I was not personally close to Chandra Shekhar (17 April 1927 – 8 July 2007), and was unsure if he even knew of me as a socialist activist and writer. However, a friend once informed me that Chandra Shekhar had expressed a desire to meet me. I was told he wanted to discuss his approach to the problem of corruption, about which I had been sharply critical in my writings. Unfortunately, that meeting did not happen before he assumed the office of Prime Minister.
I eventually met him after his brief tenure as Prime Minister ended. I visited him on three occasions, accompanied by my senior socialist colleagues—Vinod Prasad Singh, Brij Mohan Toofan, and Raj Kumar Jain. On one of these visits, I saw him interacting compassionately with a friend struggling in his academic career. Chandra Shekhar responded immediately and tried to help.
Each time I met him, I found Chandra Shekhar to be warm, attentive, and genuinely concerned—always willing to listen and assist. I personally know of several cases where he facilitated treatment for needy patients in government hospitals. Despite my critical stance toward some of his political positions and actions, he never showed hostility or reservation during our interactions.
I once mentioned this to my journalist friend Hari Mohan Mishra, a native of Chandra Shekhar’s constituency and not exactly a supporter of his political decisions. He remarked that such traits in Chandra Shekhar's personality marked him as a bada aadmi—a great man.
Younger socialists may not fully agree with his political choices, but they continue to admire him for his ideological clarity and political courage—qualities increasingly absent from India’s political landscape. Even if one disregards his brief stint as Prime Minister, Chandra Shekhar remains an exceptional leader and a deeply human figure. Ironically, his stature might have been even greater had he never held the post of Prime Minister.
Chandra Shekhar’s political ideas were deeply rooted in the socialist movement. He was profoundly influenced by Gandhi. A well-read and reflective leader, he edited the socialist journal Sangharsh, which was originally launched by his mentor Acharya Narendra Deva. He later edited Young Indian in both Hindi and English. During the 19 months he spent in prison during the Emergency, he wrote a prison diary—Meri Jail Diary—published in two volumes. His autobiography Zindagi Ka Karvan and other books of speeches and interviews have been published by Rajkamal Prakashan, Delhi.
Chandra Shekhar maintained close ties with writers and journalists. Though he never claimed to be a theoretician of socialism like JP, Lohia, or Acharya Narendra Deva, he was a practical politician operating within the boundaries of socialist thought. In his own way, he was a thinker, expressing his vision through writing, editing, and political engagement. His ideological consistency and unwavering concern for the marginalized were notable. It was his rebellious nature that earned him the nickname of the "Young Turk."
Chandra Shekhar is no longer with us. It is for history to determine how and to what extent he should be remembered. That task requires serious reflection. In the many statements and obituaries published after his death, he was widely acknowledged as a committed socialist, fearless parliamentarian, secularist, and generous friend. However, apart from Janeshwar Mishra’s brief remark in Dainik Bhaskar—“Chandra Shekhar was opposed to the slaving after foreign capital”—most tributes failed to recognize one of the most significant aspects of his political legacy: his sustained and principled opposition to globalisation.
To ignore this is to reduce him to just another “good leader.” In reality, Chandra Shekhar stood nearly alone in mainstream Indian politics—aside from some figures on the Left—in his vocal resistance to globalisation ushered in through the New Economic Policies. More importantly, he went beyond critique and attempted to offer alternatives.
Deeply committed to Gandhian economic thought, he once wrote:
“The call for Swadeshi and Swavlamban given by Mahatma Gandhi was not merely a slogan. It was an economic philosophy of life aimed at self-development.”
As Prime Minister, he resisted pressures from institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. When the Vice President of the World Bank visited India during his tenure, Chandra Shekhar bluntly told him:
“The market economy you advocate caters only to a small population. Do remember, they do not represent the entire nation.”
As the first phase of liberalisation concluded, Chandra Shekhar marked the 58th anniversary of the Quit India Movement (9 August 2000) by launching the Vikalp Abhiyan—a march against the forces of globalisation. He warned:
“Our country, forgetting the vision and dream of Swaraj, is again falling into the trap of economic slavery, endangering its political and social freedom. The time has come to resist neo-imperialism entering through the market—now or never.”
He also launched Jan Chetna Abhiyan to raise awareness against the Dunkel Proposals. Responding to the call of RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras, he briefly participated in the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, but soon grew disillusioned. He later reiterated his stand by relaunching the Vikalp Abhiyan and proposed a yatra from Puri in Odisha to Porbandar in Gujarat. This initiative received support from four former Prime Ministers: V.P. Singh, P.V. Narasimha Rao, H.D. Deve Gowda, and I.K. Gujral.
His opposition to globalisation was not rhetorical. He truly believed that India’s poor would suffer, not benefit, from globalisation. He never subscribed to the idea of a “human face” to such an exploitative system. Yet, he struggled to build a powerful mass movement against it.
A key limitation was his distance from movements and activists outside mainstream politics—those who were already resisting globalisation through grassroots mobilisations and alternative visions. Had he forged deeper links with them, the political landscape might have evolved differently. Still, Chandra Shekhar maintained hope in the transformative potential of politics, refusing to discard it entirely despite growing disillusionment.
In his autobiography, he candidly reflected:
“There were five key issues in the Bharat Yatra—shortage of food and clean water, primary education, basic healthcare, and social harmony. I had planned to work in 350 backward districts of India and intended to resign from the Janata Party presidency to focus on this. But I didn’t. After the Yatra, I got entangled in opposition politics. That was my mistake.”
In Rahbari ke Sawal, edited by Rambahadur Rai, he expressed regret for choosing electoral politics and, in doing so, losing touch with the youth and common people who had joined him in the Bharat Yatra.
Despite this realization, Chandra Shekhar never gathered the courage to correct this course. It was especially unfortunate because alternative political initiatives had already been launched by Kishan Patnaik and others who rejected the mainstream's alignment with globalisation.
Had Chandra Shekhar, like Patnaik, broken away from the mainstream and pursued alternative politics as he once did during the Bharat Yatra, India’s political economy might have taken a very different course. Many committed socialist workers find it puzzling and regrettable that while he engaged with leaders like Deoras and Nanaji Deshmukh from different ideological camps, he lacked close collaboration with fellow socialist leaders working in the same direction.
Whatever the reasons, stronger resistance to globalisation would have certainly emerged had these alliances been forged. While leaders, commentators, and the media may continue to overlook this aspect of Chandra Shekhar’s legacy, history will remember him as an uncompromising political figure—one who will inspire generations to come.
---
A version of this tribute, written on the demise of Chandra Shekhar on 8 July 2007, was originally published in Mainstream Weekly and later included in the book titled 'Chandra Shekhar in Parliament: A Commemorative Volume by the Parliamentary Secretariat'. The author is with the Department of Hindi, University of Delhi; is Former Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla; Former Visiting Professor, Centre of Eastern Languages and Cultures, Department of Indology, Sofia University, Bulgaria
Comments