Deendayal Upadhyaya was General Secretary of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh from its first Kanpur session in Dec. 1951 to its 14th Cabinet session in Dec. 1967. The Jan Sangh sessions, movements, plenary thinking and resolutions, all bore an imprint of his personality. His spells of stay in all parts of the country made him easily accessible to the party cadres. The General Secretary’s report at every session was not a mere formal presentation of data, but was an enthusiastic and spirited call for further momentum to the party. The General Secretary’s reports are a frank assessment of the journey and progress of the party. They are not merely documents listing its achievements but also a diary of national events. His reports on the 1952, 1957 and 1967 general elections in the country are high-order researches, befitting the research carried out at a university. In these documents he has assessed the political situation, the manifestoes of various political parties, his comments on the various incidents, complete graphs, tables and diagrams in a well-ordered fashion. These documents can prove to be of immense help for any historian. These documents are also guiding lights for political workers.
The years 1952 to 1957 were not only the nascent period of this new political party, but were also the years of survival for Bharatiya Jan Sangh; these were the years when unlimited energies were required to shape its policies and programmes. The untimely demise of Dr Mukherjee, the issue of Bharatiya Jan Sangh’s merger with Hindu Mahasabha and Ram Rajya Parishad, the lack of a leader of national stature in the party, leadership of highly inexperienced youth at the national and state levels, etc., were subjects that made people apprehensive of Jan Sangh’s existence.
“There was a general belief in political circles that the Bharatiya Jan Sangh will not continue after the death of its founder, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. We have spent the last five years fighting this apprehension. The results of the second general elections have proved that the Bharatiya Jan Sangh has not only survived, but is progressing as well. We could not have been true to our leader if this had not happened.”
During these initial five years, despite being busy with the first general elections and organizing a mass movement in Kashmir, Upadhyaya and his associates were able to provide a framework of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. By 1957, the Jan Sangh had 243 regional and 889 local committees, and its membership rose to 74,863. The first general elections in 1952 were not particularly encouraging. Only Dr. Mukherjee and two of his friends were elected to Lok Sabha. The organisation was not very helpful in this, but the Jan Sangh, on the basis of its scoring 3.06% of the votes; was recognised as a national political party. In his address at the January 1954 session in Mumbai encouraging the party workers to have faith in the party and be enthusiastic. Upadhyaya said: ”Adult franchise is a big step towards educating the electorate politically. We will have to educate the public appropriately for the success of democracy. Our attitude has been vitiated as a result of over a thousand years of slavery… Narrow-mindedness and blind tradition have harmed our progress. Discrimination on the basis of caste and untouchability have shaken the foundations of our society. English education has given us wrong values of life. There is lack of discipline and self-restraint. We no longer believe in the dignity of labour. We must establish the right values for educating our countrymen. We must make them aware of the oneness of this country, spread from Kashmir to Kanyakumari…Awareness is the guarantee of a nation’s bright future….There is lack of wealth everywhere but this cannot be met from outside. We must assimilate all our resources, save and spend less. We must concentrate on our ultimate objective and move ahead with self-confidence and dedications.”
Instead of showing his co-workers and volunteers a short cut to win elections, Upadhyaya inspired them to move on to the long path of basic principles. Instead of asking them to work enthusiastically for short-term gain, he asked them to work with devotion and dedication.
The concept of a cultural nation that the Jan Sangh had propounded resulted in the setting up of a number of cultural centres in the first year of its inception. Chiefs of local municipal bodies were elected. Upadhyaya’s initial area of work was Uttar Pradesh. He particularly inspired and enthused the workers there. In his address, he said: “By God’s grace, the Jan Sangh representatives have been elected in Ayodhya, Mathura, Vrindavan, Gokul, Haridwar, Rishikesh and other pilgrim centres. Without tomtomming the slogan of non-violence, the Jan Sangh chief succeeded in banning not only cow slaughter but slaughter of all animals at Mathura. “Although the state government has announced putting roadblocks in our path, the people at large have given the Jan Sangh’s elected representatives an opportunity to serve them. They will firmly move on this path of service to the people, failing which they will quit and join the people in their tight for civic rights.”
Many local units were successful in Uttar Pradesh. In particular, out of the 970 contestants, 581 were successful there. The Jan Sangh workers had just entered politics, they also had to work as an opposition. The opposition has its own duty to perform, the chief being to tight for peoples’ rights with the government. Communists exercised influence over the opposition at that time. Upadhyaya did not like their attitude, nor did he favour their methodology.
He warned his workers; “Wherever the Communist Party take up an issue, their aim is not to resolve it but to generate dissatisfaction and create a conflict. As a result of their agitation, there is no relief to the people. Instead there is a feeling of bitterness and frustration. One who stands by you in difficult times and liberates you from injustice and tyranny is truly God’s messenger. This is the key to strength and organisation. “In this manner, Upadhyaya played the role of a teacher through his speeches. By 1957, the Jan Sangh workers proved their superiority in the country through their leadership of mass movements, organisational skills and unbiased approach. Consequently, in the second general elections held in 1957, Jan Sangh put forth 127 candidates for Lok Sabha and 650 for state legislatures. Out of these, four were elected to Lok Sabha and 51 to state legislatures. It garnered about 60% of the local votes; this was double its tally in 1952.
Comparatively, the Jan Sangh was better organised in North India by 1957. Upadhyaya proposed to organise the 1958 annual session of the party at Bangalore. This was because he wanted to give an all-India outlook to the organisation. In the North, Jan Sangh workers emphatically connected Hindi with nationalism and National Language. Why was the session being held in Bangalore? Upadhyaya replied;
“Some delegates from Punjab told me after the session that this journey down south has pacified their feelings that Hindi was being hastily imposed on them. This also led to nullifying the exaggerated anti-Hindi feelings that were emanating from there.”
In his address at the Bangalore session, Upadhyaya dwelled at length on the essential point of his party’s programme for development. The Jan Sangh workers were emotionally involved with countrywide and national issues naturally. Ban on cow slaughter, undivided India, Kashmir, Berubari etc., were issues that agitated and enthused the party cadres. But the party had its own limits in trying to convince local forces and make them think of party lines. He, therefore, directed his workers; “Although no political party can exclude countrywide issues from its mass movement, we should largely concentrate on local issues.” Explaining the process underlying a democratic movement, he said: “A movement in democracy does not mean opposition or fighting; it is an expression of people’s sentiments. The state suppression may benefit political parties that play the role of a mediator for a short while between the state and the people, but it does not bode any good for the nation. Some political parties have adopted such an irresponsible attitude as a part of their programme. I feel we must give serious thought to this issue and fix limits for all political parties as well as the state.”
A good political worker must have positive capabilities. Any developing party must be ready to take over the reins of the country’s administration. A political worker must, therefore, be conversant with administrative processes and various laws. While we must make the state aware of people’s reaction over its wrong policies, represent the electorate and influence the administration, it is our duty to attempt to know their problems and try to resolve them sympathetically by adopting a positive approach. We must study all the issues accordingly. We must constantly strive to properly understand the viewpoint of the administration.
Integrity of the nation and its security were the favourite subjects of the Jan Sangh. It had a different approach from that of other political parties, towards Pakistan. Upadhyaya said: “Pakistan’s aggressive designs are clear. Its violation of our territory are a challenge to our sovereignty, and are disgraceful. No other political party, except the Jan Sangh, speaks on this issue. They are scared of losing the support of pro-Pak Muslims in elections. They are mum not only on this issue but also on the communally explosive and fifth columnist activities of Muslim fanatics. This is a wrong and condemnable incident of party self-interests.”
Here it must also be mentioned that, through his speeches. Upadhyaya introduced some new things in the organization every year. The Jan Sangh had sent its elected representatives to various state legislatures, in the 1957 general elections. This strength was likely to rise in 1962. There was an urgent need to prepare a model code for legislators so that their conduct was in keeping with the democratic norms and dignity, and they received adequate training in this respect. A training camp for legislators was organised at Poona from June 28 to July 7, 1959. At the eighth annual session held in 1960 at Nagpur, Upadhyaya moved a resolution: “The base of Jan Sangh being basically principled, we urgently require such training camps and workshops. Without these, we shall not be able to assess the different approaches of other political parties.” The various points of the legislators’ code of conduct were decided in 1960 at Poona. “Walking out of the House and a tendency of create chaos through shouting or sloganeering, which are always aimed at capturing newspaper space, are not considered right by the Jan Sangh. We have advised our members to keep away from such a conduct; they should not protest in this unbecoming manner during the Governor’s and the President’s address to the House in order to register their protest. Dedication to democracy means that we must observe the parliamentary form of government scrupulously. Democracy cannot function without such conventions.”
While the Jan Sangh’s fight for power was with the Congress, it considered the Communist Party more dangerous for the country. Upadhyaya called upon his workers to counter the influence of the Communists thus. “We must go deep into society in order to shake them from their roots. People, who only understand the language of community, regionalism and their own selfish interests, must be taught the real meaning of nation and ‘dharma’.
The same year (1959) Swantantra Party was formed. It welcomed several regional parties, rulers, landlords, capitalists and defectors from other political parties in its fold. Consequently, it was perceived as an effective political party right at its inception. Upadhyaya warned of the dangers arising out of this short cut to power: “We must be more disciplined and organised as a party. A single instance of indiscipline weakens our party and people lose faith in us. If we are self- disciplined, we can train the people to be disciplined. People must identify themselves with principles and party today. People who change parties today give rise to loss of faith in democracy. The centre of their interest is not the society but the individual…The society has been shocked by this betrayal. We must try to re-establish this faith through hard work and sacrifice, and commit ourselves to the service of society.”
Upadhyaya issued a manifesto to elaborate his thoughts: “The Jan Sangh has to work for the defence of the nation, nationalism of the masses, democratization of administration and decentralisation of democracy. We should be so effective that our work is not misguided and misunderstood. The truth must be complemented with strength.” Upadhyaya used to conclude his remarks with inspiring and emotional expressions.
The third general elections were held in 1962. Jawaharlal Nehru’s charisma was gradually on the wane. The Jan Sangh had been warning the people of Pakistan’s and China’s designs for long, The public started taking the Jan Sangh’s voice seriously. On the other hand, because of lack of Nehru’s clout, indiscipline and groupism were on the rise. The opposition parties were waiting for a break-up of the Congress because they obviously stood to gain from its disintegration. However, Upadhyaya did not think that it was in the nation’s interest. To come to power by defeating a disorganised Congress was an evidence of negative thinking. Internecine fights in any party as well as indiscipline in any party weakened democracy. Upadhyaya wanted to defeat a united and capable Congress through the efforts of Jan Sangh legislators. He, therefore, cautioned his workers: “Groupism in the Congress is assuming serious proportions. In view of the 1962 elections, every group in the party in adopting its own strategy. It is certain that many people will leave the Congress on the matter of distribution of tickets. Many political parties, which believe that Congress dissidents will help them win elections are keenly looking forward to this. But we should strengthen our own organisation and establish intimate contacts with the society.” He outlines a plan to implement this.
The Jan Sangh was formed in 1952; it made the country aware of its seriousness and stature in 1957; in 1962 it became a strong political party in the country. There was a demand, in one form or another, among non-Congress parties to defeat the Congress somehow in the 1962 elections. Upadhyaya did not agree with this:
“The Bharatiya Representative Committee had on Nov. 12-14, 1961 at Varanasi and at its last sessions, decided that we should contest from the maximum constituencies and, without entering into any alliance or forming a united front with other parties, should try to win over the electorate to our policies and programmes…According to the above policy, Jan Sangh put forth 1162 candidates for the state legislatures and 198 for Lok Sabha. It contested from the maximum number of constituencies from among the non-congress parties.”
After the 1962 general elections, Upadhyaya analysed the gains and losses of each party. He also discussed the new emerging factors. Regarding the maintenance of democratic norms and expressing his concerns about new realities, he said:
“Bharatrya Jan Sangh washes to give a constitutional shape to politics. Its publicity and mass movements have always adopted constitutional norms. We maintained our standards in these elections also Our speakers chiefly presented, their own viewpoint and criticised other parties only in the background of our own convictions and beliefs. It is time that since we have alternate policy and programme and we have differences with the Congress and other parties which are its offshoots, our criticism is basic and penetrating. Because of our fearless and selfless nature, such criticism might have been sharp at places but Jan Sangh has nowhere resorted to personal allegations or roused communal or casteist feelings, nor has it ever resorted to regional and class conflicts.
How far this statement of Upadhyaya can be true at a lower level is difficult to say But he always tried to establish an organisation and educate his workers towards the creation of such an environment, can be easily understood by his deep- rooted beliefs. There were several untoward incidents during the elections that involved the Congress, the Communists and the Jan Sangh. In this context Upadhyaya said: “I demand that the administration should investigate the election publicity of various political parties impartially. It is essential not only to put an end to the prevailing malpractices but also to raise the standard of electioneering in the future.”
Upadhyaya assessed the performance of the various political parties thus’ “The Congress, the Communists and the Praja Socialist Party-all these three, in their quest for garnering Muslim votes, encouraged the forces of communalism and separatism… They raised the Jan Sangh bogey in their mind so as to create a scare and tried that they should not exercise their franchise independently because of the threat posed by Jan Sangh.”
The various alliances that the political parties entered into were not only suprising but also painful. This gave rise to the speculation that in their lust for power, they can go to any extent. The Communist Party had decided to support the Congress in order to defeat the Jan Sangh They proposed such an arrangement in Kerala. In West Bengal, they adopted their old leftist leanings and raised the slogan of an alternative government. This time, the Praja Socialist Party did not join them… In Punjab, they entered into an informal agreement with the Akali Dal and in Andhra with the Swatantara Party. Probably, they did so because of the prevailing caste equations there. In Maharashtra, they contested the elections in the name of Republican Party and Shetkari Kamgar Paksh ”
“The Swatantara Party entered into alliances with practically every party other than the Congress including the Akali Dal, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the Communists. Hindu Mahasabha and Ram Rajya Parishad entered into a compromise and contested the elections. The Republican Party contested with two groups – Praja Socialist Party supporting Vidharbha and the Communists. In Uttar Pradesh there was an agreement between the old Muslim League elements and the Republican Party. The Congress tried to enter into an alliance with the Jharkhand Party, but it was not successful… The Bharatiya Jan Sangh and the Socialist Party are the only parties that contested the elections on the basis of their policies.”
“…The Congress is disintegrating rapidly. Defeated in their bastions, the communists have slightly increased their tally by picking up in other parts of the country. The beginning of the end of the Praja Socialist Party has started….The Bharatiya Jan Sangh has taken a step forward, but it still lags behind in fulfilling the historic mission with which it was formed.”
Upadhyaya considered shortcut and opportunistic alliances for winning elections a social weakness He favoured principled policies He, therefore, attempted to analyse the third elections on the basis of principles and healthy political norms. According to him, “It is difficult to arrive at Indian polity’s principled stand on the basis of these election results because a voter’s decision is based on several factors. Principles have a very small role to play in this. Probably this is why eminent leaders of various political parties did not feel any need to define their ideals in these elections. The Congress staked its claim to power because it is the largest political party and no other party has a leader of Jawaharlal Nehru’s stature. The other political parties have been saying that the Congress has failed on all fronts or they have given tickets to such people who have tried to be different from the Congress candidates on the basis of their communal or regional view points. It is difficult for me to say what success they have achieved in this… If we say that the people became victims to greed or fear or were swept by communal and casteist forces imply that we have failed to prepare them for their democratic rights.” He formed a sub-committee of his party to go into this issue and arrive at its resolution.
The 1962 general elections had transformed the Bharatiya Jan Sangh into an important force and the person who contributed to it, largely through his efforts and talents, was Deendayal Upadhyaya. This was becoming increasingly clear now. It was not easily transparent because Upadhyaya always worked in the background; he was not easily seen and the RSS and the Bharatiya Jan Sangh were his outward reflections.
Strengthening of the organisation enthuses the workers, but it can also mislead them through enhanced self-esteem; They come to consider it their birthright to violate all rules under the guise of their commitment. Many political parties encourage this tendency in their workers in order to create a radical and agitational image for themselves. Upadhyaya was constantly on his guard against this danger. He made the Jan Sangh’s planned and disciplined movement a part of political functioning: “Rail fares were to be linked from July l, 1962. It was decided to stage demonstrations against this hike and generally against the imposition of new taxes at railway stations. It was also decided that the demonstrations should be peaceful and the railway employees were not to be put to any inconvenience and no law was to be violated. Accordingly, demonstrations were organised at all stations and the public was made aware of the new taxes through distribution of leaflets all over the country. Barring a few places, where the railway employees did not issue platform tickets and the police arrested a few demonstrators who had platform tickets, there was no untoward incident anywhere.” In his resolution, Upadhyaya generally took care to include these factors so that no one violated it at lower levels. Also, people must remember, where they had gone wrong and the newly-recruited workers understood the doctrine of protest and discharged their responsibilities positively.
While Deendayal Upadhyaya opposed opportunistic political alliances, he considered political untouchability undesirable. He wanted that the different political parties should work together for the resolution of national problems. “Communist China’s aggression on India and the declaration of a state of emergency by the President have not led to stable conditions in the country. The dormant nationalist sentiment of the people has been awakened; there is an atmosphere of unity. It has given a golden opportunity to the various political parties to come together on a common platform to understand one another and put an end to their prejudices. lf this atmosphere of cooperation and goodwill continues, it will be certainly healthy for the nation’s political development”
There was a sort of unity among the non-Communist parties, especially the Bharatiya Jan Sangh and Dr. Lohia’s Socialist Party, against the Chinese aggression and in support of Hindi as the National Language. The two parties fought the 1963 by elections in Uttar Pradesh on a common platform. The goodwill between the two parties increased and there was a move to launch a permanent anti Congress front. But Upadbyaya did not see anything concrete emerging out of such a move. He, therefore, suggested that both the parties should work separately on the basis of their programmes and policies: “Different parties have different viewpoints. People do not have any opinion about their thoughts. Sometimes they think of the basis of goodwill that all political parties should come together, but there are certain basic points to justify separate existence. For that, only goodwill is not enough. That is why we have decided that we won’t live in an imaginary world and enter into some alliance the success of which is doubtful. It would be better to work together on issues where we reach a consensus; otherwise we should operate from our own platforms.”
There were two important events in the history of Jan Sangh and the country in 1963. First, three parliamentary elections were held that had gained national importance for two reasons. One, there was a polarisation of the political parties between the Congress-Communist and the non Congress-non Communist parties. Important political leaders contested these by elections They were: Acharya Kripalani, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia and Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya who were the joint candidates of the opposition. The second important incident of the year was the death of Dr. Raghuvira, reputed linguist and National President of Bharatiya Jan Sangh, in a car accident. After the death of Dr. Mukherjee in 1953, this was the second occasion when the Jan Sangh had got such a person of eminence of Dr Raghuvira as its President. His death was an irreparable loss to Jan Sangh. Upadhyaya remembered him with pride and gratitude at the annual session. It was also the first time that the party General Secretary did not present an analysis and assessment of the parliamentary byelections, may be because he was himself a contestant in those elections Whatever the reason, the absence of an analysts and assessment of the year’s parliamentary byelections was jarring.
The year 1964 was a milestone in Indian history. Jawaharlal Nehru died this year. This was a shock to the Congress, it was the end of an era. It was a testing time from the organisational and policy point of view. A historic training camp of the executive committee of the Jan Sangh was organised at Gwalior from August 11 to 15, 1964. The resolution Upadhyaya had prepared on its principles and policies was given the final touches at his camp. Jan Sangh had come into being on the basis of the cultural resurgence thinking in 1952. The 1964 document was the culmination of such thinking. The Jan Sangh declared its concept of Integrated Humanism authoritatively, to elaborate which Upadhyaya delivered four historic addresses in Mumbai
The Vijayawada session on January 23-24. 1 965 marked a new beginning in the history of Jan Sangh. It was the first session held on a large scale in the South. The Jan Sangh manifesto on its policies and programmes was formally presented at this session. Its acceptance marked the beginning of a new chapter in Jan Sangh history. So far, the President of the party had been a reputed elderly, affluent and eminent personality. This was the first occasion when a seasoned Jan Sangh worker, Bachhraj Vyas, was elected President. Comparatively he was younger and belonged to the first generation of Jan Sangh leaders; he was among those workers who had been trained by Dr. Mukherjee and Golwalkar. His entire political life had been shaped and developed by Jan Sangh, and he was its first worker-President who had risen from the ranks. Upadhyaya had prepared a list of workers for Jan Sangh’s political leadership, which had now come to take over the organisation completely. All-India President Bachhraj Vyas, organisational Secretary. Sunder Singh Bhandari, Secretary Jagannathrao Joshi and Election Organiser Nanaji Deshmukh were all first-generation Jan Sangh pracharaks, who had come up from the ranks. Upadhyaya mentioned these names with a great deal of satisfaction in his address. By this time, Atal Behari Vajpayee had become a leader of note, he was leader of the party in Parliament. The second important leader was Balraj Madhok. Both of them did not attend the Vijay-Wada session. Their conspicuous absence was another notable feature because they were not in favour of Bachhraj Vyas’ election as President.
The conditional deadline for English as the official language of the Centre was January 26, 1965; its place was to be taken by Hindi. Around this time there were protests and demonstrations for the further continuance of English and opposition to Hindi in the South. Shri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry and Dr. Radhakrishana’s library in Tirupati were set on fire. There was widespread violence in Tamil Nadu. Upadhyaya said in Jalandhar, “The root cause of the movement was not language, but politics. Chakrawarty Rajagopalachari and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam inflamed public passions and adopted all means to incite them. The Congress infighting also contributed to this. What added fuel to the fire was the Madras Chief Minister’s intransigence and the Congress President’s call to throw all papers in Hindi in the wastepaper basket. After the movement was launched, it soon slipped into the hands of the leftists and old Muslim Leaguers. Some foreign missionaries also encouraged it.” Upadhyaya wished to convey through this statement that the Tamilians were really against Hindi. The occasion was exploited by vested interests. The statement may appeal to those who subscribe to Upadhyaya’s and Jan Sangh’s views on Hindi as the National Language, but it is not easy to simplifying issue of Indian languages in this manner. Deendayal also conceded the inability of his own party to meet the challenge. “The Jan Sangh influence in Tamil Nadu is new and limited. We could not, therefore, be effective there.”
Upadhyaya was constantly endeavoring to make Jan Sangh dignified, cultured, disciplined and democratic in its conduct. A member of his party, Pandharirao Kridant, threw a shoe at the Deputy Speaker of Madhya Pradesh Assembly. This was painful for Upadhyaya. He made a mention of this incident in this address and said: “Whatever the reasons for the member’s agitation and frustration, this conduct is against all parliamentary conventions and against the Jan Sangh code of conduct. None of our workers should resort to this. We must exercise self-discipline.”
The social set-up does not become democratic merely by accepting democracy as a form of government. By 1965-66, it had become clear that all constituents of the system were lacking in democratic functioning. While describing this in his address, Upadhyaya suggested: “The Prime Minister should convene a meeting of all parties and try to constitute a body on the lines similar to the National Integration Council which should make efforts to work for democratic norms. There should be a model code of conduct for the state, the political parties and the press. The State must itself accept a process through which it should change its policies in accordance with public opinion between one general election and the next. Democracy and stubbornness cannot go together. “It would have been better if such a council was formed to deliberate over what Upadhyaya had proposed. “Changing policies on the basis of public opinion” can be the starting point of a constructive debate. It is still left to a democratic society to find a practical approach to the powers of the legislature that is affected by party politics and an inefficient executive.
Under its young leadership, Jan Sangh had made adequate preparations for the 1967 general elections. The Jan Sangh emerged as the largest political party after the Congress in the 1967 polls. The resolution regarding these elections is Upadhyaya’s last most important document. The era of non- Congress parties started after these elections and Deendayal Upadhyaya was a respected leader of India’s second largest political party in the opposition. Dr. Rammanohar Lohia was the leader who had given this idea; the age of a single-party monopoly in Indian politics was gradually coming to an end.
“The five years from 1962 to 1967 were so eventful and mass-based that there were many apprehensions in the public mind. But they proved to be baseless. The public participated peacefully and judiciously in these elections and this gave proof of the strength of democracy in Indian”
There was an attempt at bringing together the non-Congress parties on the same platform. But Upadhyaya did not agree with the suggestion. He said in his address: “There was an atmosphere of weakness and lack of strength in the Congress which led the non-Congress parties to think of coming together to fight elections. Their justification was they could defeat the Congress as one entity. Bharatiya Jan Sangh’s experience has been that such a compromise has no value because when it comes to a direct contest, the other non-Congress parties prefer to join the Congress instead of Jan Sangh in such contests. These elections have justified our contention.”
Regarding the formation of an alternative to the Congress, he opined: “Since there is a gradual decline in the influence of the Congress and it is slowly losing its effectiveness, it is of paramount importance that there should be a national and democratic party as an alternative, but this task is not possible through manipulation. We require a clear policy, a well-defined programme, the right principles and a strong organisation for this.” Jan Sangh won 35 seats in the 1967 general elections. Besides, there were 75 constituencies where the Jan Sangh contestants directly faced the winners. Out of these, it lost in 15 constituencies by a margin of 200 to 5,000 votes. Upadhyaya was not dissatisfied with his party’s performance: “It is clear that the Jan Sangh is not only ahead of all the other non-Congress parties but it has secured more votes than both the Communist parties, Socialist Party and the Praja Socialist Party put together.” He presented a detailed assessment of the parliamentary and state legislature party positions in this address.
After interpreting and analysing data in these elections, Upadhyaya commented on the newly-emerged realities and tendencies: “The Muslims have voted against the Congress at most places, but it is not appropriate to say at this juncture, that they are veering to other parties on the basis on economic, political and other issues. Obviously, the Majlis-e-Mushawwarat-e-Musalman has been organised on communal basis and it has voted on these lines. The Mushawwarat leaders are definitely using this party for political bargaining. In Andhra, lttehadul-Musalmeen has also been formed on communal lines…The Muslim league has added to its clout through a united front in Madras and Kerala. The influence and expansion of these parties is a stumbling block in the way of Indian Muslims joining the national mainstream.”
In this contest, Upadhyaya also wrote: “The Congress majority in many states came to end in many states, but except Delhi and Madras no single party could muster majority. As a result, the era of coalition governments has come into being.
The objective of these alliances is to somehow cobble a majority in order to remain in power. There is no need for any party to change its thinking or policies. Nor should they take any decision to remain together on the basis of a principled stand. This is a practical issue. In the present circumstances, the various political parties preferred to form alliances to allow the imposition of President’s Rule and formation of Congress Government later. These governments have been formed on the basis of such thinking and they will continue as long as there is willingness to run the administration on practical considerations.”
He was not very enthusiastic about the coalition governments. He, therefore, urged his workers: “…A1l over, there is a concept of coalition governments. I want the Congress rule to end in all states, but we should not take a step that is against the healthy traditions of democracy”
As General Secretary, this was Upadhyaya’s message to his workers and other parties. But no one heeded his advice as became clear from the events that followed. Neither his own party nor the other political parties paid any attention to what he said. Consequently, the conduct of all our political leaders after the fourth general elections was against all the healthy conventions of democracy.
The 14th annual session of Bharatiya Jan Sangh was held at Calicut. Deendayal Upadhyaya was elected President. Sundersingh Bhandari was elected General Secretary of the party in his place.
President of Bharatiya Jan Sangh
A new beginning was made in respect of Presidentship of the party after the vijayawada session in 1965. Bachhraj Vyas was elected President, Balraj Madhok was elected to the post in 1966 and Upadhyaya became President at the 1967 historic session. Upadhyaya’s influence as well as that of Jan Sangh was at its zenith at that time.
The 14th annual session was held on Dec. 29, 30 and 31, 1967 under Upadhyaya’s Presidentship, He was murdered at midnight on Feb. 10, 1968 at Mughalsarai. He was the Jan Sangh President for only 43 days. The most important task accomplished by him during those 43 days was the address he delivered and this can be studied to obtain a fair picture of the RSS, Jan Sangh and Upadhyaya’s thinking. Every address is delivered in a given context and the assessment of the 1967 general elections was the background to Upadhyaya’s address.
Upadhyaya considered the most significant results of socio-political efforts after Independence as generating a political awakening among the masses. He said: “It is not proper to use it as the medium of short-term political gains.”
Regarding the prevailing trends, he said: “August-September 1965 when the brave Indian Army gave evidence of its gallantry and victory over Pakistan, was the beginning of a new era. There was a marked shift in attitudes and that was a time of new problems coming up… The first such problem was that of coalition governments, the second was that of constitutional model and the third related to economy and security.”
(A) Governors
The position of the Governors became crucial in the unstable conditions following coalition governments. Under the cover of biased attitudes of Governors, there was a demand for elected Governors from some quarters. “I (Upadhyaya) do not think it proper. This is no cure for our malady; this will lead to increased centralisation. The Governor is a constitutional head except for certain occasions. He should not become a pawn in state politics, nor should he become a stamp of the Centre.” Upadhyaya suggested: “It would be better to have Governors from among the retired judges of the Supreme Court rather than defeated politicians and retired bureaucrats.”
(B) Coalition Governments
“Coalition governments have indeed provided an alternative to the Congress. But it is not possible for them to provide an alternative to its policies and programmes, nor were they formed to fulfil this objective… If some sort of realistic and political gains emerge out of such coalitions, that would be useful. These coalition governments have taken an admirable step towards ending political untouchability and isolation… Whatever the future of these coalitions, I wish that we would not lose such an opportunity.”
(C) Need to Develop New Traditions
“Because of political instability that the coalition governments have given rise to, some people are advocating giving up the parliamentary and shifting to the presidential form of government… It is true that such traditions were born of history in Britain and America. Instead of following them, we should evolve our own democratic forms, We have been following the parliamentary form of government in one shape or another for the last fifty years. We should mould it according to the changed circumstances.”
“For instance, we can evolve a tradition in which no Council of Ministers can resign till a vote of no-confidence is passed against it in the State Assembly. We can evolve such a tradition in this direction that the members of the majority party in the Assembly should request the Governor to call a meeting of the Assembly.”
(D) Defections
According to Upadhyaya, ninety-nine percent of defectors either joined the other parties after defecting from the Congress or left the Congress to join other political parties. In order to tackle this menace, we should resort to the court of public opinion instead of legislation. He said: “The political parties should accept a code of conduct which would curb defections to a large extent. Instead of electing an individual on the British pattern, the electoral process should be geared to electing a party. This would save us from many ills besides defections from a particular party. Like West Germany, we can combine both the traditions. But the more judicious solution to this problem would be that as and when the political parties get organised on the basis of principles and policies, they will become strong and by providing political education to the masses, they will have them ponder over their programmes before casting their votes. This would help reduce the tendency for defections.”
(E) Unitary Rule
It is essential so as not to endanger national unity that we should not have a unitary constitution. We should provide autonomy to states and decentralist our fiscal and other resources. The states are largely dependent on the centre for their finances. The division between rights and responsibilities has been such that the complete responsibility for public welfare and development is on the states while the flexible and profitable sources of revenue are with the Centre. According to Upadhyaya, a practical middle path should be formed without amending the Constitution. He suggested that the Finance Commission, instead of being constituted every five years, should be a permanent body.
The present dependence of states on the Centre is of their own making besides the constitutional provisions. Upadhyaya thought it was improper. “In the fiscal policies of many states, there is more of political sloganeering instead of fiscal policies and administrative responsibilities. Land revenue, sales tax, income tax, etc., are areas in which the states should act in a more practical and responsible manner.”
Upadhyaya demanded that “one tax commission should be appointed which, keeping in mind economic development, capital formation, public welfare, inequalities and decentralised administration, should evolve a comprehensive tax structure and allocate the share of various taxes.”
(F) Distracting Issues
“Today, when there is an urgent need to bring about radical changes in our economy, we devote all our time and energies on issues which, though relevant, are not important enough. The issue of privy purses, discussion on the Hazari Report, the nationalisation of insurance and banking, etc., are considered the burning and much-debated issues today, but they do not come anywhere in importance to the alarming food situation in the country, decline in production, increasing unemployment and rising prices. There may be discussion and debate on such issues but there should be no clear-cut decision on resolving them. But the entire focus is to divert public attention from the more pressing issues and exercise political pressure on them.
“We always talk of the lack of resources. I do not believe that we lack resources in the country. We possess all the human, natural and fiscal resources in abundant measure. What we require is to plan according to the available resources for development.”
(G) The Question of Language
Language was such an issue on which people said the Jan Sangh had changed its stand after passing the Calicut Resolution. Probably this was the first occasion when Jan Sangh, which had forcefully agitated for accepting Hindi as the undisputed language of everyday communication throughout the country and for the removal of English, had changed its tone in the South. Upadhyaya said in this context: “Jan Sangh does not favour any such move that would deprive the non-Hindi speaking people. The Jan Sangh, therefore, demands that all the exams of the Union Public Service Commission should also be held in regional languages and there should be no compulsion for learning a particular language for recruitment. Those who wish to use English during the period of transition should be allowed to do so.”
This was a multidimensional and detailed address which Upadhyaya delivered in the hope of awakening the same political awareness among the masses that he talked of in the beginning. “We should beware of such people as see a Communist hand behind every agitation and advise the Government to suppress it. Mass movements are natural and essential in changing times. They are, in reality, a sign of social awakening… We should, therefore, move along and lead such movements. Those who are in favour of mainlining status quo in political, economic and social circles are the ones who are creating such an apprehension today. We regret that we cannot cooperate with them. Such people wish to stop the cycle of time. They wise to delay India’s destiny, but this is not possible.”
“We are inspired by the pride in our past, but we do not consider it the zenith of India’s national life. We have a realistic approach towards the present. We have dreams for the future, but we are not in slumber. We are karmayogis determined to realise our dreams. We are devotees of the timeless-present, unstable-present and an eternal future that are a part of our culture… We have faith in our ultimate victory and we are prepared to make any sacrifices for it.”
Deendayal Upadhyaya had raised hopes for the future when he became President of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. His realistic approach to problems was lauded by the press at the Calicut session. He did not wish to become President of his party, but he was prevailed upon to accept it.