), On the Move, Fragments of World Mind (1965)’. On 12th October
1967, he breathed his last at the age of 57 in Delhi. Even on his deathbed seeing so
many doctors he said “so many doctors for me alone. There are crores who are not able
to see the face of even a single doctor”. Thus, a unique personality extremely versatile,
equipped with many-fold talents was no more.

14.4 A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF DR LOHIA’S SOCIALISM

Dr Lohia felt that the old orthodox socialist system was outdated. Therefore, Lohia
calls for an alternative model of development for India and the third world countries.
The realization on the part of Lohia was that economic progress & total development
of the third world countries could never be achieved by emulating either the capitalist
pattern of development or the communist pattern followed in the former Soviet Union,
which made him think of an alternative path of development. Let us examine Lohia’s
concept of socialism as an alternative strategy for the economic development of India
and the other Third World countries.

14.5 DR LOHIA’S CONCEPT OR BLUE-PRINT OF SOCIALISM

14.5.1Maximum Attainable Equality

Lohia says that like democracy, socialism is also a doctrine of equality. A democratic
society needs to be an equal society. Equality according to him stands for such an
‘ordering of social forces as will balance a share in the toll of living with a share in its
gains i.e. the social forces would be arranged in such a way that each may get its is
due’. He terms this as ‘the principle of immediacy’ i.e. the maximum & immediate

16
attainability relevant to the current situation about the ideal. Lohia regards equality as
a ‘high aim of life as truth or beauty. He believed that if there is no equality among the
individuals, then the justice, human dignity, morality, brotherhood, freedom and
universal welfare cannot flourish in society. Inequality disunites men. Though the 20th
century is suffering from the worst form of inequality at the same time, man is also
fighting against inequalities and injustices as he has never done before. In this setting,
Lohia referred to the Seven Revolutions taking place in the context of equality. They
are:

i) A new social order where economic disparities shall be abolished;

ii) Where opportunities for self-development shall not be constrained by birth or caste;

iii) Where women will have the same opportunities for growth as men;

iv) Where forces of imperialism & new forms of imperialism shall not be permitted to
withstand in the way of the national independence of people;

v) Where aesthetic standards will not be decided by the colour of the skin, that is where
white races will not be treated as naturally superior to non-white races;

vi) Where rights of the individuals shall not be treated as subsidiary to the choice of the
collectivity; and finally

vii) Where reasons & moral courage, in place of weapons of mass destruction, shall be
treated as the symbol of power.

14.5.2 Social Ownership of the Means of Production

Lohia believed that the root cause of inequality is that the gifts of nature and
instruments of production are privately owned for personal benefit. This leads to
economic exploitation which is a major hurdle in the way of democracy. Here his
solution was two-fold: destroy the attachments to property in the minds of men and
abolish private property in the means of production and establish ownership of the
whole community.

According to Lohia, the communist theory does not seek the alter the capitalist forces
of production but seeks only to alter the relations of production, after expropriating and
socializing the means of production. He also pointed out that while capitalism
contributed the benefits of science to industry and agriculture in the West, its
counterpart, imperialism destroyed whatever productive apparatus the colonies had.
Therefore, he thought it imperative to change both the production apparatus as well as
property relations. Lohia added that similar consequences will appear in the erstwhile
colonies if they pursue the same approaches.

17
14.5.3 Concept of Small Unit Technology / Machines

Lohia was in favour of ‘small unit technology’. He believed that the large-scale factory
which produces in great numbers is incapable of abolishing poverty of the large part of
mankind. Drawing heavily from Gandhi, Lohia explained the technology-development
nexus -a new dimension. Lohia’s thinking on the concept of a small unit machine is
seen as a breakthrough in finding a solution to the technology-development debate.
Behind the concept of small unit technology lies the principle of decentralized
economic production is the only means for bridging the industrial inequality leading to
uneven development among nations & ensuring social control on the other. India’s
grave problem of unemployment and underdevelopment could be solved only by
industrialization based on small unit machmachinesking use of modern science and
technological know-how.

In a country where the majority of people are rendered without any work & steeped in
poverty, the immediate necessity is to create as many workplaces as possible to engage
them in some kind of productive work. The idea behind the small unit machine is to
engage the millions of empty hands in the Indian villages in some sort of work. Lohia,
however, did not rule out the importance of concentrated capital and large-scale
industry. He stated that there must be for instance steel industry and hydroelectric
projects which are more capital intensive. While the large-scale industry should be
nationalized, the small unit machines could be owned by the state & village
governments as its producers as well as by ‘peasant cooperatives’. But the main focus
& emphasis of the economy must be on small unit machines.

14.5.4 Model of ‘Four-Pillar State’

Whilst illustrating the vital principles of Gandhi’s view of the state, Lohia advocated
the model of the ‘four-pillar state’, which he proposed as the political structure of future
socialist India (Varkey, 2003, p. 414). Lohia wanted the all-powerful state to disappear,
paving the way for a four-pillar state. He says that the state has hitherto been organized
on two pillars: the Centre& the Province. In the words of Dr Lohia, “All the political
power is concentrated in the hands of the Central government today. The states are left
with very little power; there is no self-government at the District, Taluk and Village
levels. The citizens of the country elect representatives to the Lok Sabha & the State
Assemblies once in five years. Once elected the representatives cannot be questioned
by the common man. Lohia felt that this state of affairs was unsatisfactory in a
democracy. He suggested a different solution. The suggestion was that there should be
decentralization of power at all the four stages - at the Centre & the State, the District
& the Village levels. He wanted that there should be minimum power at the Centre &
that at the Village level there should be maximum power in the conduct of the affairs
of the Village. The Panchayat administration in charge should also have power over
the Police. It should also have the power to collect taxes. The village Panchayat should
get a share of the taxes collected by the State & the Centre. The progress of a Village

18
ought to be planned by the Village itself. He called this organization the four-pillared
state. According to this arrangement, Swaraj begins at the Village level & stretches up
to Delhi. This provides an opportunity for the common men to participate in the
administration.

14.5.5 Emancipation of Women

According to Lohia, more than half of our population comprises women. Their
condition is pathetic. Cooking food, breeding children and being a slave to her husband-
this is a woman’s fate. A woman is not considered equal to a man, such is the blind
belief sustained through the ages. The law has guaranteed equality for women, but that
is only on paper. Equality has not been practised. Hence jobs must be reserved for
women from all walks of life. They must be freed from the tyranny of homework. The
latent talent of women should be brought to the limelight. Society does not progress as
long as women remain oppressed. Society must get rid of deep-rooted beliefs & old
practices. Beginning with women in villages every woman should be given justice.
Lohia strove for this cause. According to him, the emancipation of women was the
foundation of social revolution and without this, there can be neither any democracy
nor any proprietary. Thus, Lohia drew special attention to the important role to be
played by women in the development of society’s health & general development.

14.5.6 A Decent Standard of Living

Lohia talks of a decent standard of living against the routine ‘increased standard of
living. Standard of living means a set of goods which form regular consumption of an
individual. Whereas the increased standard of living means a continuous increase of
goods, a decent standard of living requires that these goods should be made available
to all. Equal distribution of goods gets priority here. According to Lohia, the fight
between the have & have-nots will be reduced to a decent standard of living. Thus, he
said, all energies should be harnessed for raising the living standards of the people of
the whole world as there is a growing interdependence among the various countries.
He argued that despite some excellent features of European socialism, it was myopic
and lacked a worldview. It was interested only in improving the living standards of its
people without bothering about the people of the other underdeveloped countries. He
was of the view that European socialism was slow-paced and due to too much emphasis
on constitutionalism, it was not in a position to solve the problems of the developing
Afro-Asian and Latin American countries, where the problems needed speedy and
urgent sole solutions.

14.5.7Advocated for a World Parliament and World Union

Lohia advocated for the establishment of a World Parliament with powers to enforce
peace and promote economic development. It should establish an internal pool of
capital resources and shall take ‘from each country according to its capacity and give
to each country according to its needs.
19
Dr. Lohia was in favour of a World Union. He urged the Socialist Parties of the World
to think in terms of a World Union. He said that no true internationalism can arise
unless its votaries realize that the present crisis of foreign policy is a crisis of human
civilization and that it can be overcome only by a union of minds all over the world
that cuts across national frontiers and interests and is prepared to hold general principles
even when they operate against one’s system of National or World alliances.

14.5.8 Poverty Elevation Policy

Lohia viewed orthodox & organized socialist policy as inadequate to counter the
problems of poverty. According to Lohia, socialism alone will help India to remove her
poverty and backwardness and, in the process, bring her people to enjoy the fruits of
democracy. Where there is poor, there can be no democracy; where there is poor,
socialism alone can ensure them a decent living: the right to work must precede the
right to govern. In his ‘Fragments of a World Mind’, in a paper titled “The Farmers in
India,” he discussed the 13-Point Plan to end rampant poverty & backwardness in the
country. Of these, the most important are:

i) Lowering of prices based on parity between agricultural and industrial prices.

ii) Adopt austerity measures so that income or salary should not exceed Rs. 1,000 per
month.

iii) Recruit volunteer bands for agriculture, irrigation, road-making and the like.

iv) Establishment of polytechnic schools & People’s High Schools and Centres for
Youth & Women for cultural activities & so on.

14.5.9 Outlined the Plan of Food Army

Lohia outlined the plan of Food Arthur to meet the urgent need for food production in
India. According to him, the two basic objectives of the soca list plan for agriculture
would be an improvement in existing cultivation and extension of new farming, Lohia
felt that a socialist government can bring the vast stretch of uncultivated land under
cultivation only through the cooperation of the people and not by the hired labour.
Lohia’s plan for a Food Army was to take up this gigantic task of social reconstruction.
According to the plan of a Food Army a million persons will be recruited, fed, clothed
& housed by the state to bring initially one crore acres of land out of 15 crores of acres
lying uncultivated. Lohia envisaged the creation of model villages of farmers and
believed this experiment will contribute to its evolution.

14.5.10 Abolition of Caste

In the first strategy for social transformation, Lohia wanted to abolish caste. He
observed “a restoration of self-respect, through the abolition of caste, when it goes side
by side with economic uplift can rouse them into the activity of full man and awakened
20
people. Regarding caste as a stumbling block, Dr Lohia thought that the caste system
was India’s misfortune and that as long as it existed, democracy in India would not find
a place in the country. Dr Lohia had said ‘caste’ “was a congealed class. The class was
a mobile caste; the Brahmins dominated the intellectual arena, and the Baniyas, the
business. He was sorry to note that 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”. To
eliminate caste, his aphoristic prescription was: “Roti and Beti”, the people would have
to break caste barriers to eat together (Roti), and be willing to give their girls in
marriage to boys from other castes (Beti).

Thus, he fought with force and ferocity against the caste structure. He denounced and
condemned it. He had a strong conviction that unless the Shudras, Harijans, & the
tribals were emancipated and given a space to play an active role in the socio-economic
& political system, India would never progress. In this way, Lohia proposed a concrete
programme for the destruction of the caste system.

14.5.11 English Language to be replaced by Hindi

People called Lohia a mad fellow, a maniac, an eccentric when he argued that the
English language, the symbol of domination and exploitation, should be replaced by
Hindi and other regional languages in public institutions. Lohia believed that a nation
can grow and develop only when the entire affairs of a country are carried out in the
people’s language. Even after independence, the English language continued to remain
the official language. Lohia stated, “English harms India not so much because it is
foreign but because it is in the Indian context, feudal”. Therefore, he recommended the
vernacular language be the official language of India.

14.5.12 Abolition of Land Revenue

Lohia boldly said that land revenue on uneconomic holdings should be abolished. It
was a revolutionary slogan given by an outspoken, brave leader. Land revenue on
unprofitable holdings would, if not abolished, give a severe blow to the poor peasants
and increase their insurmountable difficulties.

14.5.13 Education must be for the Reconstruction of Indian Society

According to Lohia, the framework of the present educational system in India follows
the legacy of the system of education established by the British. He took serious note
of the educational imperialism of the West over the underdeveloped countries.
According to Lohia “Education must enable to unravel the real socio-economic ailment
of the country and must be fashioned in such a way to help in the reconstruction of the
Indian society”.

21
14.5.14 Land and Agricultural Development

Lohia maintained that the capitalist or communist scheme of rationalism in respect of

land & agriculture is irrelevant to the Indian condition. The labour force which was
thrown out as a result of the nationalization of agriculture in Britain was absorbed into
the emerging modern industries. Whereas in India, colonialism, not only disintegrated
and destroyed the Indian, industries, but also by imposing various land revenue policies
causing an unsound structural imbalance in the agriculture sector. Consequently, while
the pressure on land increased considerably, agriculture production did not increase.

The abolition of private property is central to Marxism. While a socialist state under
Marxism envisaged bringing private property under the ownership of the state, in the
socialist state of Lohia’s perception of unlimited expansion of collective property and
an optimum limit on private property for use will exist.

Lohia realized the urgent need to redistribute the land on a national too as to increase
production. He envisaged the participation and cooperation of people voluntarily which
is the sure way for the massive reconstruction of Indian society. In India land has been
monopolized by a small percentage of the landed aristocracy. To face this situation &
increase agricultural production Lohia proposed the socialist strategy of land
redistribution.

14.5.15 Role of Party and the Method of Socialist Revolution

Lohia maintained that the organization of people’s will is the supreme task of the party
of socialism. Planned action aimed at the expression and the organization of people’s
will and the reconstruction of the national life in whatever measure possible must be
its primary objective. He thought the party of socialism must have power and
organization to lead the people in the direction of a new social order.

Thus, Lohia drawing on Gandhian principles, proposed the -via civil disobedience as
the socialist means of social transformation, Because Gandhi had always insisted on
the conversion of the opponent’s mind rather than coercion in his political life. Lohia
observed that “civil disobedience as a means of social change is a mode to change the
heart of the opponent”. Lohia advanced a three-pronged socialist mode of actions
symbolized in the spade, the vote & the prison.

Spade indicates constructive action which according to Lohia is of greater importance

in an underdeveloped country like India. While he accepted the supreme importance of
the vote and thereby democracy, he noted that constitutionalism alone will not be
adequate in the struggle towards socialism. Unless and until the periodic elections are
supplemented by Satyagraha to resist injustice in society, he observed that democracy
will degenerate. Thus, according to Lohia if the party of socialism is prepared to go to
jail in the process of fighting injustice and able to organize and mobilize people’s will
through constructive action, the third element of the vote will naturally follow.
22
14.5.16 Socialist Planning

Dr. Lohia said the massive underemployment and the meagre capital which make it
impossible to rationalize industry and agriculture similarly on under capitalism and
communism make socialist planning obligatory in India. Lohia stated that the rational
application of M.K. Gandhi’s teaching forms an integral part of the socialist plan which
further provides an opportunity to achieve a new human integration. Lohia had an
appreciation for the planning in the former Soviet Union but does not consider it
suitable for India. When the former Soviet Union began its economic planning, keeping
in view the communist theory, it did not have the unique problems which India and
other third world countries faced. The Soviet Union a had relatively low density of
population with too much land & had also shared the benefits of capitalist Europe.
Lohia was highly critical in accepting foreign aid for India’s planning and its role in
the total economy. He highlighted the fact that foreign aid always ties the economy to
the interest of the donor country.

14.6 CONCLUSION

It is apparent from the above-depicted idea of Ram Manohar Lohia that his contribution
is very important to provide the background of socialist ideology in India. He has paved
the path of Asian socialism. Having not followed blindly to Marx in the context of
socialism he has adopted practical policy and he has tried to cast the socialism
according to the suitability of Indian conditions. In the context of socialism, Lohia can
be considered as a guide his social, economic and political ideas and for other socialists
as well. Lohia was originally a humanist who believed in the dignity of man. The
movement Lohia did from it shows socialism and human equality and he had a strong
conviction in humans as well. The ideology of Lohia was organised. He wanted to end
the caste system in India and coloured differences in the world as well. He also wanted
to erase inequality and economic exploitation between the nations. He kept up fighting
for life against imperialism and colonialism. He was a peace lover. In other words, he
was a true socialist. In the end, it can be said that he will always be remembered in
form of a true patriot, humanist, original thinker and incredible leader who played a
significant role in the making of modern India.

14.7 SUMMARY

The socialist philosophy of Dr. Lohia is based on those persons who confront the
bottom of the social hierarchy and to whom the caste, religion, scripture and system are
tied around. The objective of Lohia’s socialism is to establish a classless society in
which the administration is decentralized. Through socialism, Lohia not only wanted
to end class rather in his socialist concept it was also essential to abolish caste. Because
according to him where due to the caste system the Shudras or untouchables are in a
disadvantaged position, there the concept of socialism cannot be realised. In his
ideology, Dr. Lohia having given place to the concept of class s not consider the cause
23
of the origin of the class as only economical rather he also considers it social. In this
context, Lohia despite being influenced by Karl Marx is different from him, because
Marx admits that the base of origin of the class is only economic. Analyzing the concept
of class in the context of India, Lohia admits that class mainly in India has been created
from the cause of three privileges - such as caste, property and language. Dr. Lohia has
opposed the violent revolution for the establishment of a socialist society. According
to him, the violent revolution along with being unfair is even impossible. Lohia has
syncretized Marx’s revolution-related thoughts with civil disobedience. He has taken
the side of civil disobedience in place of violent revolution. According to him, in the
form of civil disobedience, the non-violent revolution will transmit power among the
people and by it, there will also be a moral uplift of the public.

14.8 EXERCISE

1. Critically evaluate the relevance of Ram Manohar Lohia’s concept of Socialism in

contemporary times.

2. Elaborate on the four pillars state that was propounded by Dr Ram Manohar Lohia.

3. Lohia supported the participatory notion of democracy. Comment.

4. Write a short note on Lohia’s views on Four-Pillar State.

5. Write a short note on Lohia’s concept of Socialism.

6. Write a short note on Lohia’s views on the Total Revolution.

14.9 REFERENCES

Appadorai, A. (2018), Political Thoughts in India 400 B.C.-1980, Delhi: Khama

Publishers.

Arora, N. D. and Awasthy, S.S. (2007), Political Theory and Political Thought, New
Delhi: Har-Anand Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Dhanda, Praveen “Ram Manohar Lohia” in Jha, Pravin Kumar (2014) (ed.), Modern
Indian Political Thought, Delhi: Book Age Publications.

Jain, M.P. (2013), Themes in Comparative Political Theory, Delhi: Book Age
Publications.

Kumar, Sanjay “Lohia: Democracy” in Singh, Mahendra Prasad and Roy, Himanshu
(ed.) Indian Political Thought: Themes and Thinkers (2011), Delhi: Dorling Kindersley
(India) Pvt. Ltd.

24
Mehta, V.R. (1992), Foundations of Indian Political Thought: An Interpretation (From
Manu to the Present Day), New Delhi: Manohar Publications.

Varkey, K.T. (2003). Political Theory (Vol. II). Delhi: S.K. Garg Indian Publishes
Distributors.

25
UNIT- 15 J. P. NARAYAN: TOTAL REVOLUTION

Structure

15.1 Objectives

15.2 Introduction

15.3 Life and Contribution of Jayaprakash Narayan

15.4 Socio-Economic Order (Socialism)

15.5 Transition from Marxist to Sarvodaya

15.6 Concept of Sarvodaya

15.7 Concept of Participatory or Party less Democracy

15.7.1 Faith in Sarvodaya Model of Democracy

15.7.2 Critique of Existing System of Democracy

15.7.3 Rejection Party System

15.7.4 Implication of Participatory Democracy

15.8 Concept of Total Revolution

15.8.1 Causes of Total Revolution

15.8.2 Meaning of Total Revolution

15.8.3 Method and Technique of Total Revolution

15.9 Summary

15.10 Exercises

15.11 References

15.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to understand:

 The Life and Contribution of Jayaprakash Narayan

 The Socio-Economic Order (Socialism)
 How JP’s move from Marxism to Sarvodaya

26
  The Concept of Sarvodaya
 The concept of Participatory or Party less Democracy
 Jayaprakash Narayan's Concept of Total Revolution

15.2 INTRODUCTION

Jayaprakash Narayan (1902-1979) popularly known as JP one of the most devoted

leaders in India. He was an eminent exponent of Indian Socialism. The meaning of his
name ‘JP’ is ‘Victory to the light (Barman, 2020). He was a freedom fighter, political
reformer, and also active political leader. He was one of the few personalities in India,
whose life was a message of struggle for freedom and justice. He was a revolutionary
with a capital “R”. He believed in revolution as some belief in God (H.Keene, 1990).
JP’s political ideas underwent changes from Marxian socialism to democratic socialism
from Democratic socialism to Sarvodaya, and from Sarvodaya to Total Revolution
(Mohanty, 2015). Over the years Jayaprakash’s thinking, theories, and ideologies
propounded changed considered, and yet Jayaprakash always remained the same.
Changed with continuity remained the bedrock of Jayaprakash’s life (Nayek. K and
Kumar, 2009). He had devoted a good part of his life to the struggle for India’s freedom.
He was the first to demand NOTA (None of the above) in the political system. i(Prasad).
He was the only person to launch a total revolution in India (Mohanty, 2015). His
passionate ideological journey from Marxism through democratic socialism to
Gandhian socialism (Singh and Roy, 2011). JP’s tone was that of a Marx but he
believed in the techniques of Mahatma Gandhi. So that he was regarded as a Gandhian-
Marxist. In the year 1919, JP was awarded Bharat Ratna because of his valuable
contribution to India’s freedom struggle and upliftment of the poor and downtrodden.
In 1965, he was awarded the Magsaysay Award due to his contribution to public
service.

15.3 LIFE AND CONTRIBUTION

Jayaprakash Narayan was born on 11 October 1902 at Sitabdiara of Chhapra district in

Bihar (Narayan, 2002). He was the son of Harshudayal and Phoolrani. His father has
some college education and worked as a low-level official with the local canal
administration. J.P. was the fourth child of his parents. After studying in the village
primary school go to Patna for higher study. During his stay in Patna, he came to contact
with the nationalistic atmosphere at Saraswati Bhawan which was the centre of national
and political activities in Patna (Narayan, 2002). He was in his early years gradually
became a spiritual nationalist and learned about the revolutionary cult. Before he
learned about revolutionary activities he was very much influenced by Gandhi’s non-
violent weapons-satyagraha-against the oppressor. He quit from studies in 1921 under
the influential exhortation of Maulana Azad and join the national movement under the
influence of Mahatma Gandhi (Charabarty and Pandey, 2009).

27
JP’s inclination toward the national movement his parents sent him to the United States
of America (USA) to pursue a degree course on Chemical Engineering. But his mind
struck on a deeper understanding of the problems brothering people both at home and
abroad so he decided to become a part of the solutions to such problems. He gives up
his engineering and move to study M.A. in Sociology at Ohio University. His studies
on sociology gave a deeper understanding of the revolutionary ideas of Marx
(Charabarty and Pandey, 2009). Thus began one of the great themes of Narayan’s life
as a revolutionary, his struggle to choose between Gandhism and Marxism (H.Keene,
1990). At the age of 18, he got married to Shrimati Prabhavati Devi in 1920. JP joined
the Indian National Congress (INC) at the invitation of Jawaharlal Nehru and became
a follower of Mahatma Gandhi. He worked as a socialist leader from 1930 to 1954. He
fought up to his last breath to establish a truly equal society in India. His two major
mottos of life were liberty and equality for all (Barman, 2020)

15.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ORDER (SOCIALISM)

Jayaprakash Narayan’s mission in life was to fight for independence and a new socio-
economic order. After India’s independence, he planned for a social revolution to
replace the present socio-economic order with a new socialist order. He tried to find
out the Indian type of socialism. In the initial stage of his political mind, Jayaprakash
Narayan was heavily drunk with ‘Marxian Socialism’. He was convinced about
dialectical materialism and the necessity of a class war. When he came to India, the
current nationalism was most powerful subsiding the possibility of a communist
revolution. Communists in India, being guided by the communist international had
condemned the ‘freedom movement’ as a bourgeois movement’ and were not in the
mainstream. But Jayaprakash Narayan could perceive the future in the light Manner,
who preferred to join the freedom movement, rejected the communists for being
misguided by Stalin. On the other hand, in 1934, he founded the Congress Socialist
Party. He declares that ‘today more than often before it is possible to say that there is
only one type, one theory of socialism Marxism” (Mohanty, 2015). Marxian socialism
and the Soviet Union continued to be the basis of Jayaprakash Narayan's views on the
new socio-economic order.

Narayan’s first theoretical works were written to define and defined the role of the new
party. In “Why Socialism” 1936, he was quick to distinguish his views from Gandhi’s.
“Socialism…is a system of social reconstruction and not a code of personal conduct; it
is not something you and I can practice. Nor is it a hot-house growth. When we speak
of applying socialism to India, we mean the recognition of the social life of the country:
its farms, factories, schools, theatres” (H. Kenne, 19900. Socialism cannot be
established by a group of idealists unless they have power in their hands. Socialism
would solve these problems by attacking their cause, namely private property, and
bourgeois individualism. Socialism means to bring a total change in the socio-
economic and political life of India-where there will be no inequality in possession and

28
no exploitation. It is a remedy, therefore, that lies in the abolition of private ownership
of the means of production and its replacement by the owner of the whole community.

15.5 TRANSITION FROM MARXISM TO SARVODAYA

In the year 1929 JP return to India and joined the Indian National Congress (INC) and
started practising socialism in India and became a follower of Mahatma Gandhi. He
played an active role in the Indian Freedom Struggle to till Independence. In 1930, he
participated in Salt Satyagraha. In 1932 he was arrested for actively participating in the
Civil Disobedience Movement led by Gandhiji (Ali). During his imprisonment in
1932, he met Ram Manohar Lohia. On his release, he formed Congress Socialist Party
(CSP) in association with Acharya Narendra Dev (Gauba, 2019). Besides Gandhi, JP
was deeply influenced by Bal Gangadhar Tilak. In 1934 JP organized an “All India
Socialist Conference” at Patna to strengthen the socialist movement in India. His desire
for Marxism was very strong in 1936 so he published a booklet’ Why Socialism’
(Chakrabarty and Pandey, 2009). This book simply narrates a blueprint for the ideology
of communism and socialism. The Marxist phase of Jayaprakash’s life continued
during the 1930s, after that, he move to the philosophy of democratic socialism and
finally turned out to be the Sarvodaya movement based on Gandhian Philosophy, and
led by Vinoba Bhave. This ideological transformation in the thinking of Jayaprakash
needs to be explained to find out the causes for his disenchantment with an ideology
that, at one point in time, seemed to be the only plausible framework for bringing about
the socio-economic transformations in the country. JP’s disenchantment with the
ideology of Marxism emanated from his critical appraisal of the course of events that
the Bolshevik revolution took in the long term.

The establishment of military-bureaucratic despotism under the then leadership of

Stalin compelled Jayaprakash Narayan to review his indoctrination in the ideology of
Marxism from both philosophical as well as practical planes (Chakrabarty and Pandey,
2009). Gradually his disillusionment with Marxism and Bolshevism followed, at the
philosophical plane, from his questioning ‘if good ends could ever be achieved by bad
means’? And by his realization that ‘materialism as a philosophical outlook could not
provide any basis for ethical conduct and any incentive for goodness’ (Singh and Roy,
2011). Gradually JP criticizes the philosophical ideas of Marxism that were created and
conditioned for appreciation towards Gandhian techniques such as Satyagraha, non-
violence, and end–means relationship. At one point in time, Jayaprakash was also
critical of the Gandhian methods due to their slowness. But when empirical evidence
comes from the Soviet Union started displaying the true picture of the violent and the
forced methods of securing people’s obedience to the Communist Party during the
times of Stalin, Ultimately JP came around to the idea of Gandhi.

29
15.6 SARVODAYA

He borrowed the concept of Sarvodaya from Mahatma Gandhi and was spearheaded
by Acharya Vinoba Bhave. Sarvodaya implies ‘uplift of all’, ‘rise of all’, or ‘awakening
of all, that is the welfare of everyone although it is especially inclined towards
amelioration of the condition of the underprivileged (Gauba, 2019). JP’s Sarvodaya
denotes a new order in which the society will be class-less and state-less. His concept
of Sarvodaya will be a political system in which Lokniti – people’s power will be
replaced by rajniti (politics of power) and it will be people’s socialism, which will
ensure not only freedom and equality but also provides peace in the society (Mohanty,
2015). Sarvodaya is people’s socialism, where there will be more voluntary
participation of the people and a non-state form of socialism. Sarvodaya means the
development and welfare of all. JP went from Marxian socialism to democratic
socialism provides freedom and the Sarvodaya guarantees welfare through liberty,
equality, fraternity, and peace. In 1954 he joined the Sarvodaya Movement as a
‘Jeevandanee’ (devoted life) on the reason for the rise of all and offer his life, for the
cause of the Bhoodan and Sarvodaya Movement. He wants to establish socialistic
principles and ideals through his social activities. Sarvodaya rejected Rajniti to set up
Lok Satta or Lokniti. Jayaprakash was convinced that democratic socialism can lead
mankind to the sublime goals of freedom, equality, brotherhood, and peace. Socialism
may be a better philosophy than other social philosophies, but Jayaprakash observed
unless socialism is transformed into Sarvodaya, these goals would remain beyond its
reach, and just we had to taste the ashes of independence, so further generations may
have to taste the ashes of socialism.

The philosophy of Sarvodaya stood for a party-less democracy that wanted to curve the
power-centric party politics. (Barman, 2020). Hence JP sought to replace the politics
of power with the politics of cooperation. Sarvodaya is people’s socialism, where there
will be more voluntary participation of the people and a non-state form of socialism.
Sarvodaya will ensure a different type of socio-economic-political setup. It believes in
the inner goodness of man and it aims to establish a small society with ethics and
morality. But he said that self-government, cooperation, brotherhood, etc. should be
developed if men lived in small communities. He believes that the form of Sarvodaya
society will be such a society where the people will manage their affairs with
cooperation, not through conflict. He also said that the form of Sarvodaya society
should be very simple and small communities not should be complex industrial
societies. So he agreed with Gandhi’s concept of Indian village and village self-
government. JP wanted an ideal social system in which cooperation, freedom, equality,
and self-management, brotherhood are in the society (Barman, 2020). JP wanted the
form of Sarvodaya society will be such that people will manage their affairs with
cooperation, not through conflict, self-discipline, and a sense of responsibility. He used
a non-violent social revolution through various programmes of the principles of
Sarvodaya ( Narayan, 2002). He became a committed activist in the Sarvodaya

30
movement. This movement took the techniques of Ahimsa, truth, and Satyagraha
rejecting Marxist violent action (Barman, 2020). He also set up a Sarvodaya Ashram in
a backward village called Sakhodevra, near the border of Gaya, and started living as a
villager. From 1954 to 1973, he was committed to the promotion of the philosophy of
Sarvodaya.

15.7 CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATORY OR PARTY LESS DEMOCRACY

JP had made a sincere effort to search for a new Indian polity where power would
belong to the people. Hence while preparing his paper’ A Plea for Reconstruction of
the Indian Polity in 1959 ’ he had raised questions on the efficiency of the present
political institutions and process in India and at the same time suggested the measures
to make democracy more the same time suggested the measures to make democracy
more democratic, efficient, enduring and meaningful. A discussion on Jayaprakash’s
views on democracy is divided into different parts like his faith in the Sarvodaya model
of democracy, criticism of exiting parliamentary and party-based democracy, and
views on a new form of democracy.

15.7.1 Faith in Sarvodaya Model of Democracy

Jayaprakash Narayan advocated the Sarvodaya democracy which is based on non-

violence. Which was a doctrine of upliftment of different sections of the society. He
adopted Sarvodaya as a model of his views on democracy without mentioning the word
Sarvodaya, because it is a vast movement. Sarvodaya would neglect the centralization
of power, the method of direct elections, and also the existing party system prevailing
in India. This system would replace them with a welfare society, the decision by
consensus, party less democracy, etc (Narayan, 2002).

15.7.2 Critique of Existing System of Democracy

JP’S desire for establishing a people’s democracy instead of a leader’s democracy made
him critical of the existing system of democracy in the west as well as in India. In
western democracy, the system is leader-oriented and not people-oriented. So that he
said to be called not democracy, but democratic it oligarchy. The existing system of
parliamentary democracy in the west and India is based on the wrong structure.
Jayaprakash repudiated the logic that parliamentary democracy is based on a majority
representative system. Centralization exists under parliamentary democracy
overshadowing the power of the people. Local self-Government exists only in name,
without any real power.

15.7.3 Rejection of Party System

While reacting sharply to the functioning of political parties in a democracy,

Jayaprakash observed, that political parties get involved in party rivalry. It generates
political immorality and aptitude for manipulation and intrigue. Party often puts party
31
interest over the national interest. The centralization of power in political parties
prevents the citizens from participating in the government. The parties rule in the name
of the people and create the illusion of democracy and self-government.

15.7.4 Implication of Participatory Democracy

Jayaprakash’s concept of participatory and party-less democracy found detailed

elaboration in his pamphlet ‘Swaraj for the people’ published in 1961. It is based upon
the establishment of self-government. Panchayat Raj system is the foundation of JP’s
views on democracy. It will take the government to the doorstep of the people and
enable every citizen to participate in it. Jayprakash laid down some conditions-
education should be provided to the people, political parties should not interfere in the
election and functioning of panchayats, real devolution of power and responsibilities
to the panchayat, giving financial autonomy to the local authorities, making civil
servants accountable. Under these above conditions, the structure of participatory
democracy should be built up. The gram panchayat will be elected directly but each
lower level should elect the higher level- the village panchayat, the panchayat
amenities, the Zilla Parishad. But for the Lok Sabha and Assembly Elections, he
suggested an electoral council consisting of two delegates elected by gram sabha from
each village.

15.8 CONCEPT OF TOTAL REVOLUTION

Total Revolution (Sampurna Kranti) was the last revolutionary quest of JP in his
unending quest to seek and establish such a socio-economic and political order in India
(Chakrabarty and Pandey, 2009). JP’s concept of total revolution is one of his most
important contributions to modern Indian political thought. It is a concept that was put
forward by JP in the wake of the Bihar movement in Patna on 5th June 1974 on the
issue of corruption and authoritarianism. This movement is also known as the JP
movement. In the post-independence era, he was the only ‘Crusader’ to lunch a total
revolution in the country without any clamor for power. His reflections on Total
Revolution crystallized out of his experiences during the Sarvodaya phase of his life.

15.8.1 Causes of Total Revolution

JP’s concept of total revolution can be traced to the socio-economic, education, moral
and political maladies existing in the Indian society. In his book, ‘Prison Diary’ gave
his note on total revolution. Since Independence from 1947 to 1975 JP observed that,
after the 28 years there has been no real change in the social, economic, and political
structure of our society, Zamindari is abolished, land reform laws have been passed,
untouchability has been legally prohibited and various things prevailing in the society.
Therefore there is a necessity for a systematic change in society that is a total revolution
in every sphere and aspect of society.

32
15.8.2 Meaning of Total Revolution

Total Revolution, as envisaged by Jayaprakash was a very comprehensive concept.

Total Revolution is a concept that always rediscovers itself with change in space and
time. His concept of total revolution is a combination of seven revolutions that is -
Social, Economic, Political, Cultural ideological, Intellectual, educational, and spiritual
to bring change in the Indian society (Chakrabarty and Pandey, 2009). It aimed at
radical transformation not merely of material conditions but also the moral characters
of the individuals. This number may be increased or decreased. Cultural Revolution
may include educational and ideological, economic revolution may be split up into
industrial agricultural, technological revolution, etc. Similarly, intellectual revolution
may be split up into two – scientific and philosophical (Prakash, 2018). The main
purpose of this revolution is to bring in a change in the existing society. His concept of
total revolution was one of his most important targets to set up a socialistic culture in
India. This revolution had two major objectives- the first objective is to bring a radical
change in every sphere of society through non-violent means and public awareness.
The second objective is he wanted to challenge the random misuse of power by a single
ruling party ( Barman, 2020).

His main aim was to evacuate corruption from political and social life in India. Through
the total revolution, he aimed at changing the society and also the individual’s outlook
towards the society. Besides this, JP wanted to create conditions wherein the people
living below the poverty line could get the minimum necessities of life. Total revolution
is a device for bringing about a Gandhian humanist version of an ideal society. JP's
concept of total revolution seeks to bring development and empower weaker and
disadvantaged sections of society. It not only reconstructs the social and economic
order in society but also gives moral and spiritual rebirth to the Indian people.

15.8.3 Method and Technique of Total Revolution

The method to achieve the goals of total revolution, he emphasized time and again,
would be non-violent. He held that in total revolution, service, cooperation, and passive
resistance would be the instrument of social change. Violence was a counter-revolution.
Thus, far from being an innovation of Jayaprakash Narayan, his idea of ‘Total
Revolution’ was a continuation of the preceding movement for non-violent revolution
through Bhoodan and Gramdan- the basic thrust of the Sarvodaya movement.
Jayaprakash himself had remarked on one occasion, ‘There is hardly any difference
between Sarvodaya and Total Revolution. If there is any, then Sarvodaya is the goal
and total revolution is the means. Total Revolution is a basic change in all aspects of
life. There cannot be Sarvodaya without this.” ( Nayek. K and Kumar, 2009). Since the
mid-1940 Jayaprakash himself had been emphasizing the need for a social revolution
for bringing about change in the structure of society as well as an improvement in the
character of the individuals comprising it.

33
But Jayaprakash Narayan discovered a new vision of ‘Total Revolution’ when he
started his movement against the existing social, political, and economic irregularities.
Jayaprakash Narayan incorporated in his concept of ‘Total Revolution’, various
elements from different philosophies that had the potential to enrich the revolution and
prevent its decay and degeneration. He assimilated the revolutionary ethos of Marxism
and combined it with the comprehensive approach of Gandhi to transforming society.
Marx believed that man was the measure of mankind, while Gandhi viewed man as the
center of development in Total Revolution’, Jayaprakash veered around to the
Gandhian approach of not relying solely on economic factors but also on social
dimensions of change.

Vinoba Bhave for the first time developed the concept of total revolution. The idea was
borrowed by JP from Vinoba Bhave to call upon the people in 1975. JP called for a
total revolution for the reason of the increasing dictatorship in the functioning of the
ruling government headed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi ( Charabarty and Pandey, 2009).
During that time the governance was spreading corruption and authoritarianism in all
political spheres in India. He exhorted the people to rise against the authoritarian and
inimical policies and programmes of government of the day and preserve to push it
back to its legitimate domain. Hence, on the declaration of national emergency on 25th
June 1975, JP found it compelling to call for a total revolution in India aimed at
transforming the whole gamut of the social, economic, political, spiritual, educational,
and cultural life of the people. The results of the JP movement created a huge turmoil
in Indian politics and challenges for the ruling government to continue their regime.

He believed that the total revolution is permanent. It will always go on and keep on
changing both personal and social lives. In the next general election in India after the
emergency, Jayaprakash Narayan took initiative from Janata Party. When Janata Party
came to power, JP was hopeful that there would be a transformation in socio-political
and economic situations in India. Janata party voted and Indian National Congress was
defeated, for the first time in India a non-congress government came to power so JP
said that an era of authoritarian rule came to an end in India ( Mohanty, 2015). In short,
total revolution refers to a mass upsurge against the rampant corruption and
authoritarianism in the prevailing ‘democratic’ regime (Gauba, 2009).

15.9 SUMMARY

Jayaprakash Narayan was a crusader and visionary. No doubt critics have assailed
Jayaprakash as a man with inconsistencies. While some view him as a utopian thinker,
an ideal dreamer, and too liberal an internationalist. Critics have pointed out that JP has
projected an ideal social order which would be conducive to human happiness only if
it could be materialized in practice. His ideas on Sarvodaya and participatory
democracy may be relevant for simple and small societies, but cannot apply to modern
complex society.

34
Jayaprakash Narayan worked as a socialist from the period of 1932 to 1954. He had
been regarded as the foremost leader and spokesman of Indian socialism. He was a
successful political activist in India and he also opposed the tyranny of the
contemporary political system in India. Narayan’s years as a Marxian socialist
operating out of a traditional party framework were at an end. In the last phase of his
career when he was opposing Indira Gandhi, he sought to combine the strengths of
Sarvodaya grassroots activity with his long doormat skills in party politics. He raised
his voice against the national emergency and gave the slogan of total revolution.

To sum up, the evolution of the political philosophy of Jayaprakash Narayan was a
zigzag one; it journeys from nationalism to Marxism to Gandhism via Democratic
Centralism and to Socialism through Gandhian technique and philosophy of
Sarvodaya. It was an effort to create a new structure, a new culture, a new civilization,
and a new set of values. It emphasized internal and external change to change the entire
oppressive and exploitative social frame from within and without

Thus total revolution as envisaged is aimed at radical, social, economic, educational,

cultural, and ethical change. Since these changes would come from people’s actions it
would be a long-drawn process. In other words, it is a continuing revolution. This
Revolution will always go on and keep on changing both our personal and social lives.
It is a permanent revolution and is expected to move on towards higher and higher
goals. He was not entirely successful. But even in the end, his objective remained the
same, a total, transforming social revolution.

15.10 EXERCISES

1. Discuss the life Life and Contribution of Jayaprakash Narayan? Critically

examine how he moves from Marxism to socialism?
2. Describe Jayaprakash Narayan's concept of Sarvodaya?
3. Examine the meaning, causes, and techniques of Total Revolution?
4. Describe the different paths of participatory or party-less democracy given by
Jayaprakash Narayan?
5. Discuss Jayaprakash’s views on social-economic order?

15.11 REFERENCES

1. Barman Paritosh, “A Journey from Socialism to Total Revolution: An Evaluative

Study Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan”, International Journal of Social science and
Economic Research, Vol.05, No. 03, March 2020.

2. H.Keene Thomas, “From Marxism to Gandhism: J.P. Narayan, 1902-1952”,

Journal of Third World Studies, Vol.07, No. 02, 1990.

35
3. Mohanty K. Dushmant, “Indian Political Tradition” Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd,
New Delhi, 2015.

4. Nayak K. Rajesh and Kumar Manish, “Total Revolution: Concept and Reality in
Bihar”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol.70 (2009-2010), pp. 1144-
1154.

5. Prasad Bhumika, “Jayaprakash Narayan and Total Revolution”, Journal of Acharya

Narendra Dev Research Institute

6. Mohanty K. Dushmant, “Indian Political Tradition” Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd,

New Delhi, 2015.

7. Singh Mahendra and Roy Himanushu, “Indian Political Thought”, Pearson, 2011.

8. Narayan Jayaprakash, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, July, 2002.

9. Idip

10. Chakrabarty Bidyut and Pandey Rajendra “ Modern Indian Political Thought” Sage
Publications, 2009.

11. Idip.

12. H.Keene Thomas, “From Marxism to Gandhism: J.P. Narayan, 1902-1952”,

Journal of Third World Studies, Vol.07, No. 02, 1990.

13. Barman Paritosh, “A Journey from Socialism to Total Revolution: An Evaluative

Study Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan”, International Journal of Social Science and
Economic Research, Vol.05, No. 03, March 2020.

14. Mohanty K. Dushmant, “Indian Political Tradition” Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd,
New Delhi, 2015.

15. H.Keene Thomas, “From Marxism to Gandhism: J.P. Narayan, 1902-1952”,

Journal of Third World Studies, Vol.07, No. 02, 1990.

16. Ali Qurban, “Profile of Jayaprakash Narayan”, Social Movement and Social
Movements in India.

17. Gauba, O.P. “Indian Political Thought” National Paper Backs, New Delhi, 2019.

18. Chakrabarty Bidyut and Pandey Rajendra “ Modern Indian Political Thought” Sage
Publications, 2009

19. Idip.

36
20. Singh Mahendra and Roy Himanushu, “Indian Political Thought”, Pearson, 2011

21. Gauba, O.P. “Indian Political Thought” National Paper Backs, New Delhi, 2019.

22. Mohanty K. Dushmant, “Indian Political Tradition” Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd,
New Delhi, 2015.

23. Barman Paritosh, “A Journey from Socialism to Total Revolution: An Evaluative

Study Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan”, International Journal of Social Science and
Economic Research, Vol.05, No. 03, March 2020.

24. Idip.

25. Narayan Jayaprakash, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, July, 2002

26. Barman Paritosh, “A Journey from Socialism to Total Revolution: An Evaluative

Study Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan”, International Journal of Social Science and
Economic Research, Vol.05, No. 03, March 2020.

27. Narayan Jayaprakash, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, July 2002

28. Chakrabarty Bidyut and Pandey Rajendra “ Modern Indian Political Thought” Sage
Publications, 2009.

29. Idip.

30. Prakash Braham, “Jayaprakash Narayan’s Concept of Total Revolution”.

International Journal of Research, Vol. 05, No.01, January 2018.

31. Barman Paritosh, “A Journey from Socialism to Total Revolution: An Evaluative

Study Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan”, International Journal of Social Science and
Economic Research, Vol.05, No. 03, March 2020.

32. Nayak K. Rajesh and Kumar Manish, “Total Revolution: Concept and Reality in
Bihar”, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 70. PP-1145-1154, 2009-
2010.

33. Chakrabarty Bidyut and Pandey Rajendra “ Modern Indian Political Thought” Sage
Publications, 2009

34. Mohanty K. Dushmant, “Indian Political Tradition” Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd,
New Delhi, 2015.

35. Gauba, O.P. “Indian Political Thought” National Paper Backs, New Delhi, 2019

37
UNIT-16 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, LOHIA AND JAYA
PRAKASH NARAYAN A COMPARATIVE
STUDY

Structure

16.1Objectives

16.2 Introduction

16.3 Jawaharlal Nehru on Socialism

16.4.1 Democratic Socialism

16.5 Ram Manohar Lohia on Socialism

16.5.1 Lohia’s Ideas on Socialism and Gandhism

16.6 Jaya Prakash Narayan on Socialism

16.6.1 Impact of Gandhian Thoughts: A Shift from Socialism to

Sarvodaya

16.6.2 Total Revolution

16.8 Summary

16.9 Exercise

16.10 Reference

16.1 OBJECTIVE

After going through this unit, you will be able to understand:

 Nehru’s views on Democratic socialism

 Ram Manohar Lohia on Socialism
 Lohia’s Ideas on Socialism and Gandhism
 Jaya Prakash Narayan on Socialism
 Impact of Gandhian Thoughts: A Shift from Socialism to Sarvodaya
 Jaya Prakash Narayan Total Revolution
 A comparative study of Nehru Lohia and J.P Narayan on Socialism

38
16.2 INTRODUCTION

In the foregoing chapters, we have thoroughly discussed and analyzed the ideas visions,
conceptions and thought patterns of Jawaharlal Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia & Jay
Prakash Narayan on socialism. In this chapter, we endeavour to make a comparative
discussion of the three notable thinkers about their ideas and convictions on socialistic
views points and thinking of these three important personalities, namely, Nehru, Lohia
and Jay Prakash Narayan, who were deeply involved in advancing the socialist
movement in India in the pre and post-independence period. Their role and contribution
will be analyzed in the general background of the socialist movement in India. In the
present chapter, the extent and nature of their thinking and programme of action will
be detailed as also the limitations and failures. We also intend to examine and pointed
out the differences-regarding the socialistic thinking and other related issues of
Jawaharlal Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia and J.P Narayan.

16.3 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ON SOCIALISM

Jawaharlal Nehru occupies a unique position in history as a freedom fighter and

builder of modern India. . Nehru was born on 14th November 1889 in an aristocratic
higher caste Kashmiri Brahmin family. His father Motilal Nehru was not only a reputed
lawyer but also a self-styled Englishman who ultimately left English and became the
most dedicated freedom fighter in the country He was a writer, thinker, and
statesman of great eminence. Jawaharlal Nehru, a man with vision and dynamism
was one among the few Indians who had come out of the cocoon of luxury and
dedicated his life to the nation. He virtually laid the foundation for modern India,
in his thoughts and deeds. As the first Prime Minister of free India, he played a
significant role in determining the basic features of the Indian society and polity.
Democracy, Socialism, and Secularism can very well be considered as his precious
contributions to modern India. Therefore, Nehru has helped India to ride out many
crises by laying the most pragmatic foundation of democracy, secularism, planning,
and socialism. Nehru was one of the founding fathers of socialism in India. He was one
among the few Indians who underwent many strains and stress during his life to
establish a 'Socialist India, free from exploitation, degradation, and subjection'. He was
instrumental in introducing socialist ideas into the socio-economic programs of the
Indian National Congress and the Indian constitution.

Nehru was very much moved when he saw countrymen suffering from poverty,
ignorance, and disease. He thought socialism was the only panacea. He brought to
bear on this central problem his modern mind and scientific temper. Scientific
socialism, tempered by his intense humanism thus became his intellectual. But
Nehru, despite his sympathy for the suffering of the masses was not a 'doctrinaire
dogmatic socialist'. He was not a socialist like Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. That was because
Nehru's socialism took different shapes in different periods. In his youth, Nehru was
drawn to British socialist ideas, at a time when, under the banner of the Fabian
39
Society, Shaw, Wells, the Webbs, and others were preaching the socialization of
essential services and basic industries within the framework of parliamentary
government, as the best means of eliminating poverty and ensuring work for all.
His attention was also drawn to the works of Marx and Lenin and the practical
achievement of the Soviet Union. Nehru himself said: "A study of Marx and Lenin
produced a powerful effect on my mind and helped me to see history and current
affairs in a new light." He was influenced by Fabian socialists like G.B. Shaw,
Bertrand Russell, and Webbs during his student career in Britain. He drank deeply in
Marxist literature from 1929 to 1939, visited communist countries like Russia and
China, and attended the Congress of oppressed nationalities in February 1927 in
Brussels but he did not follow any of the fixed models of socialism. Nehru's liberal
democratic views also shaped his views on socialism. Nehru once wrote 'I suppose I
am temperamentally and by training an individualist and intellectually a socialist". I
hope Nehru continued, "socialism does not kill or suppress individuality; indeed I am
attracted to it because it will release innumerable individuals from economic and
cultural bondage." Above all, he is a humanist in the best tradition of East and West.
His creed is best defined as democratic socialism and refined human materialism.

16.3 1 Democratic Socialism

Nehru was deeply concerned with India's independence and socio-economic changes.
The socio-economic conditions in India are different from other countries. So the same
technique of socialism should not be applied to all the countries. Moreover, Nehru's
political ideas were conditioned by some of the liberal democratic traditions of the
nineteenth century. He was very much concerned for individual freedom. He believed
that political freedom is a prerequisite of national development for the solution of social
and economic problems and of human dignity. It is a means to an end, the end being
the upliftment of the masses. Appropriately Nehru argued that democracy and
socialism are not contradictory but complementary to each other. Nehru wrote, "I do
not see why under socialism there should not be a great deal of freedom for the
individual; indeed for greater freedom than the present system gives..." Nehru argued,
that democracy without socialism will be mockery, and socialism without democracy
will lead to authoritarianism and regimentation. Above all, Nehru's objective was to
involve all sections of people in the process of socialism. Hence Nehru became the
progenitor of the idea of democratic socialism.

Jawaharlal- Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Deva, Rammonohar

Lohia, Ashok Mehta and Minoo Masani were all influenced and impressed by
democratic socialism and they strove hard for the dissemination and inculcation of
democratic socialist values and ethos in India keeping ultimate faith in the
establishment of a socialist society having social justice, individual freedom and a just
and human social order. During. In the freedom movement, Nehru’s socialistic ideas
influenced the youth and the intelligentsia of the country.

40
Jawaharlal Nehru was the champion of socialism in India It should be admitted that
Nehru did his best to spread the ideology of socialism. In India. He did not like to sever
connections with the Congress party. He made sincere attempts and efforts to
popularize the concept of socialism in India. Nehru wanted to include congress leaders
and workers on Socialistic ideas remaining within the congress.

Nehru wrote" Fascism is intensely nationalistic while communism is international.

Fascism opposes internationalism. It makes the state a God on whose alter individual
freedom and rights must be sacrificed. Fascism appears when the class conflict between
advancing socialism and entrenched capitalism becomes bitter and critical. The social
war is due not to misunderstanding. But to a better appreciation of inherent conflicts
and diversities of interests in our present-day society.“ For Nehru socialism was for the
control of the capital in the national interest. Hence he proposed scientific and practical
socialism which he came to achieve by granting new freedom and discipline. Thus he
advocated cooperative farming, a cooperative service institute.

16.5 RAM MANOHAR LOHIA ON SOCIALISM

The Nationalist Movement in India which originated as a consequence of the

total impact of British rule in India was a part of the worldwide reaction against
colonial exploitation. The impact of the British rule on the socio-economic
structure of the Indian society and the perceptions of the early Nationalists on
this impact provided the political; philosophy of the freedom struggle. Any
Economic and political ideology that developed in modern India could be studied
and analyzed against the total background of the Nationalist Movement. The
early years of the 20th century witnessed several significant events in human
history. The First World War and the Russian revolution marked a turning point
in the revolutionary movements in the colonial countries. In India, the national
liberation movement under Gandhi’s leadership was gaining new heights and
dimensions. Nationalist leaders thought that the poverty and backwardness of
the common people.

Lohia’s Contributions to socialist thought and action are manifold He Wanted to

free the individual from ignorance, backwardness and all kinds of supersti tions
and prejudices. He put maximum emphasis on restoring the dignity and
individuality of human beings. Lohia highlighted the ideological problems of the
socialist movement in India. He wanted to assimilate the fundamental tenets of
Marxism with Gandhian ideas and principles that should be re-examined and
reconsidered in light of the changes in the socialist and communist movements
all over the world. He made it a point to look into the economic problems a
country is facing. It should be pointed out that Lohia’s ideas and thinking on
socialist thought and movement came to be influenced by Gandhian teachings
and techniques. One scholar says: Among those who tried to give a new
orientation of Marxist and Gandhian Principles. Lohia who tried to work out the
41
doctrinal foundation of socialism occupies the pride of place. A democrat by
conviction socialism appealed to Lohia as a way of life. He strongly advocated
the plea that the socialist movement in India should have a distinct Indian
character. 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 a 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.

16.5.1 Lohia’s Ideas on Socialism and Gandhism

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

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

 Both Capitalism and Communism are based upon centralized power which is
incapable of bringing about a radical transformation in society.
 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 a profit and in communism even though there is no individual profit
system, a centralized power, class or party, monopolizes the benefits. Society
does not in reality enjoy economic, political and individual freedom.
 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.
 Socialism does not believe in restricted capitalism or a mixed economy. It does
not believe that this would ever pave the way for socialism.
 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. To build up such
power and organization the party should continually strive to become a spokesman for
1 Presidential Address of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia to the Special Convention of the
42
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.

Lohia being an indigenous thinker correctly strategized his political move to bring
equity and equanimity (same and samtvam) into 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 the caste system.

16.6 JAYA PRAKASH NARAYAN ON SOCIALISM

Jaya Prakash Narayan popularly known as' JP was a confirmed Marxist in 1929. By the
middle of the 1940s, He was inclined toward the Gandhian ideology. Till 1952 JP had
no faith in non-violence as an instrument of the social transformation process. The
transformations of Russian society in the late 1920s had thereafter changed his outlook
toward Marxism and the process of dialectical materialism. The Soviet Union was no
more an ideal model for him for a socialist society. The bureaucratized dictatorship with
the Red Army, secret police and guns produced an inherent disliking for the Soviet
Pattern of development. He was convinced that it did not produce "decent, fraternal and
civilized human beings". He said in 1947, "The method of violent revolution and
dictatorship might conceivably lead to a socialist democracy; but in the only country
where it has been tried (i.e. the Soviet Union), it had led to something different, i.e. to a
bureaucratic state in which democracy does not exist. It would like to take a lesson from
history".

Jaya Prakash Narayan was convinced that there was an interrelationship between the
nature of the revolution and its ' future impact. He was convinced that any pattern of
violent revolution would not lead to the empowerment of people at the grassroots level.
He said, "A Soviet Revolution has two parts: the destruction of the old order of society
and construction of the new. In a successful violent revolution, success lies in the
destruction of the old order from the roots. That indeed is a ' great achievement. But at
that point, something vital happens which nearly strangles the process. During the
revolution, there is widespread recognized revolutionary violence. When that violence
assisted by other factors into which one need not go here, has succeeded in destroying
the old power structure, it becomes necessary to cry halt to the unorganized mass
violence and create out of it an organized means of violence to protect and defend the
revolution. Thus a new instrument of power is created and whosoever among the
revolutionary succeeds in capturing this instrument, they and their party or faction
become the new rulers. They become the masters of the new, state and power passage
from the hands of the people to them. There is always struggle for powers at the top and
heads roll and blood flows, victory going in the end to the most determined, the most

43
ruthless and best, organized. It is not that violent revolutionaries deceive; it is just the
logic of violence working itself out.

16.6.1 Impact of Gandhian Thoughts: A Shift from Socialism to Sarvodaya

In the history of the world, Mahatma Gandhi is one person who has changed the trend
of violent revolution. He believed that a good aim is achieved only by good means. The
bad means cannot give us a good result. If we want a good society then it is possible
only through non-violence and truth. Through violence, we cannot achieve the aim of
a good society. Therefore, we can see all violent revolutions have not achieved the aim
of social revolution, but it is possible to Gandhian thought. The Gandhian thought is
very effective in the process of social reconstruction.

The Sarvodaya, non-violence, truth, spiritualism, creative work and gram swaraj are
the main components of Gandhian thought. The Gandhian thought attracted the
attention of many thinkers. One among them was Jayaprakash Narayan. Jayaprakash
Narayan used Gandhian thought for social reconstruction after the independence of
India. The philosophy of Jayaprakash Narayan is the result of the effect of Gandhian
thought on him. Jayaprakash Narayan was a freedom fighter, social worker and great
socialist thinker of India. His ideology changed from time to time in a positive
direction. He gave a major contribution to social reconstruction. He was linked with
Bhoodan, the Gram Dan movement. In 1974, he gave the concept of Total Revolution
to change the corrupt, autocratic and rotten system. He was one of those persons who
worked on the way of Gandhian thoughts. Before the independence of India, he was
influenced by Marxism but after independence, he understood the depth of the
philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and accepted it. He tried to complete the dream of
Mahatma Gandhi and the aim of Gandhiji's Loksevak Sangh.

Socialism to Sarvodaya - Sarvodaya is a term meaning 'universal uplift' or 'progress of

all. The term was first coined by Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi as the title of his
1908 translation of John Ruskin's work on political economy, 'unto this last' and Gandhi
came to use the term for the ideal of his political philosophy.

Sarvodaya is the main concept of Gandhian thought. Mahatma Gandhi gave the
philosophy of Sarvodaya as a module of development for human society. Jayaprakash
Narayan also accepted the Sarvodaya philosophy for social reconstruction after the
independence of India. But, before the independence of India, he was a strong follower
of Marxism. He believed that Marxism is better than Gandhism. He said, "Freedom
remained the unchanging goal, but Marxism as a science of revolution seemed to offer
a sure and quicker road to it than Gandhi's technique of civil disobedience and
noncooperation.

The thrilling success of the great Lenin, accounts of which we consumed with
unsaturated hunger, seemed to establish beyond doubt the supremacy of the Marxism
way to revolution. At the same time, Marxism provided another beacon of light for me:
44
equality and brotherhood. Freedom was not enough. It must mean freedom for all even
the lowliest and this freedom must include freedom from exploitation, from hunger,
from poverty."4 In this way, in the effect of Marxism, the philosophy of Jayaprakash
Narayan was developed. Equality and brotherhood were the base of his philosophy.
But after the independence of India when Jayaprakash Narayan understood the
philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, he believed that socialism could not be established
through communism and democratic socialism, it can be established only through
Sarvodaya. According to Jayaprakash Narayan, the right objective and right philosophy
of socialism are found in Sarvodaya.

Jayaprakash Narayan was one of those people who were influenced by the Gandhian
concept of non-violence. He accepted the way of non-violence for social reconstruction
such as Bhoodan and Gram Dan and used non-violent revolution during the emergency
period of 1975-1977 to save democratic values. During the freedom movement,
Jayaprakash Narayan did not believe strongly in non-violence. He accepted violent
ways of revolution for the freedom movement and established Azad Dasta which was
a group of violent revolutionaries for the freedom movement. He said that the
discussion on violence and non-violence is meaningless; both are good in the reference
to the freedom movement

16.6.2 Total Revolution

The concept of Total Revolution is enunciated by Jaya Prakash Narayan’s ideas on seven
revolutions i.e. social, economic, political, cultural, ideological and intellectual,
educational and spiritual. JP was not very rigid regarding the number of these
revolutions. He said the seven revolutions could be grouped as per the demands of the
social structures in a political system. He said, "For instance, the cultural may include
educational and ideological revolutions. And if culture is used in an anthropological
sense, it can embrace all other revolutions." He said, 'economic revolution may be split
up into industrial, agricultural, technological revolutions etc. similarly intellectual
revolutions may be split up into two - scientific and philosophical. Even spiritual
revolution can be viewed as made of moral and spiritual or it can be looked upon as part
of the culture. And so on." The concept of total revolution became popular in 1974 in
the wake of mass movements in Gujarat and Bihar. He was deeply disturbed by the
political process of degeneration in the Indian politics of the time. During his
Convocation Address at the Benaras Hindu University in 1970, he said, "Politics has,
however, become the greatest question mark of this decade. Some of the trends are
obvious, political disintegration is likely to spread, selfish splitting of parties rather than
their ideological polarization will continue; the devaluation of ideologies may continue;
frequent change of party loyalties for a persona; or parochial benefits, buying and selling
of legislatures, inner-party indiscipline, an opportunistic alliance among parties and
instability of governments, all these are expected to continue.''

45
16.8 SUMMARY

If we compare and contrast the ideas beliefs convictions and thought patterns of
Jawaharlal Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan on socialism, social
justice, equality, freedom, democracy, planning and other related issues, it appears that
all these thinkers were influenced by Marxism and socialism and also by Indian
traditional values and ethos. However, they did not accept all the fundamental tenets of
Marxism and they gradually deviated from Marxism and their love, inclination and
infatuation with democratic socialism developed. They strongly affirmed their faith and
conviction in democracy and democratic planning. They wanted to build equality and
social justice would be the hallmark. They detested repressive measures against the
dissenting voice in a democratic society. They keenly wanted the adoption of
democratic planning to achieve economic progress and development along with self-
reliance and raise the conditions of the masses and eradicate the socio-economic
problems and sufferings that the Indian people were experiencing.

16.9 EXERCISE

1. Briefly describe the socialistic thought of Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan and

Nehru.
2. What is the impact of Gandhi’s thoughts on JP Narayan?
3. Write short notes on Lohia’s Ideas on Socialism and Gandhism.
4. Explain Nehru’s Ideas on Democratic Socialism.

16.10 REFERENCE

1. Barman Paritosh, “A Journey from Socialism to Total Revolution: An

Evaluative Study Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan”, International Journal of Social
science and Economic Research, Vol.05, No. 03, March 2020.

2. H.Keene Thomas, “From Marxism to Gandhism: J.P. Narayan, 1902-1952”,

Journal of Third World Studies, Vol.07, No. 02, 1990.

3. Mohanty K. Dushmant, “Indian Political Tradition” Anmol Publications Pvt.

Ltd, New Delhi, 2015.

46