“Factors of religion and history must be considered seriously. It is these that sour the minds and hearts of men.” (Dr. Rammanohar Lohia)
Ideological politics appear oxymoronic in Indian context. The recent developments in the formation of government in Bihar have created newer debates surrounding conflicts of interest between three influential political parties viz. RJD, JDU and BJP. After the Bihar Legislative Elelection 2020, the Nitish Kumar led JD(U) formed the government with the national party BJP. This hurt the largest party, Tejashwi Yadav led RJD, after 2020 assembly election because the RJD had the highest Vote share (38.11%) and won seats (75) out of its contested 144 seats. But the JDU-BJP alliance formed the government leaving the RJD in the opposition bench. Here, it is important to note that in 2015 the JDU and Lalu Prasad Yadav led RJD stormed to power what was called Mahagathbandhan. Later, the JDU broke the alliance with RJD and Congress in 2017 and joined hands with BJP to form the government citing the corruption charges against the then Deputy Chief Minister, Tejawshwi Yadav.
Now, in 2022, there comes twist in the tale in the political scenario of Bihar! On 09th August 2022, Nitish Kumar came back to the previous alliance with RJD to uphold the Mahagathbandhan 2.0. This time he is again the Chief Minister and his deputy is the same Tejashwi Yadav. Here, what caught my attention is the Television interviews of Tejashwi Yadav in which he can be heard chanting and hailing the Ideology of Samajwad (Socialism). The reason, which he continuously and jubilantly cites, for rejoining hands with his “chacha” (i.e. Nitish Kumar) and vice-versa originates from Socialism, from the legacy of Dr. Rammanohar Lohia and Jaya Prakash Narayan. Herein lies the origin of this post.
Is it Samajwad or something else that brought the old foes together? Do they really care about Socialism? Had Nitish Kumar been a true socialist, he would never have allied with BJP in 2017. The socialist agenda revolves around the downtrodden, the poor, the backward castes in India. A true socialist will never mix politics with religion and neither will support the party which does so. Hence, what happened in 2017 in Bihar goes against the spirit of socialism.
Let us now consider what Dr. Rammanohar Lohia, the leader of the Socialist Party of India, had to say of the political horizon of India after independence. In 1959 Dr. Lohia wrote a series of articles in the monthly “Mankind” in which he gave an overview of the incidents leading to the tragic phenomena of partition of the Indian subcontinent. In his introductory article to the series, he cites eight causes that led to the partition. They are “first, British chicanery, secondly, declining years of congress leadership, thirdly, objective condition of Hindu-Muslim rioting, fourthly, lack of grit and stamina among the people, fifthly, Gandhiji’s non-violence, sixthly, Muslim League’s separatism, seventhly, inability to seize opportunities as they came, and, eighthly, Hindu hauteur”. In the article, he laments upon the fact that none took any serious initiative to “bring the Muslim close to the Hindu within a single nation”. This “estrangement” was sustained by the collaboration of the Jan Sangh, the British and the Muslim League. One has to understand that Lohia is an authentic voice to have faith in because he had seen it all, first, as the member of the Indian National Congress and, later, as the propounder of Socialism in India. If he blames the Muslims for fallaciously trusting Jinnah as their messiah, he also blames right nationalism and Hindu fanaticism for the estrangement and divide. Lohia says:
“The Jan Sanghies and all Akhand-Bharatis of the Hindu pattern are friends to Pakistan. I am a true Akhand-Bharati. I do not like the partition. There must be millions of such persons on both sides of the border. But they must cease to be exclusively Hindu or exclusively Muslim, before they can become true to their yearning of undivided Hindustan.”
Please take note of the difference in the Socialist approach to the idea of Akhand Bharat. In his Akhand Bharat both the Hindu and Muslim form the undivided state. To Lohia, Akhand Bharat is an inclusive entity. The socialist in Lohia and Narayan always respected diversity and unity. The former stresses on the importance of incredible “temper of Indian people that has learnt the arts of adjustment and patient acceptance and surrender”. But the element of estrangement spoils the past eight hundred years of Hindu-Muslim relationship. He further adds:
“The estrangement of the Muslim from the Hindu has continued into the years of freedom. I suspect that it is deeper today than it was before the partition. Estrangement produced partition, which therefore could not possibly dissolve it in an automatic way. Into the effect enters the cause. Nothing has been done in the years of freedom to bring the Muslim close ta the Hindu, to remove the seeds of estrangement from their souls. Among the unforgivable crimes of the Congress government is precisely its failure to bring together the estranged souls, in. fact, its unwillingness to attempt the task.”
How contextual the above quote is even today! Has anything been really done even after the demise of Dr. Lohia by any government to lessen this estrangement? Dr. Lohia uses a phrase “vote-catching” as the basis behind the failure of the Congress government to bring the Hindu-Muslim together. And what about the present Central government? What could be the reason behind its failure to deplete this estrangement? Or does there exist any desire to bring the two religious community together?
Let us come back to the “vote-catching” factor. What made JDU to leave the Mahagathbandhan in 2017? Was this a vote-catching tactic for 2020 election in Bihar? What Lohia said in 1959 is still contextual and relevant. For example, he says that “To obtain votes, appeals to Hindu and Muslim are still overwhelmingly separate”. Do you think that political parties are serious about this estrangement? Do you see any party adhering to its ideology under all circumstances? The answer is NO. Opportunism is at the centre of power. Unfortunate but true. I believe that all ideologies must converge for the welfare of the poor, deprived, unemployed, and the backward class/ caste. To this end Dr. Lohia has provided few remedies such as:
“...such solutions must be sought as interdining or intermarriage, also economic solutions such as full employment or nationalization or equality, also political solutions such as guaranteed representation of backward castes and groups. Without these solutions, the problem of estrangement can never be laid to rest, but with them alone, it will ever be there in some form, quiescent or virulent. Factors of religion and history must be considered seriously. It is these that sour the minds and hearts of men.”
What we see around us in India today was already foreseen by Lohia. Indeed, the estrangement exists; the factors of religion and history are not taken gravely. More so, in the times of social media, false facts, fake news, misinterpreted/ incorrect history are doing around every second! Most importantly, had history been “considered seriously”, JDU would have never ever went with NDA. Isn’t it?
There is another word that Dr. Lohia uses frequently in that article, and with which I would conclude this post. The word is “approximation”. We all know that Lohia and Narayan always represented the underprivileged lower castes. Their concern was to safeguard their rights in the independent India. That is why, Dr. Lohia says:
“There seems almost to be a law that approximation is more often the work of persons of low caste or learning, and estrangement that of the ruling or more learned castes, while it may well be that, in critical times, approximation tends to degenerate into extinction and estrangement to stiffen into maintenance of identity.”
How precise the statement above is! Approximation is always forced upon the weak, the backward populace. Estrangement is reserved for the powerful, the forward populace. However, both lead to degeneration of a nation. If one is forced to assimilate/ approximate, it would cause loss of identity. In hindsight, if one maintains estrangement, it will lead to stricter consciousness of identity which would be non-inclusive. Therefore, mental attitude is what matters most. Our sensibility to the undivided nation matters most.
Thus, what I conclude of the current political events in Bihar is that if they (the samajwadis) genuinely wish to form a “strong opposition”, they have to stick to the ideology – Practice what you preach. Otherwise, someone else will steal their ideology for their own good. The Statue of Unity in Gujarat is an appropriate example for the same.
Thank you!
References:
1. Lohia, Rammanohar. Guilty Men of India’s Partition. Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1960.
2. http://www.panjabdigilib.org/webuser/searches/mainpage.jsp
3. https://eci.gov.in/files/file/12787-bihar-legislative-election-2020/
Use translate.google.com to read the post in Hindi. Just Copy, Paste and Translate.
