The aristocrat servant

• What has been your area of specialisation in Parliament, for example, finance, agriculture, education, etc.?

• Please let me know your three best speeches in Parliament (at least one of them on a legislative measure) and your contribution as a legislator.

• Did you ever use the excellent Parliament library? If yes, how often and for what purpose?

• Have you read the Constitution and the Constituent Assembly debates?

• Are you a member of Servants of India Society Library? If not, are you a member of any other library? If yes, which one and for what kind of material? If you are not a member of any library, do you have your own library? If yes, how much money do you spend annually on buying books, etc.?

• Please let me know three books read by you in the last five years and three best articles written by you in any language on any subject.

To the Independent candidate, a retired civil servant projected as a crusader against corruption, I wrote: ‘‘You suspended the services of 20-odd patwaris for allegedly indulging in corrupt practices in maintenance of land records. Allegations against patwaris are common, I presume that you would have suspended the services of almost all patwaris if you had continued in office. Land, being limited, is the most precious resource and therefore maintenance of land records is the special concern of the State all over the world. Have you ever heard of a single case of tampering with land records in England, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, etc.? Have you ever heard of any litigation on account of faulty land records in those countries? Did your intellectual curiosity induce you to study land records management systems in developed countries? If you had done that, you would have realised that it is our faulty system of presumptive title to land that needs to be changed to conclusive title to land and that suspending the services of patwaris is not the solution.

I also repeated the last two questions that I had asked the other two candidates. I wrote to all three that their replies would help me decide which button to press at the polling booth. None of the candidates replied.

Coming back to Gokhale, he was elected as a Member of the Bombay Legislative Council in 1899. He studied questions before the Council deeply. After reading his speech on Bombay Land Revenue Code Amendment Bill in 1901, D E Wacha, president of the Congress, wrote to him: ‘‘What a marvel of patient and scientific industry you are!’’ In 1901, Gokhale was elected as a Member of the Imperial Legislative Council as a representative of Bombay Presidency. He was repeatedly re-elected and continued in office till his death. Gandhiji has written that India’s poverty and subjection were matters of constant concern to Gokhale. In his very first Budget speech in the Imperial Legislative Council in 1902, Gokhale made out a convincing case that poverty was not only deep but was deepening. After presenting tables compiled from official statistics, he said: ‘‘This evidence points unmistakably to the fact that the mass of our people are not only not progressing but are actually receding in the matter of material prosperity.’’ Is what Gokhale said over a century back not true today also?

His very first Budget speech was greatly applauded. R C Dutt wrote to him from London: ‘‘I consider your Budget speech to be the best that has ever been made from our point of view in the Viceroy’s Council. Your cogency of reasoning is admirable and your conclusions come with the irresistible force of a sledge-hammer and pound the official sophistries into atoms. I have never read any speech made in the Viceroy’s Council, nor in the House of Commons on an Indian subject, which was so effective or forcible.’’

Year after year, Gokhale demonstrated in his Budget speeches that poverty was increasing. In his Budget speech of 1906, he presented a ‘‘comprehensive scheme’’ for improving the condition of the masses, which included reduction in State demand on land, composition of rural debts, cheap credit to agriculturists, irrigation and scientific agriculture, industrial and technical education, free and later, compulsory primary education and works of sanitary improvement.

Gokhale considered economic problems from the standpoint of the toiling masses. Therefore, when Dadabhai Naoroji proposed in 1912 to raise the minimum limit for Income-Tax from Rs 1000 to Rs 1500, he did not support it saying that such a measure would give relief to the middle-classes, whereas it was the poorer classes who deserved relief earlier than the upper or the middle-classes, since they bore a heavier burden in relation to their resources, than the latter.

In 1911, Gokhale moved a resolution calling for an enquiry into great increase in public expenditure so that means could be devised for enforcement of economy to spend large funds on education, sanitation and relief of agricultural indebtedness which were of paramount importance. Will the Congress president and the Congress-led government take note today of what the Congress president said about a hundred years back?

Encomiums poured in on Gokhale even by members of the Government whom he criticised. Replying to Gokhale’s speech on his resolution, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, Finance Member, said: ‘‘It is an intellectual treat to hear Mr Gokhale give an exposition of his views.’’ Sir James Meston, Finance Secretary, said: ‘‘Gokhale has the rare and happy knack of making figures interesting, and it has been a sincere pleasure to listen to the skill with which he marshalled the figures and inspired life into the dry bones of our statistical returns.’’ Ever since Gokhale’s first Budget speech, all concerned were anxious to hear his Budget speeches. In 1913, when he could not attend the Budget debate on account of his serious illness, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson said that Gokhale’s absence created a great blank and to discuss the Budget without Gokhale was like ‘‘the play of Hamlet without Hamlet.’’

Gokhale was deeply respected as a spokesman of India’s national aspiration within and even outside the Legislature. His speeches in the Legislative Council on economic, political, educational and other subjects help us to understand the political and cultural roots of Indian nationalism and its liberal, nationalist, democratic and egalitarian values. They bring out his contribution towards laying the foundations of secularism and democracy in our country.

Gokhale rightly believed that unless all persons engaged in public affairs, study thoroughly the questions in which they are interested, the problems of the masses cannot be tackled intelligently and fruitfully. The greater the responsibilities a public man assumes, the greater is the need for him to study systematically the public questions. Their contributions would be valuable in proportion to the study that had gone into their formulation. Thus, he devoted himself to a systematic and careful study of important questions. And he always based his arguments on careful study. The accuracy of his statements or that of his elaborately prepared statistics was never questioned.

Being a voter, I asked the candidates the questions keeping in mind Gokhale, the Parliamentarian Pune had over 100 years back. Should not every candidate for Parliament and State Legislatures be asked such questions for seeking information about today’s dream Parliamentarian? For me, Gokhale remains my dream Parliamentarian.

The writer is emeritus professor, formerly professor and director, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune.