What Happened to India's Socialism?

Socialism has been defined, interpreted and understood in various ways. Broadly and essentially, socialism means, and should mean, that whenever and wherever the interests of the society conflict with those of the individual, the former would prevail. Ideally, the social and economic interactions in a socialist society should be so structured as to promote and preserve this concept of socialism. Moreover, any type of modern government should dominantly serve this purpose, whether or not socialism is explicitly adopted as a sole or a guiding doctrine of governance. In British India, as the dominant purpose of the colonial government was economic exploitation of the country, serving of the social purpose over the individual one was subordinated to the colonial purpose for which a type of governance system suited to this unwholesome purpose was devised and put in place. When India became independent on 15 August 1947 and framed its own Constitution, which came into force with effect from 26 January 1950, it declared itself to be a “sovereign democratic republic”. Although there was no specific and explicit mention of ‘socialism’ or ‘socialist’ in the constitutional declaration, provisions or even in the non-enforceable directive principles of state policy, there are certain clauses incorporated in the latter which are characteristic of ‘socialism’ or ‘socialist state’, such as the state striving, (i) to promote the welfare of the people, (ii) to minimize the inequalities in income, (iii) to secure that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to best subserve the common good, and (iv) to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
As the dominant motivation for India’s struggle for freedom under the inspiring leadership of Mahatma Gandhi was the abject poverty of the masses of India, the leaders of free India’s government adopted policies and measures which may be termed as ‘socialist’ or ‘socialistic’. Under the charismatic leadership of Pandit Nehru, who was also the head of government, the dominant political party in power, the Indian National Congress adopted a resolution for “a socialistic pattern of society” in its Avadi session in 1957 and a resolution of Democracy and Socialism in its Bhubaneshwar session held in 1963. Similar resolutions were also passed in the India Parliament. In view of rather strong anti-socialism forces in various interest groups in the country and even in the ruling Indian National Congress, who were ever ready to resist or even sabotage what they viewed as radical socialist measures of the government, the word ‘socialist’ was introduced, along with ‘secular’, through a constitutional amendment passed in 1976 under the stewardship of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in the very Preamble of the Constitution, declaring India to be a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’. Various socialistic measures were taken under this dispensation, such as nationalization of banks and insurance; establishing many public sector undertakings, particularly in key and critical areas of national economy; setting up a system of licenses and permits to regulate the wayward behavior of private industries and businesses; providing subsidies to promote agriculture and other economic activities pursued by the masses for their livelihood; and governmental programmes targeted at the poor and vulnerable sections of the society. However, these well intentioned measures of a democratic socialist republic were executed under the same system of governance which was used for economic exploitation of a colony, thus resulting in the same sort of ills that afflicted other general activities of the government such as inefficiency, corruption and callousness. Instead of realistic analysis and diagnosis of these ills, the policy of socialism itself was brought into disrepute by powerful vested-interest groups. Aided and abetted by certain sweeping global trends such as liberalization, globalization and privatization of economy and catastrophic event like the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, which was actuated by its own inner contradictions, the cherished ideal of socialism was formally bade good bye, many public sector undertakings were disinvested and subsidies were withdrawn, all in the name of economic reforms in the early nineties. This no doubt gave spurt to enhanced economic activities by indigenous industrialists and entrepreneurs. This is, however, at great social cost. Several of the directive principles of state policy such as those related to disparities in incomes and concentration of wealth have been grossly outraged. The vast consumer market and cheap manpower of ‘economically reformed India’ also attracted multi-national companies to operate here. Thus, while the Indian people were considered as a ‘vote bank’ by the political parties in their bid for power under the post-independence colonial system of governance, they now also became a ‘market’ for exploitation by the multinationals in the globalised economy.
In its zeal for privatization, India has left capitalist countries behind even in certain such vital sectors as education and health. While in the USA, public funded schools cater to more than 90% of school going children; in India school education has emerged as a big lucrative thriving private business. Even in higher and technical education, the government seems to be contracting its role and being selective in expansion to meet the growing demands, leaving ever widening space for private entrepreneurs to play, understandably with profit motivation. Similarly, in another vital sector like health services, while the trend in capitalist countries is towards more and more socialization, in India it is just the reverse. Increasing number of people have to take recourse to private doctors, clinics and hospitals on account of deficiency, inadequacy and low standards of health services provided by the government. And obviously, this is to the enrichment of the private players at a high or even back-breaking cost to the people who pay taxes for various services including health and education.
So, where is India’s socialism and what happened to it during the post-independence period? It is a moot question for deliberation by all concerned. It may reveal certain disconcerting and disturbing facts and indications about whither the Indian Republic is heading.