© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
— Kannan K
(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Kannan K revisits Ram Manohar Lohia’s vision of new socialism on his 115th birth anniversary, observed on March 23.)
“…evil combination of poverty and inequality benumbs the body and coarsens the mind of the nation”, said Ram Manohar Lohia as he offered his vision of ‘new Socialism’ to eradicate the twin evils. His idea of new socialism presented a framework tailored to the socio-economic realities of India by synthesising Marxist economics with Gandhian ethics while emphasising democratic decentralisation and social justice.
Born on March 23, 1910, Lohia was a prominent figure in India’s freedom movement who also influenced the post-independence political landscape. He was jailed multiple times for his involvement in various movements, including protests against the Portuguese rule in Goa and farmers’ movements. In addition to his activism, Lohia was known for his fearless criticism of power holders.
On his 115th birth anniversary, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pays tribute to him. He writes on X, “Remembering Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia on his birth anniversary. A visionary leader, fierce freedom fighter and an icon of social justice, he dedicated his life to empowering the underprivileged and building a strong India.”
Let’s explore the key components of Lohia’s new Socialism, and his advocacy for the decentralisation of political and economic power.
Lohia put forth his vision of a new Socialism that was suitable for the socioeconomic realities of India. It synthesised Marxist economics and Gandhian ethics, emphasising democratic decentralisation and social justice.
In Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Lohia says, “Inequality and poverty in a country mutually bear a relationship of simultaneous growth. That is why India is the poorest and the most unequal country in the world. This evil combination of poverty and inequality benumbs the body and coarsens the mind of the nation.” His new socialism thus sought to address the twin evils of inequality and poverty.
Lohia presented a six-point plan for new Socialism, calling for maximum attainable equality, a global standard of living, a world government, civil disobedience as a democratic tool, decentralised governance, and technological advancement. His socialism encompassed economic as well as political and cultural dimensions.
He proposed the concept of a “Four-Pillar State”, which distributes power at four levels – village, district, province, and center. This structure aims to prevent the centralisation of power – a central tenet of his ideology – and establish a strong local governance system that would strengthen grassroots democracy.
Through his doctrine of new Socialism, Lohia envisioned eliminating inequalities across caste, class, and gender through economic democracy. He argued that traditional hierarchies, especially caste, had hindered India’s social progress and that socialism must actively dismantle these barriers through affirmative action.
Lohia presented the concept of “Sapta Kranti” or seven revolutions to establish the new Socialism –
(i) Revolting for equality between man and woman
(ii) Abolition of inequalities based on colour
(iii) Elimination of inequalities of birth and caste
(iv) National freedom or ending of foreign influence
(v) Economic equality through increase in production
(vi) Protecting the privacy of individual life from all collective encroachments, and
(vii) Limitation on armaments
Despite both being socialists, Lohia and Jawaharlal Nehru had starkly different visions for Socialism. Lohia was a critic of the Nehru government. He was one among those parliamentarians who moved India’s first no-confidence motion against the Nehru government in 1963.
In comparison to Nehru, Lohia’s socialism was decentralised in nature, evident in his advocacy for the establishment of a four-tier administrative structure based on village autonomy. He proposed building the economy around small-scale industries to ensure equitable wealth distribution, as he believed large-scale industrialisation would exacerbate inequalities.
Nehruvian Socialism, on the other hand, sought to establish a state-led model based on centralised planning. Nehru backed a mixed economy with large-scale industrialisation guided by the national plans.
The two figures also diverged in their approaches to caste. Lohia viewed caste as a primary hurdle to India’s progress and sought its urgent eradication. Nehru, although opposed to caste, prioritised planned industrialisation and relied on gradual social change to address caste inequalities.
Moreover, Lohia had a sceptical view of the state and was apprehensive of its potential to be a source of oppression and hence laid emphasis on individual liberties. Conversely, Nehru saw the state as an instrument for social and economic change.
Lohia’s new socialism was tailored to India’s context and focussed on immediate social change, grassroots empowerment, and the eradication of poverty and inequalities, particularly those related to caste. Nehruvian socialism, while seeking to be Indian in nature, borrowed heavily from Fabianism – which refers especially to a particular position within British socialism – and was a state-led, gradualist model seeking long-term economic development and social change.
In addition, Lohia’s “anti-Congressism” has had a significant influence on India’s political landscape. He launched anti-Congress politics in the 1950s as a critique of a political culture that allowed social elites to capture and monopolise. He believed that the Congress Party’s political dominance in the early decades of post-independence India stifled democracy and prevented the inception of alternative political views.
Hence, Lohia’s “anti-Congressism” called for the various opposition parties to set aside their ideological differences and unite against the Congress.
In fact, “anti-Congressism” was a major factor in the 1967 general elections when multiple non-Congress coalitions came to power at the state level. It marked a turning point in Indian politics by undermining the Congress’s monopoly of political power and paving the way for the multiparty system.
Notably, Lohia’s views on the eradication of caste-based inequalities, particularly through the emancipation of the OBCs, based on socialistic principles, have been foundational to the rise of several political parties and leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar.
His perspectives on caste and language politics, including his strong support for Indian languages are often cited in contemporary debates on these issues. Similarly, Lohia’s emphasis on decentralisation and grassroots democracy remains relevant, especially in discussions surrounding the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992.
In conclusion, Lohia’s ideologies continue to have a significant impact on politics, evident in caste-based movements, coalition politics, decentralisation efforts, and the tradition of criticism and dissent against ruling dispensations. Despite his stature as a revolutionary thinker and transformative leader, it is often argued that Lohia does not receive the appreciation he deserves.
Some scholars attribute this to his belonging to the generation of freedom fighters who were too young to hold key positions post-independence India but had aged by the time leadership transitions occurred; others believe Lohia’s ideas were not understood properly during his time.
Loknayak Jayprakash Narayan wrote, “Ram Manohar was much misunderstood by his contemporaries. Perhaps his ideas were too original to be understood fully while his straightforwardness was unpleasant to many.” Nonetheless, Lohia’s ideas continue to have significant impacts on India’s political and social landscape.
Post Read Questions
How does Ram Manohar Lohia’s vision of socialism differ from traditional Marxist and Gandhian ideologies?
In what ways did Ram Manohar Lohia advocate for the decentralisation of political and economic power?
Discuss how Ram Manohar Lohia ‘Sapta Kranti’ (Seven Revolutions) sought to address social injustices in India.
How can Ram Manohar Lohia’s ideas about small-scale industries be seen as a response to India’s unique socio-economic challenges?
In what ways do Ram Manohar Lohia’s ideas continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about social justice and equality in India?
(Kannan K is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at the Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
