Pushpam Priya Choudhary writes: Why is Nitish Kumar not a socialist

In a recent interview, during the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly elections, the Prime Minister of India titled Mr Nitish Kumar a true socialist leader. In UP and Bihar, the two most poverty-stricken states, almost every politician is a self-acclaimed socialist leader.

Socialism is often projected as a high noble political rank to lure poor voters. Over a few decades, the word socialism has been used and abused to hide the true nature and actions of politicians— a matter of grave concern. This ideological deception is well understood by political scientists and analysts in academia; however, socialism has a very convoluted yet strong ideological trajectory and using the idea loosely and inaccurately will misguide the younger generations.

When the highest political institution of India titles someone as ‘a true socialist leader’, it becomes serious. Clearly, it was a political move to target opponents in the UP elections. However, calling Mr Nitish Kumar a socialist seems wrong, highly wrong — theoretically, practically and morally. I shall give Mr Prime Minister the benefit of doubt under the pre-supposition that he has failed to understand the complex nature of Mr Kumar, or that he has been too busy to follow and analyse Mr Kumar’s political career.

Yet, irrefutably the word socialism being used and abused as an ornament in UP and Bihar by power-hungry politicians, is an insult to the true socialist leaders of India. Such misuse taints the ideology of socialism entirely. It is only inevitable and urgent therefore to revisit the idea of socialism. And what better time than this week that marked the martyrdom of Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh and the birth anniversary of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia – the two greatest socialist leaders India has ever produced.

Socialism vis-a-vis the idea of India is unequivocally sacrosanct, and rightly so. The preamble of our constitution declares India as a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’. The preamble is more than an introduction to the constitution— it is the soul of India. The original description described India as a ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’.

Later, it was amended by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The idea however was not introduced by her, India was a socialist republic since the day she was independent.

The architects of India were socialists and adopted socialist policies to build India extensively. The first prime minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was an avowed Republican Socialist — I must frankly confess that I am a socialist and republican, and am no believer in kings and princes, or in the order which produces modern kings of industry, who have greater power over the lives and fortunes of men than even the kings of old, and whose method are as predatory as those of the old feudal aristocracy.

I recognise, however, that it may not be possible for a body constituted as is this National Congress, and in the present circumstances of the country to adopt a full socialistic programme. But we must realise that the philosophy of socialism has gradually permeated the entire structure of society the world over, and almost the only points in dispute are the pace and the methods of advance to its full realisation.

India will have to go that way, too, if she seeks to end her poverty and inequality, though she may evolve her own methods and may adapt the ideal to the genius of her race.

Nehru’s Congress was very different from the Congress in India today — one that opposed dynasty politics. Leaders then had a vision and socialist leaders had a plan to minimise poverty. Another charismatic and visionary leader of congress, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose strongly advocated for socialist policies too.

In fact, Panditji and Netaji together blessed the formation of Congress Socialist Party –- founded by Jayaprakash Narayan and Ram Manohar Lohia, within the Indian National Congress in 1934, to further the cause of farmers and labourers against their pet aversion — princely class and the landlords.

Globally, over the years socialism has taken far too many forms to be constricted in a few ways. Socialist ideas can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle.

However, modern socialism emerged in early 19th century Europe, due to rapid economic and social changes mostly as a response to urbanisation and industrialisation.

Socialists, rather than celebrating proclaimed progress, were greatly worried by the inequality that it produced and were preoccupied devising methods to minimise the injustice. The issue was whether the individual accumulation of capital was beneficial or should wealth and profit be redistributed equally. Socialists and communists believed the latter.

Communists and socialists have few consequential ideological differences. The Russian Revolution left a clear divide between those who identified themselves as socialists and those that described themselves as communists. But that ideological divide is not the subject of this discussion. This heavily charged and complex ideology of socialism has a few inherent and non-negotiable beliefs.

The first and most basic is that kings and their sons do not have a right to rule. Inequality and injustice stem from unequal access to opportunity and socialists strongly opposed dynasties and dynasty politics as it allows one access to a position unjustly and undeservedly.

The second and the most revolutionary, as explained by Marx and Engels, was that goods and services that are produced socially should be owned socially and not created and accumulated for private profit.

Thus, state should become a means of social equality and justice, and not a means to accumulate personal wealth and power. For example, a socialised state provides state-funded healthcare, a common schooling system and social securities like unemployment benefits, maternity benefits and so on.

The man who influenced and inspired most of the socialist leaders around the world was the great revolutionary socialist Vladimir Lenin. The most powerful socialist leader in one of his most important books: “What is to be done?”, advocated that a socialist party should be the vanguard of the minority, and must be led by educated intelligentsia for a disciplined non-opportunist hierarchy to fulfil the demands of poor for equality and justice. Socialists advocated political participation for gradual legislation and reforms.

All the great Indian leaders followed the basic components of socialism. Gandhiji’s idea of socialism advocated peaceful struggle over warfare. Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan and many more socialist leaders worked for the peaceful land redistribution under the Sarvodaya Movement. Bhagat Singh and Ram Manohar Lohia, both highly educated and hardcore socialists, were avid proponents of a classless and casteless society. The former at the age of 23 read and re-read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Berlin. He was so deeply committed to socialism that at the time of his execution he said “Wait! A revolutionary is talking to another revolutionary", he was reading Lenin, then he flung the book towards the ceiling and said, “Let’s go.”

When Bhagat Singh was being executed, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia was developing his socialist ideas while completing his Economics PhD in Germany at the Humboldt University of Berlin. This is who and how true socialists were.

Even comparing the above-mentioned components of socialism to Mr Nitish Kumar (and his likes) is an unfortunate insult to these leaders, let alone titling him as one.

The Prime Minister of India rightly indicated that dynasty politics is anti-socialist, however, he seems to be completely ignorant of the political actions of Mr Nitish Kumar. Not only has Mr Kumar always preferred children of politicians while distributing tickets in elections, but he also gave five important portfolios, including that of the deputy CM to the sons of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav.

Socialist leaders all over the world have clearly indicated that educated intelligentsia should lead politically with the know-how and vision of reform. Mr Kumar has never given any importance to the education of politicians. It is interesting to note that both the sons of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav didn’t even complete their basic education despite being born with a silver spoon and inheriting not just a well-established political party, but millions of corruption-money and private properties from their father, who claims to be a ‘socialist’ too.

Today all the self-acclaimed socialist leaders of India are either an outcome of dynasty or promote dynasty politics openly, like Mr Kumar. For these ‘socialist’ leaders only princes have a right to rule.

Socialism opposes the accumulation of private property, personal wealth and power. All the ‘socialist’ leaders of Bihar have either accumulated unimaginable wealth or exploited the sanctity of public office to remain in power.

Mr Kumar’s ‘socialist’ ideology has been the accumulation of power at any cost. He campaigned against BJP and advocated a BJP-RSS-free India. He also campaigned against Mr Lalu and advocated a Lalu-free Bihar. But in practice, he has always been ideology-less and acted as an opportunist. If we look at his economic policies, none of them reflects socialism. In his sixteen years of tenure as CM, Bihar has not seen a single economic reform. These ‘socialist’ leaders have shamefully called themselves followers of Jayaprakash Narayan and Ram Manohar Lohia, yet they never made an attempt towards peaceful land reform in the past three decades.

Dr Lohia envisioned a classless and casteless society and was against identity politics. Mr Kumar however has deepened the cleavage of caste for political profit and encouraged caste-based identity politics. It is no secret that Mr Kumar distributes election tickets solely considering the caste equation and transfers and posts government officials based on their caste.

True socialist leaders also stressed the importance of vision for governance, plan for economy and creation of a party-cadre based on a disciplined non-opportunist hierarchy. Mr Kumar has displayed no knack for strengthening the economy of Bihar. Bihar is directionless, none of its ministries has any plan and no one knows where the economy of Bihar is going.

Bihar is completely dependent on Central funding which constitutes 75 per cent of the state budget. Mr Kumar’s party is as directionless as his governance. In his sixteen years of tenure, he has created a cadre of opportunists and sycophants who see no wrong in him and have recently started comparing him to Mahatma Gandhi, while Bihar remains at the bottom in the country. He is hailed as ‘the man of development’ by his supporters even when Bihar is the least developed in all human development indices with the lowest GDP per capita.

The true socialists stressed the creation of a socialised healthcare system, in which government pays for the overwhelming majority of healthcare expenses; a common schooling system, in which a world-class education creates a classless and casteless society and so on. For Mr Kumar, socialism means distributing some cash and some freebies for quick votes, an extremely dangerous application of Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) considering the acute pressure on state revenue.

The health care system of Bihar is a lost cause. The majority of the population is poor and good health care facilities are private and capitalist which they cannot afford. Mr Kumar and the other ‘socialist’ leaders, however, have the topmost doctors of India on their speed dial, while the entire state lacks even basic health facilities, let alone health insurance.

Similarly, due to the lack of a common schooling system, the kids of the self- acclaimed ‘socialist’ leaders study in the best expensive private schools in Delhi, the capital of India, the poor kids are forced to study at extremely sub-standard schools with below-par teaching facilities. Instead of recruiting, training and facilitating teachers, the existing pool of teachers is made to do menial government work.

While the ‘socialist’ politicians get a regular monthly salary from hard-earned public money and live in massive bungalows built by the British — all at the expense of public money, the teachers go on strikes for months and years for basic rights and demands.

There have been constructive arguments over socialist economic policies. Depending on the context the world has witnessed many variations. Nehru adopted a mixture of Fabian-style central planning that instituted a series of five-year plans to fight rural poverty.

Germany advocated a social market economy with as much competition as possible. Churchill established a free National Health Services to prevent medical bills from becoming the root of poverty. Scandinavian countries adopted a mixed economic model and welfare programs. Cuban socialist healthcare system is considered one of the most successful in the world.

Personally, I would argue that the developing economies do require long-term socialist welfare plans, however, that is possible only by intense revenue generation, which may not be plausible without a mixed economic model. Especially Bihar which lacks a healthy economic ecosystem for private investment, an immediate capital boost by State is urgently required to catalyse a conducive environment for industrialisation.

The capitalist economies of the world have been tremendously successful because they have adopted important welfare components of socialism. We can debate the magnitude of capitalism (or socialism) that needs to be introduced or restricted in a developing economy to ensure the welfare of poor citizens by redistribution. However, these discussions are totally absent in the current political sphere.

The politics of these self-acclaimed ‘socialists’ has become a source of entertainment for voters. It is not a sphere for constructive high I.Q. discussions on serious matters like employment, standards of living, education and health, law and order and so forth, issues that impact the lives of crores of people. The elected public representatives do not discuss serious issues in assemblies but use it as a tool to get space in newspapers and electronic media by conducting strikes, blocking roads, damaging public property and so on.

The ‘socialist’ cadre work on the feudal model and instead of exercising their power of decentralisation to create opportunities for the poor in their constituency, they only act as a muscle mob for their ‘socialist’ leader.

Had there been any true socialist leader in Bihar, it would not be at the bottom of development. It is illogical, unreasonable and inaccurate to call Mr Nitish Kumar a socialist. Yes, he has been successful in maintaining his position as CM of Bihar by opportunistic measures but has always promoted dynasts and an uneducated political class- an anti-socialist behaviour which Lenin, Nehru, Bose, JP, Lohia and Bhagat Singh would have strongly disapproved.

In June 323 BC, when King Alexander was dying, his friends asked – to whom was he leaving the kingdom? He whispered: ‘To the strongest…’. Not his son, even though he was a king. In the 20th century, the times of intellect, a true socialist leader would say: “To the most educated and the most morally sound…”. What will the self-acclaimed socialist leaders of UP and Bihar reply today? If you are a person of reason, you know the answer.

END OF ARTICLE