Maintenance of a climate of free deliberate and public discussion of all general issues of social import can alone promote attitudes which, in making his choices and decisions when called upon to do so, will enable the individual to display a rational and discriminating capacity for judgment. A democratic society is not a static society. As a matter of fact in the context of the broad meaning of democracy, emphasised earlier, the term ‘democratic society’ itself becomes open to question. What we can have are societies at different stages of democratisation. Democracy is not a goal to be achieved at any particular point of time. It is rather a path, a quest. That being the case, eternal vigilance is naturally its most significant watchword. There is no halting place along the path and any cessation of movement ahead contains all the possibilities of a drift in the reverse direction. The democratic faith has to be continually renewed and refreshed if it is to be a living faith capable of enabling us to march ahead. There is no situation which needs being taken as beyond the range of human ingenuity to tackle. The success of Chavan reinforces the belief that a courageous, rational and discriminating individual with integrity, intelligence, imagination and human sympathy can tackle problems which many a strong man would otherwise fail to do. It has shown that there is no room for despair, that democracy is possible. And this, I submit, is of supreme significance in the present political context not only of this State or the country but of the whole underdeveloped world.
One may, however, ask: What about the social question ? Precisely the question that need not be asked of Chavan. As a son of the soil, he knows the social realities and the economic hardships of the people much better than many of the intellectuals and theoreticians can claim to do ; as to broad social sympathies, he need be second to none. Having learnt, as he himself says so often, his marxism from Roy whose basic inspiration was essentially of human freedom, he seems to recognise that economic justice is a far more complex phenomenon than mere abolition of private property and that the latter in no way prevented the emergence of cruel dictatorship, mass trials and a whole range of repressive policies and measures. Having grown in the climate of leftism when the latter cast its spell over a whole generation, he is fully familiar with its strength and its limitations. And in no case, can he be expected to accept the contention that freedom and its manifold institutional expressions are merely a facade devoid of any significance in the absence of economic justice and equality. Economic freedom is undoubtedly an essential aspect of the great democratising process, which, however, does not permit any compartmentalisation. Harmonious development of the different mutually related but not causally connected aspects of social existence is its real essence and to promote it is the basic need of the hour.