The Congress, the AAP, the Adversary

The below article is an ambitious attempt to juxtapose the histories of two different political parties both of which originated in different eras. Both were started with lofty ambitions and both of them failed to recognize that they were too ill-equipped for their respective missions. Above all,there is something else that brings them together- they face the same enemy.

THE CONGRESS –ALL IN ONE

By the end of the 19^th century, almost a century into India being colonized by the British, the adverse impacts were beginning to be felt throughout the country. The Great Imperial British engine was operating at full efficiency at that time.The Indian mercantile class had no answer to the sophisticated machinery of the capital intensive British industry which set the tone for predatory pricing of its consumer goods in the Indian market through large scale production at low input costs. The Indian peasantry on the other side, was smothered by heaps of multilayered taxation with each layer consumed by a corresponding level in the British administrative hierarchy. In short, the pestilence of colonial exploitation spared neither the rich nor the poor wreaking universal havoc throughout the subcontinent.

This necessitated the creation of a representative entity that would transcend the boundaries of class, religion and geography and would speak up to the imperial British Government in a single voice, the concerns of its hapless, heterogeneous subjects.

The Indian National Congress was formed hence , that was led by a team of illustrious leaders in Surendranath Banerjee, Lala Lajpat Rai, Dadabhai Naoroji etc. The INC grew gradually into a massive nationwide movement when the reins were handed over to Mahatma Gandhi and Pt.Jawaharlal Nehru. The success of the INC in luring even the uninterested common man into the stream of political movement lay not only in the effectiveness of Gandhi’s Satyagraha or the crusade for social equality that he initiated in parallel. The Congress movement based its struggle on an indisputable critique of colonialism and imperialism, meticulously evolved after intensive analysis into the roots of sufferings of all the social classes in India post the advent of the Europeans. This was the strongest point of the Congress movement which succeeded in convincing every Indian citizen that his suffering was a result of the anti people policies pursued by the imperial British government.

The Congress had solidified into more a mass movement than a party and, inspite of the reversals the British faced in the Second World War, and the emergence of other international developments that undermined its hold on its territories, the contribution of the Congress in liberating India should never be underestimated.

Post-liberation , the Congress , under the leadership of Nehru, was happy to offload the responsibilities it had assumed as a movement and to restrict itself to the role of a mere political party. Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India. He who had so far succeeded in emancipating Indians from British slavery, now had to emancipate them from poverty.

Nehru believed in socialism and could only speak more socialism than he could practice. The Government was setting up ration shops on one side but its ministers were doing clandestine favours for the Indian big business. The Government ignored primary education completely. India was faring poorly in healthcare while the Government was setting up industries for mining and heavy engineering. The Government, however, had succeeded in kick-starting the dead engines of the Indian economy and India, to some extent did show signs of growth. But the fruits of India’s development, just like today were not getting distributed equally.

Whatever could have been the failings of the Congress, the following facts need to be acknowledged. The Congress was solely responsible for the mobilization of all the separate, dissimilar nation-states of the Indian sub-continent into an integrated  Indian Union. Many of the colonized countries of the world, post liberation had regressed into autocracies due to internal strife but Nehru’s Congress managed to keep India together as a cohesive, democratic Republic with secularism as its distinguishing ideal.

Post the death of Nehru, the Congress unfortunately, rudderless in the dangerous seas of uncertain times, began the process of recruiting self-centered sycophants to the Nehru family. The same party which had been established by intellectuals and patriots committed to the goal of freedom and which was seen by foreign countries as the most progressive Indian organization brandishing the idea of a secular, democratic, non-aligned India to the world , was beginning its downward spiral to a near moribundity to which it was to reach a few decades later.

The preponderance of an intellectually malnourished, power-addicted class of politicians at the core of the party organization deprived even the faintest hopes of the party regaining its old-time values. The only objective of the Congress became securing the votes of all the sections of the people even at the cost of sacrificing its Gandhi and Nehru at the altar of the ballot. The Congress rubbished the principles of democracy when it declared the Emergency and trampled upon secularism when it sponsored the massacre against Sikhs in 1984. Towards the end of the millennium, the Congress opted to align itself strongly in favour of the U.S placing India at the mercy of the global economy. In other words, Europe and the U.S wanted India to be opened for their entry and the same Congress which had shut Europe out of India, a few decades back had decided to atone for its past sin.

THE FAST DECLINE

India was liberalized in 1991 by the Congress Government and twenty years into it, India had exemplified what Joseph Stiglitz, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, had to theorise about the current state of liberalized countries under the clutches of international finance institutions.

He points out that, the prescriptions of neo-liberalism , that were administered to the ailing Third World Countries, brought about radical changes in their political, cultural and social facets. The changes were, no doubt extremely regressive and pernicious in the long run for the country’s economy. One such change was the sudden pervasiveness of corruption throughout the client country and India, as though proving his point, was beginning to record unforeseen levels of corruption post-liberalization. Stiglitz in his book, names a lot of directives that the client countries had to follow  if they were to receive loans from the IMF and the World Bank , some of which are listed below.

• Privatize the assets of the government especially any undertaking of the public sector       irrespective of its performance.
• Remove all internal restrictions for the local or the international business community that might hamper the ease of doing business.
• Make credit facilities easily available with less borrowing restrictions to the business community at the cost of limiting loans to the less lucrative sectors such as agriculture

The Congress faithfully adhered to all these directives which led to the following consequences.

The first directive to sell all the public assets in every country resulted in the heads of the respective ministries indulging in surreptitious deals with big businesses that promised shares of the public assets at throwaway prices in return for hefty bribes. The previous NDA government was alleged to have indulged in such questionable practices in selling the shares of SAIL , NTPC,etc. As time progressed, the same frivolous practices extended to the sale of the nation's natural resources which resulted in the recent 2G, coal block allocation scams that were touted to be the biggest public scandals ever committed on earth.

The second directive to facilitate the business sector to start and run new business resulted plenty of secret land allocation deals between the heads of the administration and the corporate heads that sold land for pittances to the exchequer. There are plenty of such irregularities remaining unresolved at courts of law raised by the CAG, some of which happened at Gujarat in relation to the Adani company and at Karnataka with regard to software multinationals.

The third directive to provide credit facilities to the corporate sector with relaxation of plenty of lending restrictions resulted in unprecedented amounts of NPA to the public sector banks. The banks, went way beyond the new relaxations and were happy to ignore even the credit worthiness of the customer to offer heavy loans, even if he had an obvious record of loan default with other banks. It goes without saying that the bank officials indubitably were complicit in such transactions. The recent case of the owner of the United Breweries defaulting on a huge loan is one glaring example of this.

Hence, India under the Congress, was beginning to write new definitions of corruption. These allegations of corruption naturally tarnished the image of the UPA Government and disillusioned the masses which had reposed faith in the leadership of the the most qualified economist in the country, Dr. Manmohan Singh. Along with corruption, high inflation owing to frequent hikes of fuel prices, forward trading practices betrayed the faith of the people who had given the UPA Government a second term.

People’s anger peaked against such a non-performing, super-corrupt Congress government that ultimately led to some sporadic protests by an Anna Hazare, an ex-serviceman and an active Gandhian. The news starved media was aware of the fact that such events of public agitation even though were not phenomenal compared to the euphoric JP movement of the 1970s , was nevertheless sensational and was ready to devote its time and resources towards capturing the vigour or exaggerating it whenever needed, for wholesale public consumption. The media perception soon became the nation’s perception and the Hazare movement gathered its much needed momentum.

The movement was titled ‘India Against Corruption’ and eradicating corruption was its recurrent motif. This attracted the educated youth of the country and even the politically ignorant masses because it spoke their language and also mainly because, the torch bearers of the movement were not ready to analyse the origins of corruption from any historical or theoretical standpoint. On the eve of the 2014 general election the media were successful in dubbing the rise of the electoral derivative of the movement, the Aam Aadmi Party as a revolution.The fledgling AAP branded itself as the only incorruptible, transparent  political alternative to the trite virtual ‘two party politics’ of the Congress and the BJP.

What was surprising of the AAP was its success in drawing even the most principled and committed socio-political activists into its fold. Medha Patkar, SP Udayakumar , Gnani Sankaran for whom parliamentary democracy was an obnoxious idea till then, had suddenly developed an inexplicable faith in its efficacy. The reception was complete and the media, in no time declared that the AAP had easily gained the political space occupied by the Left parties in India, The middle class more than others, firmly believed that the victory of the AAP on a national level will mark the beginning of a new era in Indian politics.

The AAP, as everyone might be aware managed to emerge as a single largest party in the Delhi assembly in 2013.But it soon resigned due to various issues with its allies and with the Central Government. The AAP lost heavily in the general elections but managed to claw back its lost ground in 2015 routing the mammoth BJP in 67 out of 70 seats in Delhi.

The AAP now seems to have arrived resoundingly and the expectations of its sympathizers have been revived now. But all we see now, is an ugly internal conflict within a party between its frontline leaders. The differences seem to be personal and all I see is that the clash is no different from what we have been seeing all these years within the DMK or the Congress. It is too early to pass judgment on the AAP but I don’t see any significant changes the AAP can really bring about if it follows the present course.

IDEOLOGY ,THE CONGRESS, THE AAP

Any party, in my opinion, should be formed at the conclusion of an internal political discourse that shall determine its political leaning. This political leaning firmed up by a profound understanding of the political economy of the country in question shall serve as a beacon for the future course of the party irrespective of whether it is in power or not. In simple words, a party should either belong to the left or the right. I shall discuss in this space why the Congress did not assume such a political shade and what would have happened if it had.

During the pre-independence days, Nehru and other leaders tried to color the Congress movement with ‘red’ness but were soon stopped by Gandhi who believed in the subordination of the class struggle to the political struggle and wanted both the industrialist and the farmer to fight the British with a single minded resolve . Also the multi-class representation of the Congress prevented any such transformation. The Congress was seen as a party that transcended political ideology whose only objective was to free India from the Europeans. This move, to a very large extent worked, as India went on to attain independence, and the objective of the Congress to unify the nation on a purpose was somehow achieved.

However post-liberation, once the movement became a party,the Congress, had it anointed itself as a left wing party, would have prioritized universal healthcare and free education , expanded the country’s industrial muscle and created a self-sufficient independent economy. Even during the changed times of the 1990s, had the Congress practised left-wing politics, it would have stood against the economic invasion of the U.S and the Europe. Even if liberalization is deemed inevitable in the present day scenario, the Congress could have followed the model of China or South Korea, and infused firm state-control into the play of market forces.

Or had it chosen otherwise, it could have traversed the model of the United States and tapped the benefits of free market capitalism to the country’s advantage.

But the Congress did neither. It welcomed FDI in all sectors and found FDI anti-people when it was allowed to languish in the opposition. It effectively weakened the PDS during its rule but at the end of its ten year term, wanted to push the Food Security Bill forward which is pretty much the revamp of the PDS. The Congress, stalled the process of recruitment to the Public Sector but implemented a Rural Employment Guarantee programme effectively.

Now let us turn to the AAP and put forth some questions.

Did the AAP, the real-time incarnation of the cinema vigilante heroes, take note of the fact that the growth of the beast of corruption has overtaken the growth of India’s GDP, only post liberalization? Did the AAP want to recognize the fact that unbridled freedom to market forces shall foster corruption alone and not growth? Does the AAP have any alternative action plan that can obliterate the roots of corruption rather than cutting its overgrowth as and when possible?

THE IMPORTANCE OF IDEOLOGY –THE WAY FORWARD

There might be a few questions that might arise in the mind of the reader who has come thus far and I am bound to clarify them as much as I can. Why should a party stick to an ideology and confine itself to it?? Why should a party always subscribe either to the right or the left? Why cannot a party be run by the sole virtue of honesty?

To answer the first question, one must recognize that ideology should not be seen merely as a limiting factor that tunnels your vision and tethers you to a single sticky standpoint. Ideology offers you a prism through which you interpret political phenomenon. What it gives you need not be always the reality but its usefulness in offering insights about a political development should not be discounted. It is the onus of the observer to analyze a development based on contradicting ideologies, compile the observations obtained from each examination and arrive at a conclusion which is convincing to oneself whose inherent subjectivity shall not be denied at any cost.

To answer the second question as to why should a party always choose the left or the right, I shall have to build more on the contention that I have rolled out now. The ideology which I have been talking so much about cannot be in any circumstance, a purely political one, completely divorced from economics.  To reiterate, politics cannot exist without economics. No war in the history of the world has been fought without the intention to acquire more wealth. No king acquired territories merely for earning the prestige of owning one. Even the prestige of owning a piece of land stems from the material benefit it might bring to its owner. Since it is economics that fuels politics, it is indispensable for any honest, discerning politician to learn what both the divergent schools of economics written by Adam smith and Karl Marx had to say.

Answering the third question becomes easy for me now as you may see that the principles of honesty and uprightness can only guide you to walk through a chosen path but does not validate the legitimacy of the choice.

You can also contend that a party can draw a line between the left and the right and conflate the merits of both the right and left ideologies to form a new effective product. History has so many precedents as to explain why a centrist party shall always end up falling on the right side.

Yet, if the new enlightened AAP can manage to evolve such a new centrist ideology and toe that line, I will be glad to welcome it. But the stand of the AAP that it is beyond the fetters of ideology and the pride that it draws from such a proclamation, unintentionally bares its vacuous intellect. As I used to tell my friends often, before you think you are breaking a rule, you must know the origin of the rule and the significance of its existence.

So why did I have to include the two supposedly antagonistic parties of Congress and the AAP in this discussion? The Congress, during the time of its inception targeted British colonialism only because it rightly diagnosed it as the cause for mass poverty in India . It succeeded in slaying  it through sustained, committed political struggle. But it was only a half-victory because it could manage only to eradicate colonialism and that the party’s ideological emptiness did not allow it to look any further. The Congress could not recognize that colonialism was nothing but a more ruthless form of capitalism. Would the East India Company invade a country that has no natural resources or any country that is not ready to serve as a cheap labour market? Was not the EIC and other imperial countries driven by the interests of their own big businessmen and, was not imperialism, the crude form of what they now call the neo-liberalism? May be some of the Congress leaders had seen what they should have, but had remained mute, since Congress was not a principled left-wing party to shift its focus to nailing capitalism down after its first goal was achieved. Now as we see, the Congress possibly breathing its last days paying for its ideological vacuity. Now since the AAP has proved electorally that it can fight the BJP, all that is expected from them is immediate ceasefire of the ongoing internal feud and engage in a sincere attempt to study the dynamics of the struggle that it promised to wage to the people. Just like how India had to fight the tentacles of capitalism originating from the West a few centuries ago, it now stares at what looks like a repetition of history. The challenge for the AAP, if it really is true to its cause, thankfully is not two-layered as the Congress was destined to face. It does not need to fight colonialism first to get to its older brother. There is only one fight, only if it decides to indulge in grappling with ideas rather than grappling with its own men.