Deen Dayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism in Modi’s Governance

 Deen Dayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism in
Modi’s Governance

Prime Minister Narendra Modi invoked the name of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya in several of his speeches, whose Integral Humanism philosophy was adopted by the Sangh Parivar, including RSS. Modi claimed that he grew up with the ideals of Dayal Upadhyaya and his ideas inspired him to begin his political journey that culminated in his becoming the country’s head. Modi told BJP politicians that one of his aims was to aggressively promote Integral Humanism. This pleased the RSS as it felt that unlike the two past doyens of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and former home minister Lal Krishna Advani — Modi would impose its principles on the country to achieve its grand objective to create a ‘New Man’ and a ‘New Society’. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, who was a well-known RSS head, said that the ultimate aim of the institution was to create a “perfectly organised state of society” in which the ‘New Man’ became an integral part of the “corporate personality of the society”.

Unfortunately, what the Sangh Parivar and other right-wing supporters of the BJP have failed to comprehend is the manner in which the prime minister has twisted, manipulated and tweaked Upadhyaya’s thoughts. Modi has turned many of his so-called mentor’s principles upside down to gain political mileage and mass sympathy. His adoption of Panditji’s ideals and ideas is merely a strategy to first grab power and then retain it for a long time. To cite an example, the prime minister has redefined, refined and changed the concept of economic nationalism, which was a critical ingredient in Upadhyaya’s philosophy. The twin foundations of Integral Humanism’s economic thought were swadeshi and decentralisation of political and economic power. Both were distorted by Modi, and used as means to achieve political ends. However, the RSS has failed to grasp Modi’s master manipulation moves.

According to Upadhyaya, swadeshi was based on its opposition against everything that was foreign. Like Mahatma Gandhi’s boycott of foreign goods, it was aimed to reject foreign thinking, management, capital, means of production and technology. In essence, it was against foreign companies, especially MNCs, whose only objective was to exploit poor countries. Panditji felt that the proud use of “foreign articles” was “not the road to progress and development”. In its first policy statement, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the political arm of the Sangh that later became the BJP, stated that there was a need to revive swadeshi to avoid “reckless imitation, unnecessary dependence on foreign capital and to create in us the tendency for restraint and avoidance of conspicuous consumption”. In the 1990s, when India embarked on the economic reforms path under Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), the economic arm of the RSS, talked about ‘Made in India’. All goods had to be manufactured in India by Indian firms. It was an extreme form of economic nationalism.

As prime minister, Vajpayee diluted this concept, and the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) wooed foreign investment in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Advani, who was then the poster boy of the RSS, did not oppose these policies. However, the staunch believers within the Sangh Parivar, and the SJM, continued to privately attack Vajpayee. They stuck to the old definition of swadeshi, which was an important part of Integral Humanism. But Modi has turned ‘Made in India’ onto ‘Make in India’ with a single stroke of the pen. There is no longer a taboo on foreign capital, technology and management expertise. They are invited with open arms and given a red-carpet welcome to invest in even the most sensitive sectors such as defence.

Modi’s marketing pitch for ‘Make in India’ was based on two emotive issues— national pride and import substitution. He argued that India should emerge as the global manufacturing hub, just like China and Japan did in the past. He asked why India should buy products, especially defence equipment, from abroad, and not make them in the country.  One can argue that in a globalised world, no nation can turn inwards and become an economic introvert. But the fact remains that Modi’s ‘Make in India’ is drastically different from Upadhyaya’s economic nationalism or the RSS’ ‘Made in India’. Thus, the prime minister cannot claim that he adheres to the principles of Integral Humanism.

In its fundamental form, Upadhyaya’s concept of decentralisation of power was a rejection of capitalism, communism, socialism and the welfare state. In all these ideologies, economic power was concentrated in a few hands. In capitalism, it was with a clutch of business groups; in communism, with the State; in socialism and welfare state, it resulted in various forms of crony capitalism and oligopolies. In practical form, or in governance parlance, he wanted all the stakeholders, including the masses, to share executive powers. While explaining the economics of Integral Humanism, Upadhyaya said that “democracy and capitalism join hands to give a free rein to exploitation. Socialism replaced capitalism and brought with it an end to democracy and individual freedom”. He added that in the case of communism, since the system had to be insured against further exploitation by the bourgeoisie— the rich minority— it invariably resulted in the “dictatorship of the proletariat (the majority workers)”.

Modi interpreted his mentor’s ideas as ‘minimum government, maximum governance’. According to him, Upadhyaya’s aim was to reduce the size of the government, which should retain the political and economic powers. In Gujarat, as the chief minister, he had possibly the smallest cabinet among all states, and his Central Cabinet was initially small. However, he faltered on this count too. After his first Central Cabinet expansion, when he inducted 21 new ministers, he had 66 ministers, or just five less than the previous government headed by Manmohan Singh. The sarcastic headline of one of the business newspapers was: ‘Now, a maximum government, minimum governance’. Contrary to Panditji’s principles, in both Gujarat and at the Centre, Modi assiduously followed a semi-new hybrid economic ideology, which can be dubbed as ‘Inclusive Capitalism’. In governance theory, it is a combination of democracy and dictatorship. In the light of its economic focus, it is a mix of capitalism and socialism. He tried to borrow ingredients from all these systems in a bid to manage a government that was both effective and efficient.

Modi’s governance idea is to get elected and form the government in a democratic fashion by wooing the electorate. But his way to run the regime is quite dictatorial. The decision-making powers are concentrated in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). It has become his mouthpiece, and now dictates how ministers and bureaucrats should work. In a meeting with government secretaries, he urged them to talk directly to him, and bypass their ministers. It was a travesty of Panditji’s ideal to reduce such concentration of powers. Modi pulled no punches to attract private capital. He gave huge tax sops to industrialists and made their entry easier. He wowed the business community, which finds it comfortable to work with his government. This is capitalism in its rawest form. However, he combined the socialist and welfare aspects through the unique PPPP (People Public Private Partnership) model, which hopes to combine the strengths of all the stakeholders, including the poor masses. But it has resulted in concentration of power in the hands of few, something that Upadhyaya detested.

Integral Humanism is a positive philosophy. Its objective is to transform the individuals and the society to make it better. In their essay, RSS: Ideology, Organisation and Training, Walter K Anderson and Shridhar D Damle maintained that “the primary goal of the RSS discipline is preparing the mind so that individuals will act in a detached manner for the well-being of this divine object (the Hindu nation).” They added that in the Sangh’s belief system, “the transformation of man is of supreme importance” and it is “the necessary pre-requisite for revitalising society”. Modi’s adaptation of Integral Humanism, despite his claim that he follows it in its pure form, is convoluted. His focus is simultaneously on the appropriation of the so-called best ideals that exist in the current society, decimation of the society as it exists, and the creation of the new one in a totally different form compared to what Upadhyaya envisaged. This new society will be the brainchild of Modi, who will reshape and reconfigure Integral Humanism.