Workshop from 5-8 January 2004 to determine “India's Liberal Political Strategy: 2004 and beyond”

LESSONS FROM THE SWATANTRA EXPERIMENT (draft 1)

Lesson No.1 : Liberals are no different to other human beings, and we should be

humble and accept our individual limitations

Throughout the book, they are descriptions of decisions taken by people that completely match my personal understanding of the way in which people behave at any level in any organisation in any part of the world. People (including me, of course) are full of prejudices, preconceived notions, unrealistic hopes, premature rush to judgement, need to seek approval from persons in authority, jealousies, etc. No individual in the history of the world has ever been perfect. Rajaji turns out to be just another human being, like any of us. So also Masani, and everybody else. The other day, I was reading Gandhi - he too had many preconceived notions; the one difference was that he had less of them than others and was willing to continuously learn. He wrote in Community Service News, September -- October, 1946, "I have great concern about introducing machine industry. The machine produces too much too fast, and brings with it a sort of economic system which I cannot grasp. ... as we grow in understanding, if we feel the need of machines, will certainly have them. ... we shall introduce machines if and when we need them." He kept saying that he was a seeker for the Truth and was happy to be corrected. Obviously one man can only learn so much in one lifetime so we can understand why he could not understand the capitalist system of Adam Smith. If he could find the time to understand it, he would have surely changed his views. Not Nehru, since he rejected Shenoy, Bhagwati, and Friedman - Nehru was a far lesser mortal than Gandhi. But Gandhi's ill considered judgement on machines demolished industry in India for 50 years. Nobody has ever told us about his view of 1946 when he expressed his willingness to change his opinion if he understood some more. Today, in an appeal to authority (fallacy of human thinking), we're told that Gandhi did not want the machine and so it is not good for us. But Gandhi admitted his lack of understanding; not so our policymakers. Never mind.

The one lesson we should take from Pasricha's book is that Liberals will need to build a political organisation that is based entirely on rigorous thinking, and complete equality. Important decisions need to be debated at length; the "leadership" needs to put in due diligence into every important decision, and bring to bear every significant perspective, both short-term and long-term, in informing the decision. There should NEVER be any regard for any other individual more than what one regards oneself; there should be no arrogance in one's own perspective or judgement. Gandhi, Nehru, Rajaji, Masani - all made significant errors of judgement, and not just once or twice. No one should EVER be treated as a "great" man or woman, nor, the "least" of us - the "trivial" farmer, or slum dweller, treated with any disdain. There are many miracles of good judgement of our "illiterate peasants" that the smartest economists are learning today, to have been optimal, given their situation. And our poor peasants are significantly honest, which is much more than we can say about some “liberals” today.

Lesson No. 2: Never tolerate a person on the Executive Council who does not challenge any view that the person does not agree with.

Flowing from the above, we see that it is crucial for Liberals to interact as Equals, in every way, with office bearers given only the right to speak on others' behalf, after due process. Appeals to authority are the worst form of tyranny and fallacious thinking. Just because someone says so, does not make a thing true. Even Masani made such an appeal, that eventually destroyed the party. At page 79 Pasricha says, "Mariswamy, the general secretary of the Madras party, was arguing against the alliance [Grand Alliance of 1971] fairly cogently, when Masani interrupted with the remark that Rajaji was in favour of the alliance. A sudden, dramatic change came over Mariswamy. He stopped in midstream and abjectly announced that he withdrew his remarks unreservedly and totally. It struck me as extremely peculiar that the leader of the National Executive level should so abjectly withdraw his considered opinion merely at the mention of Rajaji's opinion. This is a small illustration of the type of leadership the Swatantra party was able to scrounge."

It is clear that subservience to autocratic "rule", real or perceived, is a more natural state of man than democracy, particularly in India. We are born as sheep; we love to obey authority. That is the one MOST dangerous type of person to include in a party. We should never accept a sheep or 'yes men'. If “our” party cannot be 100% democratic and encourage dissent and free expression of opinions during the time provided for such expression, then the decisions taken by the party would of significantly lower quality than if mature, considered opinions are allowed full expression. It is obvious to the meanest mind today, in retrospect, that Mariswamy was right; why then did he not challenge Rajaji when he had the opportunity and responsibility? Let us move away from him, as a person, though. It is the disease of “yesmanship” that we have to banish like the plague or smallpox.

Lesson 3: Nip the evil in the bud

At page 36, Pasricha points out how the Jan Sangh nipped in the bud any deviationist by expelling him from the party. I believe that it is crucial that people of low character be identified and expelled as soon as possible. Some recent experiences of IPI flow on into this lesson, but I believe, on reading what Pasricha and others have said, that 90% of the members of the Swatantra party should never have been there in the first place and expelled at the first opportunity. The kind of people that the party accepted, as described in the book, is completely unacceptable for a successful party that will live and do good for 500 years, in my view. Not only do the entrance criteria need to be very stringent, but people need to be expelled for any significant deviation from ethical behaviour and ideological principles. People who discriminate against women, Harijans, Muslims, etc., etc., need to be blocked at the doorstep, but if they manage to infiltrate, they need to be expelled at the first opportunity. At page 130, Pasricha talks of Masani being "fed up with the state of indiscipline in the party." The party made too many compromises for perceived short-term gain. They all added up in the end and allowed people like Piloo Mody to take control and kill the party.

Lesson 4: Build party workers

This theme runs throughout the book. Pasricha has made it abundantly clear that nobody in the party seemed to be bothered about building a set of workers who would proselytise. He refers to the "impossibility of weaning away the half-starved, illiterate electorate of India from the fantastic charms evoked by the repetitive intonations of the blessings expected from the socialistic haven the Congress was building." In addition, there was enormous use of money power, particularly black money, by the Congress. In such a situation,"The Swatantra gospel required proselytisation on an extensive scale. Apostles were in very short supply. A corps of trained, devoted workers, functioning under the direct control of a centre, could have sown the gospel far and wide and counteracted the prevailing socialistic rhetoric." "No attempt was made to formulate a detailed scheme for the training of cadres." (p.115)

The party clearly did not have a strategy for the long-term. It was dependent on Rajaji in more ways than one. Rajaji was old and people must have thought that the party would soon die anyway; so nobody put the effort in building a long-lived and successful party. “Our” party will not dependent on anybody - it will be dependent ONLY on good principles and systems. Elsewhere I have mentioned the need for an independent party judiciary; such ideas need to explored in the coming workshop.

Lesson 5: Do not contest elections until fully ready

Repeatedly, Pasricha shows the ill-judged keenness of state leaders as well as National leaders to contest elections well beyond the capacity of the party to organise. At page 93, Pasricha says, "At the Baroda General Council meeting, I warned him [H.M.Patel] of the consequences of contesting the impending Assembly elections without properly trained workers in adequate numbers. In the absence of devoted workers, the elections tend to attract artful self-seekers and money-grubbers... Patel agreed with me about a vital necessity of trained workers, but added that the impending elections were more important. I concluded that the top leadership of the party had made up its mind to build the party through elections only." This theme, of squandering party resources in elections where there was no preparation, runs throughout the book. This is one of the most significant lessons for the ideal "liberal" party that we may want to design in the future. Resources need to be spent strategically and very prudently. Recklessness and haste can only destroy. That is one more reason to have ‘big picture’ strategy to be continuously reviewed.

Lesson 6: Never ever consort with parties the do not have the same principles

The Grand Alliance of 1971, where the party worked in league with Socialists and religious bigots (Jan Sangh), simply with a view to defeat Indira Gandhi, was completely uncalled for, and cannot be justified on any grounds. One could understand a temporary alignment with such forces against Indira Gandhi with a view to withdraw the Emergency, in 1976-77, but even there it would be unforgivable for the party to actually contest elections with such forces, simply to defeat and individual, once the Emergency was withdrawn. In other words, the moment the party compromises its fundamental principles, it is as good as dead. We are liberals. We do not provide Indian citizens with a hodge podge of policies - strictly liberal only.

Lesson 7: Ensure rigorous audit of the party

One of the significant weaknesses of the party, as Pasricha points out, was the tendency of state units to be highly factionalised, based on feudal or caste principles. All the demerits of existing political parties began to rapidly emerge in the State units of the Swatantra party including financial irregularities. A rigorous audit of party membership, funds, processes, etc., is essential for the party to not deteriorate "around the fringes". Pasricha points out that when such an audit was commenced, it could not go far due to the tendency of state leaders to short-circuit the recommendations for improvement by using their personal contacts "at the top" - and by the leaders "at the top" allowing this short-circuiting. Stupid leadership that does not allow audit processes to go through fully need to be expelled at once through internal whistle-blower principles. Such leaders completely damage the integrity of the party.

Lesson 8 : Place a significant membership fee

While this sounds obvious, it did not appear obvious to the party at that time. By putting a low membership fee, wealthier individuals with political ambitions are able to enrol a significant number of dumb followers by paying for their fees. This allows them to gain control over various units of the party, but does not gain the party quality membership, since these followers are aligned to this particular wealthy individual rather than to the party principles. People who are committed to the principles of the party will have no objection in paying, say, Rs. 5,000 per year (in today's value), for joining a party of quality people and principles. People pay much more simply for club memberships. It is possible that there could be multiple categories of membership with differential voting rights, to allow for students and those with lower incomes access to the party.

Lesson 9: The importance of allowing joint stock companies to fund political parties

"Masani ... gave no peace to the government till it passed a law forbidding such contributions. With the new prohibition, the Congress party was much better off. It could lay hands on the lion's share of black money of the business houses while the opposition parties were referred to the law prohibiting contributions to political parties. I wonder, how Masani feels now with the Congress party taking the entire cake. The Congress party should express its gratitude to Masani for this enabling measure." (Page 61).

C

Home