by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group
The first thing they (Socialists) want is that if they come to power", said B. R. Ambedkar in his speech on 4 November 1948, "the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of compensation." Unlike Jawaharlal Nehru, a product of the British education system when Europe's intelligentsia was trying to come to terms with socialists if that could keep communists away, Ambedkar studied in the pre-War US which generally accepted the view that putting private property under state control is nothing but a journey down the "road to serfdom". It is therefore natural that the architect of the Indian Constitution was so wary of socialism.
It is largely at his insistence that the attempt by leftist members of the Constituent Assembly, mostly from Bihar and Bengal, to put the word "socialism" in the preamble got thwarted. It sprang all the way up there in the 42nd Amendment in 1976 during Indira Gandhi's Emergency, a quarter-century after Ambedkar's death. That's when critics of her draconian Emergency were claiming they were all 'socialists' as they paid obeisance to Ram Manohar Lohia, a bitter critic of the Congress rule. In unseating Mrs. Gandhi through a giant coalition, they had to lower the socialist colours as it was also important to get on board as allies the ageing and obscurantist rump of the old Congress under Morarji Desai, and the then Jan Sangh, a Hindu nationalist party. Since then, governments have come and gone, but socialism, samajtantra, has remained a time-tested war-cry for all regional parties to bid for central power, off and on.
A similar season has arrived. Or so feel leaders of the two parties in power in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samjawadi Party and Nitish Kumar of Janata Dal (U), and those with whom they fought till very recently, like Lalu Prasad Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and H. D. Deve Gowda of Janata Dal (Socialist). There is no sudden bonhomie that unites them, nor is the government of Narendra Modi on a drift. On the contrary, Modi is firmly entrenched in a power dynamic in which even if he loses popularity somewhat, it will not lead to a consequent gain for Congress, his supposed national rival. Besides, he has initiated fundamental reforms, like changes to make land acquisition easier, or to make India a nation of uniform tax rates, like Europe. These changes may have huge upside. Congress, on the other hand, is plagued by membership erosion, serial defeat in elections and a truant dynast. So where is the green shoot for 'socialists' ?
However, neither Mulayam nor Nitish nor Lalu expect the Modi chariot grind to a halt anytime soon. In fact what is giving them cold sweat is the possibility of a long spell of Modi's rule, and inability of the Congress to put effective brake on it. If Modi's land acquisition drive succeeds, it may lead to industrialisation on a scale that did not happen in India after the phenomenal growth of public sector industry during Nehru's term as prime minister. The 'socialist' critics of reform have enough mother wit to grasp the hard realities of rural India where traditional agriculture has collapsed—a fact that the Congress leadership has ignored to its peril. As a recent study, reported in The Hindu newspaper shows, 62 per cent of farmers who were surveyed were willing to leave farming if they could find jobs in the city.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi is undoubtedly vocal in her opposition to Modi's land acquisition policy changes, but she can at best go through the motions of protest. The non-BJP and non-Congress parties obviously cannot pass up the opportunity. But they have problems, both short- and long-term, that may thwart their unification bid.
With the assembly election in Bihar due in October this year, Nitish and Sharad Yadav-headed JD(U) would naturally not like to forgo its wheel symbol in favour of bicycle, the SP symbol that all constituents have agreed to accept. But it is not a major issue as long as there is enough solidarity; the symbol problem is a minor one in an age of 24X7 satellite TV and omnipresent mobile phone. The common symbol in getting rid of Congress in 1977 at a short notice of two months given to voters.
However, the real roadblock to the regional powers' unity is their ambivalence on Modi and his BJP. Mulayam, for that matter, merely professes socialism on his calling card but has many big-ticket 'capitalists' who are common cronies between him and Modi. Furthermore, though CBI, the country's main anti-corruption agency, has given him respite in a supposedly well-investigated disproportionate assets case, it is not difficult for Mulayam to sense his vulnerability if the investigation is revived. It may be the reason why his party supported the government Bills on coal mines auctions and mines and minerals last month. Nor is it clear that SP will oppose Modi's land acquisition efforts till the last. In a polaris In a polarised Rajya Sabha, where the Bill is likely to hit the Chinese Wall, even a well-timed walkout may help the government. But Mulayam is at the centre of the proposed coalition.
Besides, none among the constituents is confident about its own strength in the face of a regime that may be unfriendly to minorities but may bring about a flood of reform that can lift all boats. Lalu Prasad, on the other hand, is on a different page. Fresh out of jail, he wants to regain political respectability by winning a few seats, if necessary by piggybacking on Nitish, his anathema till recently. Deve Gowda also seeks respect which he long lost, in Delhi first and Bengaluru later.
The socialist umbrella party is a bit like Pirandello’s ‘Six Characters In Search of a Playwright’. There will be none to compose the play unless Modi’s dream reforms are sent packing—due to a bad economic cycle, or too many wrong decisions, or even a raging Hindutva backlash. Nothing is impossible, but, for Mulayam & Co, it is a distant dream. Or jam tomorrow.
