India under Congress regime and others also has not yet attained positive response from its explicit concern for socialistic pattern of society under the grab of mixed economy and liberal-democratic socialism. As a government the Congress creates certain socio-economic situation, which the Congress as a party has failed to cope with. On the other, certain socio-economic and socio-political constraints have made the Congress both as a party and as a government quite unresponsive to the demands of the people. The social and economic reforms remained unimplemented. As a product of French Enlightenment and closely related with the liberation struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal onslaughts, the concept of ideology emerged as a science of politics, i.e., a scientific and critical outlook about politics and society. There are different views on ideology. According to Drucker, „To Marxists “ideology” is any theory which guides or acts effectively in the interests of the bourgeoisie. To Liberals, any theory is ideological if it teaches of other theories. To Conservatives, the hallmark of an ideology is an attempt to impose a rational systematic plan on society.‟ (Drucker, 1974:140). Marx proposes to depict ideology in terms of hard social realities and its contradictory and conflicting character sprouted from the dialectical relations between forces of production and relations of production and contending character of classes, i.e., in Medieval ages between free men and slaves and in our times between bourgeoisie and proletariat. That is consciousness in human kind emerges from the material conditions of human life. Each new class in society requires to project its own interests as common interests of all, rationally and universally accepted which negates contradictions and legitimates domination. Therefore, the logic is: ideology is cultural domination. Culture is determined by ruling class interest. Therefore, ideology captures culture and culture is determined by ideology. Necessarily likely, ideology legitimizes social structure and the indispensable class formations. Therefore, cultural craftsmanship is the indispensable qualification for working class‟s revolutionary upsurge as tough fibrous tissue joining muscle to bone. Critics find a gap in Marx‟s understanding of ideology. Sartre finds no solution in Marx‟s materialist understanding of individuals and the conception of individual personality development through regular production process. To Althusser, ideology has a place in reality and there is no ideology except by the subjects and for the subjects (Althusser, 1984: 44). Irrespective of social parentage, according to Marx, ideology has to be understood in association with the contradictions of society and class origin. And for that Gramsci and Lukacs find glaring misconception of ideology in Marx. Lukacs finds that ideology does not and cannot be the necessary reflection of the economy and revolutionary change of a society invites both consciousness and force. To Gramsci, ideology is a super-structural, a „historical bloc‟ emanated from the contradictory relations of production and the necessity of lacerated human society. He repudiates the necessary superstructure of a particular structure of base, the arbitrary elucubration of particular individuals and gives primacy to ideological hegemony than that of class hegemony or force. While criticizing Marxian concept of ideology, Freud says that ideology is not only the reflection of the material life processes in society, but of the psychological characters and traits. Pareto absolutizes ideology as psychological instrument of governance by which elites take sociopolitical measures, justified and promoted by idiosyncrasy and idolized by ideologues. Durkheim criticizes Marx of reducing consciousness as a mere epiphenomenon of its basis. He finds consciousness, as collective idiosyncrasy is collective experience. Unlike Marx, Mannheim pointed out that ideologies are not pure illusions, but it is a science of logic and ideas and a taxonomic system of concepts. Apart from these differences there are some common grounds between Marxism and Liberalism, where both elites hide their real power and intensions by pointing at collective entities and overemphasizing other centers of power to saddleback their accountabilities and responsibilities by adducing „intense pressure‟ or „furious lobbying‟ or „suffocating government regulation‟ or „bureaucratic red tape‟ as instances (Beardsley, 1981: 161). Therefore, ideologies are like looking glasses. It legitimizes political formula. To Mosca, class or so to say political class will always try to justify its power on the ground of ideology, and abstraction, which we shall call political formula (Bluhm, 1974: 13). As per with Pareto‟s „derivations‟ and Sorel‟s „myth‟, ideology is the Ideology Of The Indian National Congress: Political Economy Of Socialism And Socialistic Pattern www.iosrjournals.org 97 | Page systematic exploitation of beliefs and ideals carefully churned out of men‟s consciousness with great ingenuity, self-control and courage for fulfillment or near fulfillment of personal or group interests. It rarely justifies the pursuit of interests common to all the groups (Plamenatz, 1970:131). Inspite of that, ideology has a considerable impact on the demands made by the party‟s supporting centers and groups. It legitimizes power and hides the real contradictions in society. To Poulantzas, „ideology has the precise function of hiding the real contradictions and of reconstituting on an imaginary level, a relatively coherent discourse which serves as the horizon of agents‟ experience...‟ (Larrain, 1979: 46). Ideology is the systematic scheme and process of ideas about social, economic and political life processes of society, which political parties adhere to and proceed on their voyage; a bundle of distinct and unambiguous ideas and creeds, makes for unity and cohesion within the party and brings the party members under the control of their own parties, for example, the „programmes‟ and „mandates‟. Having come into existence at the mid-day on Monday, December 28, 1885, the Indian National Congress with emerging elites of middle class intellectuals propounded their theory about peaceful political action and public protest. In a society with multifarious religious and cultural manifestations, ethnic diversities and economic higher-ups and lower-downs echelon, it was a pluralist, flexible and open-ended organization, once a movement, able to continue in power and simultaneously able to snuff out unprincipled factions upholding at least twin objectives at that time: to arouse nationalism among the Indians and to make India a united nation. In search for truth and „Swaraj‟ from Raj, Gandhi preached the gospel of non-violence and class harmony. And Nehru and other Congress leaders declared that the Congress was to be turned into an electoral organization or into a party to win electoral battles and sit on the saddle of power or at least into a Gandhian organ of constructive programme, i.e., transition from movement to a party or from mass politics to elite politics. Thus pragmatism or „real politik‟ began to replace the ideals of socialism, truth and non-violence and watered down Marxism into a milk-water Fabianism. „As the dominant party, the Congress attracts many Indians who have hardly any ideological affinity to it but want to use the organization as a stepping stone to public offices... Congress has become fully immobile in the trial of its reconciling image as a “movement of social reconstruction” with the task of a political party.‟ (Hartmann, 1977:52-56). Radicalism and pragmatism were well-balanced (Aggarwala and Aggarwala, 1985:54) as the expedient manipulation of middle class nationalism and democratic socialism. After Independence, the change in the character of the Congress from a party fighting for freedom to an enthroned party on power seat charged with the constitutional responsibility for political development, economic regeneration and cultural advancement began to take place by a solemn public act. Nehru did not agree to take Congress as mere electoral organization into account. But leaders of Congress did not take any recourse to such action and were unable to do so because the party attracted many new members no longer moved by any idealistic reason but were primarily concerned with power and patronage (Hartmann, 1977: 56). Therefore, Congress leaders followed a middle-of-the-road policy. For that reason Congress party followed the formula of „socialistic pattern of society‟ in the Avadi Session (1955) and later on „Socialist State based on Parliamentary Democracy‟ in the Bhubaneshwar Session (1968), which were not possible in our socio-economic set-up. And so, besides consensus on „fundamental norms of the democratic set-up‟ (Tilak, 1983: 6), a Westminster type of parliamentary set-up cannot be accorded with the possibility of happenings of consensus on specific policies and issues unlike the totalitarian state-building with a monolithic structure in the process where dissension and disobedience are prohibited in full swing. In spite of that as we have accepted the parliamentary practice of British origin, so we should have a responsible opposition with a responsible government in the House and rules of the game, the Congress Legislative Party (I) leader posited (Abedin, 1986). To him, the leader of the House acts as the leader of his own party, as a representative of the whole House and is responsible to the House in general and to opposition in particular; and with an intuitive instinct should be able to measure the troubles brewing and the blazes of commotion. The Congress party, apart from these, accepted the other rules and principles of parliamentary democracy as the political superstructure of our society, for example, representative institutions based on majority rule, limitations on 

/pdf/ideology-of-the-indian-national-congress-political-economy-3fta9uv41u.pdf

Anil K. Sengupta

Papers

Trade unions, politics and the state: a case from West Bengal