Power Without Wisdom

"The spread of power without wisdom is utterly terrifying and I cannot much blame those whom it reduces to despair," writes Bertrand Russell in his latest book. He wrote this in another connection, that of nuclear weapons and space adventures, but the statement is a general truth which applies to many particular cases. It does apply to the land 'reforms' so repeatedly advocated by the Congress Party.

     The chief occupation of the ruling party, as distinguished from its eminent leader is how to remain in power, and that leads to the search of slogans that most widely deceive. The Congress at Nagpur had raised no expectations in circles that knew the present obsession of the Congress, but the newspapers in India are disappointed and write melancholy editorials. They had expected common sense to emerge from a large meeting of common men. The newspapers that criticize the outcome of the Nagpur meeting ignored in their expectations the main obsession of those that met there. Hence the disappointment.

     Where in the wide world except in India are statesmen employed in curbing incentive, or putting a ceiling on the ownership of land, or expropriating property, or transferring the rights of owners of agricultural land to lessees or to the men hired to work on it? Nowhere, barring the areas under the monolithic communist way of life. The Government of India prides itself on having a goal of socialism divorced from compulsion and mass-slavery. But what has it achieved so far? And what does it hope to achieve ignoring the history and the example of countries whose enlightened governments have achieved full employment, general welfare and equal opportunities to all? Have they put ceilings on landowning or on incomes in England? Or in Denmark? Or in Sweden? Or in Germany? Or in Switzerland? Have they continually adumbrated in any of these countries proposals that created widespread uncertainty, want of confidence, and lack of enthusiasm as has been done in this country?

     Are those countries static? What is this 'dynamism' that spells the breakdown of confidence and individual exertion at the altar of a governmental machine that aims at a pattern which prevails nowhere?

     Of course our country and our people are different from other countries and other peoples of the world. But that is the very reason why the present borrowed ideals - borrowed from Fabian writings never put to practice but with totalitarian brute force - do not fit into the realities of our country.

     The old bureaucracy disappeared with the British regime. A much less-equipped bureaucracy is now to carry out the Fabian policies of the Congress Party and is to take over all departments of life - activities which the education and training of the officials never attempted to make them acquainted with even in the outermost fringe. Power and oppression create an illusion of competency, while all the time the effort of the official is to hide his ignorance and to rule by authority and the hypnotism of mantrams repeated and re-repeated.

     State trading in food-grains which is said to be 'inevitable' is blind faith in centralization and the first step in a chain of errors that will lead, through bottle-necks and loss by deterioration and warehouse depreciation, to rationing and general misery. Cooperative societies attempting to do agricultural operations will result in a new official zamindari system because cooperative societies will work only through the government officials in charge of them.

     The final test of a welfare government is the achievement of full, gainful employment and joy in life. This is far from us whatever'ism we adopt, but it is not in the horizon at all of the present policies of the Congress. One fears that in the highest circles there is confusion between socialism and what is called the 'public sector'. A box of paints is not a picture. All paint boxes do not make good pictures.

     Direct taxation on those who can bear it having reached an oppressive limit, the notion probably is that the State could make profit through the 'public sector', indirectly taxing the large body of victims that have to buy steel, cement and foodstuffs. State-trading in grains means making up for losses of all kinds and a margin of 'profit' out of which commission is paid to those who deal as agents for the Government. All this is paid for by the consumer who does not realize that it is concealed tax, but thinks it is a phenomenon in price variation that is outside the pale of criticism. As a matter of fact it would be a miracle if bureaucratic management should ever prove to be as frugal or careful as business run by even a second-rate managing agency. The attempt to 'form capital' out of nationalized business will be a complete failure unless indeed, as in the case of cement, exorbitant prices are extracted from consumers. The inescapable fact is that we have not a dedicated bureaucracy as the communist States have, and a body of workers who are completely at the mercy of the State. Indeed the upbringing of the officials has produced an aversion to commercial habits and more reliance is placed on statistical show-charts than on plain vigilance and frugal management. The only way to frugality in our country is through decentralization. Bureaucratic centralization leads to the exact opposite. Socialism is not just 'public sector' but the increasing absorption of the vast mass of unemployed men into adequate gainful employment-gainful for the individual and for the community. The comparative merit of any arrangement must be judged on this basis.

     What was Gandhiji's 'ism? He repudiated the attempt to name it after him and deprecated the use of the term 'gandhism'. He wanted that people should be educated in the idea that everyone who holds a position and everyone who owns property or business should hold them as trustees for all those who have dealings with them and for the community at large. in brief his 'ism was the 'ism of trusteeship. This involves a programme of education rather than organization of machinery or sequestration of ownership. This social doctrine of trusteeship is not a new conception. It is as old as all our sastras and it is the common foundation of all great religions. Gandhiji's 'ism was closely related to the recognition of moral and spiritual values of life and therefore to religion. The outdated but obstinate doctrine of enlightened selfishness should be substituted by this doctrine of immanent trusteeship,- by dharma, to put it in Indian language. Dharma must weave itself into every material activity of life. The education, or rather re-education, of the Indian people in this right way of life requires example, patience, and faith. The way may be long, but the short- cut of governmental coercion and the anarchy that is mistaken for dynamism will never reach the goal. On the contrary, it will reach and shape itself step by step as an inferior copy of communism and the suppression of human personality.

     Even in the process a degree of suppression of personality has already happened. The single brain-activity of the people who meet in the Congress is to find out what is in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's mind and to anticipate it. The slightest attempt at dissent meets with stern disapproval and is, so to say, nipped in the bud. How can realism emerge in this atmosphere ? Power without wisdom is utterly terrifying, and no one seems capable of resistance or even willing to try.

     Hope lies in the Congress dictator himself turning his back on unreality and resolving to build Indian welfare with native clay. But the great hobgoblin of consistency stands between Power and Wisdom.