During our struggle for independence, it seemed that freedom itself would be fulfilmnet. But, when we achieved it we knew that every completion was a begining. For us, this was a start pf a great experiment in the creation of democracy in an ancient, complex and vast country.
The Story of Indian development is not without significance for the rest of the world. How could it be otherwise when it encompasses the aspirations and struggles of over 550,000,000 human beings? Political theorists with their neatly labelled indices have sometimes spoken of democracy in India as a futile quest. To them, democracy could only be a two-party system worked by those who were educated in a particular way. Perhaps as advanced people of the West a generation ago protested that the colonial countries were not ready for freedom, so it was said that the under-developed societies of Asia and Africa were not ready for democracy, and could achieve order only under dictatorship of some kind or, at most, a controlled or guided democracy. Can democracy be guided any more than freedom? Is not a guided democracy a contradiction? Perhaps these questions are irrelevant. for it now seems that in some countries the word "democracy" was used as a shield for reaction and the subversion of freedom. But we did take democracy seriously. To us it conveyed the equality of all people to participate in e very level in the development of their country and the functioning of government.
In the choice of political institutions, it is not inevitably the past that is decisive, but the changing conditions of the lives and attitudes of people and the capacity of those who are in positions of leadership to involve the largest number of people in the political process.
The British ruled over us for two hundred ears. Little did those early colonisers realise that along with their flaf they brought the seeds which would destroy their rule. Macauley, who pleaded so passionately for Western education did not quite realise that he was undermining the edifice he was so anxious to perpetuate.The nineteenth and twentieth centuries brough ancient India fave to face with the imperatives of the contemporary world. And we quickly abosrbed all that was relevant and significant in Bentham and Mill, in Rousseau and Voltaire down to Marx and Weber. And all this was grafted on to the Indian sub-continent. And we then had Tagore, Gandhi and Nehru to menion only a few.
Our democracy is dedicated to planned economic development, the peaceful transformation of an old social order and the uplifting of millions of people from conditions of social, economic and technological under-development. Thus, what we are attempting in India is not mere imitation of the Westminster system but a creative application of a meaningful democracy to the vastly different economic and social problems of India.
Democracy was not entirely new to us for is roots could be found also in our old panchayat system. This system probably came into being because the village and the people were too distant from the centres of political power. Today the ancient institution has been transformed into a new organ of self-government at district and what we call block level as a link between the Government's programme and the people.
The concept of the rule of law and the British pattern of administration may have helped to keep order in the country but much in these institutions has remined static and without changes they are becoming stumbling blocks to progress and democracy.
There are forces in our society as in others which pull in opposit directions. The competitiveness of democracy and of contemporary living seems superficially sometimes to have strengthened the hold of caste, religion and region, for these are now exploited for social and economic gain. But this is a passing phase and these differences cannot weaken India's fundemental unity nor the basic sense of Indianness which is a powerful binding factor. Paradoxical though it may sound, we believe that the functioning of democracy itself can remove these obstacles on the democractic path.
Education has expanded tremendously. today there are 2.5 million students in colleges. The number of children in schools has gone up from 23.4 million in 1951 to 83,000,000 this year. But I am sorry to say that we have not done as well as we should in our programme for adult literacy. Without being able to read, a person's world is a lmited one for he cannot share the knowledge and companionship that comes with books. We must do and we are doing more for primary education, for strengthening secondary education and for adult literacy programmes. At the same time, I cannot agree with the common belief in the West that literacy by itself gives greater wisdom or understanding. Our people, illiterate though they may sometimes be, are the inheritors of an ancient culture of philosophy which has sustained them thorugh the vicissitudes of their long history.
Indian voters have shown extraordinary insight and understanding of what goes on around them. If some are misled by false propaganda or diverted by irrelevant factors, their number is not larger than those of their literate--even educated--counterparts in other countries. The Indian voter knows where his interests lie and has exercised his right to vote with great political sophisitcation in spite of the competitive political platforms of numerous parties, even in the fact of threat and violence. It is because of this basic soundness of our people that democracy has taken root in India.
Since long before Independence, the congress Party has committed itself to certain programmes. Indeed, our leaders had made it clear that we were fighting not only against foreign rule but against all that was evil in our society, against injustice and poverty and social inequality. Our system must therefore cater to the genuine needs of ordinary people without neglecting the long-term development of the country. Development adds a new dimension to the challenge of democracy.
Three distinct streams of thought have combined to produce what might vaguelly be called the Indian approach to democracy. There is the stream of liberalism and parliamentary democrac, which emerged out of the British system--parliamentary institutions, political parties, free elections, fundamental rights and freedom, the rule of law, which formed the political core of our democratic system. Parliament is the commanding centre of our political systemm and government's responsibility to the legislature at the centre and in the states is beyond dispute.
In modern society, freedom cannot be the unrestricted play of individuals nor the apotheosis of private interests and private enterprise as against social interest and the public good. Freedom lies in a delicate and continuous balancing of the rights aof the individual with the rights of society. Our constitution and our actual political practice provide a larger degree of freedom than is obtained anywhere else in the world. We stand for the freedom of the press, but we do not accept the proposition that freedom of the press means the freedom of industrialists to own the press, or that the right of property should stand in the way of progressive and necessary social legislation to lessen glaring inequalities of wealth and bring the reality of economic freedom to larger sections of the population. We have taken action to eliminate these anomalies. We have sought to amend the Constitution in order to give substance to democracy.
The second major stream is that of socialist though with emphasis on social democracy and economic planning and developments. Indeed the entire structure of democracy is geared to social and economic development. In Europe, democracy as we know it followed the Industrial Revolution, but in India, democracy with its freedom and pressing popular demand came first, and the process of industrialisation, economic development and major welfare schemes have to be operated in the face of diverse and contradictory pressures.
This baffling combination makes our task more difficult and because of the absences of organised propaganda our achievements appear less spectacular than the accomplishments of others by different methods. But we think that we have gained something in the longer run--not so much in glittering material terms but in terms of human values gained, in terms of human suffering avoided and in terms of the enduring and harmonious development of the individual and society. I do believe that real and lasting social transformation encompassing attitudes of mind and the ways of living of millions of poeple can be effective only by peaceful means.
The third stream has emanated from Mahatma Gandhi and his philsophy of non-violent revolution. The impact of Gandhian thought and method of democracy in India is indirect, impalpable, yet subtly pervasive. It has supported and enriched India. This whole experiment, this endeavour to combine freedom, socialism and the methods of peace in an immensely complex situation, is taking place in India, not in isolation from the rest of the world, b ut in the midst of international co-operation and in the glare of world-wide publicity. International co-operation is a constituent element of India's effort in building a progressive economy and a democractic society. This is why, ever since our independence we have put forward the idea of world peace and world co-operation, as an enlightened self-interest of India.
We believe in and have strictly adhered to the principle of non-intereference. But can this be one-sided? Today, there is intereference in our affairs and the stability of and progress of our country are gravely threatened. As a result of the tragic events in East Bengal, 9,000,000 people have poured into our territory, creating a situation which seems to surpass the convulsions of partition. The crisis in Pakistan is a deep one and the spectre which haunts that unhappy country cannot be exorcised by the usual recourse to blaming India. Two questions arise, first, whether religion by itself can form the basis of a nation state, especially when the state machinery is impervious to the ordinary laws of political devleopment and cultural aspirations, and secondly, whether some action other than that of the bayonet is not necessary to win loyalty. We in india are restrained and calm in the face of provocation but we are bound to protect the interests of our country.
No country, least of all one as vast and varied as India, can be classified under one label, or another. It seems to me that even those who claim expert knowledge of our country are often wide of the mark in their assessment of Indian events. Many specialists tend to fit facts into a preconceived framework of theory about caste and models of devleopment which have no relevance to reality. Even in Britain which has such close historical ties with us, there is a wide gap in the understanding of the forces which have shaped our great history and which are influencing us today. to have a worthwhile dialogue such an understanding is vital. Britain an dIndia must both replace old myths by a more rational approach. Given the necessary intellectual effort on both sides, I am confident that India and Britain can have creative and purposeful relations. It is the hope of bringing about such relations that brings me to London and to this Institute. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
From: Indira Gandhi: Speeches and Writings (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1975), 181-185.