CENTRALIZATION, THE POLITICS OF QUALITY AND ‘INTERNET MARXISM’

In the previous chapters we have seen how in the eighties minimum degree levels were made mandatory for employment in a particular level of post, and millions of incumbent cadres were forced to obtain the required degree. An astounding expansion of the number of degree holders in the course of just a very few years ensued. Party schools and other institutions set up tailored correspondence courses that earned pupils the required degree certificates but were nevertheless quite different from the formal degree courses at regular schools and universities. For local cadres, especially in rural areas and the less developed parts of China, correspondence degrees were often the only way to overcome the disadvantages of their background and earn a chance of promotion. Conversely, correspondence courses have been a financial lifeline that allowed many party schools to continue operating.

The proliferation of degree courses across party schools has been criticized on a number of grounds. Despite a fixed curriculum and a tight control over the examinations, the quality of correspondence degrees is increasingly deemed to be unacceptably low. As became clear when the Hainan Provincial Party School's ‘diploma wholesale shop’ (wenping pifa dian) was exposed in 2004, there has been often serious inflation of party school degrees up to the point of the outright sale of degree certificates.

GANDHI TO TOLSTOY

4 April 1910

Johannesburg

Dear Sir,

You will recollect my having carried on correspondence with you whilst I was temporarily in London. As a humble follower of yours, I send you herewith a booklet which I have written. It is my own translation of a Gujarati writing. Curiously enough, the original writing has been confiscated by the Government of India. I, therefore, hastened the above publication of the translation. I am most anxious not to worry you, but, if your health permits it and if you can find the time to go through the booklet, needless to say I shall value very highly your criticism of the writing. I am sending also a few copies of your Letter to a Hindoo, which you authorised me to publish. It has been translated into one of the Indian languages also.

I am,

Your obedient servant,

M. K. Gandhi.

(Source: CW 10: 210)

TOLSTOY TO GANDHI

8 May 1910

Yasnaya Polyana

Dear Friend,

I just received your letter and your book Indian Home Rule.

I read your book with great interest because I think that the question you treat in it – the passive resistance – is a question of the greatest importance not only for India but for the whole humanity.

I could not find your former letters, but came across your biography by J. Doss [Doke] which too interested me much deeply and gave me the possibility to know and understand you better.

reader: You tell me that, when two men quarrel, they should not go to a law court. This is astonishing.

editor: Whether you call it astonishing or not, it is the truth. And your question introduces us to the lawyers and the doctors. My firm opinion is that the lawyers have enslaved India, and they have accentuated the Hindu–Mahomedan dissensions, and have confirmed English authority.

reader: It is easy enough to bring these charges, but it will be difficult for you to prove them. But for the lawyers, who would have shown us the road to independence? Who would have protected the poor? Who would have secured justice? For instance, the late Mr Manomohan Ghose defended many a poor man free of charge. The Congress, which you have praised so much, is dependent for its existence and activity upon the work of the lawyers. To denounce such an estimable class of men is to spell justice injustice, and you are abusing the liberty of the press by decrying lawyers.

editor: At one time I used to think exactly like you. I have no desire to convince you that they have never done a single good thing. I honour Mr Ghose's memory. It is quite true that he helped the poor. That the Congress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man.

I have written some chapters on the subject of Indian Home Rule which I venture to place before the readers of Indian Opinion. I have written because I could not restrain myself. I have read much, I have pondered much, during the stay, for four months in London of the Transvaal Indian deputation. I discussed things with as many of my countrymen as I could. I met, too, as many Englishmen as it was possible for me to meet. I consider it my duty now to place before the readers of Indian Opinion the conclusions, which appear to me to be final. The Gujarati subscribers of Indian Opinion number about 800. I am aware that, for every subscriber, there are at least ten persons who read the paper with zest. Those who cannot read Gujarati have the paper read to them. Such persons have often questioned me about the condition of India. Similar questions were addressed to me in London. I felt, therefore, that it might not be improper for me to ventilate publicly the views expressed by me in private.

These views are mine, and yet not mine. They are mine because I hope to act according to them. They are almost a part of my being. But, yet, they are not mine, because I lay no claim to originality. They have been formed after reading several books. That which I dimly felt received support from these books.

reader: Then from your statement I deduce that the Government of England is not desirable and not worth copying by us.

editor: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. Today it is under Mr Asquith, tomorrow it may be under Mr Balfour.

reader: You have said this sarcastically. The term ‘sterile woman’ is not applicable. The Parliament, being elected by the people, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.

editor: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The members serve without pay and, therefore, it must be assumed, only for the public weal. The electors are considered to be educated, and, therefore, we should assume that they would not generally make mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the spur of petitions or any other pressure.

reader: From your views I gather that you would form a third party. You are neither an extremist nor a moderate.

editor: That is a mistake. I do not think of a third party at all. We do not all think alike. We cannot say that all the moderates hold identical views. And how can those who want to serve only, have a party? I would serve both the moderates and the extremists. Where I should differ from them, I would respectfully place my position before them, and continue my service.

reader: What, then, would you say to both the parties?

editor: I would say to the extremists: – ‘I know that you want Home Rule for India; it is not to be had for your asking. Everyone will have to take it for himself. What others get for me is not Home Rule but foreign rule; therefore, it would not be proper for you to say that you have obtained Home Rule, if you expelled the English. I have already described the true nature of Home Rule. This you would never obtain by force of arms. Brute force is not natural to the Indian soil. You will have, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. You must not consider that violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal.’

I would say to the moderates: ‘Mere petitioning is derogatory; we thereby confess inferiority. To say that British rule is indispensable is almost a denial of the Godhead. […]

reader: I have now learnt what the Congress has done to make India one nation, how the Partition has caused an awakening, and how discontent and unrest have spread through the land. I would now like to know your views on Swaraj. I fear that our interpretation is not the same.

editor: It is quite possible that we do not attach the same meaning to the term. You and I and all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but we are certainly not decided as to what it is. To drive the English out of India is a thought heard from many mouths, but it does not seem that many have properly considered why it should be so. I must ask you a question. Do you think that it is necessary to drive away the English, if we get all we want?

reader: I should ask of them only one thing, that is: ‘Please leave our country.’ If after they have complied with this request, their withdrawal from India means that they are still in India, I should have no objection. Then we would understand that, in our language, the word ‘gone’ is equivalent to ‘remained’.

editor: Well, then, let us suppose that the English have retired. What will you do then?

reader: That question cannot be answered at this stage. The state after withdrawal will depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you assume, they retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution, and shall carry on the government.

reader: This is a new doctrine: that what is gained through fear is retained only while the fear lasts. Surely, what is given will not be withdrawn?

editor: Not so. The Proclamation of 1857 was given at the end of a revolt, and for the purpose of preserving peace. When peace was secured and people became simple-minded, its full effect was toned down. If I ceased stealing for fear of punishment, I would recommence the operation so soon as the fear is withdrawn from me. This is almost a universal experience. We have assumed that we can get men to do things by force and, therefore, we use force.

reader: Will you not admit that you are arguing against yourself? You know that what the English obtained in their own country they have obtained by using brute force. I know you have argued that what they have obtained is useless, but that does not affect my argument. They wanted useless things, and they got them. My point is that their desire was fulfilled. What does it matter what means they adopted? Why should we not obtain our goal, which is good, by any means whatsoever, even by using violence? Shall I think of the means when I have to deal with a thief in the house? My duty is to drive him out anyhow. You seem to admit that we have received nothing, and that we shall receive nothing by petitioning. Why, then, may we not do so by using brute force?

When I accepted Mr. Kapildeva Malaviya's invitation to speak to you upon the subject of this evening, I was painfully conscious of my limitations. You are an economic society. You have chosen distinguished specialists for the subjects included in your syllabus for this year and the next. I seem to be the only speaker ill-fitted for the task set before him. Frankly and truly, I know very little of economics, as you naturally understand them. Only the other day, sitting at an evening meal, a civilian friend deluged me with a series of questions on my crankisms. As he proceeded in his cross-examination, I being a willing victim, he found no difficulty in discovering my gross ignorance of the matters I appeared to him to be handling with a cocksureness worthy only of a man who knows not that he knows not. To his horror and even indignation, I suppose, he found that I had not even read books on economics by such well-known authorities as Mill, Marshall, Adam Smith and a host of such other authors.

From Gandhi's Foreword to Gokhale's Speeches

In these difficult and degenerate times [kali-kal], the pure spirit of dharma is hardly in evidence anywhere. Men who go about the world calling themselves rishis, munis and sadhus rarely show this spirit in themselves. Obviously, they have no great treasure of dharma to guard …

I have not the least doubt that Gokhale was wise in the truth of the Self. He never made a show of ritual practices but his life was full of the true spirit of dharma. Every age is known to have its predominant mode of spiritual effort [pravartti] best suited for the attainment of moksha. Whenever the spirit of dharma is on the decline, it is revived through such an effort [pravartti] in tune with the times. In this age, our degradation reveals itself through our political condition. Not taking a comprehensive view of things, we run away with the belief that, if but our political conditions improved, we would rise from this fallen state. This is only partially true.