The question of nationalisation of banks has been discussed in this country for the last five years in a pointed manner, and possibly academically it might have been discussed for many decades. But as far as I remember, this problem came to be discussed in a very serious manner in the days of Shri Jawaharlal Nehru. That was perhaps before Bhubaneswar Congress in 1963. I had the privilege of participating in these discussions. It was in the last month of 1963, when the Working Committee asked a group of its members to go into the problem, that the view emerged that socially nationalisation of banking was acceptable. But the then Finance Minister said that it was not the right time. It eluded us at that time, and then the debate went on. I think before the general elections in 1967, the question again came up for debate as to how we should look at the problem of nationalisation of banks in terms of the election manifesto of the Congress. The term 'social control' was accepted. Well, I do not want to go into academic discussions or terms etc. I have just made a mention of the genesis. But let me tell you, at that time none of us who supported the idea of social control thought that it could be something separate from nationalisation. Social control without nationalisation has no meaning and nationalisation without any social control is a great fraud. Merely taking over a bank without any social policy has no meaning. It would merely degenerate into some sort of a bureaucratisation of the institution.

So I think this controversy should not be given an academic turn which is sought to be given to it. Now the direction is set. We have accepted this direction and it is very difficult to retrace the steps now. Whether it would happen today, tomorrow, or next year, I do not want to anticipate because that is a matter of political wisdom. But my young friends, I would like to tell you, political wisdom also has great value in this matter. I would like to tell you that this great body of Congress Working Committee, whatever its other defects may be, has always been dominated by the feeling of sheer patriotism and ultimate wisdom of remaining together. That is its great quality. I know some people criticise and ask "remain together for what"? But "divide also for what?" I would like to put a counter question like this. I know that mere unity has no meaning unless it is purposeful. But I would also like to tell you that mere radical economic programmes do not keep people together. Take a review of what is happening in the so-called left parties today. They talk of very unified radical programmes, but the way they are going at each other's throat shows that radical programme alone does not help. There is also another aspect to it and that aspect is the need for a political vehicle, a political instrument to implement the political thoughts. These two have to go hand in hand. It is like a body and a soul. Soul by itself possibly may have some existence, but it does not have perception. Without soul the body also has no meaning. Therefore, what is important is that we have to have political thought, but at the same time we must have this powerful organisation called Congress — united and set in a very purposeful direction to implement that political thought. That is more important.