MARXISM AND BEYOND IN INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT: J. P. NARAYAN AND M. N. ROYfS CONCEPTS OF RADICAL DEMOCRACY Submitted by Eva-Maria Nag For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy London School of Economics and Political Science University of London 2003 1 UMI Number: U183143 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U183143 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F S20<? lot 5 7 3 S Abstract This project aims at a re-interpretation of the work of two Indian political thinkers and activists - M. N. Roy (1887-1954) and J. P. Narayan (1902-1979). In light of their early affiliation with and later rejection of communism, Marxism and nationalism, they have often been reduced to representing an idealistic anti-Marxist strand of the Indian left of the immediate pre-independence and post-independence era. However, their case for radical democracy can and should be revised. Not only does their work run parallel to some important trends within the history of the European left and thus contributes to the history of left thinking in the early to mid 20th century, it may also have a lasting impact. In particular, the ideas they developed present a viable alternative to the descent of the Indian left into a one-sided politics of caste and provide a timely argument for a left-liberal discourse politics. The terms of their arguments have both transcended the confines of the nationalist cause of Indian intellectuals and anticipated the calls for grass roots activism that is now all too familiar to us. The first part of the thesis deals with the backdrop to their ideas of radical democracy, discussing liberty and freedom as the focal points in their arguments against orthodox Marxism. In the second part, two key aspects of their thinking on radical democracy are examined. One is the idea of radicalism as “going back to the roots” of politics in spatial terms, i.e. Roy and Narayan’s preoccupation with local democracy and its role in empowering citizens. The other is the relationship between a radical democratic politics and the transformation of human nature. Despite some important differences between the Gandhian Narayan and the radical humanist Roy, the similarities found in both their mode of reasoning and their political thought on the centrality and functions of radical democracy require a re­ interpretation of their ideas for rethinking freedom and democracy in India as elsewhere in an age of diversity. Vacillating between conventional Marxist positions and indications of their transcendence, the concept of radical democracy exemplifies an inherent intellectual pluralism that is capable of bringing about a pragmatic consensus on the practical question of the best form of government. 2 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 6 Chapter 2 From Communism to Democratic Socialism 31 2.1 The discontent of J. P. Narayan 2.1.1 Stage One - Marxism and the obstacle of economic injustice 35 2.1.2 Stage Two - Democratic Socialism 43 and the obstacle of political elitism 2.2 M. N. Roy - intellectual preoccupations 2.2.1 From nationalism to communism 54 2.2.2 The rejection of communism and nationalism 66 Concluding remarks 68 Chapter 3 Against the State: The Importance of Negative Liberty 70 3.1 The totalitarian threat to liberty 78 3.2 Liberty vs. the state and the collective 83 3.3 The prized individual 94 3.4 Liberty as a means 102 Concluding remarks 106 Chapter 4 The Ideals of Emancipation 108 4.1 The idea of freedom in Total Revolution 111 4.2 The idea of freedom in Radical Humanism 113 4.3 Marxism revisited? 117 4.4 Narayan’s objections to Marxism 120 4.5 Roy’s objections to Marxism 128 4.6 Departing from the certainty of history 132 4.7 The “New Man” 139 4.8 The morality of revolution and individual morality: 148 the means to a reconstructive politics Concluding remarks 154 3 Chapter 5 On Radical Democracy 157 5.1 Adversarial conditions of empowerment: state and political parties 5.1.1 Power and the state 164 5.1.2 Party-and-power politics 175 5.2 Radical democracy, or a ‘politics without power’ 185 5.2.1 Agents of radical democracy: 187 individuals and communities 5.2.2 The locus of radical democracy: 192 territorial communities and local republics 5.2.3 Modus of radical democracy: social action and dialogue 197 5.3 Empowerment and transformation 5.3.1 Empowerment and its limits: leadership and the masses 208 5.3.2 Radical democracy and transformation 218 Concluding remarks 223 Conclusion: domination, voice, development and more 227 Bibliography 236 4 Acknowledgements In the writing of the thesis I have benefited greatly from the stimulating academic environment of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The Department of Government has at various stages provided me with the funding and other support that has enabled me to complete the project. For their encouragement and help, I wish to thank Janet Coleman and Brendan O’Leary. Meghnad Desai is partly responsible for directing my attention to J. P. Narayan and for setting a challenge I could not but take up. I am furthermore greatly indebted to Steven Lukes for interesting discussions and for his insightful comments on the work while in progress. To Solomon Karmel, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks for his support and advice in the early stages of my life as a PhD student. Finally, and although this thesis does not do justice to what I have learnt from her, I would like to acknowledge my deepest gratitude to Lin Chun. Her affectionate supervision, constructive criticism and intellectual guidance have been a unique experience in the world of academia. 5 Chapter 1 Introduction I Crises are fertile grounds for political thinking in any culture in history. It is easy to understand why - difficult situations require explanations as well as creative guidelines. Crises can also be understood as particular cases of change. While changes need not carry an element of crisis, crises certainly require change. In other words, change as transition can take place smoothly, whereas the term crisis denotes a situation of dilemma and urgency. Hence, it is not surprising that in focusing our attention on India the topic is pregnant with the implications of both change and crisis - the change from the colonial Raj to the world’s largest democracy and the crises that have accompanied the process of building a post­ colonial polity. It is in this context that the work of M. N. Roy and J: P. Narayan remains relevant as many issues which they brought to the fore are yet to be resolved or, in more modest terms, are subject to controversy. We would like to draw attention to three major issues that had formed an integral part of the process of de-colonisation, and particularly of Indian politics in the first half of the 20th century. Nationalism, development and democracy, juxtaposed against imperialism, exploitation, and domination, were the main watchwords of newly independent states of the previous century. These themes have of course been looked at in great depth and from various angles over time, and which of these aspects is to be problematised has quite naturally preoccupied various schools of political science and political theorists. In these three watchwords we discern those questions that had to be answered in normative terms - what should constitute India’s self-perception, how should India proceed to build on her identity, and which political form should this endeavour take? In other words, the parameters of discourse were the nation, its socio-economic development, and the democratic legitimacy of its polity and policies. These themes were interlinked in many ways: nationalism is the basis of political independence, which is a prerequisite to political self-determination of its citizens. Nationalism also underlines the unity to the venture of the rule of the Indian people that is set to map out a self-determined route to socio-economic progress. 6 What we are interested in here is the issue of India’s democracy and how it is to be understood, i.e. what hopes and expectations have been placed in it and how successful, if at all, has this venture been. One way of understanding which hopes and aspirations are embedded in the politics of newly independent states is to look at their perceived problems and failures. While these are often posed in retro, they do serve to deliver an insight into what the ideal case was conceived as. What are the crises then that have become part of India’s political existence? For some, the unity of the Indian state itself is seen to be at stake. The problem of separatism and the costs of resolving it have various sources. Major tensions arose out of the clashes between centrist movements and federalist movements until the late 1980s, denoting the issue of control and power. The later nature of disharmony was seen as the result of ideological and class antagonisms, i.e. the failure of significant particularities to be represented in the nation-building and development process.1 The rise of alternative ideologies such as Hindutva, or the challenges posed by hitherto underprivileged castes and social classes are the most remarkable elements of this set of problems.