Chapter-III: Major Political Ideas of Acharya Narendra Deva: A Brief Appraisal

Chapter-III
Major Political Ideas of Acharya Narendra Deva:

A Brief Appraisal
Acharya Narendra Deva (1889-1956) was an original thinker and a unique leader
in the modern history of Indian political thought. He played an important part in the
making of modern India. He was born on 30th October, 1889 at Sitapur, Uttar Pradash,
where his father Baldev Prasad was practising as a lawyer. From his father he absorbed
great moral strength, wide human sympathies, regards for truth and, most importantly, a
deep interest in Indian culture. When Narendra Deva was only two years old, his father
migrated to Faizabad and within a short span of time established himself as a leading
lawyer. He also was a text book writer and a poet of considerable merit in English,
Hindi and Persian which was very popular with the children. At nearly Sitapur he came
in close contact with some Sannyasis and they visited his house quite frequently.
Narendra Deva came in close contact with one of his father’s friends –Pandit Madhav
Prasad Mishra, who was a very well known Hindi writer and a nationalist. It was he who
gave the name Avanashilal (the real name of Narendra Deva) when Narendra Deva was
about ten years old.1 In later years he was called Acharya by Shri Prakasa when he was
the Chairman of the Beneras Vidyapith. 2 Narendra Deva was a dynamic leader and his
personality and political ideas can be studied from various angles. His socio-political
ideas of may broadly be divided into two phases. In the first phase he was an admirer of
the then Soviet system and in the second he developed many ideas extremely critical of
the so-called Soviet Communism. The Second World War may be regarded as the
dividing line between these two phases. The experience of the Second World War led
M.N.Roy and J.P. to change their ideological views completely regarding the Soviet
system. This changing mindset regarding the Soviet system, ultimately led them to
change their views regarding Marxism also. According to their views, the Soviet
totalitarianism was the logical outcome of the Marxist thought, but unlike these political
thinkers, Narendra Deva made a clear cut distinction between Marxism and its
application in the then Soviet Union. When he developed critical views regarding the
Soviet Union, he did not hold Marxism responsible for it and rather regarded Marxism as
a philosophy completely based on experience and did not identify it with a particular
social or political system. In this respect, his attitude was in sharp contrast to those of
J.P. and M.N.Roy.
Acharya Narendra Deva was not only a politician but also a political philosopher
with his own political thinking. He suggested a number of schemes not only for the
economic progress of the developing countries, but also a social reformer striving to end
the racial discrimination and the miserably weak economic condition of the women and
backward classes of India. He was a historian, who advocated a new interpretation of
history, and also an internationalist, having his eyes on contemporary world
Governments. Narendra Deva was one of the few political leaders, who could also be
respected as a political thinker and whose thinking undoubtedly deserved the respectful
CHAPTER-III: MAJOR POLITICAL IDEAS OF ACHARYA NARENDRA DEVA: A BRIEF
APPRAISAL
assessment or criticism. He remained one of the few personalities in trodden India’s
history, who had effortlessly made a substantial original contribution to socialist thinking
and reconstruction of this country. Political philosophy is meaningless, if it keeps itself
divorced from the people and their uncountable problems. In a developing country like
India, where the socio-economic problems are complex and acute, political philosophy
must be critical, suggestive as well as constructive. Narendra Deva through his pluralistic
ideas and works such as assessment completely justified it. He not only severely
criticised the then Indian Congress Government, but like a true doctor, he diagnosed the
symptoms of the disease from which the Indian society was suffering and, consequently,
recommended medicines in the shape of his programmes and policies, which might be
helpful to strengthen democracy and Socialism in India. Socialism has got the
reputation of a much interpreted but a less understood term. During his younger days, he
was deeply influenced by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which he regarded as the
greatest historical event after the French Revolution of 1889. He followed the ideals of
socialism and remained an important socialist leader who stood solidity for giving
socialism a distinct meaning and philosophy and in concrete terms. He dreamt socialism
in the form of a new socialist civilization, which would be free from all types of
exploitations—social, economic and political and visualized that the existing civilization
could not be valid for the whole of mankind as it was one-sided and regional. Hence, he
conceived a new one, which would try to achieve approximation of the human race;
overcome class and caste conflicts and regional shifts through a comparatively equal
production all over the globe. Narendra Deva never deviated from the path of scientific
socialism. He watched with tolerance or amusement deviations from consideration from
his colleagues. The growth of Indian socialism during the last two decades, which span
the First and the Second World Wars, can be scientifically studied in the political and
social context of that time. This growth did not always move in a straight line and
suffered from false starts and set-backs. The root cause was centred on a number of
factors and these were-the hostility of the British authorities, recurrent economic crises,
the changing international scenario and, lastly, the violent shifts in the attitude of the
Communist International towards the nationalist struggle in India. The origin of the
organisation of “Left Politics” took place in the face of official British animosity
opposition and Congress suspicion. But Gandhian waves of Satyagraha Struggles, 3 gave
socialist ideas a new breathing space to emphasize the relevance of socialist philosophy
in the contemporary Indian scenario. It is no doubt that socialist ideas and parties gave a
certain social content and occasionally displayed a sharper edge to Indian nationalism as
represented by the Indian National Congress (INC) and they could not achieve more, due
to the international contradictions of the Left parties, the Congress leadership’s limited
grasp of the political realities and the challenge of the charismatic as well potent
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi throughout this period.4 The Gandhi led all India
movements and the British government’s response as well as the role of Left parties that
time remained a major arena of study in modern Indian history. The main purpose of this
chapter is to make an analytical and critical study of the major political ideas of Narendra
Deva. Moreover, Acharya Narendra Deva’s various socio- political thoughts have also
155
APPRAISAL
been compared mainly on the areas of his key ideological convergences and divergences
with Jayaprakash Narayan and Rammanohar Lohia.
Narendra Deva’s Entry into Politics
Narendra Deva’s nature was such that he would not have ventured into politics
but prevailing situations played an important role in the development of his personality,
character and inclinations and sometimes they change the entire way of his life. In view
of Narendra Deva’s family background, heritage and the influence of education, it is
easier to imagine him successfully earning money by becoming an ethical, brilliant and
successful lawyer like his father. The people who influenced his childhood were all
followers of Sanatan Dharma, basically liberal in outlook.5 Even those who attracted his
attention were also people of religious and spiritual inclinations. In all, there was little
possibility of his venturing out of this environment. Even when he attended the Lucknow
Session of the Congress (1930), with his father, he was there simply as a spectator. It was
only through his father that he came in contact with the leading personalities like
Ranade, Tilak and Ramesh Dutt.6 Beneras and Allahabad were two prime centres of
education during that time. Annie Besant’s Central Hindu College and Theosophical
Society had become the focus of attention among rich and influential people at that time.
It is not surprising therefore that Narendra Deva would desire to go to the Central Hindu
College, for studies. If we think that he had gone there for study, it could not be
rightfully claimed that he would not have entered active politics. The greater possibility
of course in the natural circumstances was that he would have proved a worthy heir to
his father, as a good lawyer in Faizabad.7 But this did not happen ultimately. Still, like
several other contemporary Congress leaders, he had entered the Congress as a lawyer
only and sacrificed as much or more, for his country. With his Faizabad friends,
Narendra Deva went to the Central College in Allahabad. Before getting admitted to the
Hindu Boarding House, he stayed for a few days with the famous Hindu writer, Pandit
Balkrishna. Pandit Janardan Bhatt, son of Balkrishna Bhatt, recounts that even at that
time, Narendra Deva was an innocent and humble person.8 At the Hindu Boarding
House, Narendra Deva found the fertile soil of social consciousness. The victory of
Japan, in the Russo-Japanese Wars,9 had greatly influenced the contemporary Indian
youth, who had greater awareness of their national dignity. Being an Asian, they
fervently sought a clearer identity and dignity for India and among these youth Narendra
Deva was one.10 In those days, the British rulers, in order to strengthen and sustain their
rule, started sowing the poison-seeds of communal conflicts, between Hindus and
Muslims. The 1905 Partition of Bengal was an active British move in this direction.
However, this only strengthened the anti-British sentiment not only among the Bengalis
but also the youth all over India.11 During that time different means were explored to
oust the British rule from India by armed revolution. The Hindu Boarding House
became a centre for youth with aggressive ideas and beliefs and, gradually, Narendra
Deva got influenced by these rebellious ideas and became an extremist activist. 12
Narendra Deva’s association with radical wings continued even after he left
college and he got himself actively involved in different political activities. The issue of
Partition of Bengal, the then Congress bifurcated on the rule of extremism. As a result,
156
APPRAISAL
two options for leadership presented themselves before the youth. One was the leaders,
who supported projecting their demands by the Constitutional methods, on the basis of
boycott, threat and action, and the other who believed that imperialist forces of Europe
could be ousted forcefully. Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh and Lala Lajpat
Rai were the main proponents of the latter group. Archarya Narendra Deva was deeply
moulded by the ideas of the latter and accepted Tilak as his leader.13 In 1907, Narendra
Deva attended the Calcutta Session of the Congress. The Congress leaders of extreme
nationalist views had already made a declaration about the use of indigenous products,
and boycott of foreign goods, a programme of awakening public consciousness,
strengthening public institutions and complete autonomy as the ultimate goal. This
extremist line of thinking was given publicity by leading newspapers like ‘The Calcutta
Daily’, ‘Vande Mataram’, etc.14 Narendra Deva took an oath to always use Swadeshi15
and he adhered to it throughout the rest of his life. Besides Tilak, he was also influenced
by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s novels in Bengali,16 and with Marxism and the Russian
revolution.
Narenda Deva’s public life formally began, when he got elected to the Faizabad
Municipal Corporation. However, his political career took off only when he opened a
branch of Annie Besant’s Home Rule League at Faizabad. During that time, he came in
contact with Jawaharlal Nehru,17 who was also the provincial secretary of the Home Rule
League. Narendra Deva separated the essence of Marxism from what was ephemeral
and he knew how much of it was applicable with the then changing scenario in India. He
was also a follower of Gandhi but much inclination failed to make him an anti-Marxist.
However, he avoided any unsubstantiated thesis or any false antithesis and unsure
dialectics, propagated by the Comintern during that time. He paid only a nominal
attention to the super-structure of almost supernatural belief the Communist leadership
claimed to have developed in the Soviet Union. This belief, in a way, led Narendra Deva
to disregard the lessons that many had hurriedly drawn even from Lenin’s experience.
Stalin had made little impact on him.18 He interpreted Marxian philosophy on his own
way and tried to implement those philosophies against the backdrop of the then Indian
condition.
As a true believer in Marxism he was neither dogmatic nor sectarian in his
attitude.19 He believed in class solidarity and felt that only the revolutionary intelligentsia
could organise the people for disciplined action, and where the masses were the class of
the future.20 He held that the Indian democratic movement required an alliance between
the lower middle class and the masses. The labour movement in India had to outgrow its
trade union character and develop political consciousness. 21 He was in favour of a
peasant organization, but did not want such an organization of the peasants to develop
too much political consciousness since this too much consciousness on many an
occasion had derailed the prime motive of Indian nationalism, and that is why he did not
want the organisation of the peasants merely to develop into ‘peasantism’.22 Narendra
Deva discussed the capitalist crisis and said that the socialist way was socialisation of the
means of production.23 Many of the misconceptions about Socialism had arisen even
among socialists because they were dealing with ‘utopian’ socialism and not ‘scientific’
157
APPRAISAL
socialism. “Socialism could not be established overnight. It had to grow. The
materialistic conception of history did not mean that scientific socialism was a
materialistic doctrine. Marx recognised both mind and matter as formative forces in
history and he had regarded man as an active agent who consciously shaped history.
Socialists must try to broaden the social basis of their movement by bringing into their
fold workers and peasants”24 said Narendra Deva. He further mentioned that the “truth
is that we are always willing to teach the masses but never to learn from them.”25
Narendra Deva also inspired the way of movements that Jawaharlal Nehru followed
during that time. It was Nehru who remained the main mentor for Narendra Deva’s
joining the Kashi Vidyapeeth as his political work-field. It was in Benaras at
Convocation of the Kashi Vidyapeeth, Narendra Deva had met Gandhi. He put the
customary gown on Gandhi, who was the chief guest at the function and was to deliver
the Convocation address. Curiously enough, Gandhi made no objection, though it was
most unusual for him to agree to do so. Gandhi was meticulous in always having his own
special costume and would not change the same. On the way home, Gandhi asked J.P,
who was also present at that ceremony, “How is it that you have kept such a jewel of a
man hidden from me and have never spoken to me about him?” 26 In reply, J.P. said,
“Mahatmaji, jewels do not go hunting for admires, it is for the men who want them to go
in search of them.”27 Indeed, a ‘jewel of man’ was Narendra Deva- the doyen among
Indian socialists. And gradually, he won the trust and affection of Gandhi. Gradually,
Narendra Deva became a great favourite of Gandhi, and the latter considered Deva good
for the Congress and the nation had twice proposed his name for Congress Presidentship.
But that was not to be for there were other powerful persons who did not like Narendra
Deva.28
There were several factors responsible for Narendra Deva’s pre-eminence as a
speaker and writer. One obviously was his deep and extensive learning. While at the
Kashi Vidyapeeth, he had made an exhaustive study of Marxism and Buddhist
philosophy and his deep interest in these two subjects continued till his last breath.29
Naturally endowed he was with an extraordinary memory, a keen intellect and a mind
that always looked for system and clarity. But all this learning did not mean to him
merely the accumulation of so much information. It gave him wisdom, understanding
and a wide vision, so that whenever he would refer to an important fact or event, it was
not as an isolated or fortuitous happening. He always tried to understand and explain it
in the light of general the law or the social force working behind it.30 Hence, his speeches
and writings were always above the personal level and had more than a momentary
significance. Besides this, whenever he criticised his opponents, his way of criticism did
not leave any bitterness for the opponents. His style of speeches and writings always
reflected the deepest traits of his character and personality and always succeeded in
achieving a unified view and a look at the world with calmness, understanding and
sympathy. In a Hindi article on Progressive Literature, published in the Jana Vani, he
once said, “Our life is divided into seemingly different and exclusive sections. Inside and
among these sections various kinds of struggles are going on all the time. A truly
philosophical outlook would rise above this struggle and exclusiveness and assigning
158
APPRAISAL
each to its proper place, would present a unified view of life.”31 One such trait which is
regarded as the basis of all eloquence is complete sincerity and Narendra Deva
throughout his life spoke and wrote on matters about which he felt passionately. He,
therefore, not only appealed to the mind but also touched the heart. His favourite subject
was socialism, i.e., a new social order based on equality; justice and freedom and
whenever he spoke on this subject he always rose to great heights and carry his audience
with him.
Narendra Deva maintained a low profile while participating in the Congress
sessions. However, he began voicing his thoughts while working as a member of the
Provincial Congress Committee, at the Kashi Vidyapeeth. In the Provincial Congress
Committee, there was a provision for a representative from the Kashi Vidyapeeth, the
responsibility he discharged well, for several years. As a disciplined member of the
Congress Party, Narendra Deva abided by its decisions and voiced his differences not
verbally but by casting votes. The tactics he always followed was not to denigrate his
opponent’s image to the public. His opponents propagated that Narendra Deva led the
Congress Socialist Party (C.S.P.) with indifference to maintain his Congress portfolio.
However, this allegation against him was not all correct.32
As a member of the Congress, Narendra Deva always advocated a broadening of
its social base by enlisting the support of the small peasants, the working class, small
artisans in the village, and going for land reforms, labour welfare, and abolition of
casteism and communalism, civil liberties, basic education etc. Simultaneously, he
maintained his belief in the Marxian theory of class struggle. In the light of his own
experience of the then Indian problems, he called for- (1) the adoption of an economic
programme, (2) the building up of a revolutionary leadership, and (3) class
organization.33
.Narendra Deva was influenced by Buddhism and Indian philosophy of Dharma
and in later years also by the religious-political philosophy of Gandhi. Each political
ideas of Narendra Deva had a blend of Buddhism and Marxism. He was first and
foremost a humanist and discovered a common ground between Buddhism and Marxism.
The unique personality of Buddha, with his fearless rationalism, its repudiation of all
dogma and ritual and his boundless love for all living beings, must have cast a spell on
Deva throughout his political career. In fact, it was easy for him to see that Buddhism
and Marxism both were great revolutionary movements against the prevailing stagnation
and decadence and both held out a promise of liberation to the suffering humanity. Both
were positivists in their attempt to shift the centre from the worship of God to the service
of man. Both these philosophies emphasised the importance of conduct against that of
mere belief.34 His magnum opus completed in the fag end of his life and published after
his death. This monumental work on Buddhist religion and philosophy in Hindi entitled
Buddha Dharma Darshana is considered by any as quite innovative and authoritative. In
fact, his thorough study of Buddhism influenced him quite deeply, because in every
verse of Buddhist teachings, he found a tacit flavour of the idea of Socialism. Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan once said, ‘Buddhism approximates remarkably to the advanced
scientific thoughts of the nineteenth century.35 Marx, too, for the first time, put social and
159
APPRAISAL
economic thinking securely on a scientific basis. Thus, these two systems were found
harmoniously and gave rise to a new synthesis in Narendra Deva’s mind-set. However,
when Gandhi launched the civil disobedience movement in 1930-’32, and the great
world depression of 1929-’33 took place, a new wave of thinking evolved in the mind-set
of Narendra Deva. He was arrested by the British Government for civil disobedience. In
jail he formulated his philosophy of a socialist democracy. He was fully well-versed in
European political theory and the depression convinced him that Marx had rightly
outlined the course of capitalist development in his Historical Materialism.36 He could
not accept the Gandhian creed, but he had deep feeling for the moral appeal of Gandhi’s
programme. He was a convinced socialist, but he felt British socialism was unsuited to
India, a predominantly agrarian rather than urban industrial society. 37 He had deep regard
for the Russian Revolution. However, the Indian Communists during that time attacked
Gandhi and branded the Congress as stooges of Indian capitalists. The CPI (Communist
Party of India) also opposed the Indian National Congress.38 The CPI influenced by the
Third International, believed that the Congress way of mass political struggle was not
favourable for the Indian scenario because it felt that these mass movements would only
weaken the anti-national forces and discredit Indian nationalism. Gandhi’s means of
political struggle was not favourably looked upon by the Third International as well as
CPI. These view point of the third International was vehemently opposed by Narendra
Deva, since he had identified himself with the mass political struggle as initiated by the
Congress. In fact, Narendra Deva considered nationalism was a potent social force and it
was unwise to create a head-on clash between nationalism and class struggle. 39
The Birth of the Socialist Movement in India: The Rise and Objectives
of the Congress Socialist Party (C.S.P.)
The birth of the Indian socialist movement could be stressed from the early 1920s
when two parallel developments took place, the birth of the All India Trade Union
Congress and the amalgamation of the early Communist groups. Politically, the
Communists followed the theoretical principle of Marxism and Leninism and were
against the Indian bourgeoisie, who existed also on the Congress platform. Also small
and scattered Communist groups had developed during that time a militant trade union
movement whose main objectives and slogans were revolutionary socialism. Within the
Congress these small groups allied themselves with radical Congressmen in popularising
the concept of complete independence and pushing forward the programme of direct
mass action. Moreover, these communist groups were more active than anybody in
developing militant trade unionism and other mass movements through popularization of
the ideology of Marxism and Leninism. Unfortunately, these activities failed to create
little impact on the thinking and activities of anti-imperialist militants in the Indian
national Congress except some Congress leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas
Bose. The main reason behind the weak understanding was that an ideological fight was
going on between the left and the right in the leadership of the Congress on the Congress
declaration of complete independence as its goal. Meanwhile, in the Meerut Conspiracy
case, the British government had arrested all the top and middle level of the Communist
Party and the pro-Party Unionist leaders. Most of them faced trial from 1929 -1933. This
160
APPRAISAL
largely shattered the political activities of the Communist Party from top to bottom
during those years. It is therefore possible to argue that the critics of the Communist
movement in India, who felt that the Communists were completely out of touch with the
Congress and had no influence on the nationalist movements was not at all truly correct.
The Congress Socialist Party, or the C.S.P., was a left-wing group within the
Congress. It was formed with Acharya Narendra Deva as President and Jayaprakash
Narayan as General Secretary in 1934. The rise of the Party was due to the increased left
influence in the Indian national Congress. By 1935, one third of the Congress members
were Congress socialists. Though, they remained active in the workers and peasants
movement, they rejected the sectarian attitude of the Communist Party of India. They
were influenced by Marxism-Leninism and its members ranged from the advocates of
arms struggle to non-violent resistance. The prime ideal of this Party was decentralized
socialism in which a substantial share of the economic power would rest on co-
operatives, trade unions, independent farmers, and local authorities. J.P. was arrested
and placed in the Nasik central Jail in 1932 by the British Government in connection
with the civil-disobedience movement. Here, he met Rammanohar Lohia, Narendra
Deva, Minoo Masani, Achyut Patwardhan, Ashok Mehta, Yusuf Meherally and other
national leaders who were also arrested in connection with this movement. In jail, all
these arrested leaders had a dialogue regarding their future course of actions and decided
to form a new Party with a socialist flavour within the Congress. Immediately, after his
release in 1934, J.P. convened a meeting in Patna which founded the Bihar Congress
Socialist Party with J.P. as General Secretary and Narendra Deva as President.
The prime motive behind the Socialist Party was to accomplish two major
fundamental tasks. The first was to help the building up of a powerful national front
against the British Raj, for the purpose of wresting political freedom from the latter. The
second task was to spread the ideas of socialism and prepare the ground for its
introduction once political freedom was won. The accomplishment of these two
fundamental tasks was also what the Congress Socialist Party had been working for.
Democratization of the Congress and the influencing of its policy from a Socialist
standpoint have also been the two objects of the C.S.P during that time.
In the words of Prem Bhasin, “The Congress Socialists Party is a revolutionary
Marxist organization. It stands for the establishment of the Mazdoor-Kisan Raj, in which
all power is transferred to labourers and peasants, and the means of production,
distribution and exchange owned by the state. At the same time, it stands for the
elimination of the foreign rule and foreign vested interest in the country. This second
stand gives it a politically revolutionary nature, and has made it to be a part of the
Congress, the premier anti-imperialist organization in the country, and acts as its
vanguard.”40 In fact, the birth of the Socialist movement made Narendra Deva quite
unpopular among various Congress followers. Meanwhile, in April 1934, at Banaras,
Sampuranananda published a pamphlet titled ‘The Outline of Socialism’ in which he
stressed the need for the formation of an All India Socialist Party as a wing of the
Congress. The Congress Socialists belonged to the westernized middle class and they
were influenced by the ideas of Marx, Gandhi and the Social Democracy of the West.
161
APPRAISAL
They practised Marxian Socialism, Congress Nationalism and liberal Democracy of the
West. In order to popularize this idea of C.S.P., J.P., being the organizing secretary,
campaigned in different parts of the country to organize the provincial wings of the
Party.
In May 1934, the All-India Congress Committee met at Patna to review the
situation arising out of the withdrawal of civil disobedience and they turned towards a
parliamentary programme. To prevent an outright drift to Constitutionalism and to put a
more dynamic programme before the country, a Conference of Socialist Congressmen
was also convened separately at the Anjamen-i-Islamia Hall, Patna, 17 May, 1934, on the
eve of the All India Congress Committee Session. More than hundred prominent
delegates from all over the country in this meeting participated. On the suggestion of
Jayaprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Deva presided over the meeting. While
speaking at the conference, Deva said, that, “the masses were the class of the future. The
socialists had an important role to play in widening the social base of our national
movement and such a widening of the social bases, could be achieved only by
formulating economic policies for the welfare of the masses.”41 Being a Marxist, he
looked upon the fight for socialism as inseparable from the struggle for political
independence. He further visualized a link-up of the economic struggle with national
struggle for it would give social content to the national struggle. According to him, mass
action was as important as political action. The poor peasants in the country could not
get rid of their suffering without political action, so the fight for independence could not
be waged without mass action. Narendra Deva, therefore, held that the Congress was as
important as the Kisan Sabha. Through co-ordination of the activities of these two
organizations, one could build a strong anti-imperialist force in the country and also pave
the way for the introduction of Socialism. The peasantry, Deva declared, would be the
backbone of such anti-imperialist forces in the country.42 In the same speech, he also
said: “That he was neither dogmatic nor sectarian in his attitude. To him, the dialectical
method was a living method of great elasticity; and one who followed it, had to adapt
himself to the changing situations. Once he knew the limitations and the possibilities of a
particular situation, he would not sacrifice the gains merely for the sake of a doctrine or a
dogma, if those gains formed an inevitable stage to be reached on the way to
socialism.”43` Therefore, he pleaded for a widening of the social base of the freedom
movement and mentioned at that time the parliamentary institutions had collapsed in
Europe as the capitalist democracy had a narrow social base and always kept the fate of
real democracy hanging in the balance. No constitution could by itself provide a sound
foundation for democracy. Democracy would not take root unless the social base was
broadened and unless there was “economic emancipation of the masses.”44
Thus, this speech of Narendra Deva clearly exhibited his deep thinking and wide
reading as a progressive leader of the country and amply exhibits that he had great
farsightedness, independence of thought and knowledge of the situation. Deva touched
upon several other issues. The speech to a certain extent determined the trend of the
discussions which followed and influenced the resolutions that were proposed.45 The
162
APPRAISAL
masterly presidential address of Deva created quite a stir, and as a result an All-India
Congress Socialist group was formed with J.P. as its Organizing Secretary.
On October 22-23, 1934, another conference was held in Bombay, where an all
India level ‘Congress Socialist Party’ was formed with J.P. as General Secretary,
Minoo Masani as Joint Secretary and Narendra Deva as President. Each members of this
party referred to the other members as ‘Comrade’ following this meeting. The meeting
also decided that Minoo Masani would mobilize as well as popularize the C.S.P’s
ideology in Bombay, and Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya and Puroshottam Trikamdas were
assigned to percolate the ideology in other parts of Maharashtra. This meeting was quite
striking, since it adopted a comprehensive programme as a blue print for a Socialist
Society in India. It also adopted in principle the redistribution of land among the
peasants, liquidation of debts owned by peasants and workers and decided to organize
the workers and the peasants for their own economic uplift as well as for carrying on the
movement for the achievement of independence and socialism. Moreover, this Bombay
meeting also approved the socialization of key industries, insurance and public utilities,
with a view to progressive socialization of the instruments of production, distribution and
exchange and where the state was to encourage and control co-operative and collective
farming. Furthermore, the C.S.P. adopted separate programmes for the workers and
peasants. For workers the demands were freedom to form trade unions and the right to go
on strike, living wage, a forty hour week, and insurance against sickness, unemployment,
accident and old age. For the peasants its demands were abolition of landlordism,
encouragement of co-operative farming, exemption from rents and taxes on uneconomic
holdings and abolition of feudal levies.
This initiative of the C.S.P. was not favourably looked-upon by many Congress
personalities and that also added fuel to the fire burning among some Congress
members following a statement made earlier by J.P., “Our work within the Congress is
governed by the policy of developing into a true anti-imperialist body”. 46 The formation
of the Congress Socialist Party had created a mixed reaction among the Congressmen. It
was felt mainly by Swarajists and some Congress leaders that the formation of the Party
would divide the Congress organization. They differed on the question of the
Government of India Act 1935, the formation of ministries in 1937, the organizations of
Kisan Sabhas, agitation in the Indian States etc.47
Gandhi was totally against the Congress Socialist party and he made it clear that
if the Congress Socialist Party gained dominance in the Congress, he would not remain
in the Congress. At the same time, he also did not approve of class war, expropriation
and violence. In spite of Gandhi’s view, while honouring his comment, J.P., in another
statement said, “Gandhism has played its part. It cannot carry us further and hence we
must march and be guided by the ideology of socialism.” 48 Unlike Gandhi, personalities
like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose welcomed the formation of the Congress
Socialist Party, though neither Nehru nor Bose joined the Socialist Party. In the annual
session of the Congress, held at Lucknow in April, 1936, in his presidential address
Nehru said, “I see no way of ending the poverty, vast unemployment, degradation and
subjection of the Indian people except through socialism….that involves vast
163
APPRAISAL
revolutionary changes in our political and social structure, ending vested interests in the
land and industry as well as the feudal autocratic Indian States systems. That means
ending private profit system by the highest ideals of co-operative service.”49 In fact,
following this statement in 1936, Nehru inducted three Congress Socialist leaders
Narendra Deva, J.P, and Achyut Patwardhan into the Congress Working Committee,
along with another Leftist Subhas Chandra Bose.
The C.S.P. during that time was an integral part and not separated from the
Congress. The C.S.P’s draft constitution defined that the members were all required to
be members of the Indian National Congress first. The members of various communal or
political organizations, whose goals were incompatible with the ideology of the Indian
National Congress, were barred from the C.S.P. membership. As a result many
Communists, who disagreed with the Congress ideology and its line of political action
against the then British government, preferred the C.S.P, which had adopted Marxism as
an ideology in 1936. They were also ready to join the C.S.P. In the Faizpur Conference,
the C.S.P. had propounded a doctrine that was aimed at transforming the Indian National
Congress into an anti-imperialist front and which pleaded to work for the peasants. One
of the prime goals of the C.S.P. was to change society only gradually and by way of
introducing social reforms. They were more under the influence of Western Liberalism
rather than Marxian Communism. They did not agree with Marx that reforms and
changes could come only by violent means. They continued to link their philosophy
with Indian nationalism and did not support the ideas of the Congress to extend
conditional support to the British Government during the Second World War. They
argued that independence could be achieved only by the direct struggle of the masses and
the War provided a golden opportunity for the same. They started mass revolutionary
activities which increased considerably during the Quit India movement. The C.S.P.
also argued that Hindu-Muslim Unity could be achieved not by compromise but by
laying stress on economic issues which would equally affect the Hindu and Muslim
masses of the country and did not favour a Congress and Muslim League accord on
Pakistan.
With this ideas in the back-ground although the C.S.P. was not able to speed its
many important issues, it succeeded in giving a radical orientation to the Congress
policies in certain respect. In fact, the C.S.P. served as a rallying point for all the radical
elements and at the same time it organized peasants’ movements and stood as a link
between various trade unions. In spite of ideological differences with the Marxist
leaders like J.P. and Narendra Deva, Socialist Democrats like M.R.Masani, Gandhian
like Patwardhan and populist like Rammanohar Lohia stood together. In other words,
their socialist principles with a combination of Gandhian ideas brought these leaders
under one umbrella and it was due to their efforts that the Indian National Congress
decided to adopt a socialist pattern of society after independence. The C.S.P. was mainly
formed by those who wanted to link the anti-imperialist struggle with socialism. They
felt that it would, on one hand, motivate the working classes to join the struggle and
provide the party the necessary striking power and on the other, it would create
favourable conditions for the establishment of socialism in free India. Nevertheless, the
164
APPRAISAL
Party described itself as Marxist-Leninist, though some prominent leaders like Lohia and
Ashoka Meheta were not in agreement with this line of thinking. However, J.P. and
Narendra Deva were Marxists and they accepted the request of the Communist Party of
India to be a part of the C.S.P.
Meanwhile, the C.P.I., under the leadership of Dange, came to believe socialist
direction to the independence movement of India, coincided with the Radical Humanist
Party of M.N.Roy, which also favoured a socialist agenda for the future independent
India. As a result of these ideological confluences among the C.S.P., C.P.I., and Radical
Humanists, the Indian youth became mostly influenced by the philosophy of socialist
principles. The national independence movement too swayed towards socialist thoughts
with the congregation of the Congress Socialist Party and the other Leftist parties.
Unfortunately, during that time the C.P.I. was banned by the British Government. As a
result the Comintern changed its tactics and followed a policy to forge popular fronts
with all democrats in order to meet the rising challenge of the Nazis in Germany and the
Fascists in Italy. This changing tactical line made the Communists join the Congress
Party by becoming a part of the C.S.P. The potential reason was the policy followed by
the Soviet Union under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, the then General Secretary of the
Soviet Communist Party, who was accused on signing a non-aggression pact in 1939
with Nazi Germany before the Second World War.50
These factional political differences led to long-term estrangement between the
Socialists and Communists which turned into enmity as the C.P.I. started to describe the
war as the people’s war, rather than the imperialist war, after the attack by Germany on
the Soviet Union. The C.S.P. was in the vanguard of the Quit India struggle, while the
C.P.I. was supporting the war efforts of the British Government. In retrospect, it appears
necessary to state that if the C.P.I. had functioned as an independent entity without the
strings attached to the Comintern, as the Communist Party of China had done a lasting
unity of the Socialists and Communists would have come about.51 Besides this, on a
number of issues several differences cropped up during that time. The Socialists, who
shared the democratic ethos of the Congress and tolerance and at the same time never,
became admirers of Gandhi’s method of constructive programme and the spinning
wheel. J.P. in a pamphlet titled ‘Why Socialism’ vehemently criticized Gandhi’s means
and ways of Indian nationalism. He further strongly opposed the tendency in the
Congress to return to constitutionalism. When the Congress decided to form Provincial
governments after the general election in 1937, the socialists had refused to join with the
process. In spite of these views of J.P., Narendra Deva had been elected as the leader of
the Congress Legislature Party on behalf of the C.S.P. The main function of the C.S.P,
during that time was to observe the political line of the Congress. This watchdog of the
C.S.P. led several internal clashes on points of policies mainly in Bihar and U.P. and the
socialist leaders launched the popular Kisan agitations against such Congress policies.
Meanwhile, the C.S.P. was keen that trade unions and Kisan Sabhas get affiliated
to the Congress and obtain representation in its organizational structure. At the time of
the Tripuri Session of the AICC, in 1939, there was a showdown between the two sides
on the resolution moved by Govind Ballabh Pant that the elected President Subhas Bose
165
APPRAISAL
should constitute his Working Committee in Consultation with Gandhi.52 This was in
fact a testing moment for the C.S.P. leaders. They were faced with the choice of joining
Bose. The Communists expressed their reservation on this proposal and started thinking
of leaving the Congress and planning an alternative Leftist leadership in the Indian
national struggle. However, the C.S.P. desisted from the split and therefore observed
neutrality in the voting. It was felt by the Congress Socialists who argued that Gandhi’s
leadership of the freedom struggle was indispensable as two big civil disobedience mass
struggles had been waged under his stewardship and the next struggle was not far away
and pointed out that a disunited freedom movement would cause irreparable damage to
the anti-imperialist struggle.53
The socialist leaders took a leading part in the anti-war campaign. The
participation of the industrial workers and kisans in large numbers in the Quit India
struggle vindicated the C.S.P’s understanding that the espousal by the Congress of their
concerns and adoption of pro-socialist objectives would enable the working classes to
join the freedom movement. During that time Yusuf Meherally travelled all over the
country to meet party workers and discuss with them the next phase of the struggle. 54
In 1946, J.P. published a pamphlet titled “My Picture of Socialism” where he
clarified the C.S.P’s thinking on socio-economic issues. Although the socialists had
started as Marxists and were critical of Gandhi’s methods and his philosophy, gradually
they drew close to him. One prime reason was their principled stand on anti-
imperialism, and against feudal landlord- peasant relationship and its adverse effect on
agriculture. They differed with Gandhi on his theory of trusteeship, based on truth and
non-violence. The Congress Socialists rejected political compromises that were being
worked out between the government and the Congress and they decided not to join the
Constituent Assembly, since it had been constituted on a limited franchise and
representatives from the princely states were nominated undemocratically. 55
On the occasion of the 1940 Ramgarh Congress Conference, the C.P.I., had
released a declaration called Proletarian Path, which sought to utilize the weakened state
of the British Empire during war and gave a call for a general strike, no- tax, no-rent
policies and mobilize for an armed uprising. The National Executive of the C.S.P.
assembled at Ramgarh took a decision to expel all Communists from the C.S.P. on
account of their line of political thinking.56 The C.S.P. became particularly active in the
Quit India movement of August 1942. Unfortunately, despite his socialist predilection
Nehru did not join the C.S.P., which created some rancour among the C.S.P. members.
This action of Nehru frustrated them because they had hoped that their socialist slogans
would percolate into action through Nehru’s leadership. At the time of commencement
of the 1942 struggle, many CSP workers were behind the bars. Nevertheless, it was the
C.S.P. which played the most splendid and central role in the Quit India movement. This
movement was totally manned by the socialists who sought to channelize into a full
fledged revolution. The Quit India call was given on 8 August 1942, where the Congress
adopted a resolution calling for “the immediate withdrawal of British powers from India
and the establishment of a united federal state in India in which power must essentially
belong to the workers in the fields and factories.”57The very next day, all the members of
166
APPRAISAL
the Congress Working Committee were arrested. Those socialists, who escaped the
arrest, led the movement with great enthusiasm. A few of them went underground.
Although the movement gained momentum, the British Government succeeded in
crushing it and many C.S.P. leaders were arrested. During that time, Narendra Deva
along with Nehru had been detained at Ahmednagar Fort. He was released on 15 June
1945. The war situation had largely eased by that time. The Congress leaders got busy
with the negotiations for the transfer of power and they ultimately decided to get power
through negotiation and compromise.
But the Socialist leaders still hoped that the Congress would continue the struggle
for the independence of the country. They preferred to build up the revolutionary power
of the masses. Yet Nehru and other Congress leaders favoured to strike a deal through
negotiation and this action of the Congress leaders further frustrated the Congress
Socialists who felt that the fate of the country was thus sealed. On 24 March 1946, the
British Cabinet Mission arrived in India and changed the entire Indian scenario. The
socialists were opposed to it because they failed to reconcile the “August Revolution” of
the Congress with its decision to negotiate with the Cabinet Mission. The entire
proceedings made them suspicious. They ultimately resolved to oppose the Working
Committee’s resolution which accepted the recommendations of the Cabinet Mission.
The socialists were positive that this understanding between the British government and
the Congress remained highly contrary to the latter’s declared policy on India’s
independence. They were severely shocked by the settlement which was reached without
any guarantee of India’s liberation by the British Government.
This changing mindset of the Congress leadership greatly frustrated the socialist
leaders and, ultimately, they refused to participate in the Constituent Assembly, as it was
not a sovereign body based on adult franchise and it preceded the Interim Government.
To the socialists, the formation of the Interim Government, the convening of the
Constituent Assembly and ultimately the partition of the country were acts of surrender
which followed in quite succession. The Congress leaders had no belief in people’s
power. Although Gandhi wanted to have another struggle with the British Government,
he realized that he had lost his hold over his followers. Therefore, the long journey
towards independence finally came to an end with a mass exodus of people and
bloodshed, and the Congress leaders formed the Government.
Narendra Deva after India’s Independence
After independence, the C.S.P. broke away from the Congress, under the
influence of J.P., to form the socialist Party of India where J.P. and Narendra Deva made
making arduous efforts for the unity of the socialist forces all over India. The major
reason behind this break off was that the socialists were dead against any sort of
compromise or co-operation with the British. The C.S.P. felt that though the Congress
could be an effective instrument of certain national tasks, it could not be a fit instrument
of socialism. They were also much disappointed at the apathy of the Communist Party
towards national tasks during that time.58
167
APPRAISAL
However, the departure of the C.S.P. leaders from the Congress was also based
on several other important factors. Among them Narendra Deva firmly felt that in order
to gain full benefits of freedom, it must come on a revolutionary basis. For him,
revolution was the kingpin of social change. “The People” he said; “must establish their
own power of resistance to replace the government if it does not carry out its own policy
and programme.”59 Narendra Deva was convinced that there was no escape from class
struggle in India and he made an attempt to combine it with the technique of Satyagraha.
He thought that the two together would prove an effective instrument in the hands of the
downtrodden to bring about social transformation in the country. Deva therefore said;
“We should accept the technique of non-violence. But it does not mean that we should
shun the theory of class struggle. As a matter of fact, it provides the core of the party.
Gandhi made a unique contribution by discovering the technique of non-violence.”60
Unfortunately, this political line of thinking of Narendra Deva was not favourably looked
upon by the then leading Congress leaders and mainly by Sarder Ballabhbhai Patel
(Sarder Patel), who felt that with India’s independence there was no longer any room for
such organized groups within the Congress. What is important in understanding Patel’s
role in forcing the Socialists out of Congress is not that he had differences with them- for
such differences he had for many years-but that after independence, he felt that the
socialists either had to disband their organization within the Congress or to count
themselves out. What was also important was that the Socialists keenly felt that Patel and
the Congress leadership were systematically attempting to push them out of the party.
Ultimately, the Congress Party did take steps to make the socialist position inside
Congress unmaintainable.
The Congress leadership first demanded of the socialists that considering their
differences with the Congress, they should drop “Congress” from their name, and not to
exploit the title. The socialists ultimately agreed to do so at the Kanpur Conference of the
Congress Socialist Party in early 1947 where it was decided to open the party to non-
Congressmen. This meeting also decided that the Socialist Party would also to admit
members from the Princely States, who had not been allowed to join the Congress Party
because the Congress constitution did not recognize branches in those states till then.61
After the Kanpur Convention, the Congress commenced its campaign to oust the
socialists from their political platform. A Congress committee was set up immediately to
consider amending the Congress Constitution to prohibit organized groups within the
party. In February 1948, soon after Gandhi’s assassination, the All India Congress
Committee voted in favour of adding a clause to the Congress Constitution, barring
membership in the Congress to those who were members of political parties having
separate creeds and constitutions.
The Congress leadership severed its remaining links with the socialists and, at the
Socialist Party Convention at Nasik, in March 1948, the socialists agreed to dissolve all
connections with the Congress. But this decision was made only after considerable effort
on the part of a group of both Congress and Socialist leaders to heal the breach between
the opposing sections of both parties. Speaking at the Nasik Conference in 1948,
Narendra Deva said: “Quitting the Congress is not a pleasant affair. I have been a
168
APPRAISAL
Congress worker for the past thirty years…It is not that we are in a hurry to quit the
Congress. The Congress is compelling us to get out of it.”62 It is a historical fact that
Narendra Deva had no regret about leaving the Congress. The cause that inspired him to
enter politics was more important for him than power. How to further the cause was his
foremost anxiety. He looked upon power not as an end in itself but as a means to bring
about social change. Gandhi particularly was not in favour of the socialists leaving the
Congress. As Narendra Deva, in an article wrote, “A few leaders of the Socialist party
met Gandhiji. He was of the opinion that the time was not ripe for the socialists to leave
the Congress. He wished that for some time the Congress should carry on with the co-
operation of all sections and face the difficult problems of the country…He believed that
in the existing conditions co-operation of the socialists with the Congress was
essential.”63
From 1946 until his death in early 1948, Gandhi made considerable efforts to
keep the socialists within the Congress and he had frequent consultations with the
socialist leaders. Gandhi and the Socialists were particularly drawn together as a result of
the Partition of India which they both deeply regretted and also by their agreement on the
future of the Congress. With the passage of the amendment to the Congress constitution
(over Gandhi’s objection) which banned all political organizations having separate
constitutions within its fold, even the most reluctant members of the Socialist party
agreed to leave. A day before Gandhi’s assassination in late January 1948, J.P.
personally told him of their intention to leave. Gandhi said he was sorry and thought that
it would be a difficult task for them, but made no effort at that late date to prevent them
from carrying through their decision. As a result, Gandhi’s death dissolved whatever
emotional barrier to a break might have remained. At that time when the Socialist party
broke away from the Congress party, Deva found himself confronted with a moral
question--namely whether or not he should continue to be a member of the State
Assembly as a Congress candidate. After deep thought, on 31 March 1848, he resigned
from the State Assembly along with 12 other socialists. The statement that he made
while resigning was one of restraint, grace and dignity. He asserted, “We want to assure
you that we have not taken this step out of any sprit of ill-will or animosity. There is no
bitterness within us. Many of our friends and colleagues are in the Congress and we will
maintain cordial relations with them. We know that this separation will be equally
painful to them. But the ideals and aspirations we have shared will still keep us bound
together.”64 The socialist leaders were thus true to their ideal of building up a new
society based on democracy and social justice. After resigning from the Congress,
Narendra Deva decided to seek re-election as a candidate of his own party, the Socialist
Party. He contested a bye –election from Faizabad, his home constituency. The Congress
party set up Baba Raghava Das, a Sannyasi against him, and used the religious appeal of
the electorate to defeat him. Narendra Deva was deeply hurt by the kind of unprincipled
politics. He ‘realized’, as Achyut Patwardhan wrote, that “Jawaharlal Nehru as well as
the other Congress leaders valued political power more than their ideals.” 65 The socialists
were convinced that in the circumstances prevailing in India immediately after
independence, their party alone could fulfil the need for a popular opposition. To them,
169
APPRAISAL
the Congress after independence seemed to have assumed the character of a monolithic
party in the absence of a strong opposition. The Communist Party and other
revolutionary groups, on the other hand, were hostile to the very concept of democracy.
Therefore, the Socialist Party was the main opposition group which could play the role of
a radical but responsible opposition within the framework of parliamentary democracy.
They offered an alternative to those who had become disillusioned with the Congress but
who had no wish to turn to the Communists. The socialists had two objectives in their
hands: One, to build themselves up into an independent party outside the Congress and
the other was to perform the role of a democratic opposition. Narendra Deva considered
an opposition party essential for democracy. He said: “It is beyond doubt that an
Opposition is essential for the success of democracy-an Opposition which believes in the
essentials of democracy, which does not want to identify the state with the
denominational religion, and which should criticize the government in a constructive
sprit and not for the sake of sheer criticisms… Unfortunately, there is no tradition of
democracy in our country and instead communalism is on the ascendant. We are not used
to democracy. Hence, in the absence of a constructive Opposition, it is very likely that
the spirit of dictatorship might become dominant here.”66 He further continued: “If you
refused to accept the need for an Opposition party, it only means that you support
absolute government. Indian governments are slowly moving towards dictatorship. It is
their claim that the present rule is all right and as such it should be unquestionably
supported. In the name of national government the people are asked to regard it as the
sole repository of good sense and justice, and as such have full faith in it. Our rulers
today cannot stand criticism, and they are extremely confident of themselves. In fact,
they are so vain as to think they can take care of the present emergency without anyone’s
help or co-operation.”67 By 1951, the leaders of the Socialist Party recognized that if they
were to be victorious in the 1952 General Elections they would have to admit within
their party the dissidents who broke away from the Congress, or, as an alternative,
arrange an electoral alliance with them. Attempts were made to effect an alliance
between the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) and the Socialist Party but without
success. The socialists performed badly in the 1952 elections and won only a quarter of
the number of seats they had hoped for and it was the Communists and their allies who
emerged as second to the Congress, both in the Centre and in the State Assemblies.68
In the months following the 1952 General Elections steps were taken by the
Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party and the Socialist party to merge. In late September 1952, the
merger was completed and the joint party was named the Praja Socialist Party (PSP).69 A
new National Executive was appointed with Kripalani as Chairman and Ashoka Mehta
as General Secretary. Narendra Deva was a member of the National Executive
Committee. The prime aim of this Party was to achieve a democratic socialist society
free from social, political and economic exploitation, by peaceful means. In later years, a
section of the Forward Bloc also merged into the P.S.P. The three ideological elements
which remained the core goal of the P.S.P. were Marxism, Democratic Socialism and
Gandhism. Before his death in February 1956, Narendra Deva was the leading
spokesman for Marxism in the party, although his anti-Communist feelings were well-
170
APPRAISAL
known. Ashoka Mehta was perhaps the most outspoken advocate of Democratic
Socialism and J.P. was the most outspoken of the Gandhians. Narendra Deva, the
Chairman of the Socialist party, did not like the merger of the Socialist party with the
Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party; he finally accepted it as a ritual the proposal. To note the
merger decision was taken by the Socialist party without his consent when he was in
China in 1952.
The merger of the Socialist party, the KMPP and the Forward Bloc, the first
conference of the P.S.P. was held at Allahabad, under the Chairmanship of Acharya
Kriplani. In his illuminating address to the conference, Narendra Deva in his
characteristic style said, “The merger of the KMPP, Forward Bloc and Socialist Party to
form the P.S.P. is like the confluence of the Ganga, the Yamuna and the Saraswati, but, I
hope, the stream of socialism in this merger will not remain hidden like the Saraswati”.70
The climax of the sarcasm came when he warned, “Let the process of the merger of the
three streams stop here only. If you further aspire to merge with the ocean of the
Congress in the hope that you will acquire vastness, do not forget that the water of the
ocean is salty and ferocious crocodiles are hidden in the ocean to swallow you.”71 He
received the loudest ovation from the delegates. After the unification of the Socialist
party, the KMPP and the Forward Bloc, Ashoka Mehta had raised a new controversial
question in the socialist movement. Does a party need an ideology and social
philosophy? In response to this question, Narendra Deva’s reply was very clear and
unequivocal and he said: “For the success of the government, a programme might be
adequate but to run a party dedicated to social change that had to motivate its cadres for a
revolutionary transformation of the society, ideology and social philosophy were
essential.”72
From 23-27 May 1952, a special convention of the Socialist party was held at
Panchmarhi, in Madhya Pradesh. Since Narendra Deva who was the Chairman of the
party was away in China on a cultural delegation, Lohia presided over the session. In this
Panchmarhi convention Lohia presented a well integration theory of socialism. This
convention proved a turning point in the history of the socialist movement. For the first
time the differences that had been dormant among the socialist leaders came to the
surface. J.P. was singled out for the party’s defeat in the election and he bravely took
upon himself the entire blame for the defeat. In his presidential speech, Lohia spelt out
his famous thesis known as “New Doctrine” and J.P., welcomed the latter’s new thesis.
The ideological differences among the socialist leaders remained and the schism
eventually tore up the Socialist movement. Early in 1953, Prime Minister Nehru
approached J.P. and expressed a desire for co-operation. On J.P’s request, Nehru met
Narendra Deva and Acharya Kripalani separately and invited them to discuss the matter
in detail. An informal meeting of the P.S.P. leaders, which Lohia refused to attend, was
held in Delhi at the beginning of March to consider the question. J.P. and Ashoka Mehta
favoured co-operation but Narendra Deva, Acharya Kripalani and the absent Lohia were
vehemently opposed to the talks. Deva was not in favour of supporting the government,
still he said: “I am of the view that we should give our co-operation on the merit of the
programmes acceptable to us. To me the issue of co-operation is not the question of an
171
APPRAISAL
ideology. But it will be suicidal for the party to support the government.” 73 The Delhi
meeting took the view that for co-operation, prior agreement was necessary and drew up
a fourteen point programme which was forwarded to Nehru. The Prime Minister,
however, did not endorse the proposal and as a result when J.P. met him again on March
16 1953, the co-operation idea was eventually dropped. With a view to resolving the
controversies on ideological and strategic issues stemming from the Nehru-J.P. talks, a
special convention of the P.S.P. was organized at Betul from 14-18 June, 1953. By this
time, the proposal for co-operation or coalition with the Congress appeared to have
become a futile exercise. At that time there were two groups- the dissident group was led
by Lohia and the supporting one was led by Ashoka Mehta. In March 1954, a mid- term
election was held in Kerala. None of the parties secured a majority. An infuriated
Kripalani replaced Narendra Deva and became the Chairman of the party and thereby
Lohia became General Secretary. But this partnership did not last long and in the 1954
Kerala mid-term election the Congress won 45 seats and the P.S.P. 19 seats out of a total
of 117 seats. Together they would have a majority, but the P.S.P. refused to play the role
of a coalition partner. Instead, it offered to form a Socialist Ministry and did so with the
support of the Congress. So, the first Socialist government was formed at Kerala on
March 15, 1954 and Pattom Thanu Pillai was appointed its Chief Minister. As far as the
formation of the ministry was concerned it had the support of all the leaders J.P.,
Kripalani, Lohia and, of course, Nrendra Deva. The opposition consisted mainly of its
erstwhile allies and the Travancore-Tamiland Congress. The latter declared 11August as
‘Deliverance Day’, i.e. deliverance of the Tamil speaking of the state. The Communists
chose the same day to launch a transport strike. The result was a riot, to control which
the police had to open a fire and four people were killed. As a result, a special
convention of the party was held at Nagpur from 26-29 November 1954, but there was a
clear division both within the Executive and in the Convention and feelings ran high tone
and a split in the party appeared almost certain. To avert that crisis, the whole Executive
resigned, and the convention appealed to J.P. to accept the Chairmanship of the party.
But J.P. was willing to accept this offer. So the convention turned towards Narendra
Deva, who had by then come back from his trip to Europe, and unanimously elected him
as Chairman and authorized him to nominate all the officers and the entire Executive.
Even his failing health did not deter Deva from accepting the responsibility of the
Chairmanship of the P.S.P. Had it not been for Narendra Deva, the party might have
split into two or more factions at Nagpur itself. It was his availability which saved the
party from splitting at that moment and in spite of political differences with Lohia, the
latter was kept as a member of the new Executive and the parliamentary board by Deva.
He also made a special appeal to the members to maintain discipline in the organization
and relentlessly struggled very hard to build up his political party. While the relations
between the Socialist leaders were thus strained, the 60th session of the Congress was
held at Avadi (Madras) on 21 January 1955. In this meeting, the objective of the
Congress was declared to be the establishment of a socialistic pattern of society.
Commenting on the Avadi resolution, Narendra Deva said, “The Congress will have to
be overhauled completely and purged of all reactionary elements and the bureaucracy
172
APPRAISAL
will have to achieve the new objective. I have grave doubts, whether the Congress
leaders will even succeed in transforming these institutions.”74
In the passage of time the general membership, however, remained loyal to their
re-elected Chairman Acharya Narendra Deva. In spite of his arbitration, during that time
a clear fragmentation and indiscipline among the socialist leaders were visible. The
Lohia and Mehta groups did not reconcile to each other. J.P., drifted to the Bhoodan
movement under the leadership of Vinoba Bhabe. Kripalani became motionless and
Yusuf Meherally was not alive. Aruna Asaf Ali joined the Communist Party and a few
other leaders defected to the Congress. In such a situation in the words of Madhu
Dandavate, “any issue would have lighted the match and set the abundant dry grass,
lying scattered all over, on fire. Accidentally, the Avadi resolution became a spark.”75
From 26-30 December 1955 the rump of the P.S.P. met for the second National
Conference at Gaya. Narendra Deva was to have presided but he was ill. He had,
however, prepared a 60 page draft of 3,500 words-in which he outlined the basic
ideology and programme of the P.S.P. It was in fact something more than a policy
statement and was also a theoretical exposition. It was Deva’s last effort to consolidate
his party by bringing the members together. To satisfy various groups within the party,
he tried to combine the Marxian view of class struggle with the Gandhian creed of non-
violence. The new policy statement discussed the growth of the socialist movement in
India and buttressed the need for a classless society. It also emphasized class struggle as
inherent in our system of production and confirmed socialist support for the oppressed
classes. In the Indian context, particularly after freedom, the Acharya maintained that in
the modern atomic age the power of violence with which the state was armed was bound
to be far stronger than that of the people and so, a methodology of peaceful class struggle
will have to be harnessed even for socialist transformation.76 The policy statement also
focussed on the need for developing a socialist culture and socialist concept of morality
based on Indian traditions and cultural heritage and emphatically recognized the need for
conquest of political power led stress on the duty of the party to seek the mandate from
the electorate on its distinctive ideology and programmes. However, the delegates at the
Gaya session were divided over Narendra Deva’s policy statement. A vast majority of
the delegates supported its adoption and considered it a unique and cohesive ideological
framework. Raja Ram Shastri, S.M. Joshi. Madhu Dandavate and many others supported
it. But, the dissident group wanted to postpone its adoption for various reasons. This
group included Ashoka Mehta, Acharya Kripalani, Purushottam Trikamdas and a few
others who all were mainly opposed to the issue of class struggle. 77 While the P.S.P. was
in conference at Gaya, the dissident faction gathered at Hyderabad from 28 December
1955 to 3 January 1956, to form a separate party under the leadership of Lohia. The
headquarters was established at Hyderabad, and the name adopted was the ‘Socialist
Party’, which was a reversion to the title which had been in use from 1947, when the
party was opened to non-members of the Congress to 1952 and thereby merged with the
Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party. The constitution adopted at Hyderabad showed other
resemblances to the old socialist party. 78 While addressing the first conference of the
Socialist party at Hyderabad, Lohia, too, attacked the P.S.P. version of Gandhism and
173
APPRAISAL
Marxism and Mehta pointed out the irrelevance of class struggle in post-independent
India. Mehta cited the practices followed by the western socialist parties but he failed to
point out what line of action the P.S.P. might have taken instead. Expressing his policy
statement, Narandra Deva wrote to Chalapati Rao, the then editor of National Herald,
“However unsatisfactory the document may be, it has given the party a shaking with the
result that frustration has given place to self-confidence and enthusiasm. Delay in the
adoption of a policy statement would have demoralized the rank and file.” 79 Although
J.P. remained a member of the P.S.P., he, made it clear that in no way would he return to
active party politics and wholeheartedly believed that the then primary task was to
change the outlook of the rural masses through the Bhoodan movement. Narendra Deva,
though he did not give whole-hearted support to the Bhoodan philosophy, he did not
reject it totally. He was prepared to give it due consideration for promoting social
consciousness and solidarity among the poor peasants. At the same time, he did not think
it antagonistic to socialism but never lost sight of the fact that it could only supplement
the socialist movement without becoming a substitute for the same. After his visit to
China and Yugoslavia, Narendra Deva was convinced that in the context of India as of
Yugoslavia and China, small peasants would have to play a pivotal role in the struggle
for socialism. He also favoured harnessing the co-operative movement as an instrument
of socialism as in the Scandinavian countries and Yugoslavia. 80
After the Gaya Conference, the P.S.P. began to function under Narendra Deva’s
able guidance and again he was re-elected as the Chairman of the P.S.P. In spite of a
very poor health, he continued to provide guidance to his old party. He was fighting
against his illness, and at the same time he was waging a struggle for socialism. But
before he could take up the larger interest of the party, he was involved in an ‘internecine
war’ within the party. At that time he was confronted with challenge from three fronts-
one was his own sickness, the other the fight for socialism to which he had dedicated his
whole heart, and the third, the intra-party conflict which had been fermenting for the last
few years. In the words of Deva, “It looks, as if certain persons are bent upon breaking
party discipline.”81
During that time, Narendra Deva could not have remained satisfied with what
was happening inside his party. He believed that unity with discipline was crucial. He
made every endeavour to find a way out to bring back unity among the party leaders. He
made one last effort to avoid the unpleasant duty of taking disciplinary action against
some of the outraged leaders. As he was left with no other alternatives, he undertook a
tour of the country despite his illness in order to spread the gospel of socialism. On
February 1956, at Erode in the Coimbatore district about 6.00 in the evening Narendra
Deva breathed his last and thus passed away from the scene, his earthly labours. A great
and noble soul unique in every way and in his greatness, goodness, simplicity, purity,
generosity, in his untiring learning, unimpeachable integrity and most importantly
flamboyant service to his country and his fellow-men.82
The question is why the Socialist party went off track despite such giants among
them. Probably the socialists did not succeed because they could not develop a strong
philosophy to unite them all. Even the Acharya did not succeed in keeping the party
174
APPRAISAL
cohesive despite his efforts till his last breath. Each one of the leaders had his own
philosophy and approach to the problems and some of them pleaded even for the end of
ideology. Narendra Deva tried to construct a strong ideological foundation with all his
intelligence and with all the strength in his entire life. Jawaharlal Nehru was the first
leader, who sowed the seeds of socialism in this land, but the Nehru family itself
possibly sought its end. Against such backdrop, possibly the socio-political thoughts of
Narendra Deva were dynamic and entrenched in the Indian soil might have proved to be
a guide and torch-bearer, and united all the Left forces to steer in a socialist climate with
energy and renewed strength.
Impact of Gandhism on Narendra Deva: An Apostle Admirer
Narendra Deva stands out as one of the few political leaders who could be
recognized also as political thinkers. He commands high respect amongst those who had
made substantial original contribution to socialist thinking and reconstruction in India.
He was sincere enough to keep the essence of Marxism, 83 and was confident of taking
his own view of any ideology and be not influenced with the beliefs of other established
parties outside India. The tremendous interest in his political career was the mingling of
Indian philosophy, Buddhist thought, Gandhian teachings and his own interpretation of
Marxism. Though a Marxist, he was considerably influenced by Gandhi’s political
philosophy and his method of non-violence for social and economic changes. Narendra
Deva was a Marxist, but his Marxism was based on humanism. He asserted that the great
quality of a true Marxist should not be a dogmatic or a sectarian outlook, but he must
have a dialectical mind, live a life of great elasticity, so that his followers could adapt
themselves to a changing situation.84This was not at all opportunism for him, but
essentially based on the then realities. Gandhi had joined Indian politics impressed by
Gokhale’s dignity, selflessness and integrity, 85and which made Gokhale as his political
Guru. Later on, with the lessons of the Gita, Gandhi strengthened the selfless streak in
his own nature, assimilating dignity with determination and thereby he displayed the
strength of his own convictions and devotion to duty which remained an integral part of
his life. This political conviction of Gandhi overwhelmed and moulded Narendra Deva to
a great extent and he in his own style strove for dignity, selflessness and integrity. The
practical aspect of these virtues in Narendra Deva was Gandhi’s contribution which
marked the former’s life forever.86Free thinking was the main vehicle of Narendra
Deva’s development of political ideas. Whenever a programme or idea of establishing
economic harmony was mooted in the Congress, Narendra Deva supported it and
considered regeneration of the Indian society essential for a free India. Self-restraint
seemed a very natural trait in him, which he relentlessly cultivated with deliberation.
This wisdom was most evident in his writings and speeches, particular reference may be
made to the letters. It is this element of self-restraint that enabled him to maintain a high
level in his political thinking and action, so that even those who differed with him
respected him at the end. In one of his writings where he said: “Revolutionary courage
demands the capacity to withstand popular glamour. Disruptive activities must be
vigorously combated even at the risk of unpopularity. True leadership and opportunism
do not go together.”87 When Gandhi first met Narendra Deva in 1929, he saw in him a
175
APPRAISAL
jewel of a son of India, and that impression of Gandhi in 1947, led him to consider Deva
as the President of the re-organized post-independence Congress to serve the masses at
the grassroots level. This impression of Gandhi about Narendra Deva was rooted in the
developments in January 1930, when Gandhi observed a nationwide complete Autonomy
Day and violated the Salt law, through his famous Dandi March and in which Narendra
Deva along with students and fellow teachers participated. This civil disobedience
movement later became more well-known as the Salt-Satyagraha.88 While participating
in this movement Narendra Deva contributed actively in faustering this movement in the
United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) and where he was also the officiating leader of the
regional Congress Committee. While conducting the programme for this movement, he
was arrested from Basti and imprisoned for three months. Narendra Deva actively
supported Gandhi in politics as they had a similar outlook. His fiery Marxist character
perturbed many leaders of his time, though Gandhi and Nehru continued to treat him
with affection and respect till the end. Despite much loyalty towards Gandhi on several
occasions and, time and again Deva had bitterly criticised Gandhi’s mode of thinking.
When J.B. Kriplani. When Kriplani wanted to resign from the presidentship of the
Congress, Gandhi suggested that Narendra Deva should succeed him. But Sardar Patel
opposed the proposal vehemently, by arguing that Deva would not be a true
representative of the Congress in its entirety. Though, Gandhi continued to support
Narendra Deva’s candidature, Sardar Patel vehemently stood opposed to the proposal. At
that time Patel initially was the last word of the Congress at that time. As a result of
Patel’s conservative conviction, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was placed as Kriplani’s
successor.89
While he was in the Congress, Narendra Deva came into conflict with the
Communists and the Royists. Although he steadfastly stuck to Marxist principles till his
last breath, he never joined in the Communist Party. He was criticised for being not in
favour of the Indian Communists but such criticism did not turn him into an anti-
Communist, as it happened to many other Congress leaders. He exhorted his
contemporary socialists not to disassociate themselves from the Congress, even if it was
fighting for mere national freedom and not for a proletarian revolution. His
understanding was that at that stage of development in India, national freedom was the
first step towards the ultimate goal of socialism. He felt that the process of radicalisation
of the Congress would actually start from that movement when the left elements
functioning within the Congress would decide to continue their activities within the
Congress and not leave the Congress. That was the situation in 1929 and he said:
“Ultimately by a process of transformation the Congress can become a fit instrument for
the achievements of our objective.”90 Besides this, in spite of their differences on the
philosophy of socialism, both Gandhi and Narendra Deva also shared a similar mind-set
with references to Hindu-Muslim problems. Like Gandhi, Narendra Deva also believed
that as long as the Hindu-Muslim differences plagued the nation, political freedom would
remain a distant and meaningless dream.91 Although, Narendra Deva always recognized
the futuristic import of Gandhi’s programme, and actively co-operated with him, he was
not a blind follower and nor a sycophant. Throughout his political career, Narendra Deva
176
APPRAISAL
had his own views and he did not hide his differences with Gandhi. After Gandhi was
released from the Almora Jail in June 1945, Narendra Deva went to meet Gandhi at
Pune. During his interaction with Gandhi, the latter asked Narendra Deva about his
views on Truth and Non-violence and in reply Narendra Deva said: “ I replied that I had
been a worshipper of Truth right from the beginning but I had my doubts whether we
could snatch power from the British without violence…I had no moral objection to the
use of violence even for a socialist revolution in free India” 92 Even in the early fifties, he
did not rule out the use of force under certain specific instances, although he had never
accepted the dictum that force was the inevitable midwife of all changes. But his
sensitive mind and his constant worship of Truth, did lead him, before he died, to
advocate complete renunciation of force in social affairs.93 In the course of his
Chairman’s address at the Gaya Conference of the PSP towards the end of 1955, he said:
“Today, we believe that in this atomic age violence has to be ruled out both in the
national sphere and in the international field”.94 Narendra Deva never denied that he was
profoundly influenced by Gandhi’s political thinking and as a matter of fact, he paid the
highest tribute to Gandhi in the course of his Chairman’s address at the Gaya Conference
of the PSP, where he said: “In India it was Gandhiji, who was the first to realise the
importance of the masses for any national struggle. Before him our educated middle
class either believed in constitutional methods or in conspiratorial work. Gandhiji
identified himself completely with the masses and when India became free, there would
be no exploitation and where the people would be the supreme authority.”95 Narendra
Deva’s admiration for Gandhi, however, did not blind him to a certain revivalist and
obscurantist element in Gandhi’s teachings and practices. While conversing regarding
the extremists in the pre-Gandhi era, he said: “Leaders of the new generation wanted
complete independence also because they thought it would enable them to create the past
culture of India. They gave the first place to political struggle and generally disregarded
social struggles.”96 He also felt that with the start of the Gandhian era, Congressmen
again began to engage themselves in an effort to eradicate various “social evils,”97 and
according to Deva, Gandhi mixed politics with religion to lent support for the revivalist
campaign.98
Narendra Deva also agreed with Gandhi’s ideas about the harijans, believing
them to be an integral part of the Indian society, in particular, of its Hindu majority and
felt that they could not be kept out of the mainstream of Indian polity. He always
opposed British tactics to segregate the harijans from the main Hindu society. Even after
the establishment of the C.S.P., Narendra Deva followed Gandhi as his leader and
participated in India’s freedom movement. The failure of the civil disobedience
movement in 1932-33 dismayed many young Congress workers. One of the pertinent
reasons for the formation of the C.S.P. was the failure of the civil disobedience
movement in 1932-33 on one hand and Gandhi’s promotion of spiritual aspects within
the periphery of the Congress and at the same time lack of a reasonable focus on
labourers and farmers in the ideology and programme of the Congress on the other.
Party-workers like Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Sampoornanand, Jayaprakash Narayan,
Rammanohar Lohia, and Narendra Deva felt that to advance India’s movement in its
177
APPRAISAL
entirety, the Congress should include the labourers and farmers into the limelight in its
ideology and programme in an effort to enrich democratic- socialist ideology. Therefore,
Narendra Deva’s vision of socialism remained an integration of the scientific attitude of
Marx, compassion of Buddha and humanism of Gandhi. In this respect, he emulated the
famous words of Gandhi: “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and
windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to blow freely about my house but
I refuse to be swept off my feet by any.” 99 This flexible attitude of Narendra Deva gave
strength and vitality to his democratic socialist ideology based on the Marxian path.
After Independence, Narendra Deva emphasised that in the atomic age, “the
power of violence with which state is armed is bound to be far stronger than that of the
people”100 and, simultaneously, he for the adoption of implored the methodology of
peaceful mass struggle evolved under Gandhi’s leadership during the freedom struggle to
be harnessed even for socialist transformation. After his visit to China and Yugoslavia,
he did not become a votary of the ‘neo-peasantism’ that came to be associated with Mao
Tse Tung’s teachings. He never thought that a new civilisation could be conducted on the
strength of peasants and landless workers alone- or for that matter by any single class
exclusively. The process of transformation must be all –comprehensive and it would
need the support not only of the classes which can be expected to play a revolutionary
role on account of their place in the prevailing iniquitous order, but of all individuals
who were able to rise above their immediate economic interests and can comprehend as
well as assist the process of change.101Naturally, he never advocated the strategy of
organizing the countryside to capture the cities, because he had no doubt that all such
methods were doomed to fail in the larger context. In fact, Deva was afraid that such
attempts would setback to all movements working for social revolution.
Narendra Deva had admiration for the tenacity displayed by the Chinese and
Vietnamese revolutions. But he was convinced that their methods could not be applied to
India. In both these instances, a rare combination of historical circumstances had
catapulted the forces working for social revolution into commanding positions in the
mortal combat between imperialist –cum-local reactionary interests and nationalist-cum-
local progressive elements.102 It is enough to compare the record of the Chinese
Communists with that of their Indian counterparts to understand why no similar chance
ever came their way in India. After the achievement of complete independence in 1947,
the base of the elements fighting for social revolution was considerably narrowed, and
while justifying this argument Narendra Deva in the Gaya session of the PSP, held in
1955, categorically said: “India cannot be converted into China or Vietnam… It will not
be possible for any socialist insurrectionary force to establish its authority in any
particular pocket and from the pocket slowly to envelop the whole country. Nor can it be
maintained that an insurrection is necessarily the shortest and easiest route to a socialist
regime…Where it is a question of the complete transformation of the social organization
and that of the transference of power and responsibility to the toiling masses, they
themselves must grasp what is at stake and must also be in it. For that, long and
persistent work among the masses is unavoidably needed. There are no shortcuts to a
socialist revolution.”103
178
APPRAISAL
Narendra Deva never aborted his devoted attention to national integration nor to
the creation of a new world order. He believed in the principle of linguistic states for
India, but opposed linguistic chauvinism. In the Gaya policy statement, Narendra Deva
said: “India is a multi-lingual nation, misconceived as a multi-national State by Indian
Communists. Ethnologically, culturally and historically there are much closer ties
between different linguistic units in India than those between different linguistic groups
of Switzerland, which is acknowledged as a nation by all competent authorities. There is
no comparison between the socio-cultural structures of India and the Soviet Union, and
therefore the analogy of the Soviet Union is not applicable to India. Under the Czarist
regime the Russian Empire was composed of many linguistic communities, most of
which in their socio-cultural structure poles stood apart from the Great Russian nation
and were smarting under its domination. There was no attempt on the part of the Great
Russian people to forge national unity with other linguistic communities of their empire,
and so, on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was faced with conflicts of
national liberation from the Russian domination. All this cannot be said of India. In their
socio-cultural structures almost all important linguistic communities are alike. They
share certain common cultural heritage of India. So, the problem of the cultural
autonomy of different linguistic groups of India is not a problem of international
character.”104He further mentioned emphatically on the point that, “…all differences
cannot be eliminated nor is it necessary or desirable to do so. People passionately cling
to their religious beliefs and cultural forms. We should not interfere with them.” 105
It is a fact that political work was not for Gandhi the means to gain material
power and he never aspired to get a position in the Indian political scenario. At the same
time, Gandhi’s spiritual thinking was devoid of any religious fanaticism or conservatism.
Along with Narendra Deva, he wanted the historical stream of the cultural progress of
India to flow again so that its integrity could be sustained. Narendra Deva was too much
impressed to these ideas of Gandhi but the young Congress socialists under the
leadership of Rammanohar Lohia were very much concerned over the economic
hardships of the Indian labour class and poor farmers.106 In Lohia’s view, the tenets of
socialism with Indian flavour would appear to be an effective solution to this specific
problem, whereas Gandhi envisioned complete autonomy the sole objective of the
Congress, as the only remedy to all the then leading problems. Perhaps, Gandhi did not
consider it feasible as an important component in the then political scenario and had not
showed any willingness to stress the economic component which would buttress the
class consciousness already existing between different classes. Gandhi’s view this might
trigger class-conflicts which might shroud the objective of complete autonomy. 107
Gandhi made major contributions to the Indian nationalist movement. Most
crucial was his success in leading the Indian masses under one platform and generating
mass struggle against the British rule something in which he was better than any other
Indian political leaders. While Gandhi’s political leadership was the spark for these
struggles, it was his charismatic personality moulded the Indian masses and brought
them under one umbrella of his mass movement. It is a fact that the national struggle
evolved from ground reality based on deep grievances against the British rule. The
179
APPRAISAL
masses, once mobilized, showed repeatedly that they were willing to adopt militant
tactics when non-violent means did not work properly. Gandhi’s political vision and
deep religious convictions, however, did not come from any orthodox training. In the
process, Gandhi and Narendra Deva’s religious development increasingly influenced
their individual political convictions. They found a common ground that along with an
idiosyncratic reading of Hindu scriptures diagnosed modern oppression as arising from
industrialism and non-violent action appeared to them as its political remedial
cure.108Both of them believed that the search for truth was the goal of human life. In
Gandhi’s spiritualism, human compassion assumed the proportions of a universal creed
which according to Buddhist teachings, could not progress without the basic foundation
of fraternity and equality. Gandhi did not have the time to define such an ideology and
philosophy, suitable for Indian soil, but his mind in this respect was quite clear.
Sampoornanand wrote a book titled “Socialism” and sent it to Gandhi for comments.
Gandhi praised the content of this book and subsequently requested Sampoornanand to
write an independent book on spiritualism and human compassion. Consequently,
Sampoornanand obeyed Gandhi’s request and wrote a book published in the year 1952
titled “Yidvilla”.109 Unlike Sampoornanand, Narendra Deva failed to write a concrete
detail of his ideas in relation to the philosophical aspect of his thinking. This could be
interpreted as a loss in the intellectual development of India. How the idea of Scientific
Socialism had entered the soil of India has long remained an interesting issue for
scholars to explore. The ideology of Scientific Socialism came from the West. While
some favoured accepting it in its basic imported form, some refined it. Both Gandhi and
Narendra Deva wanted to test it on the touchstone of Indian wisdom and moulded it into
an independent, Indian shape.110
Both Gandhi and Narendra Deva advocated that sacrificing one’s life for the
society was the very essence of vaishnav compassion. According to them, one should be
sensitive enough to other’s sufferings. Narendra Deva believed that Gandhi was the first
person to really understand the significant role the people could play in any national
movement. Before Gandhi, the educated class in India believed either in constitutional
or conspiratorial means. Gandhi identified himself with the masses and when India
became Independent, he set the goal of a classless and casteless society free from all
exploitation, with the people as sovereign. 111There was sufficient ideological
convergence between Gandhi and Narendra Deva on basic programmes and from the
spiritual point of view; both were on the same wave length. To clarify this, it seems
essential to illustrate, from Narendra Deva’s own political thoughts. Analysing the
cultural aspect of socialism, Narendra Deva said: ‘The situation is such that socialism
means not just the socialization of the means of production but also the socialization of
one’s life. A socialist does not live only for himself and his family but the entire society.
He is liberal and generous and keeps an account of human distress in the same way as
seismograph functions, to record the slightest tremor.’112
Narendra Deva believed in Gandhi as his own and the nation’s leader. While in
the Congress, Narendra Deva worked under Gandhi’s stable leadership. Even when
Narendra Deva quit Congress in the early fifties, Gandhi remained his ideal for his
180
APPRAISAL
regulated conduct and the prestige of the individual in the society. Despite certain
ideological differences, Gandhi remained Narendra Deva’s torch-bearer in the Indian
political scenario. In fact, Narendra Deva along with his red cap had never given up the
Gandhi cap, on account of his loyalty towards the latter. Narendra Deva was not a
politician in the ordinary sense of the term. He was a great idealist and nation-builder,
one who would never sacrifice his principles for the sake of expediency, never run after
power at the cost of faith and believes in his cause and was a great crusader in the cause
of scientific socialism in India.113 Like Gandhi, Narendra Deva was also a confirmed
democrat and a great social humanist. Both Narendra Deva and Gandhi talked about the
moral force, which would be necessary to bring about a socialist movement in India.
Acharya Narendra Deva on Marxism and the Indian Socialist
Movement
In the present global order, humane socialism holds an important place in the
modern political scenario and Narendra Deva believed in the centrality of man and for
that his ideas of socialism were democratic and apposite for the Indian soil. He was,
however, not prepared to dilute his socialism in the name of democracy. He fought for
liberty and cherished equality and fraternity for his homeland. By nature he was a
staunch socialist. He laboured hard to define the social content of the freedom
movement. Narendra Deva saw the need to deepen and diversify the organisational base
of the freedom movement and for that he emphasised the role of the Kisan Sabhas,
cooperatives, trade unions etc. He believed in the creativity of the people and dynamism
of youth power and knew that the road to India of his dreams was long and difficult. But
he had immense patience and unwavering faith on Marxism. Narendra Deva had neither
the radical bent of mind like Lohia nor the persuasive lucidity like Jayaprakash Narayan,
but his thought-full original writings and speeches had a sustaining quality. Other
radical left-wing leaders wrote exquisite patterns and sky-sweeping utopian ideas for the
reconstruction of the country where as Narendra Deva put emphasis on his ideas more
on building to sustain a democratic ideological base to keep the flow of democratic
social order in India.
While analysing Narendra Deva’s views on socialism, it is amply clear to us that
prior to independence the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 remained the greatest
inspiration to Narendra Deva. Most of the leaders of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934
like J.P., Yusuf Meherally, S.M. Joshi and N.G. Gorey were confirmed Marxists.
According to them, Marxism with the slogan of ‘the workers of the world unite’ was an
international philosophy aiming at the rule of the proletariat all over the world. They also
had a deep attraction for the Russian Revolution and most of the then Marxists except
those in the C.S.P. were ready to accept the leadership role of Russia in the international
communist movement. Stalin, the all powerful leader of Russia, was in full command
after the liquidation of his opponents inside the party. After assuming full control over
the Third International, he had instructed the Communists all over the world to oppose
the national struggles wherever they came under the bourgeoisie influence. The obedient
Indian Communists, following Stalin’s instructions, not only tried to ridicule Gandhi as a
181
APPRAISAL
lackey of the bourgeoisie and opposed the national liberation struggle but even burnt the
Congress tricolour in 1929 in Bombay to exhibit their loyalty to Stalin. 114 This attitude of
the Communists created doubts in the minds of some thinkers and socialist leaders about
the relationship between the struggles for socialism and for national liberation. On this
background, the C.S.P. held its foundation conference presided over by Deva who
accepted the task of explaining to the people the relation between the two struggles i.e.
the struggle for national liberation and the struggle for socialism. He fulfilled it with
characteristic thoroughness. At the same time, he explained how the role of the C.S.P.
was different from that of either the Congress or the Communists. He explained that the
Socialist Marxists should not accept the leadership of the Third International as it had
been tied down unnecessarily to the chariot wheels of Soviet Russia and was completely
in the grip of Stalin. He gave proper guidance on the issue of precedence of the national
liberation movement over the socialist revolution and firmly reiterated that, “for a subject
nation political independence is an inevitable stage on the way to socialism.”115 The
freedom struggle must, therefore, be relentlessly fought by socialist forces and they felt
that the people must also be so mobilized and organized in the course of the political
struggle that social revolution might be possible after political freedom was achieved.116
Narendra Deva was totally in agreement with the Communists in their attitude
towards the parliamentary system. He was opposed to parliamentary democracy which,
in his opinion was “only the form of capitalist economy and found it to be involved in a
crisis…representative institutions are crumbling on all sides, and doubts are being
expressed as regards the ability of such institutions to provide a way out of the impasse.
People are getting disillusioned and where there one was once assurance and peace of
mind, there is now unrest and uncertainty …In some states, even the pretence of
democracy has been openly given up and in its place naked autocracy in the shape of
Fascism has been enthroned. Other states while retaining outward forms of parliamentary
democracy have assumed large dictatorial power. Parliamentary governments have
grown unstable and political parties and groups are being multiplied, thus making
parliamentary government more and more difficult. Even the mother of parliament has
not been able to escape a constitutional crisis and a Fascist party has come into existence
even in democratic England.”117 Narendra Deva realized that it was no longer possible
for capitalists to create an illusion of a democratic system by conceding the demands of
workers, by raising their standard of life and by continually extending the social services.
He believed that, “today they are constrained to reduce the cost of production by
rationalization and wage-cuts. They are launching an offensive against workers, not only
by attacking their standard of living but also limiting the rights which they formerly
enjoyed.”118
As a Marxist, Narendra Deva felt that Capitalism had exhausted its creative
possibilities. It had become a fetter on the expansion of production. The growth of
monopolies further tightened the exploitative hold of Capitalism. The last phase of
Capitalism is known as imperialism which Lenin described as the monopoly stage of
Capitalism. Narendra Deva explained: “Capitalism becomes decadent and parasitic,
anarchy reigns in social production and capitalism finds itself unable to find a market for
182
APPRAISAL
the increased supply of goods which it is able to produce. The struggle between
monopoly combines for markets, raw materials and foreign investment is intensified. The
international competition rapidly develops and each group tries to reduce the cost of
production to undersell the other. But for reducing the cost of production the wages have
to be lowered, the standard of life of the workers has to be reduced, and millions of
workers are necessarily thrown out of employment because of technical improvements
effected by technocrats. The purchasing power of the masses, thus reaches a vanishing
point and this in turn largely reduces the demand for goods. This is the contradiction in
which Capitalism finds itself involved today. The contradiction is inherent in capitalism
and as the crisis develops the contradiction is also sharpened.”119
Narendra Deva knew quite well that the contradictions of Capitalism could be
resolved only if society as a whole owned the means of production through its
socialization. He interpreted Marx’s views on Capitalism and thus stated that, “when
capitalism becomes a fetter on the power of production the stage is reached when it could
be superseded by another order.”120 He did not mean to say, that the new order would
come into existence spontaneously but envisaged the possibility of a new order in such
situations. In his opinion Narendra Deva realized, “of course, a socialist order is the
most appropriate order for the new conditions, but it cannot be established unless men
consciously work for it.”121 He further pointed out, “the other alternative which deserves
serious consideration is fascism, because, both socialism and fascism claim to offer a
permanent solution of the difficulty. It is these two ideas that will try to win each other in
the future for victory, and on the result of their struggle the destiny of mankind
depends.”122
Narendra Deva found that the Fascists claimed to have discovered a middle term
between the Capitalist and the Communist orders. But he had doubts in his mind about
the final outcome of fascism because it was seen to suppress the contradictions created
by capitalism but did not attempt to remove the causes of those contradictions. He said:
“The final issues will largely depend on the capacity of a fascist state to keep under
control disintegrating forces working within Capitalism.”123
While rejecting fascism, Narendra Deva believed that socialism remained the
only alternative, since he was then highly impressed by the Russian experiment with
socialism which did not remain static as a mere principle or dogma but was being
translated into action. He said, “The Russian experiment is going on before our eyes and
we can study the experiment and form our own conclusions. Russia is the only land
without unemployment. The great merits of its planned economy are being freely
recognized even by Capitalists, who have borrowed the idea from Russia for application
to their Capitalist economy. Factories, land, transport and credit system have been
socialized, and the collectivization of farming is taking place. In place of anarchy we
have planned guidance of economic development. The foundation of socialist economy
had been well laid. The level of production is being continually raised and with it the
standard of life of the masses.”124
183
APPRAISAL
He did not doubt that the Soviet state had progressed rapidly despite an
antagonistic world and even in the midst of widespread economic crisis in 1929, which
indicated that it had a message to give to other countries. But he made it clear that the
other countries need not follow the Soviet experiment thoroughly and or traverse all the
stages that Russia had passed through. He knew quite well that, “Socialism cannot be
established overnight and that it is a growing thing. It is also natural that in its initial
stages it should bear the marks of the Capitalist system from which it is emerging.
Believers of Utopian socialism associated with socialism the existence of ideal
conditions in every sphere of life and when they found the Russian system not to
conform still to norm, they raised the cry that the socialist experiment was not proving
successful.”125 Narendra Deva believed that the founders of Scientific Socialism never
claimed any such thing for it. They also knew that only after the completion of the
socialist revolution would man leave behind the conditions of animal existence and act as
a human being. It was well known to them that human nature could not be transformed
within a short span of time but they were aware that with the advent of socialism, man
would enter a new plane of existence. He then mentioned that “men will certainly not be
converted into angels in a socialist state. But it is also certain that human character will
attain a much higher level because the limitations set by the present day acquisitive
society would have disappeared.”126
The Acharya knew that many had doubts regarding the success of social
revolution in an agricultural country like India whose internal development was not of a
Capitalistic character. He, however, thought that socialism would succeed in India also
because Capitalism had entered into its last stage, namely imperialism. While justifying
this argument, he said: “They have now become links of a single chain called world
economy. It is now necessary to take into account the existence of objective conditions
for revolution throughout the whole system of the imperialist world economy which
forms an integral unit, for the existence within this system of some countries that are not
sufficiently developed from the industrial point of view. These cannot form an
insurmountable obstacle to revolution, if the system as a whole has become ripe for it. In
this state of affairs revolution will break out first not in countries where industry is most
developed, but where the chain of imperialism is the weakest. It is, therefore, possible,
that the country where the chain is first broken may be less developed from the industrial
point of view. ”127
It was for this reason, Narendra Deva was sure, that revolution took place in
Russia where the masses were oppressed and were in a desperate condition. Even in an
industrially underdeveloped country like India, where the masses were ruined
economically, he felt, a socialist revolution might occur, though the period of transition
which would be much longer. He then claimed that socialism had come to stay in India
and it was the democratic intelligentsia inside the Congress, who laid the social
foundation of this new school of thought. The working class and the peasants were
recognized by him as the real revolutionary elements of the anti-imperialistic struggle. In
this connection, he said, “Most of us today within the Congress are only intellectual
socialists, but as our long association with the national struggle has repeatedly brought us
184
APPRAISAL
into intimate contact with the masses, there seems to be no danger of our degenerating
into more theorists and doctrinaires.”128
In Narendra Deva’s view, the political education of the masses was the most
important task before the socialists and, while reiterating this stand point, he said: “It is
only by working amongst the masses that we can emancipate ourselves from the
reactionary influences and shall be able to develop a proletarian outlook. The great
mistake that we members of the intellectual classes are apt to commit is to relegate the
people to the background. The truth is that we are always willing to teach the masses but
never to learn from them. This attitude of mind is wrong. We should try to understand
them and act as faithful interpreters of their desires and needs.”129
He had no doubt in his mind that the success of the nationalist struggle would
depend to a great large extent on the organized participation of the workers, peasants and
the lower middle classes. With this end in view, he advocated a linkup between the
freedom movement and the economic demands of the workers and peasants. He felt that,
“Tasks of the two epochs have developed upon us and only by an integration of
nationalist and socialist forces could a rapid advance be made towards the attainment of
the twin objectives of an independent and a socialist India.”130 While refuting the
argument that by raising the question of class struggle, the socialists had weekend the
freedom struggle, he said that, “when imperialism had forged an alliance with the
reactionary princes, landlords and capitalists, it had become imperative that all
progressive forces should come together and a joint front of workers, peasants and the
lower middle classes should be organized to defeat imperialism and its allies. The
workers and peasants could be drawn to the nationalist struggle only through rousing
their economic inspirations.”131 He at the same time explained that the socialists should
create consciousness among the labouring classes and should convince them that their
interests would be well protected in the freedom struggle. Narendra Deva further
mentioned that, “The Congress today may accept a socialist programme only in a
mutilated form but the whole drive of the nation will be in that direction, because the
responsibility for carrying on the struggle for national independence is more and more
devolving upon the masses. The masses could be made restive and class-conscious and
could be brought into the arena of active warfare only by making an economic appeal to
them.”132 To a Marxist Narendra Deva was opposed to any of its doctrinaire attitude and
wanted to avoid ‘dogmatism and sectarianism’. Still he regarded the dialectical method
as “a living method of great elasticity” and thus therefore convinced that “while a
Marxist must never lose sight of ultimate goal, he must know the limitations and
possibilities of a particular situation and must not sacrifice the gains thereof merely for
the sake of a doctrine or a dogma, if those gains are an inevitable stage to be reached on
the way to socialism.”133
It is a fact that Narendra Deva’s affectionate manners were rooted in his
acceptance of the humanist views of life, which most probably had its source in his
intimate understanding of the teachings of Buddha and Gandhi and his revolutionary
approach to problems was fortified by his diligent study of Marxism. What came to be
known as the Gays Thesis of the Praja Socialist Party (1940) can clearly be described as
185
APPRAISAL
Narendra Deva’s political testament. Since 1920, many the then political leaders in India
had talked about and written on socialism and whereas within the C.S.P, many of the
Narendra Deva’s Left-minded colleagues had ceased to call themselves Marxists by
1940, he continued his loyalty towards the Marxist philosophy throughout his life. At the
same time, he never claims to be an orthodox Marxist. On India’s national struggle, the
role that Gandhi had played and in which the socialists participated wilfully. Narendra
Deva had basic differences with officially recognised Marxists and the CPI (Communist
Party of India). He did not hesitate to expose them or to act according to his own
conviction. It is note-worthy to mention here that while the C.S.P. remained in the
forefront of the 1942 ‘Quit India’ struggle, the CPI worked in open collaboration with
the then Imperial establishment.134
Narendra Deva represented a perfect assimilation of Indian tradition and Marxist
thought and Indian cultural tradition shaped his political conviction. While referring to
Marxism as a creed, he once said: “We can perform the task before us only if we try to
comprehend the principles and purposes of socialism and to understand the dialectical
method propounded by Marx for the correct understanding of the situation and make that
understanding the basis of our true action. We must take our stand on scientific socialism
and steer clear of utopian socialism.”135 He was a great scholar-thinker and action-
oriented man. On the role of peasantry, decentralisation, the question of language and
linguistic states and the right to property in the Indian context Narendra Deva wrote:
“The fundamental right with regard to property should be so revised that it may be
possible for the legislative authority of both the Union and States to acquire property for
public purposes, to sanction its redistribution on equitable basis, and socialise industries
and other economic enterprises, as well as to authorise public management of private
property and undertakings in the general interest of the community or workers
concerned. The legislative authority alone should have the power to determine if and
what compensation is to be paid in the aforesaid cases.”136
Narendra Deva had reached the conclusion that the Marxists in Europe had
consistently failed to evaluate correctly the role of peasantry in Third World countries for
a socialist revolution and was definitely against forced collectivisation of land. He
exhorted the socialist party workers to educate the peasants and common masses the
merits of cooperatives and to instil in them the spirit of cooperation as a unity-force, the
sense of social responsibility and the feeling of sanctity for the up-gradation of social
property. He felt that the task was purely organisational, educative, constructive as well
as combative for the nation-building process.137
Narendra Deva’s thorough studies in Marxist literature had already convinced
him that the Congress would never be able to give a correct ideological direction and
failed to direct the Indian national movement. Hence, he advocated the formation of the
C.S.P, which could pressurise the party leadership to translate socialist ideology into
random action in the soil of India. While, presiding over the first All India Conference of
Congress Socialists in Patna in 1934, he had stressed that the conference was convinced
to ‘prevent an outright drift to constitutionalism and to put more dynamic programmes
before the country’138and called the Congress path of constitutionalism and reformism as
186
APPRAISAL
‘barren’ and firmly warned that these paths of the Congress could never lead the party
towards an effective direction.139 What was, therefore, necessary for Narendra Deva, was
to compel the Congress leadership and to work jointly under one umbrella for the
achievement of prosperous goals for a future India. In this connection, he visualised the
socialists to play an important role inside the Congress Party as custodians of socialist
values. The socialists, he felt, were the representatives of the common masses and he
wanted the national movements to be fought under a socialist banner.
For him, freedom meant the supremacy of the working class and in this
connection, he analysed the perpetuation of British colonialism in India from the Marxist
viewpoint. He regarded the “British Colonialism as an alliance of native rulers,
capitalists and feudal oligarchies with the colonialists. Such an unholy alliance of the
bourgeois classes resulted in the exploitation of the masses.’140 In this respect, he once
stated: “…the political and economic emancipation of the masses is the prime need of
the hour and so is the alliance of the working class, the peasantry and the petty
bourgeois.”141
The most serious accusation usually levelled against socialism, by the extremist
Congress leaders was that its collective approach submerges the individual’s freedom,
effort and initiative. Narendra Deva tackled this accusation from a different angle and it
is reflected in the concluding portion of the Gaya Thesis of the P.S.P. convention in
1940. Here Narendra Deva had dealt with this problem at some length. He had pleaded
his case with a good deal of subtlety. While defending socialism, Narendra Deva said:
“Society is part of every individual; it is just as real as any or all of its members.
Although it does not exist apart from the individuals who constitute it, it cannot be
completely reduced to them. It is an order out of which individuals arise and acquire
their very individuality.”142 Narendra Deva argued in favour of an integrated socialist
approach suitable for the Third World countries and remarked: “This does not mean, the
disregard of the individual or his personality. It only means that individualism, narrowly
egoistic, retards the growth of personality and that individuality can attain its supreme
development only in the highest common social effort.”143 His understanding was that at
that stage of development in India, national freedom was the first step towards the
ultimate goal of socialism and he was under the impression that “ultimately by a process
of transformation, the Congress can become a fit instrument for the achievement of
socialist developmental objectives.”144
He also pleaded that the peasantry and the working classes should form the
backbone of any political movement and in this case his unequivocal faith in the
Gandhian method was respected by all his Marxist colleagues. The reason for this was
simple. Narendra Deva’s belief in Gandhism as well Marxism was wholehearted and
genuine. He did not strike any political postures for the sake of a readymade effect and
did not adopt any belief or creed easily. If he was a Gandhian, it was because Deva was
passionately committed to the path of truth, personal integrity, austerity and self-denying
sincerity, as felt by Gandhi. Similarly, if he was a Marxist it was because he wanted to
apply Marxist principle for the creation of nation–building in India. Thus, in that sense
he was a true Gandhian and a genuine Marxist believer.
187
APPRAISAL
It is important to note that as a Marxist, Narendra Deva was never doctrinaire.
He was a compassionate and sincere thinker to allow his mind to drift into rigidify. He
became an exemplary Satyagrahi, but did not adopt Satyagraha as an absolute creed
under the Gandhian line of thinking and believed that socialism must insist on the free
development of the human personality and considered that the socialist aims should be
the promotion of social happiness, where individual happiness was an essential
constituent. He therefore regarded the liberation struggle in India as a revolutionary
phase in which a movement rooted in the Indian ethos, would take society towards an era
free of exploitation and dedicated to egalitarian values. His extensive readings of Marx,
Engels, Lenin and the British Fabians, influenced him to the poverty of the rural masses
and their exploitation by a feudal society in the Third World countries, and made him
spontaneously move towards a socialist creed. The Marxist doctrine of class struggle
struck a sympathetic chord on him and that led him to believe in the ‘Labour Theory of
Value’, which propounds that labour is the producer of value. It is worthwhile to mention
that repeated imprisonment by the British widened his experiences with the Marxist
literature and deepened his socialist patriotism. Gandhi and Marx equally moulded
Narendra Deva’s overall political thinking process and where Gandhi’s stress on Ahimsa
appealed to Narendra Deva’s ideas to a large extent, and he dispassionately regarded
Satyagraha essentially as an instrument and not as a faith. Against such a backdrop of
political influences, Narendra Deva participated in Gandhi’s constructive programmes
and believed in the efficacy of those programmes as harbingers of social transformation
under the guideline of Marx. He therefore was a Marxist, but his Marxism was purely
based on social humanism and thought that the principle of social humanism was
incompatible with dictatorship and one-party rule. National unity, he felt, required not
only civic spirit and national integration but also cultural fellowship among different
sections of the society. He referred to economic equality as well as social justice the two
important ingredients of a socialist society.145 Narendra Deva respected the legitimate
desires of backward communities for equality and was convinced that this was necessary
for national integration and it was possible only in a socialist order.
Narendra Deva claimed to be a Marxist and held that the “historical necessity of a
basic change in a social order can be realised only through an active
revolution.”146Besides Marx and Engels, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin had
their influence over him. While he was considerably impressed by Engel’s analysis of
history and his particular stand with regard to peasants and the role of democratic means
in social revolution, he was very much moulded by Karl Kautsky’s analysis of ethics,
Rosa Luxemburg’s humanist outlook and cultural stand and Lenin’s analysis of the role
of middle class intellectuals in the development of socialist thought vis a vis movement
and his emphasis on conscious human efforts for a socialist revolution.147 As a Marxist,
he was never prepared to identify Marxism with communism as professed and practised
by the then Communist leaders. He advised his Marxist-Socialist party-workers ‘to avoid
dogmatism and sectarianism’,148 and made his own contribution for the development and
expansion of socialist thought in India. He refused to accept Stalin as an authority on
Marxism and detested his distortions of Marxist philosophy. Narendra Deva never
188
APPRAISAL
supported Stalin’s conversion of the dictatorship of the proletariat into his personal
dictatorship in the name of an exclusive leadership of a monolithic party.149 Nor was he
prepared to accept the then Soviet Union as the fatherland of the international proletarian
revolution and act at the behest of the rigid Soviet leaders. Narendra Deva favoured free
cooperation among different socialist parties with the full right of self-determination for
each other and on the same wave-length; he stood for a multi-party state, free trade
unionism and self-government in industry.150
Narendra Deva proved from Marx and Hegel’s writings that democracy was
inherent in Marxism and did not accept that the theory of totalitarian communism was
based on Marxian theory. 151 He also stated that Marxian dialectics give enough guidance
for dynamic thinking and to adopt changes in human life whenever necessary. He also
believed in ethical principles as stated by Marx. Although he did not accept religion as a
firm principle, at the same time he did not rule out the impact of moral and spiritual
aspects on the socialist movement and was firmly convinced that socialism and freedom
should go hand in hand and felt that, there could be no socialism without democracy and
no democracy could function properly without accepting the socialist ideals.152
Narendra Deva’s attitude towards Communists was very comprehensible and he
differed with his own colleagues on this question time and again. Although as a Marxist,
he and Jayaprakash Narayan were thinking alike, he differed with JP regarding his
attitude towards the Communists.153 A sizeable leadership of the socialist movement
under the leadership of Rammanohar Lohia refused to call themselves as Marxists and
were drawn towards Gandhian philosophy. But Narendra Deva never compromised on
this question and held that Marxism provided an opportunity to interpret history and
conditions of the country in a more scientific manner. On that basis, he developed his
theory of Democratic Socialism. He did not give up the idea of a class struggle but said
that it should be non-violent and peaceful. Simultaneously, he strongly opposed
Capitalist and feudal systems as existed in the then Indian societal scenario and wanted
the socialist movement to carry on a relentless struggle against both the systems.154
Narendra Deva was not a believer in collaborative politics and when he was an
active member of the Congress Party, he had declared time and again that the Congress
Party had never initiated any action to establish a socialist society in India. His idea to
establish a socialist republic was clearly pronounced through a speech delivered by him
at the Socialist Conference held at Patna in May 1934, and his personality along with his
views was clear and principled. It would be interesting to note that at different times
Gandhi and Subhas Bose both had proposed his name for the Presidentship of the Indian
National Congress, but the rightists in the Congress and Jawaharlal Nehru were not
prepared to accept this proposal. He opposed Asoka Mehta’s thesis on Political Will and
was also the first to announce that nothing would come out of the Nehru-JP talks of
1953.155 Narendra Deva was firmly convinced that Jawaharlal Nehru was not at all
prepared to accept any of the principles and programmes of the Praja Socialist Party
(PSP) 156 and the Nehru-JP talks naturally failed to produce any effective outfit. JP in a
letter to Jawaharlal Nehru very made clearly the position and agendas of the Socialist
Party of India.
189
APPRAISAL
Narendra Deva believed that the socialist movement should adhere to the
principles and programmes of constructive developments. On these two matters, he was
very uncompromising. As chairman of the Socialist Party, he had signed documents on
the merger of Socialist Party and the KMPP (Krisok Majdoor Praja Party) in September,
1952 157 and thus brought about the formation of the PSP in 1952. Though he signed the
documents, he was opposed to the idea because he believed that it was a departure from
the original socialist thought and action. That he was quite right in his thinking became
clear by the later developments in the socialist movement in India.158The ideological
character of the socialist movement was changed altogether and it would not be wrong to
say that the Socialist Party left its mass programmes of fight and struggle and plunged
itself entirely into the parliamentary arena. He could foresee the change that was bound
to occur in course of years. But as a disciplined leader of the party he agreed to the
merger.159
Narendra Deva did not believe that Marxian socialism, though it is an
international concept, could not be worked out by the dictates of any international theory.
So, he postulated that the movements whose roots were not inside the country could not
be successful. The socialists, during that time, unwillingly though would have to take
into consideration certain changes that had occurred within the India. He, therefore,
wanted to build up as far as practicable and workable a socialist theory.160 He did not
depend on narrow nationalism and looked at this question from a wider perspective and
therefore, wanted the indigenous nationalist movement to be associated with the
progressive movements of the world. Therefore, under his leadership the socialist
movement in India developed into an independent organisation with definite principles
and specific ideology. The socialist movement never allowed itself to join with any of
the Socialist International and Indian Socialists themselves are proud of their own
cultural heritage. Narendra Deva evolved the theory of democratic socialism which is
independent and different from the theory of Marxism, Communism or Social
democracy.161 The Gaya Thesis of the PSP should be taken as an independent trait of
democratic socialism. With the changes in the international communist and socialist
movements, including the then Soviet Russia and China and other communist countries,
Narendra Deva’s theory of democratic socialism seems to stand vindicated in all possible
manners. He accepted the techniques of Gandhian struggle under the Marxist banner and
thought that Satyagraha, as a prime vehicle of resistance could be used by the socialists
in launching peaceful mass struggles. This technique influenced Narendra Deva to a
large extent and convinced him that it was the most effective weapon in the hands of the
socialist movement to bring effective changes in the underdeveloped society. 162
According to Narendra Deva, the socialist movement has never been purely an
economic movement, but also an ethical and cultural movement. He, therefore,
constantly laid emphasis on the ethical and cultural values of socialism and strove for
their creative realisation in the Indian society. He desired equal consideration of the
interests of peasants and industrial workers and visualised revolutionary potentialities in
peasants, stood for agrarian revolution and the re-orientation of agrarian life and
economy, based on principles of democracy and cooperation and favoured a joint front of
190
APPRAISAL
peasants and workers on terms of equality. 163 The task before the Indian people, he felt,
was “the presentation of a careful and scientific analysis of our culture, the preservation
of its vital elements and their synthesis with modern thought.”164 He laid Increasing
stress on the democratic way of life and the democratic character of socialism. Like Karl
Kautsky, he understood by the expression of socialism, “not only social organisation of
production but democratic organisation of society”165 and felt that the “social revolution
which follows a democratic revolution need not be insurrectionary or violent.”166 He
agreed with Fredick Engels that in a democracy based on universal franchise, social
revolution could be advanced through democratic means and “military strength of the
ruling party has been augmented due to inventions of new weapons which are resorted to
by a populace which has risen in revolt against the constituted authority;”167 He therefore
emphasised that, “the use of violence will no longer be helpful in the national sphere”168
Though unlike constitutional socialists, he credited the theory of class struggle
propagated by Marx and advocated peaceful class struggles against injustice and
oppression in the form of Satyagraha. He considered strikes as essential constituents of
democratic means. Like, Gandhi and Rammanohar Lohia, he insisted on fostering the
democratic spirits and traditions and advancing political democracy towards a socialist
democracy and said that “democratic sentiment is deeply rooted in man.”169 He felt
confident enough that it would assert itself against dictatorship and ultimately establish
the supremacy of the people in an underdeveloped country like India. To him,
democracy without economic equality was incomplete, while socialism without
democracy was rather impossible.170 A society in which there was the fullest flow of
economic and political democracy was his ideal.
At this period of the Indian political scenario, some could make a distinction
between communism and socialism and few could believe that there could be class
conflict without violence and socialism without dictatorship. The emergence of an
organised socialist party inside the Congress and in the national movement created quite
a stir at that time and even Gandhi, at one stage, took it as a challenge and, consequently,
resigned from the primary membership of the Indian National Congress. But none of this
perturbed Narendra Deva, who had given a new interpretation to the Marxian theory and
defined socialism and Marxism in the context of Indian conditions and national
traditions. The Acharya’s active association with the Indian socialist movement
positioned India’s socialists to a new height and high prestige. In his book Socialism and
the National Revolution, published in 1946, he made a clear explanation of the role of the
democratic socialist movement and tradition in the country and after reading this
distinguished book on socialism, Gandhi ultimately changed his opinion about Indian
socialists.171 In 1947 at the Kanpur session of the Congress Socialist Party, the party
decided to change its name and drop the word “Congress”172and this was made in order
to enable those who did not belong to the Congress to join the socialist organisation. This
was the beginning, and in later years all the socialist leaders resigned from the Congress
and finally, established, the Socialist Party (SP), an independent political organisation in
1951. In this entire event all socialist leaders, including Narendra Deva, voluntarily left
the primary membership of the Congress and resigned from the latter. In later years,
191
APPRAISAL
there were occasions when some socialist leaders, suggested collaboration and proposed
compromise with the Congress Party, but Narendra Deva all along opposed the idea of
the merger and till the time of his death he worked hard to bolster the socialist movement
in India.
Deva remained a Marxist till the end of his life and had made a deep study of the
philosophy of Marx and discovered no reason to forsake his faith in his theories. Deva’s
own theory of democratic socialism as against the backdrop of totalitarian Communism
was based on Marxian theory vis-à-vis practice and he proved with numerous instances
from the World Socialist Movement how totalitarian Communism was a great departure
from original idea of Marxism. A look into the developments in the Communist
movement and also in the Communist countries all over the globe and the new trends
developing there clearly exhibit that totalitarian Communism has lost its appeal and
thrust. It merely exits as a form and its substance have been rejected but right. Now-a-
days more and more countries are gradually tilting towards liberalised formulations and
rejecting the old rigid and dogmatic path. 173 While referring to the concepts of dialectics,
Narendra Deva said: “Dialectics are completly opposite dogma and rigidity; they have
their merit in being rational and scientific. This is the essence of Marxism and a
convinced socialist cannot depart from this path”174 and he further added: “Marxism as a
dogma is outdated and outmoded. It cannot operate in a vacuum. It has failed in India
and is bound to fail in creating any impact in the future, too, until and unless it takes into
account the objective conditions prevailing in the country. The Communist Movement in
the land must become a live partner in achieving the aspirations of the masses to bring
socialism in the country and it must be a reflection and projection of their patriotic
fervour. That is why I should give stress on socialist patriotism, socialist culture and
socialist morality.”175
Among all forms of socialism, Narendra Deva was deeply impressed by Karl
Marx and his thought and eventually considered Marx a great social scientist. Although
he did not endorse all political philosophies that Marx had said in his time, in view of
later developments of theory-practice in the World Socialist Movement, Deva felt that
Marx was not sufficiently conversant with the social institutions for Asiatic countries
like India and China. Consequently, Asian leaders had to take somewhat different lines
in developing socialist movements of their respective countries and among them
Narendra Deva in India took the path in the development of the Indian Socialist
Movement which was more congenial to indigenous conditions. He considered socialism
to be a Universal Theory and the next stage of historical development all over the world.
In his view, the Marxian theory needed adaptations particularly suited to different
countries. In a dominantly agricultural society like India, the orthodox relationship
between the industrial proletariat and the peasantry had necessarily to be readjusted and
the lower class of peasants would have to be considered as a revolutionary force at par
with the industrial labour. Similarly, the caste system in Indian society cannot be wholly
subsumed in the class stratification of Marx. According to Narendra Deva, Indian
socialism would, necessarily have to contend against two adversaries, the class and the
192
APPRAISAL
caste, and at the same time appropriate strategies would have to be developed to deal
with the two fronts effectively.
Without liberation of farmers, any step taken towards socialism would prove
fruitless and Narendra Deva considered their active would be indispensable in the fight
for freedom and therefore remains an essential element in the establishment of a socialist
set-up. In Deva’s view, the understanding of democracy and the vision of an ideal co-
operative society could be ingredients for the progress of farmers in co-operative mould.
He ardently stood by the poor farmers of India and was against agriculturalism
encouraged by contemporary socialsit party workers. He wanted to see the issue of class
conflict on a broader platform on which farmers and labourers, could come together to
establish a socialist set-up, and a classless society. That is why Narendra Deva wanted
the Congress to be as successful in this endeavour, by recognizing the institutional unity
of the farmers and the labourers. He propounded was for their representation in the
Congress Party through collective membership. As a result, from 1934, Deva continued
to make labourious efforts to give concrete shape to this new vision.176
When Narendra Deva became the President of the Provincial Congress in 1936,
in his presidential address, he remarked: “...only by associating the daily economic
struggle of the public with the fight against imperialism can the public be geared up to
actively participate in the national movement.”177 There was another significant reason
behind the increasing influence of the farmers in the Congress party. The way that
Gandhi led the struggle for freedom and the strategies adopted, integrated not only the
farmers but all those who were poor and had remained deprived from educational
facilities and who did not understand much the intellectual fervour and principles of the
leaders. Simultaneously, the general Indian public yearned for emancipation, without a
solution in hand. The illiterate poor were mostly attracted to Gandhi, on account of his
simplicity, morality, ethical conduct and non-accumulative flavour. These qualities of
Gandhi all along impressed Narendra Deva and led him to emphasise on education
programmes for the farmers. He could foresee the difficulties in establishing a socialist
order, without proper and much needed education. In the light of this specific problem
Narendra Deva often mentioned that: “an illiterate society would not be strong. In a
crisis, it would not endure but disintegrate”.178
There is a long history of farmers’ movements in India, though the period of
turmoil was brief and it is not pertinent to mention here as to how the Communist
influenced it and how they had strengthened their position, over the years, internally. It is
a fact that Narendra Deva could not imagine Indian socialism without farmers enjoying
an active role. Therefore, his main programme was to organize them, infuse national
consciousness in them and prepare them for joining the Indian national movement. The
farmers’ union, founded by Swami Sahajanand in 1946, later developed by the name of
Kisan Panchayat Sanghathan Samiti, with the purpose of bringing together the farmers
and the labour-class in the forefront of the Indian nationalist movement.179 Before
Rammanohar Lohia became the President of the Socialist Party in March 1949 at Patna,
Narendra Deva under his chairmanship in late 1948, in Kanpur advised the farmers to get
organised for a socialist society free of exploitation. In this meeting, he had explained
193
APPRAISAL
why the establishment of a socialist order was impossible without active participation of
the farmers. Deva always advocated cooperative farming under the Gandhian cap and at
the same time pondered over the problems of the labourers in his own way. He totally
opposed a mere trade union mentality and wanted to link the middle class revolutionary
thinkers and the workers with it. In his opinion, “the thinkers could impact the message
of socialism and the workers could rescue the farmers and the labour class from the age
old mentality of fatalism”.180 He wanted the farmers and the labourers to be suitably
aware of and adequately informed about their potential, duties and rights and considered
the economic, social, political and moral training of the labour class as essential means
for the establishment of a socialist society. He also felt that the labour class should be
educated about the contemporary economic, social and political situations and also the
political, economic and social objectives as well as the values of socialism. They should
be encouraged to think about the problems of their own country, rising above the narrow
sentiments of a rigid nationalism and casteism. He further mentioned: “Their cultural life
should be refined to the extent possible. Help should be provided to them in awakening
and developing their natural and moral inspirations and they should be motivated
towards practising a democratic cooperative work-procedure”.181
In Narendra Deva’s opinion, “the effort to gain moral and spiritual distinction
was an integral part of class conflict and the fight of socialism has expectations of the
moral evolution of the labour class. If we consider Capitalism despicable on moral
grounds, then we should provide the society with a new vision, on a moral
level.”182Moreover, he believed that the bourgeoisie needed confidence, dignity and
liberty more than his daily bread and was against any division in the labour
organisations. In fact, Narendra Deva’s vision of Democratic Socialism, contemplated a
combined front of the farmers and the labourers partnered in progress and working for
national interest by advancing on the path of moral uplift and thus become an educated
community. For this, he always laid emphasis on hard work, socialist principles, self-
study, training, selfless leadership, and a befitting solution for Indian socialism.
Acharya Narendra Deva: Founder of Democratic Socialism and the
New Life Movement
In the post-war period, Narendra Deva laid considerable stress on democracy and
democratic values and held that “the democratic sentiment is deeply rooted in human
nature”183 Moreover, he argued that a socialist society could not be conceived without
democratic norms. He never said the term socialism and democracy were antithetical
and he regarded democracy to be meaningless in the presence of vast social inequalities.
Similarly, he found socialism futile without democracy and he felt that democracy could
not be anything else except democracy plus socialism. About the prospect of democracy,
he felt that, “it is essential for the future of democracy that economic and social
inequalities should be removed. Democracy to be real must be social, must pervade all
aspects of social life.”184 During the later course in his eventful political career, he firmly
believed that, “Socialism alone is full democracy and it is a philosophy which insists on
the free development of the human personality as much as on economic freedom.”185
194
APPRAISAL
In the late fifties, Deva found socialism being distorted in the then Soviet Union
with the sheer absence of political freedom and at the same time, a planned economy
which socialism stood was in relation leading to bureaucratisation and totalitarianism.
His enunciation of the principles of democratic socialism as against totalitarianism was
based on his interpretation of socialism in theory and practice and he found that
socialism was criticized by those who regarded the Russian system as the ultimate
model. During that phase, he realized that although the Communists advocated
democracy, it was only a tactics to gain temporary advantage and discovered that the
Communists in Russia did not give political freedom to the common people. Dimitrov,
the well known Bulgarian Communist, did not conceal from his Party that it was only a
disguise to serve some other ends. In his own confession, “For the moment the
Communist party must disguise itself as an ordinary democratic party. Communists who
are troubled by this duality of outlook are either not Marxists or, they are
provocateurs.”186 It is a fact that this view, in Deva’s opinion, would keep away the non-
Communists from collaborating with the Communists.
During the Second World War, Deva’s sole emphasis was on the smooth
furtherance of democratic power between nations. He also highlighted the role of the
masses to mobilize them in the name of freedom and democracy to fight against fascism.
In short it could be mentioned that, to him, democratic socialism was nothing but
Communism of Marx’s conception, who, he believed, was a great supporter of
uncontrolled democracy. In this context a crucial point has to be raised that the Congress
Socialists always stood for democracy and freedom, but the Acharya said that; “though
always an admirer of Soviet Russia for its many achievements in various fields of human
activity, I have been a friendly critic and have noted with regret that it has been apathetic
to the problem of political freedom.”187
Narendra Deva regarded Marx as a great democrat who cherished the right of
freedom of expression as the most sacred of human possessions and also advocated the
freedom of the individual. Marx’s Communism, in the Acharya’s view, presupposed
complete democracy and so he cherished the belief that in democratic England and
America, socialism could be achieved without recourse to violence. In this juncture, we
could argue that Narendra Deva , defined Communism as the doctrine for the
emancipation of the proletariat and he was very much sure that Marx and Engels failed
to advocate the true idea of socialism without which, while providing employment the
masses would be enslaved the masses and also essential freedom taken away. Narendra
Deva pointed out, “According to Marx, the feudal and capitalist stages of human
evolution had dehumanized the individual and that proletarian revolution alone would
restore his lost integrity. He was of the opinion that that the proletariat triumph was the
representative of humanity and that his victory would be the triumph of the idea of
humanity.”188 Deva stressed that Marx had talked of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ in
the context of the Paris Commune and that, too, for a limited period and of a whole class
of toiling masses and not of any particular party. Here, it would be justified to mention
that, Deva found the concept of democracy, which was associated with the rise of
Capitalism to be incomplete due to the fact that it was confined only to the political field
195
APPRAISAL
and also to be revealed that, subsequently, from the beginning of the 20th century it was
found to embrace economic democracy. In order to achieve solidarity among the
socialists, Deva thought that the socialists must end their tolerance.189
Deva realized that Capitalism was injurious not only to the workers but also to
the capitalists themselves as the economy suffered from periodic crises due to the
diminishing purchasing power of the workers. So serious contradictions cropped up in
the powers of production, means of production and the system of exchange and the
Acharya maintained that the goal of socialism was to remove all these contradictions. He
also maintained that although freedom was established in the world as a result of the
capitalist democratic system, the workers considered this freedom as their freedom to
starve as all the wealth were concentrated only in a few hands. He did not forget to
recount that the capitalists owned all the means of production, exchange and distribution
and they also grabbed the benefits of profit. At the same time, he felt the necessity of
replacing the unregulated economic system by a planned economy and also in altering
human relationship in order to establish a democratic way of life. During this crucial
phase, he passionately realized the fact that it was impossible to establish democracy
without the wide expansion of education.190 Democracy for him, meant respect for the
common people who should be educated properly and should be allowed to express their
will and the right to criticize the administration. In this connection, his remarks are quite
striking when he said that “the people must work for their own good on a co-operative
basis and by doing so they would come into close contact with one another on a basis of
social equality and would thereby co-operate for the larger good of the society and
democracy”. 191As a result, this revolutionary and popular association would generate a
unique moral influence, he felt, which would help in shaping the democratic order run by
free individuals. At the same exposure, he also realized that it was necessary to alter the
entire human relationship in the countryside and to place it on a democratic basis in
accordance with the path followed by socialism. While commenting on democracy as a
way of life he strongly advocated his views and mentioned that, “democracy is not
rooted in the soil. It is a way of life and in a country where democratic habits and
traditions are practically non-existent, it is only by continuous effort that a democratic
climate can be established…a revivalist movement,…will be of no help to us in
understanding and solving our present day problems.”192
He stood for a socialism which was democratic and was opposed to power being
enjoyed by a privileged class. At the same time, he also stood for decentralization of
authority and regarded the people as the very source of authority. But he was also
conscious of the problems of building a new social order in consonance with the basic
principle of democratic socialism in an underdeveloped economy. He also had deep faith
in democratic socialism and in his farsighted view; it alone could provide both liberty
and equality which is very much essential for the establishment of a just society in the
21 st century. He regarded democracy as a matter of practice and tradition and at the same
ground, believed in the principle of vesting the common man with effective power as he
knew that social harmony could be established only through a powerful social upheaval.
196
APPRAISAL
He was also very much aware of the fact that without social harmony, it was impossible
to build a powerful state.193
He was of the opinion that the Socialist Party, while building class organization
of workers and peasants and wining their confidence, should also work among
intellectuals and rally them round the party banner. During the later phase of his long
political life, he was sure that the elimination of Capitalism and, consequently, of the
capitalist class would upgrade intellectuals socially. He firmly believed that in a free
socialist society, their stature would be higher than what they were under capitalist
democracies. He found that the socialists, therefore, invited those engaged in intellectual
professions and pursuits to cast off their vacillation which caused disintegration of their
personality and then join the toiling masses and conjointly with them build a democratic
socialist society in India.194
During the last few days of his political career, certain changes appeared in his
political thinking and also in connection with the future course of action. It was partly
due to J.P’s sudden withdrawal from active politics coupled with Lohia’s fragmented
thinking towards the sole objectives and unification of the newly emerged P.S.P.
Although, these did not stop Deva from his struggle for the reorientation of a socialist
society based on values and ethics, he stressed that sordid selfishness of an acquisitive
society and the competitive age must be given up if a just and human form of society was
desired. He was further sure that only through co-operation and by transcending
individual isolation and selfish interest, people could use the resources for the benefit of
mankind.195 He knew that people could make their individual lives happy by their free
development of thinking and only by recognizing the law of necessity which he himself
had inherited from Buddhist compassion. It is needless to say that, he also mentioned the
opportunities to be provided to the people for their overall developmental process. On
the same breath, he believed that “a full life is possible only in a form of society where
an individual has full and free scope of expression of his moral, mental and artistic
life…It is only in such an environment, free from fear that a new civilization can
grow.”196
Deva realized that to become the conscious agent and creator of a new society in
which millions of human beings would for the first time in history get a decent human
existence; it was necessary to train up a new race of men who would from the elite of the
society. This elite , he believed, would be the pioneer of a new age and civilization , as
they would have a new understanding of the environment , a new social awareness of the
critical situation in which humanity found itself and of a proper remedy for all ills.197
The Acharya was in favour of the establishment of Democratic Socialism in India
because, in his opinion, it stood for a classless society and although it recognized the
need of a variety of vocations, it opposed the domination of any profession and favoured
free co-operation of different sections of the working people on terms of equal justice to
all.198 At the same coin, he emphasized the importance of independent vocations in a
socialist society and increasingly advocated the social urgency and economic necessity
of small unit technology and the development of cottage industries on a co-operative
197
APPRAISAL
basis. The basic premises of his idea regarding Democratic Socialism, which he
visualized, are:
(a) It was opposed to the idea of technocracy and managerial domination over
industry; (b) It stood for workers’ active and creative participation in social
management;
(c) It found no antagonism between manual work and technical skill;
(d) It regarded their proper co-ordination as essential for industrial development;
(e) Managers and technicians should cease to be agents of Capitalism, and on
the contrary fraternise with manual workers, and conjointly with them build
a socialist economy.199
Diva was also aware that progress of a nation was impossible without popular co-
operation and that the power of the people should be used in the great task of national
reconstruction. At the same strength, the people’s interest and enthusiasm should be
enthused, and he envisioned that all these would not be possible until the government
could generate a sense of confidence among the people. While mentioning what should
be the proper task of the government in formulating national power, Diva unabashedly
felt that, it should not only promise economic progress and social welfare but should also
provide concrete proof of social advancement and it would only be then that the people
would be expected to face all their difficulties with a strong mental attitude. The Chary
was conscious that the country needed constructive work and stressed the necessity of
co-operative work in order to infuse new life in the countryside. At the same time, he
knew that people needed to be convinced of the fact that the Socialist Party would
implement the policies it promised in its manifesto if it came to power and social work
needed to be shown to the people of the country in order to gain their trust.200
Narendra Deva wanted the Socialist party to become the centre of change and
also the symbol of the people’s resultant social struggles. To augment this, the Socialist
Party should express the needs, desires and aspirations of the ranks and files. He was
very much aware of the spontaneous changes of his time and to supplement this change,
he felt that the party would be judged by its quality of work in the years to come and not
simply by its verbal assurance. Here is a clear expression of this view, Deva said, “A
party that is pledged to strengthen the democratic state, is opposed to the use of violent
methods and wants to socialize instruments of production by democratic procedures, it is
just the party which supplies the need of the hour.”201
The Acharya wanted the socialist party workers to attend to constructive work as
enunciated by Gandhi. This he felt would enable them to maintain their day to day
contacts and thereby win the confidence of the toiling masses and through which they
would train the people in the task of reconstruction for collective social efforts. He was
robustly optimistic when he observed that a large chunk of the people had come under
the impact of socialist ideologies. He regarded peace as the kingpin of all social efforts
and was sure that the people would not hesitate to resort to violence if their problem of
earning their living was not resolved peacefully. Deva considered the party system as an
198
APPRAISAL
integral part of Parliamentary Democracy. The existence of the opposition party was
regarded by him as equally indispensable in a democracy. 202 In this connection it would
be reasonable to point out that, Deva wanted the Praja Socialist Party to function as the
main Opposition party and make the people assured of its capacities and strengths and
thereby deepen the faith of the peasants and workers in its devotion to their cause and
interests. He was a tough critic of the concept of totalitarianism and in his opinion; it
would destroy human dignity and would not allow the individual to develop his
personality. According to him, the individual would simply become a passive tool of the
State.
In his long political career he witnessed many ups and downs all around the
world events which made a deep impact on his socio-political thinking. It is needless to
say that, he had expected the Russians to democratise their own state and social
institutions that he found to have fought bravely in defeating the Axis Powers. He
became very much disillusioned when he saw that nothing of that sort happened, and
later reached the conclusion that, “the Soviet leaders did not owe any allegiance to
political democracy and were only exploiting the democratic sentiments of the people of
the world democracies in order to win them on their side in their struggle against
fascism.”203 It was his opinion that, “…the human values for the preservation of which
the world went through a bloodbath must be strongly defended and those who call
themselves Communists or Socialists, will be guilty of betrayal of the people’s interests
if they fail to do so.”204
Narendra Deva looked up to Marxism for giving a scientific basis to the socialist
movement in India and ensuring its successful conclusion. Marxism would, therefore,
help only the strategy and management of the socialist movement in India and
envisioned the form of socialism would have to be locally determined. He felt that in
India, socialism could not be in line with the spirituality- process of the Indian culture,
and it would have to be oriented to make it reality of the spiritual equality among men.
Apprehensive Narendra Deva, however, was about the prospects of the socialist
movement in India. He therefore emphasized the importance of the New Life Movement
and believed the workers and the peasants, like comrades in arms, would break through
the imperialist and capitalist hindrances to bring socialism in practice in the third world
countries vis-à-vis India.
The purpose of the New Life Movement would be the objectivisation of moral-
social order and the nature of Indian polity was to be built up in such a manner that a
socialist structure of social relationships became a certainly within the democratic
framework. From this viewpoint, it was visualized by Narendra Deva that Marxism as an
ideology of demonstrable validity that could be put to use in bringing about socialism
under varying life-situations. He was also convinced that the application of the Marxist
principles of revolution would produce socialism that would go hand in hand with the
spiritual dispensation as well as the distinctive class situation of life in the then India.
Yusuf Meherally and Ahcarya Narendra Deva were probably the only socialist leaders of
India, who remained Marxist till the end of their entire life. Although, Narendra Deva
was a confirmed Marxist till he breathed his last, but not a Communist and,
199
APPRAISAL
simultaneously, always regarded the possibility of reinterpreting Marxism to suit
Indian ethos. He considered this a dynamic philosophy. He never accepted the
monopoly of other Leftist parties to interpret Marxism and the latter was a scientific
philosophy for him. The application of Marxism should be changed according to time
and circumstances and therefore, Narendra Deva interpreted Marxism in the context of
the then Indian situation and tried to Indianize Marxism, as Lenin had Russinaized it and
Mao did Sinofication. He thought it was wrong to neglect peasants considering their
majority in our country and insisted upon the work of organising them to strengthen the
political-force of the C.S.P. He became the President of the All India Kisan Sabha twice
and being the President of this party, in 1955 at the C.S.P. party-meet in Lucknow, he
said: “For long, many Marxists in Europe failed to appreciate the role of the peasantry in
a socialist revolution” (Gaya 1955).205 In the same meeting, while mentioning Lenin’s
contribution on socialist revolution, he said: “On the eve of the Russian revolution, Lenin
had advocated an alliance of the proletariat and the peasants but assigned to the latter
only a subordinate position.”206
Even today, after almost 96 years of Bolshevik Revolution, agricultural economy
is the weakest link of the Soviet economy, which J.P. mentioned at Gaya in 1955 that:
“Stalin had imposed collectivisation upon the peasants against their will” (Gaya Thesis
1955).207 In this context Narendra’s Deva’s words are note-worthy here and he once said:
“Indian Socialists are definitely opposed to the forced collectivisation of land, the
subordination of agricultural economy to the industrial economy and the idea of
economic development at the cost of peasants.’ (Gaya, 1955)208 He therefore emphasized
the necessity of the co-operative movement to grow that, too, “with the pace and in the
manner they themselves choose.”209 Though, he emphasised the role of peasantry in the
Indian socialist movement, he, at the same time opposed ‘peasantism’ in no uncertain
terms. He defined ‘peasantism’ as he saw it, at the All India Kissan Sabha in 1939: “It
looks at all questions from the narrow and sectional viewpoint of the peasant class. Its
tenets are derived from the ideal that our economic evolution, as the whole structure of
our State, will necessarily have to retain its specific peasant character”210
Narendra Deva remained a scientific socialist and a staunch Marxist with rational
flavour till his last breath. At the same time he possessed a constructive militancy in his
attitude, but theoretically, his Marxian outlook was out and out unorthodox and
democratic. The degeneration of the Marxian experiment in the Communist countries,
particularly in the then Soviet Union, disillusioned him severely. For Narendra Deva,
socialism could never be anything but have to be democratic-populist keeping in mind
the Third World’s economic scenario. He had envisioned that religion of humanity could
never lose its human face and reduce itself to be an instrument of oppression in the hands
of a feudal political party in the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, the ethics of
socialism and moral values of philosophy should never to be sacrificed at the altar of
power. He believed from the beginning of his political career that without proper
intellectual conviction, no movement, especially of a socialist movement, could never
succeed inner conviction had to be the inspiring force behind man’s action. In reply to a
letter of Jawaharlal Nehru, while reinforcing his personal viewpoint on February 9,
200
APPRAISAL
1929, Narendra Deva wrote: “We may all generally believe in the necessity of
constructing a society on a new basis, but so long as we have no clear conception of the
social and economic theories on the basis of which the society is to be remodelled and so
long as we do not know how to proceed about the business, the result is that our
convictions do not grow deep and therefore, we lack earnestness in our work. I think the
apathy that we see around is more or less, due to want of any intellectual convictions.”211
Narendra Deva was a vehement critic of ‘dogmatism’ and ‘sectarianism’212 and
never identified Marxism with Communism as practised in the Communist countries.
According to him, revolution can never be tailored to any set pattern and that is why
besides Karl Marx, Engels, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin had deepening
impression on him and his political conviction. He used to quote in his original speeches
and writings of Rosa Luxemburg’s humanist outlook and cultural stand and Engel’s
analysis of history and the role of peasants to bring socialism to the threshold of progress
and opportunity.213 Marxism without ethics had no meaning for him and as a
revolutionary with unswerving adherence to moral principles and values; he was
naturally drawn to Gandhi –the leader of the common masses and his doctrine of
peaceful mass action. Although, Narendra Deva sometimes differed from Gandhi on
many ideas, he was later drawn to him more and more and there was complete bonding
of hearts, if not always the unity of minds. Narendra Deva supported the practical
implementation of peaceful mass action under the Gandhian method and to him; it was
the supreme weapon in the hands of an unarmed mass vis-à-vis the only means of
revolution for the involvement of the people. Marxist ideology with a humane face and
Satyagraha as the only technique to fight against prevalent injustice could easily
combine Marx and Gandhi in Deva’s political conviction.
Narendra Deva was a traditionalist as far as human freedom was concerned for
Indian development process, but a firm modernist as far as the struggle to achieve
egalitarianism was concerned. He was an “ambitious socialist revolutionary for whom
freedom not repression, an ideology not an army, political decency not egoistical
acrobatics, unsullied means not nihilistic conspiracies, inexpensive successes in
democracy not expensive failures in despotism, systematic efforts not repetitive rhetoric,
compatibility with pluralistic society and not regimented command of economy were the
most important and precious ingredients of a new society to be built in India under the
guidance of socialism.”214
The founding father of socialism in India, Narendra Deva was a unique Marxist
and an ardent atheist. In the years before the Second World War, when Indian
nationalists could grasp no constructive political ideology other than the methods
provided by Gandhi, he displayed scientific home-grown nourishment of ideas to Indian
socialists and radical revolutionaries during that time. Many other left minded socialist
leaders of the Congress projected umpteen varieties of socialism of utopian quality and
yet failed to improve upon the life-giving values enunciated by the purposeful mind, as
viewed by Narendra Deva.215 It was he, who for the first time, propounded principles like
co-operative purpose, freedom and equality and did not permit any erosion of culture,
morality, tradition and ethics which, according to Narendra Deva, remained the
201
APPRAISAL
legitimate pillars of any successful national struggle.
Being a follower of socialist principles, he believed both in rapid social change
and flowering of the individuality. According to Narendra Deva, social personality and
individuality were interwoven and co-related. He was an integrated socialist personality,
who did not want to destruct the concept of humanism and thereby sought to
institutionalize the class war under Marxian term. It was exactly this quality of his
experience which became the envy of Rammanohar Lohia and his militant policy. In
fact, it was from Narendra Deva, that J.P., despite his long period of twenty years of
political wilderness, learnt as to how to integrate one’s total identity with a purposeful
mass struggle.216
Narendra Deva believed in the dynamics of society and history. But he could not
accept economic determinism as the sole guiding spirit in the process of change in Indian
society. That is why under Marxian guidance, he regarded both mind and matter as
forces of history and believed that “circumstances make man just as man makes
circumstances.”217 He had studied Marxist concepts deeply and used to interpret them
differently from the so-called poignant Leftist leaders and by looking at them in a
different perspective and thereby tried to give a human face to the concept of Marxism.
.Narendra Deva had deep faith in materialism but at the same time he did not deny the
role of the mind as an important entity. In fact, according to him, Marx used to give
equal importance to both matter and mind218 and while expressing his loyalty to Marx, in
1934 in his Patna address, Narendra Deva categorically said: “He (Marx) has nowhere
considered the question of the relative importance of mind and matter. Both are equally
important. Mind is the creation of matters, but after creation it dominates over the body
which is its creator.”219 Deva believed in the Marxist concept of base and structure and
treated productive forces as the base and productive relations including religion,
literature, law, culture etc. its structure. But at the same time, he did not deny that these
creations such as religion, culture etc. influence societies and minds of people
independently.
Narendra Deva, never endorsed the right to property as enshrined in the Indian
Constitution and the Gaya thesis of the Praja Socialist Party (P.S.P), which remains even
today a Manifesto of Democratic Socialism to all socialist believers, was practically
dictated by Narendra Deva from A to Z. As a believer of this idea, in 1952 he wrote:
“The fundamental right with regard to property should be so revised that it may be
possible for the legislative authority of both the Union and the States to acquire property
for public purposes, to sanction its re-distribution on equitable basis and to socialise
industries and other economic enterprises, as well as to authorize public management of
private property and undertakings in the general interest of the community or workers
concerned. The legislative authority alone should have the power to determine if and
what compensation is to be paid in aforesaid case.”220
Though Narendra Deva regarded economic system as the basis of a democratic
society, he did not believe in economic determinism as an ever moving process not
going in a predetermined channel, as dialectics according to Marx and Engles.
202
APPRAISAL
Although, he was very emphatic about the Marxist theory of ‘Class Struggle’, in spite of
this loyalty he emphasized the importance of small farmers and poor landless labourers
as a revolutionary class. At the same time, under the propagation of Lenin, he did not
neglect the role of the intellectual middle class in the process of a conscious rising of the
toilers and for the success of social revolution in a socialist society. He was in fact in
favour of sharpening the existing class conflict, but at the same time vigorously pleaded
that the means of class struggle must not be ultra-violent. Gandhi tried to convince the
Indian socialists often, after realising the Indian ethos and cultural modernity, that they
should forsake extreme violence and use peaceful means instead in building up the class
awareness in a socialist society. Conceding the force behind the argument of Gandhi,
Narendra Deva accepted non-violence as the creed for social action and at the same time
expressed doubts about the mass conversion of the capitalist class and Gandhi’s theory of
‘trusteeship’.221 He was against the concept of a violent mass revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat vis-à-vis one party rule, and he simultaneously propagated
the use of peaceful means and Satyagraha especially in the Indian context. According to
Narendra Deva, both Marx and Engels used to say that violence and dictatorship were
unnecessary where in Parliamentary Democracy the transfer of power was possible
through the power of the ballot. While stressing on the question of “dictatorship of the
majority”, he pointed out clearly that whenever dictatorship of the majority was
inevitable, it should stay for a limited period only and it should not be the dictatorship
of any class or party, leave aside of individuals. At the same time, Narendra Deva
categorically said that Marxism had been distorted in Russia and in Indian conditions
violence and dictatorship were not adequately applicable. Narendra Deva was the
upholder of the theory of “class struggle” as propounded by Marx, and pointed out that
industrial production was taking place because of usual class collaboration, but despite
this class collaboration nobody should over-look the class interests, he suggested. This
viewpoint was further emphasized in his address on ‘class conflict in society’ in an
annual C.S.P. party meet at Allahabad in 1952, where he talked about the inherent
conflict between the class interests of capitalists and toilers. He added: “I am a votary of
economic and political decentralisation and co-operative economy instead of
collectivisation.”222
Narendra Deva was an ardent nationalist and he had been also an internationalist
from the beginning of his eventful political career. It is a fact that, in the new world
order, all the developing countries, which are freeing themselves from the shackles of
colonialism and rigid imperialism, can play their destined role, in consonance with the
idea as believed by Narendra Deva if democracy in those countries are to be preserved
systematically. Even at the same time, Deva felt that independent nations were gradually
drifting to positions where democracy was being butchered and neo-colonialism was
raising its ugly head. Reflecting upon this specific issue, he wrote in the Gaya Thesis
(1955): “National independence has gained, but democracy has receded. All over Asia,
Africa and Latin America, democracy is on the defensive. Caste, tribal, regional and
linguistic pulls in backward and stagnant economics are playing havoc with the
democratic institutions established with such fanfare on the morrow of national
203
APPRAISAL
independence.”223 Thus, all these divisive forces in the view of Narendra Deva are
inimical to the growth of nationalism, internationalism and democracy and the new
social order of socialism can never develop on weak foundation of a society which is
overshadowed by these anti-social forces.
Therefore, in a way Narendra Deva’s attempt was to blend Marx and Gandhi
into Satyagrahi Socialism and tried to exhibit in India a new ‘human face’ to Marxism.
The later aspect was vulgarised by Stalin in the then Soviet Russia. Narendra Deva
contributed immensely to the practice of Marxist theory in India by proposing
replacement of violence by Gandhi’s method of Satyagraha as the instrument of class
struggle and preached powerfully in his Gaya thesis (1955) that non-violent class
struggle, such as Satyagraha and strikes were the essential means of democratic action.
Along with his thoughts of class struggle and revolutionary role of peasantry, Deva at the
same strove for the indigenization of Marxism and repeatedly spoke on the misuse of the
caste system, the special feature of the Indian social system. Although Narendra Deva
profoundly did not go into detail in analysing the caste issue, as was done by
Rammanohar Lohia and J.P. extensively, he discussed the socialist culture and socialist
morality-tradition through his thesis titled “Democratic Socialism” in 1953. In this thesis,
he laid equal emphasis on both the individual and the society and pleaded for a thorough
change in the individual character along with social change in India. He never treated the
individual as a means to an end like Gandhi; rather he regarded man as the measure of
all. While Narendra Deva had made efforts for indigenization of Marxism, at the same
time J.P., had emphasised the relationship of the means and the ends as a Gandhite and
aroused people power in the country— like Lokashakti through his inspiring personality.
At the same wavelength, Lohia gave a concrete form to the socialist principles in the
Indian context and direction to fight against the hazardous problems of caste and women,
the twin symbols of inequality in India during that time.
Narendra Deva’s contribution to the spread of Democratic Socialist thought in
India soil was further and clearly reflected when in February 1929, in a letter to Nehru,
he wrote: “That no progress could be expected without a clear conception of the social
and economic theories, on the basis of which the Indian society is to be remodelled under
the umbrella of socialism.”224 Within the Congress Socialist Party, he took efforts to
bring ideological clarity in the minds of party workers and brought out a transparent
humanist motivation and objectives of Marx. At the same alley, Narendra Deva made it
clear how socialism was totally compatible with both the ideas of nationalism and
democracy and pointed out that man needed not only peace and bread but also fair social
security and of course pure liberty. He advocated willing action by peasant co-operatives
but opposed the ways of forced collectivisation as enunciated by Marx. His deliberate
stress was on a social revolution imbibing the moral codes of social and personal
behaviour.
Narendra Deva was one of those rare individuals who epitomised the ‘still centre’
of a great creative socialist movement in India and as for class struggle he lucidly
explained how it was an indispensable means in the context the social situation of India.
While emphasizing the importance of a creative socialist movement in India, he at Gaya
204
APPRAISAL
in 1955, fearlessly said: “it was neither engineered by the Leftists nor was it to their
liking. In fact their very aim was to achieve a society free of economic conflicts. The task
of the conscious political worker was to make the exploited classes aware of the conflict
and to turn the economic struggle into a political struggle.”225 He also felt that true
socialism could never be divorced from real democracy and, at the same posture, his
whole background vis-a –vis his profound understanding of the rich cultural heritage of
India gave him unusual authority to accent the importance of democracy in the arena of
the socialist movement in India. To him, Marxism was a method of studying and
analysing social phenomena with changing situations which, at the same time, when
applied to different social conditions, might very well yield widely differing conclusions.
Whatever else may happen to the future of the socialist movement in India in the many
years to come, the impression which Narendra Deva imprinted through his personal
hallmark on it is not likely to be obliterated at all.
Narendra Deva’s 1934 address to the first All India Congress Socialist
Conference in Patna, was a path-breaking lecture for the excavation of Marxian-
Socialism in the Indian context and in spite of these many years’ gap, it remains as
relevant in the present modern political scenario. As a true Marxist, he argued through
this speech that he was not dogmatic or sectarian in his outlook. For him, the dialectical
method as envisioned by Marx and Engels was a living method and of great elasticity
and one who followed it had to adapt him to the changing situation. This, in other word,
means that Narendra Deva never considered the Marxist as an opportunist and at the
same time he by no means allowed to change his thinking of Marxist philosophy in the
changing scenario. He knew the limitations of Marxism as a whole and the possibilities
of a particular situation and that is why he was not yet ready to sacrifice the gains from
Marxism merely for the sake of any doctrine or a dogma. While addressing a youth
meeting in Patna in 1955, Narendra Deva firmly reiterated: “Socialism was certain to
come in this country and that its critics were wrong... that the critics conveniently forget
that the upper classes who wield economic power have no need to be class-conscious;
the social basis being very narrow, they feel stronger by believing they are acting in the
interests of society as a whole. But they exhibit class solidarity whenever an attack made
on their privileges. I believe that only the revolutionary intelligentsia could organise the
people for disciplined action. The masses are the class of the future.”226 He further
added: “The needs of the Indian democratic movement require an alliance between the
lower middle class and the masses. The labour movement in India has to outgrow its
trade union character and develop political consciousness. I do not want the organisation
of the peasants to develop into ‘peasantism’. I discussed capital crisis with my party
colleagues and my reply to this crisis is the socialist way i.e. socialisation of the means
of production. Many of the misconceptions about socialism arose even among our
socialist leaders because they are dealing with utopian socialism and not scientific
socialism.”227
Narendra Deva’s affinity with the Socialist Party from its inception made him a
chief patron of socialism and he advocated the principle of Democratic Socialism all
over India and was an expert with an Indian view. His concept of nationalism and at the
205
APPRAISAL
same juncture the deterioration of economic and religious values in the Indian society,
paved the way for the origin and development of his idea on Democratic Socialism.
While elaborating his idea on Democratic Socialism in the third world countries vis-a-vis
India, he flamboyantly said: “Democratic Socialism cannot be established overnight and
it is a growing thing. The materialistic conception of history as propounded by Marx and
Hegel do not mean that scientific socialism is a materialistic doctrine. Marx recognized
both mind and matter as formative forces in history and he regarded man as an active
agent who consciously shaped history. Socialists must try to broaden the social basis of
their movement by bringing into their fold workers and peasants. The truth is that we are
always willing to teach the masses but never to learn from them.”228 At the time of the
Patna Gandhi Jayanti conference in 1955, he further added: “the first cells of the socialist
movement are being founded within the Congress party and I recall that in the absence of
support of our great leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, our task has become extremely difficult.
We do not know how long we shall remain deprived of his valuable advice, guidance and
leadership and in this regard we are also missing Gandhi’s valuable support and
command.”229It is to be noted here in this connection that in subsequent years, Nehru and
the socialist movement unfortunately followed separate paths.
The uniqueness of Narendra Deva was that he understood the basic differences
between Communism and Socialism as a distinguished set of ideas and believed that
mass violence as a method was not essential in the Indian setting and he was totally
opposed tyranny. He explained the Marxian principles anew and defined Marxism and
Democratic Socialism in purely the modern Indian political context. He also made it
clear that the role of India towards the Asian civilization should be that of interpreting
the concepts of nationalism and Democratic Socialism with the help of Indian cultural
idioms and the language of the common man. Moreover, Narendra Deva was one of the
few socialist thinkers like J.P. and Rammanohar Lohia, who perceived the contradictory
nature inherent in the Indian cultural tradition. While commenting on the influence of
religion in the Indian context, at the Beneras Hindu Sanmelan in 1954, he precisely
stated: “At its worst the Indian cultural tradition could be tapped for reactionary social
and political movements. At its best it could serve as a fountainhead for radical impulses
and movements. Religion was a dope for the people but there had been many a
progressive trend in the various religions of the world that had helped socialism in laying
its foundation. In India the Buddhist schools of philosophers were of that type; one
would have to understand and propagate their philosophy to establish socialism in the
country.”230 He was very affirmative about the steady progress of inter-dependence
between national and social revolutions all over the world during that time and while
addressing the socialists and Communists in a party annual meet at Ahmadabad in 1955,
he categorically pointed out: “...the ‘inter-dependence’ of national and social revolutions.
A mass-oriented social revolution widens the base and scope of the national revolution;
and a genuine national revolution is an ally and a promoter of the social revolution. The
nationalists and the socialists, therefore, are not rivals or enemies of each other but
partners and allies in a common cause. All through my life I have carried on unceasingly
a dual struggle; against the sectarianism of the socialists and the Communists and the
206
APPRAISAL
conservatism of the nationalists. A party that wants to establish its hegemony over the
national movement must send its members to all the classes; and it is only in this way
that its political influence can grow. Socialists must be in the forefront of every anti-
imperialist action and every battle that is waged in the interests of the masses.”231
Narendra Deva basically accepted Marx and Engels’s social analysis and the
process of social development, but along with the physical elements of Marxism, he also
emphasized the humane aspects and wholeheartedly accepted the Marxian credo that
relations are established according to the development of productive forces. He further
envisioned also the economic structure of society, followed by linking productive
relations and the inter-dependence between the political and the cultural relations with
the economic foundation as its base. To the nationalists of the then so- called Congress
party, he appealed for an understanding of the role of the socialist forces to strengthen
the national movement all over the country. In other words, he identified the link
between the two movements and said: “If the economic struggle is to be linked up with
the national struggle, in order to give social content to the national liberation movement,
it is only just and proper that the two organisations (that is, the Congress and the Kisan
Sabha) should be interlocked in a permanent union. Jealousies and mental suspicions
arise from time to time and endanger the union. Over-enthusiasts on both sides, taking a
narrow sectional view, not knowing the importance of one to the other, may cause
trouble. An organisation that claims to be national cannot afford to be hostile to an
organisation of peasants provided it is anti-imperialist in character and is not anti-
Congress. The Congress also cannot gain its objective without mass action on a national
scale and it will need the services of class-conscious militant peasants who will be ready
to undergo any amount of suffering and sacrifice for the national cause. The two
therefore should wish each other well and each should find fulfilment in the other.”232
Narendra Deva stated quite clearly that cooperation between the national and the socialist
forces within the country would have been able to avert the tragedy of departure from the
national goals and in his futuristic gospel, he felt that the socialist movement would
effortlessly be successful in transforming the national revolution into an instrument of
the desired social revolution if the social forces within the country act together under one
umbrella. It was also believed by him that, besides a favourable social situation and
progress, in order to establish a new social order, conscious efforts by human beings
also formed a vital ingredient and at the same time he agreed with Lenin’s view that
revolutionary conditions and revolutionary efforts were both necessary for a successful
revolution in the Indian context. He also felt that a revolution becomes purposefully
successful by itself, only when it was organised well and the leaders of the revolution
possessed a clear bent of mind and, simultaneously, a constructive and willing vision. In
other words, he in principle accepted the class analysis of Marx and considered class-
conflict as an essential element to build up for a classless society. Narendra Deva also
believed the essentiality of the existence of class-cooperation and held that despite the
conflicts between the interests of various classes, class cooperation was necessary for the
existence of the society for otherwise the society would disintegrate in its entirety.
Moreover he also felt that class-conflicts, to be essential fallout of a class- ridden society
207
APPRAISAL
and, in this way, the class conflicts of the oppressed formed the main vanguard of social
revolution and an essential action for establishing a socialist class-less society in India.
Indumati Kelkar, while discussing Narendra Deva’s idea of class-conflict in an
article titled In office But Not in Power, published in the Editorial of Modern Review in
1954, wrote: “Supporting the class conflict of the oppressed, Narendra Deva would say
that class conflict has been the basis of social revolution. The socialist neither creates nor
likes class conflicts. Their purpose is to organise the society in such a way that mutually
opposing classes and their ongoing conflicts end.”233 What Kelkar wanted to establish
through his writing, was that “despite accepting that class conflicts have been the basis of
social revolution, Narendra Deva was a non-believer in class conflicts and do the
socialist people like class-conflicts in society? Their main objective is to organise society
thus as to end the conflicts between the mutually opposing classes”234 Kelkar considered
Narendra Deva a true supporter of Leninist philosophy and observed: “Like Lenin,
Narendra Deva also emphasised that socialist revolution is not possible on the basis of
the labour class only. A revolutionary socialist leadership of the middle-class with
reference to the literate people are also essential factors that should not be looked out”
and pointed out, “Narendra Deva perceived that according to the Marxists, a
revolutionary movement cannot take place without proper constructive revolutionary
manuals”.235 Furthermore, while exploring the closeness of Narendra Deva’s beliefs and
Lenin’s ideas, Kelkar wrote: “The fundamental changes in society and the transference
of state power, from one class to another, is a revolution. Therefore, the aim of social
revolution is to create a classless society”.236 Moreover, while elaborating his idea with
reference to the commonality as well as the marginal areas of identity of ideas between
Lenin and Narendra Deva’s political thought, Kelkar in an article titled From Faizpur to
Haripura, published in Modern Review in 1972, wrote: “Like Lenin, Acharya Narendra
Deva also did not consider terrorism and plots a part of revolution. As for democratic
strategies, he supported organised armed conflicts for revolution, but did not consider
armed revolution, either necessary or beneficial under all circumstances. The Acharya
believed that in this country, the duty of the socialists is to protect democracy from the
anti-democratic sentiments and forces, strengthen the people’s faith in the democratic
principles, make political democracy powerful, socialist revolution successful, by
democratic means and establish a socialist society.”237A point to be noted in this context
that Deva’s views are similar to Marxism, yet remains dissimilar in many aspects.
Furthermore, in another article titled On Mahatma and Their Ways, published in
Modern Review in 1973, Kelkar highlights in spite of convergence of ideas of Marxism
between Narendra Deva and Lenin, the major differences that existed between them. In
that article, he wrote: “It was the Acharya’s view that under Stalinist dictatorship, both
Soviet and international Communism had stayed. Narendra Deva was totally against the
dictatorship and totalitarianism prevalent in Russia. It was his belief that totalitarianism
gave rise to terror and made man, a mere cog in the state machinery. It all together
destroyed human dignity and did not provide opportunities for a man to develop his
personality. Narendra Deva was not ready to accept the Stalinist autocracy, dictatorship
of labour, as propounded by Marx. In the Acharya’s view Marx had visualised the
208
APPRAISAL
despotism of the bourgeoisie for those countries where the capitalist class was capable of
marshalling immediately, all military power of the state, against its opposing
forces.”238This, in fact means that Kelkar supported Narendra Deva’s efforts to support
international cooperation all over the world, in order to strengthen the principle of
Democratic Socialism as a creed, which is essentially suitable for the Third World
countries.
Narendra Deva continuously emphasised the dialectical relation between class
consciousness and national consciousness and had called upon socialists to master the art
and science of pursuing their fundamental objective of building a socialist society
through various intermediate stages. In his view, Democratic Socialism could not be
achieved in a single leap and, at the same time, could not be realized without first
achieving political independence and the replacement of a colonial-state by a nation-
state. The next step in the words of Narendra Deva was to utilise the instrumentality of
the nation-state for eliminating the socio-economic and cultural survivals of colonialism
and semi-feudalism, a preconditions for successful socialist society.
Besides this, in another article titled The Constructive Approach towards True
Socialism-An Outline, published in The Bombay Chronicle in 1956, while explaining the
Marxist Narendra Deva and his political convictions, Kelkar wrote: “It is clear from this
that though the Acharya was a Marxian, yet his Marxism was not an off-shoot of Russian
communism and fanaticism. He considered Marxian philosophy, a developing one like
all philosophy he had contributed to its development, on one hand, by laying emphasis
on the co-ordination of nationalism and socialism and making liberal nationalism, a part
of comprehensive socialism, on the other, thus he solved a major problem of Marxism.
He put emphasis on the combination of an agricultural revolution and a socialist
revolution and deemed a combined front of labour and farmer, essential for a socialist
revolution which would teach lessons of mutual relations between farmers and the
labourers on the basis of equality. He solved another big problem of Marxism.
Distinguishing between a cooperative and collectivisation and labelling cooperatives as a
part of the socialist order, Narendra Deva emphasised the building up of a rural
economic order on its basis and thus paved the way for pacifying the conflict of farmers
against socialism due to collectivisation.”239 In the same article, he further continued:
“By integrating the principles of order in socialised industries under Marxism, through
democratic decentralisation, industrial democracy and autonomous corporations, he gave
it a comprehensive and democratic form and shielded it form the totalitarianism and
centralised bureaucracy of democratic centralisation. He opposed the concept of
dichotomous socialism and democracy and branded the inspiration of democracy as part
of the human nature.”240
It is a fact that Narendra Deva accepted the privacy of the individual’s freedom
and human rights, by establishing a relationship between economic democracy and the
political consciousness, and thereby accepting the role of opposition groups in any
democratic structure. He therefore redefined and strengthened the democratic nature of
Marxism in India and saved it from being misrepresented by individual worship and
monolithic party dictatorships on the line of Stalin. He emphasized the creative power of
209
APPRAISAL
the individual and spelt out as to how an individual actively reacted to nature. At the
same time, he stressed the non-fatalist elements of Marxism and took a step towards
filling up the vacuum of its sadly lacking psychological dimension. Kelkar pointed out to
Deva’s viewpoint his viewpoint on the moral form of Marxism, as spelt in an article
titled Socialism and Khadi (A Rejoinder), published in Bombay Chronicle in 1955.
Narendra Deva had argued about the, “moral form of Marxism and supplemented its
ethical views by branding Marxism as compulsory, even for the Marxists, to sustain
moral values and good conducts, accept humanity as the basis of Marxism and analyze
the ethics of a Marxist society. By describing certain basic elements of the socialist
culture and making it a significant part of building up a socialist society, I promoted the
cultural objective of Marxism”241opined Kelkar.
In another article, Kelkar appreciated Narendra Deva’s influence and
commitment of Marxian philosophy, which although borrowed from foreign land was
not tampered by him in the context of the Indian political scenario. While justifying this
argument as well as the authority of Narendra Deva’s views on Indian Marxism and
Democratic Socialism, Kelkar in an article, published in the People in 1979, titled Why
Congress Must Resist War?- A Political and Moral Necessity, wrote: “Marxism is not an
eternal principle. It also changes along with the pace of life. Its characteristic lies in its
being revolutionary. To tamper with Marxist teachings is not inappropriate so long as, by
such changes, you can still keep its revolutionary element intact. To consider Marxism as
a live scripture is its glory.”242 While appreciating the promotion of humanist and
democratic culture in an under developed country, after reading Narendra Deva’s ideas
of Democratic Socialism, Kelkar in another article titled Why Socialists Lost in U.P.
Elections, published in the People in 1979, appraised Deva’s views and wrote: “This
contribution of Narendra Deva promotes humanist and democratic elements of Marxism
to spread Democratic Socialism as a philosophy in the Indian context and is in
accordance to its spirit which is inherent in his Marxian thinking.”243
Narendra Deva called upon scientific socialists all over India to achieve a three-
fold re-orientation programme while building true socialism with a fusion of Democracy
in their thought and practice in order to build bridges between the political and socio-
economic goals. The first was his insistence on promoting the initiative of workers and
peasants. Farid Ansari, while explaining the ‘correct assessment’ as made by Narendra
Deva appreciated his viewpoint, in an article titled Socialism-An Irrelevance?,
published in the People in 1991. He wrote: “No single leader could bring about a
socialist state. It would have to be built by labourers and peasants and by a party in
which they are in a majority.”244 At the same time, Narendra Deva asked socialists to
grasp the true meaning of ‘proletarianisation’ of a socialist party. While defending the
idea of Narendra Deva’s ‘proletarianisation’, JP in his book titled Inside Lahore Fort
printed in 1959, explained the true meaning of this concept more lucidly and wrote:
“Proletarianization does not mean flooding the Party with the members of Ekka-Tonga
Union, Coolie Union, Bhangi Union etc., and such indiscriminate admission will destroy
the character of the Party. It will no longer be a Party of steeled revolutionaries offering
the leadership of our national struggle.”245 He had then cautioned that “the Party must try
210
APPRAISAL
to get into its ranks an increasing number of conscious workers. Proletarianisation for me
is thus the recruitment of conscious worker-peasant elements on one hand and the
strengthening of scientific socialist thought, ideology and consciousness in the worker-
peasant parties on the other.”246 In the second phase, Narendra Deva while recognising
the revolutionary role of peasants in agrarian societies like India had also warned against
the great danger of ‘peasantism’.
While arguing in favour of this idea, in an article, published in Modern Review in
1955, titled Gandhiji’s Dangerous Dream of Peaceful Transfer of Power, Narendra Deva
wrote: “There is one more danger to which I should like to refer in this place. It is the
danger of ‘peasantim’. It looks at all questions from the narrow and sectional viewpoint
of the peasant class. Its tenets are derived from the ideal that our economic evolution, as
the whole structure of our State, will necessarily have to retain its specific peasant
character. It believes in rural democracy, which means a democracy of peasant
proprietors… In its crude form it would mean a kind of narrow agrarianism and an
insatiable desire to boost the peasant in all possible places. Such an outlook is
unscientific and betrays a mentality which may give exaggerated importance to the small
peasant… It may also lead to acute antagonism between town and country.” 247 Finally; in
the third phase Narendra Deva firmly emphasized for socialist unity and felt that the
emergence of a unified socialist movement was the essential criteria for the realization of
the socio-economic goals of the national movement under Democratic Socialism. At the
same time he was conscious enough that an objectively favourable emerging social
situation was an essential pre-condition. Simultaneously he pragmatically realized that
the then situation was not a sufficiently favourable condition for the advancement
towards a socialist direction for India. That is why Narendra Deva conceived that
without the subjective factor of a socialist party; even the most favourable objective
situation would not create a favourable environment for the development of the socialist
cause. He therefore persistently asked socialists to be proud of the tremendous role
played by them in making the national movement more acceptable for the goals of
socialism and advised the workers, peasants, middle class intellectuals and intelligentsia
to spread the socialist flavour in India in order to champion the cause of working unity
among socialist forces.
Narendra Deva was a Marxist to the core and had a burning faith in Democratic
Socialism. But at the same time dictatorial tendencies in the then Soviet Union and
Chinese Communism had disappointed him thoroughly and had led him to the firm
conviction that the emancipation of the suffering humanity lay only upon the strong base
of Democratic Socialism. While propounding Democratic Socialism in the modern
Indian political scenario, Narendra Deva in his book titled Socialism and the National
Revolution, published in 1946, and wrote: “Democratic Socialism is not only a political
or economic movement but also a new philosophy, a new way of life, a new culture with
a new code of conduct. It will create a new ferment where, like vibrations of light from
star to star, men and women will radiate their noblest thoughts and feelings to one
another, and will usher in a society free from hatred, jealousy and exploitation and full of
love, affection and service.” 248 This was in fact his own vision regarding Democratic
211
APPRAISAL
Socialism and in that sense undoubtedly Narendra Deva was, the Father of Democratic
Socialism in India and right from 1934 till his last breath, he consecrated his entire
political ideas to the growth, development and propagation of the principles and ideals
of Democratic Socialism all over India.
Relevance of Narendra Deva’s Idea of Democratic Socialism in Indian
Milieu
After the end of the Second World War, Deva’s views on Russia as we have
indicated earlier had changed significantly with reference to the Communist Party and
parliamentary democracy. He no more regarded the Communist party as the party of
extreme Left. He said, “The party of the extreme Left to me is that which has the wisdom
and the courage to advocate and introduce revolutionary changes in society to secure
social justice and equality.” 249 He never equated a totalitarian party with a Socialist
party and at the same time felt that “it has to be taken into account in assessing its place,
because ends and means are interwoven and cannot be separated from each other.”250 It
is a fact that he visualized the purity of means to be an essential component because he
knew that evil means could never lead to good ends and fair ends required fair means. He
found that Communism was not pledged to democracy and did not respect those values
which were essential for the development of human personality. It even ridiculed
parliamentary democracy for the survival of which it fought during the Second World
War. He saw that “it has no use for a code of morals and will not hesitate to have
resorted to methods of doubtful morality if, for the moment, it better serves its ends.”251
Since it was tied to the chariot-wheel of the foreign policy of Soviet Russia, Narendra
Deva assumed that it might break the territorial integrity of its own state or subvert it in
furthering its own policy. These were the major rationale behind his non-acceptance of
the Communist Party as part of the extreme Left. He believed the Socialist Party might
be given that distinction because, while having deep and abiding faith in democracy, it
also accepted the objective of introducing radical changes in the economic structure of
society. In this reference he often mentioned that, “Again, it is not a purely parliamentary
party. Its revolutionary traditions and its work among the masses are a guarantee that it
will not lose its revolutionary character.”252For ensuring success of the socialist
movement he felt it necessary for the Socialist Party to adhere to certain human values
and standards of conduct. In his opinion, members of this party must be drawn from all
sections of the people, such as from the peasantry and intellectuals as well as from
industrial workers and agricultural labourers and all of them should be imbued with the
socialist sprit, so that under all circumstances, they would prefer the socialist cause to
their personal or sectional interests. He also advised that they would bind different
sections of the people in a common fraternal bond, educate them in socialist ideology
and guide them in their march towards democratic socialism.
Narendra Deva was confident that if the Socialist Party acquired political power,
the working classes would be relieved of their suffering of oppression, exploitation and
injustice through social legislation. He was of the view that if the authority failed to
rectify specific economic grievances and acts of injustice of the oppressed classes in a
212
APPRAISAL
democracy , the Socialist Party might resort to peaceful resistance, such as strikes and
demonstrations, Satyagraha and Civil Disobedience . To him, “each act of struggle
should be such as to pass the test of the general aims of society and that the socialist
system is the only real and permanent solution of oppression, exploitation and
injustice.”253 He expected the socialist workers to take a leading part in the class
struggles and held that the duty of the socialists was to organize peaceful resistance
against injustice, to guide the struggle of oppressed humanity and to suffer with them in
their sufferings. Deva was sure that “such sufferings will depend on their love for the
suffering humanity and their determination to end exploitation and injustice, and will
bind them with the common people in a bond of mutual confidence, so necessary for the
socialist revolution.”254 Narendra Deva now accepted the Gandhian concept of
Satyagraha as an appropriate means of the struggle for establishing socialism. Before
independence, he considered Gandhi as an obstruction to the growth of socialism in India
but after independence, he imbibed many Gandhian values. He accepted Gandhi’s
Satyagraha as a principle. During exchange of ideas on Satyagraha between Deva and
Gandhi, the latter told Deva that, “…the weapon of Satyagraha is to be used not only
against foreign domination, but it could be legitimately used against one’s own
indigenous and national government if there is a clear case for its use.”255
Before independence, Deva was in favour of the violent overthrow of foreign
domination from India, but after independence he resolutely rejected violence altogether.
At that moment, he began to advocate non-violent class struggles such as strikes and
Satyagraha and was aware that, “those who want to follow peaceful method like
Satyagraha as taught by Gandhiji-if they do not get free room for such experiments and
actions,…they will turn to the path of violence.”256 While explaining the changing
mindset of his earlier views, he said: “History does not record a single case where an
entire class of people, in response to moral appeal, so changed its outlook and attitude as
to allow the liquidation of its domination and privileges without some sort of pressure
and conflict and there is no reason to believe that Indian capitalists would prove more
human than their comparators in the rest of the world.”257 But by this he did not mean
that moral justification of the claims of the oppressed classes was of no significance. It
elevated the tone and temper of the struggle, enabled the socialist movement to interlink
those struggles of different sections of the oppressed class in a brief revolutionary
movement for the transformation of the entire social order and thus secured the moral
support of other classes in the struggle and enabled the common man to realize that the
struggle was against the iniquitous system and not against individuals. He further
mentioned that “A moral agitation, can, however, serve its revolutionary purpose only
when it is an aid to a revolutionary struggle.”258 As a result, he then emphasized the
moral justification of revolution, but at the same time, did not believe that revolution
would succeed without pressure. What he insisted upon was that the pressure must be
non-violent. Deva had categorically stated that “no welfare has ever been a free gift of
the capitalists in Scandinavian countries. In social welfare economy must not lead us to
believe that they would stand the entire liquidation of their economic power even without
the democratic pressure of the working class.”259 Likewise, while reiterating his
213
APPRAISAL
argument the Acharya stated that, “the Praja Socialist Party (P.S.P.) (which comprised
of the Socialist party , the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party and a section of the Forward Bloc),
in its basic merger agreements has affirmed that non-violent class struggles such as
Satyagraha and strikes are also necessary methods of democratic action. It has
condemned as anti-democratic such efforts of the Congress governments and leaders as
were intended to deprive peasants and workers of their right to Satyagraha and strike.”260
He therefore convinced that the welfare state was the inevitable result of class struggle.
He also negated both rigid constitutionalism and armed insurrection as means for
establishing socialism and adhered that democratic means could not be identified
completely with constitutional parliamentary means. In his book The Peasant Problem
published in 1940, where he downrightly wrote that, “The democratic means, do include
peaceful means of resistance such as strikes and Satyagraha. The success of
parliamentary means require as much economic solidarity as political solidarity of
workers. Without the former the latter could hardly be achieved.”261 He visualized the
possibility of unconstitutional counter-revolutionary activities even in democratic
countries with strong constitutional traditions. So he argued that, “democratic socialist
forces may have to face an unconstitutional counter-revolution not only through
constitutional means alone but also through peaceful and non-violent direct action such
as Satyagraha and strike.”262 He therefore consumed that insurrectionary methods could
not be harmonized with the democratic aspirations of the revolutionaries. It appeared to
him almost as unsuitable as terrorism of the earlier days and said: “terrorist action and
conspiratorial violence are only infantile maladies of anarchism and frustration. They are
condemned by responsible socialist leaders…Nowhere in the world has democracy
succumbed to a revolutionary insurrection of socialist character. Working classes have
always preferred democracy to chaos and foreign aggression and have, therefore,
invariably supported democratic governments against insurrection and foreign
aggression”263 and realized that, “the cause of the socialist revolution can be best served
by strengthening the democratic forces, that the call of insurrection in a democracy is
likely to weaken people’s faith in the democratic process and split democratic forces, and
thereby strengthen the anti-democratic counter-revolutionary forces.”264
He therefore thought that it would not be wise on the part of the Indian socialists
to strive for a violent insurrection and recognized that the Indian constitution, which was
basically democratic in character was broad –based on universal franchise and
guaranteed civil liberties and in spite of its limitations, it provided sufficient freedom to
the socialist movement to grow steadily through peaceful democratic process. The
universal franchise, he understood, might turn out to be an instrument of emancipation as
it would enable the socialists to establish close contacts with the masses and educate
them in the socialist solution of the then Indian problems. The democratic method would
thus enable a strong socialist party to capture political power which might be used to
promote the cause of the socialist revolution and thereby defend the rights and liberties
of the toiling masses.265
During that time he knew that democratic traditions were not well rooted in
Indian soil and that the democratic process would take a longer time here as India was
214
APPRAISAL
stepped in conservatism. In spite of these limitations, he wanted the Indian socialist
movement to be consistently democratic which would require long and persistent work
among the masses. To mobilize democratic forces in favour of the socialist movement,
he said, “We will have to be consistently democratic, peaceful and non-violent, will have
to assure democratically minded. Indians that we stand for democratic socialism, have no
intention to impose any dictatorship, are determined to realize our objective through
democratic means, to pursue democratic ways, to establish healthy democratic traditions
in the country and to abide by democratic decisions. Democratic socialism cannot
obviously afford to be indifferent to democratic forces.”266 He held the opinion that class
struggle informed by principles of democracy and equality could only lead to a
democratic socialist society. Since in India there is a strong Central Government, which
can claim loyal support of the central army and democratic support of the masses, he
realized that it would not be possible for any socialist insurrectionary forces to establish
its authority in any particular pocket and from thereby to envelop the whole country. Nor
did he find insurrection to be the shortest and easiest route to a socialist regime.
Even though Deva stressed the necessity of parliamentary work, he gave equal
importance to non-parliamentary works such as education, organization, construction and
struggle. Only by educating the people in socialist theory and socialist solutions of
Indian problems, the working classes would be able to distinguish the socialist society
from the welfare state and thereby strive for the former even at the cost of certain
immediate comforts. A clever vision of, and deep conviction in, final objectives, was
necessary, according to him, to save the socialist movement from turning into reformism
and opportunism. He was equally aware of the organizational problems and knew that
for achieving success, a strong, well-knit, vital political organization was needed where
the Party members should be infused with the spirit of discipline. He was certain that,
“without a party possessing the general confidence of the people, it is impossible to wage
the struggle with success and it will not be possible for a party to win such confidence
unless its workers are devoted, heroic, self-sacrificing, honest and possess moral
earnestness and deep human sympathy along with the spirit of revolt against social
injustice. All these virtues are to be inculcated in active workers.” 267 After independence,
Deva developed a critical attitude towards the Soviet Union and its belief in
Communism. He realized that the Communist Party would function accordingly with the
tactics of the Comintern, and it would not join hands with other radical parties. He also
found that many trade unions repudiated the Communists and detached them from the
Communist dominated AITUC. The C.P.I was found to believe in violent methods
whose sole aim was to create discontent and foment rebellion. The Communist Party
aptly was condemned by him as a totalitarian party which could not be socialist in
character that could advocate and introduce revolutionary changes. At the same time, he
observed that Communism was not pledged to democracy and did not have respect for
those values which were essential for the development of the human personality. During
that time, it was felt by many political leaders that, “the Communist Party stands the best
chance of coming to the top of the country, a hope cherished by a large number of
people who witnessed the Communist victory in China.”268 But Deva refuted this
215
APPRAISAL
proposition on the ground that there was wide difference between conditions prevailing
in the two countries and, coincidentally, found China to be continuously in a disturbed
state and its economy totally dislocated. In this connection his statement is mention-
worthy. He said, “In India, on the other hand, law and order have always been
maintained and administration has never broken down. War never came to the gates of
India and we did not suffer that devastation and destruction of human life and property
which became the normal features of Chinese life. In China, again, there was a
Communist State which was ever enlarging its frontiers and was competing with the
Kuomintang for supremacy. In India, it is only a party without any mass influences.
Economic conditions in India have not so much deteriorated as in China, and the
inflationary trend is not so pronounced. The administration in our country is not so
corrupt and the army and the police have remained loyal to the new state.” 269
Between the two major political parties in China –the Kuomintang and the
Communist Party, Deva’s preference was clear. He preferred the nationalist government
of China led by Chiang Kai Shek’s administration because it had abolished feudalism
and had also modified its theories to suit the Chinese conditions which subsequently
gave rise to ‘agrarian Communism’. He however, held the belief that in India the people
had a wider field of choice and that the Socialist Party had a mass base both among
workers and peasants and could compete with the Congress for political power provided
it could overcome its inadequacies and shortcomings. He never gave heed to the
suggestion that after China became a Communist state it would send its armies to India
to enable the Communists to gain political power. In this connection he was very much
doubtful when he said that, “the new Communist state will have many domestic
problems to settle. It will be engrossed in its own affairs and the problem of establishing
law and order will not be an easy one for it. It will be in its interest to be on friendly
terms with its neighbours, and if India recognizes the de facto new Government of
China, it will have to reciprocate and may even go to the length of asking Indian
Communists to behave better. In no case would it be in a position for the next few years
to lend support to the ambitious schemes of Indian communists.”270
The Acharya moreover had faith in Indian Prime Minister Nehru and knew that
he was not as rigid and inelastic in the formulation of his policies as his Chinese
counterparts. In this case he believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that in moment of
crisis, if Nehru felt it necessary to introduce radical changes in the social system to save
the situation, he would not hesitate to take the necessary steps. He found a great
difference in outlook and ideology between the leaders of India and those of China and
considering all these conditions he reached the conclusion that, ‘Communist hegemony
in India is a far-off event.’271
In spite of this opinion about Nehru, Deva thought that the Congress had become
a conservative force and its pious declaration could not change its character. Although
the Congress spoke of a classless society, he elaborated, it did not mean it and that the
declaration of the social objectives of the Congress only served as a mask to cover up its
true character. He found wide discrepancies between what the Congress professed and
what it practised and was quite clear that socialism as professed by the Congress would
216
APPRAISAL
never grow out of its present policy by a single process of declaration and speeches and
that energetic social action and organization of the proletariat was needed to awaken to
its new destiny. He supposed that a long period of apprenticeship would be necessary for
it to qualify itself for taking the new role of establishing a classless society and according
to his own consideration, no revolution, was possible without the participation of the
masses. It appeared quite clear to him that the path followed by the Congress would not
be able to solve the problems that had cropped up after independence. In a fitting reply,
he was sceptical about the Congress idea of a process of social change based on certain
achievable conditions and said, “An organization could become a fit instrument of social
change only if it satisfies certain conditions. These conditions are not being fulfilled by
the Congress.”272 In his analysis, the Congress represented dominant nationalism and he
found in it pronounced totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies. At that flashpoint, the
Congress was brought into being to invite all groups for joining with it and sensed that
it was done to stifle all opposition and to liquidate all independent force which might
have the power to challenge its authority. It also appeared to him that the Congress may
also share power with the reactionary and communal forces provided. They gave up
their separate identities and became amenable to the Congress discipline. He, therefore,
felt the necessity of having a democratic, free, fearless and healthy opposition to the
party in power and believed that the Socialist Party was the only party which could play
that much coveted role. To him, “It is a challenge of history and we must accept it.”273
Acharya Narendra Deva’s Views on Indian National Integration
After the achievement of independence, Deva became concerned with the various
social and national problems of India and was deeply concerned with the problems of
casteism and communalism and the problem of the minorities and also of those who
were culturally, socially vis-à-vis economically backward. He was mainly worried with
the problem of casteism and found that in the villages, the working class was not very
much organized, they were divided amongst many parties and there remained zilch co-
operation between them. Despite economic hardship and a rising discontent against the
government, they remained indifferent. This appeared to Deva as a sign of their moral
weakness. He saw that many caste organizations divided the working class and the small
peasants. He said, “Whatever reawakening has come in this country finds its dubious
expression through caste organizations. In our social system their growth is natural. It
has its effect both on the peasant and the landless labour. This has been the state of
affairs since the beginning.”274 To Narendra Deva, the caste system had been the bane of
India as it broke the Hindu community into watertight compartments and in the
Assembly elections of 1948; he found that the evils of the caste system had come into the
limelight. Political groups were formed during the elections on the basis of castes and he
noticed that in certain areas the lower caste banded themselves together against higher
castes.
In the Communist Party, he found the Brahmins as the dominating group and
even noticed that in certain places Congressmen entered into unholy alliances with caste
organizations in order to remain in power. He simultaneously thought that if the poor
section were educated properly and were assured of the up-lift of their social and
217
APPRAISAL
economic status and were conceded their just political rights, they could be convinced of
the futility of being divided into small groups on the basis of caste. To him, “the Socialist
Party, being the defender of the rights of the exploited, stands the best chance of winning
their confidence. They can be initiated into the principles and policies of the party and
can be weaned away from casteism and sectionalism in politics. Betterment of their
social and economic conditions is possible only in a socialist society which is based on
equality and justice.”275 The upsurge of communalism on the eve of the country’s
independence came to Narendra Deva as a challenge. Communalism, backed by
feudalism and vested interests, spread throughout the country. The forces of communal
hatred and passions unleashed after the partition were found striking at the very roots of
the new born State. He said that, “these forces of reaction must be fought to make India
safe for secular democracy.”276 He also held that, “we must extend our hand of co-
operation to the Congress in wiping out communal hatred and passions, and thus help it
to eradicate the poison of communalism.”277 Deva was deeply concerned with the
problem of communalism and in order to curb communalism, he always laid emphasis
on the economic up-lift of the masses because he had the firm belief that the problem of
communalism was related to economic backwardness. He felt that “had the Congress
leaders been able to lead the masses to economic battle, Jinnah would certainly have
failed to foment communal fanaticism among the poor Muslims. What they needed was
bread and shelter which the Congress should have provided them. Prior to independence,
the Congress paid very little attention to the socio-economic problems of the masses.”278
Narendra Deva realized that the birth of Pakistan gave impetus to communalism
and the problems of Kashmir and East Bengal added to the menace. In that reference he
said, “Our attention has been diverted from basic questions to the threat of Pakistan. The
community that is responsible for the partition of India has become very active at this
moment. They deeply feel that the challenge of Pakistan can only be met by indulging in
communal frenzy. The Pakistan phobia has gone deep in our country and, as a result, the
reactionary forces are getting strengthened in our country. Such a state of affairs
implicitly helps the Congress government in extending tenure. This, at least, is the
biggest obstacle in the way of progressive forces.”279 Although the Congress government
had ably handed a few problems that suddenly overtook it as a result of the partition of
India and could keep the dark and reactionary forces in check with threatened to
overwhelm it, Deva apprehended that these forces might raise their heads threatening the
foundation of the new state. He said, “as a result of communalism, our political thinking
has become distorted and much of our traditional thinking which has no relevance to our
modern problems has received an exaggerated importance.”280 Deva was aware that the
communal problem was a complicated issue and needed to be solved in a scientific
manner. He was very much in favour of peace and amity which could be achieved by
pacts and agreements only to a limited extent. Unity between communities was, in his
view, a long process. Although pacts could accelerate the process, it could not take its
place. He said, “Pakistan without mutual transfer of population is no solution of the
communal problem. Pakistan or no Pakistan, the communal problem will have to be
tackled all the same and can be tacked only be laying emphasis on the economic issues
218
APPRAISAL
which equally affect the Hindu and Muslim masses of the country. Their economic
interests are identical and a unity can be established only on the basis of their common
interests. It is through a common struggle for common economic interests that the unity
will be forged.”281
Although Narendra Deva was in favour of setting the communal question with
the Muslim league, he did not advocate such unity of action in the political field because
he knew that without identity of outlook and objectives such unity would either be short
lived or would end in strengthening the reactionary forces in the country. In spite of this,
he was not against having a joint front with the League on specific issues on which there
might be agreement between them. During that period it was clear to him that, “any
attempt to implement the Hindu state would lead to the disappearance of democracy and
to the prolongation of the evils of the present social order. Conservative and reactionary
forces will acquire new strength. These forces will spare no efforts to sabotage our
efforts to evolve a democratic order in India and cast their evil shadow over the vital
economic field. Thus, any idolizing of the past would prove very dangerous for us. Only
the new social philosophy can help develop and give new direction to the will of our
people. Otherwise, the reactionary outlook of the worshippers of the past will tend to
overwhelm us.”282 After the General Election of 1952, the Acharya noticed the
downward trend of communalism in India because it did not get support from the masses
and in the same year, in a long speech, he said that, “there is no danger from
communalism in this country today and if there is any danger to our secular political life,
to our free political life, it is due to casteism and not to communalism, I should say. In
my humble judgement, so long as the outstanding questions between India and Pakistan
are not settled to the mutual satisfaction of both the countries, we shall have such fights
again and again in times of crisis and turmoil.”283 Although the Constitution of India
mentions India as a secular state, Deva stated that, “Unless life is secularized by science
and technology, unless reason is enthroned in place of superstition and supernaturalism, I
do not think secularism has got a bright future in this country. It is a plant of slow
growth. We are striving in that direction, we shall come to that stage when India will
become in the full sense of the word a secular state. But merely by repeating slogans
things cannot change in a day; you cannot change the past, you cannot block it out of
existence by an Article of the Constitution.”284 During that stage he thought it was
necessary to create political consciousness among the minority communities which
included the Muslim community, the Harijans, the Christians and the Anglo-Indians. In
his view, the main reason why the minority community always supported the Congress
was that there was not sufficient political awakening among them. Deva was in favour of
the social, economic and cultural advancement of the backward classes and said, “Only
by these means can we remove that terrible social disharmony which has tended to defile
our present social system. At the same time, it should be an important duty of the state to
provide equal opportunities for advancement to every community.” 285
In order to unite the people and invoke their co-operation in preparing the
foundation of a new life, Narendra Deva was sure to obtain the hearty co-operation of the
depressed classes. He envisioned that, “we must ensure the people that the nation accept
219
APPRAISAL
their undeniable importance and that they are themselves a leading component of our
political order. Economic equality among the various classes of society would make a
happy living possible.”286 At the same flashpoint, Deva was also concerned with the
problem of provincialism in India. He felt that inter-provincial amity and concord were
essential for strengthening Indian unity, and this could be made possible, only when the
provinces were reconstituted on a linguistic basis. He was of the view that people could
come to know each other only by having a basic idea of each other’s language and
literature and was totally in agreement with those who stood for linguistic provinces and
a federal Constitution.
He was also aware of the various methods to achieve the ends that they had in
view. While mentioning one of the methods, he remarked, “The adoption of a uniform
script for all provincial languages will facilitate the task of learning these languages,
most of which are derived from the same present stock. A common civil code,
irrespective of caste and creed, and a common economic organization another much-
needed reforms which may be expected to strengthen the inter-provincial ties. All causes
of mutual distrust and antagonism should be removed, and within a province all
communities, especially minorities, should be made to feel that their legitimate interests
will not be jeopardised and that social justice will be done to all classes.” 287 For the
establishment of a strong and powerful state, he pleaded social harmony as after
independence, various divisive forces came to the surface in India. Deva knew that it was
not possible to keep them under control by violent means; instead it could be controlled
by meeting the legitimate aspirations of the people whom these forces represented. For
example, he saw that Congressmen themselves were divided among themselves on the
issue of whether Bombay should be included in Gujarat or in Maharashtra. So he said
that, “We have to find a sympathetic solution to the separatist movement of the
aboriginal communities by accepting the principle of regional autonomy within the
provinces. Moreover, there is the danger of rivalries among the various provinces. We
shall have to use all our intellectual resources to resolve the disputed arising out of these
provincial rivalries. Above all, we have to find a solution to the twin problems of hunger
and poverty.”288
The Acharya stated that steps should be taken to promote national harmony by
eliminating those causes which led to communal conflict and disequilibrium. He knew
that the people of India were divided on the basis of castes and religious communities
and had a narrow outlook. He therefore stressed the fact that, “a country that is divided
amongst castes, among communities can be welded together into one single nation only
when you have certain common symbols. Certain common objectives to fulfil, and
instead of moving in that direction, instead of trying to take those measures, those
healthy salutary measures, without which there cannot be secularism in this country,
without which communalism cannot be suppressed and eradicated from the body politic
of this country, we are trying to suppress it only by enacting such punitive measures.”289
Though the Acharya was opposed to casteism which ‘militates against democracy and
nationalism’, he used to respect the legitimate demands of the backward communities for
220
APPRAISAL
equality and was convinced that while its fulfilment was necessary for national
integration, it was possible only in a socialist order.290
Deva however did not come out with any slogan or crusade against casteism,
untouchability, tribal issues or the problems of nationality, ethnic groups, language
issues, role charisma etc. Though he criticized formal religion, traditional moral values,
the Hindu cult of ascetics, renunciation and the caste system, he moved very cautiously.
He regarded these ‘evils’ as largely socio-economic in origin and believed that it was
impossible to eradicate them without reconstructing the entire social system. 291 So, with
this outlook with reference to Narendra Deva’s views on national integration, it is quite
clear to us regarding his thinking of India in the post-independence period and amply
demonstrates his tireless efforts towards India’s unity and integrity.
Narendra Deva’s Exploration on India’s Foreign Policy
Since India’s domestic issues were closely inter-connected to the policy of
foreign affairs, Narendra Deva could not remain indifferent to the emerging pattern of
India’s foreign policy more so because after the end of the Second World War; the
world had become divided into two power blocs-the American and the Soviet bloc. As
the then Indian state believed in the policy of neutrality, it had no desire to join any
power bloc. While endorsing this policy, the Acharya stated that, “India’s interest
demands that it should keep out of the war and every possible effort should be made to
see that peace of the world is not disturbed. It can effectively play such a role only if it
does not identify itself with any of the blocs.”292At the same juncture, he knew that if
India was identified with any power bloc it would provoke antagonism of the other major
power. But his main concern was whether India should remain within the British
Commonwealth or should come out of it, as he knew that “membership of the British
Commonwealth carries with it the obligation to participate in its policies of peace and
war; and even it is not so, it is sure to excite suspicion of others about our bonafides to
remain neutral.”293To him, India had no use in a Commonwealth membership. Moreover,
Britain had divided the territory before her withdrawal, which implied, in the Acharya’s
opinion, that they did not want Asian countries to maintain their solidarity and retain
their territorial integrity. So, his reaction was that, “on this various grounds it is not in
our interest to remain in the British Commonwealth.”294 In spite of all this, he was never
against entering into friendly treaty with Britain with commercial and cultural purposes.
At the same podium, he made it quite clear that, “on no account can we agree to tie
ourselves in a war which may make India one of the theatres of war, and thus cause
devastation and destruction in a large scale.”295 He wanted India to evolve its own
independent foreign policy as it had an important role to play in the defence of Southeast
Asian countries and during that period he felt that, “it will have to work for peace not
only because its traditions have been such but also because its national interest will
demand the pursuit of a peaceful policy.”296
He was certain that after freedom was won, India would have to use all her
energies in the task of national re-construction for a considerable length of time, and any
external distraction in the shape of war would postpone its social and economic progress.
221
APPRAISAL
He clearly mentioned that, “it will therefore be essential for her to live at peace not only
with her neighbours but also with all the big powers. It will enter into non-aggression
pacts with every country and will refuse to be involved in the wars of others.”297
Deva found that Britain was determined to continue its old imperialistic policies
as retaining its strategic hold on the Persian Gulf by not foregoing its oil concession in
Iran. In this regard he argued that, “it is likely that it may enter into an agreement with
Russia on the basis of recognition of Russia’s legitimate interests in Northern Iran. They
will try to maintain peace not by shedding imperialism and laying the foundations for a
new international order, based on justice and equality, but by allocation of spheres of
interest between rival powers by mutual agreement. This reminds us of the old pattern of
1907 when the entire principal points of dispute between England and Czarist Russia
were settled in a similar manner.”298 He was against entering into the British orbit which
would make India responsible for Britain’s imperialistic policies, and involve them in
England’s wars. In his own view, an alliance with Britain for mutual defence would
make India suspicious and unfriendly Russia whose friendship and neutrality, he valued
very much in the immediate future. In this connection he reiterated, “Our interest lies in
keeping out of all political rivalries of big powers. We cannot favour one party at the
expense of others. There cannot be a favoured nation’s clause for Britain in the treaty.”299
Summarily then, it can be said that Narendra Deva’s outlook towards India’s post-
independence foreign policy remained mainly confined towards the policy of neutrality
and not to incline with any of the then Cold War power blocs. However, he had a soft
corner towards the former Soviet Union, on account of its socialist ideological affiliation.
Narendra Deva as a Social Humanist
Narendra Deva laid considerable stress on human efforts and human values and
strongly held that, “A socialist order, cannot be established unless men consciously work
for it. Nor can a socialist order be conceived independently of human values. Humanism
is the bedrock of socialism.”300 The humanism for which he stood was imbued with
values conducive to the growth of an egalitarian society and Liberty, Equality, Social
Justice; Common Good were upheld by him as moral qualities of a high order. In his
view, these were to be cultivated in life and weaved into the social strata.
According to Deva, Marx was the utmost votary of humanity who took the
concrete reality of the capitalist world as the basis of his research and did not visualize of
an idyllic, imaginary world of his own. He considered it his job to make a critical review
of the peasant world and while explaining Marx’s views on the process of historical
evolution, he categorically explained that “society is the key to an understanding of the
process of historical evolution. Man is social and he has no existence outside society.
The foundation of every social system is its process of production and exchange.”301
Marx realized that in the capitalist society, the proletariat class made no appeal in the
name of humanity itself, and its salvation was not possible without drawing other classes
towards it. Only by rediscovering its lost humanity it could realize itself as a class. So in
Deva’s opinion, “the doctrine of socialism can become a force only when it is able to
influence the people and is accepted by them. In other orders a principle or ideology can
222
APPRAISAL
become a reality only when it is able to meet the people’s needs. Therefore, the Marxist
ideal cannot be deemed to have been attained until the proletariat as a class ceases to
exist.”302
The Acharya found Marx not only to have suggested the means for rediscovering
the lost humanity of the people but also to have actively shown the way towards
achieving it. Whereas earlier philosophers generally sought to maintain the status quo,
Marxist philosophy was aimed at changing the entire social structure. While fighting for
lost humanity, Marx bore numerous hardships but he never cared for the displeasure or
threats of the capitalists and at this passage of time, he, not for a single moment, had
deflected from his path despite plentiful difficulties. At the same manner, his philosophy
imparted a new sprit and inspiration to man and was very much truthful Deva said that,
“Marx’s philosophy is the force which has imparted a new sense of life to the down-
trodden, the outcaste, the illiterate and the poor; and it has lighted a new flame in their
despondent hearts. Again, it is the philosophy which shows the road to salvation for
millions of men. Only by treading this road shall people build a new order in which man
will be taken for man and when no power on earth would be able to deprive him of his
humanity.”303 Thus, as a humanist, Narendra Deva tried to develop Marxism into a broad
humanist philosophy and attached great value to the ethical concept of socialism and
convinced that regeneration of human society was not possible without socialism. In a
society based on exploitation along with servitude, human nature was bound to be
degraded and at the same time, he believed that a socialist society could never be
established unless and until the majority of its people, especially the elite, accepted a
new social ethics, a new educational system and a new motivation. The socialists
consider, according to the Acharya, moral law as human, social and historical and
eventually it is concerned with human life where a rule of social discipline has been
evolved with human experience in response to historically determined needs and
conditions.
A real human morality required full social consciousness which was possible, in
his view, in a society free from exploitation, oppression and domination and,
consequently, from antagonism which generated class consciousness. But he found that
the economic system of his time was based on the motive of profit not only for a polluted
moral atmosphere along coupled with moral degeneration but also for corrupted-
disintegrated ethics along with other social science. In this connection he often remarked,
“The problem of morality must, therefore, be socially approached. This social approach
does not deny the need of conscious human efforts for moral development of an
individual and society. It only insists that as man is by nature social, and moral virtue is
the essence of the social nature of man, an individual can develop moral personality in
society and in proper social atmosphere, and his efforts must not be purely psychological
but essentially social in character. It also maintains that as circumstances make man, just
as much as man makes circumstances, there must be a simultaneous change in human
activity and the social system to secure moral development.”304
He found that the moral code of a class society generally reflected the social
needs of the dominant class. As a result when class conflict developed, the oppressed
223
APPRAISAL
classes refused to be bound by them and instead they enunciated new moral principles
based on its urge for freedom and equality. At the same time, they demanded their
general social acceptance and their embodiment in the moral code of community. While
discussing the impact of socialism on oppressed classes he wrote that, “In this conflict,
socialism stands by the oppressed masses. It condemns oppression and domination as
immoral, and strives for the establishment of the new moral order based on equality and
liberty, the basic moral urges of the common man.”305
He further continued: “In a real human society, sociality will be sufficient to
make a man moral. But in a class society, where class consciousness dominates social
consciousness and selfishness overpowers the sense of social responsibility sociality
needs to be sustained by the revolutionary urge of justice for oppressed and the
explicated… This revolutionary urge against injustice to be really moral must not
obviously be confined to revolt against others’ injustice. It must also cause repulsion
against one’s own injustice.”306 Deva warned the socialists to resist those old moral rules
and forms which tended to perpetuate inequality, domination, exploitation, and
oppression. But he knew that it was not possible for them to ignore all general rules of
moral behaviour which would otherwise afford reactionaries an opportunity to malign
the socialist movement as immoral and make it difficult for the party to maintain
decorum and decency in its ranks. He felt that rules of democratic behaviour required to
be strictly followed and the democratic way of life needed to be promoted. Socialists also
necessitated to be advised to live with moral ideals which they stood for. The moral ideal
was considered by him as a means to collect and inspire the forces of revolutionary
classes and also as a powerful lever to overthrow the existing social and economic order.
It challenged the universal moral validity of the established moral code and strove
against certain socially recognized moral norms and rules of conduct. Democratic
Socialism, in the Acharya’s opinion, believed in the moral evolution of man through the
ages and regarded socialist morality as its fulfilment. He was quite sure that it would
resolve contradictions and conflicts in moral ideals and would vitalize moral principles
of essentially humanistic character and would preserve those traditional forms which
were not inconsistent with socialism. It would also develop new principles of the
socialist world out of the principles of the existing world.307
Deva regarded socialist morality as real human morality as it was based on the
conviction that the proper growth of human sentiments and moral personality required
the social climate of free co-operation and equality and also facilities of a decent cultural
life. Liberty, Equality and Common Good were upheld as its basic ethics and in this
reference he commented, “It is our duty to build socialist morality through the creative
synthesis of democratic and socialist norms of humanist character, with spiritual
humanism differentiated from religious social norms of a hierarchical character.”308 He
knew that the socialist morality that would gradually emerge would stand for the
reorientation of life, social and personal, on the basis of human personality and the
dignity of labour, national freedom and international peace, social justice and universal
good, individual liberty and free democratic co-operation, the progress of humanity and
the integrity of personality. The integrity of personality, he felt, would consist in the
224
APPRAISAL
sublimation of impulses and harmonization of emotions for promoting ‘Lokahit’, a broad
human outlook and its creative realization in action, the spirit of public service and the
sense of responsibility, the courage of conviction and strength to stand against social
evils against all odds and circumstances. The sublimation and harmonization of impulses
and emotions would surely enrich human life with universally recognized moral qualities
as courage, fortitude, faithfulness, frankness, fearlessness, and compassion. So, he stated
that, “socialism wishes each to cultivate these moral qualities.”309 Moreover, Deva
believed that, “moral personality consists in the capacity on the part of an individual for
making social good his own. To socialists, moral action is a free action contributory to
social good; moral freedom is the liberation of all powers of men for the social good; the
moral life is possible in a society in which man seeks the realization of true joy in
association with others and so promotes his betterment as a constituent of social
good.”310 The Acharya realized that a socialist’s morality stood for man’s self-perfection
which could be attained through ‘Lokahit’. He knew that it would require pursuing not
only the ideal of one’s own self-perfection but also the perfection of those who were
constituents of the same moral order. He viewed that, “when socialists participate in the
struggle against injustices of exploiting classes, they fight against inequalities of
feudalism and capitalism and strive for a free moral order. When socialism insists on
industrial democracy and human conditions of work, it is because they are prerequisites
of a free moral life.”311
Here we may find able politicians, administrators, economists or scientists, but it
is difficult to find a moral personality like Narendra Deva. His greatest achievement was
perhaps the inspiration which he provided to the younger generation and the new moral
fervours or values inculcated in them. He also moulded the character of thousands of
men and women who came into contact with him. Deva’s humanist outlook led him to
emphasize the role of education in democracy and at the same breath he knew that it was
through education that democratic habits could be cultivated amongst the youth of the
nation. Subsequently, he felt the necessity of re-educating that section of the youth who
had come under the baneful influence of pernicious doctrines and in establishing an
ambience of democratic thought and emotions in educational centres. In this matter, he
felt that the universities could play a prominent role by becoming centres of creative
ideas where there would be constant inter-change of ideas between the teachers and the
students. In this climate of co-ordination, he often uttered, “for this very reason,
educational institutions should not be divorced from life and it should be reorganized that
a policy of splendid isolation is positively harmful.”312
Deva suggested the sole need for encouraging the discussions over recent
problems and the necessity of the participation of the teachers in the social and political
life of the community. While referring to the role of the universities he often mentioned
that, “universities should play an important role in combating totalitarianism, and the
destructive influence of such doctrines. They should uphold democracy and prepare
young men not only for their calling but also for discharging the obligations of
citizenship. They should teach them to think clearly and boldly and to accept the truth
whether it is palatable or disagreeable.”313 In his opinion, “education is a continuing
225
APPRAISAL
process; frontiers of knowledge are ever widening, new facts and new principles are
being developed. It is, therefore necessary to recondition the mind from time to time so
that one may not lose the quality of social awareness which is so necessary for human
progress.”314
Deva further suggested that both science and humanities should be taught in the
universities. It was necessary to cultivate a scientific attitude of mind and of inculcating
the youth with social and spiritual values. He reminded the Indian people that only
through the development of science and its pragmatic application to social problems, it
might be possible to socialize culture and banish poverty. He realized that science
created those human values which could secure social justice and equality and at the
same time he was aware that, “Socialism would have remained a dream and would not
have become a worldwide movement which it is today, if science and technology had not
made an age of plenty possible. But scientific attitude has to be reinforced by faith in
human values, so that science may not be prostituted for ignoble ends. Scientific
knowledge must be placed at the service of the community for beneficent purposes and
for the advance of civilization.”315
Narendra Deva realized that while a scientist took a rational view of things in his
own sphere, his views on other matters were based on faith in tradition and he made no
attempt to apply scientific principles to other fields of human experience. Moreover, he
felt that, “an organic unity of scientific social analysis with ethical ideals has, therefore,
to be achieved. Application of sciences to social problems will then cease to be amoral
and our equipment of scientific knowledge will be utilized for the achievement of the
common good.”316 It was also his proposal that the, “common people should be made
conscious of the modern trends of society and be told that it is only by co-operative
efforts and by subordinating one’s narrow selfish interest to the interest of society that
conditions of good life can be created for all.”317
Deva’s humanist views led him not to discard but to broaden the foundation of
nationalism and he felt the necessity of protecting those new social and cultural ideals,
which, he found, had come into existence after a prolonged struggle by the people of
India. He was in favour of upholding the lessons he had learnt from the earlier two
generations following the larger view of nationalism as advocated by Mazzini against the
narrow chauvinism of Hitler. In this connection he mentioned out rightly, “we have
always been vigilant about the fact that our nationalism should not degenerate into sheer
national arrogance and that we should never look down upon other nations. Lately
nationalism everywhere has tended to become narrower than before. We have reason to
be on the alert in the matter.”318 Though a nationalist, he was not a chauvinist and was
fully conscious of man’s ultimate responsibility to the entire humanity and at the same
time wished his nation to be free and strong. He felt that it might contribute to restore
world peace and human progress. He was firmly opposed to narrow militant nationalism
and stood for a world society based on the principle of freedom and equality and of
voluntary operation among free peoples. National unity, he felt, required not only civic
spirit and national consciousness but also cultural fellowship among different sections of
the society as well as economic equality and social justice which would be necessary to
226
APPRAISAL
build up a socialist society. Though he was thoroughly opposed to casteism which, in his
own words, ‘militates against democracy and nationalism’, he used to respect the
legitimate desire of backward communities for overall equality in his country.319
Therefore, in the concluding observation we can refer that, Narendra Deva was to a large
extent convinced that while its fulfilment was necessary for national integration, it was
possible only in a socialist order and once again exhibits his loyalty towards the
philosophy of humanism, flavoured with lofty socialist values.
Conclusion
Acharya Narendra Deva’s political philosophy was a fusion of individualism,
idealism and socialism and the key words of his economic and political programme were
self-sufficiency, non-competition, equitable distribution and above all decentralised
production exclusively relevant for the Indian scenario. His political philosophy was
mainly influenced by the revolutionaries and the extremist tactics, and also with the
ideals of the liberals and the moderates and was spontaneously influenced by the Hindu
scriptures vis-à-vis nationalism and of course by the Gandhian idealism of national
reconstruction and constructive mechanism. As a staunch Hindu, he professed communal
harmony as the cure of existing communal problems and at the same time, he had
developed a national and international outlook and followed the demands of
contemporary history, philosophy and politics and moved accordingly. His political ideas
can be deduced from his original writings, speeches and activities and, simultaneously,
he was a leading spokesman of his time. He was not a political ideologue in a broad
sense of the term but was a democratic- socialist, secular, nationalist, internationalist,
liberal, idealist and on top of all an ardent patriot and an extreme rebel in his whole
political outlook. He heartily loved his homeland and believed in people’s power like
J.P. and hence, like Gandhi, launched a crusade against prevailing injustice in the then
Indian societal periphery.
Narendra Deva’s loyalty to the concept of Democratic Socialism came from his
firm belief in human values and humanity and, at the same time, he wanted to propagate
the concept and significance of “labour value” under Marxian diction in the so-called
Indian society. Consequently, he believed that true socialism cannot be established
overnight by the power hungry politicians competing for mere material power and feeble
democratic rights for the Indian citizen. Since, most of his political activities kept him
busy for the growth of the nation building process of India in the pre and post-
independence period. It is unfortunate he did not get time to write a clear mandate on
political vis-à-vis economic-cultural-social ideas suited for the Third World country’s
overall developmental scenario. If he had been able to write a book separately on the
selective ideas of Democratic Socialism for the Indian societal context and culture, then
he definitely would have left behind, an invaluable legacy which would have shown a
well-planned way for the total welfare of humanity vis-à-vis national integration by
instinct Narendra Deva was a revolutionary, a real intellectual in the history of the Indian
national movement.
227
APPRAISAL
Notes and References:
1
Prem Bhasin, Acharya Narendra Deva, Janata, February, 1979, p.3.
2
Narendra Deva, Rashtriyata Aur Samajvad, Varanasi, Gyanamandal, 1949, p.144.
3
Amar Narain Agarwala, Gandhism: A Socialist Approach, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1944,
p.51.
4
For details see, G.S. Bhargava, Leaders of the Left, Meherally Book Club, 1951, p.19.
5
Prem Bhasin, Socialism in India, Young Asia Publications, New Delhi, 1968, p.91.
6
Tilak Raj Chandra, A Study of the Communist and Socialist Movement in Punjab, Jyoti
Prakashan, Ghaziabad, 1954, p.72.
7
P.N.Chopra (ed.), Quit India Movement (British Secret Report), Thomson Press (India), Ltd.,
Faridabad, 1976, p.81.
8
Brocway. Ferner, Socialist Policy in India, National Call, Delhi, Vol.XXIV, No.17,
September-October, 1987, p.81.
9
Dennis Dalton, Gandhi: Individual Freedom and Social Action, Political Science Review,
Vol.IX, No.2, 1970, p.62.
10
B.N.Pandey (ed.), Leadership in South Asia, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977,
p.370.
11
Narendra Deva, Gandhism and Congress Ministers, Bombay Chronicle, Bombay, Vol.XXIV,
No.12, May-June, 1952, p.36.
12
Narendra Deva, Congress and Socialism, The Tribune (editorial), Bombay, July 23, 1936,
p.7.
13
Narendra Deva, Socialism in the Congress, The Tribune (editorial), Bombay, April 16, 1942,
p.13.
14
Dev Dutt, Gandhi’s Technique of Social Changeand Jayaprakash Narayan, Gandhi Marg,
Vol.XXIV, No.14, October-November, 1980, pp.118-119.
15
Jayaprakash Narayan, Socialism and Sarvodaya, The Tribune, Bombay, June 10, 1951, p.12.
16
M.R.Dandavate, Evolution of Socialist Policies and Perspective-1934-64, Lokmitra
Publications, Bombay, 1964, p.27.
17
C.B.Dalal, Gandhi: 1915-48: A Detailed Chronology, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi,
1971, p.29.
18
Larry Collins and Dominique Loapierre, Mountbatten and the Partition of India, Vikas
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1982, p.65.
19
Acharya Narendra Deva, Address delivered by him as Chairman of the Reception Committee
at the Fifth Annual Congress Socialist Party Conference at Cawnpore, on March 1, 1947,
Cawnpore, Commercial Press 1957 and R.R.Diwakar, Saga of Satyagraha, Gandhi Peace
Foundation, New Delhi, 1969, p.82.
20
Acharya Narendra Deva, Congress Socialist Party, (Hindi and English), Jullundur, Punjab
Publication, 1957, p.12.
21
Acharya Narendra Deva, n.2, p.37.
22
Kamala Gadre, Indian Way to Socialism, Vir Publishing House, New Delhi, 1966, p.49.
23
Acharya Narendra Deva, Some Questions Answered, Commercial Press, Jullundur, Punjab,
p.10.
228
APPRAISAL
24
Chandrodaya Dikshit, Democratic Socialism in India (Reading from the Writings of Acharya
Narendra Deva), S.Chand and Company, New Delhi, 1971, p.27.
25
Usha Mehta, Ethical Basis of Gandhian Thought, Political Science Review, Vol.9, No.XII,
June-July, 1970, p.97.
26
Jayaprakash Narayan, Combination of Greatness and Goodness, Keskar and Menon (ed.),
Padma Publication, Bombay, 1981, p.123.
27
Ibid., p.123.
28
Ibid., pp.123-124.
29
Ferner Brockway, Is Jaiprakash Right? The Sino Observer, Delhi, Vol.XXVI, No.31,
January-February, 1947, p.21.
30
Gopal Halder, The Tripuri Congress-Trials and Triumphs, Modern Review, Vol.21, No.16,
March-April, 1939, p.19.
31
Kamala Shankar Pandya, The Present Danger, KSP Papers, Speeches and Writings, Janata,
Vol.17, No.25, November-December, 1946, p.109.
32
Also see, Kamala Shankar Pandya, Why I am Socialist, People, (Editorial), Bombay, Vol.18,
No.7, March-April, 1955, p.21.
33
Ranjana Saha, Acharya Narendra Deva and the Indian Socialist Movement, Unpublished
M.Phil Thesis, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, 1992,
p.18.
34
Kamala Shankar Pandya, Start Mass Movement, Bombay Chronicle, Vol.XIX, No.24,
October-November, 1940, p.101.
35
Kamala Shankar Pandya, Nasirpur: Dohad Tenants Strike, KSP Papers, Serial No. 19-32
(a), The Bombay Sentinal, Vol.10, No.17, March-April, 1945, p.5.
36
Kamala Shankar Pandya, Scientific Socialism, Bombay Sentinal, Vol.XXI, No.XVII, March-
April, 1955, p.89.
37
Kamala Shankar Pandya, Congress Socialist, Bombay Chronicle, Vol.12, No.17, March-
April, 1952, p.117.
38
Madhu Limaye, Last of the Founding Fathers, Sunday, Vol.7, No.9, October-November,
1979, p.37.
39
P.G.Mavalankar, Non-Violence as Political Creed, Political Science Review, Vol.1, No.8,
40
P.Bhasin, History of the Congress Socialist Party, Janata, Vol.VIII, No.5, July-August,
1975, p.157.
41
Ibid., p.159.
42
Ibid.,p.161.
43
Ibid., p.161.
44
Ibid., p.161.
45
Ibid., pp.161-162.
46
Murari Mohan Saha(ed.), Documents of the Revolutionary Socialist Party, Vol.1,(1938-47),
Lokayata Chetana Bikash Society, Agartala, 2001, p.38.
47
Satyabrata Rai Chowdhuri, Leftism in India: 1917-1947, Palgrava Macmillan, New Delhi,
London, etc. p.17.
229
APPRAISAL
48
Amitava Mukherjee, J.P.: Some Reflection, Mainstream, Vol.XIII, No.VII, January-
February, 1974, p.101.
49
Jayaprakash Narayan, Issues before and after Lucknow, Congress Socialist, Bombay, Vol.II,
No.22, New Series, May-June, 1967, p.60.
50
Mary.C. Carras, To the Detractors, Everyman’s, New Delhi, Vol.IV, No.II, October-
November, 1973, p.16.
51
Kuldip Nayar, The Judgement, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977, p.156.
52
Cliffort Manshardt, Pioneering on Social Frontiers in India, Lalvani Publishing House,
Bombay, 1967, p.103.
53
Quoted in Vasant Nargolkar, Split in Sarva Seva Sangh seems Unavoidable, Amrita Bazar
Patrika, Calcutta, 6 May, 1977.
54
Penderal Moon, Gandhi and Modern India, The English Universities Press, London, 1962,
p.182.
55
V.Geetha, CSP and Its Policy, Mainstream, Vol.XIII, No.13, July-August, 1967, p.21.
56
Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, Vol.2, (1935-1947),
Padma Publication, Bombay, 1947, p.106.
57
Quoted in The National Herald, Lucknow, 15 January, 1947.
58
V.Lingamurty, Gandhism, Democracy and Socialism, Triveni, Vol.XLV, No.XXV, June-
July, 1976, pp.26-27.
59
Sanghaarash, 31 July, 1950, cited in M.Phil Thesis, n.33, p.50.
60
Sanghaarash, 31 July 1950, cited in M.Phil Thesis, n.33, pp.50-51.
61
Socialist Party: New Orientation, cited in Janata, 9 March, 1947, p.1.
62
Acharya Narendra Deva, “Why Left the Congress”, (The above articles is based on the Note
that Acharya Narendra Deva had submitted to Gandhi in 1947 and his Speech at Nasik
Conference held on March 19-21) in Brahmanand (ed.), Towards Socialist Society, New
Delhi, Centre for Applied Politics, 1979, p.333.
63
Acharya Narendra Deva, Congress and the Social Change, Janata, 30 August, 1953, p.5.
64
Raghukul Tilak, Narendra Deva as a Speaker and Writer, Janata, Vol.XXIV, No.8, Special
Issue, July-August, 1971, p.116.
65
Quoted in National Herald, 3 April 1948, p.145.
66
Acharya Narendra Deva, The Opposition and Its Role in Democracy, Janata, Vol.XIII, No.3,
January-February, 1948, pp.337-339.
67
Ibid., pp.339-340.
68
Madhu Dandavate, Remembering Acharyaji, Janata, Narendra Deva Centenary Number,
1989, p.54.
69
Ibid., p.55.
70
Ibid., p.57.
71
Ibid., p.58.
72
Ibid., p.59.
73
Ibid., p.60.
74
Ibid., p.61.
230
APPRAISAL
75
Ibid., p.63.
76
Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, n.33, p.70.
77
Acharya Narendra Deva, Tradition to Socialism (Report of the National Conference of the
PSP, held at Gaya , Bihar, December, 1955), Janata, Special Vol.VIII, No.7, March-April,
1956, p.292.
78
Narendra Deva’s Letter to Chalapati Rao, dated 5 June, 1956, Janata, 26 February, 1956,
p.4.
79
Ibid., p.6.
80
Ibid., p.7.
81
Ibid., p.8.
82
Bhai Vaidya, Acharya Narendra Deva and the Socialist Thought, Janata, 16 April, 1989.
83
Feroz Chand, Quit India: Reflection on August 9, The Tribune, Vol.11, No.8, July-August,
1955, p.78.
84
Narendra Deva, The Task before Us, Bombay Chronicle, Vol.XXVI, No.19, September-
October, 1934, p.81.
85
Narendra Deva, Problems of Socialist Unity, Bombay Chronicle, Vol.XXVII, No.21,
86
Ashoka Mehta, The Victory of Socialism over Romanticism, Modern Review (Editorial),
Vol.X, No.XII, June-July, 1934, p.76.
87
Yusuf Meherally, National Revolution and Socialist Leadership, The Sind Observer
(Editorial), Vol.XX, No.XIII, November-December, 1936, p.116.
88
Hari Krishan Mahani, Why am I a Congress Socialist, Triveni (Editorial), Vol.18, No.16,
April-June, 1977, p.111.
89
Ahmeddin Munshi, Impending Tragedy, Janata (Editorial), Vol.16, No.9, November-
December, 1978, p.6.
90
Jivanlal Champaneria, Indigenous Socialism, The Illustrated Weekly of India, Bombay,
Vol.7, No.9, October-November, 1979, p.37.
91
B.P.L.Bedi, Communalism Enters the Congress, Sunday, Vol.9, No.7, October-November,
1979, p.28.
92
Sardul Singh Caveesher, The Absurdity of Office Acceptance, Socialist International
Information, Vol.1 and 2, No.1, November-December, 1953, p.101.
93
Rammanohar Lohia, The Rise of the Indian National Movement, Congress Socialist, Vol.2,
No.50, November-December, 1937, p.158.
94
J.Brynijolt. Hovde, Socialist Theories of Imperialism prior to the Great War, The Journal of
Political Economy, Vol.XXII, No.18, October-November, 1978, p.103.
95
Kimio Shiosuwa, Marx’s View of Asian Society and Narendra Deva’s Idea of Practicing
Marx, The Developing Economics, Vol.IV, No.3, September-October, 1966, p.29.
96
Daniel Thorner, Marx on India and the Asiatic Mode of Production Contributions to Indian
Socialism, The Developing Economics, Vol.XXIII, No.IX, November-December, 1969, p.66.
97
Bhabatosh Datta, The Evolution of Economic Thinking in India: A Socialist Perspective, The
Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.25, No.3, May-June, 1966, p.149.
98
T.Roy. Smith, The Role of India’s Liberals in the Nationalist Movement 1915-47, Asian
Survey, Vol.VIII, No.7, July-August, 1968, pp.124-125.
231
APPRAISAL
99
Usha Mehta, The Relentless Rebels, Janata, Vol.XXIII, Nos.37-38, October-November,
1968, pp.11-12.
100
H.Benjamin Schoenfeld, The Birth of Indian Sanyukta Socialist Party, Pacific Affairs,
Vol.XXXVIII, Nos.3 and 4, November-December, 1965-66, pp.245-246.
101
Prem Bhasin, “Acharya Narendra Deva”, cited in Acharya Narendra Deva-Birth Centenary
Volume, Prem Bhasin, et el. (eds.), Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1996, p.97.
102
Ibid., p.97.
103
Ibid., pp.97-98.
104
Gaya Policy Statement of the PSP, authored by Acharya Narendra Deva adopted at Gaya in
1955, cited in Prem Bhasin, “Acharya Narendra Deva”, cited in Acharya Narendra Deva –
Birth Centenary Volume, Prem Bhasin, et el (eds.), Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1996,
pp.97-98.
105
Ibid., p.99.
106
Hari Kishore Singh, A History of the Praja Socialist Party (1934-1959), Narendra Prakashan,
Lucknow, 1959, p.72.
107
Narendra Deva, The Split between Asian and Western Socialism, Foreign Affairs, Vol.32,
No.4, July-August, 1949, p.194.
108
Judith Brown, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, 1989,
P.78-81.
109
Narendra Deva, What Hope for Asian Socialism, Socialist Commentary, Vol.19, Nos. 5 and 6,
November-December, 1949, p.131.
110
Mahadev Deasai, London Letter-AS We Have, Young India, Vol.XIII, No.46, November,
1931, p.58.
111
M.K.Gandhi, Jayaprakash’s Picture, Gabdhi Centenary Volume, Vol.VIII, No.10, March-
April, 1982, p.98.
112
Kathleen Gough, Peasant Resistance and Revolt in South Asia and Narendra Deva’s
Leadership, Pacific Affairs, Vol.XII, No.4, September-October, 1989, p.53.
113
Rammanohar Lohia, Anecdotes of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi Centenary Volume, Vol.VIII,
No.16, June, 1967, p.151.
114
Mukut Behari Lal, Acharya Narendra Deva-A Philosopher Statement, Janata, Republic Day
Number, 1967, p.23.
115
Ibid., p.23.
116
Ibid., p.23.
117
Acharya Narendra Deva, Socialism and the National Movement, The People, Vol.XVIII,
No.7, Special Issue, November-December, 1946, p.12.
118
Ibid., p.13.
119
Ibid., p.13.
120
Ibid., p.14.
121
Ibid., p.14.
122
Ibid., p.14.
123
Ibid., p.15.
124
Ibid., p.15.
232
APPRAISAL
125
Ibid., p.15.
126
Ibid., p.16.
127
Ibid., p.16.
128
Ibid., p.16.
129
Ibid., p.16.
130
Ibid., p.16.
131
Ibid., p.17.
132
Prem Bhasin, The Heritage of Acharya Narendra Deva in Janata, 21 February, 1971, p.1.
133
Ibid., p.2.
134
J.C.Kumarappa, Why the Village Movement (A Plea for a new Economic Order in India),
Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXXVII, Nos. 3 and 4, January-February, 1966, p.168.
135
Madhu Limaye, Evolution of Socialist Party, Chetana Prakashan Ltd., Hyderabad, 1952,
p.101.
136
Ajoy Ghosh, Theories and Practices of the Socialist Party of India, People’s Publishing
House, Bombay, 1952, p.109.
137
Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, Gandhiji and Indian Socialists in S.Radhakrishnan (ed.)
Mahatma Gandhi 100 Years , Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, 1968, p.127.
138
Acharya Narendra Deva, Positive Aspects of Asian Socialism, Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXXVI,
No.21 and 22, September-October, 1948, pp.236-237.
139
Narendra Deva, The State of Socialism in Asia-The Rangoon Conference, Pacific Affairs,
Vol.XXIV, No.16, June-July, 1949, pp.131-132.
140
Acharya Narendra Deva, The Gandhian Way, Congress Socialist, Vol.VII, No.51, January-
141
Acharya Narendra Deva, Gandhism and Socialism, Congress Socialist, Vol.2, No.6, Jnauary-
142
Rammanohar Lohia, Not Guilty, Congress Socialist, Vol.VII, No.25, July-August, 1960,
p.216.
143
Jawaharlal Nehru, Bunch of Old Letters, Asia Publishing House, New Delhi, 1958, p.121.
144
Rammanohar Lohia, Congress Strategy and Socialism, Mankind, Vol.XXV, No.13,
September-October, 1959, p.161.
145
Acharya Narendra Deva, Devaluation: A Note, Mankind, Vol.XI, No.7, April-May, 1948,
p.4.
146
Narendra Deva, History of Indian Socialist Movement, Mankind, Vol.XI, No.6, July-August,
1949, p.28.
147
Rammanohar Lohia, Letters to Socialists, Agarwala, Calcutta, 1955, p.171.
148
Prem Bhasin, Dr. Lohia and Asian Socialism, Janata, Vol.XXVII, Nos. 38 and 39, October-
149
Acharya Narendra Deva, The Approach to Socialist Planning, Mankind, Vol.3 No.4,
November-December, 1949, p.91.
150
Rammanohar Lohia, Indian Politics Today, (A Discussion held at the University of Arizona,
U.S.A. on May1, 1964), in Mankind, Vol.XIII, No.8, March-April, 1968, p.81.
233
APPRAISAL
151
Narendra Deva, India’s Path to Socialism, Mankind, Vol.XV, No.9, November-December,
1955, p.19.
152
Rammanohar Lohia, Statement of Principles, Mankind, Vol.10, No.6, September-October,
1956, p.179.
153
Harris Wofford Jr, Gandhian Socialism and the Third Camp, Mankind, Vol.VII, Nos. 3 and
4, August-September, 1961, p.31.
154
M.R.Massani, Why I am a Congress Socialist, Congress Socialist, Vol.4, No.12, January-
155
Asoka Mehta, The Problems of Modernization: A Prelude (1965), in M.R.Sinha (ed.)
Modern Indian Economy, Indian Institute of Asian Studies, Bombay, 1967, p.21.
156
Acharya Narendra Deva, Socialism and Peasantry, Mankind, Vol.VI, Nos. 3 and 4, August-
September, 1951, p.31.
157
Santanu Bagchi, Ideas on Socialism and Social Justice: A Study of Jawaharlal Nehru,
Rammanohar Lohia and Ashoke Mehta, Kanishka, New Delhi, 2002, p.88.
158
Ibid., p.89.
159
Ibid., pp.91-92.
160
Jayaprakash Narayan, Socialist Significance of the Bhoodan Movement, Socialist
International Information, Vol.14, No.11, November-December, 1953, pp.71-72.
161
R.Padmanabhen, Acharya Narendra Deva’s Views on Machinery and Mass Production,
Modern Review, Vol.9, No.8, January-February, 1976, p.136.
162
Hari Krishnan Mohani, Acceptance or Non-acceptance of Offices in the Socialist Party,
AICC Papers, Subject File No.G. 39(1)/-1937, PP.159-160.
163
Amba prasada, Narendra Deva’s Model of Democratic Socialism, Gandhi Marg, Vol.9,
Nos.VIII and IX, November-December, 1982, p.195.
164
Rammanohar Lohia, Right Word; Right Action, [1950], J.P.Papers, Subject File No.50,
pp.17-18.
165
Keshav Gore, Organized Expressions of Indian Socialist Movement, J.P.Papers Subject File
No. 29, p.8.
166
Ibid., p.9.
167
Ashoka Mehta and Achyut patwardhan, The Communist and Socialist Triangle in India,
Kitabstan, Allahabad, 1942, p.118.
168
Ibid., p.119.
169
Also see Ashoka Mehta, The Socialists Owns India, Chetana Prakashan, Hyderabad, 1950,
p.13.
170
M.R.Masani, A Plea for the Mixed Economy, The National Information and Publications
Ltd., Hyderabad, 1974, p.71.
171
Also see M.R.Masani, Socialism Reconsidered, Padma Publication, Bombay, 1956, p.49.
172
Gyan Chand, On Reading Lohia’s Wheel of History and Other Indian Socialists, Mankind,
Vol.2, No.6, November-December, 1956, p.137.
173
L.P.Sinha, The Left Wing in India, New Publishers, Muzuffarpur, 1965, pp.89-90.
174
Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian National Congress and the Collaboration in the Later
Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p.45.
234
APPRAISAL
175
B.B.Misra, The Indian Socialism: Their Growth in Modern Times, Oxford University Press,
Bombay, 1961, p.101.
176
Bisheshwar Prasad, Changing Modes of Indian National Movement, People’s Publishing
House, Delhi, 1966, p.156.
177
A.E.Punit, Acharya Narendra Deva-A Study in Charismatic Leadership, Gandhi Marg,
Vol.IX, No.VI, October-November, 1980, p.384.
178
Ibid., pp.385-386.
179
J.Joseph.Spengler, Indian Socialist Thought-A Preface to its Early and Post History, Duke
University Press, Durham, 1971, p.155.
180
Ibid., pp.157-158.
181
Acharya Narendra Deva, Socialism and the National Revolution, Edited by Yusuf Meherally,
Padma Publications, Bombay, 1946, p.148.
182
Acharya Narendra Deva, Towards Socialist Society, Edited by Brahmanand, Centre of
Applied Politics, Delhi, 1979, p.181.
183
For further reading on Deva’s multifarious ideas on Indian democratic values and culture see,
M.B.Lal, Acharya Narendra Deva: A Philosopher Statesmen, Janata, Republic Day Number,
Vol.XXXIV, No.12, July-August, 1971, p.22.
184
Ibid., p.22.
185
Ibid., p.23.
186
Ibid., p.24.
187
Narendra Deva, “ Democracy and Freedom” (Welcome Address delivered by Narendra
Deva, Chairman of the Reception Committee of Fifth Annual C.S.P. Conference held at
Kanpur from February 24 to march 2, 1947) in Janata, Annual Number, 1984, pp.1-2.
188
Ibid., p.3.
189
Ibid., p.4.
190
Narendra Deva, Why Mass Party, (Speeches delivered at the Annual Conference of the
Socialist Party, held at Patna on 6 March, 1949), published in Janata, Special Number,
Vol.XXXVIII, No.17, September-October, 1971, p.289.
191
192
Narendra Deva, Why Mass Party, n.190, pp.289-290.
193
Ibid., p.291.
194
Narendra Deva, The Role of Intellectuals, (The above article is based on by Presidential
Speech at the Annual Conference of PSP held in Gaya on 28 December 1955), in Janata,
Acharya Narendra Deva Centenary Number, 1989, pp.47-48.
195
Ibid., p.49.
196
Narendra Deva, Revolution Betrayed, Janata Weekly, New Delhi, 10 February, 1946, p.29.
197
Ibid., p.29.
198
Ibid., p.30.
199
Ibid., p.32.
200
Narendra Deva, What Life means to me, Janata Weekly, New Delhi, Acharya Narendra Deva
Centenary Number, 1989, p.45.
235
APPRAISAL
201
Ibid., p.46.
202
Ibid., p.46.
203
Ibid., p.48.
204
Ibid., p.49.
205
Dada Dharmadhikari, Sarvodaya Darshan, (Hindi and English,) Sarva Seva Sangh
Prakashan, Varanasi, 1968, p.171.
206
H.J.N.Horsburgh, Indian Socialist Party Documents (1930-70), Democratic Research
Service, Bombay, 1957, p.179.
207
Durga Das, India from Curzon to Nehru and After, Collins, London, 1969, p.119.
208
Sankar Ghosh, Socialism, Democracy and Nationalism in India, Allied Publishers, New
Delhi, 1973, p.98.
209
Acharya Narendra Deva, Socialism and the National Revolution, n.181, p.47.
210
Ibid., p.51.
211
Ibid., p.53.
212
Ibid., p.53.
213
M.R.Dandvate, Narendraji’s Impact on Indian Socialist Thinking, Praja Socialist Party,
Bombay, 1957, p.103.
214
Ibid., p.105.
215
Ibid., p.107.
216
Ibid., p.109.
217
Acharya Narendra Deva, Selected Works, Vol.1, (1928-40), Edited by Haridev Sharma,
Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1998, p.XXI.
218
Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1998, p.123.
219
Radiant Publishers, New Delhi, 1998, p.127.
220
Acharya Narendra Deva, Selected Works, Vol.2, n.218, p.50.
221
V.K.R.V.Rao, Indian Socialism: Retrospect and Prospect, Concept Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1982, p.61.
222
Ibid., p.63.
223
Narendra Deva, Towards Socialist Society, n.182, p.92.
224
Ibid., p.96.
225
Ibid., p.99.
226
Ibid., p.101.
227
Ibid., p.106.
228
Acharya Narendra Deva, Evolution of My Ideas, Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, Patna, 1956,
p.61.
229
Ibid., p.63.
230
Ibid., p.65.
231
Ibid., pp.69-70.
236
APPRAISAL
232
Ibid., p.79.
233
Ram Swarup, Indian Socialism at Cross Roads: Its Multiple Leadership and Splits, Punjab
University, Publication Bureau, Chandigarh, 1979, p.103.
234
Ibid., p.103.
235
Ibid., p.104.
236
Ibid., p.105.
237
Ibid., p.107.
238
Ibid., p.108.
239
Ibid., p.109.
240
Ibid., p.110.
241
Acharya Narendra Deva, Mahatma Misleads, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1957, p.119.
242
Minoo Masani, Homage to Acharya Narendra Deva, Sunday, Vol.7, No.9, New Delhi,
October-November, 1979, pp.34-35.
243
Ibid., p.37.
244
Ibid., p.38.
245
Ibid., p.38.
246
Ibid., p.39.
247
Acharya Narendra Deva, Peoples’ Socialism or Gram Raj for State Socialism, Modern
Review, Vol.XXII, No.XI and XII, March-April, 1956, pp.217-218.
248
Ibid., p.219.
249
G.Sinha, Founder of Democratic Socialism, Janata, Special Number, Vol.XV, No.3, July-
August, 1977, p.124.
250
Ibid., p.124.
251
Ibid., p.125.
252
Ibid., p.125.
253
Ibid., p.125.
254
Acharya Narendra Deva, The Concept of Liberty, The Socialist Chair, Vol.1, Nos.32-33,
July-August, 1952, pp.7-8.
255
Ibid., p.9.
256
Ibid., p.10.
257
Ibiid., p.11.
258
Ibid., p.12.
259
Ibid., p.12.
260
Ibid., p.13.
261
Narendra Deva, The Peasant Problem, Kashi Vidyapith Publication, Kashi, 1940, p.127.
262
Ibid., p.127.
263
Ibid., p.128.
264
Ibid., p.128.
237
APPRAISAL
265
266
Ibid., p.135.
267
Narendra Deva, Marxvad Aur Socialist Party, Translated into English by Keshav Gore,
Lucknow, 1951, p.111.
268
Ibid., p.112.
269
Ibid., p.112.
270
Ibid., pp.112-113.
271
Ibid., p.113.
272
Narendra Deva, The Indian Struggle: The Next Phase, Socialist Tract No.5, All India
Congress Socialist Party Publication, 1940, p.149.
273
Ibid., p.150.
274
Narendra Deva, Revolution in India, (Translated from Hindi article), Janata, Vol.XXIII,
No.6, November-December, p.226.
275
Ibid., p.226.
276
Ibid., p.226.
277
Ibid., p.227.
278
Ibid., p.228.
279
Ibid., p.229.
280
Narendra Deva, The Communal problem: A Socialist Viewpoint (In an article to the
Associated Press of India on June 22, 1945 at Lucknow), in Janata, Vol.xxix, No.4, Special
Issue, June-July, 1947, p.313.
281
Ibid., p.314.
282
Ibid., p.314.
283
Narendra Deva, What Life Means to me and My Other Thoughts, (Broadcast by Narendra
Deva from Delhi on 29.10.1952) in Mankind, Vol.VI, No.6, Special Number, October-
284
Ibid., p.111.
285
Ibid., p.112.
286
Ibid., p.112.
287
Ibid., p.113.
288
Ibid., p.113.
289
Ibid., p.114.
290
Asha Gupta, Acharya Narendra Deva: An Elevation, Janata, Acharya Narendra Deva
Centenary Number, 1989, Vol.44, Nos.29 and 32, p.59.
291
Ibid., p.59.
292
Acharya Narendra Deva Memorial Lecture, India since Independence: Preamble to Present,
New Delhi, A Pamphlet available at NMML, 1955, p.2.
293
Ibid., p.2.
294
Ibid., p.3.
295
Ibid., p.3.
238
APPRAISAL
296
Ibid., p.3.
297
Ibid.,p.4.
298
Ibid., p.4.
299
Ibid., p.4.
300
Narendra Deva, Human Basis of Socialism,( From Rashtriyat aur Samajvad, English
Translation of Hindi), Gyanmandal, Banaras, 1946, p.29.
301
Ibid., p.29.
302
Ibid., p.29.
303
Narendra Deva, Why is Socialist, Modern Printers, Lucknow, ( A Pamphlet available at
NMML), 1946, P.31.
304
Ibid., p.31.
305
Ibid., p.32.
306
Ibid., p.32.
307
Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, n.33, p.120-121.
308
Narendra Deva, The New Socialism, Modern printers, Lucknow, (A Pamphlet available at
NMML), 1953, P.31.
309
Ibid.,p.31
310
Ibid., p.32.
311
Ibid., p.32.
312
Ibid., p.33.
313
Ibid., p.33.
314
Ibid., p.34.
315
Ibid., p.34.
316
Ibid., p.35.
317
Ibid., p.35.
318
Ibid., p.35.
319
239

Chapter-III: Major Political Ideas of Acharya Narendra Deva: A Brief Appraisal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-III: Major Political Ideas of Acharya Narendra Deva: A Brief Appraisal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-III

Major Political Ideas of Acharya Narendra Deva:

You might also like