Assess the views of Dr.

Ram Manohar
Lohia on socialism

MUKUL JOSHI
Internal Assessment- Indian Political Thought-II
Teacher in charge- Dr. Vipin Malhotra
Department of Political Science
Sri Arobindo College (M), University of Delhi
 Author’s note
All the data and facts in this article have been collected from various
authenticated sources and references for such have been provided. Efforts
have been made to provide details on this topic in such a way that readers find
it easy to comprehend. This article has been made under guidance of Professor
Vipin Malhotra, Sri Aurobindo College (Day), University of Delhi.

Abstract
Socialism is widely criticised to be Eurocentric ideology. It is still believed that
most socialist progressions took place in Europe and the west. From Utopian
Socialism to Welfarism and Democratic Socialism, it is indeed true that
prevalent brands of Socialism are indeed developed in West. Ram Manohar
Lohia stands as an exception to this fact. ‘New Civilisation’, for Lohia was
Socialism. He approached Socialism by analysing the views of Capitalism,
Marxism and Gandhi. He attempted to Indianise the Eurocentric socialism and
gave it a broader dimension by coupling the views of Marx with that of
Gandhi’s. He wanted people to rise in a peaceful rebellion or Satyagrah against
seven forms of inequalities and injustices. He saw himself as a global citizen
and wanted to free entire world of injustices. He was in support of a World
Parliament to be made for matters of war and peace only. He supported a
decentralized economy and advocated that welfare and development activities
must be carried out by governments at most basic levels- Village and District.

1) Introduction
Ram Manohar Lohia Was born, on 23 March 1910 at Akbarpur, Ambedkar
Nagar District, Uttar Pradesh in a merchant Family. His father Hiralal was a
nationalist. Lohia would go on to play a dominant role in development of
socialism in India. His brand of socialism highlights socialism as not only an
economic doctrine, but also explores the cultural dimensions of socialism in his
works The Cast System (1964) and The Wheel of History (1955). He wanted to
free the individual from ignorance, backwardness and all kinds of superstitions
and prejudices. He put maximum emphasis about restoring the dignity and
individuality of human being.1 However, the cultural aspect of had been extant
in Socialist ideology in its earliest forms in Europe as well. Schumpeter in his
seminal work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) defined socialism as,
“that organization of society in which means of production are controlled, and
decisions on how and what to produce and on who to get what, are made by
public authority instead of privately owned and privately managed firms.”2
Lohia’s works highlighted, more profoundly, the role of cultural transformation
in bringing about the desired change in functioning of the state and making
Socialism the principal instrument of governance.
Lohia’s was a distinct form of Socialism. He considered the orthodox socialism
a “dead and decaying doctrine”. He differed with many socialist thinkers of
India as well as more branded, furbished and verbose socialists of Europe.
Socialism indeed “is like a hat that has lost its shape because everybody wears
it.”3 Lohia was one of the wearers of said hat. Lohia’s model although differed
from other brands of Socialism in many ways. Utopian socialists such as Saint-
Simon, Fourier, and Owen led the first wave of modern socialism. They
managed to set the ideal goal of socialist movement, but failed to consolidate
means of achieving their goals. As a politically active personality in a third
world Country such as India, Lohia was firm in his belief that Capitalism was
not the right economic direction for Third World to proceed. He was in favour
of Marx’s thesis of dialectical materialism, but at the same time, cautious of its
limitations. He argued that Marx’s belief that revolution would take place in
industrially developed countries was incapable of comprehending complex
social realities that existed in India. In this regard, Lohia supported the
conception of “permanent revolution” as developed by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky’s
idea expanded the hitherto restricted and confined Marxism into late
developing capitalist societies. Lohia was clearly influenced by many streams of
socialism that prevailed in Europe. He was exposed to most brutal criticisms of
capitalism in his European experience. However, it must be noted that Lohia
never sided with dogmatic Marxists of his age. Interestingly, his belief in
democratic socialism perhaps grew stronger due to his exposure to multiple
streams of philosophies, especially in Germany. Gandhi was a significant
influence in Lohia’s life. He modified Trotskey’s “permanent revolution” to
“permanent civil disobedience”. He was opposed to violent overthrow of
capitalist institutions as advocate by Marx and Engels, and supported for
smooth democratic transition. It can be said that his most significant
contribution is the synthesis of Gandhi’s ideals and socialist principles. In his
book on Marx, Gandhi and Socialism, Lohia made an analysis of principles of
democratic socialism as an appropriate philosophy for the successful operation
of constructive programmes. He also endorsed the idea of decentralisation in
his infamous Four Pillar State concept. Three most important components of
Lohia’s model of socialism- Seven revolutions, four pillared state, New
Civilization, and Planning are discussed below.

2) New Civilisation
“Lohia gave his new civilisation an old name. He called it socialism”10 Lohia was
more of a political activist than a theorist. Most of what we call Lohia’s model
of socialism was also put to practice by Lohia through party programmes of,
firstly Congress Socialist Party and later, Socialist Party. Lohia presented a
middle way between the incumbent Nehruvian Socialism and Eurocentric
Marxism. The New Civilisation which Lohia envisioned was nothing but
socialism. Thoughts and actions of Lohia were a reaction to his times. His works
were more refined and profound after independence under the influence of
like of Ashok Mehta, Jaya Prakash Narayan and Achyut Patwardhan. His
pragmatic approach to socialism found European socialism rather parochial
and myopic. He therefore called Gandhian principles as a suitable sub-
structure to construct upon a socialist ideology that would best suit the Indian
conditions. At his presidential address of the Socialist Party in Panchmarhi in
May 1952, Lohia laid down the basic principles and tenets of his ‘New
Civilisation’. “The Doctrinal Foundations of Socialism, Lohia’s presidential
address to Panchmarhi convention of Socialist Party in 1952 must be counted
among finest political speeches in post-independent India.”11
“The basic postulates of the new socialism were stated thus:
 Both Capitalism and Communism are based on centralized power which is
not capable of bringing about a radical alteration in society.
 Both capitalism and communism believe in the same method and means of
production. The single difference between them is that in capitalism some
individuals or groups make profit and in communism even though there is no
individual profit system, a centralized power, class or party, monopolises the
benefits. Society does not in reality enjoy economic, political and individual
freedom.
 Both Communism and democracy are incapable of ushering in social
transformation, people’s liberty and culture. Therefore, both have to be
discarded.
 Socialism does not believe in limited capitalism or mixed economy. It does
not believe that this would ever pave the way for socialism.
 The objective of socialism is to establish a free and decentralized society by
eliminating capitalism and centralized power from society.”12

3) Sapta Kranti (Seven Revolutions)

Lohia’s idea of socialism was not restricted to economic structures of
society. His was a blend of Gandhian views with views of democratic
socialism of Europe and Marx. Lohia believed that use of just one individual
ideology would be insufficient to lead a revolution of peaceful nature which
can bring about ‘New Civilisation’. He rejected the western style of
modernity as goal of Indian society. He said that aim of the socialist
movement (and the state arising out of it) must be to do away with
inequality. Lohia believed that equality should be the goal of state. He
recognised five forms of inequality, and later added two more factors to his
matrix, which came to be known as ‘Sapta Kranti’ or seven revolutions.
 Revolting against gender inequality: “According to Lohia, of all
injustices, those arising out of the inequalities between men and women
was perhaps the bedrock. Inequality between men and woman had so
become part of human habit and nature that it seeped into everything
else.”4 Lohia argued that segregation of women and discrimination on
grounds of sex was worst form of inequality as it affected half of the
world’s population. Lohia claimed that preferential treatment, and not
gender equality will lead to betterment of women’s status in society. He

Gender End of Economic

Caste System
Inequality Imperialism Inequality

Protecting Civil
Racial Inequality Individual Disobedience
Privacy Against Injustice
 argued for greater representation of women in politics and collective
life.
 Caste System: Lohia called caste “the most overwhelming factor in
Indian life.” His assessment indeed was not incorrect. To rectify the evil
of caste system too, he advocated the use of preferential treatment.
“Lohia advocated preferential opportunities for backward castes to
destroy the caste system. He trashed the argument that raising the
standards of living, merit and equality of opportunity would end the
system.”5 He considered caste system the primary reason of India’s
subjugation. He called for systematic destruction of caste system
through inter-caste marriages and greater political representation of
Shudras.
 End of Imperialism: Lohia was strictly against imperialism and
colonialism. He viewed imperialism as a tool of exploitation that West
used to subdue the Third World. He believed that imperialism was the
major hindrance in realising the goal of equality among nations. Lohia’s
criticism of imperialism is also embedded in a grand schematic of his
rebuke of capitalism. Lohia argued that “There are three processes of
explanation and creation of surplus value in a capitalist system- direct
exploitation of workers by their masters of capitalists; neo-colonial or
internal colonial exploitation in various forms; and, plunder, loot and
destruction of natural resources by local and multinational capital.”6
Lohia’s emphasis, influenced by the surcharged nationalist environment,
was on the second process.
 Economic and class inequality: Lohia, like Marx, believed that means of
production should be in hands of the weak and poor. Marx, however,
saw seizing the means of production as end, whereas Lohia saw it as
means in achieving the greater goal of ‘new civilisation’. “Control over
economic organization and its conscious directions in the interests of
commonwealth were a basic requirement”7. Lohia stressed upon
creation of adequate employment, wages, elaborate labour laws and
their strict implementation, and leisure in an economy. Lohia’s economic
equality transcended individual levels and encapsulated greater mass of
countries. Lohia argued for international trade and aid and assistance to
under developed countries. He argued for creation of World
Development Authority, a socialist fund where each country world
contribute according to its capacity and fund would be distributed
 according to needs of the countries. He wanted the global trade to be a
two-way stream, where equal amount of import and export takes place
between two nations.
 Racial Inequality: Inequality on the basis of colour of skin was witnessed
by Lohia in Europe. Lohia thought himself a world citizen. He wanted to
eradicate all forms of injustices from world, just like he wished for total
annihilation of caste system in India. He wanted to create a global
socialist movement, and thus wished for all forms of inequalities to end.
 Concern for Individual Privacy: Lohia was cautious of maintaining
individuals’ rights of liberty and privacy. He argued that welfare schemes
and actions of government did not necessarily have to intrude in the
lives of people. Individual’s liberty was paramount to him just as much it
was to the likes of Adam Smith and Mill. Every individual should have
right to lead his life according to his choice up to a certain limit. Lohia
fears this right may be misused by the individual. But when one’s right is
recognised and if that is misused then what should be done. In this
connection Lohia says let the individual suffer. Lohia surpasses Mill,
when the firmly opines that every man or woman should have even the
right to commit suicide. This is where Lohia served his unique brand of
intermixing of Communism and Capitalism.
 Non-violent civil disobedience: Lohia was influenced by Gandhi and one
can find latter’s impressions in former’s writings. This ideal of sapta
kranti is the most elaborate manifestation of how Lohia’s ideology is a
blend of Gandhian principles with Marx’s ideals. He believed that
injustice must be responded with civil disobedience. He called civil
disobedience, “armed reason” and called it the only way to combat
injustice with non-violence.

4) Chaukhamba Rajya (4-Pillared State)

Lohia was a strong believer of devolution of political and administrative power
at a much local level. Influenced by Gandhi, he believed that democracy can
only be realised if power is decentralised and villages are allowed control over
administrative resources. In saying so, he was of course aware of the flaws that
this idea would present in its functional implementation. The most highlighted
and likely would be assumption of power by high caste communities. This
would, according to Lohia, keep Shudras and women out of decision making.
However, Lohia was of the view that with education and preferential
treatment, this would dissipate and true representation at grassroots will
become reality. “In this Four Pillar state an attempt is made to synthesize the
opposed concepts of centralization and decentralization. In this system. The
village the mndal (the district), the province and the central government all
retain importance and are integrated in a system of functional federalism.” 8
His 4-pillared model provided for four political units, each autonomous of
another in power and economic resources.

Lohia’s was not a simple decentralization. “Economic decentralization,

corresponding to political and administration decentralization, might be
brought about through maximum utilization of small machines. The four-pillar
state raised above the issues of regionalism and functionalism. It diffused
power also within people’s organizations and corporations.”9 Lohia was critical
of having centrally appointed functionaries of state governments working as
district

C e n tra l G o v e rn m e n t

P ro v in c ia l G o v e rn m e n t

D istric t G o v e rn m e n t

V illa g e G o v e rn m e n t
magistrates. This, Lohia argued, concentrated powers in hands of notorious,
and, perhaps even sometimes oblivious entities, the power which is rightfully
for the people to exercise. He therefore argued in favour of giving power to
small communities of people such as co-operatives and villages for the
effective functioning of democracy.
Lohia propounded that local governments at district and village levels should
be allowed majority of state revenue and the onus of welfare policies ought to
be upon these 2 pillars of his socialist state, and not with the central and
provincial governments. This would offer more sovereign power to the political
and administrative mechanisms and entities that were easily approachable by
people. Lohia was in favour of central government having command over
massive industrial sectors such as coal, iron, railways and power. He wanted
smaller industries such as textile, agriculture and handicrafts to be in control of
district and village governments. Lohia argued that districts and villages should
be allowed to have their own police force to allow greater administrative
autonomy and lucid functioning. It is noteworthy that Lohia was not in support
of absolute state control over property. He viewed that to make best use of
land in both commercial and subsistent terms, centre, cooperatives/villages,
provinces and districts must hold equal share of property.

5) Planning
Although Lohia didn’t care for the lable of ‘democratic socialism’, he was of the
view that planning was the most crucial aspect of governance for both
democracy and socialism. His ‘New Civilisation’ was a blend of multiple
streams of ideologies, concepts and thinkers, influenced by his own times and
circumstances. It is a well-known fact that Lohia belonged to the creed of doers
and talkers. He replicated his complex theories and directives into actions
through party programmes. Planning was a central theme in his policy
programmes.
“Lohia believed that real socialism laid in planning done with a view to
reconstruct the nation’s economy and to invigorate the people and not with a
view to please classes of interests. His socialism also included economic
reconstruction of India. He wanted to reconstruct the economy of India to
remove poverty which was necessary to establish true Socialism. Lohia’s
reconstruction of economy consisted of following items:
(a) Reclamation of waste land
(b) Small unit-technology
(c) Equal distribution of land
(d) Food army
(e) Abolition of land revenue
(f) Emphasis on small and medium schemes of irrigation.
(g) Restrictions of expenditure and consumptions.”13
A central theme in his planning was decentralization. He wanted to tap the
abundant potential and resources that Indian villages had to offer to their
fullest through decentralization. For this, he supported creation of small
machine industry. He wanted cooperatives, villages and local community
groups to have control over these small machineries. He similarly wanted to
end the land monopoly by distributing land among labourers. This would solve
the problem of food crisis and strengthen socialism at the same time.
Another important aspect of planning was creation of a World Parliament. This
World Parliament would act as a progressive Third Bloc in the international
politics, unlike the two blocs that ruled the arena. The World Parliament for
him was a forum of solving global crisis and problems effectively and
progressively. He argued for the World Parliament to be elected through
universal adult franchise. However, he restricted the functioning of his World
Parliament to matters of war, peace, armed forces and bare minimum of
economic and welfare programmes. This World Government would bring in
the new age of democracy and help divisions within the human race to perish.
His World Government should take from each country according to its capacity
of capital resources and give to each according to its needs. It is clear that
Lohia held planning as a central aspect of his socialism. It is natural for planning
to assume such a role of importance in a system where power is divided in so
many strata among so many actors.

Conclusion
Lohia’s model of socialism, or to say ‘New Civilisation’ has a journey of its own.
Lohia rose from a family of nationalists, in the age of nationalism. His keen
intellectual insights, persistent and relentless analysis of political and
philosophical stalwarts, and constant criticism of men in regime resulted in
culmination of a blend of “doctrinal foundations of new socialism”14. There is a
lesson in Lohia’s quest for a new doctrine of socialism by only using the pre-
existing ideologies and views. His belief that creation of an ideology for almost
entire world by using only singular theorist was myopic, left a lasting impact
over perception of socialism in India. Although he rejected the label of
“democratic socialism”, he was no less a democrat or a socialist. Both
democracy and socialism played a complementary role in his ‘new civilisation’.
This relation of mutual cohabitation was expressed in his four-pillared state
concept. He viewed decentralization as the best means of ushering in his ‘new
civilisation’ and realising true socialism and democracy in India. He broke away
from Eurocentric shackles of Marxism and attempted to lead India into a
direction other than Nehruvian socialism with his highly decentralized state. He
opined that all units of state- Union, Province, District and Village must be
autonomous. Lohia’s ‘seven revolution’ was possibly the leading step towards
creation of the new civilisation. He saw himself as a global citizen and wanted
to do away with inequalities and injustices that prevailed in his time. ‘Seven
revolution’ was a way to achieving this ideal. He wanted to create a world free
of inequalities and a World Parliament to resolve conflicts.
It can be said that what Lohia envisioned was not a mere theory but an action
plan. He was surrounded by figures taller than him in his time, and is often not
given his fair due. Indian socialism remains a largely forgotten trend today.
Gandhian principle and Nehruvian ideals are regarded as frontrunners of
Indian socialism, but as Lohia said, no one ideology is enough for a cause like
socialism. Lohia is still relevant today. His thoughts can be looked at to solve
the dilemmas that India faces today, provided that we are aware of the
limitations of Lohia’s ideals.

Bibliography
1) RAMMANOHAR LOHIA’S IDEAS AND THINKING ON SOCIALISM,
Serampore Girls College,
http://seramporegirlscollege.org/dept/upload/Political%20Science/ram
manohar%20Lohia.pdf
2) Schumpeter, Joseph A, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, (USA:
Harper and Brothers, 1942).
3) Joad, C.E.M, Introduction to Modern Political Theory (London: Oxford
University Press,1924), 44
4) NR, Nithya, “Ram Manohar ‘Lohia on New Socialism’,” International
Journal of Research Culture society 3, no. 5 (May 2019), 26, DOI:
https://ijrcs.org/wp-content/uploads/IJRCS201905007.pdf
5) Kiran Yadav, “Ram Manohar Lohia’s dream still remains a dream,”
Hindustan Times, October 12, 2013,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/ram-manohar-lohia-s-dream-
still-remains-a-dream/story-kx7ZAjxcTo6PvdoeCp2yYP.html
6) SUNIL. “Understanding Capitalism through Lohia.” Economic and
Political Weekly 45, no. 40 (2010): 56–63.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742147.
7) NR, Nithya, “Ram Manohar ‘Lohia on New Socialism’,” International
Journal of Research Culture society 3, no. 5 (May 2019), 27, DOI:
https://ijrcs.org/wp-content/uploads/IJRCS201905007.pdf
8) Tarannum, Fauzia, “Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia: An Icon of Democratic
Socialism,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology 6, no. 2(2019), 707. DOI:
https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/44869950
9) NR, Nithya, “Ram Manohar ‘Lohia on New Socialism’,” International
Journal of Research Culture society 3, no. 5 (May 2019), 27, DOI:
https://ijrcs.org/wp-content/uploads/IJRCS201905007.pdf
10) YADAV, YOGENDRA. “What Is Living and What Is Dead in
Rammanohar Lohia?” Economic and Political Weekly 45, no. 40 (2010):
92–107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742152.
11) YADAV, YOGENDRA. “What Is Living and What Is Dead in
Rammanohar Lohia?” Economic and Political Weekly 45, no. 40 (2010):
92–107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25742152.
12) NR, Nithya, “Ram Manohar ‘Lohia on New
Socialism’,” International Journal of Research Culture society 3, no. 5
(May 2019), 26, DOI:
https://ijrcs.org/wpcontent/uploads/IJRCS201905007.pdf
13) NR, Nithya, “Ram Manohar ‘Lohia on New
Socialism’,” International Journal of Research Culture society 3, no. 5
(May 2019), 28, DOI:
https://ijrcs.org/wpcontent/uploads/IJRCS201905007.pdf
14) DOCTOR, ADI H. “LOHIA’S QUEST FOR AN AUTONOMOUS
SOCIALISM.” The Indian Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3 (1988): 312–
27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855877.