But, may it not be that, today, or more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognised by those who read the Indian Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances, the situation does not call for a man who has the capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus, the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

The narrower the mental outlook and the more meager the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high class talent but rather the crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning, he knows that whatever is the result of his ‘statesmanship’, his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental caliber. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows accordingly as the caliber of individual personality dwindles. That caliber will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footing cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority – which means the dunder – headed multitude – hate nothing more than a superior brain.   

For footing deputies, it is always a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is at par with their own. Thus, each one may have the opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers and above all, each one feels that he may one day rise to the top. If Peter be boss today, then why not Paul tomorrow?

This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so – called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made, they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.

That is the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same time it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to be covered by something, must be classed among the knaves and rascals. If a national leader should come from that lower class of politicians, the evil consequences will soon manifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than pluck up courage to make a definitive stand. And thus nobody is left who is willing to risk his position and his career, if needs be, in support of a determined line of policy.

It is out of the question to think that the same people are fitted to decide on transport questions as well as, let us say, on questions of foreign policy, unless each of them is  a universal genius.

One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so too a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.

The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immoral energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip – toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office, they consider this as a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity.

The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and state are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to the same class of ‘leader’.

In such people, the qualities of statesmanship were measured according to the adroitness with which they piece together one coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.

In this sphere, New Delhi, or for that matter, all the state capitals are 

the schools which offer the most impressive examples.

It was worthwhile to make a thorough study and examination of the way in which the real talents of these gentlemen were devoted to the service of their country; in other words, to analyse thoroughly the technical procedure of their activities.

There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man

Indeed it was very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of ‘objectivity’ in every other sentence, as the only fair basis of examination and judgement. If one studies these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence, the results will be very surprising.

There is no other principle which turns out to be quite as ill – conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

It is quite evident that only to a tiny degree are public wishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which an election takes place; for everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of the masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable them to form general political judgements on their own account, or to select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.

Whatever definition we may give of the term ‘public opinion’, only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people through an overwhelmingly and persistent system of ‘information’.

By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this connection is best expressed by the word ‘propaganda’, is carried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employed in the process of political ‘enlightenment’. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the state but in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very inferior character. One is quite surprised by how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power within the state to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so, the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued. It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or filched or hidden away from public attention.

These highway robbers would grab at anything which might serve their evil ends.

They would poke their noses into the most intimate family affairs and would not rest until they had sniffed out some petty item which could be used to destroy the reputation of their victim.

These are the kinds of beings that fabricate more than two – thirds of what is called public opinion, from the foam of which parliamentary Aphrodite eventually arises.

 

The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is the fact that a number of persons, let us say 542 in the parliament and 60 in our state of Meghalaya – including, in recent times, women also – elected to the Parliament and the State Assembly are invested with authority to give final judgement on anything and everything. In practice, they alone are the governing body; for although they may appoint a Cabinet, which seems outwardly to direct the affairs of the state, this Cabinet in reality does not have an existence of its own. In reality, the so – called government can not do anything against the will of the Assembly. It can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in the Cabinet but in the Parliamentary / Assembly majority. The Cabinet always functions as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be judged only according to how far it succeeds in adjusting itself to the will of the majority or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals. But this means that it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a merchant who has to beg for the approval of the majority that may be got together for the time being. Indeed, the chief preoccupation of the Cabinet must be to secure foe itself, I the case of each individual measure, the favour of the majority then in power, or failing that, to form a new majority that will be more favourably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts, it may go on ‘governing’ for a little while. The question whether its policy as such has been right or wrong does not matter at all.

Those 542 / 60 members who have been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life and show very varying degrees of political capacity, with the result that the whole bination is disjointed and sometimes presents quite a sorry picture. Surely nobody believes that these chosen representatives of the nation / state are the choice spirits of first class intellect. Nobody, I hope, is foolish enough to pretend that hundreds of statesmen can emerge from papers placed in ballot boxes by electors who are anything else but averagely intelligent. This absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal sufferage can not be too strongly repudiated. In the first place, those times may be really called blessed when one genuine statesman makes his appearance among a people. Such statesmen do not appear all at once in hundreds or more. Secondly, among the broad masses, there is instinctive a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. There is a better chance of seeing a camel pass through the eye of a needle than of seeing a really great man ‘discovered’ through an election.

Whatever has happened in history above the level of average of the broad public has mostly been due to the driving force of an individual personality.  

But here 542/60 persons of less than modest intellectual qualities pass judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation / state. They form governments which in turn learn to win the approval of the illustrious Assembly for every legislative step that may be taken, which means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy of the 542/60.

And indeed, generally speaking, the policy bears the stamp of its origin. But let us pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and ask what the nature of the task set before them is. If we consider the fact that the problems which have to be discussed and solved belong to the most varied and diverse fields we can very well realise how efficient a governing system must be which entrusts the right of decision to a mass as

sembly in which only very few possess the knowledge and experience such as would qualify them to deal with the matters that have to be settled. The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which not more than one – tenth of the members have studied the elements of economics. This means that the final authority is vested in men who are utterly devoid of any preparatory training which might make them competent enough to decide on the questions at issue.

It is out of the question to think that the same people are fitted to decide on transport questions as well as, let us say, on questions of foreign policy, unless each of them is a universal genius. But scarcely more than one genius appears in a century. Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real brains, but only with dilettanti who are as narrow minded as they are conceited and arrogant, intellectual demi – modes of the worst kind. This is why these honourable gentlemen show such astonishing levity in discussing and deciding on matters that would demand the most painstaking consideration even from great minds.

In the Indian Parliament / Meghalaya Assembly, it was always the Indian element that suffered through the system, which means that the results were detrimental to India as a whole; even the most simple - minded people could recognise the cohesive forces within the Dual Governance no longer sufficed to counterbalance the separatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities. On the Contrary!    

Having ceased to identify themselves with the Governance which embraced them all and accordingly they did not feel its weakness as in any way detrimental to themselves. They rather welcomed those manifestations of senile decay. They looked forward to the final dissolution of the state and, not its recovery.

The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immoral energies at the disposal of the nation

 

The complete collapse was still forestalled in Parliament / Assembly by the humiliating concessions that were made to every kind of importunate demand, at the cost of the Indian element. Throughout the country, the defence of the state / Assembly rested on playing off the various communities /sub – communities against one another. But the general trend of this development was directed against the Indians in general and the politicians were busy fragmenting the various communities / sub – communities for their vote bank. Religion was thus exploited to serve a purely political policy, and in this case a fatal policy, at least as far as Indian interests were concerned. By employing religious motives in the service of politics, a split was aroused which the instigators of that policy had never thought possible.

Nationalists and patriots were transformed into rebels. The traditional dynastic patriotism, because of a prolonged sub - servance to foreign rulers, which had become a second habit of crawling when asked to bow and national love of the motherland which resulted people to be in open conflict.

The authority of the state can never be an end in itself; for if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred.

If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen.

The question of whether and when such a situation exists can not be answered by theoretical dissertations but only by the exercise of force, and it is success that decides the issue.

Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a state or government but rather the conservation of the race.

If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated, the question of legality is only of secondary importance. The established power may in such a case employ only those means which are recognised as ‘legal’, yet the instinct of self – preservation on the part of the oppressed will always justify, to the highest degree, the employment of all possible resources.

The world is not there to be possessed by faint - hearted races.

India affords a very clear and striking example of how easy it is for tyranny to hide its head under the cloak of what is called ‘legality’ and ‘majority’.

The spectacled theorist would have given his life for his doctrine rather than for his people.   

Because man has made laws he subsequently comes to think that he exists for the sake of the laws.

A great service rendered by the Pan – Indian movement is to keep the options to abolish, however small they may be today, all such nonsense, though the doctrinaire theorists and other fetish – worshippers were shocked.

In order to wage an effective war against such power from the outside, indomitable courage and a ready spirit of sacrifice are necessary weapons. In such cases, the bull must be seized by the horns. Furious drives may bring the assailant to the ground again and again; but if he has a stout heart, he will stand up, even though some bones may be broken, and only after a long and tough struggle will he achieve his triumph.

The most important consideration is that the same public is always present and that this public does not wish to learn anything new; because setting aside the question of intelligence, it lacks even the modest quantum of will – power which is necessary for the effort of learning.

Now, this is the scenario that we are witnessing in the entire Indian Sub Continent and it makes one think whether the parliamentary form of democracy by adult sufferage is a means for achieving equality – socially and economically. If not, what is the alternative? Unfortunately, an alternative to that would be authoritarian, or a military despot. But the present form of granting adult sufferage as the yardstick for electing legislators is certainly faulty and should be regimented by certain preconditions and norms to make the voter eligible to vote. Perhaps we may be able to get at least a better crowd of members / legislators to decide our fate.

B. P. Goenka