For liberty to exist, there must be no obstacle to the self- fulfillment of each man in society - to the unfolding of his faculties, the growth of his personality, the satisfaction of his aspirations, the expression of all that is of value in him, the full blossoming of his soul. In order that every member of the community may be able to use and enjoy liberty, it is necessary that there should be an agreed agency to regulate the conduct of each member at points where he is likely to come in contact with others. That regulative agency is authority. Authority arises out of Law and works in the service of Law, which embodies the general will of the community.

Authority, devised to protect liberty to maintain everybody's liberty against everybody else's in their contacts may, in that process, overstep its boundaries and prove an obstruction on the path of liberty. Since authority has behind it the resources of the entire community, liberty, which has no such support, has to be on guard at all times.

1) In the domain of politics, authority acting for the state may step into the sphere of the individual's private life or enforce a law endorsed by a majority against the wishes of a minority.
2) In the country's economy, authority may take sides with monopoly and privilege against the requirements of common welfare.
3) In the twilight realm of religion, authority, speaking through church or congregation, may deny to conscience, independence of reasoning and freedom of judgement.

Liberalism is a refusal to accept such dictatorship of a person or group or institution, and a preference for reasoned persuasion based upon respect for the individual's intelligence and goodwill in affairs of common concern. The liberal holds that in every field of living and acting, the individual and the minority have certain rights which are inviolable. He would therefore restrict the movements of authority to the limits of proven necessity and would hesitate to approve of action by the state in matters which are outside its province even when it professes to act with the best of intentions. He would have social and economic improvements brought about by the spontaneous working of the good sense and spirit of progressive enterprise in the community. Democracy is to him the recognition of the significance of the individual, and the trusting in the working of the conscience and good sense of the body politic.

The liberal movement did not develop in India, as in Europe, in response to the challenge of aggression of king or, magnate or ecclesiast. India's history records no instance of any such excessive abuse of authority by state or religion as could provoke a serious conflict in the community. There were undeniably other difficulties - wars, epidemics, famines, criminal gangs, but no complaints of a systematic violation of established rights or invasion into spheres of private life and property by authority. The rule of Dharma or the traditionally accepted law of Righteousness was obeyed without question by king and commoner alike, nor were there any inventions of science to disturb the people's loyalty to inherited faith or to upset the age- old balance of economic forces. If the ancient Hindu kingdoms were not able to face the onslaughts of foreign invasions, the causes for their weakness should be sought elsewhere than in the mutual workings of liberty and authority among the people. The fortunes of war are no test of the soundness of a state's civil constitution, and democracy fares no better than autocracy in a trial of arms and tactics.

India's epic poem, the Mahabharata, contains a convincing simile which illustrates the manner in which both liberty and authority may coexist in a good polity, "People live together in a good state," it says," like brothers under their father's roof, each feeling perfectly at ease and yet obeying an unspoken rule of self- restraint - enjoying a freedom that is not reckless and accepting a discipline which has no harshness in it."

The ancient Hindus saw liberty and authority as correlates. The two were to them two sides of the same coin - the current coin of Dharma. Dharma is truth (Satya or the enduring Inner act) working itself out in everybody and in relation to everybody. Dharma comprehends three concepts in the main, as may be seen from the common usage of the phrase among the Hindus even at the present time:

1. Dharma is a thing's own nature, its aptitude, its characteristic quality or attribute, its peculiar virtue. The thing should first of all be itself, that is, it should perform the particular function for which it was designed in the life of society. From this it follows that any discipline or way of life which makes for the preservation and efficiency of the distinctive merit or service of a person is his Dharma. Freedom, being a condition of both spontaneity and completeness in one's self-fulfillment, is an ingredient of Dharma.
   
   
2. Dharma is that which sustains the life of the world. It is righteousness and justice, which are essential to peace and order. It is a scheme of conduct based upon the recognition of one's kinship with all that lives. In essence, all living beings are but particles or aspects of the some infinite Power that is immanent in the universe. From this arises a sense of mutual relationship among all, and a recognition of the need for harmony and order in their behaviour. So arises the need for a Law to regulate life by formulating the requirements of justice and defining rights and duties. Authority, the child of law and the servant of justice, the ensurer of right and the impeller of duty, is thus an ingredient of Dharma.
   
   
3. Dharma is the practice of self-renunciation with a view to the highest self-fulfillment. This consists in the gradual replacing of natural egoism by world-wide altruism. The most enduring and the most essential part of man is the soul, the basic life principle. The soul is, so to say, the manifestation centre of the Infinite Principle of Universal Being. The highest destiny for the soul is to come to a realization of its true nature as a spark of the ever-present infinite. The road to it is through the education of the soul in subordinating sense - hunger to the needs of spiritual growth. The mind should be trained to transcend the barriers of the fleshy self and flow into the currents of life in utter self-forgetfulness, identifying itself with ever wider realms of being and becoming. Institutions like the family and the caste, the nation and the state, are schools of spiritual education. They put us more in sympathy with others and encourage self-denial and devotion to the general good. Philanthropy and charm are not adornments copied from without, but flowers opening out from within the heart and expressing an inner faith in the spiritual oneness of world life. Unselfish and unconditional love of one's fellow beings which brings the individual to merge himself in the universal and thus stand above both liberty and authority - is also an ingredient of Dharma.

   This threefold content of the concept of Dharma is derived from the appreciation of the inherent duality of human nature. Man is a compound of soul and body, of sense-promptings and spiritual dreamings, of the earth-bound and the star-beckoned. He finds happiness sometimes in selfishness and sometimes in sharing life with others. But at bottom he is a spirit; and the crowning felicity for him is to experience existence as though it were but the play of a wavelet on the bosom of the ocean of Universal Being. This felicity is attained by means of a constant discrimination between the grosser and the finer values of life and the gradual conquest of the carnal and sublimation of the spiritual. It is a course of self-discipline both long and difficult, and life in society is the training ground for it. In that school the lesson must be learned by each according to his capacities, so that he may adjust between the self-regarding and the world - regarding points of life. Liberty belongs mainly to the self-regarding and authority mainly to the world-regarding attitude. Both alike are parts of the schooling which the soul needs for achieving its higher destiny; citizenship, which comprises both, is thus a discipline of Dharma. it. Modern liberalism is to him the renascence of certain elements of it, rather than an exotic plant imported anew into his garden. Roots of the philosophy of liberty and authority, individual development and social order, lay in the depths of antiquity, beneath the debris of a thousand years of alien conquest and domination; and a sap in them quickened at the touch of the new enlightenment introduced by Britain

For the origins of the modern phase, we have to go to Rammohan Roy who lived 120 years ago (1774-1833). This was the epoch of the French Revolution, the age of Bentham and of Wordsworth, when ihto be young (as Rammohan was) was very heaven and when ihReason seemed the most to assert her rights, when most intent on making of herself a prime enchantresslf (Wordsworth). Rammohan was learned in Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and many other languages. He had travelled in Europe and lived in England. He believed in the religion of his forefathers, and cultivated a truly cosmopolitan outlook. He pleaded for the spread of ifEnglish educationla and a knowledge of the modern natural sciences among his countrymen. He championed the cause of freedom for the press and rights of women to property and education. He stood for the reform of social abuses like compulsory Suttee (widow burning) and for mutual understanding and tolerance among religions. His political vision is reflected in what he said in 1832 about the advantages of the settlement of Europeans in India.

"Some apprehend that if the population of India were raised to wealth, intelligence and public spirit by the accession and by the example of numerous respectable European settlers, the mixed community so formed would revolt, as the United States of America formerly did, against the power of Great Britain and would ultimately establish independence. It must be observed that the Americans were driven to rebellion by misgovernment; otherwise they would not have revolted and separated themselves from England... The mixed community in India, in the manner, so long as they are treated liberally and governed in an enlightened manner, will feel no disposition to cut off its connection with England... Yet if events should occur to effect a separation, still a friendly and highly advantageous commercial intercourse may be kept up between the two free countries.

It was Mahadev Govind Ranade who gave Indian liberalism its distinctive physiognomy. He was a scholar and thinker of creative power. There was no field of his people's life that escaped his attention. Literary renaissance, historical research, industrial and commercial regeneration, education, religious and social reform, government and administration, citizenship and public life - all these he made the subjects of his study. It was study conducted with a scientist's objectivity and thoroughness and a poet's perceptivity and vision. For forty years he worked at educating his countrymen and showing them how to rebuild their life and recover their place in the world. He was described as "Our Socrates". He found enthusiastic collaborators among his contemporaries in all parts of India. The most illustrious among them was Dadabhai Naoroji, the founder and father of the freedom movement. Among others were Bhandarkar and Vidyasagar, scholars; Veeresalingam, the Voltaire of Andhra; Chandavarkar and Telang and Mani Iyer, jurists; Malabari and Subrahmanyam, publicists. The categories of reconstructive effort to which they devoted themselves were principally in the fields of education, economic development, improvement of women's status, the uplifting of depressed and backward classes, promotion of goodwill and respect among the various religious communities and sects, and political reform.

The new liberalism was thus concerned with all departments of the country's life, and was more a general attitude and way of looking at things than a set of fixed and immutable formulas. It stood for the free play of human intelligence. Reference has already been made to the Hindu's basic article of faith that in every human being there is an inherent potential disposition towards righteousness and benevolence. The purpose of the state is to sublimate and canalize those tendencies making for the restraint of self-love and for self-expansion into world-life. That is the discipline of democracy. A good thing, however good, is not to be imposed on anyone by authority. It should be made acceptable to him by its appeal to informed and rational intelligence. This is the heart of liberalism. Ranade was the teacher who illustrated it mose convincingly, asserting the superiority of the claims of inner intelligence to the dictates of outer authority. In the manifesto he wrote for the Deccan Sabha (1896), he said:
"The spirit of liberalism implies freedom from prejudice and steady devotion to all that seeks to do justice between man and man, giving to the rulers the loyalty that is due to the law they are bound to administer, but securing at the same time to the ruled the equality which is their right under the law. Moderation implies the condition of never vainly aspiring after impossible or too remote ideals, but striving each day to take the next step in the order of natural growth, by doing the work that lies nearest to the hand, in a spirit of compromise and fairness. After all, political activities are chiefly of value, not for the particular results achieved, but for the process of political education which is secured by exciting interest in public matters and promoting the self-reliance of citizenship. This is no doubt a slow process, but all growth of new habits must be slow to be real".

"Self respect and self-reliance of citizenship" is the core of liberalism. But Ranade was no narrow individualist. It is a mistake to think that the doctrine of laissez faire is organic to the liberal creed. The doctrine in its extreme and unqualified form was never a prominent article in the Indian version of liberalism. On the contrary, the Indian liberals always recognised the necessity for a certain measure of state activity to support education, social reform and economic development. Ranade held it to be the duty of the state in India to "take care of national needs in all matters in which individual and cooperative efforts are not likely to be so effective and economical as national effort."

But it should also be said that to recognise the value of state action does not imply that it should be permitted anywhere and everywhere. State action would be justified only in a context where, the object in view being acceptable to all, non- governmental public agencies have proved themselves inadequate. In other words, state action should be the last resort. It is here that the trend of the political philosophy now prevalent in India is at variance with liberalism. The welfare state can never make good its name if it does not set clear limits to its field of operation. Gokhale the disciple of Ranade, continued the mission of liberalism after the passing of the master; and Mr. Srinivasa Sastri was Gokhale's disciple and successor. But Gandhi's advent on the scene was like the appearance of a new planet in the sky. It put all else under an eclipse for some thirty years.

Gandhi was a disciple of Gokhale and a true liberal on almost all issues except one. That one issue concerned the method of persuading Britain to leave India. Gandhi saw no hope in relying, as did the old liberal, on the logic of minds and conscience. He decided that Britain must be spoken to in the language she is accustomed to, the language of practical obstruction and dislocation. Hence his recipe of Satyagraha or non-violent non- cooperation and civil disobedience. As to the ultimate objective, the liberal did not differ substantially from Gandhi. Independence was the aim of both, though the liberal questioned Gandhi's haste and his methods. His objections to Gandhi's program were three:

1. Non-cooperation would not remain non-violent when the masses were drawn into it. And when authority answered with counter-violence, the result was bound to be a state of undeclared civil war and general chaos. Demoralization and loss of nerve would be the consequence to the people.
   
   
2. A course of non-cooperation would undermine the people's habit of obedience to lawful authority - a habit built up through the ages and fundamental to civilized living - and so weaken their sensitiveness to the call of order and stability and peace in society.
   
   
3. Even though non-cooperation succeeded in bringing independence to the country, that independence could not prove as satisfactory as independence achieved through Dominion status, for independence involves responsibility and responsibility presupposes understanding.
   
   
4. Understanding could come only from careful experimentation and gradual experience. People needed time to try their hands and train themselves. Independence not preceded by experience with democratic institutions at interim stages, was certain to create enormous problems.
   
   The first of these three arguments is now a closed chapter of history. Without doubt. Gandhi's countrymen, in his day, justified his confidence in their capacity for non-violence against the foreign power. On the second point also, the verdict is on the whole not against Gandhi. As to the third argument, however, history has yet to reckon with those speculative people who doubt whether the straight line is necessarily the shortest road in human affairs. The circuitous road may seem lengthier on the map, but may prove easier and therefore quicker for the feet. There is time yet for the people of India to prove that they have the requisite capacity for self-education in democratic responsibilities and that their independence is not a premature acquisition. The liberal programme, while accepted in most respects, was not adhered to in the matter of securing independence for the country. The ameliorative programmes in the fields of education, social reform and industrial enterprise became a part of the common ideology of the country. The liberal political policy which advocated gaining dominion status through constitutional action was rendered obsolete by the radical dynamism of Gandhi. The British Government had no use for a political party which has ceased to count in the eyes of its own people. Neglected thus by both sides, the Indian liberal party faded away.
   
   Actually the political ideals of Gandhism have met with no better fate since the attainment of independence. As already observed, Gandhi was liberal in most respects. He stood for

1. the minimum of government or state-action consistent with the requirements of order and peace;
   
   
2. a maximum of freedom to the individual;
   
   
3. simplicity in the machinery of administration, so that it could be easily understood by the common people;
   
   
4. economy in public expenditure and avoidance of waste and luxury;
   
   
5. social improvements to be achieved by rousing and setting in motion the ethical and rational sensibilities of the community rather than by compulsive legislation - the "Haves" being persuaded by social pressure to regard themselves as trustees for the well-being of the "Have-Nots";
   
   
6. a national legislature which would be, as far as possible, similar to the already established and well understood autonomous village councils, and a process of legislation simple enough to be intelligible to the common people in all ordinary matters, special devices being provided for questions of a complex nature.
   
   These are not the features of present day India, with its "socialistic pattern" and planned economy. Gandhi was a man of simple and unsophisticated tastes. His wish for the material prosperity of his country was tempered by a sober recognition of the limitations of its resources and also by a sensitive regard for the moral health of the people and the dangers to it from unlimited material ambition. Moral and spiritual interests were to him supreme. He would not compromise independence by accepting gifts and loans. His respect for the spirit of man and the freedom of man's individuality was too genuine to permit him to be enthusiastic about the coercive state.
   
   But the liberal need not be upset that a programme of drastic change by state coercion has been impulsively adopted by India's men in power. The liberal's anchorage is in the power of experience to stir and move to action the potentialities for good sense and reason hidden in the history of the race. Experience is a teacher that never fails. The socialists of England, having experimented with nationalisation for a time, are not now as united in clamouring for it. And there is no lack of public warnings in that country that ihthe creation of the welfare state has dampened down the spirit of self-help and independencelo among the people. The balance-sheet of an ideology is drawn not from year to year, nor from decade to decade, but from century to century. Propaganda can no doubt work for a while and obliterate long-established ideas and habits. New fashions may then arise and take the place of traditional loyalties. Everything may seem to wear a new face and have a new glitter. But all of a sudden, from somewhere beneath the surface of things, there may float into view a strange sword of gold, as did the Satyagraha of Gandhi, thrown up by an inner impulse of the nation; and on closer view, it is identified as just a new shape of an old weapon of the community. That would be the beginning of its return to its Dharma, to its pre-dispositions in the direction of the good and the beneficent, according to its own law of being and becoming. It would be the restoration of its long-ideals and forgotten values.
   
   The good that India can do in the world is to remain India - to keep to her own Dharma - and not to become another Russia or another America. Her scheme of values is different. Not that she cannot acquire things of value from other people. She has much to learn from both Europe and America. It has been India's habit all through history to turn to every corner of the globe for the light of truth and the blessedness of wisdom. But she must be selective in taking things from others; and her selection must be strictly in relation to the ingredients of her nature. All plants draw nourishment from the soil and the surrounding air; but each plant selects that which is suitable to its particular Dharma. Grass, bamboos, fern, orchid, apple, apricot, teak, oak - no two of these take the same things from the environment or in the same proportion. So has each man and each community to look within and find out what is needed for healthy growth and purposeful functioning in the world and then decide what to adopt from the patterns set by all the countries of the world. Aptitude within and purpose without - these should be the guide to selection. Indiscriminate imitation can only make India not a more worthy India, but a hybrid India.
   
   Every human being has in himself, embedded deep down in his mind and his soul a seed of Dharma, a complex body of disposition towards the good and the great Meddlesome hands may hold the seed down or turn it this way and that, hindering its natural self-expression. Liberalism is the art of removing the obstruction and coaxing the plant to grow, providing water for its roots and sunshine for its foliage.

MR. D. V. GUNDAPPA was Secretary and organiser of the Gokhale Institute of Public Affairs, Bangalore.

From : Freedom First, July 1987.