Congress Socialism and Welfare

The large farm yields more than the small field. Large capital yields more than small investment. These are admitted, but Congress' socialism cannot tolerate privately owned large farms or privately owned large capital, because these increase the gap between the poor and those few who are well off. So, they must belong to the State and be managed by its officials. If not belonging entirely to the State, they must be under its full control and indirect management. This is the State socialism to which the Congress has pledged itself. It may not be done all at once but that is the goal to which things must be steadily and speedily driven. The plan is to break up existing large farms and seek to form new large farms on a non-ownership basis. What, however, must be remembered is that ownership produces more out of a farm and out of capital than what someone is trying to produce for others, be it farm or industry. The State ought to prevent injustice and promote social welfare, but should not seek to expropriate and extinguish ownership, the spring of energy and the source of production. State management means expanding power of the official class, and waste, favouritism and inefficiency. Capital investment produces expanding employment; and employment is what we should seek to expand until it covers the whole population. If the State cuts into savings for capital, to that extent unemployment is given a longer lease of life. This is the Swatantra Party's contention.

     I am reminded that I opened temples to those who were previously untouchable, that I got an Act passed to wipe out peasants' debts, where they had paid by way of interest double the principal borrowed, that I got tenancy laws passed by which farm tenants and labourers got a much larger share of the produce than ever before in the Tanjore area, that I levied a tax for the first time on sales at the rate of half a naya paisa per rupee of transaction in order to meet the loss of drink revenue, that I removed rice controls overnight when I took office in Madras in 1952, and so on, and that these were revolutionary socialist measures; and therefore I contradict myself when I oppose the present socialist policies of the Congress. I am grateful for these arguments. My objection is not to a policy of welfare socialism but to the socialism now sought to be put into execution by the Congress. I object to the tinkering with ownership and the base of our agricultural structure. I object to a policy of spreading class hatred. The facts cited against me actually prove that I am not the reactionary or the partisan of the rich that now it is sought to dub me as, but that I am and was always a friend of the poor. If I teach a girl how to let a vessel down a well and draw water, it does not mean I should not object to her falling into the well and killing herself for a quarrel with her husband. If I teach a young man how to use the knife in surgery, does it disable me from telling him not to kill his patient by over-using his knife? I have no dislike for change or reform, but I dislike change for the mere sake of change, or for securing group votes sacrificing harmony and real welfare. I claim that what congressmen are now threatening or promising to do will not help but only serve to deceive the poor. They promise land to the landless but this is not going to be done. They promise to increase employment for the poor, but this is not going to be done. Government offices will be expanded but that is not going to help the poor but will only aggravate inflation. They wish to increase food production but what they do will reduce it. Nature is kind but the policies of Government are depressing agriculture.

     I am guilty of contradiction, it seems, because I helped the co-operation movement to make considerable progress when I presided over the affairs of Madras in 1952, whereas now I object to co-operative farming. I have explained and made it clear to those who are not unwilling to understand, that no one objects to co-operation but we maintain that multiple ownership and multiple management, with heavy subsidies from the general taxpayer, are not good for the cultivation of food-crops by our peasantry in their fields. Success with subsidies proves nothing. If at all, it demonstrates the opposite of what is sought to be established.

     The President of the Congress in Madras State pays me all these compliments, while seeking to make out an estoppel against me to bar my objections to the present Congress policy. I have no objection to the State taking the eggs provided some eggs are left behind to keep the breed alive and provided the mother bird is not to be killed and eaten up. I desire as ardently as anyone else social justice and social welfare; but the socialism adopted at Avadi, and unfolded now, will not produce social welfare or justice but only yield a foul crop of hatred and conflict, and reduce national wealth. When we have the big cake one may tolerate the use of the violence of the State to make just distribution, but we are still to make the cake, when our national wealth is at a low point and our concern should be to raise it. Reduction of capital potential, that is, of individual savings and mopping up of all resources for spending, through State officials, will not serve to increase national wealth. Thoughts of equalizing have no meaning in the context. This is the opposition of the Swatantra Party to the policies of the Congress.