CHAPTER - IX

CONCLUSION

Liberalism in both its old and new manifestations

has been a form of protest against established interests

which block the forces of progress. In the seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries the protest was directed against a

profligate and decadent feudal aristoracy, in our time it

has been directed against the residual survivals of

predatory capitalism. Functionless ownership and

monopolistic controls over the economic life of society were

decried as vigorously by the liberals of the eighteenth

century as by liberals today. But the only effective force

which the liberal spirit could invoke against social and

economic ossification in the eighteenth century was the

insurgent energy of modern capitalism, to which it became

enthralled. Second, and - because of its profound moral

implications - more significantly, classical and

contemporary liberalism apparently share a common devotion

to the dignity of the individual. In both cases, this

emphasis upon the central importance of human individuality

has expressed itself in a categorical opposition to the

exercise of unlimited power.

The basic attitude, liberals have not changed. They

are still individualists who advocate the largest possible

measure of freedom for the individual, who, they held, is

rightly independent of religious authority, of public

355

opinion, of other men, and of custom. But these freedoms can

now be realized by most men only in a state where the

government is given considerable regulatory power and where

it provides security for all its citizens. Because of

changed economic and social conditions and productive forces

then, liberalism has come to favor something approaching a

welfare state, whereas a century ago liberalism allowed the

state only the negative function of protecting life and

property of the individual in the society. Today most

liberals look towards the government for a solution of

social and economic problems, and they are accused by their

opponents of favoring a welfare state. In rebutted, they

point out that contemporary conservatives hold the liberal

doctrines of a century ago, while liberal advocate new

solutions to problems created by the new technology and mass

society.

The expansion of state power and responsibility

sought by liberals today is clearly opposed to the

contraction of state power and responsibility sought by

liberals yesterday. The content of liberalism varies with

varying conditions: liberals may one day challenge and

another day Cherish the Church, in one age they may seek

less government intervention in economic affairs, in

another age more, they have been hospitable to the interests

and ambitions of the business community, under changed

circumstances they may be hostile, for decades they have

356

preached the virtues of labour unions, they may one day

consider their vices. But in every case the inspiration is

the same: a hostility to concentrations of power by few that

threaten the freedom of the individual and prevent him fron

realizing his potentialities, a willingness to re-examine

and reconstruct social institutions in the light of new

needs. This willingness, tempered by aversion to sudden,

cataclysmic change, is what sets the liberal off from the

radical, who often ignores its hazards. Also the very

eagerness constantly to entertain and encourage useful

change distinguishes the liberal from the conservative. If

the content of liberalism varies, the above listed

characteristics constitute its distinctive and enduring

form.

For us, the men of today, any confidence in the

vitality of the forms and institutions created by liberalism

in the course of its development depends upon the conviction

that represents an imperishable value, because identical

with the value of that spiritual activity which develops out

of itself and draws from itself its laws, its standards, and

its destiny. Even if the historical and contingent

manifestations of liberalism must pass away, this funda­

mental conviction gives us full assurance that freedom can

never lose the power of creating for itself new paths, new

forms, and new institutions. We see by experience that in

357

every branch of human activity freedom is an essential

condition of development and progress. Without freedom,

religious faith degenerates into a paralysing and servile

submission, science congeals into dogma, art shrivels into

imitation, the production of economic wealth declines, and

the life of human society sinks to the level of animal

society. Freedom is an expansive force, differentiating

itself and propagating itself in its effects, to each of

which it gives a tone of novelty and originality, which is

the tone of the spirit, the distinctive mark of the

individual.

But together with this expansive tendency, freedom

also displays the opposite tendency to return to its o'.sm

source, to criticize and reflect upon its own activity. All

free action involves the ideal assumption of something

opposed to itself, which trains the mind in reflection and

criticism, and rouses it to a sense of its own

responsibility. Only one who is free is able to render an

account of his own acts either to himself or to another,

only one who is free can distinguish good and evil, deserve

reward and punishment, know sin and repentance, raise the

contingency of his own being to the universality of the

moral law. Liberty is at once a spur and a check, and

advance and a return, the whole life of the spirit issues

from it and flows back into it.

358

From the e te rna l fountain-head of moral l i b e r t y

flow, in modern times, the l i b e r t i e s of the ind iv idua l .

Their inner significance far transcends the a b s t r a c t l y

i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c banner under which they were won, indeed,

they display a progressive effort on the par t of the

indiv idual to extend his sphere of action, and to l i b e r a t e ,

t h a t i s , to s p i r i t u a l i z e , an ever-increasing port ion of the

world of his experience and h is labour. In th i s process , an

ever- increasing self i s achieving l iber ty , and with t h i s

l i b e r t y a prodigiously increased v i t a l i t y and develop­

ment - a self which takes the form of consciousness,

thought, speech, act ion, the family, property, a s soc i a t i on ,

c l a s s and society, which, in short, becomes coextensive

with the whole Kingdom of man. Thus c iv i l and soc ia l

l i b e r t i e s are only the fur ther development of indiv idual

l i b e r t i e s , and p o l i t i c a l l i b e r t i e s are the i r sequel and

t h e i r crown. By l i b e r a t i n g the State from the ancient bonds

of servitude and compulsion, and by making i t the highest

expression of self-government, the modern individual i s

merely affirming his own nature in a l l i t s fu l lness .

All the various forms of po l i t i c a l society, a r i s i n g

and developing in the nineteenth century, have been the

c rea tu res of l ibe r ty . Without freedom of speech, of the

p res s , and of a s soc i a t i on , neither nationalism nor

democracy, nor social ism, nor any of t h e i r i n f i n i t e

359

v a r i e t i e s , could have a r i s e n . Their luxuriant growth i s a

l iv ing proof of the power of human freedom to propagate and

expand through i t s products , to create a r ich v a r i e t y of

forms, i n s t i t u t ions , and a t t i t u d e s , to intensify the rhythm

of h i s t o r i ca l l i f e . But a t the same time, i t i s a l so a

proof of the lofty i m p a r t i a l i t y with which the l i b e r a l

s p i r i t d is t r ibutes i t s g i f t s , to the enrichment even of

those who spurn and deny them. The shadow which breaks the

l i g h t i s i t s e l f the c rea tu re of l i g h t .

But if freedom has produced t h i s r ich, c o n f l i c t i n g ,

and tumultuous var ie ty , nothing but freedom can govern the

r e l a t i o n s between i t s pa r t s and di rec t i t s i n t e r n a l

conf l i c t s towards a higher end. This means t h a t the

simultaneous presence of discordant social and p o l i t i c a l

formations, far from superseding the method of l i b e r a l i s m ,

renders i t more appropr ia te and necessary. I t i s to the

common in te res t that no o r ig ina l voice should be s i l enced ,

t h a t opposing qua l i t i e s should be moderated by t h e i r very

opposit ion, and that the triumph of a doctr ine should

depend upon i t s spontaneous a b i l i t y to asse r t i t s e l f in

competition with o the r s , thus contr ibuting to the

improvement of these a l s o . Take away freedom, and the

s t ruggle degenerates in to oppression, caprice on the par t

of the victor , and serv i tude on the par t of the vanquished,

and servitude in i t s turn nourishesa false and degraded

360

sense of freedom, i s su ing in the savagery of the revolted

s lave .

The nineteenth century might be cal led the age of

l ibera l i sm, yet i t s rlose, saw the fortunes of t h a t great

movement brought to t h e i r lowest web. Wether a t home or

abroad those who represented l ibe ra l ideas had suffered

chrushing defeats. But the essen t ia l attack on the l i b e r a l

idea in the nineteenth century was that of soc ia l i sm. The

s o c i a l i s t s rejected the l i b e r a l idea because they saw in i t

simply one more p a r t i c u l a r of his tory seeking to masquerade

as a universal . They argued tha t i t was not, in f ac t , a

f inal doctrine, but a f i t f u l and temporary phase in man's

endless struggle with h i s environment. For the f i r s t half

of the century i t looked, a t l eas t super f i c i a l ly , as though

they were r ight . Since the two world wars, a l so many argue,

l iberal ism has been in dec l ine . Liberalism means l e s s , so

the argument runs, to the developing nat ions, to the semi-

s o c i a l i s t s ta tes of Western Europe, to a world menaced with

war and preoccupied with material benefi t . Liberal p a r t i e s

and l ibe ra l ideology, i t could also be argued, have served

t h e i r function. The programs they supported have been

adopted by others who have gone fur ther . His to r ic

l iberal ism survives only as a temper or mood of p o l i t i c s .

Liberal pa r t i e s and l i b e r a l movements have been on

the wane. In the B r i t i s h Commonwealth and Europe, they

361

have not fared well since World War II. Some maintain that

electoral following, but mainly by altering their liberal

stance. Specific movements, such as the neoliberalism of

Germany and the Low Countries or the Mouvement Republican

Populaire of France, show an attrition of membership, unity,

and purpose. The conclusion that liberalism as an organized

party or self-conscious movement is for the present in

decline is warranted by the facts. In no place, presently,

are liberal parties or liberal movements gaining

significantly in organized power or appeal.

Liberal policies have also received scant support

among developing nations struggling for independence and

material prosperity. The conditions that made Adam Smith's

strategy of liberty suitable for England are missing today.

Even such countries as Mexico and India, which seem

determined to save liberty, are far from classical

liberalism and even from more modern versions of liberalism.

They are nationalistic and socialistic (collectivistic) in

many of their policies and are so by conscious intent and

design.

The cold war has also weakened liberalism. In the

short run, the Communist challenge threatens liberty and

constitutionalism directly. In the longer run, the danger

is more insidious: external threats evoke response, and

response demands collective effort. That effort is

362

s t i m u l a t e d by n o n l i b e r a l i n c e n t i v e s and a p p e a l s : a p p e a l s t o

n a t i o n a l pu rpose and common a c t i o n and t h e i n c e n t i v e s of a

war economy. L i b e r t y i s n o t b r o k e n , b u t i t s h r i n k s .

L i b e r a l i s m i s n o t v a n q u i s h e d , bu t i t i s n o t p u r s u e d . I f ,

a s John S t u r a t M i l l s a i d , " t h i n g s l e f t t o t h e m s e l v e s

i n e v i t a b l y d e c a y " , t h e t h r e a t i s g r e a t e r t h a n a t f i r s t

s i g h t i t a p p e a r s . The d a n g e r t o l i b e r a l i s m i s n o t t h a t i t

w i l l be open ly d e s t r o y e d b u t t h a t i t w i l l be f o r g o t t e n or

p e r v e r t e d .

From t h e s e f a c t s i t does not f o l l o w t h a t l i b e r a l i s m

i s u n i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e f u t u r e . The i m p o r t a n c e of t h e

l i b e r a l temper and of l i b e r a l p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i e d t o p o l i t i c s

has n o t d i m i n i s h e d , p r o b a b l y i t has i n c r e a s e d . L i b e r a l i s m

t h r i v e s on m a t e r i a l p r o p e r i t y , s o c i a l p e a c e , and common

e n l i g h t e n m e n t . In t h e p rograms of t h e n a t i o n s of Western

Europe i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r World War I I l i b e r a l i s m d i d not

have a p rominen t p l a c e , n o r has i t been i m p o r t a n t i n t h e

programs of t h e d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s . These n a t i o n s have been

engaged in c r e a t i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s of m a t e r i a l p r o s p e r i t y

and economic s e c u r i t y . Hope fu l ly , t h e i r l a b o u r w i l l

e v e n t u a l l y b e a r f r u i t i n c o m p a r a t i v e l y s t a b l e , p l u r a l i s t i c

democrac i e s and w e l f a r e economies c a p a b l e of p r o v i d i n g

s e c u r i t y and a b u n d a n c e f o r t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n s . Such

deve lopments would n o t make l i b e r a l i s m ou tmoded . They would,

i n f a c t , make i t p o s s i b l e and p r o f i t a b l e : f o r t h e y make i t

p o s s i b l e t o r e a l i z e l i b e r t y a long v^rith a b u n d a n c e and s o c i a l

363

justice, and they make the finer qualities of human

relations increasingly accessible and valuable to all. We

can also comfort ourselves only with the hope that a later

generation will detect in its rigours the grim prelude to a

brighter spring.

The difference between the views of India's

Moderates and Western Liberals, can be understood only in

the context of differing cultural and social backgrounds.

Unlike the Liberals of Europe, the Moderates did not evolve

a philosophy of their own, based on solid social foundations.

They were a small minority who, being "English in teste, in

opinion, in morals and intellect", were detached from the

large masses of the people of the country. Their economic

demands, and their political demands, were based on the

interests of the rising new social classes represented

largely by a professional middle class, a small section of

the people engaged in commerce, and a small number in

industry.

In the political sphere, the interests of the new

social class demanded the Indianization of the services,

expansion of legislative councils and laying the foundation

for self-government in India. Such political and

administrative reforms would have given great opportunities

to the educated classes to express themselves in the

administrative and legislative fields. The judicial reforms

364

demanded by the Moderates would have conferred civic rights

upon them. All these demands were based on the liberal

political concepts of the West. But the economic

aspirations of the new classes were primarily the industria­

lization of the country and the freeing of India from the

economic domination of Great Britain. The leaders of the new

social classes believed that, for the fulfilment of these

economic aspirations, the Government should give protection

to indigenous industries and assist in various ways in the

economic development of the country. These ideas were at

variance with liberal political philosophy, but as they were

in the interests of an underdeveloped country like India,

the Moderate leaders had no difficulty in reconciling these

economic demands with political demands which were in the

line with liberalism. Their approach towards this question

was pragmatic rather than ideological. Although some of

them had a vague sense of social justice and the concept of

equitable economic distribution among all sections of the

people, they were not in any count socialists.

Broadly speaking, the political philosophy of the

Moderates was partly based on Western ideas, which they

found to be of advantage to India, and partly on their

understanding of the Indian situation and their feeling that

some of Western ideas could be modified to suit Indian

conditions. The effect of their political activities was the

365

strengthening of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law

in India and made the people conscious of the country's

economic problems.

Logically, the Indian intelligentsia, the pioneers

of Indian nationalism, should have adopted the Liberal

philosophy in ditto. However, the premises upon which the

modern social reform movements rested upon their doctrines,

included not only humanitarianism, and the universal

spiritual equality, but also the Western ideas of

individualism, natural rights, the ethical duties of an

individual to society at large, the possibility of human

progress, "social efficiency", and the religious doctrine

of acquiring merit through good works. Although a few

reformers accepted some of those ideas on faith, most of

them used reason as their standard of judgement, a western

approach to ethical principles. Some or all of those

Western inspired ideas, coupled with organizational devices

derived from Atlantic patterns, where the distinguishing

feature of modern social reform movements, observable in

their methods of operation and in the writings and speeches

of their leaders.

The Indian intellectuals have almost literally sat

at the feet of English Liberals and derived their

inspiration from them. They repeated the same arguments

which were advanced by Burke, Bentham, Mill, Macauly and

366

others. Their ideals were the same. Parliamentary

Government in those days were considered to be the panacea

for all ills: it, therefore, was assumed to be the ideal

suited to India also capable of solving her problems. Give

us representative democracy, they said, give us the same

Parliamentary institutions which you Englishmen enjoy, and

we will do the similar wonderful things which you did. They

were the genuine disciples of Bentham and Rousseau. Their

great merit lay in being the interpreters of European

Liberal ideal to the people of India. They were fired by the

Constitutional history of Great Britain and the self-

governing Colonies: and they naturally concluded that the

same history would have to be followed in India. Indian

history to them was an extension of English history: Indian

politics was the further development of English politics.

Although Indian Liberalism is the product of

European Liberalism, but this school, primarily formed a

body of politicians and not political philosophers. The

political thinking of philosophers is an effort in

speculative politics, it has fewer assumptions, it

generalises too much, it is necessarily deeper and more

thorough - going. In other words, there is the mark of

system upon it, it tries to be as scientific as possible. On

the other hand, the political thinking of politicians

primarily takes into consideration the actual situation to

367

which it addresses itself, does not ask fundamental

questions or try to answer them, takes much more granted,

and is above all interested in solving concrete problems

which confront them, their party, their people, as best as

they can, leaving the wider bearings of their thought to

more abstruse and philosophic thinkers. Lastly, philosophers

and thinkers who may start from and return to particular

political facts but whose main interest is in pure truth,

truth for truth's sake, truth for humanity's sake, truth for

all, truth as such. The Indian political thinkers belong to

the second type. They develop theories, but mainly as

weapons to fight their particular battles. From Rajaram

Mohun Roy to onwards will never have a place, therefore, in

the history of political thought of the world as a Hegal or

a Green and others, because they do not put forth new

theories or reinterpret old theories, and do not make any

contribution to the illumination of any basic political

concepts. Their subject is not pure politics, but applied

politics. The line, however, between pure and applied

politics is a thin and fluctuating one and the one ever

passes into the other.

The Indian Liberal had the strength and the wisdom

to face facts fairly and squarely. He was not necessarily a

Coward or a Craven, when he hugged the British connection to

his bosom. He considered the co-operation of Great Britain

368

as absolutely indispensable, not only for the maintenance

of the conditions of law and order, but also for the

development of genuine democratic institutions, as well as

transforming the sick middle aged society into a modern

viable egalitarian society. The British, he accepted not

merely as a policeman, as a sentinel at the gate, but also

as a teacher, a guide, a friend, and philosopher as an agent

motivator. The inspiration to a larger life had come,

according to him, from Great Britain, what was the use of

attacking this very fount of inspiration? Great Britain was

the spiritual home of the Indian Liberal, it was not a

country which held India by force against her will, but a

country as Gandhi said, they did not come to India as

brutal invaders, we the Indians presented it to them. That

is why when Tilak and Gandhi demanded Swaraj, it included

the British too within, if they do not co-operate then

without them, which was linked by Divine Providence with his

own for the mutual advantage of both. It was not in a

spirit of self-seeking, not in a desire to play for safety

first, that the Moderate Clung to the Empire, as a child

clings to the mother. It was a passionate conviction with

him that Britain must continue to play her role if India

ever were to rise to the level of modern civilized

communities.

369

We meet with another characteristic of Indian

Liberalism. Political Liberals were really one with social

and religious liberals, and both the political and social

Liberals were practically one with the Imperial Liberals.

Congressmen were deeply conscious of the social bearings of

political reform and political' bearings of social reform.

But they wanted differentiation of political from social

activities with a view to facilitate concentration on each.

The ideal of all these schools was the same: it was the

"Modernisation of India". A politically progressive India

implied a socially progressive India and vice-versa. They

all looked to the West and not to the East for illumination,

they all looked to the future and not to the past for

inspiration. In fact, they considered the past to be a more

of a burden than a help, more a source of mischief than a

source of good. The British connection was specially

welcome to them, because it meant the slow but sure emanci­

pation of the Indian mind from its blind attachment to an

unmeaning past. They wanted the whole man in India to be

westernized not merely in form but in spirit, and they saw

the salvation of India in a complete .assimilation of the

best western ideals. Their objective was social reform

through education and legislation, and for both these

agencies they looked to the British Government for help and

guidance.

370

The Indian Liberals, therefore, stood boldly for the

assertion of democratic deals in all realms of life. They

first took their stand upon the principle of equality, but

by equality they meant equality between Indians and

Englishmen. They fought hard against the principle of

racial discrimination in the sphere of justice, look at

their attitude in the Ilbert agitation. They were bitter

against the Arms Act partly because there was racial

discrimination there. They wholeheartedly joined the

struggle of the Indian Emigrants against the Colonial

governments, again because it was a fight against the

principle of racial discrimination. They also agitated

incessantly for the institution of simultaneous examinations

for the Indian Civil Service, both in India and England for

the same reason, hence their fight for the Indianization of

the services.

Another principle for which they fought was that of

liberty. They deliberately interpreted liberty as that

demanded by them in the political and economic sphere. They

wanted liberty of free criticism, subject to certain well-

defined limitations. The right of free expression should be

allowed in India in the same way and to the same extent as

it was allowed in Great Britain. They would certainly

welcome, justify, even demand Government action if they

thought that in a particular case the right was grossly

371

abused or, in general, if a state of things existed

bordering on rebellion or active resistance to authority.

But general restrictions on a Free Press in the name of

imaginary danger, or the passing of Acts, like the Defence

of India Act, again in anticipation of wide, lawless

movements, they deprecated, all that put too much power into

the hands of petty officials, all that interfered too much

with the normal expression of free opinion, all that

involved too great a threat to the continuance of the

peaceful, undisturbed life of the masses, all that created

more trouble, more discontent, more disaffection than it

cured. Criticism of the bureaucracy in a country like India

was the only guarantee against a too great usurpation of

power or a too indiscriminate use of it at the hands of

officials.

Such was their rationale of the principle of

liberty, of free speech, and free association. The same

principle of liberty they demanded in the sphere of

government. By political liberty they did not mean the

emancipation of India from British or foreign rule. This

was not the type of negative freedom for which they were

fighting. They demanded the right of free expression not

merely in the Press and on the platform, but also in the

Councils of Government, and for the same objects. The

wishes, the interests, the feelings, and the thoughts of the

people should enter materially into Government policy, for

372

no Government could rest securely except upon the basis of

the contentment of the Governed. Here they took their

stand upon a fundamental principle of all sound political

thought, that the Government exists for the Governed, and

not vice-versa. The primary justification of any Government

is that it promotes the happiness and well-being of the

people. This is the right basis of all rule. Whatever may

be the origin of the Government, whether it is conquest or

peaceful penetration or usurpation or transfer, it must be

based not on mere might, the sword of the conqueror, but on

the contentment of the people.

The problem, however, immediately arose as to the

basis of a representative system. Here appeared another

great principle which they went on asserting the principle

of nationality. A democratic system was the government of a

people, for a people, by a people. But who constituted the

people? Self-Government was a great formula: but the

question arose as to where that self of India was and how

was it to be located? These problems were bristling with

difficulties, both theoretical and practical, for all

peoples and also for India. The Indian Liberals were bold

enough to assert their faith that India was no longer, if

ever it was, a mere geographical expression or a Congeries

of loosely-knit peoples at various stages of culture and

divided by various lines, racial, linguistic, religious.

373

The basis of their whole creed was the belief that there had

arisen or there was in process of formation of a new entity

called the Indian nation. The Congress represented the

first great attempt to organise the whole of India on the

basis of a common nationality. Here was a nucleus of a

future self-governing India. Here was a platform, where the

best brains of the country met and talked and discussed

together their common problems. Here, year after year, the

Government policy was analysed, dissected, criticised from

a national point of view. Here were formulated common

policies, common programmes for the acceptance of the

Government and the people.

It is true that every phase of social reform

followed different paths and ideals: the liberal phase was

too much under western influence, as was the case with that

school of nationalism, the extremist or revialist was too

independent and national in keeping with the new spirit, and

the Gandhian was the synthesis of the two as was the case

with Gandhian nationalism. Gandhi was both a conservative

and a revolutionary, a nationalist, and an internationalist,

as well as a man of faith, an ardent individualist and at

the same time a true socialist. So in matters of social

reform also he held very advanced views which would leave

even the most ardent social reformer in the West miles

behind, but at the same time he would not break with the

374

past values of his country and would carry the masses with

him. He would speak the language of the people so that they

might understand and follow him. To Gandhi the regeneration

of India meant the transformation of rural life. These

questions of liberation of women, liberation of India,

removal of untouchability, amelioration of the economic

condition of the masses and the like resolve themselves into

penetration into the villages, reconstruction or rather

reformation of the village life. His aims was to work for

an India in which the poorest would feel that it was their

country in whose making they had an effective voice, an

India in which there would be no high class and low class of

people, and an India in which all communities would live in

perfect harmony. In such an India there could be no room

for the curse of untouchability or the curse of the

intoxicating drinks and drugs. Women would enjoy the same

rights as men. Hence Gandhi wanted real Swaraj and not

constitutional Swaraj. Constitutional Swaraj would profit

but little if the internal problems - village reconstruction,

temperance, Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability

were not solved.

When we look at the significance of M.G. Ranade in

the fields of social, economic, religious and political

aspects, we find that, he had contributed much to growth of

Indian liberalism. Many features of public life in

375

Maharashtra today would be almost unrecognizable to the man

who dominated the scene in the nineteenth century. The

rapid growth of population and urban centres, the spread of

technology and education, the liberalization of social

patterns, and the removal of the Brahmin leadership from

political power - all of these are ground swells of change.

Yet the roots of these movements penetrate far back into

the nineteenth century - that was M.G. Ranade. This period

was one of the gradual assimilation of the new political,

economic, social, and intellectual forces which the Imperial

British had introduced into India.

In the field of social reform, he has established

The Indian National Social Conference, with the aim of

purification and improvement of social order and society.

The Conference brought such work to a focus and made the

inspiration and example of it available for others. It

strengthened the hands of local societies, formulated

methods, and guided the reforming aspirations. This

unifying of the social movement in India was an achievement

of great importance. It brought the ideas of social reform

home to a much wider public, and it gave powerful

reinforcement to the scattered reformers in their struggle

with inertia and reaction. From 1887 to 1901, the year of

his death Ranade nursed the National Social Conference with

care, faith and determination in the face of opposition and

376

calumny. He had a fine sense of proportion, and would not

ignore political reform for the sake of the social progress.

In this respect Ranade merits some comparison with Mahatama

Gandhi, who always laid stress on constructive social

programme as the background of his political action.

It is not matter of surprise to know that after

independence, the Nehru Government under the influence of

the reformers like Ranade and others has lent its weight to

the reformers' programs, by pressing forward the legal and

economic instruments of social change. The republican

constitution of 1950 incorporates into its Directive

Principles of State Policy a statement generally regarded as

signaling the government's intention to carry out social

reform. Article 38 proclaims. The State shall strive to

promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting

as effectively as it may a social order in which justice,

social, economic and political, shall inform all the

institutions of the national life.

The entire credit for having laid the firm

foundations of what has now been recognised as Indian

Economics must indisputably go to Ranade. He was the first

economist who laid down the conditions of economic progress

for India and showed a whole range of possible policy to

achieve this progress. The importance of Ranade was that

of a very great scientific pioneer. He succeeded more than

377

anybody else in India in isolating the chief categories of

Indian economic life. He left to his successors many

unsolved problems, but he also indicated ways in which they

might be solved. Thus not only early economic thought but

modern Indian economics also with its interest in problems

of economic development could claim Ranade as its founder.

Almost, after independence, in March 1950, the

Congress Government spoke about economic planning for

comprehensive change in India, with main objectives, to

build the industrial infrastructure, to expand and improve

agricultural production, to lay down the foundations of a

self-reliant and self-generating national economy, to

promote social justice, to remove unemployment and poverty,

to remove illiteracy and disease, to promote trade and

commerce, and to make the Indian economy modern, efficient

and competitive. Ranade also wanted a mixed economy pattern

is based on the co-existence of public sector units and

private sector enterprises. Both the sectors work within

the framework of the invisible hand of the market and the

visible hand of planning.

However, in the changed international economic

scenario consequent on the disintegration of the Soviet

Union and the lessons learnt from its command and control

approach to economy, it became necessary for India to

re-evaluate the whole process of planned development.

378

Therefore, in 1991 the new approach to economic development

emphasised the need for removal of control, regulations and

permit, and the rigid bureaucratic procedure. This is the

implication of what is called liberalisation of the economy.

Nevertheless India is following a middle path in order to

maintain a balance between reformed and liberalised public

sector and greater facility and opportunity for expansion of

individual entrepreneurial activities. Thus, the basic

approach of protective economy is still existence in India.

He was a statesman, and no mere politician, and

always took a long-range view of things. He was convinced

that the lasting regeneration of India could take place only

if the internal obstacles, which were not the results of the

British occupation of India, were removed. Though intensely

religious, Ranade thought that too much pre-occupation with

matters religious to the exclusion of more secular matters,

was the first evil. It indicated no scale of values

different from that of the West, but was only an index of

an undeveloped national mind. He worked to remove this

psychological handicap. The other malady from which Indian

national life suffered, and which engaged the attention of

Ranade, was the lack of the spirit of co-operation. Unless

this second evil was removed, there was no hope of the

success of any schemes of political reform. It was the

absence of this spirit of national cohesion that had brought

the discomfiture of India at the hands of successive foreign

379

invaders. But the removal of these two internal obstacles

alone was not sufficient. In order to achieve orderly

progress, discipline, in the true sense of the term, was

essential. Success in any walk of life could be achieved

only through submission to disciplined authority.

Next to being a man of religion, Ranade was a

patriot. He looked upon his official duties mainly as a

means of rendering service to his countrymen. Every

movement of his day was occupied by thoughts about the

country. he did not spend any time in recreation or idle

gossip. His utter dedication to the service of the country

was an inspiration to his contemporaries, young and old.

To conclude, with the worth of his personality and

the significance of his work well described by Gokhale in

his speech in 1904:

"Mr. Ranade was a pre-eminently great and a

pre-eminently good man - a great thinker, a

great scholar, a great workers, a saintly man

in private life . . . But he was much more. He

was one of those men who appear from time to

time, in different countries and on different

occasions, to serve as a light to guide the

footsteps of our weak and erring humanity. He

was a man with a mission in life - the preacher

of a new gospel, one who imparted a new impulse

to our thoughts and breathed a new hope into

our hearts. And this mission was to interpret

380

to us the new order of things that had come

into existence under the dispensation of a wise

Providence - to point out to us its meaning,

the opportunities it offered, the responsi­

bilities it imposed and the rich harvest that

was to be gathered, if only we did not shrink

from the labour that was demanded of us. And

high indeed were his qualifications for

delivering this mesage to us. A great, massive

intellect, a heart that overflowed with the

love of his country, an earnest and dauntless

spirit, an infinite capacity for work, patience

inexhaustible, and an humble faith in the

purpose of Providence that nothing shook - a

man so equipped could worthily undertake the

task of moulding the thoughts and hopes and

aspirations of his countrymen."