Sharma : The word 'socialism' has been used differently. And a Prof. C.M. Joad one said : " It is just like a hat which has lost its shape because everybody wears it." What was precisely your definition of socialism?
Chavan : Well, first, socialism as I understood at that time meant, equality of man. Socondly, the end of poverty and thirdly, the idea was that th motivation in the production must be changed. It must not be for profit but for meeting the needs of the people.
Sharma : And it should be socially oriented?
Chavan : yes, socially oriented. There were my three major conceptions of socialism as I understood at that time and in the course of time, I do not think I have changed much.
Sharma : You still abide by them ?
Chavan : Still abide by them.
Sharma : Did you give some thought at that time to the methods also?
Chavan : I could not give any thinking to the methods, but I thought that we would have t fight, if necessary, by violent means. Hot that I had any plan for violence, etc., but intellectually I was of opinion that there should not be any inhibition, if somebody imposed it It was not individual terroristic violence that we were thinking about ( not violence for violence sake ). On the test of violence, non-violence looked to be rather doctrinaire. It was not a practical proposition, because when we read history of independence struggle at that time we thought that Gandhiji's giving up of struggle because of violent incident at Chauri Chaura was rather an extreme step. That was my impression then. I am giving you an example of what I thought then and the reason there of.