Deendayal Upadhyaya wanted to base India’s independence on its culture. He was, therefore, not prepared to accept any widely-accepted notion in this regard blindly. A western concept of the nation, western secularism, western democracy and various other western issues came up for comment; Deendayal was for Indianising all these concepts.
He enthusiastically accepted the concept of democracy. Although it was established in India immediately after independence and universal franchise was introduced through the Constitution of India Deendayal was slightly apprehensive of this move in view of India’s long years of slavery. He reached the conclusion that universal adult franchise should come after proper education. He believed that democracy was not a gift of the West to India. Indian nationhood is naturally democratic.
He wrote: “Vedic Sabhas and Samitis were also organised on the basis of democracy, and many medieval states in India were completely democratic. We have confined the powers and privileges of kings and made them cater to the demands of the public. We may find instances of kings violating the code of public welfare and public good, but people’s protest against them and their not being considered ideal rulers justify our democratic sentiments… The way democracy has been defined, it is a government to be run through mutual discussion. Continuous consultation and discussion is an old Indian adage. But… if we carry it to the other extreme, it would prove to be troublesome. Voltaire has said, “If I do not consider your viewpoint right, I would fight with all my strength for your right of self-expression. ‘He has, therefore, accepted men’s ability to discuss and argue. The Indian culture goes beyond this and views democratic discussion as something through which we arrive at the essence of thought.’ Deendayal comments on the rise of democracy in the West, its deterioration into Capitalism and Karl Mark’s dictatorial reaction as under.
“After nationalism… the second radical concept is democracy, which has deeply affected European polity. In the beginning, nations were ruled by monarchs, but their tyranny led to an awakening among the people. In the wake of the Industrial Revolution and development of international commerce, the trading community became a demanding force. Naturally, the traders came into conflict with the nobility and the monarchy. This conflict sowed the seeds of democracy. Roots of this form of government have been traced to the nation-states of ancient Greece. Liberty, equality and fraternity were the slogans of the French Revolution. Ruling dynasties were either put an end to or their rights and privileges were limited to make way for constitutional rule. Today, democracy is an accepted form of government in Europe. Those who ignored democracy, today subscribe to this form of government. Even dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin did not go against democratic principles.” Democracy was developed in the West as an idealistic and popular concept, but the newly- created traders and the modern Industrial Revolution made it a tool of capitalistic exploitation. Upadhyaya, therefore, says further:
“Although democracy has granted the franchise to every citizen, its leadership was confined to the people who expounded this concept. A new method of production was introduced after the Industrial Revolution. The worker who stayed at home and worked, became an employee of a factory owner. He left his home in the country side and came to live in the city. There were proper arrangements for his living there. There were no rules in the factory where he worked. The organization of labour was weak and ill-defined. The worker become a victim of torture and exploitation. Those who had the right to govern were the very people who exploited the workers. The workers, therefore, could not look up to the government for the redressal of their grievances.
Many people raised their voice to protest against the prevailing situation and worked for bringing about an improvement in it. They called themselves socialists. Karl Marx was one of them. He commented on the economy and history in order to bring about a transformation. It was on the basis of his thought that socialism assumed a scientific standing. The later socialists may or may not have subscribed to his views, but he has left a deep imprint on their thinking”
Deendayal Upadhyaya, while agreeing with the basic tenets of democracy in the west that were a reaction to oligarchy, exploitations and capitalism, wanted to Indianise the concept of democracy He gave a call for Indianising the democratic set-up of government.
(A) Indianisation of Democracy
Elections are an important constituent of democracy in the west. Constitution executive, legislature and judiciary are its byproducts, but they are a mere formality in any democracy. Its soul consists of reflecting the opinion of the people rightly. ”Democracy is not dependent on any outward manifestations. Adult franchise and the electoral process are important parts of any democracy, but they do not alone lead to its establishment. Both these are present in Russia, but experts do not accept it as a democracy. Another feature is required for democracy besides adult franchise and the electoral process….Democracy is not merely the rule of the majority…In such a government at least one segment of the public will be there whose voice is stifled even though it may be right. This form of democracy cannot work for everyone’s welfare and everyone’s good….Therefore, in any form of democracy for India, elections, majority and minority etc., all must be combined and harmonized at one place. Anyone who has a different opinion from the majority, even if he a single individual, his viewpoint must be respected and incorporated into governance. In England, where democracy has achieved the maximum success, the leader of the opposition is paid his salary from the National Exchequer. In any democracy, there must be two political parties in Parliament. The Opposition always comments upon and criticise the policies of the Government.”
(B) Honouring Public Opinion
Upadhyaya believed that while the immediate policies in a democracy may be governed by majority opinion, Democracy is not always able to give expression to the views of the majority. This leads to infighting in the party and unrest in society. A democracy must, therefore, rule according to popular opinion, not only majority or minority opinion. The public cannot express its opinion formally. When there is confusion regarding public opinion, democracy may degenerate into monocracy. Vocal leaders can misuse this. Quoting Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Upadhyaya says, “The public that was celebrating the murder of Julius Caesar with Brutus a moment ago, was roused to go in Brutus” murder after Antony’s speech. It is difficult to keep alive democracy between the two forms of government – mobocracy and autocracy.”
It is therefore, necessary to generate mass awareness. Upadhyaya calls it honouring or embellishing public opinion. It is a cultural process. In the dictatorial communist regimes, it is called brainwashing or depriving the dissidents of their rights, which is inhuman. On the other hand, in the so-called democracies, it leads to chaos; the government media misuses it. According to Upadhyaya, “In India, the problem has been solved by taking away the right of building democracy from the government. Educating public opinion is the work of selfless ascetics. Ruling according to public opinion is the task of the government. The ascetics always have the upliftment of the public and their spiritual interests in mind and, as such, they work according to these noble ideals; they make the people aware of the limitations of their faith and religion without any vested interests. That is why they can follow these ideals. A society’s values are built and strengthened through education and code of conduct. If a democracy confines itself to their limits, it will never go against public opinion.”
Upadhyaya’s views on honouring public opinion are similar to what political thinkers believed in the west, “We educate our masters” In fact, there was a movement started on these lines. The highlights of his viewpoint about democracy’s success are:
1 . Tolerance and discipline’,
2. Selflessness; and
3. Respect for the law of the land.
Tolerance and Discipline :
“The mainstream of democracy has been tolerance. In its absence, elections, legislature, etc., are lifeless. .. Tolerance is the basis of Indian culture. It gives us strength to find out what the public at large desires.” Discipline is essential for tolerance. Upadhyaya says, “Discipline involves working under the limits laid down. Starving oneself is not discipline, but it is eating according to the body’s requirements, Keeping mum or not protesting against tyranny or not rendering good advice to anyone is not discipline. A disciplined person stands between a vocal person and a dumb person; he speaks as and when necessary.”
“Indiscipline and irresponsibility go together. A democracy can be successful only when a citizen understands his responsibilities and discharges them to the best of his abilities. The more a society understands that it is its responsibility to run the government, the more disciplined it would become. A political party that feels that sooner or later it may be called upon to shoulder the responsibility of governance, the more responsible it will become in making promises and in its general behaviour. Even then, it always lies with the public to run the administration” It is, therefore, imperative that the people must be responsible and disciplined in order to make democracy a success more than its formal manifestations.
Selflessness:
The lust for power provokes people and their leaders to ignore popular will. The environment of society should, therefore, be such that a citizen is involved in a democracy more out of selflessness than out of lust for power. To play the electoral game in the spirit of sportsmanship develops this selflessness, but on the other hand, lust for power gives rise to mutual enmity and bitterness. Giving the example of Ram, Upadhyaya explains his viewpoint thus:
“In a democracy, a high degree of selflessness is required in governance. Like Lord Ram, the rulers must always be prepared to rule at the people’s behest and give it all up when required without any ill-feeling. They must always strive for victory like a sportsman. lf a ruler cannot accept defeat and congratulate his competitor on the latter’s victory, he is not a democrat. It was this feeling that led Churchill to hand over power to Attlee who, in turn, transferred it to Eden.”
This selflessness is generated because of a person’s inherent qualities. The mere trappings of democracy do not make a person accept the general public opinion. He requires good company, self-meditation and self-discipline in order to conquer the lust of power.
Respect for the Law of the Land:
The rule of the law is a political organization, but respect for the law of the land is what an ethical society requires. A person who respects the law of the land can only implement it. Where people do not believe in the rule of the law, they mistrust it and ignore it. This leads to immorality and anarchy in society. It has only been in India that we have been able to make the people follow moral law and values without bringing about the fear of legal punishment. It is essential in a healthy democracy that we should observe the law of the land, not out of any fear of Punishment, but of our own sense of social responsibility. Upadhyaya urged the political parties to educate the public opinion on these lines and themselves act accordingly.|
“In order to generate respect for the law in the public, it is necessary that the political parties which aspire to uphold the rule of the law, should themselves set an example in this regard. The feeling of self-rule and the capability is the essence of democracy. If the political parties cannot govern themselves how can they aspire to generate a feeling of self-rule in society?” A democratic mentality is required for respecting the law of the land; it is also necessary that the lawmakers, scholars, people’s representatives and Journalists should also educate the public about the various provisions of the law. In order to express their views on respect for the law of the land, people must also be educated to put forth their views that are against the accepted views. Upadhyaya was not merely a scholar or philosopher, but also a known political worker. He believed that elections were not merely an instrument for political struggle, they were also instruments of social interaction. They must be used in this direction. He has expressed his views on the electoral process that demonstrate his political and statesmanlike views on what a Good Candidate, Good Party and Good Voter should be.
Good Candidate: According to Upadhyaya, “…A suitable candidate is one who, along with giving expression to the policies of his party, also feels the pulse of his electorate. As a person, he must be faithful to his electoral; as member of a political party he should be dedicated to expressing the viewpoint and policies of the party he represents.”
Devotion to the electorate as well as the party is the touchstone of a good candidate. But expressing his concern over the selection of candidates by the various political parties who are concerned more about winning the election than about the right candidate, he said:
“Unfortunately, there is not a single political party in India that is worried about this. The only thing that matters to them is that their candidate must somehow win… They only grant a ticket to the candidate who has the maximum chances of winning.” He warns the voters: “We must remember that an ineligible candidate is not worthy of our vote even if he belongs to a good political party… It is possible that while granting the ticket to such a person, a political party may have been guided by immediate gains or it may even have made a grave mistake. It is, therefore, the duty of a responsible voter to rectify this mistake by his awareness.”
Good Party :
Political parties play a decisive role in a democratic set-up. The democratic nature of any society can be judged by the character of its political parties. According to Upadhyaya, a good political party is “the one which is not a conglomerate of people lusting for power-but the one which has its own distinctive character apart from aspiring for political power. Such a party is dedicated to its own ideals and their implementation instead of merely contesting elections or coming to power. From the top leadership to the grassroots level, everyone associated with such a party is committed to its ideals. Commitment and dedication, we must remember, lead to discipline and self-sacrifice… If discipline is imposed from above, it betrays the innter weakness of that political party.”
Deendayal points out regretfully that most political parties in India are parties just in name. Their inner weakness leads them to dependence on unwanted and undesirable anti-social elements. Such compulsions are: (1) former rulers; (ii) casteism; and (iii) industrialists.
Former Rulers:
Most political parties in India haven’t been able to strike strong roots among the masses…. keeping aside their political activities, the parties have to become election-savvy. That is why many of them have tried to drag in former rulers, nawabs and Jagirdars to their fold….We must concede that these former constituents of society must be active in the country’s politics, but granting them tickets to fight elections should not be solely dependent on their dynasties but their abilities.”
Casteism:
“Caste and community are the other considerations which affect the selection of candidates. . .Every citizen in India belongs to one caste or community or another. In blaming others for casteism and parochialism while ourselves submitting to their dictates indirectly encourages such an attitude… If things come to such a pass that a person of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia’s stature has to withdraw from contest because the number of voters is that constituency do not belong to the majority community, the situation is indeed grave. The solution to this problem is to strengthen the organization of political parties so that they do not appeal to the electorate on the basis of their caste or community.
Industrialists:
While selecting candidates, a major consideration is their financial standing and the ability to spend on elections. A large number of contestants are selected for their financial clout…In reality, such people come to political party not to garner tickets or votes but to buy them… Membership of Parliament is another means of enriching themselves and extending their business. Many political parties, including the Congress, are worried about lack of finances so that they are keen to seek the cooperation of this class.
Good Voter:
Upadhyaya felt that the remedy to such ills was the judiciousness and discretion exercised by the voter. “These are realities that are taking the country in a wrong direction…Political parties, which wish to make a mark in the body politic, must keep away from these dangers and safeguard their own ideals and objectives. Similarly, it is the duty of the electorate to be aware of these dangers and give expression to its discretion so that the wrong perspective adopted by the country’s parties is set right.” For this, Upadhyaya urged the voters to keep in mind the following:
1. “….Use your right of franchise not for the party but for ideals, not for an individual but the party, not for money power but for the individual”
2. “….Do not be misled by the hype associated with a candidate because he is certain to win. Whatever the outcome of the election, it will be your own defeat.
3. “…The right to vote is a test of your thinking and morality. Pay heed to this; do not sell your right to vote; neither should you allow to be misused or destroyed”
4. “The right to vote is symbolic of each citizen’s freedom and you should exercise it not at the behest of someone but at your own discretion after judicious thinking.”
5. “…The people should keep this constantly in mind that they are the real builders and supporters of political parties.”
Deendayal Upadhyaya was the General Secretary of a political party, but he expressed his views impartially; he rose above party politics and spoke like a true democrat. India’s unity in diversity and national integration can be maintained only in a democracy. His nationalism had transformed him into a true democrat.
(C) Democracy is Essential for national Unity
He believed that in the prevalent scenario in India, democracy and national unity were inextricably connected. “If democracy comes to an end here, it will spell the doom of national unity…Even secessionist and separatist forces will gradually move towards national unity in a democracy. When they win the elections on the basis of casteism and regionalism, they would realise that they can sit alone in the legislatures. That is why there is a gradual change in the attitude of Dravid Munnetra Kadgham. In the face of democracy, the presence of a particular regional party in a state cannot keep in aloof from the national mainstream. But if democracy is no more, national unity will also disappear…Democracy is essential for India’s unity.”
(D) Opportunistic Politics of United Fronts
Opportunistic use of democracy for getting power is a big challenge to democracy. Deendayal warns the country of this danger thus: “United fronts have been formed in our country. The aim of such combines is that different political parties cannot defeat the party in power on their individual strength. So they should put up a combined candidate against the Congress… These united fronts which come together to share power also compromise on their ideals and objectives. which encourages opportunistic elements in the country”
Deendayal Upadhyaya’s thoughts on democracy begin with the Indianisation of this form of government, go on to honouring public opinion at all levels and are complete at his assessment of the working of Indian democracy. His thinking is idealistic. He is impressed by sociological and psychological elements in his thinking. It is the good fortune of a political party to have such a moralist and ethical person as its leader. One who follows ethical values in the face of adverse circumstance, emerges to be the real leader in politics. People who compromise at every step for immediate and short-term gains are opportunists. The opportunism that Upadhyaya warned us against, started in his times and it culminated in his assassination. This was a big loss to Indian democracy.
Here it must be mentioned that Deendayal Upadhyaya’s guide, Guruji Golwalkar believed that democracy was the least evil of running a government as conceived by man. He believed that the right approach to governance has still to be researched and arrived at. He also wanted Indianism of democracy and said that western democracy was based on the self- congratulatory thought of “self-praise and criticism of others”, whereas the Indian thought had taught us to look at our own shortcomings and laud the achievements of others. For the last more than fifty years, the western attitude of “self-praise and criticism of others” has adversely affected our thinking. Deendayal thought it to be a challenge facing political workers in the country.