I trust you have by now read Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy which I’ve published in five blog posts, #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5. The context to this discussion of BJP's philosophy is provided in this blog post.
Basically, Rajesh Jain and Atanu Dey are trying to persuade BJP to become classical liberal. Unfortunately, they are hopelessly deluded.
Upadhyaya, BJP's oracle, is unambiguously socialist, as I will presently show. How can you change the mind of a totally confused political party? It is pointless. It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach an old dog new tricks. These parties are antedeluvian. Let's build a new classical liberal party and stop wasting time on ignorant and dangerous parties.
BJP’s is not just a socialist worldview, it is in some ways worse because it has a good amount of nationalistic collectivism thrown in, which can easily lead it down the path of fascism (and has in the past, on a number of occasions). BJP is therefore India's conservative, corrupt socialist party, as compared with Congress which is just any other run-of-the-mill corrupt socialist party.
The idea of liberty is as foreign to BJP and Congress as it is to Karl Marx. But since BJP came later, it should be considered a branch of Congress.
I believe, in contradisctinction to BJP and Congress, that India's cultural way of thinking is 100% compatible with classical libearalism and captalism. It is high time we remove the grime of socialism from India's political thought, break free of Nehru's foolish ideas, and look once again at the fundamentals that drive a prosperous, successful society.
Now for the PROOF that BJP is a branch of Congress. (In the analysis below, sections in gray are from Upadhyaya.)
1) Capitalism distorted and mocked
Capitalist economy recognizes only an “economic man”, whose all decisions are based entirely on calculations of gain and loss, in terms of material wealth. For this economic man, five rupees are always more than four rupees. He works solely to gain more wealth, and execs to get the maximum gain. For him, just like other commodities, human labor is a commodity to be brought and sold In the market. This is free enterprise. It holds all other restriction and regulations unjust, save the brake of competition. In the race no one is prepared to stop and give a helping land to the weak who is left behind; elimination of the weak is considered just and natural. He is uneconomic, marginal unit, not fit to exist. This is what it advocates. By the elimination of such marginal units, the economic power accumulates in the hands of a few. This is considered normal and natural is capitalist system. But when monopoly is a established, even the check of competition ceases to operates. In such a. situation the incentive resulting from competition is no longer available. Prices are arbitrarily fixed and quality of products deteriorates.
The principal drawback of the capitalist view point in the fact that by making the machine a competitor of human labor and thereby displacing and competitor of human labor and thereby displacing and subjecting human being to privations the very purpose of creating machine has been defeated.
As a result where countless varieties of goods are produced for he needs of the wealthy, even the basic necessities of life for the poor become scarce. The centralization and monopolization of reduction totally undermine the influence of the consumer. The markets are so organized that the consumer has to go by standard products. This standardization is on the increase at such a pace that individual preference of the consumer is ignored.
The system which boasts of giving highest importance to the individual has ironically destroyed all individuality. Clearly, the capitalist system is incapable of helping the development of an integral human being
Clearly, Upadhyaya has not read or understood the BASICS of economics. He is ridiculously ignorant. Adam Smith is foreign to him. Indeed, EVERY statement he makes about economic issues is wrong. (Btw, his writings seem to have been lifted from Marx, as their tenor indicates.)
Despite (or perhaps because of) his ignorance of BASIC economics, he believes he can cook up an “Indian” model of economics – which turns out to be nothing but what Nehru advocated! One can’t distinguish Nehru from Upadhyaya. If key aspects of Upadhyaya's philosophy were presented to you without disclosing the author's name, you'd think it was Nehru's writing.
Upadhyaya is thus Nehru’s godchild – and BJP is clearly a branch of Congress. That’s why BJP and Congress have ALWAYS passed virtually identical legislation and they have virtually the same style of functioning - both are totally corrupt, casteist, communal, and hypocritical.
2) Skewed understanding of the “West”
The fundamental difference between our position and that of the west is that. whereas they have regarded body and satisfaction of its desires as the aim, we regard the body as an instrument for achieving our aims. We have recognized the importance of the body only in this light. The satisfaction of our bodily needs is necessary, but we don’t consider this to be the sole aim of all our efforts.
There is no “West” – which is a highly pluralistic entity, with thousands of individual views. It is also grossly incorrect to suggest that spiritual pursuits are secondary to the "West". Such false, ignorant, bigoted stereotyping underpins Upadhyaya’s way of thinking.
3) Upadhyaya’s DEEP ignorance of political philosophy
We may indeed seek some guidance from the western world but the fact is, it has no concrete suggestions to offer.
Clearly Upadhyaya has not read nor understood John Locke, Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek, among many, many others – and so imagines that he can “cook” up his own philosophy in an apparent vacuum of global political thought! He little realizes that he is merely parroting Western thinkers – Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Laski and Keynes – presented to India by Nehru, who was a far more widely read man than Upadhyaya. If only Upadhyaha knew the origin of his own thoughts, he would have blushed. That the BJP blindly follows Upadhyaya tells us a lot about its barren intellectual competence.
4) Collectivist, aristocratic views about the nation
Independence can be meaningful only if it becomes an instrument for the expression of our culture.
But man does not exist merely as an individual. The individual comprising of body, mind, intellect and soul as not limited to singular “I” but is also inseparably related to the plural “We”. Therefore we must also think of the group or the society.
This is a seriously collectivist, even jingoist view. A culture is merely the sum of actions of individuals who freely choose certain expression. India is a diverse society with a billion cultures. To over-ride this pluralism with jingoism is incorrect.
In relation to society, there is indeed a great separability between individual and society. We are NOT ‘inseparably’ related to the ‘society’. We choose to participate where it suits us. Such collectivism underpins Upadhyaya's socialistic and proto-fascist views (the fascist overtone was more evident in Golwalkar – who was a great fan of Hitler and the Nazis).
Anti-democratic/ aristocratic Dharma-based governance
Elections and majority can decide as to who will form the government. The truth cannot be decided by the majority. What the government will do will be decided by Dharma.
What constitutes the good of the people. Dharma alone can decide. Therefore, a democratic Government “Jana Rajya” must also be rooted in Dharma i.e. a “Dharma Rajya”. In the definition of ‘Democracy’ viz. “government of the people, by the people and for the people”, of stands for independence, ‘by’ stands for democracy and ‘for’ Indicates Dharma. Therefore, the true democracy is only where there is freedom as well as Dharma encompasses all these concepts.
Upadhyaya basically rejects the sovereignty of the people and the concept of democracy by asserting that the ruler alone has the right to decide what is right, based on the ruler's interpretation of Dharma. And who creates Dharma? What is Dharma? – what Hindu scriptures say? Such scriptures must therefore over-ride the wishes of the people. This is a deeply aristocratic view (refer Plato's Republic).
5) Centralised planning and public sector undertakings
the state must undertake in general to plan, direct, regulate and control economic effort and in certain specific spheres and circumstances to accept the responsibility of ownership and management too.
Centralised planning is ananthema to the classical liberal. These socialist concepts – of centralised planning and that a government should undertake business - flow directly from Upadhyaya’s views about positive liberty. The theory of liberty does not permit either centralised planning or the government becoming a businessman.
6) Property rights denied
Society has the authority, and often it becomes its duty, to alter property rights. There is no such thing as an absolute and immutable right of property.
This is a VERY STRONG form of socialism. It opposes the fundamental fact that property rights are created through natural processes, and are ABSOLUTE and inalienable, just as our life is. Refer to BFN
for similar statements by Laski/Indira Gandhi/other socialists. Clearly BJP and Congress are made for each other.
No wonder, the destruction of property rights in India was mutually and jointly done by both these parties – both being branches of Nehru's thought
7) A positive liberty worldview
Economic freedom lies in Artha not proving an impediment positive or negative for man's progress. Without economic freedom, a people cannot have social freedom, and to a great extent political freedom also.
This is a very problematic formulation because it implies that freedom is divisible. It is not. It is of one piece.
Further, apparently something has to be done to ensure “economic freedom” – a positive liberty concept – for "man's progress" and thus to presumably ensure man's social and political freedom. It is this positive liberty conception that immediately takes Upadhyaya down the slippery slope into socialism (despite his protestations that he is not a socialist! – the poor fellow is so ignorant he doesn't even know what socialism is).
8) The typical positive liberty “rights” that arise from this model
Right to food
our slogan should be that the one who earns will feed and every person will have enough to eat. The right to food is a birthright.
This formulation has no regard to how wealth is to be created, and how everyone must be motivated to feed themselves. In the socialist society he advocates (with centralised "planning" and government control over business) there will be NO FOOD produced (as Stalin's USSR and Mao's China soon found out), making a mockery of such "rights".
Right to a minimum living standard
right to a minimum living standard, education, employment and social security and welfare will have to be accepted as fundamental rights.
If a government provides these minimum requirements, then only it is a rule of Dharma. Otherwise, it is a rule of Adharma.
This is a totally socialist perspective. I talk a lot about a social minimum (social insurance) but that concept is QUITE different. See DOF
Right to free medical treatment
Similarly, it is rather surprising that medical treatment must be paid for. In fact, medical treatment also should be free as it was in this country in the past. The society should guarantee to all members minimum requirements for maintenance and progress of every individual.
All very socialist. I can’t distinguish any of this from what Nehru might have said.
Right to work
The guarantee of work to every able bodied member of the society, should be the aim of our economic system.
This is a PURELY SOCIALIST perspective.
But even Upadhyaya knows that there is no free lunch!
Now the question arises that if everyone is to be guaranteed the minimum necessities, where will the resources for all this come from?
His answer: “guarantee of work”!!! As if work can be created by magic by the state. This well-intentioned man (like Nehru) had absolutely no clue about the fundamentals of economics - and no understanding of incentives – yet purported to propose a "new" political philosophy (copycat socialist it turned out to be)!
9) Seriously mercantilist view
to import the machinery from Western countries, where shortage of manpower was the guiding factor in the design of machines would be a serious mistake.
We are importing the machines and hence, we have little knowledge. We shall have to develop a Bharatiya technology.
This is EXACTLY what Adam Smith opposed: mercantalism. We also see Upadhyaya's hatred of the machine, and his “appropriate technology
”-type concepts. His ignorance about economics takes him down the socialist path AT EVERY STEP
I won’t go on.
We find in Upadhyaya's writings the precise reason why BJP has NEVER OPPOSED SOCIALISM. We also find confirmation in Upadhyaya of why BJP’s views are so terribly confused. These people have no understanding of human nature and economics. Their "philosophy" is PURE GARBAGE.
If such policy is ever put to work (as it has, in India, over the past 65 years), we WILL get pure garbage in return (garbage in > garbage out!). That's exactly what has happened in India. The typical roadside sprawl of garbage in India today confirms this (this picture is from the CAPITAL of socialist India – Delhi, that I took in 2007 from inside a moving car).
India: the case study of Garbage In Garbage Out
Summarising, BJP is a unambiguously a branch of Congress, and Rajesh and Atanu can’t fix BJP without first fixing Congress. Since such projects are delusional, it is best to offer India a clean-skin classical liberal party, instead.
I also recall S.V.Raju once opposing my interpretation of BJP as a socialist party. I urge him to prove me wrong – since as far as I can see, the facts point UNAMBIGUOUSLY to the fact that BJP is socialist.
I therefore urge those who believe in “reforming” BJP or Congress to desist from their foolish enterprise, and use their precious time and energy to promote India's first NATIONAL classical liberal political enterprise.
Consider joining FTI
if you are a GENUINE supporter of liberty. and let's create a GENUINE classical liberal political force in India.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: