By Kavita Mistry 
The most often used definitions of revolution have focused on a structural and institutional change in the society’s established institutional foundations and social relationships. Theorists of structural transformation believe that a revolution will bring about the replacement of one social structure with another. According to the Marxian tradition, it is specifically tied to the shifts in the societal economic system. The structure of property relations is understood to be the definition of economic structure. Therefore, the component of property ownership that changes with a shift in social organization is essentially a change in. In a more comprehensive sense, a shift in social structure encompasses not just modifications to property relations, or the economic framework of society, but also to other facets of the social structure.
When Jayaprakash Narayan, the leader of Total Revolution, became disillusioned with what may be referred to as the “conventional wisdom of revolution and conventional technique” of change, he turned to Gandhi’s teachings, which contain the seeds of the idea. Gandhi’s ideas on socioeconomic issues and change management strategies are actually expanded upon in total revolution, which takes into account the social, political, and economic realities of the modern world. Total revolution was the outcome of Jayaprakash Narayan’s transition from Marxism to Gandhism. Gandhi had a distinctively revolutionary character because of his unconventional views on the social and economic structure of society. Jayaprakash Narayan attempted to expand on it with total revolution, placing more focus on particular elements of the overall idea.
Following the Bihar movement in Patna on June 5, 1974, Jayaprakash Narayan (also known as JP) proposed the idea of total revolution. Jayaprakash Narayan announced at a public gathering at Gandhi Maidan that the fight would not only focus on achieving the demands of the students, such as the resignation of the minister and the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, but would also seek to bring about a total revolution, or Sampoorna Kranti, which is the only way to address the nation’s pressing issues and usher in a new society.
JP acknowledged the need for transformation in the individual, the person who takes on the responsibility of transforming society, after Gandhi. In his prison diary, JP states that “a self-change, that is to say, those wanting a change must also change themselves before launching any kind of action,” is one of the unspoken meanings of satyagraha. This encompasses the entire tenet of JP’s Total Revolution. JP had come to the opinion during his “democratic socialist” days that a revolution could not be considered worthwhile unless its practitioners experienced a transformation in their own personalities. Therefore, the transformed individual who subsequently pushed for changes to the socioeconomic structure of the society was the cornerstone of the revolution.
Social, economic, political, cultural, ideological, intellectual, educational, and spiritual are the seven pillars of total revolution. These figures could be raised or lowered. JP believed that ideological and educational reforms may be a part of the cultural revolution. According to him, social revolution in the Marxian sense can also refer to political and economic revolutions, among other things. Additionally, he believes that there are subcategories inside each of the seven categories.
These seven elements can be rearranged as follows for accurate analysis:
(a) Cultural, encompassing intellectual, moral, spiritual, and educational aspects; (b) Social-economic; and (c) Political.
As Ghanshyam Shah correctly stated, “JP did not outline the different stages of the revolution or provide a blueprint for that (alternative) society.” Rather, he presented a lengthy range of ideas, including agricultural growth, fair land ownership, suitable technology, small and rural industries, decentralization of politics and the economy, caste elimination, etc. He did not specify how the land was to be divided in this way or how the economic and social hierarchy was to be eliminated. JP is criticized for lacking an ideology and blueprint for a new political and economic order, which he had laid out in great detail long before the Bihar agitation was even an idea.
It is another matter entirely that JP was unable to bring about his revolution and that political parties remained in power when the people ought to have taken over. As one astute observer has noted, this is because some economic groups and special interests that had previously controlled society persisted in doing so even after Mrs Gandhi left politics in 1977 after suffering a crushing electoral defeat. However, it’s possible that the true reason “Lok-niti,” as JP envisioned it, was unable to replace “Raj-niti” was that JP’s concept was essentially an unrealistic paradise.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE