India and Socialism

Jay Prakash Narayan

What the Congress Socialist Party Stands For?

The objects of the Congress Socialist Party, as laid down in its constitution, are "the achievement of complete independence, in the sense of separation from the British Empire, and the establishment of a socialist society."

This is direct and simple enough. The Party has two objects: The first is the same as that of the Indian National Congress, except that the Party wishes to make it clear that the complete independence of India must include separation from the British Empire.

The second object of the Party means that independent India must reorganise its economic life on a socialist basis.

Why?

The question at bottom is one of the values and ultimate objectives, which once determined, the rest becomes a matter of logical sequence.

If the ultimate objective is to the masses politically and economically free, to make them prosperous and happy, to free them from all manner of exploitation, to give them unfettered opportunity for development, then, Socialism becomes a goal to which one must irresistibly be drawn. If again, the objective is to take hold of the chaotic and conflicting forces of society and to fashion the latter according to the ideal of utmost social good and to harness of all conscious directives of human intelligence in the service of the commonwealth, then, again, Socialism becomes an inescapable destination.

If, then, these be our objectives, it should take little argument to show that Socialism is as definitely "indicated" in India as elsewhere. In India too there is poverty, nay, starvation, on the one hand and wealth and luxury on the other; in India too there is exploitation; the means of production here also are in private hands. That is, the root evil of modern society, namely, economic and social inequality, exists in India too as does its cause; the exploitation of the great many by the very few.

And this is not the result of British rule. It is independent of it and will continue even after it. The ending of the foreign domination would not automatically solve India's problem of poverty; would not put a stop to the exploitation of the vast many;  would not in fact, mean the accomplishment  of any of the objectives which we have started with. Economic freedom is also indispensable. As far as we socialist are concerned economic freedom means only one thing to us- Socialism Without Socialism, economic freedom would be sham, and moonshine.

The present programme of the Congress falls far short of these ideals. It might ameliorate the conditions of the masses to a certain extent, but it will neither rid them of exploitation not out them in power. Far from effecting revolutionary changes in it, it leaves the economic structure of society intact. It leaves the means of production in the hand of private individuals, except in the sphere of key industries. The entire economic organisation, based as it is on the exploitation of the poor and middle classes, is preserved. This is not economic freedom. The preamble and substance of the Karachi Resolution are at wide variance with each other. What we endeavour to do is to remove this variance and bring them close together. When the congress professes the economic freedom of the masses, let it distinctly state what that freedom means.

The Congress may be unprepared for the acceptance of such a minimum programme as we advocate. But it is one thing to say that we are not ready for any further definition of our goal- which of course may be disputed- and quite another, as latterly repeated ad nauseam, that Socialism is moonshine; that it is unsuited to the Indian climate; that Indian socialist are merely adventuring in the realm of theory; that they are only quoting a rusty old German Jew who called himself Karl Heinrich Marx; and the rest of the drivel.

I do not desire to suggest that at Karachi, the Congress should have outlined a full-grown programme of Socialism. What it must do however, is to accept such a minimum economic programme as well, when put to practice, free the masses from economic exploitation and transfer full political and economic power into their hands.

It is such a programme that the Congress Socialist Party is advocating.

What, then does the Congress Socialist Party propose? What must the Swaraj Government do in addition to nationalising key industries in order to realise the economic freedom of the masses; in order to rid them of exploitation, injustice, suffering, poverty, ignorance?

The measures that are necessary, in the opinion of the party to achieve this, are clearly set forth in the Objectives section of the Programme of the All-India Congress Socialist Party.

Here they are:

1. Transfer of all power to the producing masses.
2. Development of the economic life of the country to be planned and controlled by the state.
3. Socialisation of key and principal industries (e.g., Steel, Cotton, Jute, Railways, Shipping, Plantation, Mines), Banks, Insurance and Public Utilities, with a view to the progressive socialization of all the instruments of production, distribution and exchange.
4. State monopoly of foreign trade.
5. Organisation of co-operatives for production, distribution and credit in the unsocialized sector of economic life.
6. Elimination of princes and landlords and all other classes of exploiters without compensation.
7. Redistribution of land to peasants.
8. Encourgement and promotion of co-operative and collective farming by the State.
9. Liquidation of debts owing by peasants and workers.
10. Recognition of the right to work or maintenance by the State.
11. "To everyone according to his needs and from every one according to his capacity" to be the basis ultimately of distribution and production of economic goods.
12. Adult franchise on a functional basis.
13. No Support to or discrimination between religions bye the state and no recognition of any distinction based on caste or community. 
14. No discrimination between the sexes by the State.
15. Repudiation of the so-called Public Debt of India.

There are fifteen measures as we see. They look forbidding; appear to be too drastic; too extreme; too foreign sounding. They are, in fact, simple enough, reasonable enough, just and practicable enough. And as for their foreign sound-well, they sound no more foreign than the constituent Assembly, the Legislative Council, the Tariff Board, the siren of the cotton mills or the hooting of the latest cadillac (shall we say?)

They are all intended to establish the rather simple principle that the abolition of private ownership, of functional property, which as we saw, was the real villain of the piece-the source of all our evils, or most of them. They are further intended to establish the most eminently reasonable of principles of social life-social planning.