A lady Member in the State Assembly, argued with deftness, that, at least to steal the thunder from the opposition side, the government should exempt the agriculturists from the tax on diesel oil.

“The opposition parties” said the lady member, “are sure to exploit the situation. They would ask the agriculturists to agitate—perhaps, they would lead a deputation to the Minister concerned, plead for a repeal of the tax, and the minister would be forced to yield to their demand. Then the opposition would claim a victory! Why should, we of the Congress party, give room for that? At least to disarm the opposition, let us straightaway exempt the agriculturists from the diesel oil tax.”

The House was discussing about the new tax contemplated by the Congress Minister—and along with many other Congress members, the lady member, presented this astute argument. Of course it did not cut ice. The Minister stood firmly—refused to recognise even the astuteness in the argument advanced.
We are presenting this fact, not to prove how ineffective that pleading was—no—we are not competent to talk on such a delicate subject—but we are presenting this fact for an entirely different object.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru gave a liberal interpretation of democracy, this week-end. He spoke about the level of democracy—the purpose behind parliamentary democracy and the like.

Here is a problem—pertaining to parliamentary democracy.

On the question of tax on diesel oil, almost all the Congress members, who took part in the discussion, expressed options, similar to those voiced forth from the opposition side.

The tax would hit the agriculturists.

It would be an added burden especially at a time when food prices are going up.

The government would have to face a stiff protest from the agriculturists.

—These were some of the arguments advanced, by all the Congress speakers who participated in the discussion.

But the Minister refused to budge an inch!

The attempts of the Congress members, to touch the chord of sympathy proved futile.

The House did appreciate the agility and astuteness of the arguments—but the Minister refused to find wisdom in those arguments.

The opposition demanded a division on that issue. And when the division bell rang—all those Congress members, who protested against that levy, who argued that it would be detrimental to the interests of the agriculturists, had to vote for the tax!!

They gave their voice for the opposition, and the vote for the party!!

This raises, one or two interesting problems.

When there is a clear case of a clash between one’s opinion and the party mandate, which is to prevail? Democracy demands not only party discipline, but also obeying the dictates of one's conscience. Here is a case, wherein, several Congress members were convinced that the tax on diesel oil, would be injurious to the agriculturists and yet, when ‘voting’ was resorted to, they had to vote with the party!

Is this conducive to the growth of healthy policies?

And again, why is it that these members, who felt so strongly about the cruelty of this tax, have not attempted to discuss this at their party meeting? They should have tried to convince the party bosses. Did they attempt and fail? We do not know!

Anyway, they raised their shrill voices against the proposal, but had to meekly obey the party mandate.

What would be the people’s verdict on this issue? They have heard heroic speeches of these Congress members—and found also the strange spectacle of these same people voting for a tax, which they vehemently opposed.

And after witnessing this, what would be the opinion the people, about Democracy, itself. Would they not turn round one day and ask such people. “Are you with the hound, or with the hare?” And what possibly could be the answer!! We wonder!

(Editorial - 16-03-1958)