Total forgetfulness

JP wrote, ‘‘total revolution is a combination of seven revolutions — social, economic, political, cultural, ideological or intellectual, educational and spiritual.’’ JP fervently felt that only a change of government or that of the system of governance would not usher in a new society. It could be constructed by a revolution which brought about change in all aspects of life. About the method he wrote, ‘‘the total revolution had to be peacefully brought without impairing the democratic structure of society and affecting the democratic way of life of the people.’’

Acharya J.B. Kripalani made a frontal attack on the very concept of total revolution. In his opinion, revolution was complete in itself, then why total revolution? He added that in the (erstwhile) Soviet Union under the total revolution Lenin attacked even institutions like family and marriage that led to the crumbling of the social structure there.

JP believed that a permanent revolution was a revolution for the people, of the people and by the people. But the history of revolutions shows that the common people remain at the receiving end while the vanguard prospers. Therefore, emphasising ‘‘persuasion and conversion’’, JP thought of ‘‘social revolution through human revolution’’. But care has to be taken that in the name of persuasion, status quoists do not derive legitimacy.

JP wanted to take advantage of the atmosphere surcharged by the movement: ‘‘All I mean to emphasise is that when a revolutionary movement is on, its aims should not remain limited to whatever they were at the beginning but, taking advantage of the revolutionary atmosphere, they should be widened to cover as many fields of social life as possible… To those who might cavil at the use of revolutionary methods to achieve what could be done by constitutional means, my answer is that constitutional means and state action have failed to make any appreciable dent in the moral, social and economic stagnation that the country is now victim of.’’

To conclude, it would be pertinent to quote Ivor Jening’s statement JP referred to frequently — that the most rudimentary qualification of a minister is honesty and incorruptibility. And it is not sufficient for a minister to be honest and incorruptible — he also must appear to be so. How many of our ministers and leaders live up to such an expectation?