PRIVATE ENTERPRISE HAS NEVER HAD IT SQ GOOD"
i By S. R. Singh
NEW DELHI -= Nine years after the ruling Indian National Congress ‘party first inscribed the goal of a "socialist pattern of society" at _the Avadi session on its banner, its highest policy-making body the Arce [All India Congress Committee], met in Jaipur in the first week of November to "redefine" its concept of "democracy and socialism." In the midst of the confused voices raised both by the so=called "right" and "left" wings at the meeting, no final definition of socialism could be evolved, The AICC could adopt only a recommendatory resolution for the consideration of the plenary session of the party at Bhubaneswar (Orissa) in January 1964.
Prime Minister Nehru, who intervened in the debate, confessed that India could: not make rapid progress towards socialism because of. the "caste-ridden society that clung fast to tradition," So lukewarm was the document ultimately placed before the AICC (it was not released to the press) that he himself was constrained to observe that it did not reflect the "sense of urgency which was in the minds of Congressmen,"
There was disappointment, almost desperation, in his voice. He said ‘. that it pained him to see that “the monopoly in industry was on the increase," Monopoly was the enemy of socialism, he declared. How did he propose to fight monopolies? About this he kept discreetly silent, He invited all those who "sincerely desired" to achieve socialism to join the -Congress or to co-operate with it.
But he was not prepared to entertain a demand for nationalisation of the key sectors of production and distribution and state trading in food grains and other essential commodities. In reply to those who demanded controls, he said: "Controls were no doubt necessary in planning but they provided opportunities for abuse"!
Spectre Haunts Nehru
Nehru complained that the capitalists in India adopted an "unhelpful attitude." He warned that if the "process of ushering-in socialism was not speeded up the peope.s might get impatient and discard peacerul methods of economic transformation." At the same time, he held, the Marxist concept of socialism 1s "out of date and obsolete."
‘Some very revealing things were said by Congress members about the “milk and water" type of socialism sought in India, which has only under-~ written private capitalism, Home Minister Nanda, supposéd to be a Gandhian socialist and a theoretician of the Nehruite leadership, who moved the main document on socialism, also admitted that there was “concentration of economic power and widening of disparities,"
His only consolation was that "things would. have been much worse" had there been no planning of the type the Congress had introduced"! He said: "We have to reckon with the inexorable fact of poverty. The limitation of resources for development and the elements of backwardness in the Indian social system limits progress," Nanda also talked of the need for greater participation of workers in management as an expression of the "spirit of democracy and socialism." oe ;
U.N.Dhebar, a former Congress president and spokesman of the so=called right-wing Congress members, while seconding the resolution, concentrated his ire against those who '! ‘breached methods of class war to achieve eco» nomic goals,"
The Congress, he said, would "adopt the Gandhian means, organise people on the basis of democracy, and educate. the vested interests of their responsibility towards the community. tr
He, however, thought the minimum basic needs of the Indian secre’
could be met only after twenty years at the present rate of growth. In fact that is the "modest goal" the Congress has set before itself! Income Ceilings Are Discouraging
K,D.eMalaviya, a former Minister for Mines and Fuels, described as a ; representative of the "left" (he was ousted from the Central Cabinet because of a minor financial scandal), had moved several amendments to give the resolution a more radical coloration. He, however, withdrew his amendments on an assurance that they would be considered at the Bhubanes~ war session, In order to prevent concentration of wealth, Malaviya had asked for a ceiling on personal incomes but Nehru countered his plea with the oft-repeated argument that ceilings "discouraged individual initiative."
Malaviya also asked the Government to undertake state trading in food grains and other essential commodities "to bring down prices, " He also . criticised the land reforms which had so far not resulted in the real tillers becoming the owners of land.
Biju Patnaik, a former Chief Minister of Orissa (who had also resigned his office under the so-called Kamaraj Plan to reorganise the ruling Congress party) made a sensational disclosure. He said one of the problems that faced the country was how "to bring into account the large amount of unaccounted !tblackt money -- about Rs. 50,000 crores [$59 billion] -- circulating all over India," "That," he said, was “almost running a parallel government."
Krishna Menon, former Defence Minister, who had to leave the Cabinet following the India=China border conflict Last year, was more forthright in his assessment of the present situation. "We must recognise that we have a capitalist economy," he said. "Our function is to transform this capitalist economy in a democratic society which are in accordance with our democratic structure and traditions and our Gandhian background," This is Krishna Menon, dubbed a "crypto=-Communist"” by his right-wing . critics, at his best!
He referred to the tremendous growth of monopolies in India which had "virtually set up a parallel government." He said that twenty leading banks, which covered three-fourths of the private banking sector, had a total of 188 directors, These directors in turn held 1,640 directorships in various industries! Menon knows his figures,
"Monopolies, however, have one advantage," he quipped. "They are easier to nationalise than the smaller units which are spread out{"
He also confessed that high taxation could never bring about economic
we zu
~ equality. "The only way of dealing with monopoly was at its sources -~ the means of production and distribution,"
250 Million Live in Hunger
‘Menon!s theoretical generalisation was evidently lost on the AICC because all the "leftist" amendments were allowed to be withdrawn! Menon said that "no fewer than 250 million people are living in a state of undernourishment and most of the land is owned by a microscopic minority"!
There was also a discussion on the existence of different tendencies within the Congress, While the former Finance Minister Morarji Desai condemned those who talked of the "right" and "left" wings in the ruling party, Home Minister Nanda made a plea for the voluntary liquidation of groupism in the interest “of presenting an integrated picture of democracy and socialism." But Malaviya insisted that there could be "right" and "left" tendencies in the Congress, He said: "The party is like an umbrella or a consortium and there is room for different shades of opinion,” —
It is obvious that there are different tendencies in the Congress, but the differences between the so-called "right" and "left" wings are not so deep-rooted as to bring about an organisational rift. The differences. concern tactics among different strata of the ruling bourgeoisie. i
Evidently the "monopolists" who are running a "parallel government” do not at all seem to be unduly perturbed: over these periodic debates _ ‘among Congress members on the thesis of “Democracy and Socialism." At any rate the Indian bourgeoisie realises that it can.rely only on the "ubiquitous" Congress led by Prime Minister Nehru to give it a stable administration within the framework of "parliamentary democracy." Besides the Con-_ gress leadership has been able to perpetuate the illusion that India is moving along the path of socialism! .
Painful Surprise for Dange
In fact the Jaipur session of the AICC did raise high expectations not only among a section of Congress members but also in a_section of the labour movement led by the Dangeite leadership of the CPI [Communist. party of India] which pursues a policy of critical support to the Nehru govern~ ment. The CPI has tended to support the so-called "left". wing of the Con-= gress against its "right" wing. But the Jaipur deliberations must have come as a painful surprise to Dange and Co.
The recent maneuver by Nehru to reorganise his Central Cabinet under) the Kamaraj Plan by excluding a few unpopular Ministers like Morarji Desai and S.K.Patil has also helped the Dangeite leadership to spread the illusion that Nehru is moving to the left, In fact the reorganisation of the Cabinet has not brought about any real change either in the foreign or domestic policies of the Nehru government.
Nehru is no doubt encountering some opposition from his right-wing party men for his excessive zeal for socialism (lest that might raise the hopes of the hungry masses) and also for his excessive emphasis on non-~ alignment (to the point of irritating the U.S. some times) while his government has been leaning more and more on Western aid, both military ‘and economic! : ,
2 Ave hy
~The right-wing opposition to him represents the interests of commer-= cial and banking sections of the capitalist class which is apprehensive of various official restrictions and controls and insists on greater "freedom" for private enterprise, while the "left" opposition reflects discontent of the middle-class ent repreneurs and the newly emerging rich peasantry against the monopolist stranglehold of the big bourgeoisie, But the capi~ talist class as a whole cannot dispense with Nehru and his socialism at .the present juncture,
"A111 Gas"
The capitalist press evidently is jubilant over the Jaipur delibera~ tions which has meant "all gas without any substance," The conservative Times of India summed up the discussion as a triumph of the "realistic" concept of "democracy first and socialism later." It observed in an editorial on November 3: "It [the Congress] is now committed to bring -~about a radical change without sacrificing any democratic values." In ‘other words, without sacrificing the interests of the capitalist class!
~The newspaper said: “Doctrinaires may scoff at this but there is a hard core of practical good sense in trying.to avoid the danger of a . laissez faire outlook which ignores the urgent need of a poor country..for planned development and the hazards of a regimented economy which curbs individual freedom and leaves no scope for individual initiative,"
But even this newspaper could not wave aside the dismal state of affairs on the country's economic: front. It said: "The experience of the first two years of the Third Plan has been far from happy. There has been no increase in the output of food crops in the last two years and production in several vital industries is woefully: behind schedule, There is. no room here for mushy thinking,"
The newspaper calls for a "new dynamism which lifts the shadow which falls between the theory and its practice," an obvious allusion to the demand for "greater freedom" for capitalists to show their “individual ~ initiative,"
"Sense of Cynicism"
But the Free Press Journal, an independent daily, was more circum= spect, It observed in an editorial on November 6: "Since the Avadi ses-= sion of the Congress there has been endless talk on the different facets of socialism but little has been achieved in practical terms. . . . But to. Indians, at any rate, it has ceased to be engaging. It has bred a sense of cynicism, Chronic shortages in essential needs like food, clothing and housing, the relentless inflationary pressures, the distorted economy, the continuing inadequacies in education, the swelling i of the unemployed have all contributed to the growing discontent. . '
It further said: "Preoccupation with diverse definitions with democratic socialism carries with it the dangers of diverting attention from urgent and essential tasks and of inviting reckless popular impatience with all its unpredictable risks, Thus Shri Nehru was amply justified in warning the AICC that if the process of ushering in socialism was not speeded up the people might get impatient some years hence and discard peaceful methods of economic transformation"!
250
_ The Liberal Economic Weekly of Bombay wrote on November 2: "Yet another definition of socialism at the Jaipur session is not the answer. Socialistic pattern has been debased into socialistic patter and it cannot be redefined back to life. .. . Controls do not add up to socialism of any type; devoid of socialist purpose they become vast sources of patron~ age for the powers that be and vast sources of gain for those whom these powers patronise -- witness industrial licensing or trade controls, Even planning merely has underwritten private capitalism, It is no euphemism that private enterprise has never had it so good as since the inception of planning and Congress socialism, The vast investment of public money — in the social overheads, in power, transport, and so on, creates the con~ ditions for private profit. That is, after all, the mechanics of growth growth yes, but not socialism"! : 7