[Remarks at an Online Function held on 1st May 2021 to Celebrate International Labour Day and Celebrate Shri Madhu Limaye’s 99th Birthday & Commence his Centenary Year as well as Re-release the ‘Book Goa Liberation Movement and Madhu Limaye’.]

As you know, Madhuji was born in Pune on 1^st May 1922. By this accident of birth on the International Labour Day, his life was forever linked with that of the toiling and exploited masses of our beloved motherland. Had he been alive today, Madhuji would have turned 99, and therefore, his centenary year begins today.

Many of his younger socialist comrades, friends, followers and admirers across the country thought that it would be appropriate to celebrate his centenary. I wish to express my personal gratitude and heartfelt thanks to all the comrades and friends and Samajvadi Samagam, who have taken the initiative, and have, in many different ways supported and contributed to the effort of planning for the year-long centenary celebrations and launching of the centenary celebrations today, here and elsewhere.

Questions that have sprung into my mind are, why do we celebrate centenary of a person like Madhuji, however accomplished or selfless a person that he may have been?

• Is it to assuage this universal human sentiment of wanting to ‘hero-worship’ greatness?
• Is it to take the easy path of uncritical praise of that individual so that we can perpetuate the myth of the ‘perfect leader’?
• Is it to express our heartfelt gratitude for the person’s contribution to our lives and our nation?
• Is it to give ourselves hope, in dire times, that since such a person existed in the past, her or his kind may be born or emerge again amidst us to save us?
• Is it to put such a person on a pedestal so that we can escape the responsibility of following in her or his footsteps in terms of practicing the values, ideology, thoughts and actions they represented?
• Is it because once we proclaim, remember and celebrate any person’s greatness, we can tell ourselves or unconsciously feel that we don’t possess the qualities this individual possessed, and hence, we won’t be able to follow in that person’s footsteps, and thus, slip into inaction?

I fervently hope that these are not the substantial reasons why we are celebrating Madhuji’s birthday and centenary year. On the contrary, we are doing this because his character, his ideas, his approach to problems & issues and his actions can be inspiring and have immediate relevance to the alarming situation that we, as people and as a nation, are facing today.

I neither have the intellectual heft, abilities or courage that Madhuji possessed, nor have I been a self-sacrificing activist to assume any kind of moral high ground, but as his son who knew him closely and who discussed and debated diverse issues with him over a life-time, I want to take this opportunity to convey some points that I think we should, through this year of centenary celebrations, propagate to the larger, younger audiences across our country and also adopt these in our political activities, if we want seek a way out of the current bleak situation.

First of all, there is the need to cultivate sterling, spotless character, develop courage, strong convictions, and the spirit of sacrifice and self-abnegation that Madhuji possessed in abundance. There was nothing in his family background that that could have inevitably led to this development. It was his association with people – inspiring leaders and comrades – and his association with our idealistic national freedom movement and socialist movement and his purposeful actions that built these facets of his personality.

Today, the mainstream political leaders in the opposition sorely lack these qualities, and consequently, they are neither able to earn the trust and support of our people nor effectively face the attack, ridicule and propaganda that Modi and his followers in the Sangh Parivaar continuously launch through diverse routes against them. Opposition leaders are even less able to mount a credible and sustained counter-attack.

As we have seen in the recent past, the two most notable mass movements of protest in India – against the destructive and corrosive Citizenship Amendment Act and the three draconian Farm Laws – have been led and conducted by common people, who are largely outside the established political parties.

When qualities of courage and fearlessness exist, when values, principles and character guide our actions, often our “apparent weakness of small numbers” does not matter. If I recall correctly, in 1965-1966, Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP) had most probably 7 members in the Third Lok Sabha – the first five being Shri Mani Ram Bagri, Shri Rishang Keishing, Shri. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal, Shri Kishen Pattanayak and Shri Ram Sevak Yadav. These five were elected in during the 1962 General Elections, originally as Socialist Party’s MPs. Later, through bye-elections, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia and Madhuji got elected as MPs representing SSP. I don’t think I have missed out anyone. But if I have, then, I apologize to those whose names I cannot recall. Madhuji and Dr. Lohia, particularly Madhuji, despite despotic and utterly partisan methods of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha Sardar Hukum Singh, launched such numerous, effective and diverse attacks on the Congress Government at the Centre, that, despite the vast majority that the Congress Legislative Party possessed in the Lok Sabha, the government couldn’t defend itself. Repeatedly, the credibility of ministers, the government as a whole and the Congress Party was in tatters. In my view, that was one of the major causes for the vastly improved electoral performance of the opposition at the Centre and even better in many States, not the fragile and imperfect alliance between the opposition parties.

The second aspect that we need to remember and try to emulate was Madhuji’s unending thirst for knowledge, his scholarship and his desire and ability to develop sharper and deeper understanding of issues, his insistence on being correct on facts, his ability to listen to and absorb diverse viewpoints, and, in the face of contrary experience and evidence, to alter and modify his views and opinions. Apart from his values, principles and basic ideological beliefs, he was ready to change and he did change his views, sometimes quite radically. Madhuji always implored and exhorted his younger comrades and associates to cultivate the habit of deep study, to look at facts and evidence, to listen to diverse viewpoints, and above all, to keep an open mind about changing views and opinions in the face of experience and other differing viewpoints, instead of taking up dogged and inflexible positions based on ideological dogma.

Madhuji from the 1940s until maybe the 1970s may have strongly subscribed to the view that “nationalization” of important industries as well as government’s active participation in industrial and economic enterprises represented a big step towards establishing economic justice and socialism in the country. I think by the late 1980s and certainly by early 1990s, learning from the failures of several Indian and Soviet public enterprises, he no longer thought that nationalization and government run industries were the best way to promote innovation and productivity or to establish socialism in the country.

Madhuji was initially strongly opposed to opportunistic non-Congressism, but once he allowed Dr. Lohia to persuade him to embrace the strategy and policy of non-Congressism, he pursued it faithfully until the 1980s. However, in the last article that he wrote which was published on 9^th January, 1995, the morning after his death, he lamented the decline of the Congress Party and the rise of the divisive and destructive right-wing Hindutva politics of the Sangh Parivaar for which one of the causes he thought was non-Congressism. He implored members of the Congress Party to revive and rejuvenate their Party and follow the principles of the freedom movement instead of being a dynastic, moribund and corrupt party devoid of public spiritedness because he thought it to be the only pan-National force that could protect India’s democratic and pluralistic character.

So, what did Madhuji believe in until his last breath that has the power to inspire us as well as immediate relevance and significance for us today?

• He passionately believed in the ideals of our national freedom movement, most of which have been enshrined in our Constitution, which seek to protect the plurality, inclusiveness and tolerance within our country, however limited they may be in practice.
• He was wedded to the democratic and federal nature of our political structure and our parliamentary form of government.
• He believed in adult universal franchise, coupled with free & fair elections, with minimal role of “money power”, and therefore, the need for effective electoral reforms.

While he strongly believed in our Constitution and the primacy of people’s mandate, he believed that the Constitution should be only amended wisely, if and when really needed, and that people’s electoral mandate was not always perfect and wise, though it was supreme.

• He strongly favoured the critical role of inner party democracy and dissent in political discourse. He himself was a dissenter since his early days in public life. He encouraged and respected dissenting views. Even as a child and a young man, I have argued with him on socio-economic and political & constitutional issues of importance, articulating views different from his and questioning his views, opinions and formulations. But with me as with others, he was willing to listen and was never disrespectful or dismissive of dissenting viewpoints.

Therefore, while he was a Member of the Lok Sabha, Madhuji was completely opposed to the so-called Anti-Defection Law. He had successfully resisted such a law from being passed when Smt. Indira Gandhi tried to do so, or when his own party’s – Janata Party’s – Government under Shri Morarji Desai tried to do it. He was the only one, who, with reasons, strongly criticized and condemned the Anti-Defection Law that Shri Rajiv Gandhi got passed almost in a single day, which everyone else had then praised as inauguration of clean, defection-free politics. He called it Anti-Dissent Law, and said it that would kill any scope of meaningful debate, persuasion, dissent in legislatures and would be the death knell of inner party democracy, while encouraging and allowing for wholesale defections and bossism. And in this, he has been proved absolutely correct.

• Protection of civil liberties and freedom of the press & media. He himself argued before the Supreme Court habeas corpus writ petitions that he filed against his unlawful detentions successfully.

If I remember right, he even successfully argued habeas corpus petitions on behalf of a few young men who were his fellow detenus in Delhi’s Tihar Jail, who had been, arrested by police and detained for months without any trial for alleged vagrancy. In his last appearance before the Supreme Court, Madhuji successfully argued the habeas corpus writ petition on behalf of his and our socialist friend and associate, Prof. Raj Kumar Jain.

• He stood for the strength, integrity, independence and accountability of all the important institutions such as the Legislature, politically elected as well as the permanent Executive and agencies of the government, judiciary, Election Commission, CAG, etc., as also the press & media. He also believed that the individuals holding offices in these institutions must respect the constitutionally laid down “limits to the authority” of each of these institutions and positions.
• He strongly believed in the ideals inherent in building a humane socialistic society and the need for social & economic justice promoted through special opportunities for socially backward strata of the Indian society.

However, he did not believe that the “reservation policy” as it had been implemented had been the best way of achieving this goal. He had explored various options including having quotas linked to the proportion of the population and also looked at a “self-liquidating” reservation policy.

• He saw the urgent need for not just electoral and summit politics, but politics of constructive work, political organization & cadre building, social reform & education, and not last or least, politics of non-violent protests and agitation by the opposition against any form of injustice, which both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Lohia strongly believed in and articulated effectively from time to time.
• And finally, he had developed an unshakable conviction, based on a life-time of experience and study, that Sangh Parivaar, its leaders and cadres with their fascistic and authoritarian beliefs, their divisive and destructive politics, their divergence from the basic tenets of our Constitution, and their twisting of truth, constitute the most dangerous force against the well-being of the constitutionally created India after achieving freedom from Britain’s colonial yoke. Therefore, they need to be politically defeated.

Each of these fundamental beliefs, many of which are shared by people here today, need to practiced and promoted, if India of the dreams of our freedom fighters is to be preserved and furthered. To do that, I think there is a need for serious introspection and self-criticism. In my limited understanding, I see several facets of the challenge of defeating the destructive politics of this megalomaniac prime minister & his vastly resourced organization and in unseating them from power.

I am going to say a few things which may offend some friends here. Some may even think what authority does Aniruddha have to be so audacious in expressing such opinions. To some these views may appear as superficial, even baseless. I have no claims to any authority to preach from any pulpit, and I don’t mean to insult and offend anyone, but these views are not only deeply felt ones, but I have formed them in my mind after much thought and some amount of study.

First of all, a rigid, doctrinaire approach is not likely to convince or attract youth towards this endeavour. We need to develop new approaches and a different narrative that can appeal to the segments of people who have stayed away from left leaning, socially progressive, liberal beliefs and policies or who have stayed away from politics due to cynicism or have been hoodwinked and seduced into getting attracted to the right-wing Hindutva agenda.

Let me give you example of the policy of reservations in the education system. This has become highly divisive and emotionally explosive issue in our country. The believers in this policy like us, have moral, social, historical and political arguments in favour of this policy. Its staunch opponents argue that this policy is destructive of merit, it is unfair, it has come in the way of fulfilling aspirations of deserving people, and above all, it has economically and technologically hurt India because it has sidelined merit. Neither side is really ready to appreciate concerns of the other side.

Since the time of the announcement of implementation of the provisions of the Mandal Commission Report, at least I have not heard anyone provide any credible and comprehensive evidence about what real social, economic, aspirational and technological good or harm has this policy caused. I think the only way to convince anyone who stands to lose or who feels the loss privileges due to this policy is to show them, with existing evidence, two things – that this policy has actually expanded opportunities through public and private educational institutions, and has therefore, to a great extent, enabled aspirations to be fulfilled not only of the beneficiaries of the policy of reservation but also aspirations of the upper caste youth who may think of themselves as losers. And above all, we should be able to show with evidence it has helped create “IT & Telecom Revolution” in India, which has benefitted the country and has brought prosperity to a significant section of the population that hitherto did not enjoy it. To be able do this in any convincing manner would require “rigorous and studied approach” that Madhuji always followed and advocated.

To elaborate further, if the evidence is significantly contrary, then we need to be open and flexible and examine how this policy needs to be reviewed and modified to make it win-win for all. It would be important to do two more things – we would have to enable real improvement in scholastic abilities of the beneficiaries of reservation, and to get across to them that this policy is for betterment of the ever-increasing segments of our country’s backward caste population and not to create a sense of entrenched entitlement arising out of the injustice of centuries. Just as it is absurd and unfair to fan grouse and hatred against Muslims for the real and imagined atrocities of Islamic rulers against Hindu religion and Hindus which is the Hindutva agenda, I think it is equally unconvincing to the upper caste Hindu youth of today that they should pay full price for the exploitation and injustices perpetrated by their forefathers. Of course, there is a big difference. Islamic dominance is history, while exploitation, atrocities and injustice against the backward castes is still a shocking reality in the present-day India.

There are other aspects in our socio-political sphere that need to be addressed if ideological, liberal, left-leaning politics has to be successfully revived. The first is for the leaders and cadres of this movement – whether we are referring to those who subscribe to socialism or communism or who are social activists outside of electoral politics – to work together, to collaborate, to exchange ideas, to learn from each other’s successes and failures and not harp on irreconcilable differences and stay hostile and fragmented. This approach has been conspicuously absent. Even two of the tallest leaders of the socialist movement in India, JP and Dr. Lohia, failed to work together for long after independence. They went in different directions by mid-1950s. What was true of them has been true of their followers. Egos, self-interest, inflexibility ruled and factionalism and splits weakened the socialist movement. In short, ability and willingness to listen to each other, to persuade and be persuaded, to respect each other, which are so critical in any democratic collective functioning, have been missing all along.

It is also important to remember that socialists have failed to demonstrate real steadfastness and persistence over any meaningful period. If we take a good look at what Mahatma Gandhi did after he took on the mantle of leadership of our freedom movement, we realize the importance of persistence, of staying on a well-defined course. From Champaran and Non-Cooperation Movement to Quit India Movement and thereafter, Gandhiji, was steadfast in launching several individual and mass satyagrahas, engaging in constructive work, pushing the campaign to remove untouchability and carrying on political journalism ceaselessly, for over a quarter century, to help achieve freedom.

Although during the freedom movement, socialists worked under the larger umbrella of the Indian National Congress, in 1948, they formed separate Socialist Party because they wished to fulfill an exalted vision of an equitable, just and progressive society. Electoral performance that belied their expectations in 1952 General Elections shook them up – socialists went for merger with KMPP to form PSP. JP experienced alienation from party politics and eventually went for nearly two decades into Bhoodaan and Sarvodaya. Asoka Mehta articulated the thesis of cooperation with the Congress and coupled with that the firing by the Socialist Government of Pattam Thanu Pillai in today’s Kerala on people demonstrating peacefully, led to the split in the PSP. Then, in 1955, Dr. Lohia formed Socialist Party, with very idealistic and puritanical agenda, based on his “Trisutri – constructive work, agitational politics and elections” and pursued “go it alone programme”. Two more lacklustre performances by Socialist Party in 1957 and 1962 General Elections, and India’s debacle at the hands of China, and Dr. Lohia took a 180-degrees turn to inaugurate the policy of non-Congressism. Come 1967 General Elections and formation of SVD Governments in various states, we saw naked display of lust for power. And then, Aayaa Ram-Gayaa Ram phenomena of defections ensued. Pretty much, ideological politics went into an irreversible decline. In the same year, on 12^th October, with the tragic and untimely death of Dr. Lohia, the chances of the socialist movement ever becoming a force of change for the better in India diminished radically. Then, in the interregnum, mergers and splits continued to occur among the socialists. Finally, in 1977, with the formation of the Janata Party the very existence of the “earlier socialist parties” was extinguished.

The wisdom, expediency, imperatives or inevitability of all these turnarounds can be argued. But the point that I want to emphasize, which has generally been a success formula in politics, armed struggle as well as the corporate world, is that once you have worked out a sound strategy persist with it, implement it rigorously, give it a sufficiently long try. And I dare say that Dr. Lohia, in his formulation during the Pachmarhi Conference in 1952, had provided socialists a sound strategic roadmap, but there was no dogged persistence, only these turnarounds and splits. On the other hand, the Sangh Parivaar with their organizational steel frame and through the network of connected organizations, have stuck to their basic ideology and approach of spreading their tentacles and polarizing the country, through all their strategic and tactical manoeuvres since the 1960s.

I want to end my address to all you friends with an appeal that if these centenary celebrations are to be of any consequence, then we must try to:

1. Cultivate and encourage collaboration and collective functioning between all progressive elements
2. Develop in depth studied understanding, based on data and evidence, of diverse issues and problems – not be stuck into the rut of rigid, old doctrinaire thinking
3. Keep egos and self-interest in check
4. Demonstrate character, and courage in speech & action and persistence – this struggle is going to be for a long haul
5. Try to find new ways to attract hitherto unattracted youth

Thank you.

Jai Hind.

(Aniruddha Limaye is the son of Madhu Limaye.)