Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP’s) chief spokesperson Saurav Das’s statement that this new outfit will work as a grassroots-level movement and not a political party is pleasing to the ears. This is what he actually said: “There are already plenty of political parties. If people still have pain, suffering, and anguish, it means the answer is not a political party. The answer is a grassroots-level movement, an awakening. And that’s what the CJP is doing.” Indeed, words of wisdom and maturity at this young age!It would be good if CJP draws lessons from the movement launched by Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) in the 1970s, which arguably is the largest post-Independence grassroots based civil movement in the country.As a prelude to the launching of the movement, JP said this: “We should understand and do our duty as citizens of a democratic country. Political parties, legislators, and ministers are becoming autocrats. They are not afraid of public opinion since there is no public opinion. They care less for their voters because voters are not enlightened and organised. Political parties make their own propaganda, but that is not to create a healthy and impartial public opinion, which may rise above party politics and effectively express itself in matters of right or wrong, moral or immoral. Just or unjust. To build public opinion is the greatest national task and bounden duty for us (Jayaprakash Narayan, Towards Total Revolution (Volume 3, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, 1978, cover page),”.The difference between ‘citizen’ and ‘subject’According to JP, this public opinion should be built around the understanding of what democracy is all about. Democracy is defined as a society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government. The vast majority of Indians, even now, do not understand this and mix up ‘citizen’ with ‘subject’.There is an ocean of difference between these two. ‘Citizen’ is one entitled to the rights and privileges of a free man, whereas ‘subject’ is one who is placed under the authority or control of a monarch or government. While it is the duty of a ‘subject’ to obey the government, it is the right of a ‘citizen’ to command the government because it is he/she who forms that government by exercising an electoral franchise. In short, democracy, in essence, is ‘people’s power’.Mahatma Gandhi’s political idea was that democracy would rise, storey by storey, from the foundation, consisting of self-governing, self-sufficient, agro-industrial, urbo-rural local communities – gram sabha, panchayat samiti, and zilla parishad – that would form the base of Vidhan Sabhas and the Lok Sabha. However, after independence, when leaders were forging a new Constitution, it became abundantly clear that Gandhi’s ideal was only one strand in current thought. The brazen blacking out of the decentralised democratic structure in the Constitution, concentrating most powers with the Union government and delegating some to the states, is the undoing of a vibrant democracy in India.It is of interest to note that political parties, which are ruling the roost today, are not mentioned in the original Constitution, nor do they find a place in the Representation of Peoples Act 1950 and 1951. And all efforts to make the political parties democratic, transparent, accountable, and open to scrutiny by regulating their conduct and affairs such as funding and finances, maintenance of regular accounts, regular auditing of accounts, regular election of their office bearers by enacting legislation, providing for their de-recognition and deregistration, and preventing them from contesting elections for failure to adhere to prescribed norms and thereby cleanse public life, have miserably failed.Only much later, in 1992, grassroots rural and urban democratic institutions were grafted into the Constitution through the 73rd and 74th Amendments that have proved ineffective. Political parties continue to be lawless and valueless. In the event, democracy being practised in India today is a ‘rootless and rudderless wonder’!No kind of democracy can exist without democratic freedomsDespite these humungous challenges, JP believed that on the very portals of democracy – irrespective of its form and structure – are words written that can never be wiped off without wiping off democracy itself. No kind of democracy can exist without democratic freedoms – freedom of conscience, of association, of expression – and the rule of law. Where these freedoms do not exist, nor the rule of law, there can be no democracy.If our present political institutions are to be soundly based, if they are to draw sustenance from Indian soil and, in turn, are to sustain, revive, and strengthen the whole fabric of Indian society, they must be related to the social genius of India, and their texture must be woven again with an organically self-determining, self-developing community life in which occupations, professions, and functions get integrated.To JP, democracy extends much beyond elections and seeks continuous engagement through direct action: “What can the people do, the youth do to fight against autocracy, corruption, unemployment, poverty? Wait quietly for the next general election? But what if in the meantime the situation becomes intolerable? Then what are the people to do? Sit quietly and fold up their arms and silently bear their miseries?”JP gave the answer to his own question:“I do not think in any democratic society the people have relied wholly and solely on elections to change their plight. Everywhere there have been strikes, protests, marches, sit-ins, sit-outs, etc.”After Gandhiji left the scene, JP took upon himself the task of making democracy into people’s power and building it from the grassroots. JP basically came to believe in a voluntarist or Gandhian philosophy of participatory democracy, that is, Lokniti, focusing on the role of the individual in society, and his approach was eclectic.For example, he had been attracted to Marxism in his youth and then moved on to socialism. In addition, JP always maintained an interest in ideas from many sources, and he encouraged community-type networking so that citizens’ groups could support each other, pooling resources and information in order to maximise any benefits.Central to JP’s ideas were his organisational work to develop the foundation for an alternative political structure and his decision to integrate the ‘new’ voluntarist politics with the ‘old’ constitutional politics, believing that if the former were to be developed, then cognisance had to be taken of the latter. JP’s basic concern was at the grassroots level. Certain voluntary organisations, directly inspired by JP, took up this task.How JP developed new styles of popular mobilisationThe scale of the organisations was limited, and no clear-cut goal emerged, but the general theme was with self-reliant people’s movements as agents of transformation towards improving or changing the polity. All of them recognised the need for a balance between popular mobilisation and economic development.The strategies employed by the organisations were effective in improving the bargaining position of the poor and the disadvantaged and the development of independent resources and capabilities at the local level. However, they have not been able to formulate any definite mode of popular representation and participation.Nevertheless, a systematic understanding of the operation of these organisations gives further insight into JP’s ideas and his attempts to launch a ‘Total Revolution’ in Indian democracy by developing new styles of popular mobilisation.JP believed that power came through organisation at the local, regional, and national levels and through cooperation with like-minded organisations in order to share knowledge. In so far as he sought to ensure the effective working of the existing set-up, he recognised the need for organisational structure, the basis of which was the Lok Samiti (people’s group), gram sabha (village assembly), or janata sarkar (people’s government). He sought to give concrete shape to this concept through the Lok Samiti, a national organisation that promoted village committees through which information could be disseminated to support and develop models of self-management.JP was concerned that everyone should participate in the democratic process and that the organisational structure should provide opportunities for this, breaking down societal barriers of caste, poverty, social status, illiteracy, and gender.JP also envisaged some form of organisational structure for training motivators working along with Lok Samiti. He believed a revolutionary vanguard was important to lead the people, that is, committed supporters who could be flexible in their movement. The vanguard needed constructive direction for its energy, and JP hoped to harness its strength towards leading people to a ‘Total Revolution’.Why JP thoughts students would be ideal for leadership roleJP thought that students would be ideal for this leadership role because they were discontented with the existing system and anxious for change. Furthermore, generally, they were not tied down with family and business responsibilities, so they had time to devote to the movement.CJP is basically a student movement and has drawn first blood. They would do well to learn from the experiences and experiments of the JP movement and build upon its foundations. It is true that at some point JP movement was hijacked by the intruders from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who reaped its benefits and then betrayed JP in a most cruel manner. CJP should avoid any such devious attempt.India’s democracy is in deep distress. Only the youth. who is the nation’s future, can redeem it. And CJP has shown hope and if they go on the right path democracy can be redeemed.M.G. Devasahayam is a former Army and IAS officer. As the District Magistrate of Chandigarh, he was the custodian of JP during his imprisonment under Emergency. In that capacity as well as later he had interacted intensively with JP.