India is so large a country that unless things go wrong in a highly dramatic fashion, as in West Bengal at the time of the Naxalite violence in 1970 and earlier, unfortunate developments in one state do not cause much concern in others. Often even the Centre quietly turns a blind eye towards it. Bihar has been one of the most glaring instances of this kind of national indifference.
The state commanded the nation’s attention in 1966 when literally millions of people there faced starvation as a result of the worst drought of the century. But once the threat was averted, largely as a result of US aid, it was quickly forgotten and allowed to return to its old lackadaisical ways. Indeed, even in 1966 neither the Union government nor the Central leadership of the ruling party cared to probe the deeper causes of Bihar’s economic stagnation and steady decline in per capita income and initiate long-term measures to deal with the malaise. The result is there for anyone to see.
Shocking
Bihar has, of course, not been the only state to act as a drag on the country’s economic and social progress. Much of the Hindi-belt with the exception of Haryana, Western UP, the Union territory of Delhi and parts of Rajasthan, falls in the same category. But by virtue of its size Bihar has become by far the biggest obstacle in the path of the nation’s growth. This is particularly shocking because it possesses enormous mineral and underground water resources and can therefore do remarkably well if someone can somehow lift the dead weight of physical, mental and moral lethargy that has stifled the initiative of its people.
This emphasis on the need for intervention in Bihar from outside the state clearly runs counter to the central assumption of a democratic polity that a self-correcting mechanism is built into it, and that this is bound to prove effective if the institutional framework is not scrapped and elections continue to be held. But there is an element of myth in this assumption because implicit in it is the proposition that massive social and economic problems can wait indefinitely. Plainly they cannot, specially in the context of a rapid increase in population and the spread of literacy.
In the specific case of Bihar, it will be partisan and unfair for anyone to deny that Mr Jayaprakash Narayan and his colleagues of the Sarvodaya movement are making a concerted effort to set in motion a self-correcting process. And even those who do not subscribe to his concept of partyless democracy will wish him well. But what are the chances of success? The assessment must be realistic and hard-headed.
Mr. Narayan himself should be willing to recognise that it would have been disastrous from the point of view of Bihar’s revival if Mrs Gandhi had quickly conceded the demand for the dismissal of the Ghafoor ministry and dissolution of the state legislature. That would have meant the end of his movement a la Gujarat long before it had had a chance of acquiring any kind of maturity and throwing up a leadership which can have any hope at all of replacing the existing set-up.
But Mrs. Gandhi may not be willing to play long enough this useful role of providing the necessary resistance and thereby enabling the movement to gather sufficient momentum and strength. Indeed, there is a widespread speculation that she would dissolve the legislature after the presidential poll is over in August. She may not do it immediately to avoid embarrassment, though she is seldom deterred by such consideration. In any event, she will not suffer much loss of face if she concedes the demand a month later. What will Mr. Narayan do then? Lead another agitation for early polls and organise a campaign in favour of candidates selected by the sangharsh samitis? But they will rapidly dissolve along party lines and political organisations, which are now supporting him, will quickly return to their old ways.
While parties rise and fall in a democratic polity, it is difficult to cite a single case in any major country of a student or youth movement throwing up an alternative leadership. It is immaterial whether the organisers use violent means or non-violent ones. The pertinent point is that cohesive movements mature in the face of prolonged resistance, which only autocratic governments can provide. Only then do they produce leaders capable of organising an alternative system. Russia, China, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia provide examples of violent and India of non-violent change. In all cases the struggle continued for decades.
On this reckoning, it is difficult to share Mr. Narayan’s optimism that the present movement will throw up a viable alternative leadership, if for no other reason than that it would not have the necessary time. His problem therefore is not that Mrs. Gandhi is too autocratic to heed popular demands but that a democratic system, however grave its shortcomings, accommodates them and thus dissipates the passion behind them before it crystallises in a strong and durable organisation.
Not Cheerful
It follows that the present movement can make a worthwhile contribution to the rise of a healthy polity, economy and society in Bihar either if it compels the Congress leadership to purge corrupt and inefficient men from the top to the bottom of the organisation or if it enables an opposition party to gather enough support to enable it to replace the former at the next polls. It, too, may in course of time become equally corrupt. But the very fact of a meaningful competition can have a healthy effect. Unfortunately, the prospects are none too cheerful on either count.
It will be rather rash to say that the Congress organisation in Bihar is a gone case, that it cannot respond to a shock and that it can only be scrapped and not reformed. But it is in a pretty poor state of moral health and, faced with a challenge, it tends to lean on the administration in self-defence. Neither a mere shuffling of the pack at the top nor a decision to remove some persons with a particularly unsavoury reputation from positions of authority in the government and the organisation will help matters. Such moves can doubtless improve to some extent the party’s image but only temporarily; they cannot help to renovate it.
This need not have been a cause for pessimism if it was possible for Mrs. Gandhi to overhaul the organisation and bring in thousands of persons with a better record. But that is just not possible as is clear from the experience of the past five years all over the country. In Bihar the problem is further complicated by the fact that economic, social and educational backwardness have combined to create an atmosphere of moral apathy and strengthen the well-entrenched forces of inertia to a point where politics of caste, corruption and opportunism have come to be regarded as normal.
Firm Hand
What alternative can there be to the Congress? The Samyukta Socialist party, which emerged as a powerful force in the 1967 elections, has splintered again and again, with the result that today it has at best only a nuisance value. The Jana Sangh has not only failed to widen its social base since its fairly impressive electoral performance in 1967 but also badly split on the issue of the dissolution of the state legislature. For a party which prides itself on its discipline based on the RSS hard core, it must be a terrible shock that one-half of its members in the assembly have refused to heed its call to resign. But the development itself is not surprising. For, in the very process of trying to become a mass party, the Jana Sangh has had to come to terms with the prevailing norms. This leaves only the Communist party which does not even claim to offer an alternative to the Congress.
In the face of all this, the conclusion is unavoidable that if the state is to get a break from the miserable performance of its ruling elite for the past two decades, it will need to be ruled with a firm hand from the Centre for at least a couple of years. This cannot and will not make up for the lag of two decades and enable Bihar to join the ranks of progressive states. But it will help tone up the administration which can in turn bring about some improvement in the quality of education, implement the land laws, give the tenants a measure of security, persuade them to use the irrigation waters from the Damodar valley project which now go waste and dig tube-wells and encourage entrepreneurs to invest in existing and new industries. These will be substantial gains and justify the risks inherent in concentration of power in the hands of a select group of bureaucrats. In any case the alternative is confusion, drift, endless agitation, further deterioration of the economy and aggravation of the plight of the people.
The Times of India, 10 July 1974