Chapter 21

Revolution

It was Tocqueville who declared that revolutions come during the times of the most benevolent rulers, and during the time of very autocratic rulers, nobody would dare to lift their heads. One can find ample proof of this statement in the history of India. There have been a lot of political upheaval in India, since ancient times. But these are all just political manipulations to corner the seat of Monarchical power, and not at all connected with the people's determination to throw off their chain of thraldom.

What Alexis de Tocqueville said: It is not always when things are going from bad to worse that revolutions break out. On the contrary, it oftener happens that when a people, which has put up with an oppressive rule over a long period without protest suddenly finds the government relaxing its pressure, it takes up arms against it. Thus, the social order overthrown by a revolution is almost always better than the one immediately preceding it, and experience teaches us that, generally speaking, the most perilous moment for a bad government is one when it seeks to mend its ways.

Patiently endured so long as it seemed beyond redress, a grievance comes to appear intolerable once the possibility of removing it crosses men's mind.

Here, also remember that Tocqueville was a French statesman.

People in India were stuck in immovable social positions, wherein they not only were not able to live in a social condition of dignity and freedom, but also could not contemplate that they were entitled to dignity and conditions of social security.

With the coming of the British, the English language also came. I have no intentions of going into the debate of finding the reason why the British taught the natives of India, English. I have heard many well-educated, English speaking affluent people say with shameless equanimity that the English taught the Indians with pure selfish interest to get clerks for their commercial enterprises.

Whatever it is, the coming of English changed the way the educated people saw social communication and social structures. Everywhere, suddenly there sprung up towering personalities, in a society that had for centuries seen none of these breeds, who started spearheading movements, which aimed at tumbling rigid social hierarchy. In Kerala also, there were saintly men, who strived to uplift the lower castes. In the clamour to acknowledge the contributions of these men, nobody dares to remind themselves the crucial fact that all of these men could act fearlessly only because of the security afforded them by the British installed Supreme Court of India. For, the fact is that all such great social movements functioned under the aegis of the British Indian law and order machinery. If such an all encompassing and protecting power, that stood with a sort of supernatural strength pervading the whole of India was not there, no towering personality would have dared to make any entry to enjoy the luxury of leading a mass movement.

For, the punishment for invoking Royal anger was burning at the stake, or quartering, or being stuck up in a frame in a street junction for the birds to feed upon for a few weeks etc. This Royal anger, which protected the strangling social order, was questioned only since the times of Raja Ram Mohan Roy*, possibly the greatest of Modern Indians. It may be remembered here that to bring the British rulers to take action to stop the burning of women at their husband's pyre, he had to make a very sustained and persevering campaign, braving the attacks and ostracism of the feudal society in which he himself existed. Remember, not many people in India saw anything wrong in burning up women on the pyre, till the advent of the British. In fact, everyone exalted it, and equated it with noble deeds.

Now with the removal of English from the common man's attainable attributes, this country is back to square one. There is immense improvement in term of buildings, and roads etc. as there was in the times of the ancient Emperors. For, the great monuments and structures like Taj Mahal* were made in the ancient times. But the construction was affordable because of the vast populace that existed like slaves. Here, one may remember that England is devoid of such structures; though apparently a failure in heritage, it remains as a remarkable piece of evidence that the English people did not exist as slaves of omnipotent, and megalomaniac rulers; or atleast, such passions were kept on proper leash.

Now, the conditions in most Indian states show deep signs of ambivalence. On one hand, one would find extremely rich, highly mobile educated population, who either are bureaucrats, or landed aristocracy, or rich and powerful businessmen or persons with foreign connections. On the other, one would find a vast, ocean like section of population, living in stark distress, heavily vulnerable to the dictates of the officialdom, police and the rich, with no means for dignified subsistence other than allowing themselves to be exploited in all possible manner.

Now will the latter group revolt? Never on their own!

For, the whole mental indoctrination right from the primary school, is the same social philosophy their mother tongue carries; that of being a small individual in the presence of towering personalities who would traumatise the society. The very daring to think that one can converse intelligently with the socially powerful would be systematically deleted. And the same sheep like individuals would come to exist in the lower sections of society. At the top, would exist the kind that always trampled over the others, since ancient times.

In this connection, I remember my asking, many years ago, a well-educated person from Tamil Nadu, belonging to the feudal landed aristocracy, why they did not think of giving good English education to the children of their serfs. For, then they would very easily rise above their present social condition of pitiable primitiveness. He laughed and gave me a most understanding, and yet apt answer. He said, "If we give them good English education, they would stop respecting us," a statement that carried the fullest truth about the real intention of the ruling class of India.

Yet, what would happen if this terrible exploitation continues? Well nothing, for it has existed here with beautiful compliance from the aggrieved parties. Yet, at times, there would be moments when individual persons may not be able to bear it, and may break out with terrible violence. Yet, the aggrieved persons cannot unite on their own. For, the language program requires someone of external distinction to unite and lead.

Herein the professional revolutionaries can do a wonderful job. For example, the communist party can do wanders to ensnare the bottled up violent emotions, and cause a general uprising.

But the truth is that communism is not the real answer. The real solution is English, but communism promises things that naturally exist in English. The classlessness, the distribution of wealth etc. are all there in the English language program, in a most natural manner.

Communism comes as an impostor. Yet, I do not intend to say that the persons who work for the communist parties are all swindlers or impostors. No, most of them are honest, and dedicated, and are knowingly risking their lives to change the society for the better. Yet, they also function in the same language program that in the first instance created the feudal social system. And once they come into power and prominence, they can only join the social system, and possibly supplement it with the vibrant organisational power at their disposal.

Let us see the international scene: It is generally seen that in English speaking nations, communism did not make much headway. At the same time, it may safely be seen that it made headway in places where people at an individual level found it hard to communicate their feelings to their higher-ups. The people definitely suffered from frustration, caused by the stifling of their capacity to articulate. These people then organised themselves into groups to be able to muster the necessary psychological back up to negotiate with the higher-ups. It may be seen that even in India, the most violent communist revolts took place among people who suffered from severe frustration due to lack of ability to communicate with the ruling class.

In India, the Naxalbari* movement that rocked the State of Bengal during the 60's were actually the outbreak caused by the real suffering of the people. It was crushed with brutal force by the police. One of the major leaders, Charu Majumdar* was beaten to death in a police lock-up.

In many places in India, this movement is continuing. One place is Andhra Pradesh, where there is a real People's War Group* fighting with sickening perseverance. The police regularly catch and butcher them.

Yet, there is no answer to the social problems in communism. For, what happens to the leaders of the people? The moment they become the leaders, they are above the people. They can communicate with equality with the dominating class, at the same time, their own followers would have to address them with feudal respect and all reference to them is with a halo. So in the long run, the leaders themselves would be part of the very social system that they had earlier wanted to demolish.

If one goes to the headquarters of the communist party, one would find feudal levels of communication, which happily goes unnoticed. At the same time, if one walks into an English-speaking group, there wouldn't be even that level of feudalism as is that found in the communist party office.