June 4 and August 4 are two important dates in Indian political history. They mark the birth and death of a party for which there is a growing nostalgia among people who were familiar with it; a growing curiosity among young people who have only heard about it; and, interestingly, a growing yearning for something similar among people who are completely ignorant of it.
The Swatantra Party was born on June 4, 1959, and put to death on August 4, 1974. In those 15 years, it blazed a memorable trail across the Indian political firmament, daring to be the voice of a liberal-democratic order in a political and intellectual climate overwhelmingly socialist. It was not the only right-wing voice; there was the Jan Sangh (the precursor of the Bharatiya Janata Party), older to it by eight years, but that had a more conservative-nationalist pitch. There was a smattering of other right-wing political formations, but these two were the only ones with a significant presence.
The Swatantra Party has faded from memory since the late 1970s, though the Maharashtra unit still exists, nurtured by the untiring efforts of an 80-plus S.V. Raju, who was the party’s executive secretary. In 1994, Sharad Joshi launched the Swatantra Bharat Party, which claimed to be the ideological successor to the Swatantra Party.
Discussion about the Swatantra Party was for long largely confined to the pages of the Freedom First magazine and the Indian Liberal Group (both initiatives of Minoo Masani, one of its founders) and a bunch of right-of-centre liberal activists and intellectuals. But talk about the Swatantra Party has spilled out of this small group in recent years and there is a growing interest in it.
This is particularly marked among many urban middle-class individuals, who find themselves without a political voice because they can neither identify with the meaningless affirmations of socialism and secularism by the Congress (and certainly not by the servile obsession with the Dynasty), nor with the social and cultural conservatives in the BJP and religion-based parties. They see themselves as liberal and secular, but are uneasy with the one-sided liberalism and secularism that gets routinely hysterical about majoritarian communalism and illiberalism but is mildly censorious when minority groups indulge in the same. They believe in individual rights over group/minority rights. They reject socialism in any form but are uncomfortable with the way market-oriented policies have played out in India. This section has been yearning for a centre-right party.
Will the Swatantra Party fit the bill?
The Swatantra Party’s origins had to do with the growing unease of the party’s founding triumvirate—C. Rajagopalachari or Rajaji, Masani and N.G. Ranga—and several others with Jawaharlal Nehru’s determination to take India down the road of centralised economic planning and state capitalism and his autocratic style of functioning. Though we now talk about the 1950s as the halcyon days of the Indian polity, all the ills currently plaguing it—the arrogance of the politicians, the unaccountability of the bureaucrats, the destruction of institutions, the corruption in public life—had begun rearing their heads way back then. This was seen as an inevitable consequence of Nehruvian policies.
The Swatantra Party provided a political alternative that put the individual in the centre, protected freedoms as well as democratic institutions. The party’s ‘statement of principles’ spoke about “maximum freedom for the individual and minimum interference by the state, consistent with the obligation to prevent and punish anti-social activities, to protect the weaker elements of society and to create the conditions in which individual initiative will thrive and be fruitful”. There were many details, but this was the overarching theme. Personal, intellectual and cultural freedoms were sacrosanct. Nothing brings this out more than the 21st principle, which gave Swatantraites freedom to take their own stand on all matters not part of the 20 fundamental principles.
The party was very clear that the state should not micro-manage the economy. Its manifesto for the 1962 elections, ‘To Prosperity through Freedom’, contained the now immortal line, “The business of government is government, not business.” In a developing country, it said, the government should confine itself to developing physical and social infrastructure; instead, it was neglecting this and getting into trade and manufacturing.
Over the years, the Swatantra Party has been caricatured—especially by the Congress and the Leftists—as a bunch of disgruntled ex-Congressmen with a ‘feudalist-capitalist’ support base, talking about laissez-faire economics, with no real concern for the poor and the marginalised of India.
The Swatantra Party put up an impressive show in the very first election that it contested in 1962, and in the 1967 elections, it became the main Opposition party with 44 seats (ironically the same number of seats that the party it bitterly opposed has now got). It was even part of a coalition government in Orissa.
Unfortunately, it made some grievous tactical mistakes, the biggest being going along with the Grand Alliance against the Indira Gandhi-led Congress in the 1971 elections and its adoption of the mindless Indira Hatao slogan (against stiff opposition from Masani and a few others, who wanted to fight on an issue-based common programme). The Swatantra Party was decimated in the 1971 elections, along with the rest of the opposition. After Rajaji died in 1972, personality clashes saw it go steadily downhill. At the last national convention on August 4, 1974, party president Piloo Mody dissolved the party and merged it with Charan Singh’s Bharatiya Kranti Dal. A few state units continued independently till they, barring the Maharashtra one led by Masani, merged with the Janata Party in 1977.
Is there any point talking about reviving the Swatantra or forming a similar centre-right party today?
There is. The Swatantra Party’s relevance today comes through in Rajaji’s inaugural address to the party, where he warned of the dangers of the state becoming a Leviathan, “menacingly poised against the citizen, interfering with his life at all points...hypnotising the people with slogans that are mistaken for thought and wisdom, a scheme of government in which it is taken for granted that the citizen is ignorant of what is his own interest”. He could well be talking about present-day India. Despite liberalisation, the State hasn’t stepped back significantly; it is a Leviathan and Big Brother rolled into one.
Common platform K.M. Munshi, S.K.D. Paliwa, Kamakhya Narayan Singh, M.R. Masani, Homi Mody
But Indians, especially young Indians, have changed. The younger generation is far more individualistic than earlier ones. Post-liberalisation India has thrown up a plethora of choices for the young (admittedly along with difficult challenges). They want the opportunities to avail of these choices and want barriers that prevent these to be removed. They want to be masters of their destiny, not be forever dependent on crutches the government provides. The Swatantra Party’s focus on individuals and freedom and rejection of the notion that the state—and political parties—know what is best for the citizen will resonate with it far more than it did with earlier generations. Perhaps that is why the party was known as being far ahead of its time.
The party’s voice is particularly missed in the economic sphere, where the economic liberalisation process (one that it had championed) has been tainted by cronyism and taxpayer’s money continues to be pumped into inefficient public sector undertakings.
But will the Indian public take to a party which shuns populist appeals? Will a centre-right party get support in the rural areas (as the Swatantra Party did)? The chances do seem slim. People in India likes their sops and freebies. Barring the youth, the public is not uncomfortable with a mai-baap sarkar. This is borne out by the contrasting fortunes of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the largest among those in the Swatantra Party mould, the Loksatta Party of Andhra Pradesh. AAP stood out for its overtly populist stance and has been far more successful.
Rural India too could prove tricky, though the Swatantra Bharat Party is focused on this area and the Swarna Bharat Party too is keen on getting farmers onboard, both of them using the economic freedom pitch. One stumbling block is that personal freedoms are not a major issue in the more conservative rural areas. And yet, in both rural and urban areas, the young are beginning to value their personal freedoms and are rebelling against outdated social mores. Like their parents, they too may want sops but whether they will feel the same if they see that this is leading to a meddlesome state is debatable.
Young India wants the government off its back; but wants it to carry out its essential responsibilities. None of the existing parties understands the philosophy of minimum government or a small state. Narendra Modi’s minimum government is about reducing red tape, not recasting the state’s responsibilities. A Swatantra Party clone may not get electoral success, but the country desperately needs a cogent centre-right political voice of the kind the party represented.
(Seetha is a senior journalist and author of The Maruti Story, which was co-written with R.C. Bhargava.)
I refer to the column by Seetha, A Case for Swatantra (Aug 11). In 1967, Swatantra Party, with 44 MPs, was the main opposition party. If the current lot of Congressmen and their supporters are aware of its history and significance, their fight for the same position has a case for it!
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Anwaar >> Who needs a communal pseudo-nationalist party in a modern India?
Do we really need Theocracies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc and nazist wahabbist cults such as ISIS, CAIR , Hamas to exist in this modern world?
Seetha >> They see themselves as liberal and secular, but are uneasy with the one-sided liberalism and secularism that gets routinely hysterical about majoritarian communalism and illiberalism but is mildly censorious when minority groups indulge in the same. They believe in individual rights over group/minority rights. They reject socialism in any form but are uncomfortable with the way market-oriented policies have played out in India.
Swatantra Party and its leaders were pro market but they were bigger social conservatives than present day BJP or RSS. They were strong votaries of PROHIBITION, why you completely silent on that? Do you think Rajaji and his friends would have agreed on Gay Sex or right to suicide ? At personal level Rajaji was a highly religious hindu and wrote lot of hindu texts.
BJP is the only viable right of center party of India. It is the successor to Swatantra Party but grounded to reality of India in that you need some reseravtions, some social justice, some government power and some power to individuals. Those who want to create a swatantra party again when BJP is there are those who want to see 1967, 1971 and 1980 -the three elections where CON party won just because Anti Congress votes were divided.
If anything we need a viable left of center party that is secular in real sense (no appeasement of any community) and nationalist and republican. AAP is one such party but it panders to Muslims in a very shameful and unhelpful way. CPM/CPI are anti India and anti national and CON party is tied to one dynasty which has strong non Indian interests . So we need a alternative left of center party that will be like uS Democrats (strongly nationalist , pro India and left of center in real sense)
The Islamofascists and Leftists who are wet dreaming for a Swatantra party breaking anti CON votes and helping CON party back to power need to remember that 1967 lessons are well learnt by BJP and they will never do the mistake of dividing right of center votes to convert india into the socialist paradise of 97% income tax rates that Indira Gandy did.
Keep dreaming, BJP is here to stay like it or not.
Who needs a communal pseudo-nationalist party in a modern India? -Anwaar
You are talking about the Congress for sure. Even the voters recently have told them so.
>> "A party like Swatantra today will only end up splitting the pro-BJP votes."
If a center-right party like Swatantra re-emerges, BJP should be retired. Who needs a communal pseudo-nationalist party in a modern India?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT