Revisiting Economy of Permanence and Non-Violent

Revisiting Economy of Permanence and Non-Violent Social Order (Remembering J.C. Kumarappa and His Legacy in New Indian Economy)

Revisiting Economy of Permanence and Non-Violent Social Order (Remembering J.C. Kumarappa and His Legacy in New Indian Economy)

Editors Dr. Vishal Sarin Dr. Manjula Upadhyay Dr. Vijay Srivastava

Victorious Publishers (India)

Victorious Publishers (India) D-5 G/F, Ground Floor Pandav Nagar, Near Shanti Nursing Home (Opposite Mother Dairy), Delhi-110092 E-mail: [email protected] Mo. +91 8826941497 Copyright©: Editors First Published ........................................................ ISBN: 978-93-84224-35-6

Disclaimer: The views expressed by the authors are their own. The editors and publishers do not own any legal responsibility or liability for the views of the authors, any omission or inadvertent errors. © All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the Editors and Publishers.

Editorial Note

“Exploring the Idea of Gandhian Trusteeship in Viola’s Economic Philosophy” are a great contribution to the modern economic world which is going through the state of “selfish economy”. The economic problems have been well stated under the terms “Parasitic and Predatory Economies” and the solution has been very well given under the empirical model of “Trusteeship”. The materialistic human is moving away from nature and this paper puts a bright light on the wrong doings towards the nature. Centralized democratic economy has been criticized, rather a decentralized democracy is favored which would empower the rural societies and hence the unequal distribution of wealth (the basic problem of every economy) can be solved. Thus these papers give a brief view of the necessary changes that should be undertaken at individual and social level to bring the economic ships at a better floating level. Nobody can deny the contribution of Vinoba bhave in contextualizing the Gandhian thoughts in to practice. His Bhoodan movement provided a bigger frame work to solve the problem of inequality and discrimination in Indian society in real sense... In an era of technology, conspicuous consumption, degradation of moral ethics and values giving way to violence there is need to discover Gandhiji’s ideals. His economic ideas were also weighted with moral considerations. He predicted and criticized the inequities of capitalism at a time when India was not dominated by capitalist culture indicating his foresightedness. He believed in socialism but was against the conflict supported by Marx. He firmly believed in Sarvodaya and Swadeshi for prosperity of the nation. Villages should be made self sufficient units so that they can prevent migration to Centre’s of mass production that is big industries and urban areas which in turn lead to many social and economic evils. Thus, in his article it has been concluded that economic liberalization and the

vi Revisiting Economy of Permanence and Non-Violent Social Order

technological automation threaten to widen further the existing economic, social, political and cultural disparities. The Gandhian vision of sustainable development incorporates four key concepts namely Swaraj, Swadeshi, Trusteeship and Aparigraha. Gandhiji advocated that traditional sector that is agriculture and agro centric industries should be given more importance and skilful balance between primary, secondary and tertiary sectors should be maintained on the basis of available human resources. Villages need to be given more importance than cities as soul and spirit of India lies in village communities. Gandhiji according to authors emphasized that trusteeship is the best solution and non violent way of resolving social and economic conflicts and economic inequalities of ownership and income. Trusteeship formula suggested by Gandhiji has been outlined. They have concluded that economies based on Gandhian Philosophy will not face problems of overconsumption and global warming, climate change and ecological degradation. “Women Empowerment in the Mirror of Gandhi” has taken up Gandhian views on the importance of incorporating women in the society’s development. Women empowerment covers many aspects as involvement in decision making, literacy, good environment for working place, place in the economy, non violence and live without fear. Under Gandhiji’s leadership women entered into the national mainstream by taking part in national movement. Relevance of Gandhian Ideals in Present Century” points out that education promotes training of intellect, body and spirit and it directs the child’s capacities, attitudes, interests, urges and needs into the most desirable channels. Therefore, it should be value based. He has given meaning and nature of values. He has emphasized that value plays an important role for the development and molding of the individual’s personality at large. Gandhiji’s ideals of value of labor, truth, cooperation, condemning exploitation of any sort and non violence should also be in cooperated while moving on the development path.

Contents

Preface

v-vi

1. Gandhi: Priest and Artist 1-16 Brijendra Pandey 2. Gandhi vs Modi: Toward a Higher Synthesis 17-19 M. J. Lunine 3. Gandhi: Life, Works and Legacy 20-38 Rachana Srivastava and Tanushree Srivastava 4. Sustainable Development: Gandhian Perspective 39-46 Manjula Upadhyay and Shailja Mishra 5. Gandhi and Modern Economy 47-59 Neelesh Pandey 6. Towards the Model of Gandhian “Non-violent” Political Economy 60-71 Prem Anand Mishra 7. Economic Vision Of J.C Kumarappa (Remembering Kumarappa and his Legacy) 72-84 Vijay Srivastava and Anup Kumar Srivastava 8. Political Parties Enroute Social Democracy or Political Conservatism 85-94 Santwana Pandey 9. Relevance of Gandhian Ideals in the Present Century 95-101 P. Nithiya 10. Gandhi’s Concept of Gram Swaraj (Special Reference to Panchayati Raj) 102-108 Reetika Upadhyay 11. Exploring the Idea of Gandhian Trusteeship in Vinoba’s Economic Philosophy 109-127 Vijay Srivastava

viii Revisiting Economy of Permanence and Non-Violent Social Order

1 2. Economic Thought of Vinobha Bhave 128-138 Anjali Singh 13. Contribution of Vinoba Bhave in the Post-Independent India 139-145 S. Indira 14. Gandhi And Cinema: A Progressive Approach Towards Non-Violent Society 146-168 Vijay Srivastava and Mamta Tyagi 15. Searching the Importance of Gandhian Views on Tolerance in Contemporary South Asia Parijat Saurabh and Shailendra Kumar Singh

169-178

1 6. A Study on Gandhian Views on Alcohol Consumption 179-187 Sandeep Singh and Shailendra Kumar Singh 1 7. Gandhi – Context to Women Urvashi Pandey and Indu Pathak

188-190

1 8. Women Empowerment in the Mirror of Gandhi Richa Pandey

191-197

19. Equality of opportunity and Justice: The Gandhian Perspective Vijay Srivastava and Sharaddha Joshi 20. Gandhian Economic thought and its Influence on Sustainable Development: An Appraisal List of Contributors

198-202

203-212 213-214

Gandhi: Priest and Artist Brijendra Pandey Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) held no office in government, and led no terrorist gang or rebel military army. Yet his intentions and actions aroused the millions of Indians, shook the Empire, and provoked both ridicule and admiration among people throughout the world. This strange man for nearly fifty years challenged, first, the European masters of South Africa, then, the British masters of India, and, finally, even the basic tenets of orthodox politics. Gandhi was an extraordinary political strategist and that an appreciation of this is necessary to understand the man and the movements with which he challenged the vastest Empire which the world had ever seen and contributed significantly to in dissolution. We need to continue to consider Gandhi’s challenge to established political tenets, his refinements of non-violent struggle, and his perceptions of requirements for ending oppression, reconstructing society, and lifting dependency upon political violence.1 Mahatma Gandhi also thought in terms of the universal and perennial philosophy of life that had been fundamental to him; and not surprisingly, he was able to conclude very early in his political career that the ancient civilization of India was the source and substance of any restructuring in future and India would do well not to be carried away by the glitter of modern civilization which believes in ‘Mammon Worship’. Gandhi is a very complex figure in the history of modern thought. The complexity largely springs from the fact that he was not only a man of thought but also the supreme leader of the nationalist movement in India for over three decades. During his life time, this man turned the national movement which was hitherto confined to

2 Revisiting Economy of Permanence and Non-Violent Social Order

a few sections of society, into a truly mass-movement. He formulated a strategy of political action which was destined largely to determine the form of natural protest and struggle against the British, reaching its culmination in the independence of India in 1947. He was certainly not the first to formulate the policy of Swadeshi and boycott, but the way in which he integrated it with the idea of a non-violent Satyāgraha was unique in itself. Gandhi was not only a man of action but also a prophet of modern India who attempted to transcend the class conflicts of society by devising a method which, for the first time, brought about the national aggregation of an all-India character. The fact that he created an ideology of national struggle which transcended class-divisions, and, further, devised a political strategy to achieve this idea in the minimum possible time, is the secret of his remarkable and enduring place in the history of thought.2 Gandhi presents, to many, a paradox. True, he was an historical figure. As such, he was the man of his age. He grew in a particular historical situation and the forces operating at that time influenced his development. However, he went against his age by totally rejecting its central ethos and worked, throughout his life, to replace it by something that has been ever pushed into the limbo of history. A man born in modern times but rejecting modernity can be nothing else than a paradox. He is a paradox also for the reason that the so-called psychological and sociological laws do not fully explain what he was.3 From another angle, Gandhi is a world historical figure. Though he refused to formulate a religious or philosophical system, he did stand throughout his life for certain ideas, which are nothing if not of universal significance. Secondly, it seems that in understanding a great figure one has to adopt either a legendary perspective which favours a ‘compound of substantial truth and accidental error’, or a strictly historical or “scientific” perspective which favours a compound of substantial error and accidental truth. Obviously, we should be inclined towards the former.4 The science of politics is designated ‘master science’ in the traditional political thought not because of the superior might of state but because of supreme importance of the state in the attainment by individuals of the summum bunum or the supreme good. Politics

Gandhi: Priest and Artist 3

is thus not only a pre-requisite of human survival but of human salvation. But if political activity becomes autotelic, it degenerates into a game of power and passion. It is exactly to save politics from operating at sub-human level for inhuman purposes that the need to subordinate it to metaphysics arises. This explains as well as establishes Gandhi’s uniqueness among the modern political thinkers. The vast Gandhian edifice is erected not on the postulates of scientific materialism or scientific rationalism but on the truths of transcendental reason which he calls ‘still small voice’ and ‘delicate divine music’. ‘God rules’, he proclaimed, ‘my every breath’. For him metaphysics defines as well as refines politics. Celestial city is the model and norm of the earthly city. It is the Supreme Being and the cosmic order on which he expends his chief thought and attention because he believed like Plato that ‘if the first principles are rightly laid down, all the rest will follow’. And it is because he finds modern civilization wholly de-anchored from the first principles that he totally and finally rejects it. Gandhian thinking strives to restore the sovereignty of universal law. He first desired the supreme good and then aspired political, social and economic good as a natural consequence of it. As he once wrote in Harijan, “Man’s ultimate aim is the realization of God and all his activities — social, political, religious have to be guided by the ultimate aim of vision of God.” In this way, he sought to radically alter or rather reverse the civilizational concerns of modern age and modern man. Like Socrates, he sought to practice ‘true art of politics’ which is ever concerned with moral development of all men and women and which is ‘the means to the realization of the highest realizable in life’. Real politic was to him a profane thing, deadly in its devices and effects in terms of human good and fulfilment. He disdained the prostitution of politics in the hands of the power-seekers since power is not the law of human species or the norm of human action. Politics without perennial principles is brutality and a source of dehumanization. When he said that he was trying to introduce religion into politics, he was rendering unto politics its meaning, sanctity and universality. With this insistence on the integrality of politics and ethics, it is no wonder that Gandhi attaches immense importance to means. He does not subscribe to the pragmatist view which regards politics


as a study in expediency. Both Machiavelli and Marx denied the existence of supra-historic moral principles. But for Gandhi perennial principles of morality are the ultimate test of individual or collective action. Since the doctrine ‘end justifies the means’ is a denial of unity and integrity of life and disruptive of ‘holistic balance’, it can never be the guide to action. No end, howsoever high and worthy, overrides the prescription of means recognized as immoral. And if this is so, Satyāgraha is the only means for the resistance of an evil and the redressal of a wrong. It is the universal method of vigilance. It is steadfastness in truth that works wonders at the individual as well as social level. Satyāgraha is the normal and natural way of conducting politics. He once declared, ‘if violence and untruth are necessary for the advancement of my country, let my country go under.’ In fact, Gandhi was only re-echoing the old Latin adage ‘Let justice be done though the world may perish’. Gandhi’s espousal of ‘goodness politics’ made him a devastating critic of state in its present form. If true progress is an exercise in self-discovery, state has not got much to do. According to Gandhi, a normal political order is one where everybody is his ruler. While holding on to ‘the enlightened anarchy’’ as the ultimate ideal, in practice his concept of state is one of minimum state. Since modern state is highly centralized, it is most interfering without being least helpful. His own measures to transform the present state into a Kingdom of God on earth aimed at progressive elimination of all the coercive apparatus of state and establishment of commonwealth of autonomous village republics based on love instead of coercion, service instead of exploitation, renunciation instead of acquisitiveness and on largest measure of local and individual initiative instead of centralization. The noumenalist politics of Mahatma Gandhi cannot go with major ideologies of our times, whether liberalism or Marxian socialism. These partial ideologies are disruptive of holistic balance. Like politics, the criterion of true and sound economics is its moral adequacy, and an economics independent from ethics is dismal science. He once wrote in Young India,“I must confess that I do not draw sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics.


Economics that hurts the moral well-being of an individual or nation is immoral and therefore sinful.” Gandhi opposes industrialism because it sets in motion exploitation and domination at individual and collective levels. Industrialism thrives on self-interest and greed and because of its obsession with ‘progress’ ruthlessly exploits and destroys lower orders of nature. Though he regarded grinding poverty as morally and spiritually degrading, he did not think that material prosperity must necessarily issue in moral progress. He was opposed to both capitalism and socialism as both essentially believed in ‘mammon worship’. His theory of trusteeship was the application of sound ethical principles in restructuring the conflictridden relationship between capital and labour. At a higher level, as Bhikhu Parekh has observed, ‘it is an economic extension of Gandhi’s philosophical concept of man as a trustee of all he has, including his powers, capacities, energy and time.’5 He was, in fact, claiming that a nation that can be evolved on the basis of a religious-cultural unity was distinct from the Western nation-state which had evolved on the basis of secular cultural identity reinforced by industrial-capitalistic economic integration. Though Gandhi does not elaborate explicitly, it is easy to infer that the latter is a comparatively more violent historical process than the former. Secondly, Gandhi claimed the British imperialism, instead of helping the birth of Indian nation, had done the exact reverse. It had intervened disastrously in the process of Indian history by causing a breach in its structure. This was done by creating a gap between the educated, who belonged to a different political culture, and the masses who belonged to the indigenous political culture, sharing its peculiar notion of nationhood. Gandhi’s little masterpiece, the Hind Swarāj, is a corrosive commentary on the borrowed elite culture and a seemingly naive defence of the traditional, indigenous culture of the masses.6 As far as man-society relationship is concerned, Gandhi did not believe in the co-existence of moral man and immoral society. In fact, one of his most important contributions to political thought and action is the idea that ways of moral action and resistance could be transferred from the individual to the collective plane and be used as


powerful forms of political action. Indeed, the technique of satyāgraha (fast, civil-disobedience, dharnā, roughly sit-in and other variants) presuppose the basic idea. Gandhi believed that society could be and should be moral. Gandhi did place man as person in the forefront. But this was only a powerful and realistic way of focussing attention on what may be called the principle of normalcy. A normal society is simply a society. Opposed to it are what have been called mass-society and mass-man and mass, or what is currently called pop-culture. The mass and the society used to be contrary to each other. They have been hyphenated today. A society has an intelligible order and an overall purpose. A mass lacks both. It follows that members of a society have their own place and function in it. Not so in a mass.7 In other words, religion and culture are normally indivisible and where everyone thinks for himself, there is no society (sāhitya) but only an aggregate.8 Gandhi was against ‘mass-society’. He was uncompromisingly opposed to modern industrial technological society and civilisation. He knew what forces, what propensities underlie such a sociocultural system; and unlike most contemporary thinkers and leaders, he remained relentlessly consistent and thoroughgoing in his opposition to these forces. He went to the root of the matter and attacked the very concept of a rising standard of living. He could see most clearly what this really meant, viz., a continually rising standard of consumption even to the point when rapid, built-in obsolescence and wanton destruction become the controlling principles of the economy. In opposition to this economic theory, he boldly set up the theory of aparigraha (non-possession, non-acquisitiveness) and the minimization of wants. At some place he says that what matters is not the possession or non-possession of wealth, but the attitude to it. It was also a spiritual aspect for him. Like Goethe, he was also of the view that things which matter most (for Gandhi, it is the soul) must never be at the mercy of things which matter least. He also seems ready to accept what Oliver Wendell Holmes says — “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.” And, therefore, for Gandhi and David Starr Jordan, both, ‘there is no real excellence in all this world which can


be separated from right living’. The principle of aparigraha reflects the intense religiosity and divine-obedience deeply implicit in Gandhi. Ezra Taft Benson characterizes such phenomenon — “the Lord works from the inside-out. The world works from the outside-in. The world would mould men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behaviour, but Christ can change human nature.” The principle of aparigraha, it is to be noted, is one that emphasizes the present and hence it severely limits the cumulative process and thus undermines a capitalist as well as a state-planned ‘socialist’ production system. Indeed, the ideas of minimal wants and of non-possession presuppose a world outlook that is quite incompatible with the currently accepted ideology for a planned society. It is in this context that Gandhi’s emphasis on the individual person should be understood. From the Gandhian point of view, the modern industrial-technological mass-society is really a collectivity of sub-humans. He echoes with Eliot: Much and more industrialized a country, much and more easily the materialistic philosophy will flourish in it, and much and more deadly that philosophy will be. A country which is detached from its tradition, a civilization which is alienated from its culture is a mob, and mob which is susceptible to mass-suggestions. A mob will not be less than a mob, if it is well fed, well housed, well clothed and well disciplined.9

Gandhi thought steadfastly in terms of a society of men: a society in which there will be no mechanical equality, but at the same time nobody will be forced to live at a sub-human level; a society in which every member will be a full member according to his own place and specific competence. Gandhi’s acceptance of varna-vyavasthā and his attitude towards Harijans (The nomenclature also given by him) may be understood in this light. Contrary to a prevalent interpretation, Gandhi did not believe in the individual as the source of social change. Absolutely believing in God and providential guidance, Gandhi thought that man could only be an instrument of God’s will. He emphasized purity of heart and mind so that one could attain to the highest point of human


creativity and get a correct intimation of the divine will and act effectively according to it. Gandhi believed that a supra-human order was the common ground of both man and society. Given this frame of reference, the antithesis of man and society cannot arise, unless one held, as Gandhi did not, that a social order could not be built on moral and metaphysical principles, like truth and non-violence. In fact, whole social order based on truth and non-violence, and not merely individual truthfulness and non-violence, is the very cornerstone of Gandhian sociology. Indeed, it is Gandhian (or traditional) cosmology on which the Gandhian sociology rests. There are three hierarchically ordered aspects of human life in this cosmology: man’s relationship with nature; man’s relationship with fellowmen; and man’s relationship with the Divine (the Absolute, the transhuman). Man’s relation to the Divine is a pilgrimage to the Absolute. In comparison with the other two, this relationship involves a fundamental incommensurability. In a traditional society and civilization this incommensurability is seen as the central mystery governing all human life. The man-Absolute (God) relationship is thus the paradigm in accordance with which relationships at all other levels (man-nature, man-man) are formed and sustained. In modern society and civilization, this incommensurability is not recognized; hence the man-God relationship is sometimes rejected but most often evaded through simple or elaborate and sophisticated ‘social-scientific’ or ‘linguisticphilosophic’ theories designed to explain this huge world-historical “illusion”.10 Thus, it seems that Gandhi was both an artist as well as a priest. Artist, who is the priest of making and priest who is the artist of doing. As Aristotle says in his Poetics, ‘a great artist has for its subject matter a great way of living’, and, as Wordsworth chants that ‘true poetry comes into existence when philosophy marries with poetry’. Poetry is assumed to be cathartic or purificatory in tradition, so was the Gandhian outlook. A good poet is not merely a good craftsman of words, but an illuminator of the existence, so was Gandhi. And, ‘when God is our teacher’ (as of Gandhi) ‘we think alike’ (Xenophon) and if, consequently, ‘all the first principles are properly laid down


rest of all will follow’ (Plato). Awareness of ontological good is must for political good because ‘small minds and great nations do not yield together’ (Edmund Burke). For Gandhi, Governance is not a matter of procedures and techniques, but a frame of mind. Unfortunately, we are, now, taking wood as tree. The role of Gandhi and his ideas in the Indian freedom movement is greatly important; however, to determine the precise nature of his role and its relation with other factors and forces operating to shape the Indian freedom movement is by no means easy. It requires difficult and careful analysis. However, it must be pointed out here that even though throughout his life Gandhi thought and worked in the context of a relentless struggle against imperialist forces, the question of the contemporary relevance of his thought is not bound by this historical context. In other words, the question of the validity of Gandhism is inseparable from that of its universality. There are two closely related reasons for this. First, Gandhi’s thought and work developed in the context of an encounter between India and the West, tradition and modernity, and his stand was not simply that the Indians should not be forced to accept western civilization through British rule; much more important was his conviction that the modern industrial-technological civilization is not good for man, Eastern or Western. He increasingly made India’s freedom struggle something subsidiary to a struggle and movement for a normal world society. Second, the principle on which he based his political action, as well as those in terms of which he constructed his vision of free India, were universal by their very nature; and Gandhi always made it clear that he did not regard his fundamental ideas as merely matters of policy or suitable strategy in the Indian freedom struggle.11 Gandhi’s Hind Swarāj frames an epistemological challenge to the whole modern world-view. One may differ with the techniques, models and specific qualifications as determined by Gandhi in Hind Swarāj, but, the First Principles will always remain as the same. Gandhi’s Hind Swarāj is preoccupied with an uncompromising critique and rejection of modern western civilization. It is a devastating and uncannily contemporary critique. Most contemporary critiques


and even rejections of the West seek its renewal from within the framework of basic ideas constitutive of the modern age. They do not go beyond the pseudo-metaphysics on which the modern western white civilization is founded. Gandhi’s critique of the modern West is peripheral to his thinking: its real purpose is to prepare the ground for Gandhi’s life-long striving to make it possible, once again, for man to participate in the transcendental centre. In Hind Swarāj, Gandhi is concerned with the destiny of man, not with the prospects of a given civilization. Hence its deeply explosive and subversive nature, hence also its radically positive and constructive stance. Once we grasp this firmly, it will be clear what the right context of Gandhian thinking is, and all efforts to relate it to the quest for an ‘alternative model’ will cease-hopefully once and for all. Gandhi was never concerned with models, futures, scenarios, utopias or phantasies; his concern was with truth to which he demanded absolute commitment and faith.12 The consented subordination of all the natural faculties of the soul to supernatural love is faith. This is what Plato in the Republic calls justice.13 Therefore, for Gandhi, it is a loss of faith which naturally leads to a faith of loss/disintegration/destruction. For Gandhi, ‘whether or not a battle of religion against industrialism and world-trade can ever be won is no question for us to consider, our concern is with the task and not with its reward, our business is to be sure that in any conflict we are on the side of justice.14 Hind Swarāj is also a work of an artist cum priest that was Gandhi. He truly follows the real path of the true artist. As Coomaraswamy observes: It has never been supposed by Oriental artists that the object of art is reproduction of the external forms of nature. Such a conception, in modern Europe, is the natural product of a life divorced from beauty. ... It is for the artist to portray the ideal world of true reality, the world of imagination, and not the phenomenal world perceived by the senses.15

The fundamental and core challenge which was faced and replied by Hind Swarāj was the rational-positivist-secular-scientifictechnological world-view, a product of Renaissance. The modern world came into being in the West during the Renaissance through the replacement of God as the centre of the circle of existence by man


and of theo-centricism by an anthropomorphism which continues to dominate the horizon of modern life despite the appearance of so many infra-human tendencies in recent times. The kingdom of man has replaced the kingdom of God wherever the modern, and its progeny the post-modern, perspective have become dominant. The fall from the traditional vision of man who was always defined vis-a-vis the Divine Principles to the current definition of man by the machine was not an immediate one but took place in stages. With the Renaissance in the West man was declared as being no longer half angel, half terrestrial being, but wholly earthly creature possessing the power of reason and external senses which defined him. This classical humanism which replaced the traditional vision based upon theo-centricism, led to the rapid rationalism that culminated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the aggrandizement of man and his titanic creations in the name of reason and his right to dominance over the world. Having killed the god’s man now seemed to be in complete control of the earth and totally master of his own destiny. By “destroying” the Face of God in their thought, western champions of modernism also destroyed the face of man, turning him into a faceless being now completely readied to be defined from below by the machine and also to be devoured by his own technological inventions. Today, we are living at this critical moment of history when the modern view of man, now spread over all the continents, has created a humanity which has become a danger to global survival. The very activities of modern man, nay his very existence, threatens the web of life on earth. We are acting as if we were the last generation of humanity on earth, participating with feverish pitch in an endless but futile activity which, in the name of alleviating the material life of man, is not only threatening human civilization, but also endangering the whole fabric of life which supports us as living beings here on earth. Modern man is rebellion not merely against this or that existential order but against the very existence. He tries to create a ‘second reality’, as Eric Voegelin says. Contrary to this, the traditional (and Gandhian) vision is based on the theomorphic nature of the human state and on an Autology which


is the very antithesis of secular humanism and the self-deification of man. What is divine in man is not his self but the Self which is the Self of all selves. The Divine Norm defines what constitutes the human state and constitutes our primordial nature which we bear deep within us despite all the vicissitudes of human existence and the gradual fall of man spiritually speaking since the Golden Age. That is why in fact any authentic formulation of the traditional vision of man based on perennial teachings has always the freshness of a spring morning.16 From first to last Gandhi lived, fought and died a martyr to the cause of combating the deadly and satanic possibilities which cannot but be realized when the Regnum is allowed to pursue its own devices. To deny the Sacerdotium and assert the autonomy of human action with all its paradoxes and self-contradictions left unredeemed, is to establish what is now called “power politics”. It is against this that Gandhi sought to proclaim and establish “Goodness Politics”, as Aldous Huxley named it. If he made no compromise with the notion that ‘end justify means’, it was simply because he could clearly see that politics as the realm of human action is beyond all means-ends thinking – an absolutely fundamental point in Gandhian thinking. The antithesis of goodness and power politics, or what is bound to come to the same, that of secular and sacred politics, is a highly misleading one; and, of course, is false if taken to imply the superiority of power to goodness, or of the secular to the sacred. This is plainly the case if our analysis of the concepts of making and doing (acting) – the vita activa – is valid. Gandhi’s life-thought (and here used this hyphenated expression in order to indicate Gandhi’s emphasis on their unity) cannot be understood at all except in a framework that renders such a dichotomy insignificant and, therefore, leads one to see Gandhian thought as the living thought of one who would not under any condition settle for anything less than the very truth of man’s life and destiny. Once this is firmly grasped it would not be difficult to see how inane it is to speak of Gandhi as a revivalist or an archaic visionary who sought to ‘inject’ religion into politics in order to succeed eventually in his own kind of power politics. The simple truth is that all the time Gandhi was trying to restore to politics its proper, traditional and universal dignity and to beckon contemporary


man to repossess his own universal and perennial heritage. It is true that at certain points Gandhi deviates from traditional thought; it can, however, be firmly stated that, seen in its entirety, his life-thought renewed the idea that politics, properly so-called, is a marriage of the Regnum and the Sacerdotium. Indeed, a fundamental aspect of his whole mission has certainly been to bring to contemporary man an active awareness of the satanic possibilities inherent in the divorce of temporal power from spiritual authority.17 Despite some ad-hoc deviations or compromises, Gandhian thinking remains essentially traditional both because his rejection of modernity is total and also more fundamentally, because his central principles are never modified at the theoretical level.18 It is obvious that in the thought of Gandhi, as in all traditional thought within the framework of normal societies, integration of spirituality, religion, and politics is an aspect of the unity of theory and practice, of the concordance between word and deed.19 “Politics”, wrote Gandhi, “like religion, is ever concerned with the happiness of the toiling masses, a means to the realization of the highest realizable in life.”20

Anyone who views Gandhi’s life-thought in its Wholeness would not need to be convinced that he not only ruled out a modern consumption-oriented welfarist or even Benthamite interpretation of the happiness of the toiling masses, but positively upheld the metaphysical meaning of happiness. That is why he interprets Swarāj for India in terms of mastery over self. And when the end is metaphysically determined, means are inseparable from it: in other words, what is suggested in such contexts is the transcendence of the means-ends framework.21 The fundamental epistemology and ontology of modern science is thus incompatible with the metaphysical roots of Gandhian thinking. To hope for a normal civilization to unlearn this whole epistemology and ontology: within modernity only “alternative” civilizations can be “constructed”, all necessarily sharing the basic contradictions of modernity though in greatly varying ways.22


I do not want to foresee the future; I am concerned with taking care of the present. God has given me no control over the moment following.23 It is my firm view that we should keep altogether from powerpolitics and its contagion. ...To set our own house in order is the first indispensable requisite, if we want to influence political power. ...To regard adult suffrage as a means for the capture of political power would be to put it to a corrupt use. ...Today, politics has become corrupt. Anybody who goes into it is contaminated. Let us keep out of it. Our influence will grow thereby. The greater our inner purity, the greater shall be our hold on the people, without any effort on our part.24

For Gandhi the whole aim of human life and hence of politics is not to achieve any given ends, national, international or global. It is to translate the principles of normal human civilized life into practice under given contingent circumstances. The principle of human action and politics which Gandhi, following tradition, supports is dramaturgical or ritualistic; that of modern western civilization is technological, which he denounces and rejects.25 Man’s ultimate aim is the realization of God, and all his activities, social, political, religious; have to be guided by the ultimate aim of the vision of God.26 This is the ultimate universalistic principle underlying in Gandhian thought: I could not be leading a religious life unless I identified myself with the whole of mankind, and this I could not do unless I took part in politics. The whole gamut of man’s activities today constitutes an indivisible whole. You cannot divide social, economic, political and purely religious work into watertight compartments: I do not know of any religion apart from human activity. It provides a moral basis to all the other activities which they would otherwise lack, reducing life to a maze of ‘sound and fury’ signifying nothing.27 Unfortunately, the most important thing to note here is the general narrowness of the western response. Gandhism calls for a radical evolution, for a complete transformation of man’s thinking and way of life, social as well as individual. In a word, it aims at metanoia. But apart from the theoretical interest of certain European


philosophers like Arne Naess, the major western interest in Gandhi, when it is not historical or aesthetic, is predominantly in Gandhian techniques that may be tried for resolving certain problems and tensions of the modern society for which local methods have been proving increasingly inadequate. With Gandhism as a way of life, that is, with a Gandhian socioeconomic system, the West so far has been concerned only rarely. By and large, its interest in Gandhism and non-violent techniques has been experimental in nature and approach. By virtue of its all-embracing scope and radical nature, the Gandhian vision is an alternative to both world-views: the liberal democratic and the Marxian. The one question about Gandhism and our times is, therefore, simply this: can Gandhism work as the new world-view? Is there any possibility of radical change in the orientation and structure of contemporary society? Can we hope for metanoia?28

References 1. B.N. Ray and R.K. Misra: Indian Political Thought: Readings and Reflections, Kaveri Books, New Delhi, 2012, p. 208. 2. V.R. Mehta: Foundations of Indian Political Thought, Manohar, New Delhi, 1999, p. 217. 3. Ramashray Roy: ‘Modern Predicament and Gandhi’ in Ramashray Roy (ed.): Contemporary Crisis and Gandhi, Discovery Publishing House, Delhi, 1986, p. 45. 4. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi and the Concept of Politics: Towards a Normal Civilization’ in Gandhi Marg, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, February, 1980, p. 683. 5. B.N. Ray and R.K. Misra: op. cit., pp. 215-218. 6. K. Raghavendra Rao: ‘Political Philosophy and Transformation of Indian Politics’ in Ramashray Roy (ed.): Contemporary Crisis and Gandhi, op. cit., p. 139. 7. See A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi’s Theory of Society and Our Times’ in Fred Dallmayr and G.N. Devy (ed.): Between Tradition and Modernity – India’s Search for Identity, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1998, pp. 201-208. 8. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in Roger Lipsey (ed.): Coomaraswamy 1: Selected Papers – Traditional Art and Symbolism, Princeton University Press, Princeton (NJ), 1977, p. 249.


9. T.S. Eliot: The Idea of a Christian Society, Faber and Faber, London, 1939, p. 21. 10. A.K.Saran: ‘Gandhi and the Concept of Politics: Towards a Normal Civilization’, op. cit., pp. 685-686. 11. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi’s Theory of Society and Our Times’, op. cit., pp. 209-211. 12. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi and the Concept of Politics: Towards a Normal Civilization’, op. cit., pp. 681-682. 13. Simone Weil: First and Last Notebooks, Oxford University Press, London, 1970, p. 131. 14. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy: What is Civilisation?, Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, New Delhi and Oxford University Press, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, 1989, p. 8. 15. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy: Essays in National Idealism, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1981 (originally published in 1909), pp. 23-24. 16. A.K. Saran: Traditional Vision of Man, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, 1998, pp. xxi-xxiv. 17. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi and the Concept of Politics: Towards a Normal Civilization’, op. cit., pp. 691-692. 18. Ibid.: p. 683. 19. Ibid.: p. 696. 20. Pyare Lal: Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, 2 Vols., Navajeevan Publishing House, Ahmadabad, 1956, Vol. I, p. 195. 21. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi and the Concept of Politics: Towards a Normal Civilization’, op. cit., pp. 696-697. 22. Ibid.: p. 709. 23. M.K. Gandhi: Young India, February 25, 1921, p. 162. 24. See D.G. Tendulakar: Mahatma: Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, 8 Vols., Publication Division, Government of India, New Delhi, 1961, Vol. VIII, p. 230. 25. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi and the Concept of Politics: Towards a Normal Civilization’, op. cit., p. 696. 26. M.K. Gandhi: Harijan, August 29, 1936, p. 226. 27. See D.G. Tendulakar: op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 318-319. 28. A.K. Saran: ‘Gandhi’s Theory of Society and Our Times’, op. cit., p. 214.

Gandhi vs Modi: Toward a Higher Synthesis M.J. Lunine I write in praise of India for once again, in May 2014. showing the world that Democracy is alive and well in India. However, as one whose life was transformed by my first passage to India in 1958, and who believes that India is the human condition and human possibility writ large, I am deeply concerned by the BJP’s ascendancy under Mr. Modi’s leadership. I am concerned that the realization of Gandhi’s moral and practical vision of Hind Swaraj is in greater jeopardy now than ever before. I am concerned that Gandhi’s goal of a decent society – with unity in diversity; with an equitable reciprocity of urban and rural values, goods, services, and respect; with a Constitutional, secular, parliamentary, representative polity; with a unique role and responsibility as a beacon and model for Global Swaraj – is at risk. I respectfully suggest that the effects of India’s 2014 Elections must be faced with unflagging vigilance. In India – and everywhere in this small world – Gandhians and Gandhi universities, institutes, foundations, centres, programs, projects, experiments must not retreat into alternation or isolation. We must engage lovingly and practically in a continuous process of conscientious, creative, and constructive, multifaceted education and ubiquitous political action. India’s Gandhi and Gandhi’s India have given our world and our epoch Three Great Experiments: I. You unified and liberated India from Imperialism by a massmovement of Ahimsa-inspired and infused Satyagraha. Only India’s Gandhi-led, continuing March to Swaraj – of the well over


100 national liberation struggles in recent and present times – engaged the imagination, courage, and sacrifice of the people and demonstrated the Truth of the Moral Identity of Means and Ends. II. You developed a viable secular state with rule of law, checks and balances, universal suffrage, a vital press and public discourse, and an exemplary Constitution. This Constitution promises the protection and promotion of all citizens’ Civil Liberties of conscience, speech, assembly, peaceful protest, due process, and equal protection under the Law. This Indian Constitution, at the same time, promises the protection and the promotion of all citizens’ Human Rights to decent housing, sanitation, and medical care; humanizing jobs; nutritious food; potable water; pure air; sustainable soil; and excellent education for all. This exemplary Constitution reflects and projects an indomitable commitment to a national unity that rests on a harmonious, mutually respectful diversity. III. India’s Third Great Experiment for India, for the World, as visualized by Gandhi, tests the hypothesis that no one is free until everyone is free; that Justice (social-economic-political-cultural) without Justice for All is no Justice at All; that Peace (domestic and international) without Justice is no Peace at All. The challenging fulfillment of the Second Great Experiment and a ceaseless effort at carrying on the Third Great Experiment are India’s tasks, especially for now and into the future. No other country’s condition and direction are more significant and portentous than India’s. Just as India is the human condition and possibility writ large, so is the World India’s problems and possibilities writ large. While I – and indeed much of the world – congratulate India on its electoral process of high participation, low incidence of violence, and conciliatory acceptance of the results by the Congress Party, I can’t help but feel some concern about the consequences of the process: the absolute majority of Lok Sabha seats for the BJP and the ushering in of Prime Minister Modi. Of course, we wish Mr. Modi, his Party, and the Indian people well. We hope the Prime Minister and his Party will expand their vision and enrich their values, as they assume the profound privilege and enormous responsibility of governing India justly and inclusively.

Gandhi vs Modi: Toward a Higher Synthesis 19

But one wonders about Mr. Modi’s Gujarat Model of Top-down Industrial Development and of ever-greater Urban Development. One is concerned by the possibility of the erosion of the citizenship rights of all Indians, if not from the duly-elected Prime Minister, then from advocates and acolytes of a Hindutva that might move into the Corridors Of Power with the BJP. To my Gandhi Colleagues, Teachers, Students: what I – in my 86th year, which of course is virtually nothing in terms of Hindu and Jain cosmogony – respectfully urge is that now, more than ever, the Gandhi Mood and Movement must enter into an interactive, dialogical, practical, working relationship with India’s new political culture and structure. Now is not the time to opt out. What’s at stake is not only moral Urban Development but also equitable Rural Advancement; not only more accessible Urban Education but also equally supported Rural Education; not only centralized Industrial and Urban Development but also decentralized Agricultural and Village Development. I write this as an optimistic votary of India, which is to say as an optimistic votary of Humanity. I wish each of us and our families [“The whole world is my family,” said Gandhi] good health, hard work, and personal and national and global Swaraj.

Gandhi: Life, Works and Legacy Rachana Srivastava and Tanushree Srivastava Mahatma Gandhi is an international icon whose precepts and teachings will continue to inspire the mankind for posterity. He is the apostle of peace and truth and as his thought and practices will serve as the conscience keeper for the global community which is challenged by many evils and subversive ideologies which threaten world peace and security. His life and works promote sustainable development and growth for successive generations and his relevance has assumed greater significance in this age tormented by terrorism and sectarian conflicts.

It is imperative to revisit life and times of Mahatma Gandhi and his achievements in order to have a comprehensive understanding and importance of his legacy in today’s world.

Mahatma Gandhi Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869–30 January 1948) was the pre-eminent leader of the Indian independence movement in British-ruled India. Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Mahatma (venerable) applied to him first in 1914 in South Africa is now used worldwide. He is also called Bapu (father) in India. In common parlance in Bharat (India) he is often called Gandhiji. Born and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat, western India, and trained in law at the Inner Temple, London, Gandhi first employed nonviolent civil disobedience as an expatriate lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community’s

Gandhi: Life, Works and Legacy 21

struggle for civil rights. After his return to India in 1915, he set about organising peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, expanding women’s rights, building religious and ethnic amity, ending un-touchability, but above all for achieving Swaraj or self-rule. Gandhi famously led Indians in challenging the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (250 miles) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British to Quit India in 1942. Gandhi attempted to practise nonviolence and truth in all situations, and advocated that others do the same. He lived modestly in a self-sufficient residential community and wore the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl, woven with yarn hand-spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian food, and also undertook long fasts as a means of both self-purification and social protest. Gandhi’s vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism, however, was challenged in the early 1940s by a new Muslim nationalism which was demanding a separate Muslim homeland carved out of India. Eventually, in August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan. As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Eschewing the official celebration of independence in Delhi, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to provide solace. In the months following, he undertook several fasts unto death to promote religious harmony. Some Indians thought Gandhi was too accommodating. Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist, assassinated Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by firing three bullets into his chest at point-blank range. Indians widely describe Gandhi as the father of the nation. The title “The Father of the Nation” for Gandhi is not an official title and has not been officially accorded by Government of India. Origin of this title is traced back to a radio address (on Singapore radio) on 6 Jul 1944 by Subhash Chandra Bose where Bose addressed Gandhi as


“The Father of the Nation”. His birthday, 2 October, is commemorated as Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday, and world-wide as the International Day of Nonviolence.

Early Life and Background Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on 2 October 1869 to a Hindu Modh Baniya family in Porbandar, a coastal town on the Kathiawar Peninsula and then part of the small princely state of Porbandar in the Kathiawar Agency of the Indian Empire. The Gandhi family originated from the village of Kutiana in what was then Junagadh State. Successive generations of the family served as civil servants in the state administration before Uttamchand, Mohandas’s grandfather, became diwan in the early 19th century under the then Rana of Porbandar, Khimojiraji. In 1847, Rana Vikmatji appointed Uttamchand’s son, Karamchand, as diwan. Karamchand married four times. In 1857, he married Putlibai who also came from Junagadh. On 2 October 1869, Putlibai gave birth to her last child, Mohandas. As a child, the Indian classics, especially the stories of Shravana and king Harishchandra, had a great impact on Gandhi in his childhood. Gandhi’s early self-identification with truth and love as supreme values is traceable to these epic characters. The family’s religious background was eclectic. Gandhi’s father was Hindu and his mother was from a Pranami Vaishnava family. Religious figures were frequent visitors to the home.Gandhi was deeply influenced by his mother Putlibai, an extremely pious lady. Gandhi shone neither in the classroom nor on the playing field. One of the terminal reports rated him as “good at English, fair in Arithmetic and weak in Geography; conduct very good, bad handwriting”. In May 1883, the 13-year-old Mohandas was married to 14-year-old Kasturbai Makhanji Kapadia (her first name was usually shortened to “Kasturba”, and affectionately to “Ba”.


English Barrister In London, Gandhi studied law and jurisprudence and enrolled at the Inner Temple with the intention of becoming a barrister. His time in London was influenced by the vow he had made to his mother. Gandhi tried to adopt “English” customs, including taking dancing lessons. Influenced by Henry Salt’s writing, he joined the Vegetarian Society, was elected to its executive committee, Some of the vegetarians he met were members of the Theosophical Society, which had been founded in 1875 to further universal brotherhood, and which was devoted to the study of Buddhist and Hindu literature. They encouraged Gandhi to join them in reading the Bhagavad Gita both in translation as well as in the original. Gandhi was called to the bar in June 1891 and then left London for India. His attempts at establishing a law practice in Bombay failed because he was psychologically unable to cross-question witnesses. He returned to Rajkot to make a modest living drafting petitions for litigants, but he was forced to stop when he ran foul of a British officer. In 1893, he accepted a year-long contract from Dada Abdulla & Co., an Indian firm, to a post in the Colony of Natal, South Africa, a part of the British Empire.

Civil Rights Activist in South Africa (1893-1914) Gandhi was 24 when he arrived in South Africa to work as a legal representative for the Muslim Indian Traders based in the city of Pretoria. He spent 21 years in South Africa, where he developed his political views, ethics and political leadership skills. Indians in South Africa included wealthy Muslims, who employed Gandhi as a lawyer, and impoverished Hindu indentured labourers with very limited rights. Gandhi considered them all to be Indians, taking a lifetime view that “Indianness” transcended religion and caste. He believed he could bridge historic differences, especially regarding religion, and he took that belief back to India where he tried to implement it. In South Africa, Gandhi faced the discrimination directed at all coloured people. He was thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg


after refusing to move from the first-class. He protested and was allowed on first class the next day. These events were a turning point in Gandhi’s life and shaped his social activism and awakened him to social injustice. After witnessing racism, prejudice, and injustice against Indians in South Africa, Gandhi began to question his place in society and his people’s standing in the British Empire. Gandhi extended his original period of stay in South Africa to assist Indians in opposing a bill to deny them the right to vote. He asked Joseph Chamberlain, the British Colonial Secretary, to reconsider his position on this bill. Though unable to halt the bill’s passage, his campaign was successful in drawing attention to the grievances of Indians in South Africa. He helped found the Natal Indian Congress in 1894 and through this organisation, he moulded the Indian community of South Africa into a unified political force. In 1906, the Transvaal government promulgated a new Act compelling registration of the colony’s Indian and Chinese populations. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on 11 September that year, Gandhi adopted his still evolving methodology of Satyagraha (devotion to the truth), or nonviolent protest, for the first time. He urged Indians to defy the new law and to suffer the punishments for doing so. The community adopted this plan, and during the ensuing seven-year struggle, thousands of Indians were jailed, flogged, or shot for striking, refusing to register, for burning their registration cards or engaging in other forms of nonviolent resistance. The public outcry over the harsh treatment of peaceful Indian protesters by the South African government forced South African leader Jan Christian Smuts, himself a philosopher, to negotiate a compromise with Gandhi. Gandhi’s ideas took shape, and the concept of Satyagraha matured during this struggle.

Struggle for Indian Independence (1915–47) At the request of Gokhale, conveyed to him by C.F. Andrews, Gandhi returned to India in 1915. He brought an international reputation as a leading Indian nationalist, theorist and organiser. He joined the Indian National Congress and was introduced to Indian issues, politics and the Indian people primarily by Gopal Krishna Gokhale.


Gokhale was a key leader of the Congress Party best known for his restraint and moderation, and his insistence on working inside the system. Gandhi took leadership of the Congress in 1920 and began escalating demands until on 26 January 1930 the Indian National Congress declared the independence of India. The British did not recognise the declaration but negotiations ensued, with the Congress taking a role in provincial government in the late 1930s. Gandhi and the Congress withdrew their support of the Raj when the Viceroy declared war on Germany in September 1939 without consultation. Tensions escalated until Gandhi demanded immediate independence in 1942 and the British responded by imprisoning him and tens of thousands of Congress leaders. Meanwhile, the Muslim League did co-operate with Britain and moved, against Gandhi’s strong opposition, to demands for a totally separate Muslim state of Pakistan. In August 1947 the British partitioned the land with India and Pakistan each achieving independence on terms that Gandhi disapproved.

Champaran and Kheda Gandhi’s first major achievements came in 1918 with the Champaran and Kheda agitations of Bihar and Gujarat. The Champaran agitation pitted the local peasantry against their largely British landlords who were backed by the local administration. The peasantry was forced to grow Indigo, a cash crop whose demand had been declining over two decades, and were forced to sell their crops to the planters at a fixed price. Unhappy with this, the peasantry appealed to Gandhi at his ashram in Ahmedabad. Pursuing a strategy of nonviolent protest, Gandhi took the administration by surprise and won concessions from the authorities. In 1918, Kheda was hit by floods and famine and the peasantry was demanding relief from taxes. Gandhi moved his headquarters to Nadiad, organising scores of supporters and fresh volunteers from the region, the most notable being Vallabhbhai Patel. Using non-cooperation as a technique, Gandhi initiated a signature campaign where peasants pledged non-payment of revenue even under the threat


of confiscation of land. A social boycott of mamlatdars and talatdars (revenue officials within the district) accompanied the agitation. Gandhi worked hard to win public support for the agitation across the country. For five months, the administration refused but finally in end-May 1918, the Government gave way on important provisions and relaxed the conditions of payment of revenue tax until the famine ended. In Kheda, Vallabhbhai Patel represented the farmers in negotiations with the British, who suspended revenue collection and released all the prisoners.

Khilafat Movement In 1919, Gandhi, with his weak position in Congress, decided to broaden his political base by increasing his appeal to Muslims. The opportunity came in the form of the Khilafat movement, a worldwide protest by Muslims against the collapsing status of the Caliph, the leader of their religion. The Ottoman Empire had lost the First World War and was dismembered, as Muslims feared for the safety of the holy places and the prestige of their religion. Although Gandhi did not originate the All-India Muslim Conference, which directed the movement in India, he soon became its most prominent spokesman and attracted a strong base of Muslim support. Non-cooperation In his famous book Hind Swaraj (1909) Gandhi declared that British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and had survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refused to co-operate, British rule would collapse and swaraj would come. With Congress now behind him in 1920, Gandhi had the base to employ non-cooperation, nonviolence and peaceful resistance as his “weapons” in the struggle against the British Raj. His wide popularity among both Hindus and Muslims made his leadership possible; he even convinced the extreme faction of Muslims to support peaceful non-cooperation. The spark that ignited a national protest was overwhelming anger at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (or Amritsar massacre) of hundreds of peaceful civilians by British troops in Punjab.


After the massacre and subsequent violence, Gandhi began to focus on winning complete self-government and control of all Indian government institutions, maturing soon into Swaraj or complete individual, spiritual, political independence. In December 1921, Gandhi was invested with executive authority on behalf of the Indian National Congress. Under his leadership, the Congress was reorganised with a new constitution, with the goal of Swaraj. Membership in the party was opened to anyone prepared to pay a token fee. A hierarchy of committees was set up to improve discipline, transforming the party from an elite organisation to one of mass national appeal. Gandhi expanded his nonviolence platform to include the swadeshi policy – the boycott of foreign-made goods, especially British goods. Linked to this was his advocacy that khadi (homespun cloth) be worn by all Indians instead of British-made textiles. Gandhi exhorted Indian men and women, rich or poor, to spend time each day spinning khadi in support of the independence movement. In addition to boycotting British products, Gandhi urged the people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, to resign from government employment, and to forsake British titles and honours. “Non-cooperation” enjoyed widespread appeal and success, increasing excitement and participation from all strata of Indian society. Yet, just as the movement reached its apex, it ended abruptly as a result of a violent clash in the town of Chauri Chaura, Uttar Pradesh, in February 1922. Fearing that the movement was about to take a turn towards violence, and convinced that this would be the undoing of all his work, Gandhi called off the campaign of mass civil disobedience. This was the third time that Gandhi had called off a major campaign. In 1924, Gandhi was persuaded to preside over the Congress session to be held in Belgaum. Gandhi agreed to become president of the session on one condition: that Congressmen should take to wearing homespun khadi. In his long political career, this was the only time when he presided over a Congress session.


Salt Satyagraha (Salt March) Gandhi stayed out of active politics and, as such, the limelight for most of the 1920s. He focused instead on resolving the wedge between the Swaraj Party and the Indian National Congress, and expanding initiatives against un-touchability, alcoholism, ignorance, and poverty. He returned to the fore in 1928. In the preceding year, the British government had appointed a new constitutional reform commission under Sir John Simon, which did not include any Indian as its member. The result was a boycott of the commission by Indian political parties. Gandhi pushed through a resolution at the Calcutta Congress in December 1928 calling on the British government to grant India dominion status or face a new campaign of non-cooperation with complete independence for the country as its goal. Gandhi had not only moderated the views of younger men like Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru, who sought a demand for immediate independence, but also reduced his own call to a one-year wait, instead of two. The British did not respond. On 31 December 1929, the flag of India was unfurled in Lahore. 26 January 1930 was celebrated as India’s Independence Day by the Indian National Congress meeting in Lahore. This day was commemorated by almost every other Indian organisation. Gandhi then launched a new Satyagraha against the tax on salt in March 1930. This was highlighted by the famous Salt March to Dandi from 12 March to 6 April, where he marched 388 kilometers (241 miles) from Ahmedabad to Dandi, Gujarat to make salt himself. Thousands of Indians joined him on this march to the sea. This campaign was one of his most successful at upsetting British hold on India; Britain responded by imprisoning over 60,000 people.

Women Gandhi strongly favoured the emancipation of women, and he went so far as to say that “the women have come to look upon me as one of themselves.” He opposed purdah, child marriage, un-touchability, and the extreme oppression of Hindu widows, up to and including sati. He especially recruited women to participate in the salt tax campaigns and the boycott of foreign products.


Negotiations The government, represented by Lord Edward Irwin, decided to negotiate with Gandhi. The Gandhi–Irwin Pact was signed in March 1931. The British Government agreed to free all political prisoners, in return for the suspension of the civil disobedience movement. Also as a result of the pact, Gandhi was invited to attend the Round Table Conference in London as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress. The conference was a disappointment to Gandhi and the nationalists, because it focused on the Indian princes and Indian minorities rather than on a transfer of power. Lord Irwin’s successor, Lord Willingdon, taking a hard line against nationalism, began a new campaign of controlling and subduing the nationalist movement. Gandhi was again arrested, and the government tried and failed to negate his influence by completely isolating him from his followers. Untouchables In 1932, through the campaigning of the Dalit leader B.R. Ambedkar, the government granted untouchables separate electorates under the new constitution, known as the Communal Award. In protest, Gandhi embarked on a six-day fast on 20 September 1932, while he was imprisoned at the Yerwada Jail, Pune. The resulting public outcry successfully forced the government to adopt an equitable arrangement (Poona Pact). On 8 May 1933, Gandhi began a 21-day fast of self-purification and launched a one-year campaign to help the Harijan movement.

Congress Politics In 1934 Gandhi resigned from Congress party membership. He did not disagree with the party’s position but felt that if he resigned, his popularity with Indians would cease to stifle the party’s membership, which actually varied, including communists, socialists, trade unionists, students, religious conservatives, and those with pro-business convictions, and that these various voices would get a chance to make themselves heard. Gandhi also wanted to avoid being a target for Raj propaganda by leading a party that had temporarily accepted political accommodation with the Raj.[118]


Gandhi returned to active politics again in 1936, with the Nehru presidency and the Lucknow session of the Congress. Although Gandhi wanted a total focus on the task of winning independence and not speculation about India’s future, he did not restrain the Congress from adopting socialism as its goal.

World War II and Quit India Gandhi initially favoured offering “nonviolent moral support” to the British effort when World War II broke out in 1939, but the Congressional leaders were offended by the unilateral inclusion of India in the war without consultation of the people’s representatives. All Congressmen resigned from office. After long deliberations, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi intensified his demand for independence, calling for the British to Quit India in a speech at Gowalia Tank Maidan. This was Gandhi’s and the Congress Party’s most definitive revolt aimed at securing the British exit from India.[124] Gandhi was criticised by some Congress party members and other Indian political groups, both pro-British and anti-British. Some felt that not supporting Britain more in its struggle against Nazi Germany was unethical. Quit India became the most forceful movement in the history of the struggle, with mass arrests and violence on an unprecedented scale. In 1942, although still committed in his efforts to “launch a nonviolent movement”, Gandhi clarified that the movement would not be stopped by individual acts of violence, saying that the “ordered anarchy” of “the present system of administration” was “worse than real anarchy. He called on all Congressmen and Indians to maintain discipline via ahimsa, and Karo ya maro (“Do or die”) in the cause of ultimate freedom. Gandhi and the entire Congress Working Committee were arrested in Bombay by the British on 9 August 1942. Gandhi was held for two years in the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. He came out of detention to an altered political scene – the Muslim League for example, which a few years earlier had appeared marginal, “now occupied the centre of


the political stage” and the topic of Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s campaign for Pakistan was a major talking point.

Partition and Independence, 1947 As a rule, Gandhi was opposed to the concept of partition as it contradicted his vision of religious unity. Concerning the partition of India to create Pakistan, while the Indian National Congress and Gandhi called for the British to quit India, the Muslim League passed a resolution for them to divide and quit, in 1943. Gandhi suggested an agreement which required the Congress and Muslim League to co-operate and attain independence under a provisional government, thereafter, the question of partition could be resolved by a plebiscite in the districts with a Muslim majority. When Jinnah called for Direct Action, on 16 August 1946, Gandhi was infuriated and personally visited the most riot-prone areas to stop the massacres.

Assassination Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was assassinated in the garden of the former Birla House (now Gandhi Smriti) at 5:17 pm on 30 January 1948 Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru addressed the nation through radio: “Friends and comrades, the light has gone out of our lives, and there is darkness everywhere, and I do not quite know what to tell you or how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we called him, the father of the nation, is no more. Perhaps I am wrong to say that; nevertheless, we will not see him again, as we have seen him for these many years, we will not run to him for advice or seek solace from him, and that is a terrible blow, not only for me, but for millions and millions in this country.”

Principles, Practices and Beliefs Gandhism designates the ideas and principles Gandhi promoted. Of central importance is nonviolent resistance. A Gandhian can mean either an individual who follows, or a specific philosophy which is attributed to, Gandhism. M.M. Sankhdher argues that Gandhism is


not a systematic position in metaphysics or in political philosophy. Rather, it is a political creed, an economic doctrine, a religious outlook, a moral precept, and especially, a humanitarian world view. It is an effort not to systematise wisdom but to transform society and is based on an undying faith in the goodness of human nature. However Gandhi himself did not approve of the notion of “Gandhism”, as he explained in 1936: There is no such thing as “Gandhism”, and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems. ...The opinions I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived at are not final. I may change them tomorrow. I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills.[158]

Truth and Satyagraha Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Bruce Watson argues that Gandhi based Satyagraha on the Vedantic ideal of self-realization, and notes it also contains Jain and Buddhist notions of nonviolence, vegetarianism, the avoidance of killing. Gandhi also borrowed Christian-Islamic ideas of equality, the brotherhood of man, and the concept of turning the other cheek.

Nonviolence Although Gandhi was not the originator of the principle of nonviolence, he was the first to apply it in the political field on a large scale. The concept of nonviolence (ahimsa) and nonresistance has a long history in Indian religious thought. Gandhi’s views came under heavy criticism in Britain when it was under attack from Nazi Germany, and later when the Holocaust was revealed. He told the British people in 1940, “I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they


want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”George Orwell remarked that Gandhi’s methods confronted ‘an old-fashioned and rather shaky despotism which treated him in a fairly chivalrous way’, not a totalitarian Power, ‘where political opponents simply disappear.’ In a post-war interview in 1946, he said, “Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.” Gandhi believed this act of “collective suicide”, in response to the Holocaust, “would have been heroism”.

Fasting Gandhi used fasting as a political device, often threatening suicide unless demands were met. Congress publicized the fasts as a political action that generated widespread sympathy. In response the government tried to manipulate news coverage to minimise his challenge to the Raj. He fasted in 1932 to protest the voting scheme for separate political representation for Dalits; Gandhi did not want them segregated. Alter argues that Gandhi’s fixation on diet and celibacy were much deeper than exercises in self-discipline. Rather, his beliefs regarding health offered a critique of both the traditional Hindu system of ayurvedic medicine and Western concepts. This challenge was integral to his deeper challenge to tradition and modernity, as health and nonviolence became part of the same ethics.

Brahmacharya, Celibacy In 1906 Gandhi, although married and a father, vowed to abstain from sexual relations. His “half naked” costume had long been the topic of ridicule in Britain and America. Some members of his staff resigned, including two editors of his newspaper who left after refusing to print


parts of Gandhi’s sermons dealing with his sleeping arrangements. But Gandhi said that if he wouldn’t let Manu sleep with him, it would be a sign of weakness.

Nai Talim, Basic Education Gandhi’s educational policies reflected Nai Talim (‘Basic Education for all’), a spiritual principle which states that knowledge and work are not separate. It was a reaction against the British educational system and colonialism in general, which had the negative effect of making Indian children alienated and career-based; it promoted disdain for manual work, the development of a new elite class, and the increasing problems of industrialisation and urbanisation. The three pillars of Gandhi’s pedagogy were its focus on the lifelong character of education, its social character and its form as a holistic process. For Gandhi, education is ‘the moral development of the person’, a process that is by definition ‘lifelong’. Swaraj, Self-rule Gandhi was a self-described philosophical anarchist, and his vision of India meant an India without an underlying government. He once said that “the ideally nonviolent state would be an ordered anarchy. While political systems are largely hierarchical, with each layer of authority from the individual to the central government have increasing levels of authority over the layer below, Gandhi believed that society should be the exact opposite, where nothing is done without the consent of anyone, down to the individual. His idea was that true self-rule in a country means that every person rules his or herself and that there is no state which enforces laws upon the people. An independent India did not mean merely transferring the established British administrative structure into Indian hands. He warned, “You would make India English. And when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englishtan. This is not the Swaraj I want.”

Gandhian Economics A free India for Gandhi meant the flourishing of thousands of selfsufficient small communities who rule themselves without hindering


others. Gandhian economics focused on the need for economic self-sufficiency at the village level. His policy of “sarvodaya” called for ending poverty through improved agriculture and small-scale cottage industries in every village. Gandhi challenged Nehru and the modernizers in the late 1930s who called for rapid industrialisation on the Soviet model; Gandhi denounced that as dehumanising and contrary to the needs of the villages where the great majority of the people lived.

Literary Gandhi was a prolific writer. One of Gandhi’s earliest publications, Hind Swaraj, published in Gujarati in 1909, is recognized as the intellectual blueprint of India’s independence movement. The book was translated into English the next year, with a copyright legend that read “No Rights Reserved”. For decades he edited several newspapers including Harijan in Gujarati, in Hindi and in the English language; Indian Opinion while in South Africa and, Young India, in English, and Navajivan, a Gujarati monthly, on his return to India. Later, Navajivan was also published in Hindi. In addition, he wrote letters almost every day to individuals and newspapers. Gandhi also wrote several books including his autobiography; The Story of My Experiments with Truth of which he bought the entire first edition to make sure it was reprinted. Gandhi’s complete works were published by the Indian government under the name The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi in the 1960s. The writings comprise about 50,000 pages published in about a hundred volumes. In 2000, a revised edition of the complete works sparked a controversy, as it contained a large number of errors and omissions. The Indian government later withdrew the revised edition. Gandhi influenced important leaders and political movements. Leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, including Martin Luther King, James Lawson, and James Bevel, drew from the writings of Gandhi in the development of their own theories about nonviolence. King said “Christ gave us the goals and Mahatma Gandhi the tactics. Anti-apartheid activist and former President


of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was inspired by Gandhi. Others include Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan,Steve Biko, and Aung San Suu Kyi. In his early years, the former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela was a follower of the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi. Gandhi’s life and teachings inspired many who specifically referred to Gandhi as their mentor or who dedicated their lives to spreading Gandhi’s ideas. In Europe, Romain Rolland was the first to discuss Gandhi in his 1924 book Mahatma Gandhi, and Brazilian anarchist and feminist Maria Lacerda de Moura wrote about Gandhi in her work on pacifism. In 1931, notable European physicist Einstein exchanged written letters with Gandhi, and called him “a role model for the generations to come” in a letter writing about him. Einstein said of Gandhi: “Mahatma Gandhi’s life achievement stands unique in political history. He has invented a completely new and humane means for the liberation war of an oppressed country, and practiced it with greatest energy and devotion. The moral influence he had on the consciously thinking human being of the entire civilized world will probably be much more lasting than it seems in our time with its overestimation of brutal violent forces. Because lasting will only be the work of such statesmen who wake up and strengthen the moral power of their people through their example and educational works. We may all be happy and grateful that destiny gifted us with such an enlightened contemporary, a role model for the generations to come. Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.” US President Barack Obama in a 2010 address to the Parliament of India said that: “I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as President of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared with America and the world.” Time magazine named Gandhi the Man of the Year in 1930. Gandhi was also the runner-up to Albert Einstein as “Person of the Century” at the end of 1999. The Government of India awarded the


annual Gandhi Peace Prize to distinguished social workers, world leaders and citizens. Nelson Mandela, the leader of South Africa’s struggle to eradicate racial discrimination and segregation, was a prominent non-Indian recipient. In 2011, Time magazine named Gandhi as one of the top 25 political icons of all time. Gandhi did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize, although he was nominated five times between 1937 and 1948. Decades later, the Nobel Committee publicly declared its regret for the omission, and admitted to deeply divided nationalistic opinion denying the award. Mahatma Gandhi and his teachings covered every aspect of Indian society from women empowerment and emancipation to education to system of governance to un-touchability to secularism to economics. The framers of the Indian Constitution enshrined the cherished ideals and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi under Directive Principles of State Policy and various other articles of the constitution. The present Indian Government has also taken a leaf out of the ideas and vision of Mahatma Gandhi by launching its flagship Swachh Bharat Campaign to pay true tributes to Gandhiji on the occasion of his 150th Birth Anniversary. Needless to say Gandhiji and his teachings will always serve as a beacon light for global civilization to rise up to numerous challenges thrown by the contemporary world and it is for the global leaders and statesmen and common public to practice teachings of Gandhiji in their thoughts and deeds in order o make our collective global existence peaceful and prosperous and full of harmony and mutual goodwill and trust. The immortal presence of Gandhiji and his ideas among us is perhaps is his greatest legacy bequeathed by him.

References L. M. Singhvi, M. R. Rai and Ramakrishnan (Ed.) ‘ Nani Palkiwala-selected works Viking, Bhawan‘s Book University, New Delhi. Brecht, A.,-Political Theory- The Foundation of Twentieth Century Political Thought, (Princeton University Press, 1959). Narayan, J.P., - A plea for reconstruction of Indian Politics. Contemporary Philosophy of Indian Philosophical Congress (Srinagar, 1957) Kunzru, H. N., — Spiritualise Politics, Mahatma Gandhi -100 years.


Malik, B. K.,- Gandhi-A Prophecy (Bombay, Hind Kitabs Ltd., 1948 Radhakrishnan, S. (ed.)-Mahatma Gandhi, Essays and Reflections. John Ruskin,- Unto This Last(1860), Munora Pulveris.(1826) V.P. Varma- Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and Sarovdaya. Ibid, page-110 as quoted from Harijan, September 7, 1947. M. K. Gandhi, - Young India, March17, 1927(My ideal is equal distribution). Tendulkar, DG, Mahatma, Vol.II. Prabhu,R.K., and Rao, UR,-The Mind of Mahatma, Oxford University Press. The Mind of Mahatma. J. Pandey (ed.) - Gandhi and 21 Century, Gandhi‘s Views on Value M. K. Gandhi-Harijan, 9.9.1937.

Sustainable Development: Gandhian Perspective Manjula Upadhyay and Shailja Mishra Development is an important topic to talk upon. From political parties in the national scenario to states in the international scenario, everyone is talking of development. In national politics where it is used as an agenda to win elections, it is used in international affairs by the states to fulfil their national interest in the name of development of Third World countries. Development is a universal process. But the means, methods or theories of development cannot be universalised. Different countries adopt different means of development and only Western point of view cannot be applied to each and every country’s culture or history has to be kept in mind while formulating a model of development. The Western model of development has proved to be inefficient. It has failed to solve the crises of poverty, unemployment, hunger, etc from which humanity is suffering. It has also widened the gap between the have and have not. Further this model has proved to be disastrous for the survival of life on earth by creating the present environmental crisis. It has degraded the point of view of the people and given rise to instrumentalist mentality. Now we look at everything as a potential resource. Our relation with nature as well as with other human beings has been commercialised. Earlier we considered nature as our mother but now we think of it only in terms of resources, to be exploited. Earlier we talked of development but now our focus has shifted from it and now we are concentrating on Sustainable Development. From Burtnland to Paris conference (2015) we have been discussing this issue but no major progress has been made. The goal of sustainable development seems to be unachievable because we are still using the Western model of development. The Western model of development, based on materialist philosophy has been responsible for creating this crisis. The cause of crisis cannot be


applied for solving it. It will further deteriorate the situation and the same is happening. The materialist philosophy has been universalised by West and as such attempts have been made to universalise their criteria and model of development. Now since this model has proved to be ineffective so we should try to replace it and bring such an idea of development that is not only inclusive but also capable of solving the present environmental crisis and achieving the goal of sustainable development. Our problem is that till now we have been focussing only on superficial causes and problems, however, attempts should be made to solve the problem at its very root. Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see outside.” Ultimately, we are responsible for every problem. So the initiative to change the situation must begin within us.

Gandhian Philosophy as an Alternative to Materialism As discussed above, the ideology of materialism has been responsible for degrading the point of view of the people and also for the present environmental crisis by promoting over exploitation of natural resources. Gandhiji is still remembered with respect because he neglected material wealth and possessed moral wealth. Human being without soul would be worst than an animal and this is exhibited in the heinous crimes taking place in the present society. Material progress should not be an end itself it should be means to real development means to real development. Unbridled pursuit of material advancement at the cost of moral advancement would destroy humanity. The Gandhian philosophy can be an effective solution to all the problems of mankind whether social, political, economic or environmental. The spirituality and morality of which he talks about is capable enough to solve our problems. It works at the very root of our problems and the roots of exploitation are present within us. He believed that the good of an individual is the n the good of all. The concept of Sarvodaya aims at the development of all. It is an ideal which should be the goal of every society. Gandhiji laid stress on the all round development of individual. He was of the firm opinion that the ideal of Sarvodaya is superior to the ideal of the utilitarian theory defended by the British utilitarians. Gandhiji was very religious and thus he also focussed on spiritual development of

Sustainable Development: Gandhian Perspective 41

the people. Bodily and material needs are important and they should be taken care of but not at the cost of spiritual development. Man is essentially something beyond the confines of body and mind. Something that dwells in him as a spark of the Divine, acting as an essential link between him and the Infinite. That something is Aatman or Spirit. The process of should be inclusive. A great yogi named Paramhansa Yogananda said, “Possession of material riches without inner peace is like dying of thirst while bathing in a lake.” If there will be no peace inside then it cannot be found as well. He believed that the moral and material progress do not go together. Here by material progress is meant the material advancement without limitations. Moral progress means the awakening and onward march of the divine element in the man. The material progress without limits leads definitely to moral decline. Moral progress, not material progress, leads to real happiness. Gandhiji was opposed to Western economic assumption that man is and should be guided by the material advancement without limit. The Western people are aiming at never ending material prosperity and physical happiness and do not mind if the laws of morality are violated in their pursuit. Such an attitude is responsible for the degradation of society as well. The problems of society which we categorise as economic, political, environmental, social etc are actually moral problems and degradation of morals is the root cause behind it. The Gandhian philosophy aims at strengthening the morals of the individuals. He advocated that the standards that are considered good civilized and moral should be observed in all departments of life Principles of truth, non violence and purity of means should be observed in all aspects of life. The economics which hurts the moral well being of an individual or a nation is immoral therefore sinful. Thus adoption of Gandhian philosophy as a way of life will surely lead towards the achievement of goal of sustainable development.

Mahatma Gandhi’s Idea of Development A free India for Gandhiji meant the flourishing of thousands of self sufficient small communities who rule themselves without hindering others. Ganhiji advocated for holistic (economical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual) and non-exploitative, i.e. sustainable


approach. This can be achieved in “self-sufficient village republics”. Gandhian economics focussed on the need for economic self sufficiency at the village level. Gandhian approach to development is human centric not GDP centric. It lays down six principles: Antodaya, the development of the last (poorest) man; Sarvodaya, development of all, nature included; Swadeshi self reliance, Gram swaraj development from below with cohesive local community as the base;Trusteeship,meaning all should be paid the same wages no matter what work they do; and those who earn more than what they need to meet their necessities devote the extra earnings for nation building, social welfare and community development and Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam, i.e. globalization of not only economy but also the humanity as one unit. His policy of “Sarvodaya” called for ending poverty through improved agriculture and small scale cottage industry in every village. Gandhiji was fully aware of the exploitative and devastating impacts of modern economy on small scale village industries. He revealed this fact in 1946 at a worker’s meeting as he said: “When the British first established themselves firmly in India their idea was to build cities where all rich people would gravitate and help them in exploiting the countryside. These cities were made partially beautiful. Services of all kinds were made available to their inhabitants while the millions of villagers were left behind rotting in helpless ignorance and misery.” Gandhiji strongly supported village life in Young India on 7 November 1929 as he said: “We are inheritors of a rural civilization. The vastness of our country, the vastness of the population, the situation and climate of the country has in my opinion; destined it for a rural civilization.” (Gandhi, 1929) His economic philosophy is that of inclusiveness that calls for elimination of poverty, unemployment and urban-rural inequalities through socio-economic development. (Dodh Pankaj, 2012) His vital thrust remained to invent and diffuse village based employment oriented technology and synthesize the utilization of modern technology in a way that it could insure greater productivity and employment in the rural India.(Bhatt, 1902) According to him, “Poverty is the worst form of violence.” Western economic systems are based on what he called “multiplication of wants. Gandhiji felt that this was both unsustainable and devastating to the


human spirit. His model, by contrast aimed at the fulfilment of needsincluding the need for meaning and community. Gandhiji’s economic ideas also aimed to promote spiritual development and harmony with a rejection of materialism. Gandhiji’s Swadeshi and Non-cooperation movements were based on the principles of economic self sufficiency. Gandhiji’s concept of egalitarianism was centred on the preservation of human dignity rather than material development. Gandhian Economics do not draw a distinction between economics and ethics. Economics that is incompatible with or against morality is sinful. The value of an industry should be measured less by the profits earned by it than by its effects on the environment and the bodies, souls and spirits of the people employed in it.

Principles of Gandhian Economic Thought Economic activity involves production of material goods, their exchange, distribution and consumption. They should promote happiness and advance of an individual as social individual based on division of labour and cooperation. All wealth is social creation. The objective of economic activity should be to help to achieve good life. He opined for equal distribution among those who help in creation but it is an ideal condition which may not be realized but indicate direction for human conduct. Food and clothing are the elementary necessities and should be in the control of masses and their monopolization should be prevented. People should adopt simple and natural living and wants should not be artificially multiplied and man should limit his wants rather multiplying them. One should see beauty in voluntary simplicity, poverty and slowness. In present time we often quote Gandhiji but are not following him in true sense as the society is recklessly moving fast in era of cut throat competition and those lagging behind though more satisfied are considered out of date and not given due respect or privilege in society. He says “A certain degree of physical harmony and comfort is necessary, but above certain level it becomes hindrance instead of help. Modern material craze leads to the downhill path of progress”. Some advocate to gain American wealth but avoid its methods but it will fail as one cannot be wise and furious in a moment. Today most of the people are busy in


hoarding more and more, grabbing the share of others, financial and civic corruption and adopting western ideals and practices. Therefore, society is confused today leading to individual and social conflicts. In an attempt to be called developed we are assessing our standards in terms set by International Development Agencies dominated by western developed counties. In practical reality Gandhiji opined to engage everybody in some important constructive activity, involving physical work. Gandhiji was a man of principles which were very dear to him and as such they are represented in his thoughts as well. The first basic principle of Gandhiji’s economic thought is special emphasis on ‘plain living’ which helps in cutting down our wants and helps in being self-reliant. Accordingly, it works for decreasing consumer appetite which goes to the end of the earth in search of their satisfaction. The second principle of Gandhian economic thought is small scale and locally oriented production, using local resources and meeting local needs so that employment opportunities are made available everywhere, promoting the ideal of Sarvodaya, the welfare of all in contrast to the welfare of a few. The third principle of Gandhian Economic Thought, known as trusteeship principle aims to make a decent living and accumulate wealth with a concern for the poor. The surplus wealth above what is necessary to meet the basic needs and investment, should be held as a trust for the welfare of all, particularly of the poorest and the most deprived. Thus the Gandhian Economic Thought is based on three underlying principles that are Satya, Ahimsa and Aparigraha (Truth, Non-violence and Non-possession).

Gandhiji: As a Source of Inspiration Gandhiji has been a source of inspiration not only for Indian writers and thinkers but also for many Western writers. The views of J.C. Kumarappa and E.F. Schumacher were greatly inspired by Gandhiji.

J.C. Kumarappa and Environmentalism J.C. Kumarappa was a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi. He was the author of ‘The Economy Of Permanence’. The term Gandhian Economics was coined by him. He criticised large scale projects, saying that small projects were more efficacious. He argued that


forests should be managed with the goal of water conservation rather than revenue maximisation. Guha calls Kumarappa “The Green Gandhi” portraying him as the founder of modern environmentalism in India. Kumarappa worked to combine Christian and Gandhian values of “trusteeship, non-violence and a focus on human dignity and development in place of materialism as the basis of his economic theories. While rejecting socialism’s emphasis on class war and force in implementation, he also rejected emphasis on material development, competition and efficiency in free market economics. “Gandhiji and Kumarappa envisioned an economy focussed on satisfying human needs and challenges while rooting out socio economic conflict, unemployment, poverty and depreviation. He was described by M.M. Thomas as one of the “Christians of the Gandhian inner circle.”

E.F. Schumacher “Small is Beautiful” E.F. Schumacher was an influential British thinker, who emphasised on the idea of ‘Sustainable Development’. He was the author of ‘ Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As of People Mattered’ Schumacher argues that the modern economy is unsustainable. Natural Resources like fossil fuels are treated like expendable income when in fact they should be treated as capital since they are not renewable, and thus subject to eventual depletion. He further argues that nature’s resistance to pollution is limited as well. He concludes that government’s efforts must be concentrated on sustainable development, because relatively minor improvements, for example, technology transfer for Third World Countries, will not solve the underlying problem of an unsustainable economy. Schumacher’s philosophy is one of ‘enoughness’ appreciating both human needs, limitations and appropriate use of technology. It grew out of his study of village based economics, which he later termed as ‘Buddhist Economics’, based on the belief that individuals need good work for proper human development. He also proclaimed that “production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of Economic life.” He criticised conventional Economic thinking for failing to consider the most appropriate scale for an activity, and also criticises notions that ‘growth is good’ and that ‘bigger is better’. He questions the appropriateness of using mass production in developing countries, promoting instead, “ production


by masses”. He also criticises the concept Gross National Product for measuring human well being, emphasising that “the aim ought to be to obtain maximum amount of well being with minimum amount of consumption.” He emphasises the need for the “Philosophy of materialism to take second place to ideals such as justice, harmony, beauty and health.” He was greatly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and J.C. Kumarappa. Schumacher described Gandhi as the greatest ‘People’s Economist’ whose economic thinking was compatible with spirituality as opposed to materialism.

Conclusion The goal of sustainable development will be surely achieved if we adopt the Gandhian viewpoint and promote his ideals. Growth should be broad based that is its fruits should reach to maximum therefore the techniques adopted should be labour intensive rather capital intensive, therefore, small and medium enterprise need to be promoted. Emphasis should be on renewable resources. Awareness should be created for change over to sustainable development. There is continuous need of educating children and college students regarding sustainability Imbibe fundamental human values. Growth should not be skewed and not promote moral shrinkage. Controlling greed is the biggest challenge and spirituality may be helpful in promoting feeling of contentment. Unsustainable patterns of production and consumption should be eliminated.

References Bhatt V. V. (1982) “Development Problem, Strategy and Technology Choice: Sarvodaya and Socialist Approaches in India”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 31, No. 1, October 1982. Dodh Pankaj: “Impacts of Globalization on Social Inclusion: A Comparative Analysis to Gandhian Economic Philosphy” in International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, Issue 5 May 2012. Gandhi M. (1927) Young India, 7 November 1929, India, New Delhi. Gandhi M.K. (1982) The Collected Works of Mahatama Gandhi, Vol. LXXXVI; Government of India, New Delhi. Gandhiphilosphy.blogspot.in/2009/08/rural-development.html

Gandhi and Modern Economy Neelesh Pandey Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was not a methodical philosopher but a man of action and a leader who commanded considerable influence over men. Like Buddha and Socrates, Gandhi stressed only certain basic values and did not systematically elaborate the essential philosophical postulations and the sociological, political and economic implications of his theories at an advanced intellectual level. However, he certainly had emphatically put forward certain fundamental ideas for the regeneration of man and the reconstruction of society and politics and in this sense he could be regarded as a moral, social, economic and political thinker. Their thoughts spread all over the subjects in the moborning India. His greatness laid in his towering character, his political moral leadership, his inner intuitive experiences and his messages of truth and non-violence. He was also a prolific writer of force and power. His writings touched almost all the social, educational, cultural, economic and political problems of the contemporary world. Although not a system-builder in the academic sense of term, Gandhi had expressed many ideas, which are highly relevant to the modern age.

Contemporary World Scenario The fast emerging global socio-political and scientific sequence of events is a convincing reminder of the speed with which the forces released by science and technology and aided by human greed has dismantled almost at one stroke all humanity hitherto believed invincible and the presence consumerism increasing the importance of Science and tech in Economic growth. The socio-economic and political set-up all over the world has undergone tremendous changes during the last two decades and a new culture has taken over.


Traditional values and concerns seem to have been replaced by a new set of attitudes and life style, which are steeped in materialism and consumerism and are propagated by the champions of unlimited material progress in an organized manner in another word present human being perfectly material man who love the physical goods because of these goods provide them satisfaction easily, All of a sudden, economics has overshadowed all other branches of human endeavour. The most frightening aspect of the whole development is that man is nowhere in the reckoning now and has been pitiably reduced to the status of a consumer. Human, ethical and moral values have been seized by those who believe that economic growth is the real index of power & in the goodness of money it Provide all the physical things. While the power of money was never underestimated anywhere, never before in human history everything is being measured in terms of per capita income and GNP (gross national product) or the relative purchasing power or such other material considerations. The rise in the materialistic and consumerist culture has led to the callous indifference shown to mother earth. There has been an over exploitation of nature as if there is inexhaustible wealth hidden beneath the surface. Environmental pollution has resulted in the rise in earth’s temperature. The warnings and spirited campaigns undertaken by the various environmentalist groups to stop many of the harmful steps taken by the governments of affluent countries receive practically little attention. Hence, in a world increasingly enamoured with technology and conspicuous consumption on the one hand and giving in to violence on the other, it is high time that the humanity should rediscover the Mahatma.

The Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi did not receive any formal training in economics, nor did he study much economics on his own their economic thought come from experiences. He had probably read Adam Smith’s classic Wealth of Nations and he turned to the serious study of Karl Marx only in his 75th year. Since moral considerations weighed heavily with Gandhi in everything he did, his economic ideas were no exception. However, from his scattered writings and pronouncements a consistent body

Gandhi and Modern Economy 49

of knowledge in economics has been carved out which is named as “Gandhian Economics” and which has contemporary relevance, remarkable originality and the attributes of an analytical contribution of a high order. It is widely accepted that the core of the legacy Gandhi left for humanity, is that he taught the world that truth is greater than all worldly possessions and that slavery, violence, injustice and disparities are inconsistent with truth. What Gandhi left is a carefully evolved vision of an organically sound and naturally supportive and respecting independent world order. The six decades of Gandhi’s public life in six continents, spearheading various movements for a social and political environment, demonstrated with convincing sincerity a revolutionary zeal for change; change with consent; hitherto unexplored in national and international politics. Hence, Gandhi was totally against the usual violent methods associated with revolutions. He offered a package of alternatives to humanity. By his insistence on non-violence to violence, persuasion and reconciliation to end hostilities, trusteeship to end economic injustices, improvement of the lot of the depressed sections by abolishing factors that perpetrate social inequities, ending man’s tyranny on nature by respecting nature as the protector of human race, limiting one’s wants and developing equal respect for all religions, Gandhi offered humanity the blue print for a holistic vision. Gandhi convincingly demonstrated through ashram experiments the use of alternative sources of energy, appropriate technology, etc. In short, an ardent practitioner of truth that he was, Gandhi showed the humanity that there are workable alternatives which will be creative and sustainable. However, Gandhi on several occasion said that he was not trying to teach anything new. According to him truth and non-violence are as old as hill.

Consumer Culture Consumer culture can be defined as a “social arrangement in which the relations between the [lived cultural experience of everyday life] and social resources, between meaningful [valued] ways of life and the symbolic and material resources on which they depend, is


mediated through markets.” Consumer culture is a system in which consumption, a set of behaviors found in all times and places, is dominated by the consumption of commercial products. It is also a system in which the transmission of existing cultural values, norms and customary ways of doing things from generation to generation “is largely understood to be carried out through the exercise of free personal choice in the private sphere of everyday life.” Furthermore, consumer culture is also bound up with the idea of modernity, that is, a world “no longer governed by tradition but rather by flux,” and in which “social actors who are deemed to be individually free and rational” holds sway (Slater, 2000, 8‐9). And finally, consumer culture denote an economy in which value has been divorced from the material satisfaction of wants and the sign value of goods takes precedence.1.

Global Consumers The consolidation of scientific economic and of modern market institutions took place in the eighteenth century, when also the social role of the consumer, combining traits of hedonism and rationality was distinguished from the wasteful irrational elites of the ancient regime (Campbell, 1987; Sassatelli, 2007, 37). Whereas the early 20th century consumer was a mass market consumer, today’s consumer is characterized by a general emphasis on individual style, paralleling the customization and niche marketing that has overtaken the economy (Sassatelli, 2007, 48). The tendency within consumer culture today is to view lifestyles as no longer requiring inner coherence; marketers and cultural intermediaries (fashion; entertainment) cater for and expand the range of styles and lifestyles available to global audiences and consumers with little regard to authenticity or tradition (Featherstone, 1991, 26).2 1. “Global Consumer Culture,” in Encyclopedia of International Marketing, Jagdish Sheth and Naresh Maholtra, eds., Eric J. Arnould 2. Featherstone, Mike (1991), Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, London and Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.


Gandhi on Capitalism Gandhi was never reconciled to the capitalist system of production and technological growth. He criticized the inequities of capitalism at a time when the capitalist economy had not yet become the dominant aspect of the total economy of India and that indicates his foresight3. The dominant factor for his opposition against capitalism was that it was based on the policy of exploitation of labourers. Gandhi regarded labour force as the most vital factor in the production. He in the 7 September 1947 edition of Harijan wrote; Labour is far superior to capital. Without labour, gold silver and copper were useless burden. It was labour which attracts precious ore from the bowels of the earth”. Besides, Gandhi saw in capitalism the evils of social polarization between two opposed social classes – the capitalists and the labourers. This results in strikes, lockouts, sabotage and hence there is a marked decline of social spirit. Gandhi felt that in his ideal state this social antagonism would be replaced by increasing cooperation and mutual reciprocity. Gandhi was a firm believer in the ideals of socialism, but was thoroughly opposed to socialism of Marxian type. Apart from the use of violence for the attainment of their goal, Gandhi was against the communistic notion of bringing all the means of production under public ownership. According to him by doing so, the socialists create enormous concentration of power and they have not evolved a satisfactory method of dealing with such situation. The theory of Trusteeship was Gandhi’s answer to the problem on the one hand of concentration of wealth among the capitalist and on the other concentration of power in the state. In a nutshell, the theory of Trusteeship holds that all possessions including one’s talent and mental excellence belong to the society and those who have these possessions should hold them in trust for society. His concept of Trusteeship is based on the Isha Upanishad, which asserts that God is the owner of the world and that we own nothing. In the words of Gandhi; “the rich man will be left in possession of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his personal needs and act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for society. In this argument, honesty on part of the trustee is assumed”.


Gandhi’s Idea of Village Republic vis-à-vis Globalization Globalization is an umbrella term for a complex process, which is systematically restructuring the interactive phases among nations by breaking down barriers in the area of culture, commerce, communication and several other fields of endevour. The most likely fallout of this ongoing process of globalization is that its advantages move from top to bottom. As the real effects of economic globalization on any country’s economy is yet to crystallize fully, on the basis of certain initial trends one can derive the conclusion that it may largely benefit the urban affluent and only marginally the rural or urban poor. But it may also happen that the benefits dry up before reaching the bottom. This is a universal phenomenon and no country is exception to it. This has led to a rise in the cases of poverty, hunger and unemployment throughout the globe. Besides the foregoing, ills of globalization include; (a) Violation of human rights of the developing countries, (b) In the name of bringing prosperity, resorting to plundering and profiteering, (c) Going for cultural assimilation via cultural imperialism, (d) Export of artificial wants, and (e) Little care for nature, ecology and environment. Mahatma Gandhi’s economic thought is the polar opposite of what today’s consumerist society stand for. The foundation of all his social and economic solutions was based on the concept of Sarvadaya, the welfare of all. Gandhi’s philosophy is religious and spiritual, economic and political questions are seen from the moral and humanistic perspective. The welfare of the human beings and not of systems or institutions is the ultimate consideration. In fact, economics should not be separated from the deep spiritual foundations of life. This can be best achieved, according to Gandhi, when every individual is an integral part of the community; when the production of goods is on a small scale; when the economy is local; and when homemade (Swadeshi) handicrafts are given preference.


These conditions are conducive to a holistic, spiritual, ecological and communitarian pattern of society.

The Gandhian Concept of ‘Village Republic’ As Gandhi was against the massive concentration of economic power among a handful of individuals, in his economic model he favours economic decentralization and hence villages become the basic economic units. His idea of Gram Swaraj (village self rule) aims at developing villages in a manner which retains and strengthens those components of the village ethos, which deserve to be retained and strengthened. According to the idea of Gram Swaraj, each village should be basically self reliant, making provisions for all the necessities of life- food, clothing, clean water, sanitation, housing, education and so on, including government and self defence and all socially useful amenities required by a community. His vision of independent India was not that of a nation state, but a confederation of self-governing, self-reliant, self-employed people living in village communities, deriving their right livelihood from the products of their homesteads. Maximum economic and political power- including the power to decide what could be imported into or exported from the village- would remain in the hands of the village assemblies8. According to the principle of swadeshi, as propounded by Gandhi, economic dependence on external market forces could make the village communities vulnerable. A village must build a strong economic base to satisfy most of its needs and all members of the village community should give priority to local goods and services. In other words, each village should be a microcosm of India- a web of loosely interconnected communities. Gandhi considered such villages so important that he thought they should be given the status of “Village Republics”. Gandhi believed that the village community should embody the spirit of the home- an extension of the family rather than a collection of competing individuals. Gandhi’s dream was not of personal selfsufficiency, not even family self-sufficiency, but the self sufficiency of the village community. The British believed in centralized, industrialized and mechanized modes of production. Gandhi turned this principle


on its head and envisioned a decentralized, homegrown, hand crafted mode of production. By adopting the principle of production by the masses, village communities would be able to restore dignity to the work done by hands. In Gandhi’s words; “…not mass production but production by the masses”. In fact, mass production is only concerned with the product, whereas production by the masses is concerned with the product, the producers and the process. Transnational networks and identifications emerged from common involvement in campaigns against genetically modified agriculture and globalization that utilized tactics of non-violent direct action. The KRRS was seen by many London activists as an organization with its ‘credentials intact’ (Townes, 1999, np). The organization’s high profile opposition to the Dunkel Draft in 1993 had attracted international acclaim among Western activists (Assadi, 1995a, 194; Escobar, 1999; Townes, 1999)3. This strategy represented a significant shift in the way that the movement constructed maps of grievances, from targeting rural–urban division in India to contesting transnational power relations. Similar acclaim followed for assaults on the Cargill Seed Factories and Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets. Their 1998 Cremate Monsanto! Action, when activists burned a crop of genetically modified cotton, was widely publicized through e-mail networks. The KRRS long-standing leader Professor Nanjundaswamy articulated these actions as a legitimate form of ‘Gandhian violence’. These acts explicitly linked opposition to neo-liberal globalization with opposition to genetic modification and biotech no logical innovations like the ‘terminator’ gene (Nanjundaswamy, 1998).4 Through their opposition to neo-liberal globalization, KRRS have become progressively linked to other counter-globalization struggles (see Starr, 2000, 71; Desmarais, 2002, 112).

3. Escobar A. 2001 Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization Political Geography 20 139–74. 4. Nanjundaswamy 1998 Cremate Monsanto! (http:// www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/ crit-geog-forum/1998-11/ 0117.html) Accessed 14 January 2002.


Gandhi on Industrialization and the Use of Heavy Machinery Global industrial society, as opposed to society made up of largely autonomous communities committed to the principle of “swadeshi”, is unsustainable. Dr. E.F. Schumacher, author of the classic critique on modern economics, Small is Beautiful, who called Gandhi the greatest “People’s Economist”, says; “Gandhi abhorred the industrial civilization because it was based on callous exploitation of nonrenewable resources. It made bodily welfare the sole object of life, which reduced man to nothing but a clever animal”11. Gandhi’s experiences in self-control and disinterestedness led him to pronounce; “Civilization consists not in the multiplication of wants but in the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants”. His alternative to the massive industrialization was the formation of village industries and crafts, primarily spinning and weaving of Khadi. Spinning would be a way of supplementing the meager income of a villager. It also gave self determination to one of life’s necessities- clothing. Today Khadi makes only one percent of the textile industry of India, it however employs nearly two million people. The driving force behind mass production is the cult of the individual. In contrast, a locally based economy enhances community spirit, community relationships and community well being. Mass production leads people to leave their villages, their land, their crafts and their homesteads and go to work in the factories. Instead of dignified human beings and members of the self respecting village communities, people become cogs in the machines, standing at the conveyor belt, living in the shanty towns and depending on the mercy of the bosses. Then fewer and fewer people are needed to work, because the industrialists want greater productivity. The masters of money economy want more and more efficient machines working faster and faster and the result would be that men and women would be thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment. Such a society generates rootless and jobless millions living as dependants of the state. On the other hand in the Gandhian idea of production by the masses, the machine would be subordinated to the worker; it would not be allowed to become the master, dictating the pace of human activity.


Gandhi’s attitude towards machinery changed considerably with the passage of time. In 1908, he writes in his classic Hind Swaraj (Chapter XIX); “Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civilization, it represents a great sin. I cannot recall a single good point in connection with the machinery…It is necessary to realize that machinery is bad, we shall then be able to gradually do away with it”. Increasingly he began to realize that it is not machinery as such that is evil but the social condition under which it is used. In the 12 February 1938 issue of Harijan he wrote; “If I could produce all my country’s wants by means of 30000 people instead of 30 million? I should not mind it, provided that the 30 million are not rendered idle and unemployed”. Gradually Gandhi began to see that under proper condition of social control, even large scale machinery could be used in such a way as to serve the villages and their crafts and not destroy them as they did in the past in the absence of social control. He wrote in the 27 January 1940 issue of Harijan; “I do visualize electricity, ship building, iron works, machine making and the like existing side by side with village handicrafts. Hitherto, industrialization has been so planned as to destroy the village crafts. In the state of future it will sub serve the villages and their crafts. The position that Gandhi came to hold on machinery was quite close that of Marx. In the absence of social control machinery causes unemployment and leads to exploitation of labour and the destruction of artisan. Hence, the indiscriminate proliferation of machinery is harmful, however, under proper social control; machinery could confer many benefits on society. In other words, instead of the use of the large scale technology in an arbitrary manner, Gandhi was I favour of large scale technology in few sectors co-existing with small scale technology and handicraft. Gandhi knew that with the globalization of economy, every nation would wish to export more and import less to keep the balance of payment in its favour. As a result there would be perpetual economic crisis, perpetual unemployment and perpetually discontented, disgruntled human beings. In communities practicing swadeshi, economics would not dominate society. Beyond a certain


limit, economic growth becomes detrimental to human well-being. Contrary to the modern world view that the more material goods you have, the better your life would be, Gandhi said; “A certain degree of physical comfort is necessary but above a certain level it becomes a hindrance instead of a help; therefore the ideal of creating an unlimited number of wants and satisfying them seems to be a delusion and a trap. The satisfaction of one’s physical needs must come at a certain point to a dead stop before it degenerates into physical decadence”. Besides, in this age of globalization, the economists and industrialists fail to see when enough is enough. Even when countries reach a very high material standard of living, they are still caught up with the idea of economic growth. The global economy drives people towards high performance, high achievement and high ambition for materialistic success. This results in stress, loss of space for personal and family relationships and loss of spiritual life. Gandhi realized that in the past life in India was not only prosperous but also conducive to philosophical and spiritual development. Swadeshi for Gandhi was the spiritual imperative. In order to protect their economic interest, countries go to warmilitary war as well as economic war. There cannot be real peace in the world if countries would look at each other as sources of raw materials or as markets for finished industrial goods. The seeds of war are sown with economic greed. Throughout history one finds that the pursuit of economic expansion consistently leads to military adventures. In the words of Gandhi; “There is enough for everybody’s need, but not for anybody’s greed”. Swadeshi is thus a prerequisite for peace.

Conclusion Though set in the Indian socio-economic context, Gandhian philosophy is certainly considered as a universal and timeless philosophy. It is regarded that the ideals of truth and non-violence, which underpin the whole philosophy, are relevant to all mankind. It embodies numerous Western influences to which Gandhi was exposed at different points of time in his life. His philosophy upholds the ideal of a just and equitable society. His social order has been described


as “communism minus violence”. However, Marxists traditionally do not accept the Gandhian model because of what they regarded as his ‘bourgeois’ outlook. Gandhi rejected the Marxian concept of violent class conflict and regarded the centralization of political and economic power in the hands of the state as counter productive to the development of a non-violent society. Nevertheless, Gandhian philosophy, particularly the concept of Sarvodaya does contain many socialist sentiments. His thoughts have been likened also to the concepts of Utopian Socialism and Philosophical Anarchism. In the fast emerging global scenario moral values, ethics, spirituality, family values, religious insights have all seemed to have lost their place and values. Ethics and morality appear to be out of tune with the ethos of the global village. Globalization has thrust to the forefront. Deterioration of the nation state, leading to global integration mostly on the strength of economic prosperity of the industrially rich and developed nations have led to a situation where vast iniquities that divided the small minority of haves from the huge majority of have-nots. The economic liberalization and the technological automation threaten to widen further the existing economic, social, political and cultural disparities. Global justice will be far cry unless bold initiatives are undertaken to overcome these disparities. Robert Hart in his famous essay Gandhi and the Greens: Road to Survival writes; “At the critical period in the history of the world, humanity’s only ultimate hope for survival lies in the worldwide movement for grass root reconstruction on Gandhian lines”.

References Baudrillard, Jean (1998/1970), “the Consumer Society, Myths and Structures”, Chris Turner, trans. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Escobar A (2001), Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization Political Geography 20 139–74 Suma Varughese; Looking for Gandhi; Life Positive, Available at http://:www.Lifepositive.com/Spirit/masters/mahatma-gandhi/gandhi.asp N. Radhakrishnan; Gandhi in the Globalized Context; the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Available at http://:www. transnational.org/forum/meet/2003/Radhakrishnan-Gandhi.html


V.P. Varma (1994), “Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and Sarvodaya”,, Bharati Bhawan, Patna, p.-109. M.K. Gandhi; Harijan, 25 August 1940. M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, Navjeevan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, Reprint of 1958. Nanjundaswamy (1998), Cremate Monsanto! (http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/ lists/crit-geog-forum/1998-11/ 0117.html) Accessed 14 January 2002 Satish Kumar; Gandhi’s Swadeshi- the Economics of Permanence. Available at http://www.squal.net/caravan/icc-en/krrs-en/ghandi-econen.htm. Tarrow S. (1994), “Power in movement: social movements, collective action and politics” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Towards the Model of Gandhian “Non-violent” Political Economy Prem Anand Mishra Political economy is central to any discussion on contemporary politics and economics. It refers to the idea and practice that how political institutions or the political environment and the economic system of the state influence each other. Thus, political economy includes three components; the state, market and society. As one may deduce, political economy may not be singular but plural as its nature and structure would depend upon how one perceives the state, market and society as well as relation among them. Further one may also recognize that in a given political economy which component, among the state, market and society, is more emphasized. On this basis one may view that liberal political economy, which is based on self-interest of the individual and process of competition among the individual, emphasizes on market assuming that society will be guided by the process of competition and its related institutions. Role of the state, it is assumed in liberal political economy, is not to intervene in this process and its related institutions. On the other hand, Marxist political economy is concerned with process of conflict in the society and role of state is to help the ‘have-nots’ with centralized system of production and distribution. In contrast to these dominant mode of thinking and system, Gandhian political economy, although does not exist in practice today at macro level, is based on the process of cooperation among the individual in which there would be limited role of market and the state. One well also ask at this point; if liberal political economy and Marxist political economy already exist today in practice then why one should think of Gandhian political economy? Or, how does and in which way Gandhian political economy differ from other two political economy?

Towards the Model of Gandhian “Non-violent” Political Economy 61

It is significant to note that within the both liberal political economy and Marxist political economy, in spite of many conventions and summits, hardly any serious deliberation is made on the ‘sustainability’ of resources and ecological concern. Although liberal political economy has developed a discourse on ‘sustainable development’ but as some of the scholars have ponied out the discourse of sustainable development is problematic in itself and it is merely a politics of neo-liberal political economy.1 Again, in this discourse it is hardly recognized that the use and appropriation of resources by market and the state is directly associated with the growing economic and social inequality perceived globally today. It is in this context discussion on Gandhian political economy becomes significant and relevant today. Although Gandhi did not give any political economy and nor it was adequately developed even after independence in India in a systematic manner, but it can certainly be framed on the basis of Gandhi’s assumption on individual, society and nature. Exploring these views of Gandhi for Gandhian political economy are essential as any political economy begins with certain assumptions on individual, society and nature. These views serve as philosophical groundings of any political economy and only after such analysis a second level discussion on the state, society and economic system or on the relation between political and economic structure within a political economy can be made. Gandhian political economy is not exception from this. Thus, to develop a model of Gandhian political economy, first of all it seems reasonable to explore Gandhi’s views on individual, society and the nature and then discuss how he views the state, political power and economic system and their relationship.

I Gandhi’s views on individual is different from the idea of individual, liberalism or Marxism has portrayed. For Gandhi, individual is not the impersonal and mechanistic object that the modern liberal economy takes for granted. Moreover, Gandhi did not view individualism as social and economic laissez faire what modern liberal states believe. Similarly Gandhi did not see individual as an agent of the state


worship as Marxist accepts. Moreover, for Gandhi the individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. The guiding principles, which in his view should regulate the life of the individual, are the supreme and eternal values of truth and nonviolence. Gandhi acknowledged the moral autonomy of man and the possibility of his lasting liberation from his own lower self and the impersonal and compelling dictates of the structure of society. Thus, for Gandhi, the individual is of the supreme consideration. He argued that “Ultimately it is the individual who is the unit”.2And,“If the individual ceases to count what is left of society?”.3 Thus, in Gandhi’s perception man is superior to the system he propounds. Further, Gandhi’s argument is that human being is endowed with a soul, thus, ‘self –interest’ what liberal political economy proposes or ‘class interest’ what Marxist political economy offers cannot be the only motivation at work in any economic relation.4 This soul force leads to the love, compassion, and natural justice, which are essential for the society and economic system, thus,for Gandhi any economy must be guided by the soul force. It is on this idea of individual and his/her moral autonomy, Gandhi saw the society as a larger family that works on the force of nonviolence. Here it must be mentioned that for Gandhi nonviolence was ‘not merely a personal virtue’ but it was ‘also a social virtue to be cultivated like the other virtues’. In his words, “society is largely regulated by the expression of non-violence in its mutual dealings. What I ask for is an extension of it on a larger, national and international scale”.5 Thus, Gandhi saw the society as a natural extension of nonviolence that has to be further extended consciously in the different spheres of society including economic and political. In short, Gandhi’s vision of the ideal society is that of a non-violent and democratic social order in which there is a just balance between individual freedom and social responsibility. He has a very high regard for the place of ideals in human life. Without ideals, he says, life can have no meaning because there would be no goals towards which human endeavour, political or economic, can be directed. On the nature, Gandhi saw an essential unity between man and nature as he argued, “I believe in advaita (non-duality), I believe in the essential unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lives”.6 From


this perspective, as we may note, the present cry on resource crunch and its related sustainability discourse are not problems but only a symptom of deeply mistaken normative view of relation between humans and the nature. Rather than looking the nature separate from human being, Gandhi argued that we should feel a more living bond between ourselves and the rest of the animate world. Thus, for Gandhi, humans and nature must be in harmony rather than human being exploit nature for its own pleasure. This view is quite different from liberal political economy and Marxist political economy that believe in mechanistic model of nature and human-nature relationship. Having examined Gandhi’s view on individual, society and nature and their relationship, let us turn to the second level of analysis; that is Gandhi’s view on the state, political power and economic structure to develop a model of Gandhian political economy, if possible.

II If we see the nature of modern state we recognize that it is as an institution which has certain kind of organization including political and economic organizations. However, the idea of the state is not just the idea of the coexistence of such institutions, generally perceived. It is the idea of their being organized in a way that makes them part of a centralized apparatus, operating pervasively in the society as a single entity with a unified chain of command. It is at this point Gandhi seems contending the existence of the modern state at the ideological level. Gandhi saw the modern state as essentially an amoral institution which is based on violent coercion which is also incompatible with ‘individual freedom’. He argued that the modern state is abstracted from the society. It is centralized and bureaucratic, and covered with the spirit of violence. In his words, “The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence”.7 Gandhi also argues that all the prevailing forms of government takes the modern state for granted and represents different ways of organizing it; however, they are inherently incapable of tackling its structural defects. Even liberal democracy, the least objectionable of


them, does little to integrate state and society, decentralize political power, involve citizen in the conduct of public affairs, and reduce the extent and depth of direct and structural violence. Presenting a sharp critique of the Western liberal – capitalist state, he considered British parliament a ‘sterile woman’ for not having ‘done a single good thing’, and a ‘prostitute’ because ‘it is under the control of a minister who changes from time to time’.8 In the similar way, Gandhi criticized communism also. Certain aspects of Marxism were agreeable in theory, but as Parel (2000) argues Gandhi detested the fashion by which communism was imposed and moreover its propagation of atheism.9 In practice, it was also tainted for its tendency to concentrate power in the hands of the few (i.e. the former USSR). Thus, ideally Gandhi rejected the institution of modern state as it represented the hierarchical power structure in which violence is in-built. Gandhi further refused to believe that society is governed by laws of growth which is beyond the control of any individual and refused to accept any irreversible social laws. To him, the individual can show his superiority to any system and the society or state is not logically or morally prior to the individual. The word ‘individual’ is used, as we noted earlier, in a special sense to mean a self-conscious and moral person. Viewed from this angle, the problem of man’s relation to the society and state in Gandhi’s thought presents an entirely different paradigm and here one may find the crux of Gandhian political economy. Gandhi developed his own view on the relationship among individual, society and the state which is best illustrated by his one of the articles that also provides a model of Gandhian political economy. He wrote: “In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units. Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it. I may


be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought. If Euclid’s point, though incapable of being drawn by human agency, has an imperishable value, my picture has its own for mankind to live. Let India live for this true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something approaching it. If there ever is to be a republic of every village in India, then I claim verity for my picture in which the last is equal to the first or, in other words, no one is to be the first and none the last.”10 This serve the basis of political and economic structure of an economy what Gandhi visualized. Based on these ideals, in the Gandhian political economy the state would be nonviolent state in nature in which a new type of polity, politics and a totally new economic structure would emerge. As it appears Gandhian political economy seems radically different from the liberal and Marxist political economy. This is because of the Gandhi’s different view on politics and political power. In fact, Gandhi viewed politics not as ‘art of possibility’, as viewed by liberal politics, but as ‘art of love’. He argued that power –a central spirit of politics- may be exercised or obtained either through the ‘fear of punishment’ or by ‘arts of love’. In his words, “Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by arts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment”.11Further, against the modern liberal state notion of political power which is an end in itself, Gandhi saw political power as ‘one of the means’ that enables ‘people to better their condition in every department of life. Moreover, he saw political power as a ‘capacity to regulate national life through national representatives’. Gandhi argued that political power exists and so does the modern liberal state because people and society are imperfect to carry out their affairs. In his words, If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation becomes necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state everyone is this own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore, there is no political power because there is no state. But the ideal is never fully realized in life. Hence the classical


statement of Thoreau that government is best which governs the least.12 The last sentence of above quote significantly raises the question over the distribution of power and its relation to politics that is the basis of Gandhian political economy. It challenges the contemporary conception of power and rejects the conventional liberal distinction between the civil society and the state. It does not accept that power, political and economic, resides only in the state and argues that there are many location of power in the society as in social practices, ideologies, and in the structure of economy. Thus, instead of power politics (Rajniti); it emphasizes on peoples’ politics (Lokniti) where many locations of power, political and economic, will act, react and reconcile with each other that will reduce the chances of oppression by the state.13 It is in this alternative political power structure Gandhi envisions his economy and its components.

III Gandhi provides an alternative economic theory and practice to reduce economic inequalities in his envisioned nonviolent state and it comes through interrogating modernization. Instead of industrialization and mass production, Gandhi favours small self -reliant village economy which is animated by the ethics. It does not see any difference between ethics and economics. This model, on this ground, rejects both the model of liberal political and Marxist political economy. It rejects liberalism because it emphasizes on individual ownership, competition and consumerism that creates inequality and unsustainable resource use. On the other hand, Gandhi rejects Marxist political economy on the ground that it diminishes ‘autonomy’ of the individual. Moreover, both are unacceptable to Gandhi as both are driven by materialistic advancements. Question of growing economic disparity is resolved by Gandhian political economy in a different way. Here, the major economic issue is not the increase in Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product in economy but whether people control the process of production or are controlled by it. Thus, Gandhi proposes three inter-related but distinct properties in his political economy: first, it argues for providing work for everyone; second, the work enables everyone to live a decent life; and third the work is controlled


by the workers, not by others. Gandhian political economy also alarms us about the cheap machine made products and favours local products made by local resources what he termed as Swadeshi. Thus, it fosters need based local production, distribution and consumption in economic field. Here, the need of individual is defined in the term of morality not in the term of per capita income. With this standard, Gandhian political economy rejects machinery and emphasizes on ethical economy. Yet, it must be mentioned that Gandhian political economy does not want the elimination of commerce, property or ownership but it is against the tendency of individuals to make these aspects central to their lives. Besides, Gandhian political economy also proposes non-economic criteria to evaluate an economy. Its ethical economy promotes ethical production/innovation and challenges the idea that moral, political and environmental costs of new modernized economy are insignificant. It also challenges the commoditization of everything that modern liberal economy has generated. Further, Gandhian political economy views the whole process of industrial growth and monstrous process of mechanization, as a problem for sustainability as they are plundering the nature and because of them problem of survival for the coming generation is emerging. Now consider the role of market in Gandhian political economy. While liberal economy solely rests on market and the state as the twin socio-economic delivery systems, Marxist political economy primarily rests on the state as the delivery system. In contrast, the Gandhian political economy relies on the social institutional order, besides market and the state, as the socio-economic delivery system. This makes the market and the state share the public space with family, community and society. Thus, in Gandhian political economy, market forces would serve the community rather than forcing people to fit the market. However, extending the argument of force of contemporary market economy one may well ask; how does Gandhian political economy respond to globalization? It can be argued that as the universal family is divided into distinct and sovereign political entities, thus each has the first obligation to look after its economic well-being ,without in any way harming the economic well-being of the other units. This, as we may remind, call for the practice of the virtue of Swadeshi or what pertains to one’s own country.


Finally let us turn to one of the significant questions generally raised in the discourse of political economy as to what would be the relation between political power and economic power in Gandhian political economy or how can the state and market work together for the common good ? This question draws our attention to Gandhi’s view on trusteeship. Gandhian political economy proposes the concept of trusteeship in which a capitalist or a landlord or anyone who have surplus wealth should act as a ‘trustee’ of their wealth and should spend it for the welfare of the people. It is based on the assumption that inequality cannot be reduced from the society unless all parties concerned, the poor and the reach are morally awakened to the consciousness of their own duties towards others. It calls for appeal to the reason of the individual and law of love as motto that can bring about such awareness among the wealthy class of the people. At institutional level, trusteeship provides a means of transforming the present liberal order of society into an egalitarian one. It might be noted that Gandhi’s trusteeship does not exclude legislation of the ownership and use of wealth. Thus, under state regulated trusteeship, an individual will not be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish satisfaction disregarding the interests of society.14 Thus, on the one hand it guarantees the decent minimum living wage to common people, on the other hand it limits or fixes the maximum income to any person in society. Basic idea behind this proposal is that the difference between minimum and maximum incomes should be reasonable and equitable. This is also to be revised time to time towards the abolition of the difference. In the Gandhian political economy, the character of production is to be determined by social necessity and not by personal greed of industrialists. The theory of trusteeship applies equally to both tangible and intangible property, “such as the muscular energy of the labourers and the talents of a Helen Keller”.15 In fact, whole idea of Gandhi’s trusteeship has metaphysical root. According to Gandhi, all property belongs to God, thus, the trustees have no right to destroy that property deliberately and lustfully. Besides, trusteeship aims at the rising of the morale of the people


by giving them a sense of security in the hands of the trustees. The trustees, in their turn, are beholden to creating an urge among the masses for a higher standard of life. As we may note, the Gandhian theory of trusteeship departs significantly from Marxian political economy too. Marxian political economy is the child of the Industrial Revolution, while Gandhian theory of trusteeship which is the major component of Gandhian political economy, can be understood in the context of certain basic spiritual and universal values. Comparing it with Marxian political economy, we may note that while the prior aims at the destruction of the capitalist class, Gandhian political economy aims the destruction of the institution of capitalism and their motives not the capitalists. Moreover Gandhian political economy provides an opportunity to capitalists to reform themselves in the favour of common good. Thus, Gandhian political economy is ethical in nature and it attempts to reduce the class gap and foster human dignity, justice, and equity in the society. Thus, from above discussion what we recognize is that Gandhi’s political economy attempts to resolve the eternal conflict of capital and labour in the nonviolent way. Gandhi argues for the harmony between capital and labour and they should supplement and help each other. In his words, “They [labour and capital] should be a great family living in unity and harmony, capital not only looking to the material welfare of the labourers, but their moral welfare alsocapitalists being trustees for the welfare of the labouring classes under them”.16 It is on this basis he claimed that “I do not think there need be any clash between capital and labour. Each is dependent on the other. What is essential today is that the capitalist should not lord it over the labourer. In my opinion, the mill-hands are as much the proprietors of their mills as the shareholders, and when the millowners realize that the mill-hands are as much mill-owners as they, there will be no quarrel between them”.17 Thus, one my note as Ghose points out.‘all the examples of conflict in Gandhian political economy are the manifestation of internal contradiction between morality and rationality’18 and in Gandhi’s theory of conflict resolution and also within the Gandhian political economy we find an attempt to ‘ensure justice to establish the reign of justice’19. This was the basis on which


Gandhi wanted to build a society that he termed as nonviolent society that was to be non-exploitative and non-authoritarian in nature.

IV Gandhian political economy is need of our time because it has strong sustainability dimension. This sustainability is not limited to ‘sustainable development’ or from materialistic dimension because of future resource crunch what neo-liberals have claimed but it is based on guiding ethical principle of harmony of individual-society-nature. This sustainability has to be realized as discussed earlier, through a new political and economic structure or a new political economy envisioned in Gandhi’s nonviolent state. Thus, sustainability is inherent or in-built in the Gandhian political economy and it does not come from outside or mechanically imposed from external sources. Presenting a critique of liberal political economy and Marxist economy and bringing the dimension of sustainability in human activities including economic, Gandhian political economy may be summed up in Kumarappa’s words in the following way: An economy that is based purely on monetary or material standards of value, does not take in a realistic perspective in Time and Space. This shortcoming leads to a blind alley of violence and destruction from which there is no escape.... To lead to any degree of permanence, the standard of value itself must be based on something apart from the person valuing, who is after all perishable. Such a basis, detached and independent of personal feelings, controlled by ideals which have their roots in the permanent order of things, are objective and so are true and reliable guides.20 This takes us to view a new kind of economy what Kumarappa termed as ‘Economy of permanence’. Gandhian political economy addresses many of the fundamental concerns of our time including the ‘De-growth’ discourse and the inaccurate concept of homoeconomicus. It also indirectly addresses the concern of Paris Conference 2015 on climate change by claiming that what we need today is sustainable lifestyle within a sustainable political economy.


References 1. For more detail see Mishra, Prem Anand. Paradox of Sustainable Development and Gandhian Intervention, ArthPrabhand, 1(7), 2012. pp. 38-46. 2. R. KPrabhu and U.R. Rao. The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 2002, p. 317. 3. Ibid., p. 312. 4. Parel, A.J. Gandhi’s Philosophy and Quest for Harmony, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 68. 5. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG). New Delhi: Publication Division, Government of India. 1999, vol. 74, p. 393. Web. 6. Ibid.,CWMG, Vol. 29, p. 408. 7. Op.cit., Prabhu and Rao. pp. 134-135. 8. Gandhi, M.K. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 2008, p. 27. 9. Dennis Dalton, Gandhi’s Originality in Anthony Parel (ed.) Gandhi, Freedom and Self-rule, MD: Lexington Books, 2000, p. 78. 10. Op.cit.,Prabhu and Rao, p. 372. 11. Ibid., p. 344. 12. Ibid., Prabhu and Rao, p. 134. 13. Mishra, Prem Anand. Social harmony Theory and Practice: Gandhian Humanism in the Twenty-first Century, Rajasthan: IASE University, 2015, p. 55. 14. Op.cit., Prabhu and Rao, p. 261 15. Mashurwala, K.G., Gandhi and Marx, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad, 1951, p. 79. 16. Op.cit., Prabhu and Rao, p. 205. 17. Ibid., p. 209. 18. Ghose, B.N. Gandhian Political Economy, U.K., Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007, p. 154. 19. Ibid., p. 172. 20. Kumarappa, J. C., Economy of Permanence: A quest for a social order based on non-violence, Varanasi: SarvaSevaSanghPrakashan, 1997, p. 36.

Economic Vision of J.C. Kumarappa (Remembering Kumarappa and His Legacy) Vijay Srivastava and Anup Kumar Srivastava The burning socio-economic issues in the last few years have been the increasing conflicts amongst nations, individuals and civilization and continuously increasing the inequalities in all domains. These socioeconomic evils indicate that economies of world are still in destructive in nature and in the trap of “Parasitic economy”. According to J.C. Kumarappa1 in the “Parasitic economy “every economic activity is based on self interested and violence is an essential part of socialpolitical system. In Kumarappa’s point of view best form of any economy is based on love, affection and non-violence and without any self –interested as existed in capitalist societies. He called it economic of services. When Kumarappa’s was practicing the Gandhian economic thoughts2 in his research, he was very optimistic in such sense to achieve high level of non-violent economic order in later stage of holistic human development process. For him the ultimate goal of any society should be achieve spiritual stage of economic development. In other words Kumarappa was optimistic economist because he believed in progressive transformation of violent economic order in to non-violent economic order. But same time he also insisted that to achieve the goals of non-violent order is not natural and human kind had to make big effort to get rid of violent economic activities. It is also noticeable that the concept of parasitic economy not only signifies the important of non-violence in economic sphere but also in political system also. Interpreting the Gandhi’s economic ideas in action, Kumarappa brought out interesting books, on Economy of Permanence (1945), Gandhian Economic Thought (1951), Why the Village Movement (1936) and Public Finance and poverty. After the nine years of publication of Why the Village Movement in which discuss the problems of colonial Indian economy, Kumarappa

Economic Vision of J.C. Kumarappa (Remembering Kumarappa and His Legacy) 73

decided to gave solution of these problems of colonial rule. He has written in the preface of “Economy of Permanence” that “In previous study. ‘WHY THE VILLAGE MOVEMENT?’ the conditions prevailing in India in comparison with the orders obtaining in leading western countries were considered. In this booklet, an attempt is made to present a positive outlook that will suit the genius of people of the of our land.3 As a doctor4 of Indian economy firstly he diagnosed the problem of Indian economy with Gandhian techniques and then provided the best suited medicine for these socio-economic evils. For understanding the nature of Indian society, Kumarappa started an economic survey of rural area in Gujarat as Gandhi’s chief economist. It is important to highlight that team of many students of Gujarat vidyapeeth5 was the part of this survey. Undoubtedly J.C. Kumarappa interpretation of Gandhian economics is a flow of Gandhian economic thought and it seeks all the solution of economic evils under Gandhian non violent principles. Like Gandhi he also believed in action not in only theorization of concepts. Undertaking the responsibilities of various Gandhian constructive programmes signified the importance of J.C. Kumarappa as man of action.6 Non-possession, trusteeship, decentralization, sarvodaya, is the essential pillar of Kumarappa’s philosophy also and in initial days of independent India, Vinoba Bhave, another champion of Gandhian thought used these principles in his “Bhoodan aandolan.”7 There is great integration between thoughts and actions of Vinoba and J.C. Kumarappa. Vinoba’s description of “Sabhi Bhumi Gopal ki”, i.e “All land belongs to God” exists in Kumarappa’s holistic stage of economic development “economic of service”. Vinoba urged with people for donation of village and donation of wealth and land without any selfish motive (“Gramdan” and “Sampattidan”). Kumarppa had same views in the context of establishing permanency in an economic order without violence. In latest book on Gandhian ethics principles M V Nadkarni also discussed role of J.C. Kumarappa and his ideological base in detail. Nadkarni argued that “J.C. Kumarappa’s interpretation of Gandhian economic thought, particularly in pointing out the central tendency of development of world towards less violence, or more and more non violence gives us new hope.8


Prof Glenn. D. Paige9’s non-violent political society and J.C. Kumarappa’s Economic of services have same characteristics and non-violent social order is similar to non-violent political society. According to Prof Glenn D. Paige “The greater the violence of the individual group of organization, society or nation, the greater its responsibility for nonviolent self transformation to assist the nonviolent development of others. Conversely the more nonviolent the human consciousness and material conditions, the greater the responsibility to assist others to become more nonviolent”.10 The parameters of non-violent political society of Prof. Glenn. D. Paige and Kumarappa’s non violent social order are based on same ethical principles propagatd by Gandhi. In this context of explaining the concept of ideal nonviolent social; order Venu Madhav Govindu, Deepak Malghan (2005) argued that “Central to Kumarappa’s conception of an ideal society is the understanding that autonomy at the individual level is essential to a society’s economic freedom. More importantly, political and social freedom rests squarely on economic freedom. Any non-violent social organization is predicated on providing complete autonomy for every individual.11” It means that non violent political activities and non-violent economic activities are interlinked with each others in deeper sense, having a multidimensional approach to understand the social order both Kumarappa and Prof Glenn D. Paige want economies free from any kind of individual’s selfishness. No doubt in political societies it stands for absence of corruption, injustice and exploitation but in economic culture this has deep theological meanings. In Kumarappa’s model of holistic development control over wants and consumption is an integral part and these are the best example on nonviolent economic activities. Linking with Gandhi’s idea of individual autonomy Kumarappa viewed a close connection between economic structure and organization and political structure, for example, large scale industrialization is an anti-thesis to democracy in politics. (Gullapalli, 2010). In the words of Gandhi “That economics is untrue which ignores or disregards moral values. The extension of the law of non-violence in the domain of economies means nothing less than the introduction of moral values as a factor to be considered in regulating international commerce.”12 Within the context of fundamental principles of non-violence, we


can easily draw the non-violent principles of Kumarappa’s economic philosophy. Kumarappa’s non violent economic order cannot be achieved under the socialist planning system. It is important to understand the Gandhian framework nonviolent society aims at achieving equitable distribution of wealth, income and resources. To Gandhi and Kumarappa centralization leads towards socio-economic conflicts. All the scholars of Gandhian thought rejected the Nehurivain aspect of socialist planning or centralized planning in democratic economies. It was firm belief of Gandhian Political economists that the democracy and centralized planning cannot walk together. (Vinoba, 1935). As mentioned earlier that Kumarappa permanent economy system accepts only non-violent socio-economic activities and for him centralized economic planning make democracy violent. He insisted towards establishment of nonviolent democratic economy rather than violent democratic economy. He rejected socialists’ system due to existence of violent elements in socialists’ aspect. In his own words “Socialists, who aim at equitable distribution but plan on collecting the profits together first and then set about distributing, are going counter to their bountiful nature, which rewards directly. This socialist method will spell violence in the long run.”13 The planning system in nonviolent democracy must be decentralized in nature and if even in socialist state when all power is centralized a country cannot be called democracy. So what type of non-violent democratic system Gandhian political economy14 wants? We can find the answer of this question in all Gandhian literature in a multidimensional form. Linking with ideologies of Kumarappa and Vinoba, the best form of nonviolent democracy is sarvodaya15 samaj which insists welfare for all. Vinoba called it ‘freedom from government.’16 Analysis of thoughts of J.C. Kumarappa and Vinoba provides fact that they were against the mixture of centralized economic planning and democratic government. To Kumarappa “Countries have been using centralized methods of production which means central control and regimentation, which leads to dictatorship in economics and at the same time, democracy in politics. Such claims to democracy are merely smoke screens. Democracy in economies must be based on decentralized production in villages on individual basis.”17 In other sense Kumarappa and Vinoba focused on decentralized governance


with decentralized industries and decentralized economies. In the words of Vinoba “The ultimate goal of sarvodaya is freedom from government….and the absence of government…A society free from government does not mean a society without order. It means an orderly society, but one in which administrative authority rests in the villages”18The kind of democratic government plays an important role in building non-violent social and economic order. It is duty of Government to promote non violent economic and social activities under self mechanism system of nonviolent political societies. Under the nonviolent societies in Gandhian economic system Government is non commercial institute and in any case it should serve the people. On the same lines, Noted Gandhian activist Dada Dharmadhikari was champion of interpreting the Gandhi’s ideas of self rule and freedom. Any kind of force rule for obtaining freedom and after achieving freedom is not acceptable in Gandhian economic order. He says that “In a democratic set-up, the emphasis should be on swashashan (self-regulation) rather than merely on shashan (external control). One should act on the basis of restraint not only on the basis of constraint – the emphasis should be on voluntariness rather than forced acceptance”. 19 Advertising culture has no place in the Gandhian political economy and Kumarappa’s vision of permanent economy. Demonstration of luxuries is prevailing societies day by day through means of advertisement. .Demand for luxuries items disturbs the whole economic and social order and this could be reason behind J.C. Kumarappa’s opposition towards demand-supply equilibrium theory of neo-classical economics. He firmly believed in the localization of production of goods especially consumption goods. For achieving permanency in economy, society must produce need based goods in local level. In the words of J.C. Kumarappa “If we seek to obtain permanence and nonviolence we must have an order in which the costumer will play the lead role. This can only be achieved when consumption goods are locally made.”20 The whole debate towards creating nonviolent society depends on competition versus cooperation. Market economy promotes competition but ideal social order21 in Gandhian analytical framework promotes cooperation. Relating g this equation with civilization and consumption habits


of people Kumarappa and Gandhi rejected the craziness for western lifestyle and luxurious items. Basically craziness for these non consumption goods intensifies the mass production and further inflationary pressures in an economy. Kumarappa did not believe in mass production and centralized method of production of fashioninsensitive of status symbol goods and he called it “Predatory economy”. Kumarappa also described the cycle of selfishness in predatory economy. Financiers in modern economic systems enhanced living in luxury without producing wealth. Kumrappa says that “More and more things are produced to supply our primary needs, less and less will be the violence. The more we produce luxuries, the greater will be the violence that is generated. If you starve people and try to produce luxury articles, it will lead to violence. Production of a luxury like tobacco at the cost of a primary need like cereals, will weigh the scales towards violence.”22 Kumrappa’s concern towards ill effects of ‘parasitic economy’ and ‘predatory economy’ can be explained with the theory of alienation. Destruction of source of benefit and benefit without contribution to nature is a chief symbol of violent economy. How this violence occurs? Kumarappa has answer of this question with the explanation of alienation process. In the various stages of human development, this violent cycle works but when man alienated from nature and inner self this order becomes more violent in nature and it has positive correlation with culture of greed and mode of production in an economy. Degree of alienation is high in capitalist economies in compared to socialist economies, as people started alienating from inner self and nature both it disturbs the nature cycle of holistic human development process also. For an ideal non violent social order, Kumarappa warns the society about regressive effect of process of alienation from nature. In other sense it was Kumarappa’s visionary approach towards ecological economics. Less degree of alienation from nature means more preservation of resources, less natural exploitation of natural resources for so called economic growth. In other dimension Kumarappa’s political economy deals with question of alienation not only for ‘economic of permanence’ but also for ‘ecology for permanence.’23 The best method is to save individual and society from the trap of alienation from nature and then demonstration effect of industrial civilization.


In the history of modern societies all bloody wars were related to the greediness of human kind. The imperialism emerged also in a global context during the era of industrialization and free trade economy. It is noted that theory of alienation, surplus value and exploitation of labor also highlighted this fact. Marx made observations regarding greed of Capitalists in a competition oriented economy. While competition between capitalists may lead to greater levels of productivity, it also results in concentration of wealth in to fewer and fewer hands. One of the basic truths in capitalism is that it takes money to make money and the more money a business owner has it or his disposal, the more ability he or she has to generate profitmaking schemes.24 Linking Alienation to greed of capitalist, Marx also regarded it as an “ an all-pervasive phenomenon of capitalism, new Marxist called it “system of general state slavery based on industry. Marx’s definition has been winded by the new left to include five kinds of alienation. These are as followings: ( 1) Alienation of man from his work (2) Alienation of the man from commodities he produces (3) Alienation of consumption from production (4) Alienation of man from social organisms (5) Alienation of men from one another But to find out Gandhian theory of alienation (Kumarappa’s chief test of parasitic economy and predatory economy) we may add one more point in the above list, i.e. alienation of man from nature and alienation of man from his inner self. As in introductory part of paper we said that world is witnessing today “Economy of greed” and due to this society has transformed from work-oriented society to consumption-oriented society and through state power and elite class power is increasing. Monopolization of resources leads to inequality in distribution of production of resources and to further inequalities in economy. Gandhi and Kumarappa linked this alienation and greediness with modern civilization. In Gandhian point of view alienation of man from inner self and nature is the result of western civilization. It is also notable that unlike Marx, Gandhi and Kumarappa never used the word alienation. Instead he used the term “Self destruction.”25 He wrote in Hind Swaraj “This Civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self- destroyed.


According to teachings of Mahommed this would be considered as a Satanic Civilization. Hinduism calls it the black age”.26 Gandhi visualized this interrelationship amongst industrial civilization, alienation and capitalism and the contradiction between wealth and well being started from this point of interrelationship. In the words of Amlan Dutta “The Contradiction between wealth and well being was acutely perceived at the beginning of industrial revolution by the finer spirits of the time. One finds that feeling expressed in the simple yet memorable words “wealth accumulates and man decay”27. Noted German economist Schumacher says “Modern man does not experience him as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it”.28 This alienation is critical and is enabled through the depersonalized and purely abstract nature of money based market29 system. E.F. Schumacher further explained the alienation from nature “We teach our children that technology are the instruments for man’s battle with nature, but forget to warn them that, being himself a part of nature , man could be easily be on the losing side.”30 The goals of a Kumrappa’s economic system are different from those which the country has been practicing since Independence. As discussed earlier goals of Nehurian socialistic planning cannot be fit in nonviolent economic system of Gandhi, Kumarappa and Vinoba. When Nehru invited Vinoba to participate in the meeting of planning commission in its initial days, he rejected to attend this on the ground of ideological differences in planning methodology of Nehurvian and Gandhian approach. To followers of Gandhian plans central economic planning system will become root cause of illusion of freedom. In nonviolent economic order importance has been given to achieve real freedom not an illusion of freedom. Illusion of freedom starts when individuals and organizations alienated from natural economic system. Here natural economic system stands for decentralized village governance. Needless to mention that under centralized economic planning system life of villagers and weaker section of society are controlled by the policy makers. To get rid of the “illusion of freedom31” and “Alienation”, individuals must control their life and decision making power should be in the hand of “Last man of society”. Parameters of Gandhian political economy


supports “decentralized governance, representative democracy and decentralized system of economic planning.”32 Kumarappa believed that American and Soviet plan would not sustain in Indian society for long run and he warned Indian planners about success of these planning methods in India. He stated that... “Therefore all these plan whether it is soviet plan, or the American plan, or the British Plan-they all have certain factors for their background. If these factors do not exist in our country and those circumstances do not hold good here at present, and yet if we plan on the same lines as they had done, then we shall surely fail.”33 In the development model of Kumarappa there is no scope for centralized industries as well as free trade. Like Gandhi, he believed in the harmonic relationship with ecology and economy. Many scholars regarded him great “ecological economist”34 of our times. Free trade, indiscriminate mechanization and larger market economies under centralized economic planning exploit natural resources at higher degree. It disturbs the ecological and economic balance. Mark Lindley says that “Kumarappa’s vision of promotion the ‘cooperation and coordination of Nature’s units’ will prove an essential complement to hands-off concept’ (hands-off ideology of humanity’s relation with nature to prevent the occurrence of environmental degradation”.35 In the Gandhian framework, sustainable development emphasizes on maximizing environmental welfare of the people .In other words; we can say that the Gandhian theory of utility implies a balance between economic welfare and environmental welfare. Gandhi believed in the philosophy of minimization of wants. He was against the materialistic culture and luxurious lifestyle. One of the important reasons for his opposition to greed life style is related to environmental conservation. Nature Resource exploitation, which is an important part of capitalistic societies, has no place in Gandhian environmental order. In his book he wrote, “When we use chemical fertilizers in the place of organic manures, for a time we may obtain crops, but constant application of these destroys the earthworms as they cannot feed on chemicals .With the disappearance of earthworms the soil becomes heavy and ultimately loses its fertility. Nature’s cycle is being broken by discarding farmyard manure and vegetable composts, the Economy of Permanence yields place to the man-made economy of Transience”.36


It is noticeable that Kumarappa said this when India started planned economy and was going to adopt policy of heavy industrialization and technological advancement. The negligence of Indian planners towards environment economy interactions during the initial stages of planning creates a gap between the GDP and natural resource utilization. Kumarappa propagated the concept of green GDP or Environmental resource depreciation in the National Income Accounting. Man inhabits two worlds .One is the natural world of plants and animals, of soils and airs and water which preceded him by billions of years and of which is a part. The other is the world of social institutions and articrafts he builds for himself, using his tools and engines, his science and his dreams to fashion an environment obedient to human process and direction.37 The outstanding feature of last ten thousand years has been the construction of second human world.38 This second human world and modern civilization sought to dominate nature and upset ecological system. Kumarappa called it “Parasitic Economy”, where harmonious relationship between ecology and economy has been affected negatively by human process. The Gandhian ideas of natural resource preservation in an economic order received positive feedback from western economic thinkers also. In this context E. F Schumacher wrote a great book in 1973 entitled “Small is beautiful: A Study of Economics as if people Mattered”. The ideas presented in Schumacher’s pioneer work meet the human and natural elements of Gandhian political economy.

Conclusion Giving due respect to unforgotten economist of India, it is time to remember his philosophy teachings and works with more enthusiasm not only in public as well as academic discourse also. It is noted that, he was not only a Gandhian scholar but ‘karmyogi’ of Gandhi’s social reconstruction programme and formation of non-violent social order.

References 1. See, Kumarappa, J.C., Economy of Permanence, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, Reprint edition, 2010, pp. 162-163. Dr J.C. Kumarappa was a champion of Gandhian thoughts particularly


in the field of Gandhian Economics. It was the proof of his legacy and high economic thinking that the Foreword of the book has been written by Mahatma Gandhi. Giving to the importance of his contribution in Gandhian economic thinking in this study various places views of Kumarappa has been cited and discussed same like other scholars on Gandhian thoughts. 2. It was Kumarappa who firstly coined the term ‘Gandhian Economic Thought’; it was the impact of his long association with Mahatma Gandhi. 3. See Preface of Kumarappa, J.C., Economy of Permanence, Sarv Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, 1945. 4. Kumarappa did not obtain PhD Degree from any educational institute. It was Gandhi who called him Doctor of village industries with love and affection. Even Kumarappa had objection in this regard. He also wrote a letter to Gandhi for the removal of Dr. from his name but Gandhi rejected his request as chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapeeth. 5. Gandhi started Gujarat Vidyapeeth in year 1920 and as a chancellor of institute he appointed Kumarappa as Professor. Later Gandhi gave him the editorial responsibilities of ‘Young India’ (1930). 6. Kumarappa, J.C.,The Gandhian Economy and Other Essays, Wardha, The All India Village Industries Association, second edition, 1949, p. 1. 7. Vinoba called it Bhoodan Yagya rather than using word aandolan. 8. See, Nadkarni, M.V., Ethics for Our timed, Essays in Gandhian Perspective, Oxford University, New Delhi, 2011, p. 23. 9. An eminent political thinker Prof Glenn D. Paige awaked the non-violence in practice during the mid seventies at Global level. 10. Paige, Glenn D., To Nonviolent Political Science: From seasons of violence, Central for Global Nonviolence Planning Project. See also Radhakrishnan, N. Glenn, D. Paige and Nonviolent political science, Gandhi Smiirti Darshan Samiti, New Delhi, 1998, p. 9. 11. Cited in Deepak Malghan and Venu Madhu Govindu, Building a Creative Freedom: J.C. Kumarappa and his Economic Philosophy, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XL No. 52, December 24, 2005. 12. Gandhi, M.K., Young India, 26-10-1924, p. 421. 13. Kumarappa, J.C. Economy of Permanence, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varanasi Rajghat, reprint edition, reprint edition 2010, p. 115. 14. It is noticeable that the term “Gandhian political economy” explained in the work of B.N. Ghosh (2007 & 2013). B.N. Ghosh has objection in using term Gandhian economics. For full analysis of parameters of Gandhian Political economy see, Gosh, B.N. “Beyond Gandhian Economics Towards a Creative Destruction”, Sage Publication, New Delhi .


15. All Gandhian scholars and followers were believers of Gandhian theory of Sarvodaya. Sarvodaya insisted towards egalitarian society. 16. Freedom from government is different from absence of government and in Swaraj Sashtra and Lok Niti Vinoba defined in detail. 17. Ibid., p. 154. 18. Bhave, Vinoba, Democratic Values, Sarva Seva Sangh-Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, pp. 30-31. 19. Cited in Dharmadhikari, Chandrashekhar, Contemplating Gandhi, Essays on Mahatama’s life and thought, Institute of Gandhian Studies, Wardha. 20. Kumarappa, J.C., Economy of Permanence, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varanasi Rajghat, reprint edition, reprint edition 2010, p. 115. 21. Discussion on Ideal Social order of Gandhian Frame work, See Ganguly, B.N, “Gandhi’s Social Philosophy, Perspective and Relevance”, Radha Publications, New Delhi, 1973. 22. Cited in Kumarappa, J.C., Gandhian Economic Thought, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, p. 10. Book is available online at http:// www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/Gandhian-Economic-Thought.pdf. 23. One of the greatest environmentalist of our times T.N. Khoshoo gave this new term “ecology of permanence” while analyzing the role of Gandhi and Kumarapa’s in environmentalism In India. He regarded Gandhi and Kumarappa as chief environmentalist in 21st century. For detail, See, Khoshoo T.N. & Moolakkattu John S., Mahatama Gandhi and the Environment, Teri Press New Delhi, 2009. 24. Sethi, J.D., Poverty, Alienation and the Gandhian Way Out, In Diwan Romesh and Mark Lutz (Ed) Essays in Gandhian Economics, Gandhi Peace Foundation New Delhi, and 1985. p. 215. 25. This term “Economy of Greed” has been extracted from the Series of Hindi Article of Veerandra Kumar Baranwal, Published in Journal Hindi Literature, Kathadesh From January 2010 to May 2010 and The title of the Article is “Hind Swaraj Ki Sati Par Gandhi Aur Uttar Adhunik Bodh”. 26. Gandhi, M.K., Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad , 1939, p. 33. 27. Datta, Amlan, In Defence of Freedom, Radha Publications, New Delhi 2001, Chap 18, p. 159. 28. Shumacher, E.F., Small is Beautifu : Economics As If People Mattered, Hartley and Mark Publishers, New York, p. 248, 44. 29. Kundalia, Vandana, E.F. Shumavher, A Pioneer of Peace Economics, Journal of Gandhian Studies, Vol. 8 , No. 1, 2010, p. 32.


30. Cited in Khoshoo T.N. & Moolakkattu John S., Mahatama Gandhi and the Environment, Teri Press New Delhi, 2009, p. 125. 31. Vinoba discussed this concept in detail in his work “Swaraj-Shashtra” and “Democratic values”. The word has been extracted from Vinoba’s “Democratic values”, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan”, Rajghat Varanasi. 32. This dimension has been discussed in Diwan Romesh and Lutz Mark , Essays in Gandhian Economics , Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi. 33. Kumarappa, J.C., Economy of Permanence, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Varanasi Rajghat, reprint edition 2010, p. 124. 34. Mark Lindley credits Kumarappa for doing great work in the field of ecological economics in his remarkable work, “J.C. Kumarappa hatama Gandhi’s Economist”, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 2008. 35. Ibid. p. 153. 36. Kumarappa J.C., Economy of Permanence, Sarva Seva Sangh Prakshan Varanasi, 2010, p. 3. 37. Barbara Ward and Rene Duobs, Only One Earth; Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, London Penguin , 1972. 38. M.W. Holdgate, A Perspective of Environmental Pollution, Cambridge University Press, London, 1979, p. 1.

Political Parties Enroute Social Democracy or Political Conservatism Santwana Pandey In the present paper the elements which have been combined are social democracy and political conservatism. The role in this context which have been played by the political parties has been specifically highlighted with the impact of Gandhian ideas regarding state, its institutions and existing controversies. In general it is considered that political parties cannot be a good player in the expansion of socialism while the idea of democratic socialism can only be fruitful with the active participation of modern day political parties. Political parties with a certain ideology can never be able to represent the whole society rather will serve the personal ambitions and opportunism of the defined groups. Statist socialism relies on governmental power which extends the role of political parties and its apparatus of coercion to achieve its goals. All kind of political parties, however, albeit in varying degrees, share different attitude towards different sections of society regardless of their historical background and insist on their different techniques to improvise their social conditions. It was only in the 1990s that the idea of less known or popular in some areas political parties emerged and decided their own socialist goals. There was required a balanced approach and democratic or conservative temperament towards the society and certain political structures. Social prestige was replaced by the vague desire for justice which became the main principle the political parties adhered to.

Theoretical Framework: Social Democracy and Political Conservatism Social democracy is not and never has remained an idea with a fixed structure of dogmas that each member must swear by. It has


a tradition of opinions shaped by more than a hundred years of theoretical discussion and day to day politics, the expansion of which can be monitored in the party declarations. This group of ideas covers values and social analysis, dreams about the society of tomorrow and practical policies for the society of today.1Although the picture of the present day conditions can’t be exactly the same as the obligations towards democratic structure and its units has completely changed and factually modified according the present day values and norms. Socialist democracy is the only means to attain co-operation from different sections without any rebellion and ferocity although that sarcastically improves the part played by different political groups in a broad framework that eventually leads to the notion of social solidarity. The question of the role of the state in the transition from democratic socialism to political conservatism was not among the principle contradiction among the less or more known political parties. There always occur struggle between democratic system and its foes and market and its alternatives at par with the search of Gandhian solution to the difficulties resulting this. Gandhian ideology on practice turned out to mean a willingness to use political power to protect citizens from the ravages of unrestrained markets. Democratic socialism has a kind of ideological uniqueness. There was actually a natural community of interest between marginalized and the vast majority of the society which led to the political goals in totally separate angles while democratic spirit was involved within the conditional justice of the existing classes of the society. There is also an existence of such classes which suffered a lot from the prejudices of the mainstream. It was also a great and difficult question of how political power could underwrite to socialist transformation and the subsequent onset of democratic changes which scarcely required social suitability. The argument was that the class’s anarchical and destructive powers could and should be bound at the same time that its ability to produce unprecedented uneven social abundance was exploited. The only middle way between them was the alternative theory of democratic socialism and that was based on a belief that political impartiality must be able to triumph over class based society. 1. Carlsson, Ingvar and Lindgren, Anne-Marie, “What is Social Democracy”, ArbetarrorelsensTankesmedja, Stockholm, Sweden, 2007.

Political Parties Enroute Social Democracy or Political Conservatism 87

Democratic socialism, which in Europe was entrenched in Christian beliefs, humanism and classical viewpoint, did not declare ultimate truths – not because of any lack of thoughtfulness for or indifference to philosophical and religious truths, but out of respect for the person’s choice in these issues of conscience in which neither the state nor any political authority should be permitted to interfere.2And the afro-asian region is becoming the witness of tremendous change. Here lies the fact that all afro-asian region had been exposed to transitional socio-political circumstances in which the representation of the people of the whole country in shaping the future politico-economic goals became the ultimate way and it has seen its physical presence in the political parties of their definite region. Democratic socialism in physical sense is a constant battle for the demand of autonomy and socio-political justice to preserve it and to live up to it. Rather than questioning whether socialist democratic ideas are worthwhile, political debates have inclined to be about whether the socialist or the conservativist political parties are best able to device the formula of sustainable growth with stable pattern. Except this, social democracy should also be seen as the most fruitful ideology and crusade of the twentieth century: its values and strategies undergirded the most affluent and harmonious retro in history by integrating things that had hitherto seemed discordant – a well-functioning socialist system, democracy, and social solidarity.

The Democratic Socialist Vision Democratic socialists rely that the independence of each human being can only be established in a society representing the values of liberty, equality, and solidarity. These principles do not involve anunpolished commencement of equality that conceives of human beings as identical in all esteems. Rather, if human beings are to develop their discrete dimensions they must be rendered alike respect and opportunities denied to them by the variations of capitalist society, in which the life openings of a child born in the inner city are blatantly less than that of a child born in a prosperous area. A democratic community dedicated to the identical ethical worth of every citizen 2. Bad Godesberg program, reprinted in Miller and Potthoff, A History of German Social Democracy, 275.


will informally provide the cultural and economic requirements – nutrition, accommodation, quality education, healthcare, parenting – for the growth of human individuality.3 Attaining this multiplicity and occasion necessitates an essential reorganization of our socioeconomic order. While the freedoms that occur under autonomous capitalism are advantages of prevalent struggle to be valued, democratic socialists claim that the values of liberal democracy can only be contented when the economy as well as the government is democratically measured. We cannot admit statist approach of political relationships as ‘free and private’ because agreements are not made among politically equals and because they give intensification to social constructions which undemocratically deliberate power upon some over others. We do not envision that all institutional associations would decline under democratic socialism, but we have faith in that the basic outlines of society must be democratically built by the free deliberation of its associates as well as the clusters which they constitute that later convert themselves into political organizations.

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition Political parties are coming up constantly in a changing frame. Political philosophy should be assumed as reflecting inspired cognition and that people who embrace conservative, right-wing ideologies do so in part because it obliges their needs to manage vagueness and hazard. Practically political conservatism has a thin limitations to think for a definite class and its people which cut it off from broader democratic aims of the society. Conventional approach most often negotiate with national goals which become very expensive from the viewpoint of long term planning. It is quite natural to increase the values of democratic socialism by the values of political groups as it has the theory to offer that verified to the satisfaction that the two are indissolubly linked. According to this theory political control over the units of government is at the foot both of the ability 3. Schwartz, Joseph & Schulman, Jason, “Towards Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice”, Democratic Socialists of America, www. dsausa.org.


of the majority to exploit political motivations and its ability to impose the dictates of its own interest upon the organization of the political affairs of the public; the political power of the majority thus seems to be but a particular form of its philosophical power. The interpretations are, on the one hand, that there cannot be democracy so long as that control exists-that mere political democracy is of need a sham- and, on the other hand, that the removal of that power will at the same time end the “exploitation of man by man” and carry about the “rule of the people.”4It is also significant to analyze the nature of democracy. Socialism in being might be the very perfect of democracy. But socialists are not constantly so particular about the way in which it is to be brought into being. In order to bring democracy in real in life it is necessary to eradicate the poisonous smokes of political dominance that suffocate it. Now for the supporter of democracy, the importance of detecting democratic technique obviously increases in quantity to the importance of the point at issue. Hence its compliance never needs to be more jealously viewed and more carefully protected by all available guarantees than in the case of essential social renovation. Whoever is ready to lessen this prerequisite and to accept either frankly undemocratic procedure or some method of acquiring formally democratic decision by autocratic means, thereby proves decisively that he values other things more highly than he values democracy. The thoroughgoing democrat will consider any such rebuilding as vitiated in its origins, however much he might accept of it on other parks. To try to force the people to hold something that is thought to be good and magnificent but which they do not actually want – even though they may be anticipated to like it when they practice its results – is the very hall mark of anti-democratic credence. It is up to the casuist to choose whether an exclusion may be made for undemocratic acts that are enacted for the sole resolution of realizing true democracy, only if they are the only resources of doing so. For this, even if granted, does not apply to the circumstance of socialism which, as we have seen, is expected 4. Schumpeter, Joseph A. “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” Introduction by Richard Swedberg, Stockholm University, Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-library, 2003, p. 235.


to become democratically possible quite when it can be expected to be practically successful. In any case however it is clear that any argument in favor of dropping democracy for the provisional period affords an excellent occasion to evade all accountability for it and this accountability in major terms goes to the political units. Such temporary arrangements may well last for a century or more and means are available for a ruling group connected by a triumphant revolution to extend them indefinitely or to assume the forms of democracy without the material.

Political Activities in the Light of Democratic Socialism Accepting social democracy’s innovative justification and gaining a transformed appreciation for its role in twentieth century political growth is reason enough to reassess the movement’s history.5 Social democracy’s changed communitarian appeal will therefore have to be built upon more comprehensive grounds – namely, shared ethics and duties. The founders of social democratic movement understood, people have a deep-seated and ineffaceable psychological need to feel part of a greater community. The alternative socialism was in fact a way to oppose the juggernaut of statist structures of political system and its resulting consequences for the debarred class of the society and ostracized people of the world. Political conservativism, the highest stage of thriving self-oriented political beliefs, now dominates every major segment of the society. Political antiquity offers tough lessons that forces us to analysis the whole political system and its gap and how to make it more slanted towards people. The institution i.e. political parties which require more exposure to the societal political needs to feel the pulse of the nation. The political ferocity of the twentieth century, which resulted in an estimated 200 million deaths and an indefinable social and political degradation, cautions us to work for democratic socialism in the 21st century with every means at our disposal except violence.

5. Berman, “Understanding Social Democracy”, p. 34.


A point by point assessment of the absolutely opposed ideologies and rehearses of social democracy versus political conservativism in the best ground work for the match at hand.

Social Democracy versus Political Conservativism Matrix : 1 Social Democracy V. Political Conservativism: Principle and Practices Issues Social Democracy Political Conservativism Civil Affairs Promote the principle of Preserve and increase the Government liberty, unity and social privileges of the dominant justice for all citizens class of the society Maximize the Produce the goods and accumulation of wealth services necessary to without regard to the support society at a socio-economic disparity Economy sustainable level and and resulting provide an equitable dissatisfaction within the distribution of wealth society Law enforcement Guarantee public safety Protect the privileged and criminal and ensure the equal social classes and suppress justice administration of justice marginalized groups Support of selling like any Guarantee health care for other service or Health services all citizens commodity Provide free public Support of selling like any Education education through other service or colleges commodity Privatize all social services Guarantee a decent including retirement and Welfare and standard of living for all disability pensions in social security citizens order to maximize capital accumulation Institute immigration policy that respects Propose guest worker Immigration human rights and offers program for cheap labor legal protection


Diplomacy

Military

Conduct foreign affairs in a spirit of internationalism that respects the sovereignty and right of selfdetermination for all people and nations Provide the defense of the nation

Expand the economic power through gunboat diplomacy and military blackmail Secure corporate political interests worldwide

Matrix: 1 exemplifies interconnections between political values and social performs and discloses how political values determine social action in human concerns. The vertical length indicate how social action stream from the principles that have been approved to govern a community. The horizontal dimension permits us to associate the significances of the opposing values of social democracy and political conservativism indeed. The ideological clash lines of the present world are becoming progressively clear.6 The key to combating political conservativism lies in the race between the control of political command which is based on rights and supremacy versus socialist democracy based on the doctrines of equality, unity and social justice. The question before us is what can be done to transfer the world towards democracy and socialism from traditional approach towards statist establishments? While political actions are local, the socialist alternative offers the chance for a wide diversity of actions on native and state issues, most of them straight related to those sections of the society which have never endured an inseparable part of power and authority but it has become the insistent need of today world politics andinclines us to think in anadvanced manner.

Democratic Socialism: Its Main Functionaries Democracy equally socialist democracy appeals to political equality, the right of all entities to contribute in setting the rules to which all will be subject. Socialism accentuates material equality – not strict equality, but an end to the vast differences of revenue and wealth 6. Richard D. Vogel with Idell D. Vogel, “The Socialist Alternative”, p.6.


traceable to the inequalities of possession of means of production. Plate saw democracy as unavoidably disintegrating into tyranny, for the demos would try to reorganize wealth, the wealthy would unorthodox, the people would call on a strongman to aid their cause, but he would not renounce power once mounted. Democracy in administration, comradeship in society, impartiality in rights and privileges and worldwide education, suggest the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending (Morgan 1964: 467). It may be protested that nothing will prevent the mistreatment of minorities by majorities. Closer inspection, however, discloses that this would be unlikely. If the plunders of such misuse were to be equally dispersed among the majority, there would not be enough assistances to justify the efforts of overpowering the minority and there would be no real point to the exploitation.7In general established parties do so in custom without knowing the resulting dire consequences to it. If, on the other hand, the rewards were unequally distributed, which generally happens, would not be a case of a mainstream exploiting a minority but rather of one marginal exploiting another with the support and assistance of the majority that has become the present day tendency. The majority, however, would advantage nothing and in fact be susceptible by this, since what is today a minority abusing another with the help of the majority would tomorrow be converted into a minority exploiting the majority. The above examination assumes free-thinking self-interest, that all men will be aware of the process of the social system and of their own interests within such a system.

Analysis: The Concluding Remark Gandhian ideology can be justified only when the state and all its institutions will be supportive to impart social justice and ensure participation of all social classes and sections without biasness in all political representations and decisions regardless of any sort of political mileage. It can honestly concluded that each unit of the political system whether they are political parties, state and its 7. Eugene E. Ruyle, “A Socialist Alternative for the Future”, p. 615.


functionaries, government, citizen and the social order which they have constructed will have to function in a harmonious manner with a balanced approach to make a less complicated society. Rest choice is ours.

References Bhatnagar, S. and Pradeep Kumar (1988). Regional Political Parties in India. Delhi: EssEss Publications. Articles by Bombwall, K.R. “Regional Parties in Indian Politics: A Preview” (1-16); Bhuyam Dasarathi (1997), Role of Regional Political Parties in India, New Delhi: Mittal Publications. Brass, Paul R. (2006), Forms of Collective Violence, New Delhi: Glorious Printers. Brass, Paul R. (1966), Factional Politics in an Indian State, Bombay: Oxford University Press. Chandra Kanchan (2004), Why Ethnic Parties Succeed, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Duverger, Maurice (1964). Political Parties: Their Organisation and Activity in the Modern State. New Delhi: B.I. Publications. Eldersveld, Samuel J. (1971). Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis. Bombay: Vora and Co. Gopa Kumar, G. (1986). Regional Political Parties and State Politics. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications. Hasan, Zoya (2002), Parties and Party Politics in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hartmann, Horst (1971). Political Parties in India. Meerut: Meenakshi Prakashan. Kumar, N.K. (1990). Political Parties in India: Their Ideology and Organization. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. LaPalambara, Joseph and Myron Weiner (ed.) (1966). Political Parties and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mehra, Ajay K., D.D. Khanna, and GertKueck (ed). (2003), Political Parties and Party Systems, Delhi: Sage.

Relevance of Gandhian Ideals in the Present Century P. Nithiya Education not only provides knowledge and skills but also inculcates values, training of instincts, fostering right attitude and habits. It is an activity or a process, which modifies the behaviour of a person from ‘instinctive behaviour’ to ‘human behaviour’. Man, instead of acting impulsively, acts rationally. Educating the child is directing the child’s capacities, attitudes, interests, urges and needs into the most desirable channels. In short, education is the training of the intellect, body and spirit. It is training in co-operation, love and sympathy. It is training in correct responses to environment conditions. Values may be defined as ‘qualities that a person has learned to believe are important or worthwhile. They can be principles to live by or goals to be achieved.’ The meaning of value was those desirable ideals and goals which are intrinsic in themselves and which when achieved or attempted to be achieved, evoke a deep sense of fulfillment to one or many or all parts of what we consider the highest elements of our nature.

Meaning and Nature of Values Value system is the backbone of a unified society. Values are the socially accepted norms to evaluate and object the person and situation. It may not only change from one society to another society but also from time to time. It occupies an important place in one’s life. The meaning of the term “Value” can be better understood by contrasting it with the term “Fact”. Moral Philosophers made a sharp distinction between a fact and a value. Generally, it is observed that a value cannot be reduced to a fact. This distinction has to be maintained so as to recognize the importance of a value. For instance,


a value is the satisfaction of a desire or the achievement of certain ends as a consequence of knowing the facts. Value is also used to mean the valuables or good. Value means “Things that have value” things that are good or best. Value is that which gives satisfaction and also determined by the situations. Value decision shows the nature of value.1 In other words, a value is something which is desirable. Although we desire several things, they cannot be treated as values. Our desires are confined to our personal satisfaction. For instance, one’s desire is not a value. Even if it is considered to be a value, it is only a base value. Thus there is a distinction between what is desirable (ought) and what is merely desired (fact). Value has different meanings depending upon the context. For instance, when we say a “Saint gives a lecture about the importance of leading a good life”, people may exclaim, how valuable the lecture was! Here value stands for high thinking. Similarly when we say Mahatma Gandhi led a valuable life, the meaning of value stands for “dignity” or “principle”. To be more specific, the term ‘Value’ is defined in terms of what individuals desire or want, or in terms of what satisfies them. The term value can be understood in many senses. As such, ‘Value’ is a broad concept and it is defined and differentiated in many contexts thereby resulting in a set of conception of values such as physical value and spiritual value, intrinsic value and extrinsic value, tangible values and intangible values, etc., But while considering the theories of values, some of the above mentioned conceptions of value may not be accounted for. The essential, spiritual, moral or aesthetic value of a thing cannot be dealt in the same way as one deal with the material, measurable, monetary and exchange value. According to the famous Educationalist Taneja, (1990:1992) “Value as anything that fulfils the needs, satisfies the urges and helps man in realizing his aspirations”. This shows that the value of a thing depends upon how they satisfy our desires, wants, and urges. This implies that a thing or a condition or an act is more valuable because it satisfies our needs or causes less deprivation of wants. The value of 1. Dayakara Reddy, D. and Digumarti Bhaskara Rao (2006), Value-Oriented Education, New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, pp. 9-10

Relevance of Gandhian Ideals in the Present Century 97

a thing is due to the fact that the thing has the power to satisfy our wants.2 A value is a conceptual frame work of something that is personally or socially preferable. It aims at perfection, self-realization, satisfaction, development, integrity and cohesion etc. The term value can be defined as “anything which is to be satisfied or desired”.3 The famous western philosopher, John Dewey (1948) defines value as, “The value means primarily to prize, to esteem, to appraise and to estimate. It means the act of cherishing something, holding it dear and also the act of passing judgement upon the nature and amounts of values as compared with something else”.4 In the Dictionary of Education (1959) it was mentioned that “as the things in which people are interested they desire to be or to become feel as obligatory, worship, or enjoy”.5 Value crisis is depending day by day with rapid advancement knowledge, science and technology on the one hand and constant deterioration of values on the other. The very survival of man seems to be a stake. The National Policy of Education has clearly stated “The growing concern over the erosion of essential values and an increasing cynicism in society has brought to focus the need for readjustments in the curriculum in order to make education a forceful tool for the cultivation of social and moral values. In our culturally plural society, education should foster universal and eternal values, oriented towards the unity and integration of our people.” 6 In the contemporary Indian society, the depending value crisis was casting its evil shadow in all walks of our life. Even after fifty years of progress in different fields economic, industrial, scientific, and educational- it is doubtful if we are moving towards creation of a just society, a happy society, a good society. In (1844: 1900) a German Philosopher of Friedrick Nietzsche used the word ‘values’ for the first time in 1880. After that the word ‘value’ 2. Ibid; pp. 1-2 3. Ibid; p. 52 4. Jagdish Chand (2007), Value Education, Delhi, Anshah Publishing House, p. 1 5. Ibid; p. 2 6. Ram Pratap Sharma & Madhulika Sharma, (2011), Value Education and Professional Ethics, New Delhi, Kanishka Publishers, Distributors, pp. 2-3.


was used as a singular noun, meaning the measure of something, for example, money or labour. It was also used as a verb. He also used the term ’values’ in the plural sense to denote moral attitudes and beliefs that are personal and subjective.7 Values are nothing but the socialadjustability without causing any damage to others rights, whether they may be personal, social or intellectual or even spiritual values. Value plays an important role for the development and moulding of the individual’s personality at large.8 Values are mainly considered as the perceptions of social desires and goals actualized by internal processes by learning and adopting, conditioning and adjustments. According to famous Educationalist Mukerjee, (1964) “value as integrated experience that simultaneously touch all the dimensions of human adaptation; organic, social and cultural, and transcend them in all their ‘propitote’ forward orientation”. The term value has different meanings depending upon the context in which it is used; value also means principles, ideals, standards, morals, ethics and worth.9 What we think ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘important’ and ‘unimportant’, all these are guided by the educational practice. Values may occupy the first place in the field of education and philosophy. Value is a word applied in use to an actual or possible complex factual state of affairs, to which we attach the adjective ‘valuable’. The normal use of ‘valuable’ is positive rather than negative. In other words, ‘valuable’, means ‘good’ or ‘right’ rather than ‘evil’, ‘bad’, ‘wrong’.10 Values are socially defined as the desires and goals that are internalized through the process of conditioning, learning and socialization.11 In the field of Education, the concept of value plays a very important role. That means “Only the valuable things should be shared by all”. From elder generation to the younger generation, the concept 7. Ibid; p. 4 8. Dayakara Reddy, D. and Digumarti Bhaskara Rao (2006), Value-Oriented Education, New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, p. 73 9. Ibid; p. 179 10. Mishra R.C., Promila Sharma, Harish Bansal (2007), Internal Encyelopedia of Education – The Aims of Education, New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation, pp. 29-32 11. Dayakara Reddy, D. and Digumarti Bhaskara Rao (2006), Value – Oriented Education, New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, p. 190


of education can be seen as a set of value in essence. Values occupy major role in the individual’s behaviour in the society. The concept of value is deeply present in all the human actions and thoughts. The values are guiding principles of life whereas the behaviour is the outcome of it. Values occupy central place in every individual’s life to give enough strength and good character. For example, the value can be compared with train and the railway track. Values are like the rails that keep a train on the track and help it to move smoothly, quickly and with proper direction.12

Nature of Values  Values are the standards or guidelines for individuals to have a successful life.  Values can be structured and restructured though the process of reflective thinking.  It possesses both cognitive and effective dimensions.  Values are organized in the value system. The total number or values that constitute an individual’s value system are not very large.  The value of a thing is an account of the fact that the thing has the power to satisfy our desires.

Gandhian Values in Present Century Gandhi has a holistic vision or a way to world peace. He does not go into piecemeal solutions to diverse challenges of human life. It is contrary to Gandhi’s world view to discuss various mundane issues in isolation either in terms of their economic, political, social and educational thrust or in terms of their different levels. For instance, India and the world are facing a gargantuan threat to world peace in the menace of widespread terrorism. The terrorist outfits use modern armaments for intimidation and planned decimation. They get these arms through global mafia and channels of smuggling. This is again the result of international corruption, poverty, misuse of modern technology, growing unemployment, increasing exploitation 12. Ibid; p. 244


and multiplying conflicts among nations. This scenario is causing inherent internal upheavals within the governing systems of national geographical boundaries. This causal systematic churning of issues specially involves concomitant dangerous facades of illiteracy, degenerating values and recurring social, political, economic and familial scandals. Therefore, Mahatma Gandhi’s approach is primarily centered on the individual within the given holistic mould of a man’s life. The modern technology has is positive dimensions. Even Gandhi is not opposed to this preset-day technology provided it does not displace human labour. Instead, it must streamline human effort and help individuals creatively. The exploitative and violent parameters of modern technology must be done away with. For Gandhi, truth must prevail. Truth has no fear. Truth can never be devoid of life. At times, truth may appear to be harsh for a while. Truth never exploits. It is never violent and destructive. Truth never harms our fellow human beings. Truth is God and vice versa. It is then obvious what truth is. Gandhi’s two volumes of Non-Violence in Peace and War published in 1948 and Gopinath Dhawan’s The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi published in 1957 clearly indicate a Gandhian model for practically realizing a preferred and ideally peaceful society of nations. Gandhi has written about innate co-cooperativeness of human nature and behaviour. He regards individual and his behaviour as the mainspring of all social reform. Having a look at quit few of Gandhian pointers may be of great interest for us here. His approach has mostly been very flexible in matters of details though quite unyielding in essential of life. Among essentials of this framework fall the following major points. • Eat thy bread by the sweat of thy brow. • Truth is always relative, never absolute. • No massive automation at the cost of individual’s creativity, fundamental initiative and dynamism. • One step is enough at a time. • From individual to global. • No exploitation of any sort.


• Socio-political and economic order primarily based on co-operation or the co-operating instinct of the individual. • Voluntary poverty. • No involuntary poverty. • Truth is love/God. • Non-violence is a way of life. • Essentially non-violent defense of nation is possible. The above mentioned practical idealism and the following purview are the real basis of this research paper.

• • • •

• • • •

From specific to general. Emphasis on life-size experimental dynamism to philosophy. Live theory building. Setting examples through ever ongoing experiments in selfassessment and improvement. • Value-oriented objectivity derived from practical idealism.13 Hence, for ulterior reasons- if we do away with Gandhi in the absence of larger belief in non-violence, truth, non-stealing, non-possession and Brahmcharya, etc. even then the following main concerns and development paradoxes are likely to dominate human minds throughout the twenty-first century. Limits to growth. Impact of information technology upon man. Over-production of conventional/other weapons. Over-exploitation of natural/other resources and ever widening consumerism. • Professionalization of conventional and nuclear terrorism and similar acts.

13. Ibid.; pp. 46-49

Gandhi’s Concept of Gram Swaraj (Special Reference to Panchayati Raj) Reetika Upadhyay

Introduction Gandhi really wanted ‘Swaraj’ of self rule by the people of India who represent the rural mass. He observed “India’s soul lives in the village.” He wanted that power structure should be begin from the below. Gandhi wanted true democracy to function in India. He, therefore, observed.” True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below by the people of every village.” He dreamt of village republics in term of Panchayat in the free India. Gandhi said, “Panchayat Raj represents true democracy realized. We would regard the humblest and the lowest Indian as being equally the ruler of India with the tallest in the land.”1 Mahatma Gandhi advocated Panchayat Raj, a decentralized form of government where each village is responsible for its own affairs, as the foundation of India’s political system. The term of such a vision was Gram Swaraj. Gandhi wanted political power to be distributed among the villages of India. Gandhi preferred the term ‘Swaraj’ to describe what he called true democracy. This democracy based upon freedom. Individual freedom in Gandhi’s view could be maintained only in autonomous, self-reliant communities that offer opportunities to the people for fullest participation.2

An Ideal Village According to Gandhi ideal village will have prefect sanitation, sufficient light, and streets will be free from dust. Village will have 1. M. K. Gandhi, Village Swaraj, Navjivan trust, Ahmedabad, 1962. p. 71 2. Ramshray Roy, 1984. Self and Society: A Study in Gandhian Thought, New Delhi, Sage Publications. India Pvt. Ltd., p. 123.

Gandhi’s Concept of Gram Swaraj (Special Reference to Panchayati Raj) 103

house of worship for all, also a common meeting place, a village common for grazing its cattle, a co-operative dairy, primary, and secondary schools in which industrial education will be central fact, and it will have Panchayats for setting disputes. Village will also produce own grain, vegetable, and fruit, and its own ‘Khadi’. Gandhi said, “My ideal village will contain intelligent human beings. They will not live in dirt and darkness as animals. Men and women will be free and able to hold their own against anyone in the world. There will be neither plague, nor cholera, nor smallpox, no one will be idle, no one will wallow in luxury. Everyone will have to contribute his quota of manual labour….It is possible to envisage railways, post and telegraph…the like….3 In simpler words, Gandhi’s ideal village should be basically selfreliant, making provision for all necessities of life- food clothing, clean water, sanitation, housing, education, and other requirements, including government and self-defense.

Gram Swaraj According to Gandhi, “My idea of Gram Swaraj is that it is a complete republic, independent of its neighbor for its own vital wants and yet interdependent for many in which dependence is necessity.”4 Gandhi’s Gram Swaraj is man-centered non-exploiting decentralized, simple village economy providing for full employment to each one of its citizens on the basis of voluntary co-operation and working for achieving self-sufficiency in its basis requirements of food, clothing, and other necessities of life. Gandhi’s dream was that democracy through peoples participation could be ensured only by way of Gram Swaraj. He wanted Gram Swaraj in villages where there will be a village republic and management of affairs would be done by the people themselves. According to Gandhi, in Gram Swaraj “Every village should be a democracy in which they will not depend even on neighbor for major needs.”5 They should be self sufficient. There no one should be without food and clothing. 3. Bunch of Old Letters, 1958, pp. 506-507(5-10-’45). 4. M. K. Gandhi, Village Swaraj, Navjivan trust, Ahmedabad, 1962. p. 44. 5. Gram Swaraj, 2000.


Everybody should get sufficient work to meet ones necessities. This ideal can be achieved only when the means of production to meet the primary needs of life are on the control of the people.6

Gram Swaraj and Panchayati Raj Gandhi strongly advocated for decentralization of economic and political power through the organization of Village Panchayats. Gandhi wanted true democracy in India. According to Gandhi, “True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below by the people of every village.7” In simpler words, the fundamental concept of Gram Swaraj is that every village should be its own republic. Gandhi proposed to work from bottom upwards. He said Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a Republic or Panchayat having full powers. Gandhi’s dream for Gram Swaraj has been translated into realty with the introduction of three-tier Panchayati Raj System to ensure people participation in the democratic decentralization at grass-root level. At Nagur in Rajasthan was the first set up of Panchayati Raj on October 2, 1959, begin by the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. After 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act (1992) Panchayats have got constitutional status as the third tier of the Indian Political System including village Panchayat, block Panchayat and district Panchayat. The main objective of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) is to provide good governance to people by bringing government at their doorsteps and ensuring rural people participation in Indian political system. Panchayati Raj is a strong platform for political participation and no doubt, this has created the political awareness of the people of all sections including the marginalized and the socially excluded groups. PRIs have insured women participation in local self- government. Now they are improving themselves financially and social condition through PRIs. They are taking own decision and playing important role to increase effectiveness of PRIs in providing democratic society. 6. Joshi, Narain 2002. 7. M. K. Gandhi, Village Swaraj, Navjivan Trust, Ahmedabad, 1962. p. 9.


But in practice, in most of states PRIs have not self reliance and self sufficient which is essential for a powerful organization. PRIs are step by step losing its relevance in most of the cases due to lack of adequate knowledge about the functioning of the Gram Panchayats and also due to the limitation of different rural development programmes. These bodies are gradually going to be the simple place of stress and blaming each other for every unattended aspect of developments. One of the major barriers on the way of the Panchayati Raj Institutions is insufficient source of its own revenue. So they are not contributing any share by own side in service delivering to local people. They become dependent on the fund which is delivered by central and state government for various project and programmes. As such PRIs do not play any role in planning activity and their role has been limited to an executive agency. Article 243G provides adequate power, authority, and responsibilities to PRIs regarding empowerment for the participation of plans for economic development and social justice. The implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.8 According to this article there is an adequate scope of expression of the aspirations of rural people in the National Plan in a realistic way but in practice they are always busy with the schematic fund and could not take generously own decision about the local level planning. The constitution authorised Gram Sabha, a body consisting of electors of a Panchayat, to monitor and take necessary action regarding any work for which a Gram Panchayat is accountable for its action and inaction. Gram Sabha is the forum at village level for planning and also as a venue of social audit. But in practice this body is losing its significance in most of cases. In present time these bodies are politicized and assumed as an initial platform for politics that is the reason representatives are more influenced from political parties resulting sluggish speed of reforms at village level. The elected PRIs representatives are lacking adequate capacity to carry on their responsibilities. The newly elected members with 8. http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1419768/


limited educational background in most of the cases in spite of trained in the institutionally arranged program are not in a position to manage with the complex institutional mechanism fixed with ever changing guidelines of different rural development program. As a result they are progressively going to be more dependent on the paid employees and do not play significant role in decision making and development delivery. Another most important factor hampering the success of Panchayati Raj system in most of state is corruption among the officials and non- officials. Gandhian Gram Swaraj is not the renewal of old village Panchayats but the fresh formation of independent village units of Swaraj in the context of the present- day world. Gandhi believed that independence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a Republic or Panchayat having full powers. It follows therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without. Thus ultimately it is the individual who is the unit.

Suggestion Some suggestions for improving effectiveness of PRIs are as following: • Active participation of rural people is necessary for effective PRIs. participation of all rural house-holds, mainly women and other marginalized groups in PRIs meetings and their involvement in discussion leading to decision making process, • Create awareness about PRIs functioning among the members of PRIs, and elected representative, • By organize awareness curriculum should develop better understandings of local self-governance and democratic value in Panchayats representatives and rural people, • Caste, class and gender divide while planning and implementing the scheme should be remove, • Panchayats should increase own source of revenue by improving levy and collection of taxes and non- tax source. They should


•

• • •

modify the rate of taxes and fees and venture new source of revenue, Information technology can strengthen social audit, reduce incidences leakages and frauds. Better communication system viz. satellites, video conferences etc. should be available, The Gram Sabha should be well capacitated for active rural people participation, Role of political parties and bureaucrats should be minimized, Party based elections should be discouraged.

Conclusion Mahatma Gandhi advocated for a village based political structure fostered by a stateless open society for the establishment of Gram Swaraj. He strongly pleaded for decentralization of economic and political power through the organization of village Panchayats and believed in concept of ideal village but the present scenario of Panchayati Raj in most of states leads us to conclude that Gandhian vision of Gram Swaraj remains an incomplete agenda. Lack of Political willingness of the state government, inefficiency of the leaders, absence of cordial relationship among the officials and non-officials, corruption among them, political unawareness of the local people are other factor that hinder the proper development of this institution. Gram Swaraj should be implemented in the spirit in which Gandhi has conceived it but at present our villages are suffering from social discords, casteism and narrowness. Let us remember the word of Pandit Nehru in respect of village systems, “The more a person or a group keeps to himself or itself, the more danger there is of him or it becoming self-centered and selfish and narrow-minded.”9 9. M. K. Gandhi, Village Swaraj, Navjivan trust, Ahmedabad, 1962. p. 14.


References 1. Gandhi, M.K. (1962). Village Swaraj. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. 2. Austin, Granville.(2000,October). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation.OUP. 1966. p. 29. 3. Joshi, R.P., & Narain, G.S. (2002). Panchayati Raj in India: Emerging Trends Across The States. New Delhi: Rawat Publications. pp. 11-19. 4. The Constitution (Seventy Third Amendment) Act, 1992, The Gazette of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi, 1993. 5. Hazra, Anupam.(2010, October). Panchayati Raj System: Strengthening Rurl Decentralization and Democracy. Kurukshetra. New Delhi:Ministry of Rural Development, pp. 19-22. 6. Chakraborty, Utpal.(2010, October). From Gram Swaraz to Gram SabhaFive Decade in Search of an Institution. Kurukshetra. New Delhi:Ministry of Rural Development, pp. 8-12. 7. Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.(1991, November). Panchayati Raj Institutions in India, New Delhi. 8. Prabhu .R.K & U.R Rao.(2007). The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. p. 239. 9. Markandan, N.(1996). Grass-root Planning by the people in New Panchqyati Raj System: States and Proqvects (ed), G. Palanithurai, New Delhi: Kanishka Publications, pp. 45-46. 10. Desai, Vasant.(1990). Panchayati Raj: Power to the People, Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House. 11. Gunrmurthy, U.(1987). Panchayati Raj and the Weaker Sections. New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House. 12. Singh Ranbir.(2009, October). Unfinished Agenda of Gandhis Gram Swaraj, in Mainstream. Vol-XLVII. No-43.

Exploring the Idea of Gandhian Trusteeship in Vinoba’s Economic Philosophy Vijay Srivastava The roots of Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship are deeply related to the Gandhian ideas of Exploitation and Inequality. In other words it explores the Gandhian views of equity, justice and conflicts. In the Gandhian political economy1 this idea of trusteeship plays crucial role to establish a non-exploitative society. It also deals with the concept of aprarigraha (non-possession). Trusteeship is regarded as one of the alternative to capitalist order. The basic reason behind the conflicts between labour and capital is increasing economic inequalities in society. These economic inequalities are generated due to unequal distribution of resources and income between labour cast and capital class. This unequal distribution becomes the root cause of exploitation of unprivileged section of society. This paper explores the Gandhian idea of trusteeship in Vinoba’s Economic Philosophy with the special focus of his Gramdaan and Bhoodan movement. This paper follows the following scheme. This paper is divided in four parts, first part deals with the trusteeship concept with philosophical approach. In Second part empirical experiment of trusteeship has been discussed as propounded by the Vinoba Bhave during his Bhoodan and Gramdaan Yatra. Issue Labour and Capital relationship has been raised in third part with Vinoba’s socio-economic ideas.

Philosophical Base of Trusteeship Gandhian concept of trusteeship has deep philosophical base. It was not a new idea which Gandhi gave to the world but he represented this idea in a new form. In every religion of humankind there is a concept of non-possession and simple life style. Even Gandhi’s concept of spiritual man in non-violent economy can be seen in to Hinduism,


Buddhism, and in Islam also. In the verse of Shrimad Bhagwat Puran it is clearly mention that man should not earn more than for the fulfillment of his necessity. Luxuries life is the root cause of generation economic inequality and it also leads towards exploitation of one man by another. “Men are entitled to regard as their own just what would suffice to satisfy their hunger. Whoever would appropriate more to himself is a thief, and should be punished as such.”2 See this verse “Yavad bhriyte jadaram tavat svatvam dehinaam Adhikam yo abhimanyet sa istano dammahti 3

Gandhi himself admitted that his concept of Non-Possession is originated from the effects of Gita’s teachings. Not only Aprigraha but Samabhava (equability) also came in to his mind due to the philosophical study of Bhagwad Gita. Gandhi has said that in his autobiography that the study of Gita illumined the meaning of trustee, and the word, in its turn solved for him the problem of non-possession. Not only Gandhi influenced by Gita’s teachings but Vinoba’s word ‘Vishwastavritti’ has originated from impact of Gita on his own philosophy of sarvodaya. To Vinoba “The conclusion is that whatever talents, physical strength, wealth or other capacities a person might posses, he should take them as having given him as a trustee for the benefit of the world. This is a noble idea of trusteeship. But selfish people have so debased the word that it seems nearly impossible to restore it to its pristine purity. I have, therefore substituted for it another word, Vishwastaviritti, i.e. the attitude of confidence: a word which is free of any undesirable associations.”4 Even Kabir, one of the greatest thinkers of Bhakti Movement during the Mughal Empire said “ Sai Itna dijiye Jame Kutum Samaye Main bhi Bhukha Na rahun, Sadhu bhi bhuka na jaye”5

Gandhi’s spiritual man is near to the Kabir’s man where he does pray not only for himself but for the others welfare also. Guru Nanak said “Rookhi Sookhi Khyae ke Thanda Pani Piyu Dekh Parai Chupri Mat Lalchaye jeev”6

Exploring the Idea of Gandhian Trusteeship in Vinoba’s Economic Philosophy 111

In the holy Quran there are concepts of Non-Stealing, the Non-Acquisitive way of living and prohibition of Interest. “That which ye give in interest in order that it may increase on other people’s property hath no increase with Allah; but that which ye give in charity, seeking Allah’s countenance, hath increase manifold.”7

Like Mohammad Sahib, Gautama Buddha also criticized the concept of ownership of property. Similarly Buddha wanted that people should earn money from the right way and he was against the any kind of interest which generates through capital . In this connection Prof Das Gupta asserted that “There are also some general criteria of right conduct that apply to all householders. The householder who succeeds in acquiring wealth by lawful and honorable means and through his own energy and effort; that doest not run in to debt and retain ownership of his property ……who uses his wealth to perform good deeds is commended by Buddha.”8 Acharya Mahaprajana in his remarkable work “Economics of Mahavir”(Mahavir Ka Arthsashtra)9 has thrown light on the many of the aspects of trusteeship. He argued that Gandhi’s word trusteeship and decentralization is originated from the Mahivr’s concept of Alpechhcam .Achraya Mahaparjana said that“Dhammenam vitte Kappemaana”10 . It means that “A Person who has less desire runs his livelihood with religion”. Like Gandhian Economics, The Economics of Mahavir is the Economics of Non-violence”. In other words we can say that Gandhian theory of Trusteeship has found base in the principles of Mahvir’s Aprigraha Anuvarta 11theory. Lord Mahavir, around 2500 years back advocated these concepts related to Non-Violent Economic order. Non-Possession, Non stealing, trusteeship and Non-exploitation are the key features of this system. Describing the importance of Limitation in consumption and livelihoods as propagated in Anuvarta principle M. C Singhi stated that “Though Lord Mahavir was the first one to acknowledge that the self advancement is the most important motivating factor, his integrated development model, if we may call it one, was based on “Samyak Ajeevika-Sayanmit Upbhog”.12 Trusteeship principle not applies only in the case of wealth and tangible property and private property but philosophically it is linked with intellectual production


and inherent qualities. Gandhi believed that every thing in this world belongs to the God and man should use his capabilities for the service of others without any kind of selfish motive. When person become a non-economic man instead of economic man as propounded by Adam Smith, this feeling of trust come in to his soul automatically. No private property belongs to human civilization. Possession over knowledge, power, glory and finance creates decay in human society. Trusteeship principle teach us that how to transform the feeling of “Main” (I) in to (We). K.G. Mashruwala rightly observed that “The theory of trusteeship makes no distinction between private and non-private property. All property is held in trust; no matter who possesses it. …Indeed the theory of trusteeship applies not only to tangible and transferable property, also to places of power and position and to intangible and non-transferable property such as the muscular energy of a labourer and the talents of a Helen Keller. Every human being not mentally deranged is only a trustee of all that is within his control.”13

Trusteeship and Labour-Capital Relations Establishment of small scale industries mainly handlooms, handicraft or non factory type industries on the basis of Gandhian idea of trusteeship is vital for achieving egalitarian development. Prof. Bhole quotes “It is necessary to arrest an indiscriminate expansion of large scale and modern factory type small industries. Instead active step should be taken for reviving the non-factory type of traditional small industries which include household units, cottage industries, works of craft man and handicrafts”.14 It is very important to mention here that in Gandhian Social non-Violent economic order, equality and exploitation free growth can be achieved through the establishment of modern factory type small scale industries or labour intensive industries. Gandhi was not in the favor of modern-industrialization or heavy industrialization, instead of he gave much importance to rural industrialization which is also key component in idea of Trusteeship. The harmonic relationship between labour and capital is possible only in the non-mechanical or human friendly mechanical type of industrial world. In the theory of


trusteeship Gandhi wanted to establish a non-mechanical relationship between labour and capital class. Unlike Marx he did not want to destroy the capitalism or either capitalism. With the help of feeling of trust he wanted to transform the evil nature of capitalism in good one. In high capital intensive type of firm in micro level to it is very difficult to harmonize the relationship between capital and labour due to the alienation as Marx said, but Gandhian idea of trusteeship tried to resolve the problem of this alienation through non-violent means. It is also noticeable that in high technological industry this alienation process starts due to the exploitation of labour by capitalist class. In this context Prof Das Gupta has similar kind of view he assert that ‘while the capitalist tried to get maximum work from the employees , paying them only as much as they had to, the workers hit upon all sorts of tricks to put in as little effort as they could get away with’.15 Satisfaction of both classes labour as well as capital have important place in Gandhian philosophy. In the existing system of capitalist order due to greed and profit orientation capitalists do not satisfy and workers due to exploitative nature of their owners. ‘The labourers are dissatisfied with their lot. They have every reason for dissatisfaction’.16 Gandhi knew very well that for the running an institution like a trust it is very important to manage it in a proper way without the involvement of any kind of violence and extremism. He used the Satyagraha as the weapon against the Mill owners of Ahmadabad but he never supported the violent way of strike by any class to pressurize his companion. In the Gandhian frame work of just society Industrialists are friends of workers instead of owners and the management of firm or mill should be in a non-violent or co-operative environment to avoid the even circumstances. Das Gupta argues that “For the management of industrial enterprise, trusteeship offer great scope, and some elements of it are included in the so called ‘Japanese’ style of management, with its tradition of life-long employment and emphasis on cooperation, rather than conflict between labour and capital.”17 Another aspect of Gandhian theory of trusteeship relates to economic inequality in the area of Labour-Capital conflict. Concentration of wealth in the fewer section mainly capitalist induced income inequalities furthers and these inequalities are the root cause


of violence. The basic reason behind the conflicts between labour and capital is increasing economic inequalities in society. These economic inequalities are generated due to unequal distribution of resources and income between labour cast and capital class. This unequal distribution becomes the root cause of exploitation of unprivileged section of society. Addressing the problem of Capital-Labour conflict and its relation with economic inequality Gandhi asserts that “Economic equality is master key to non-violent independence. Working for economic equality means abolishing the eternal conflict between Capital and labour … it means the leveling down of the few rich in whose hands is concentrated the bulk of nation’s wealth on the one hand, and the leveling up of the semi-starved naked millions on the other”.18 Co-operative management of Industrial unit is an integral part of Gandhian trusteeship. Gandhi believed in the decentralized system of management of wealth and property. In the area of labour –Capital relations he was very clear that how to include labourers in management process as well as the part of production. Cooperative management of profit and wealth means the get rid of the concept of private ownership and exploitive economic system where alienation occurs due to the distance between capital class and labour class. In the words of Gandhi “ It is vital to the well -being of the industry that workmen should be regarded as equal with the share holders and that they have, therefore every right to posses an accurate knowledge of transactions of mills”.19 Gandhi did not want to deprived capitalist from their wealth but he wanted to remove the evil effects of process of alienation. His argument of alienation is different from Marxist theory. He wanted to remove the monopolization of resources which is a main root cause of increasing inequalities in societies. Even in capitalistic societies firm and companies adopt this strategy with a new frame which is called Corporate Social Responsibility. In later part of this paper we will discuss how corporate social responsibility has emerged in a new word order and how it plays a role in to fight with issue like labour-capital conflicts and management conflicts. One of the prime areas of trusteeship theory is the concept of shareprofit and shared risk as given by the Gandhi. Recession is such a time in capitalist world where labour class suffers more in comparison to rich class. Even Gandhi did not accept the capitalism as an economic


order for the implementing trusteeship theory but with changes it can apply in to existing capitalist new economic order. Prof. Ram Pratap argued that “Implicit in this is the concept of shared pronounced by Akio Morita, co-founder of Sony. If a company is sick or its business is in recession, the workers will have to reconcile with the appropriately minimum payment for sustenance and the capitalist shall have provide relief to the workers till assets last”.20 Involvement of Labour class in the management process is not only important from the point of view to save working class from the process of alienation but also to avoid complexities in labourcapital relations. In Gandhian Economic order harmonic relationship exists not only among classes but also among institutions. He further said that “The relation between mill-agent and mill hands ought to be one of father and children or as between blood others”.21 Vinoba’s explanation of trusteeship is near to above mention relationship like father and son. Vinoba as discussed early preferred to use word Vishwavarti instead of trusteeship, he insisted that “The first implication of trusteeship is that just as father maintains and protects his son better than himself, a trustee should care more for employee than for him self ... trustee should be an anxious that the labour acquires ability at the earliest and become self dependent”.22 Vinoba was concern about the violence between labour and capital which exist due to the strikes. To him violent and unorganized Industrial relations create problem in whole country. He also knew that what is the bone of contention between Labour and capital class. He was in the favour of mutual agreement on the issue of share of profit to get rid of this conflict. To him “What ever wealth business men have belongs to the nation and he is a servant of the people. His share should be decided by mutual agreement. If industrial relations are organized on these lines, all labour-capital conflicts will disappear, and not merely workers but the country as a whole will prosper.”23 It is very important to discuss about the Marxist argument on the cooperative capital management and classless society. Unlike Gandhi he rejected idea of “Abduction of private ownership”. In his idea of collective society individual ownership of mean of production and produced goods finds an important place. Marx envisaged the post-Revolution society to be made of altruistic individuals integral to the commune where


all goods and service would be owned and controlled collectively”.24 Professor J.D. Sethi In his work ‘Gandhi Today’ has described trusteeship as ‘The Grand Alternative’. Describing as trusteeship as political instrument to approach the industrial problem and conflict between labour and capital he said that “Trusteeship is both a bulwark against oppression by state power and against the alienation of worker ,just as it provides a temporary role for those capitalist who want to play a responsible social role.”25

Trusteeship and Non-violent Economic Order: Gramdan and Bhoodan Every thought in Gandhian philosophy is related to each other. Trusteeship is originated from three fundamental Gandhian concepts: Nonviolence, Swaraj and equality which are all interlinked with one another. The theory of trusteeship talks about exploitative economic cycle. Gandhi wanted to change this violent economic cycle in to non-violent economic system. According to Gandhi there is not only conflict between labour and capital in capitalist system but conflict exist between Necessities and Luxuries. Owning the property in Gandhian economic system is prohibited and greed towards property and wealth creates violence in social system. Vinoba, the Champion of land reform in India applied Gandhian theory of trusteeship in practical world and got success to eradicate some degree on property based economic inequality in some extent. He said that “Acceptance of trusteeship ideal will transform our entire thinking in regard to wealth and the relationship between the individual and society.”26 It is also noticeable that Vinoba did not agree with Gandhi on the use of word trusteeship, he called it vishwastvratie (In the Sanskrit language it is Vishwashvratie) it means faith (Vishwash) of public on merchant class (Vanik).27 During the period of Bhoodan Aaandolan28 his focus was not only in the area of land reforms but simultaneously he was looking towards to solve the problem of social unrest and inequality. To him trusteeship as a philosophy of non-possession is a medium which can tackle the issue of social unrest. He said that “If we want to build up a non-violent society we have to keep non-possession in mind i.e. those who have large property should become it’s trustee in a


real sense. Only than will non violence is realized, otherwise there will be increasing unrest.”29 Gandhi knew very well this fact and prior to Vinoba he suggested society to adopt this method of trusteeship and Vinoba’s bhoodan Yagya or Gramdan is a practical form of Gandhian philosophy. Application of trusteeship principle as a Bhoodan-Gramdan movement can be look at with the framework of redistribution of resources from rich to poor and between have and have-nots. In Gandhian economic philosophy any transformation or change is acceptable only when it based on principle of non-violence. Similarly Trusteeship principle denies the ownership of any kind. If there are many parties in any issue than co-operation should be from every side. Similarly for the construction of non-violent economic order vinoba seek voluntary cooperation from rich as well as poor also. Like Gandhi he was against the forced cooperation and legalizing the principle of trusteeship. Voluntarism has a unique place in his ideas. To him ‘voluntarily surrender of the individual ownership of land is the foundation of Gramdan’.30 Eradication of poverty was the main agenda of Vinoba’s Gramdan movement. It is Vinoba’s firm belief that surrendering the ownership rights can be an important tool to fight with the chronic or generational poverty. Gramdan as an empirical experiment of trusteeship theory could do better in this area and feeling of non-possession should be live in the hearts of both excluded and non excluded section of society. “If the poor do not surrender their ownership rights first, then who else will? The ownership of the rich will go automatically; the poor will have to give it up voluntarily. It is India’s good fortune that a few rich also come forward to surrender their ownership. But one can not rely so much on that. Hence we should gain as much sympathy of the rich as possible, but focus on seeing the poor give up their ownership; that is the best way for the dissolution of ownership”.31 Dissolution of ownership is justifiable distribution of resources. In Gandhi’s non-violent economic order property does not belong to any individual but it belongs to whole society. Entire village community can use the land for welfare and ethical development of village. If there is no master and every body feels like a servant than there is a very rare chance of birth of violence. This is a perfect Gandhian technique to tackle the several land and


property related issue. In this context Dr Cholkar says that “When a basic resource like land comes under the control of the entire community, it can formulate and execute plans for its economic development and welfare on its basis. Poverty hunger and unemployment in the village could be effectively tackled”.32 As “By non-violent method we seek not to destroy capitalist, we seek to vidual destroy capitalism. We invite the capitalist to regard himself as a trustee for those on whom he depends for the making of retention and increase of his capital.”33Interpreting the Vinoba’s idea of abolition of private property in wealth and land with trusteeship Indu tikkear has sound argument. She stated that “This doctrine of trusteeship seems to be the source of Vinoba’s call for his altogether abolition of private property in wealth and land. During his pilgrimage on foot for the land and Village–Gift movement he asks people to donate all land and wealth to society”.34 Even Vinoba him self knew this fact that there is no scope for individual property in community development and in the cooperative society which runs on the principles of non-violence. He believed in the cooperative management of wealth for the upliftment of exploited section. In his Village-Gift and land donation movement he gave prime importance to this concept and cooperative management of wealth and removal of individual ownership is an undivided part of Gandhian Trusteeship theory. Vinoba argues that “Wealth is not the creation of a single individual. It is the outcome of the cooperative efforts of people and natural resources. Even the talents of the gifted individuals are flowered in society though its assistance”.35Vinoba is not only considered as a father of land reform movement in India but he was most distinguished Gandhian scholar who gave new dimension and new shape to idea of trusteeship after applying in to practical life. He was not an academic intellectual but he could be regarded as keen researcher of Gandhian economic thinking. Cooperative theory of wealth management in village society was propounded by him .During his Journey of land-Donation and Village Donation movement once he described Gramdan as an important tool to create a non-violent social order. It is very important that Professor J.D. Sethi* has suggested five important measures for the establishment of trusteeship. In amongst all five measures one measure is related to the Vinoba’s idea of cooperative * For the whole discussion see Sethi, J.D., Gandhi Today, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1978.


management of wealth and property. Fifth measures had suggested by the Professor Sethi is that “The Creation of a large cooperative sector as a catalytic force” (Sethi, 1978). In real sense Vinoba’s Gramdan and Bhoodan movement worked as a catalyst for the application of trusteeship principle in the Economic system. Many critics can raise the question over the success of Bhoodan and Gramdan movement and its empirical value in the existing global order but one should also remember that , people also called Gandhian sarvodaya a utopian concept but it is still having charm in academic discourse in all over the world . In the Words of “Gramdan is most constructive thought in contemporary world which has came from the east”.36In the words of vinoba “In gramdan therefore we do not merely ask the landowner for the land .We say to the labourer: ‘Up to now we have spent our wages only on our own families, we have considered our earnings to be ours; but now we must offer them to the village’. Gramdan is only complete when this spirit is there. The full implementation of gramdan means that whatever one possesses should be put at the disposal of community as a whole”.37

** The English Meaning of all three words is Donation of Intellectual Knowledge, Donation of Labour, and Donation of Property.


Trusteeship and Vinoba’s Socio-Economic Ideas: Bhuddhidan, Sramdan and Sampattidan** In this section of this paper our focus will be on the role of state in applying trusteeship in economy as a whole. As in earlier part of this paper we have discussed about the concept of abduction of private ownership and state ownership. Vinoba’s economic ideas deal with this theory. His economic ideas of abduction of ownership and non-possession focus on community ownership principles. As for Gandhi Sarvodaya means “Welfare for all”, like that for Vinoba the meaning of abduction of ownership and Non-Possession is “Possession by all”. His famous slogan ‘Sabi Bhumi Gopal ki’ during the Bhoodan Movement indicates that he wanted to establish sate socialism with the help of application of trusteeship principle in economy. Even his ideas on decentralization of educational system or opening of Gram Vishwavidayala (Village University) throws light upon the justice in the distribution of educational resources. Both Gandhi and Vinoba knew this fact that trusteeship principle is applicable not only in the case of material production and material resources but it give some strong base to distribute an intellectual property and educational resources. In this context Ravindra Verma argued that “It is not only material possessions or the accumulation of material goods that generates power .There are other sources of power whether directly related to economic activity or not that can results in economic gains, or power over the mind of others.… But since non-material sources of power do not lead themselves to immunization through equal distribution-those who posses such sources of power will have to hold them and use them as a trust they hold for society.38 In the light of What Vinoba has said on economic matters we will discuss about all three parameters (Bhuddhidan, Shramdan and Sampattidan) one by one in the next part of this section respectively.

Bhuddhidan (Decentralization of Knowledge) It is important to highlight that Vinoba also believed in the concept of Bhuddhidan and decentralization of knowledge (Gyan ka Vikendrikaran) which are the valuable component of Gram-Swaraj of his dream. Community management and ownership theory as


stated earlier is not only for the industrial units and labour-capital relations but for the management of educational societies and village development it plays crucial role. According to Vinoba’s moral ideas for the creation of holistic knowledge economy trusteeship theory will pay heed towards the decentralization of intellectual property resources. During the initial period of planning in India he opposed that state university education system. In his idea of trusteeship and Gram Swaraj University system should be governed by the village on the basis of holistic community principles. He believed in the transfer of Intellectual production from state to village. This is a very deep and ethical thought of Vinoba’s economic vision and it is very near to Gandhi’s dream also. He said that “Every village should have its vidyapith; there should be a university in every village-that is real gramraj. …some poverty-stricken minds are planning for only one university in each state, but according to my plan there would be a university in each village…. I ought to be able to get a complete education in my own village, for my village is not fragment, it is an integral whole.”39 With the help of Bhuddhidan Vinoba wanted to promote agrarian values in education sector for the creation of sarvodaya social order. Decentralization of education system promotes agricultural sensitivity and trust in the people. It was Vinoba firm belief that students of Gram Vishwvidalaya will promote the ethical values in society and they will certainly work as a true trustee. It was the Vinoba’s impact that after independence many of the great poets, writers, and advocates contributed in Bhoodan Yagya Aaanodolan. They used their intellectual knowledge for the upliftment of poor people and exclusively written on land issues to wake up the people. In Vinoba’s philosophy Bhuddhian works as an instrument to achieve Bhoodan. In other words we can say that Bhuddhidan, Shramdan, Sammpatidan, Bhoodan, Gramdan when meet together than they form a non-violent social economic order. See above figure.

Sharamdaan (Donation of Labour) The value of labour is more than the value of wealth and for the better management of any property or to resolve any conflict, Vinoba urged people to donate their labour for noble cause. As all wealth belong to the society, all land belong to God, all labour belong to welfare for


all. Gandhi saw this Sharamdan as an economics of bread labour and dignity of labour. Shramdan and Bhudhhidan is interlinked with each other. For the control over consumption and minimization of wants bhuddhidan, shramdaan and Sampattidan all three play very crucial role. Vinoba and Gandhi both wanted manual labour for intellectual class to create a non-violent economic order. To Gandhi, mental and manual labour should not be divided up by classes but in everybody lives. Gandhi was convinced that just one hour of daily manual work would induce poets, doctors, and lawyers to moderate the fees they charge for their talents and that the social proliferation of wants would be minimized.40 Vinoba considered physical labour as an undivided part of life cycle and in his philosophy earning without physical labour (Shramdan) is sin. He advocated the Gandhi’s bread labour theory for every one in society. He stated that “I Shall not give food to any one, be he even a professor or a judge, unless he has done physical work for two to four hours. Nonviolence cannot be attained without physical labour. In doing it lies the humanness of man. We cannot serve others by riding on their shoulders”41. Prof. Huq described the labour gift and wealth gift movement as one of the successful practical implementation of Gandhian doctrine of Non-possession and trusteeship. He said that “The Sarvodaya movement for the purpose of creating non-acquisitive society proved to be a highly successful social experiment. In its initial stage, the movement was confined to Bhoodan (land gift) and Sharamdan (labour gift)… without compulsion, large numbers of people also participated in the wealth-gift and labour gift movement. As a demonstration project, its success can hardly be discounted.”42

Sampattidan (Wealth Gift) In the earlier part of this paper we have already discussed about the Gandhian doctrine of Non-Possession and Harmonic society. Samppattidan as propagated by Vinoba Bhave also focus on the philosophical standard of living, Vinoba’s whole economic ideas are originated from the his spiritual ideas. As a true follower of the teachings of Geeta and Kuraan, His storng beliefs on Aprigrah make him great thinker of Post Independent India. Sampaatidan or the abduction of ownership means that non-violent ownership


and non-violent consumption. When men hold wealth more than their necessities than it produce greed in his mind and this greed further leads towards greedy life style. Sammaptidan is an answer to problem of poverty and alienation. Another word we can say that “Transfer of wealth from greedy to needy in a nonviolent manner” is sammpatidaan. It can be considered as a first step to become “Aprigarhi or Anuvarti” for an individual. If every person in society will donate little part of his wealth and control over his demonstrative life style than there will be very little chance of occurring violence. Indirectly theory of Wealth Gift is also an alternative to Marxian violence. It does not stand for adaptation of poverty as Vinoba told to the people in his speeches during the Journey of Land-Gift movement (Bhoodan Yatra). In his own words “Non-Possession stands for ‘liberality’, though people understand it differently. They hold that non-possession stands for poverty. But it is not so. In fact it means that no sooner there is accumulation, it is to be passed on to another. Where wealth flows, it is non-possession”.43 There is a need of feeling of Anashakti (Non-Attachment) in the hearts of every human being to implement this moral idea. For the creation of harmonic social relations and ethically happy society all these Daans (Donation by Volunatry)is needed. Gandhi and Vinoba forbid any kind of forceful action to apply in these principles in real world. Trusteeship,Voluntary donation and Non-Attachment make a non-violent society when they get together therefore forcefulness kills the values of sarvodaya’s principles. In the words of Vinoba “All the individuals constituting the society must work and render to the whole of which they are part such services they are capable, than only can society be happy”.44

Conclusion This paper explores the Gandhian idea of trusteeship in much neglected academic area of Vionba’s economic philosophy. The main argument of our paper is that the in the era of globalization, privatization and liberalization, when violence is spreading in every sphere of economic and social life we have to look at Gandhian idea of trusteeship to solve the problem with Vinoba’s ethical economic framework. Further research is also required in this area. There are


difference in thoughts of Gandhi and Vinoba but looking towards Gandhian ideology can not provide an instrument to make just non-exploitative social order. Vinoba worked as a champion to practice the Gandhian thinking in a real world. Vinoba like Gandhi opposed the concept of welfare state, instead of welfare state he wanted village self rule through ethical and pure means. Trusteeship principles deny and kind of concentration either power or wealth. His ideas on Village University, community ownership and Gramdan will become active parameters to decentralize the power and wealth. Actual trusteeship will be achieved only when power will be shared among villagers. His view on welfare state is that “Today, In the name of ‘welfare state’, we are concentrating all power at the center. Even if the people do get a certain amount of benefit out of it, I would still call it not ‘well-fare’ but ‘ill-fare’ because it keeps power in the hands of a few. The idea of non-violence will spread only when power is shared among the villagers”.45 Need of hour is that policy makers and social scientist should adopt the Vinoba’s strategy and after implementation few answer will certainly come.

References 1. The Difference between Gandhian Political economy and Neo Classical Political Economy was firstly introduced by the B.N. Gosh in the academic discourse in year 2007, See also his new publication “Beyond the Gandhian Economics, Sage Publications 2013, New Delhi . See Also Preface Page of Diwan, Romesh and Lutz, Mark (ed), Essays in Gandhian Economics , Gandhi Peace Foundation, and New Delhi 1985. 2. Huq, A.M., The Doctrine of Non-Possession: Its Challenge to an Acquisitive Society in Diwan, Romesh and Lutz, Mark (Ed), Essays in Gandhian Economics, Gandhi Peace Foundation,New Delhi,1985, p. 80. 3. Shrimad Bhagwat Puran 7.3.8 4. See, Mashruwala, Gandhi and Marx, See Preface Page written by Vinoba Behave, Nava Ivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 2007, 24. 5. Cited in Tatvamashi, Mahatma Gandhi ka Trusteeship Sidhaant , Radaha Publications, National Gandhi Museum, New Delhi, 2003, p. 38. 6. Ibid., p. 38. 7. See, Bhave, Vinoba, The Essence of The Quran, Sarv Seva Sangh, Prakashan, Rajghat, Varansi, 2010, Part Sixth, An Honest Livelihood, pp. 92-93.


8. See Dasgupta Ajit, A History of Indian Economic Thought, Routledge, London,1993, in Chapter Buddhism and Economics, p. 17. 9. Mahapragya, Acharya, Mahavir Ka Arthsasthtra, Aaadarsh Sahitya Sangh Prakashan, Churu, 1994 , pp. 34-35. 10. Ibid., p. 35. 11. Ibid., p. 152. 12. Cited in Foreword of Sharma, J.N. and Dugar, B.R., Relative Economics, Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi, 2010. 13. See, Mashruwala, K.G., Gandhi and Marx , Nava Ivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 2007, p. 79. 14. Bhole, L.M., Essays on Gandhian Socio-Economic Thought, Shipra Publications, New Delhi, 2000 pp. 111-112. 15. See the whole discussion in the book entitled “Gandhi’s Economic Thought”, Written by Ajit Kumar Dasgupta. The whole discussion not only focuses on the labour-Capital Relations but also Impact of Trusteeship on Industrial relations. See Das Gupta, Ajit K., Gandhi’s Economic Thought, Routledge, New York, London, 1996, p. 26. See also, Dasgupta Ajit, A History of Indian Economic Thought, Routedge, London, 1993, in Chapter Buddhism and Economics , p. 151. 16. Gandhi, M.K., Young India, 16 February 1921, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India, Publication Division, New Delhi, Vol. 19, p. 365. 17. Das Gupta, A.K., Gandhi’s Economic Thought, Routledge, 1996, London, p. 131. 18. Prabhu R.K. & Rao U.R., The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, The Gospel of Trusteeship, p. 255. See also Gandhi, M.K., and Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, pp. 20-21 . 19. Gandhi, M.K., Young India, 16th February 1921. 20. Cited in Pratap, Ram, Gandhian Management, and The Paragon of Higher Order Management. Jaico Books, New Delhi, 2011, p. 112. 21. Gandhi, M.K., Young India, February, 1928, See also, Mazumedar, Sukhendra, Socio-Politico Ideas of Mahatama Gandhi, Concept Publishing House, New Delhi 2004. See also, Goel, S.K., Gandhi on Industrial Relations, Shipra, Publications, New Delhi, 1993. 22. This quote of Vinoba is taken from the work of Nirmala Deshpandey, Kranti ke Rath Par 1956. 23. Bhave, Vinoba, Harijan, An English Weekly, 19.11.1952. 24. Gurukkal, Rajan, Convergence of Marx and Gandhi: A Strategic Need Today, Social Scientist, September–October, 2012, p. 64.


25. See, Sethi, J.D., Gandhi Today, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1978, p. 148. 26. Bhave, Vinoba, Harijan, An Englsih weekly, 7.11.1953. 27. For details see, Bhave, Vinoba, Vinoba Pravachan, Sarv Sewa Sangh Prakashan, Varanasi, 1967, 30-10-1937. 28. Vinoba called it Bhoodan Yagya….Purification of thoughts of Landlord or owner or rich person. See Bhave, Vinoba, Bhoodan Yagya, Sarv Sewa Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat and Varanasi. 29. Bhave, Vinoba, Shanti Yatra, Sasta Shayita Mandal, New Delhi, 1949. 30. Cholkar, Parag, Bhoodan–Gramdan Movement: An Overview, Anasakti Darshan, July-2010-June 2011, p. 14. 31. Deshpande, Kusum, Krantichya Dishene, Paramdham Prakashan, Panvar, 1956, Foreword, p. 3. Cited in Cholkar, Parag, Bhoodan– Gramdan Movement: An Overview, Anasakti Darshan, July-2010-June 2011, p. 14. 32. Cholkar, Parag, Bhoodan–Gramdan Movement :An Overview, Anasakti Darshan, July-2010-June 2011, p. 14. 33. Rao U.R. and Prabhu R.K., (ed), The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, reprint 2009, p. 137. 34. Tikekar, Indu, Integral Revolution, An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, 1970 pp. 110-11. 35. Ibid., 110-11, See also, Bhave, Vinoba, Swaraj Sashtra, Sarv Seva Sangh, Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi , p. 55. 36. Cited in, Bhole, L.M., “Bhoodan, Gramdan, Gram Swaraj and Sarvodaya: Prakti Darshan and Nisshapati, Anasakti Darshan (Special issue on Bhoodan), July 2010-June 2011, p. 126. 37. Bhave, Vinoba, Third Power (A New Dimension) Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, 2005, p. 36, This was part of Vinoba’s Speech at the Gramdan Confrence at Yelwal, Mysore, 12th September, 1957. 38. See, Verma, Ravindra, Gandhi’s Theory of Trusteeship: An Essay in Understanding in Sethi, J.D. (ed), Trusteeship, The Gandhian Alternative, Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1986, New Delhi. 39. Bhave, Vinoba, Democratic Values and The Practice of Citizenship, (Translation of his own work Lok Niti in Hindi), Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, 2002, p. 69. The translator of Vinoba’s original work is Late Marjorie Sykes. 40. Cited in, Lutz Mark, Human Nature in Gandhian Economics: The Case of Ahimsa or “Social Affection”, in Diwan Romesh and Lutz Mark(ed),


Essays in Gandhian Economics, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, 1985, p. 43. 41. See, Tandon Vishwanath, Selections From Vinoba, National Gandhi Museum & Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2004, p. 75. See Original Vinoba’s quote in Khadi Jagat, July 1946. 42. Huq, A.M., and The Doctrine of Non-Possession: Its Challenge to an Acquisitive Society, in Diwan Romesh and Lutz Mark (ed), Essays in Gandhian Economics, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, 1985, p. 43. 43. See, Bhoodan Ganga in Hindi, Fourth Volume, 1957, p. 13, See, also Tandon Vishwanath, Selections From Vinoba, National Gandhi Museum & Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2004, p. 70. 44. See, Bhave, Vinoba, Shanti Yatra, Sasta Sahiya Mandal Prakashan, New Delhi,1949. See, also Tandon Vishwanath, Selections From Vinoba, National Gandhi Museum & Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2004, p. 39. 45. See, Bhave, Vinoba, Democratic Values, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi, 1962. p. 76. See also original Hindi Version Lok-Niti and Swaraj Shashtra, Sarv Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi.

Economic Thought of Vinobha Bhave Anjali Singh “All revolutions are spiritual at the source. All my activities have the sole purpose of achieving a union of hearts.” –Vinoba Bhave

Life and Antecedents Vinoba (born Vinayaka Rao Bhave) was born into a pious Chitpavan Brahmin family on 11 September 1895 in a small village called Gagode (present day Gag ode Burdock) in Kolaba now in Pen, Raigadh district of Maharashtra. Vinoba Bhave was a scholar, thinker, and writer who produced numerous books. He was a translator who made Sanskrit texts accessible to the common man. He was also an orator and linguist who had an excellent command of several languages (Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu, English, and Sanskrit). Vinoba Bhave was an innovative social reformer. Shri Vinoba Bhave called “Kannada” script as “Queen of World Scripts” – “Vishwa Lipigala Raani” He wrote brief introductions to, and criticisms of, several religious and philosophical works like the Bhagavad Gita, works of Adi Shankaracharya, the Bible, and Quran. His criticism of Dnyaneshwar’s poetry and works by other Marathi saints is quite brilliant and a testimony to the breadth of his intellect. Vinoba Bhave had translated the Bhagavad Gita into Marathi. He was deeply influenced by the Gita and attempted to imbibe its teachings into his life, often stating that “The Gita is my life’s breath” Vinoba was arrested several times during the 1920s and 1930s and served a five-year jail sentence in the 1940s for leading non-violent resistance to British rule. The jails for Vinoba had become the places

Economic Thought of Vinobha Bhave 129

of reading and writing. He wrote Ishavasyavritti and Sthitaprajna Darshan jail. He also learnt four South Indian languages and created the script of Lok Nagari at Vellore jail. In the jails, he gave a series of talks on Bhagavad Gita in Marathi, to his fellow prisoners. Bhave participated in the nationwide civil disobedience periodically conducted against the British, and was imprisoned with other nationalists. Despite these many activities, he was not well known to the public. He gained national prominence when Gandhi chose him as the first participant in a new nonviolent campaign in 1940.

Follower to Gandhiji In 1916, at the age of 20, Vinoba was in the holy city of Benares trying to come to a decision should he go to the Himalaya Mountains and become a religious hermit? Or should he go to West Bengal and join the guerillas fighting the British? Then Vinoba came across a newspaper account of a speech by Gandhi. Vinoba was thrilled. Soon after, he joined Gandhi in his ashram. (An ashram is a religious community – but for Gandhians, it is also a center for political and social action.) As Vinoba later said, he found in Gandhi the peace of the Himalayas united with the revolutionary fervor of Bengal. Gandhi greatly admired Vinoba, commenting that Vinoba understood Gandhian thought better than he himself did. In 1940 he showed his regard by choosing Vinoba over Nehru to lead off a national protest campaign against British war policies. After Gandhi’s assassination on January 30, 1948, many of Gandhi’s followers looked to Vinoba for direction. Vinoba advised that, now that India had reached its goal of Swaraj – independence, or self-rule – the Gandhians’ new goal should be a society dedicated to Sarvodaya, the “welfare of all”. The name stuck, and the movement of the Gandhians became known as the Sarvodaya Movement. A merger of constructive work agencies produced Sarva Seva Sangh – “The Society for the Service of All” – which became the core of the Sarvodaya Movement, as the main Gandhian organization working for broad social change along Gandhian lines.2 Vinoba was a communicator, a simplifier, a translator of Gandhian thought. Though he had not one bit of Gandhi’s humor or charisma, he could convince anyone. Bandits laid down their weapons at his feet


and repented. As hesaid of himself and perhaps most of us – “Though we are small men we can stand on the shoulders of giants and perhaps see a little farther….” In today’s times, when so much of the unrest in our country is about land rights and unequal land distribution and the agitation is being fuelled by Naxalites and proponents, it is a pity that Bhoodan has not been given another chance.

Religious Thoughts Vinoba preached many religious talks those were related to Christianity, Hinduism especially Gita and on Quran also. They are as followed: The three important things of Christ are: 1. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. 2. Love your enemy and it will bring change of heart in him. 3. Let all my followers love each other and sacrifice everything for others as I did for them. “These three moral duties come first into my mind whenever I think of Jesus Christ. These are the eternal moral duties and will be there as long as humanity lives. I am as much devoted to the teachings of Christ as to the Vedic Dharma preached by our ancient saints. Christ’s teachings are universal as he never preached any difference of religions, sects, etc. Jesus called upon us to love our neighbor. But though this has been extolled as a great virtue by all nations, few have been prepared to accept it in practice as an immediate obligation. We talk of love and non-violence and One World, but devote the bulk of resources to the piling up of armaments for mutual destruction. We despair of our neighbor. This is cowardice. Jesus refused to five ways to it. He bore the Cross – the burden of our sins and embraced martyrdom. Luckily, this teaching of Jesus is not alien to India. We have been the meeting ground of a multitude of races, creeds, and cultures, a land of synthesis and fusions. I therefore unreservedly declare that Jesus Christ is our own, that to us in this country, Jesus and his teachings have never sounded strange or unpractical, that we regard Jesus as one of our family.”


Christian Teaching and Hindu Philosophy “I can wholly accept the New Testament, especially the Sermon on the Mount. There is no difference between Christian teaching and Indian philosophy. Hindu Dharma has given the basis for ethics; the Christian religion and Buddhism have taken the basis for granted and have stressed the ethical side.” For Christian brethren, now that their foreign trappings are shed, to subscribe to the indigenous background suited to our own genius. And “I also suggest that similar processes of wholesome assimilation may also take place among the followers of Islam and other religions, that Christians and Muslims of India who have hitherto held fast to their moorings and their traditions outside India, may no longer remain strangers to the Hindu cultural background, but assimilate Brahma Vidya with profit. It would broaden their outlook and confer a wholesome spirit of quest and tolerance to their religious and ideological approach and add lustre to their culture.

The Meaning of the Islamic Kalma “I particularly like ‘There is no other God except God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God’. In the first part it says, that Allah is one. Every man would accept this. In the next half it says, ‘Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah.’ This is interpreted in different ways. Some interpret it to mean that Muhammad is the only Prophet of God. But this is incorrect.” For Islam says, “We make no distinction among the various prophets that have come into the world.” This is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam. Therefore the plain meaning of the text ‘Muhammad is Allah’s Prophet’ is that no prophet can take the place of God, not even Muhammad. He was only a prophet of Allah. Thus if we understand this Kalma in a broad sense, it should be acceptable to the whole world. No doubt some people might well say that for them Muhammad was enough. To children their father is enough. Though they would respect others’ fathers also, yet for their own purposes devotion to their own father serves them sufficiently. The Sikhs believe that there have been ten Gurus for them and henceforth no more Gurusare to come. This may be sufficient for


them. But it cannot be so said for the whole world. We cannot limit the doings of God. We can limit our own faith.

Vegetarianism Vinoba believe that India’s special contribution to the history of non-violence is the giving up of animal food. Not that all Indians are vegetarians, but the idea commands the respect of all. I have seen many a cruel person among habitual vegetarians and many a kind one among meat eaters. In spite of this, I believe that vegetarianism will go a long way to help the evolution of non-violence, and humanity will be imperfect without it. With me it is also an article of faith that the modern man has got to attain, sooner rather than later, an adult status, when he shall kill no creature of God for food or sport, when he will refuse to lock upon any living being as his food. For, mankind must reach the conclusion soon enough that vegetarian food is the best food for man so as to enable him to out grows the beast in him. I am also aware that enough vegetarian food is not available in the world today. Nevertheless, I submit that the reform is essential for the evolution and perfection of man and for the unity of religious and spiritual endeavor of all mankind. Vinoba’s religious outlook was very broad and it synthesized the truths of many religions. The Scientific Attitude and Life The scientific attitude is a respect for facts; it is characterized by an objective, an experimental attitude towards life. If we have a scientific outlook, we shall regard every aspect of life as a field for research. A scientific life is a simple life. People often think that science makes life more complicated, but this is a mistake. Science will help us, for example, to understand the value of fresh air. We are in the habit of covering ourselves with clothing all the twenty-four hours; some part of the body is never exposed to the sunlight, and the body loses its vitality. Science teaches us to wear fewer clothes and so to simplify life. In a scientific society, men will build houses of one storey rather than ten, and see that each house has open space around it so that light and air can enter. Science will improve health so much that medicines will scarcely be needed, though the very best remedies


will be available if need should arise. There will be doctors, but their services will not be much in demand. Good spectacles will be available, but men of scientific outlook will take care of their eyesight. In the same way aeroplanes will continue to fly, but they will be needed only occasionally; men will prefer to walk, and to enjoy themselves by rambling in the forests. And in a scientific world there will be little need of artificial lighting, for people will prefer to spend the night sleeping under the stars. Science will not be used to deprive man of healthful bodily labour, but to lighten his burdens and to increase his vitality and vigour. Science has expanded, no doubt, but the scientific attitude is still lacking to a large extent; life in general has not become scientific.

Thoughts on Education System At present mistakes are being made in the field of education in two ways. First, millions of people do not get education, and, secondly, those who get it do not receive the right type of education. Thus, the condition is that one side there is lack of education, and, on the other, mis-education. The present education is concerned only with two faculties – power of memory and capacity for arguments. There are several other faculties important than these, but the present education pays no attention towards their developments. Considering the needs of the country, this education is of no use. The state of affairs is that a boy starting from the age of six, continues to study till the age of twenty or twenty-one, and for these fifteen years, he does no work or labour. He is incapable of standing in clemencies of weather and of doing anything, be it agriculture, carpentry, weaving or cooking. He has now knowledge of dietetics. Thus he comes out of the school without any preparation for practical leaving. Protection of the cow and the bullock is a characteristic of the Indian social philosophy. We are, in this respect, a step ahead of the Western socialism. Western socialism asks for a full and equal protection being given to all men, but there it stops. We in India have gone a step further. We have included the cow as a member in the family. True, we have not followed this principle in practice fully. We merely pay respect to the cow but do not look after it so well as they


do in the Western countries. Nevertheless we have deep regard for it and consider it worthy of our care and protection in the same way as the human members of the family. We do not drive out the latter when they grow old. In the same way, though we make full use of the cow and the bullock take milk, get our fields ploughed, use the dung for manure, and use even their hides after they are dead - we do not kill them. But now we must link up this regard with a scientific attitude. Superstitious respect will not do. We must open good dairy forms, Gosadans, and the wealthy amongst us should come forward to provide for the upkeep of decrepit cattle. Ban on Cow-slaughter some people are under serious misapprehension in regard to the secular character of our State. They think that there is some kind of incompatibility between cow protection and a secular state. There is no incompatibility between the secular character of our State and the protection of the cow. No religion in India says that it is meritorious to kill a cow, and therefore there is no conflict among our different religions about the desirability of the protection of the cow. Therefore I say that there is nothing to prevent the secular State from striving to protect the cow, and our State must do it.

Non-voilence Thoughts This can be seen in one of his hymns “Om Tat Sat” which contains symbols of many religions. His slogan “t; txr” (Jay Jagat) i.e. “victory to the world” finds reflection in his views about the world as a whole. We should understand what is a martyr? A person killed for a particular reason is considered a martyr. Had Gandhiji not been assassinated and had died a natural death he would have probably not been considered a martyr. In that sense Lord Buddha and Mahavir are not martyrs. Martin Luther King and Gandhiji are martyrs. Therefore being assassinated cannot be the criteria of being considered a martyr. It is the one who has sacrificed and surrendered his life I have coined the term ‘surrendered soul’.There is an assembly of all messiahs, religious leaders, and saints. Throughout history considering all over the world there may be about 100 or 200 such leaders. We should consider all them a part our family, one family. Such text books


should be prepared. Look what is happening in India? No one in Tamilnadu has heard about Saint Shankar Madhavdev is spiritual leader of Assam. Ramanujacharya used to consider himself inferior to his guru Nammalvar, but no one knows about the latter. People know of Ramanuj because he wrote in Sanskrit but no one knows about his guru. Such a list of hundred or two hundred gurus who have connected people should be prepared which would comprise names of great men including teachers, scientists, and political leaders of king Ashok’s caliber. Each region should give more details about such men from their regions. The question will arise if this list is going to be historical or mythological (pauranic). For example, Prahalad and Harishchandra would be mythological. Would you add them to this list or notthe main consideration will be whether the women and men in this list have made an impact in the lives of human beings. Such names will be in the list.

Social Entrepreneur Vinoba Bhave and his followers vowed to collect 50 million acres of land from India’s landlords by the simple process of “looting with love”. The largest single gift was 100,000 acres from a maharajah. The smallest was one fortieth of an acre donated by a Telengana peasant who owned only one acre himself. By the time the Bhoodan movement petered out, Vinoba had walked 13 years, over 36,000 miles, accepting over 4.4 million acres of land. Vinoba observed the life of the average Indian living in a village and tried to find solutions for the problems he faced with a firm spiritual foundation. This formed the core of his Sarvodaya movement. Another example of this is Non-violence and compassion being a hallmark of his philosophy; he also campaigned against the slaughtering of cows. By adopting Gandhi’s ideas to the solution of the basic economic problem of land collection & equitable redistribution among the landless, the Movement kept Gandhi’s ideas of socioeconomic reconstruction alive at a period when the tendency of the educated elite was to overlook, if not to reject Gandhi’s ideas as irrelevant. The movement kindled interest in the individuals to study Gandhi’s ideas & to assess their relevance. Jayaprakash Narayan, a renowned Marxist,


and a Socialist, and one of the fore-most leaders in politics, before & after India’s Independence, came to be more and more intimately associated with the movement and realized that it was a superb endeavor to bring about revolution in human relations founded on the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence. Ultimately Jayaprakash devoted his entire life to the construction of a Sarvodaya society.

Vinobha Bhave and Land Donation Movement The Bhoodan (land gift) movement started at Pochampally on 18 April 1951, after interacting with 80 Harijan families. He walked all across India asking people with land to consider him as one of their sons and so give him one sixth of their land which he then distributed to landless poor. On 18 April 1951 Vinoba Bhave started his land donation movement at Pochampally of nalgonda district Telangana,[8] the Bhoodan Movement. He took donated land from land owner Indians and gave it away to the poor and landless, for them to cultivate. Then after 1954, he started to ask for donations of whole villages in a programme he called Gramdan. He got more than 1000 villages by way of donation. Out of these, he obtained 175 donated villages in Tamil Nadu alone. Gandhian and atheist Lavanam was the interpreter of Vinoba Bhave during his land reform movement in Andhra Pradesh and parts of Orissa. The Movement spontaneously attracted the attention of many fellow-seekers & thinkers from outside India. Louis Fischer, the famous American correspondent said: “Gramdan is the most creative thought coming from the East in recent times”. Hallam Tennyson, the grandson of the famous English poet, Alfred Tennyson, wrote a book,“The Saint on the march”. He narrated his memorable experiences as he moved with Vinoba into rural India. Chester Bowles, the American ambassador to India, observed in his book, “The dimensions of peace”: We experienced in 1955, the Bhoodan Movement is giving the message of Renaissance in India. It offers a revolutionary alternative to communism, as it is founded on human dignity”. The British Industrialist, Earnest Barder was deeply impressed by the Bhoodan movement & implemented the Gandhian concept of Trusteeship by allotting 90% share in the company to his industrial workers.


The British Quaker, Donald Groom, trekked with Bhoodan Sarvodayaco-workers for six months in the central India covering a distance of 1400 miles. The American friend Rev. Kaithan turned himself into a Sarvodaya co-worker and established a community centre in South India. David Graham, an English journalist of Sunday Standard, included Vinoba as one of the creative rebels. Arthur Koestler, in 1959 wrote in London Observer, that the Bhoodan Movement presented an Indian alternative to the Nehruvian model of Western development. To conclude taking an overall view it cannot be gainsaid that the Bhoodan-Gramdan Movement, despite all its real & apparent limitations, it would ever be deemed as a glorious attempt for a peaceful & non-violent solution of the basic land problem of Indian society & through it for a non-violent reconstruction of the Sarvodaya socioeconomic-politico order of universal relevance & significance.

Brahma Vidya Mandir The Brahma Vidya Mandir is one of the ashrams that Bhave created. It is a small community for women that was created in order for them to become self-sufficient andnon-violent in a community. This group farms to get their own food, but uses Gandhi’s beliefs about food production, which include sustain ability and social justice, as a guide. This community, like Gandhi and Bhave, has been influenced greatly by the Bhagavad-Gita and that is also used to determine their practices. The community performs prayers as a group every day, reciting from the Isha Upanishad at dawn, the Vishnu Sahasranama at mid-morning, and the Bhagavad-Gita in the evening. As of today, there are around 25 women who are members of the community and several men have also been allowed to join in the communist. Since its founding in 1959, members of Brahma Vidya Mandir (BVM), an intentional community for women in Paunar, Maharashtra, have dealt with the struggle of translating Gandhian values such as self-sufficiency, non-violence, and public-service into specific practices of food production and consumption. BVM’s existence and the counter-narrative its residents practice demonstrate how one community debate the practicalities and trade off in their application


of self-sufficiency, non-violence, and radical democracy to their own social and geographic context. One narrative described by BVM and the farmers that work with them is that large-scale agriculture is inevitable, necessary, and the sole possibility of feeding the world. They reject the narrative that success in agriculture comes from expensive technology. BVM is a small community in India; therefore it does not hold much power in its beliefs and practices. However, India today proudly proclaims it’s large and growing middle class, and although many see Gandhi as a hero, some reject his views in favor of US-style-consumerism and look for an alternate route in agriculture with technological advancements. The existence of BVM provides a counter-narrative on enacting alternate agriculture practices and social practices that were believed by woman back in the 1960s.

References 1. Acharya Vinoba Bhave, (1955). Bhoodan-Gramdan Movement – 50 Years: A Review by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, India, Published by Publications Division, Government of India. 2. http//www.mkgandhi.org/vinoba/vinoba.htm 3. India’s Social Miracle: The Story of Acharya Vinoba Bhave and His Movement for Social Justice and Cooperation, Along with a Key to America’s Future and the Way for Harmony Between Man, Nature, and God, by Daniel P. Hoffman. Published by Naturegraph Co., 1961. 4. Sanford, A. Whitney (3 April 2013). “Gandhi’s Agrarian Legacy: Practicing Food, Justice, and Sustainability in India”. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture 7 (1): 65–87. doi:10.1558/jsrnc. v7i1.65. Retrieved 28 January 2014. 5. Sanford, Whitney (2013). “Gandhi’s agrarian legacy: practicing food, justice, andsustainability in India Gandhi’s agrarian legacy: practicing food, justice, and sustainabilityin India” (20140825). doi:10.1558/jsrnc. v7i1.65. Retrieved 2014-09-30. 6. Shepard Mark: Gandhi Today:A Report on India’s Gandhi Movement 7. Shepard, Mark. The King of Kindness -Vinoba Bhave and His Nonviolent Revolution 8. Subhash Mehta, VinobaBhave-Bhoodan-Gramdan Movement - 50 Years: A Review. 9. Tandon, P. D. Vinoba Bhave: The Man and His Mission (1954).Published by Vora. 10. Tennyson, Hallam. India’s Walking Saint: The Story of Vinoba Bhave,(1955) Published by Doubleday,.

Contribution of Vinoba Bhave in the Post-Independent India S. Indira Acharya Vinoba Bhave was one of the greatest spiritual leaders and reformers of modern India. At a very tender age he acquired spirituality and asceticism. He was an ardent follower of Mahatma Gandhi. He has strong commitment with regard to the practice of non-violence and unconditional love since his childhood. He was a person who follows the philosophy in his own life. He struggled to re-kindle faith among human beings. He was an unconventional person. He used to think differently at every moment of his life. His whole mission of life is to find out how difficulties of every kind in the society may be overcome by practicing non-violence. He considered it as the chief task. He was a follower of both Buddhism and Jainism. He tried to synthesize both the religions. He cleared his philosophical doubts through Sankara’s ideology. Saint Jnanadeva shaped his thought, guided his action. These people shaped the philosophy of Vinoba Bhave. Even though, he was a follower of Gandhi, at times he refused to accept Gandhi’s ideas through his critical attitude. He never promised for permanent solutions. He did not bother about his fruits of his actions. The attitude of detachment colored every aspect of Vinoba’s life and thought. He used to follow his own glimpse of truth and logical conclusion. He was a revolutionist. His first meeting with Gandhiji felt that “Providence took me to Gandhi and I found in him not only the peace of Himalalyas but also the burning fervor of revolution for freedom. I said to myself that both of my desires had been fulfilled”. Later he became an ardent follower of Gandhi and participated in various satyagraha movements. He never accepted any positions but incessantly worked for the welfare of the people. Gandhi had chosen him as the first satyagrahi to start the movement. He occupied unique place in the country’s freedom movement. One


of his best contributions to the post-Independent India is Bhoodanmovement. Later it leads to Gramdan and Sampathidan movements. He started sarvodaya movement to usher the economic and social equality without shedding a drop of blood. To realize this objective, one’s mind and heart must accept that, all people are the members of one family. This concept can be traced in the economic philosophy of Gandhi called trusteeship: “Iswara is the sole owner of this universe. People are the trustees of their wealth and possessions. One can use the wealth to meet the genuine needs. The rest should be kept open for the needy”. Imbibing this kind of attitude is extremely difficult in this material world. It requires great patience, labor and optimism. The sarvodaya philosophy of Vinoba asserts that, all people are equal before God. Everyone must have equal opportunity to progress himself. This philosophy has been adopted by our then people’s President late Abdul Kalam also. He inspired the young minds to develop their talents by availing the existing opportunities. Vinoba believed that, the scope of sarvodaya was very wide. It includes all people, society state and also the things that are useful for man. If there is a close relationship between man and nature, many of the issues and challenges encountered by man in the contemporary society will definitely vanish. His sarvodaya philosophy comprises of many aspects. They are: • Social Aspect: Sarvodaya doesn’t recognize the distinction between high and low castes, classes and untouchability. All people are equal in the sarvodaya society and there is no room for jealousy, hatred and violence. • Psychic Aspect: The Philosophy of sarvodaya emphasized selfcontrol and spiritual development of man. According to this philosophy, nature and world are the two names of the same entity and they are similar. • Administrative Aspect: Sarvodaya believes in democracy. All people should have their representatives in the Government. The administration should have a welfare organization that serves the welfare of the people. • Scientific Aspect: The concept of Sarvodaya believed that the advancement of science and technology should be utilized in the

Contribution of Vinoba Bhave in the Post-Independent India 141

constructive fields of production. In other words, science may be used in any field for the welfare of individual and not for the destruction purpose.

Objectives of Sarvodaya • The main purpose of sarvodaya is to make everyone happy. The welfare of individual implies the welfare of entire human race. • To realize this aim, Vinoba believed that, both means and ends are equally important. There should be a feeling of universal brotherhood to achieve this objective. • To develop this kind of feeling, Vinoba conceived methods like Bhoodan, Grandam and Sampathidan movements. • Vinoba chose villages as the centers of his work because India is a land of villages and also it is a fact that, India lives in villages.

Vinoba’s Educational Ideas • Vinoba’s educational ideas reflect Gandhi’s views on education. • He thought of two basic aspects of education like: (1) Internal education related to one’s own soul and (2) The external education on par with the existing system of education. The internal education leads to the development of one’s own senses, intelligence, memory and attitude. • Like Gandhi, Vinoba also desired to make student independent to encounter the challenges in the individual’s life. He strived to develop the ability of the student. • He advocated progressivism in education in order to make the student to solve his problems according to the emerging new situations.

Objectives of Education • Vinoba determined the aims of education on the basis of his own experiences. He conducted the movements of Bhoodan and Gramdan. During this period, he considered himself as a student of the university. When he presented these ideas before people, he regards himself as a teacher.


• Self-Reliance: Vinoba believed that, the child should receive education through its own efforts. It should develop the capacity of its own for earning the livelihood. It is necessary that, the child must become self-reliant from the economic point of view; otherwise it is a burden to the family and also to the society. Thus economic self-reliance is regarded as another approach to self-reliance. It should be one of the principal aims of education before 15 years age of every child. It addition to the proficiency in one’s own mother tongue, some other grasping will be very easy during the age of 15 years. The student should understand and study various environmental factors also. • Social Objectives: Vinoba said that, the inculcation of selfreliance in the student fulfils the individual aim of education. It includes the attitude of considering the interests of others and also spreading the spirit of love and peace among the people. He identified that spreading this kind of spirit is the greatest challenge of today’s education. • Vinoba viewed that, education should develop the spirit of selfsecurity, and then there won’t be any requirement for the police in the educational Institutions. He suggested that, the educational institutions must inculcate and practice the spirit of non-violence among the students. • Vinoba opined that, the investment on education is productive, because education alone can produce good workers in various productive fields. Thus any expenditure on education should be considered as productive. By considering like this, the social aims of the education will be achieved. In the contemporary period the people consider education as the most important and following this kind of approach only.

Learning Through Doing • Vinoba believed that true learning comes only through practice only. There should be co-ordination between learning and doing, because self-experience is really useful to the student in his various life situations. If knowledge is not acquired through practice, then society gets divided into two groups like laborers


and the other is that which hates the labor. That is exploited and the exploiter. If the student is taught some handicrafts, these kinds of divisions will be lessened in the society. In the social sense it will lead to the development of harmony among the people.

Right Mode of Living • Vinoba envisioned that, to live a life itself is an art and education alone can teach this art. Through education the student learns how to lead a good life. To lead a peaceful and happy life one should be closer to the nature. There should be similarity between the laws of nature and one’s own ways of living. It will definitely bring happiness to the individual.

Basic Education and Government • Vinoba considered that, basic education must be based on the philosophy of life. This philosophy should not be ignored. He viewed that, basic education should be taken as the part of Bhoodan movement. The government should carry some burden in this regard.

Ideal Teacher and Student • Vinoba attaches greatest importance to the teacher. An ideal teacher is needed to inspire and shape the young minds. The teacher must be dutiful, selfless, prudent and skillful. He should have a thorough mastery over his subject matter and also with regard to the method of explanation. The teacher should believe in the dignity of the labor. • An ideal student respects his teacher sincerely. He must have full faith and devotion towards the teacher. The student must have self-control and should be ready to put the hard labor. He must be disciplined and observe strict celibacy. • Vinoba recommended the system of practical examination to the students. He suggested that, the examination must be conducted on the actual work performed by the student. He must be examined about the knowledge of any machine and asked to


reassemble it. He suggested that, education should relate to one’s own personal experience. His aim was to make the student selfreliant. He considered this spirit as the important principle of education. He suggested that, everyone must be away from the artificialities. The student must be closer to the natural life, the spirit of love and non-violence has to be promoted among them.

Synthesis of Science and Spirituality Vinoba desired to establish the unity between the social morality and metaphysical morality. In this context, he said that, “while the search for peace is on, preparations are going on for war.” It is terrified the latest innovations of science. No doubt that science has created plenty of opportunities, but on the other hand half of the population is experiencing poverty and illiteracy. Science may lead us to the moon, but on the earth, the people are encountering the worst challenges of alienation and sectarianism of all kinds. Science has brought comforts and luxuries but it has also resulted in the dreadful pollution of environment and also holes in the ozone layers. On the social plane, there is a conspicuous growth of secular political structure and a desire for the world fraternity; on the other hand, there is a terrific rise in religious fundamentalism and national chauvinism. It is a fact that, about 76% if wars are in the name of religion. Vinoba made a paradigm shift in favor of integration of science and spirituality. Definitely it would be a solution to the modern era’s crisis. The material progress is not in keeping with the pace of spiritual progress. Both of them must be complementary to each other for the balanced growth of human civilization.

Conclusion Vinoba was a social revolutionary. He aimed at transforming the hearts of people (Hridaya parivarthana). He struggled to bring the social awakening among the Indian masses in the post- independent India through various non-violent movements including ban on cow slaughtering. During that period, the government even convinced and given assurance to enact law while he had undertaken the indefinite fast. But still it is a practice in the present period and presently much


speculation is going on with regard to this issue. He has chosen the Indian tradition of Raghu dynasty of giving up their bodies through yoga or the saints of Maharashtra practice: the festival of death of Jains (sallekhana) which implies involuntary death (Passive Euthanasia). In the contemporary period it became an emerging trend after 1980’s and named in the bio-ethical terms as ‘Euthanasia’. In some of the world countries now it is legally enacted as law. Thus even through his death, he wanted to put an end to the rotating wheel of destiny and join the cosmic reality. He left the rich legacy of Gandhian ideals that are applicable to the all generations as long as the humanity exists.

References 1. Bhave, Vinoba. Swaraj Sastra, Wardha Gram Seva Mandal ,1996. 2. Tandon, V. (ed), Selections from Vinoba, Kashi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakasham, 1981. 3. Science and Spirituality: An exploration, Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh, 1972. 4. Nargolkar, V., The creed of the Saint, Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1963.

Gandhi and Cinema: A Progressive Approach Towards Non Violent Society Vijay Srivastava and Mamta Tyagi This article looks at the role of popular movies in portraying the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. In this article an attempt has been made to look at the relevance of Gandhi and his ideology in contemporary world through the lens of Cinema. This article will look specifically at seven movies which deal with Gandhi and his principles, ideology and their importance in the contemporary world. Movies made in the twentieth and twenty first century represents the importance Gandhi and Peace, Truth and Ahimsa and how learning from the Mahatma can cause the positive change. Through the analysis of these movies we will analyse the image of Mahatma constructed in an artistic form by the world of movies. On the other hand we will also analyze the issues rose by the movies and how Gandhi’s views and teachings have provided solutions to it. Gandhi was a man of peace and apostle of non- violence. No country has witnessed such a dynamic change in all spheres of life which the world has witnessed with the coming of Gandhi in the scene. He was the architect of India’s freedom struggle. Under his leadership people of India brought freedom as well as glory. He gave three important principles to the world-Non-violence, Truth and Satyagraha. Gandhi lived, suffered and died for the people. He dedicated his life for freedom in mind, body, spirit and soul. He fights for equality and social justice for all. He dedicated his life to make liberty and equality, a reality for all, especially for poor, farmers, women, laborers and children. He was a champion of peace and servant of humanity. He stressed on the empowerment of a poor man. Gandhi was against of violence and opposed to all war unless it was with against a greater evil than itself. He was a moral force whose appeal to the conscience of man is both universal and lasting.

Gandhi and Cinema: A Progressive Approach Towards Non Violent Society 147

He becomes an iconic figure for many things for many people. He is seen as a pacifist, apostle of non- violence, a champion of civil rights, a fighter for racial and social discrimination, and a spiritual seeker of truth. He held a cooperative world view. He opposed militarism, colonialism, racism and imperialism. His principle of Non- violent cooperation is the most stable, enriching and fruitful method for social change in democracy. Presently, our world is surrounded by the problems created by man himself. There is injustice, injury, cheating, exploitation or discrimination because of the greediness of a man or because some individuals or groups or nations feel that it is their right to rule over others. Man is waging war against everything surrounding him: whether it’s a human being or nature. His acts of violence are destroying everything. However, he tried to resolve these conflicts but by brute force and thus the consequences is worst. Today world is facing problems like, Global recession, poverty, gender inequality, village development, Terrorism, Global warming, riots, wars etc... In this era of violence, there is search for peace and Gandhi made great efforts to tread the path of peace. It is the demand of time that we should look Gandhi for the peace building process. Gandhi is relevant in contemporary society because his thoughts, ideas and principles dealt with the basic human values. Now the question arises, how cinema is projecting the ideas of Gandhi and how much it is successful in influencing the masses and delivering his message. Before we analyse this, it is important to understand that how a movie should be analyse and what important information we can get from it. Cinema, as a medium of expression, is a combination of art and commerce. It is probably through cinema that today’s young generation get familiar with Gandhi, not only as freedom fighter but also as a man of peace and non-violence. Movies expressed an ideology of improvisation, individualism, and solutions for problems depicted as crisis. Movies on social themes discourage social divisions and society ills. Movie is a new tool of information, education and communication. In ancient times there were dramas and plays for the entertainment of the people and now in present society, we have movies not only for our entertainment but also for


enriching our knowledge and broaden our understanding. Movies have the capacities to narratives the events of the real world. Gaston Ruberg, a noted film scholar, on relation between history and cinema commented that like history, cinema also takes the past events as its subjects and filmmakers, by making films on the facts and events of past, more or less, does the work similar to a historian i.e. he also draws his own conclusions based on his own thinking and analysis of fact.1 Now the impact of movies on historical event is immense because through its dramaticised portrayal of the past it influence our historical consciousness and thus on the basis of those movies we assume to know or happen to believe about the past.2 Movies preoccupation with the past is not to sow the historical facts but how to deal with the facts and past in their own way and then to show it in an entertainment form.3 Each story has a central character without which they can hardly move. Thus, choosing a narration means choosing a historical approach in which an individual action plays a central role. However, the way in which movies revolve their story around a character is different from how historians deal with them. Directors usually restrict themselves in simply narrating their characters adventures and viewers will get carried away by the flow of individual actions and events were as historians will provide more explanations to the events and individual action and analyse it critically. Although historiograpically it can be argues that individual acts can cane the course of history, historians tend to consider an individualized approach to the past a naïve form of history.4 However, the movies which are made on the social issues reflect the ills of the society and sufferings the people. These movies help in raising the social consciousness of the masses by highlighting the plight of the sufferers. Movies are the source of information. They portray their relationship with the societies that produce and consume it. As a medium of information every movie depicts and promotes particular values, principles and attitudes in given cultures or of a person. Therefore, through the analysis of the chosen movies we will find out the message of the film and how it is linked with Gandhi.


During 1930’s, the impact of Gandhian programme of social reform, upliftment and removal of untouchability was remarkable and became the themes of various movies. Their presentation of these themes in a progressive manner and deft handling of social and political issues added the new dimension to the history of film industry. The mythological film ‘Raja Harishchandra’ held a parallel to the philosophy of Satyagraha; endure suffering with faith in the ultimate victory of good over evil. Not only courage but the spirit of selfless sacrifice was needed to carry on the struggle for independence against the brute repression by the colonial masters.5 Chandidas (1934) directed by photographer Nitin Bose in Hindi was on the theme of untouchability and caste barriers. It was a love story between priest Chandidas and a washer woman. Similarly, in 1937, Kisan Kanya depicted the sorrowness of peasant life. Hemant Gupta made 1942 referring to Gandhi’s Quit India movement of August 1942. The film was a real incident took place in Midnapur near Calcutta. Achut Kanya (1936) by Franz Osten ‘The Level Crossing’ explores the social issues of untouchability that had been championed by Mahatma Gandhi. Thus, before the Independence a lot of movies were being made on the social and political thoughts of Gandhi. And now, in this movie we will analyse further the movies made on Gandhi after Independence and how they reflect his ideologies. Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi (1982) is an internationally acclaimed film. The film brought Gandhi’s individual achievements and his discovery of principles of Truth and Non- violence on international screen and revived his memory in a generation of technology. Gandhi’s discovery of Non Violence and turning the masses to follow the same path was a landmark achievement in the course of India’s struggle for freedom from the British Empire. This movie is based on Louis Fisher’s6 book, ‘The Life of Mahatma Gandhi’. Richard’s movie Gandhi gave a major boost to this legend in the west. Attenborough’s movie constitutes a very faithful summary of Gandhi and his march towards triumph and martyrdom. The film gives a realistic and chronological account of Gandhi’s life. The movie gives a clear and detailed description of Gandhi’s transformation from a


lawyer to the political figure and then his growth as a mass leader. Gandhi has been variously described as a ‘revolutionary’, a ‘utopian’, a ‘philosophical anarchist’, a ‘practical idealist’ and a ‘saint.’7 No other figure of the twentieth century has been labeled in so many ways. Movie starts with the assassination of Gandhi. Attenborough’s movie made people rethink about what Gandhi stood for and its relevance today. The film’s strong point was its depiction of Gandhi’s radical rejection of repressive authority and his formulation of non- violent technique of rebellion.8 He was careful to distinguish between his method of direct action and the idea of passive resistance.9 Gandhi conceived Satyagraha as the instrument of person who is spiritually and morally strong. In the scenes of non- violent movement and Civil Disobedience movement, we will understand the force of Gandhi’s Satyagraha and non- violence. Satyagraha was seen by him as the only effective sanction such an individual could employ against the violence of a more powerful opponent.10 Gandhi’s idea was that nonviolent withdrawal of cooperation en masse would halt the machinery of an oppressive government, and the ‘truth force’ of the combined will of the people would ultimately prevail.11 There was a scene of conversation between Gandhi, Nehru and Patel, where Gandhi made up his mind to withdraw the Noncooperation movement after Chauri-Chaura incident. Nehru and other political leaders did not agree with him and asked him not to do so. But Gandhi was against of any kind of violence. He agonized over the outbreaks of violence during the movements. Gandhi always emphasize that freedom was not a narrow political objective but the ideal and guiding principle of a sustained revolution and thus, there is no space for violence in it. Gandhi believed that the time spent interacting with children was paramount, all other things could wait. A scene in the film Gandhi also demonstrates this quality of the Mahatma, when Pandit Nehru and other Indian leaders wait while Gandhi heads of the river back to assist young girl in applying a mud pack to a lamb. Richard in his movie stressed and highlights Gandhi’s sharp understanding of Indian mentality and his masterly power of creating


a powerful repertoire of symbolic representations associated with non-violence.12 Through this association Gandhi turned the Indian political movement into sociopolitical movement. As we can see, in the scenes of Salt March, In Indian culture, salt is perceived as the lifeline of a person and when a tax was imposed by the imperial powers on this commodity, Gandhi used this opportunity to create a civil disobedience movement called the ‘great salt march’. Tax on salt was represented as slavery and the symbol of exploitation. Thus, by sensitively exploiting the cultural meaning of an insignificant object, Gandhi captured the highest form of national spirit ever witnessed in the country. Through the salt march Gandhi represented resistance as peaceful; a new representation in itself.13 Similarly, there is a scene when Gandhi and Kasturba both appealed to the Indian masses to throw away western clothes and start wearing homespun clothes. Gandhi made Khadi (homespun) a widely accepted symbol, a common bond uniting people from diverse backgrounds.14 Gandhi’s use of Khadi clothes was a protest against colonialism and to provide jobs to thousand of jobless Indians. Through these symbols Gandhi struck a chord within the ordinary person and shows path to grow morally and spiritually and individual satyagraha. In 2000, Kamal Hasan’s Hey Ram addresses the issues of communal violence and religious fundamentalism which has become a central issue in modern times and a source of increasing worry in the contemporary societies. This movie shows the damage due to communal violence but also highlights that fundamentalism is equally dangerous and destructible. Riots have been a tragic part of the human condition. Over the centuries, countless millions of people have lost their lives in riots. Death however is not the only consequence of war; countless people have also acquired disabilities in war. They also become victim of emotional trauma. Displaced families, communities and other outcomes become a challenge for the government agencies and humanity. Images of riots and sufferings of displaced families are common themes of movies that dramatise the intensity of combat between two groups. Hey Ram similarly reflects the story of a man who was a victim of riots and his loss. He then


involved in the violent activities but later he realized that violence is not the solution of all the problems. Somewhere and somebody had to stop this blood war. In the end, Saketh Ram while protecting a group of Muslims from the attacks of Hindu realized that Gandhi principles were the lifeline of Human race and ahimsa and tolerance are the pillars for peace and harmony. Gandhi firmly belief that if the followers of two religious communities come together, only then the progress of the country will be possible in real sense and the cultural heritage of India will be protected. Hey Ram was set in the days of partition and questions the very ethos of Gandhi’s philosophy of non- violence and lays open doubt whether Gandhi himself was not actually responsible for the bitter bloodshed that surrounded the partition of one country into two. But why we forget that it was Gandhi, the lone man, the non-violent secularist, who mourned the killings of the innocent and fasted in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) while the country celebrated the onset of free India. The partition of India and divisive politics left a deep scar on his secular soul; he did not rejoice. In fact, in an atmosphere charged with communal distrust, Gandhi who had for a long time stood for communal harmony and was a symbol of and peace, became its primary target and was later killed by Hindu fanatic. Gandhi’s philosophy did not create partition. Gandhi had said that, “first cut me into two pieces, then divide the country.”15 On the other hand, movie highlights the thinking of religious fundamentalists who totally denounced the Gandhian concept of non-violence and thus were engaged in an attempt to kill Gandhi. Kamal Hasan played the role of Saketh Ram, an archaeologist, whose wife was raped and killed by Muslims mobs in Calcutta. Saketh Ram goes on a rampage and kills those responsible for killing his wife. He joins a group of Hindu fundamentalists and gets influenced by their ideology. These fundamentalist were instrumentalised in killing Gandhi. Viewers will feel that movie is almost representing the mindset of Nathuram Godse who killed Gandhi but this interpretation is wrong. Nathuram Godse was a learned man and his criticism of Gandhi evolved gradually. His historical facts were accurate and he has his own convictions. But that does not mean that


he did the right thing by killing Gandhi because violence in any form is not justifiable. Fundamentalist have an ideology of ‘Our belief is true’ and ‘rest is untrue or incomplete’. As per this ideology, when the followers of any religious group or sect indulge in their activities, they certainly come in conflict with others. This religious fundamentalism in present society where groups are organized on the lines of social class and are often instrumentalised to achieve political campaigns.16 In present scenario, fundamentalism has emerged a big problem because of its terrorist and military character. The prevailing social representation of Gandhi and his politics of non-violence – which appeared acceptable during the struggle against the colonizers, but had lost its positive connotation after independence to a large degree.17 In this increasingly hostile atmosphere created by different religious groups nowadays, Gandhi is seems the only protector of peace. Gandhi believes in ‘Sarvadharma Sambhav18 (peaceful co-existence of all religions) to prevent conflicts caused by religious bigotry. The concept was introduced by Gandhi to counter the British policy of divide and rule and thereby to unify the various factions into which the institutional politic had been divided. It is important for a country like India were 80 crores were Hindus and rest were Indian Muslims to follow the path of peace and co-operation and it will only be possible when all from majority and minority communities walk hand in hand. Thus, movie explains the importance of Gandhian principles and laid emphasis on Gandhi’s thought that ends matters a lot to means. And if we want that end should be noble then means of achieving it should also be noble. Jahnu Barua’s, ‘Maine Gandhi ko Nahin Mara’ (2005), has highlighted the contemporary problems of our society and importance of Gandhi in this contemporary world. Today our society is sicken with poverty, corruption, terrorism, lack of moral values etc... Today in the race of getting food, car, job, luxury commodities and to get a high status lifestyle, we forget our consciousness, moral values, and also the value of freedom. We forgot that man who fought and died for us and his principles, teachings and ideologies. Today he is only present in the pictures on the walls and not in our hearts and minds.


This movie stresses that though Gandhi was killed by a Hindu fanatic but today we are killing Gandhi every day, every minute by violence, corruption and untruthfulness. His life and ideas are surrounded by obscurity. People calling themselves ‘Gandhians’ have defied him, placing him beyond the reach of the common man and distorting his message in Indian popular memory. The spirit of sacrifice and unity that had permeated the Indian nationalist movement rapidly dried up after independence. Now people have become greedy, corrupted and patienless. Gandhi always asks people to make sacrifices for economic progress but through cooperation and simple living. But now people have diverted their funds on luxury life and individual benefit. Barua movie revolves around a Professor (Uttam) who is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The Professor considers himself guilty for killing Gandhi and thus he repeatedly says that, “Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara” (I did not kill Gandhi). When the Professor’s daughter consults a psychiatrist for enraging about her father, it is revealed that, in his childhood the Professor accidently made a picture of Gandhi with red colour. Incidentally the very same day, Gandhi was assassinated. Thus, Professor’s father viewed it as an omen and never forgave him. With the help of medical profession, the family works to ease the medically ill condition of the professor. In this movie, the story of Professor Director stressed on the increasing corruption and other ills in the society. With the modern life, people forget their moral values and humanism. Movie raised a question that how did Gandhi fade away? It is ironical that the father of the nation is now got reduced to just a road, a stamp and a statue. Everyone is hectic making money at the cost of ethics. Virtues like honesty, non-violence, tolerance – which are the characteristics of a strong moral force – are now only words. People are forgetting their tradition as well as social values. Now the question arises why it is happening? The answer of this question is in the stage of extreme development, progress and over- indulgence, man has forgotten the simplicity of his life, his mutual and co-relation with the environment. His demands are increasing day by day and his greedy nature has turned him into an immoral man. Gandhi believes that all moral and civilisational problem are rooted in materialism


and consumerism that alienates people from nature and encourages wasteful ways of life.19 J.C. Kumarrappa, a Gandhian economist, explains the Gandhi’s thought that of wants and wantlessness. He says that want is felt as the most intense which causes the maximum amount of pain. And the intensity of pain is equal to the pleasure that its removal can give.20 If human being reduced to a state of wantlessness then there will be no pain and he will not be indulged in any illegal activity such as bribing, corruption, fraud etc. Thus, this movie highlights the degenerating human beings and how Gandhi’s thoughts are useful in upgrading our moral values. Non-violence in situations of conflict between different groups and their values, is the correct path to achieve social justice. Gandhi lived a life of truth and spiritual renewal, Satyagraha. Lage Raho Munnabhai is more of a commercial film and people were overwhelmed by the message of bringing Gandhi back to our life and following his principles and teachings to solve our problems. Through this movie director highlights the personal problems of individual and how Gandhian thoughts are useful in solving these personal problems and problems of our day to day life. After the release of this movie the term ‘Gandhigiri’ became very popular among the people and become a buzz word. The film brings Gandhi and his ideals to the masses in a contemporary, acceptable format, Gandhi and Gandhigiri.21 It brought back Mahatma to life by making it applicable to our changing times. Gandhi had no intention of founding a new cult or establishing a new sect on his name. in fact he was against of ‘ism’ and believe that there is no such thing as ‘Gandhism’. But the Gandhigiri which this movie talks about is based on the simple weapons of Truth and non-violence, backed by moral force. These are same ideologies which Gandhi used and propagate to Indians to free themselves from the colonial oppression and social injustice. Gandhi inspired millions of people all over the world in their quest for freedom, justice and life of dignity and he still continues to do so. In this movie when a group of old people lost their home to a builder they adopted Gandhi’s ideology of non- violent social protest. They know that builder is powerful person but they have a firm


belief in Gandhi’s strategy and follow the path of Satyagraha. Gandhi always emphasized, satyagraha is not of the weak. Force is essential to overcome any wrong, except that the nature of the force has to be non- violent. This principle of Gandhi was adopted by Munnabhai (Sanjay Dutt), who played the role of a goon in this movie, but later turned into a firm believer of Gandhi and his principles. He first get rid him of all vestiges of violence and then he helped other people in solving their problems. He joined the non- violent social protest against the builder to get back the old age home. The film stressed on the Gandhi’s concept of a force- moral force. Gandhi always emphasise on winning their enemies heart and to stop their wrong doing, you need to change his very attitude. This fundamental transformation can only be achieved by peaceful, nonviolent means. Gandhigiri has four specific but interrelated themes. First, a non- violent approach to conflict resolution and peace building. Second, for poverty eradication, education and people’s empowerment. Third, dialogue among people and cultures. Fourth, towards a nuclear weapons free and non- violent world order.22 In the film there was a parallel story of a son who lies to his father and lost all his money in share markets. Munnabhai, advice him to tell whole truth to his father and promise him to return back his money through fair means. This advice reflects the power of Truth and the courage of the son to admit his mistake. Gandhi always emphasise that ‘Truth is God’ and ‘God is Truth’ and if a person has courage to follow the path of Truth, he will achieve the eternal supreme one day. Gandhigiri can foster peace between peoples, cultures, nations and civilizations. The essence of Gandhigiri is the empowerment of every individual, irrespective of caste, class, race, creed or community. Non violence is the only governing mechanism at allows voices to be heard in a democracy. Gandhi’s term for nonviolence, Satyagraha, refers to the search for truth in action, the spiritual force accompanying nonviolence and cooperation. All human progress should be based on the firm foundation of social consensus. The latest movie on Gandhi is Amit Rai’s ‘Road to Sangam’ (2010). This movie stressed on communal harmony, individual conscience and non- violence. This film upholds Gandhi’s view that an eye for an


eye is not the solution of every problem. It is only through peace and negotiation that we can get a solution and good result. The will of the people should be expressed, but when it was controlled by the powerful or expressed hatred and violence, then it had to be resisted. Paresh, like Gandhi followed the path of nonviolence and spiritual force. His admiration of Gandhi helps us understand one major method for empowering citizens that is through ahimsa and following the path of non- violence. It is true that there are so many incidents of conflicts between Hindus and Muslims but it is a high time that we should stop this war here and start from the fresh. If Hindus have paranoia about Muslims, then the followers of Islam also have a persecution complex. This movie gives a message of unity and brotherhood. As protagonist Hashmutullah (Paresh Rawal) puts it, “The best way is to junk the past and move on.” In this fire of communalism hundreds of lives being lost, crores of property being destroyed, millions become homeless and a nation was divided. The other consequences of this fire are severe and devastating. Gandhi believed in all religions and till the end of his life he worked for communal Harmony. Film starts with the protest of some Muslims of an area in Allahabad. Meanwhile, the city is hit by riots and the police take some innocent members of his community under remand. The local Maulan (Pavan Malhotra) and the committee chairman (Om Puri) call for a strike and closed their shops till the government will not accept their demands. The movie takes a dramatic turn, when it is being realized that Mahatma Gandhi’s ashes was discovered from a bank locker in Orissa: one of the twenty three ashes were divided to be immersed all over the country in holy waters. From here, the film takes a fictional route. Central government wish that just discovered ashes should be immersed in the Sangam in Allahabad and that they should be carried there in the same Ford truck, now lying disused in a museum, which took the ashes of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. To repair the engine of that truck, Government chose Hashmatullah (Paresh Rawal) who was a mechanic and general secretary of the local Islamic committee of the area which was hit by riots. Hashmat take the job of repairing the engine without knowing about its reality. But once he come to know about it he think to return back the engine without


repairing engine because of the increasing communal tensions in his area and community. The scene where Hashmat went to Government office to give back the engine was important and shows the transformation in his attitude. He visited the gallery where exhibition of Gandhi’s life and picture was put. He was surprised to see that Gandhi has always worked for the benefit of the poor, Hindu- Muslim unity, to get back our freedom, women empowerment and he never turned violent throughout his whole life. His message was peace and non- violence. Gandhi believed that all people had a right to practice any religion they chose to identify with, and that forms of worship should not be dictated by the state.23 His views were in part a product of his upbringing in Saurashtra, a region in which there was no obvious history of communal antagonism.24 Gandhi saw the divide as an aberration, being a poisonous consequence of colonial rule.25 He sought to counter this division by insisting that: ‘Religions are different roads converging to the same point.’ There was a lot in the Koran which Hindus could endorse, just as there was much in the Bhagawat Gita which Muslims could agree with.26 Thus, Hashmat changed his mind and decided to repair the engine. But his decision was not welcomed by his community and he was opposed for this. They stopped talking to him, isolated him, removed him from his post of general secretary and also assaulted him physically. But Hashmat did not change his mind and adopted the path of passive resistance. His conscious did not allow him to join the band of protestors. Gandhi always stressed that the decision as to whether or not to embark on Satyagraha was a moral choice to be made consciously by each individual.27 Thoreau stressed that the conscience of an individual came before the will of the majority.28 Thoreau believed that the principled resistance of even one person could make a great difference: ‘For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever.’29 Hashmat followed the same rule and listened to his consciousness he repaired the engine. While repairing engine Hashmat tried to win the hearts of his opponents as Gandhi did. Gandhi believed in winning over one’s enemies. And here, Hashmat has to win hearts of his friends and own


people and not of enemies who have different views from Hashmat. Hashmat helped them to understand that religion should not interfere with work but when he puts Gandhian principles to practice, the mechanic was succeeded and finds his way. Gandhi clearly put his faith in dialogue and forgiveness. And he always said that he is not interested in those who already follow him but he is interested in those people who are still away from his principles and philosophies. In the scene when Hashmat was attacked by some goons, he did not let them arrest or fight back. He just resisted them non- violently The Indian movie called Water is about the tragic lives of women and girls made outcasts when they became widows. Water is set in 1938 in British-ruled India and against the background of the rise of Mahatma Gandhi and the anti-colonial movement Water in this movie is more a symbol of purification. This movie talks about the sexual exploitation of widows. This movie highlights the plight of widows in India. Water movie represents the Indian widows in 1930s but in past or present women are facing exploitation and were forced to live a life of animal. Water tells about the life of widows who were forced to leave their houses and live in ‘widow houses’ where they were considered as worthless creatures. They live by begging or by turning into a prostitute. The message of water may seem simplistic or overbearing but it highlights the narrowness of our male dominant society and culture and beliefs. Obviously, the audience soon realizes, women deserve better treatment. As the movie offers proof upon proof of this fact and the coming of Gandhi lights a hope for their betterment. In India many attempts have been made to describe the position and identity of women.30 Colonials writings described the identity of a women as derived from men in her life. Historian Yousouf Ali wrote, ‘with us, the daughter is not a daughter all the days of her life. She is only a daughter until she is a wife. Then she enters into a new circle and new relationships, and she literally worships a new set of gods’ (cited in Devendra 1994: 2). Curtailment of female freedom was manifested in such precolonial and colonial practices as child marriage, sati (widow immolation), jauhar (group female suicide),


purdah (seclusion of women) and dowry. Despite the passage of the child Marriage restraint Act in 1929 and the abolition of sati in 1829, atrocities against women continued in the name of preserving the sanctity of caste, class and national identity. (Mani, 1989). Orientalist literature from such writers as William Jones, H.T. Colebrooke and subsequently Max Mueller focused on the atrocities performed on Indian women such as sati by drawing on their interpretations of Vedic endorsements of the same.31 Similarly, colonial writings of John Mill and Grant Duff described Hindu civilization as crude and oppressive to women. Water highlights the life of women after their husband’s death. They were not considered as the part of the society. Even they do not have rights on their husband’s property. It also stressed on the child marriage. As we see that the movie begins when eight-year-old Chuyia (Sarala), a victim of child-marriages still widely practiced in India at that time, learns that her 50-year-old husband has died. The young girl, who can barely even remember getting married, let alone understand what she now faces, is dispatched by her father to an ashram or widows’ home in Varanasi. Her innocence is now in darkness and her childhood his now lost. She has to spend her rest of life in the poverty-stricken institution with no possessions or personal income and segregated from the rest of society. Gandhi objected to child marriages, for, for they were devoid of the element of consent on the part of the concerned boy as well as the girl.32 He believed both that boy and girl should be developed physically and mentally at the time of marriage and that they should have a voice in the choice of their life partner. Gandhi looked at the practice of Child marriage as a moral and physical evil. It is an immoral act which made innocent girls objects of man’s lust; ruined the health of many a child mother and converted tender age girls into widows33 Gandhi believed that this practice of Child marriage deprived women from education and deprive them from the joys of childhood. Gandhi advocated mobilization of strong public opinion and supported agitations by the local people against such evil practice. He fully supported the child marriage restraint bill. But it is irony of a girl child that though so many laws have been made against it but still parents get their children marry in childhood and ruin their life.


The other issue in this movie highlighted was the exploitation of women. Madhumati and Gulabi, earn additional income, some of which is used to sustain the ashram, by prostituting the beautiful young widow Kalyani (Lisa Ray) to the local Brahmins or high-caste gentry across the river. Kalyani, whose hair was not shaved in order to make her more attractive to her clients, lives in separate quarters in the institution. Kalyani fell in love with a young boy, Narayan (John Abraham). Their love affair, however, threatens the usual dynamics in the ashram. Because if Kalyani go with him then how the Ashram will earn and run its expenses. This descision of Narayan was also not approved by his family. But Narayan is an opponent of caste oppression and a supporter of Mahatma Gandhi’s “passive resistance” movement against British colonial rule. Deeply in love, he rejects the prevailing oppression of widows and, on the basis of a newly introduced legal provision enabling widows to remarry, asks Kalyani to marry him. But movie takes a tragic turn when, Kalyani discovers that Narayan’s father has been one of her clients and she committed suicide. Now, the head of the widow house targeted Chuyia, the little girl, and drag her in this dirty job of prostitution. Chuyia was rescued by a middle-aged Shakuntala (Seema Biswas), a devout Hindu and the most thoughtful and enigmatic of the widows. Shakuntala, who is caught between her religious faith and her human cravings, becomes a surrogate mother to Chuyia. Shakunthala, who is deeply distressed by the events, finds herself swept up in a crowd listening to Indian National Congress leader Mahatma Gandhi during one of his national rail tours. Moved by Gandhi’s brief comment that the pursuit of truth should be one’s religion, the distressed Shakuntala pleads with various people to help her save the child widow by “giving her to Gandhi”. The film concludes with Shakuntala discovering that Narayan has decided to join Gandhi’s journey. He takes the child as the train departs the station. Movie highlights the social and psychological contradictions confronting individuals who seek solace in the religious values that are responsible for their oppressed state. Shakuntala’s attempts to bridge the gulf between her natural kindness and the traditions that demand she suppress her humanity but she hold the hand


humanity rather than oppressed customs and save chuyia. This movie effectively highlights and portrays the human cost of these harsh and dehumanising “traditions”. The final scenes involving Gandhi provide an indication of his mass support and the hopes of millions that he and the Indian National Congress would put an end to British rule, the caste system and other forms of economic and social oppression. Gandhi has worked for social reconstruction and upliftment of women. On his path a new conscience emerged among the youngsters in which John Abrahim is one of them who followed Gandhian principles and believe in social reconstruction of women and in their upliftmen. Gandhi advocated non violence in all human interactions; it was needed especially in conflicts over opportunities for women. Mahatma Gandhi rejected those parts of the Hindu scriptures that denigrated women, and instead urged them to participate in the swadeshi (self-reliance) movement where they would spin and wear khadi (home-spun) clothes. Women, framed as victims of social backwardness, became symbols of modernity as well because efforts to educate the women and make them self-reliant were synonymous with efforts at modernity. Gandhi gave a totally new perspective to gender equality and non-violence. He opposed the harmful practices and encouraged regeneration of women but gave the ideal that women are not just would and different but superior to men. Gandhi was deeply concerned about the condition of widows who were denied to re-marry and also suffered other social and legal disabilities. Gandhi advised the parents to see that the child widows are duly and well married for he believed that they were never really married.34 Regarding adult widows, he felt that the decision to remarry should rest with the widow, but he was against the wrong done to the widows. He regarded enforced widowhood as an unbearable yoke that defies the home by secret vice and degrades religion.35 He advised every family to treat widow with utmost respect and to give her facilities to expand her knowledge.36 ‘Gandhi My Father’, was released in 2007. This movie is about the relationship between a father and son. It presents Harilal, Gandhi’s eldest son, as a victim of his father’s ever-changing fads, his father’s desire to appear fair, and his unwillingness to comprehend the simple


desires of his son to acquire modern education or to be with his adolescent wife. This movie shows the patriarchal nature of Gandhi. Gandhi was acted the patriarch, and he was expected by many of his followers to do so. He ran his ashrams as a benevolent but authoritarian patriarch.37 In his own family he demanded obedience from his wife and his four sons. It was because of this practice of patriarchy that there were bitter and angry quarrels with his family members which led to breaking of relationship between the two. Harilal was the victim of such practice. Patriarchy, by its nature, allows at best only a limited degree of dialogue, whether between husband and wife, father and child, or elder and younger.38 Patriarchy is characteristically monologici,39 it prevents other person from talking or expressing their opinions. This movie highlights how patriarchy was deep rooted in Gandhi’s everyday life and made the story of Harilal a subject of intense media speculation. It portrayed Gandhi as a failed father and an oppressive but kind husband. M.M. Bakhtin has defined the monologic as the voice of an entrenched authority that denies any meaningful dialogue with another person or group. Even when equality is accepted in theory, in practice it perceives the other as ‘merely an object of consciousness, and not another consciousness’, in the process denying that the other has ‘equal rights and equal responsibilities’: ‘Monologue is finalized and deaf to the other’s response, does not expect it and does not acknowledge it in any decisive force. Monologue pretends to be the ultimate word. It closes down the represented world and represented persons.40 In these respects, Gandhi’s practice of patriarchy was monologic.41 Harilal was born when Gandhi was far away in London to complete his law studies. The father whom Harilal learnt to look up to was the flourishing lawyer in South Africa. Gandhi was the head of the family and his way of living was mostly westernized. It was this impression that later Harilal also wants to be a lawyer but Gandhi didn’t agree to this as he now held that such institutions were deeply corrupted. When Harilal escaped to India, in hope of building an independent life for himself, he faced failure and harsh situations


because Gandhi had not given him a conventional education and he lacked paper qualifications. Gandhi’s experiments with his family made his son rebellious and non- believer of his principles. When Gandhi heard that Harilal married the daughter, Gulab, of his friend, Gandhi retorted that he had ceased to think of Harilal as his son ‘for the present at any rate.’42 Erickson has asked in relation to this episode: how can a son cease to be such on a temporary basis? He sees this as one more example of the ‘patriarch bad manners’ that characterized Gandhi’s relationship with his eldest son.43 When everybody has right to choose a life partner for themselves how Gandhi was not supporting his son for this? Why he became so angry? A year later when Harilal and Gulab were married, Gandhi called them to South Africa. He tried to take Gulab in her hand in an authoritarian way, causing her emotional suffering. He was very annoyed when she became pregnant and later gave birth to a daughter, as this revealed that the couple was having sexual intercourse despite his injunctions.44 He punished them by demanding that Harilal be the first to court arrest and go to jail during the satyagraha of 1908. Movie shows that Harilal did all he could to support and emulate his father in South Africa and thus he went to jail for a year. Whereas, Gandhi considered him only as a child and it ‘as a part of Harilal’s education for the sake of the country’. Harilal suffered a deep tragedy when his wife died because of influenza epidemic of 1918. He took to drink and was often inebriated in public. His business ran into difficulties and he was in debt. When Gandhi heard of this he denounced his son in his journal Young India. He stated that two of them had been at odds for the past fifteen years ‘There is much in Harilal’s life that I dislike. He knows that. But I Love him inspite of his faults. The bosom of a father will take him in as soon as seeks entrance. For the present, he has shut the doors against himself. He must wander in the wilderness. The protection of a human father has its decided limitations. That of the Divine Father is ever open to him. Let him seek it and he will find it.’45

If Gandhi loves him despite of his mistakes and faults then why he didn’t help him when his business was shrinking and helped him


to come out of the crisis in early years of his life. It’s because there was lot of difference between the father and son. In the later years Harilal was morally degraded and thus Gandhi lost all his hopes to improve him. Gandhi realized that his son was a broken man and his reactions and actions are only to hurt him and show his anger. And that’s why he decided to let him go. It was difficult for Gandhi as well but he was a man of principles and actions. And thus was not ready to support his son’s wrong actions and decisions. That is why, when Harilal changed his religion and turned into a Muslim he said, ‘he had no objection to Harilal changing his religion in good faith, but he feared that it was done for selfish reasons.’46 Gandhi believed that Harilal had taken loans from some Pathans in Bombay and they were taking their interest in the form of this ‘conversion’. This act made Gandhi believed that Harilal had no faith in religion and god because the reason behind his conversion reflects that he does not have a clean heart and he will always suffer because of this behavior. World knows Gandhi as man of peace but deep inside his heart was badly hurt because of his son. Katurba’s in her letter to Harilal told him that his father loved him very deeply, and his actions are breaking his heart. She told him that Gandhi was now prepared even to look after him and to nurse him back to health. But Harilal’s sad decline seems to have united the ageing father and mother in mutual grief. The anger of the old animosities faded away. Mahatma Gandhi transformed the hearts of millions but could not save the soul of his own son. This movie helps to know the human side of Gandhi and the pain of his wounded heart. He was a principled father but his rebellious son broke him internally. Gandhi continued to try to win back Harilal. In early 1947, he wrote to his son asking him to join him in East Bengal in his work for Hindu- Muslim unity. Harilal never replied.47 Mahatma died but Harilal remained in the funeral of him as an anonymous watcher. The movie does brings out the sufferings of Harilal but it also brings out the mettle the Mahatma was made of, the giant sacrifice and pain that he suffered silently and continued to move on his path. Gandhi suffered and struggled personally, socially and politically but he always put his principles and quest for human dignity above everything else. And that’s make him a greater human being. The scenes in the movie reflect Gandhi as a preachy, insensitive and quite


condescending, but this picture will also show about the character of Harilal as a weak person who was not able to inherit his father’s mantle. This movie also shows that morality and ethos cannot be forced. It can only be gradually evolved through spiritual learning and by following the path of truth, ahimsa and non-violence. It was true that Gandhi imposed himself on his son and other family members but he did that only to make them follow the path of righteousness and achieve supreme one and peace.

Conclusion Movie is being used to project Gandhi in different roles. Before independence his reforms, principles and constructive works were the themes of the films. After independence we see a shift in the plot concentrating on Gandhi. Initially movies are made on his life and struggle but later it was shifted to the contemporary problems and Gandhi’s relevance in the contemporary world. Use of films is good in the teaching of principles of truth and non- violence because they are far more effective than other means of communication. Films involve the transmission of emotion to an audience which has direct impact on his heart and mind. Movies are effectively used to educate masses and promote self- awareness. Gandhi ways of dealing conflict can resolve many of our contemporary problems. Thus, we should make extensive use of this medium to promote Gandhian ideologies for a better tomorrow.

References 1. Gaston Roberge., Another Cinema for another Society, Seagul Books, Calcutta, 1984, pp. 131-133. 2. William Hesling., The Past as Story: The narrative structure of historical films, European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 4 (2), p. 189 , pp. 189205. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., p. 202 5. Gautam Kaul., Cinema and the Indian Freedom Struggle, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 1999, p. 175..


6. Louis Fisher., The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Harper Collins Publisher, 2008. 7. R.M. Thomson., Gandhi and Non-Violence: The Attenborough Film and Beyond, Gandhi Marg Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, July 1985, pp. 235240, p. 235 8. Ibid., p. 236. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ragini Sen and Wolfgang Wagner., Cultural Mechanics of Fundamentalism: Religion as Ideology, Divided Identities and Violence in Post-Gandhi India, Journal of Cultural and Psychology, Vol. 15, 2009, pp. 299-327, pp. 302-303 13. Thomas Weber., On the salt March: The Historiography of Gandhi’s march to Dandi, Harper Collins, London, 1997. 14. Ragini Sen and Wolfgang Wagner., Cultural Mechanics of Fundamentalism: Religion as Ideology, Divided Identities and Violence in Post- Gandhi India, Journal of Cultural and Psychology, Vol. 15, 2009, pp. 299- 327, p. 305. 15. Ibid., p. 318 16. Ibid., p. 302 17. Ibid., p. 303 18. Manas Roy., Conflict Resolution and Peace: A Gandhian Perspective, Article available on www. Mkgandhi-sarvodaya. Org, p.1 19. David Hardiman., Gandhi in His Time and Ours, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2003, p. 92. 20. Shanti Swarup Gupta., Economic Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1994, p. 36. 21. B.N. Ray., Gandhigiri: Satyagraha after Hundred Years, Kaveri Prakashan, New Delhi, 2008, p. 342. 22. Ibid., p. 344 23. David Hardiman., Gandhi in His Time and Ours, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2003, p. 156. 24. Ibid 25. Ibid., p.159 26. Ibid 27. Ibid., p. 54. 28. Henry David Thoreau., ‘Civil Disobedience’ in Walden and Civil Disobedience, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1983, p. 387.


29. Ibid. 30. Divya C. Macmillin, Ideologies of Gender on Television in India, Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 9 (1), 2002, pp. 1-27, p. 5. 31. Ibid., p. 6 32. Gandhi on Gender Violence and Gender Equality: An Overview, Gandhi Journal Monthly Article-III, Jan, 13, 2010, p. 2, also see, Shodhak, Volume 32, September-December, 2003, Jaipur, pp. 219- 220. 33. Ibid.; also see Suman Gupta., Women in Modern India, p. 87-88. Also see Suman Gupta, Women in Modern India, p. 87-88. 34. J.B. Kriplani, Gandhi: His Life and Thought, Publications Division, New Delhi, 2005, p. 400 35. M.K. Gandhi, Women, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 2004, p. 53. 36. Simmi Jain, Encyclopaedia of Women Through the Ages, p. 130. 37. David Hardiman, Gandhi in His Time and Ours, Permanent Black, Delhi, 2003, p. 94 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid; also see, M.M. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, ed. and trans. C. Emerson, Manches ter University Press, Manchester, 1984, pp. 292-3. 41. Ibid. 42. Louis Fisher, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Harper Collins, Delhi, 1997, p. 265. 43. Erik Erikson, Gandi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Non- violence, Faber and Faber, London, 1970, p. 243. 44. Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi, the Bodley Head, London, 1969, pp. 185-6. 45. A Domestic Chapter, Young India 18 June, 1925, CWMG. Vol. 32, pp. 17- 18. 46. Letter to Mirabehn, 30 May, 1936, CWMG. Vol. 69, p. 59. 47. Robert Payne., The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi, the Bodley Head, London, 1969, p. 256.

Searching the Importance of Gandhian Views on Tolerance in Contemporary South Asia Parijat Saurabh and Shailendra Kumar Singh “The truly non-violent action is not possible unless it springs from a heart belief that he whom you fear and regard as robber and you are one.” – M.K. Gandhi

The majority Buddhist and Hindu societies of South Asia are not traditionally associated with conflict and intolerance. Yet recent years have seen a surge in international reports of religious tensions and violence by Buddhist, Christian and Hindu majorities towards Muslim minorities in the region. This paper explained the interest in the apparent rise in intolerance towards Muslim minorities in the region. Recent news reports of Rohingya Muslim refugees fleeing Myanmar by boat are a reminder that this has now become a matter of regional or even global concern. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most influential South Asian of the last century is most famous for his non-violent civil disobedience. He was the leader of Indian Nationalism in British-ruled India. Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world. Gandhi also had to deal with violent clashes between religions, and even though he was a great man, he could not stop it from happening. However it is argued that without his presence and persistence on non-violence the clashed would have been bigger, bloodier and deadlier. He had to live with racism while living in South-Africa, and deal with the intricate castesystem in India upon his return. The troubles of today are not that different from the troubles back then. Religions battle for ownership of absolute truth, creating enemies out of everyone who does not belief the same.


I (MG) do not like the word tolerance, but could not think of a better one. Tolerance may imply a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one’s own, whereas ahimsa teaches us to entertain the same respect for the religious faiths of others as we accord to our own, thus admitting the imperfection of the latter. This admission will be readily made by a seeker of Truth, who follows the law of Love. If we had attained the full vision of Truth, we would no longer be mere seekers, but would have become one with God, for Truth is God. But being only seekers, we prosecute our quest, and are conscious of our imperfection. And if we are imperfect ourselves, religions conceived by us must also be imperfect. Gandhi insisted that each human being is a truth-seeker, yet no one can claim to possess the absolute truth. There is relativity and limitation inherent to every standpoint and no standpoint can offer anything but a perspective. Absolute truth, by definition, must be beyond perspective. We have not realized religion in its perfection, even as we have not realized God. Religion of our conception, being thus imperfect, is always subject to a process of evolution and reinterpretation. Progress towards Truth, towards God, is possible only because of such evolution. And if all faiths outlined by men are imperfect, the question of comparative merit does not arise. All faiths constitute revelation of Truth, but all are imperfect and liable to error. Reverence for other faiths need not blind us to their faults. We must be keenly alive to the defects of our faith also, yet not leave it on that account, but try to overcome those defects. Looking at all religions with an equal eye, we would not only hesitate, but would think it our duty, to blend into our faith every acceptable feature of other faiths. I do not like the word tolerance, but could not think of a better one. Tolerance may imply a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one’s own, whereas ahimsa teaches us to entertain the same respect for the religious faiths of others as we accord to our own, thus admitting the imperfection of the latter. This admission will be readily made by a seeker of Truth, who follows the law of Love. If we had attained the full vision of Truth, we would no longer be mere seekers, but have become one with God, for truth is God. In present time not only India but also whole South Asia facing the problem of intolerance in many ways “India’s commitment to

Searching the Importance of Gandhian Views on Tolerance in Contemporary South Asia 171

religious tolerance and plurality is self-evident and it is laid in the Constitution, upheld by courts and no political party proclaims that intolerance is their agenda”, Vice President Hamid Ansari. In what appears to be a reiteration of his remarks on religious freedom delivered in Delhi, U.S. President Obama said in Washington that “acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji” had occurred “in past years” in India. Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast along with Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, Mr. Obama said, “Michelle and I returned from India – an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs.”

Anti-Secularism Protests in Nepal For centuries, Nepal was the only officially Hindu nation in the world. For some traditional Hindus in Nepal, this was a significant point of pride. 2006, however, the newly re-instated parliament declared that Nepal was officially secular. This shift has upset some traditional Hindu groups, who felt that Nepal’s status as the world’s only Hindu kingdom was a divine right that needed to be protected. In the summer of 2006, several of these groups organized protests, both in Kathmandu and near the Indian border. In particular, a Hindu nationalist organization known as Shiv Sena Nepal organized several large demonstrations, demanding the return of Hinduism as the state religion. In Kathmandu, these demonstrations led to clashes with Maoist cadres, who strongly support the shift to secularism. By October 2007, armed Hindu guerrillas were threatening to declare an ‘underground holy people’s war.’ Such a move could precipitate a bloody conflict with Maoist soldiers.

Religious Intolerance in Bangladesh Targeting of religious minorities is hardly uncommon, with Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and Ahmadiyyas coming under attack in recent years. While such violence was often perpetrated by the oppositionaffiliated Islamists, the government and the police were not always seen to be prompt in protecting the affected minorities from abuses


directed against them by nongovernmental actors, and governmentaffiliated actors have also been implicated in the instigation of such violence, the most important human rights organisation in Bangladesh, the violence against Hindus alone resulted in 2014 in 761 homes and 193 businesses destroyed; 247 temples, monasteries and statues vandalized; 255 persons injured, two raped and one killed.”

Religious Intolerance in Pakistan The white strip on Pakistan’s flag represents the country’s minorities. Digitally altered pictures of that white strip splattered in blood are now being shared on social media sites as the public shows its disgust at present attacks in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Christians account for around 1.5% of the country’s mainly Muslim population. Persecution of the minority in the past has largely been linked to a controversial blasphemy law, which allows anyone to accuse a person of insulting religion, without having to produce evidence. The law has often been abused to target minorities, settle vendettas and personal disputes. In March 2013, more than 100 homes were burned down in a Christian colony in Lahore following the arrest of Sawan Masih, a Christian in his 20s who was accused of blasphemy. In August 2009, six people were killed in the Gojra riots. Fighting broke out in the majority Christian area after the alleged desecration of pages of the Quran. And in October 2001, 16 people died in Bahawalpur when gunmen burst into a church, spraying the congregation with bullets. Among the dead were the church minister and a Muslim police officer who had been guarding the church.

Muslim Minorities Christians are not the only minority to be targeted. Pakistan is a majority Sunni Muslim country and sectarian attacks against its Shia Muslims have included several bombings that left hundreds dead. The country’s Ahmadi communities – a breakaway sect of Muslims declared non-Muslims for their religious beliefs – have long been persecuted.


Peace Process Attempts at peace in the past have failed. The Pakistan Taliban has focused their wrath on innocent people in tribal areas. Public hangings and beheadings, bombings of girls’ schools and brutal selfstyled justice has been imposed even as they talked of peace. Most peace plans eventually collapsed and led to military operations – in Waziristan and in the Swat Valley in 2009. A quarter of a million people fled the area, many of them still living in camps today. Others have been scarred forever physically and mentally, both by the Taliban and the military clampdown.

Intolerance in Sri Lanka In Sri Lanka the ethnic conflict is now in its eighteenth year. It has taken a toll of thousands of lives on both sides of the ethnic divide. The conflict escalated in June 1983 when the rising tide of SinhaleseBuddhist nationalism spearheaded wanton attacks on Tamils living in Colombo. The collective Sinhalese onslaught led by minister-ofparliament, Cyril Mathew had the characteristics of a religious ritual. Apart from the intransigence of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), a major obstacle today to a negotiated settlement are the forces of SinhalaBuddhist chauvinism that have convinced large sections of the people living in the South that a military solution is the answer to the conflict.

The Question then Arises Why should there be so many different faiths? The Soul is one, but the bodies which she animates are many. We cannot reduce the number of bodies; yet we recognize the unity of the Soul. Even as a tree has a single trunk, but many branches and leaves, so is there one true and perfect Religion, but it becomes many, as it passes through the human medium. The one Religion is beyond all speech. Imperfect men put it into such language as they can command, and their words are interpreted by other men equally imperfect. Whose interpretation is to be held to be the right one? Everybody is right from his own standpoint, but it is not impossible that everybody is wrong. Hence the necessity for tolerance, which does not mean indifference towards one’s own faith, but a more intelligent and purer love for it. Tolerance


gives us spiritual insight, which is as far from fanaticism as the north pole from the south. True knowledge of religion breaks down the barriers between faith and faith. Cultivation of tolerance for other faiths will impart to us a truer understanding of our own. Tolerance obviously does not disturb the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. The reference here throughout is naturally to the principal faiths of the world. They are all based on common fundamentals. They have all produced great saints. “What tolerance are you talking about,” asks theatre personality Tom Alter, responding to a question on the intolerance debate in the country. “We killed (Mahatma) Gandhi within five-and-a-half months after Independence. If we can kill the Father of the Nation then who are others?” Religious violence is not new to the sub-continent. The Partition of India and Pakistan was accompanied by a blood-bath of horrifying proportions. In the aftermath of the massacre that followed Partition, trainloads of dead bodies of Hindus and Muslims were sent across the lines of division between the two countries. Religious hatred was whipped to frenzy by extremist forces on both sides, leaving wounds and scars that have yet to heal. Let no one even for a moment entertain the fear that a reverent study of other religions is likely to weaken or shake one’s faith in one’s own. The Hindu system of philosophy regards all religions as containing the elements of truth in them and enjoins an attitude of respect and reverence towards them all. This of course presupposes regard for one’s own religion. Study and appreciation of other religions need not cause a weakening of that regard; it should mean extension of that regard to other religions. Religion does not teach us to bear ill-will towards one another. It is easy enough to be friendly to one’s friends. But to befriend the one, who regards himself as your enemy, is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.

Tolerance, i.e. Equality of Religions I would linger yet a while on tolerance. My meaning will perhaps become clearer, if I describe here some of my experiences. In Phoenix we had our daily prayers in the same way as in Sabarmati, and Musalmans as well as Christians attended them along with Hindus.


The late Sheth Rustomji and his children too frequented the prayer meetings. Rustomji Sheth very much liked the Gujarati bhajan, ‘Mane valun,’ ‘Dear, dear to me is the name of Rama.’ If my memory serves me right, Maganlal or Kashi was once leading us in singing this hymn, when Rustomji Sheth exclaimed joyously, ‘Say the name of Hormazd instead of name of Rama.’ His suggestion was readily taken up, and after that whenever the Sheth was present, and sometimes even when he was not, we put in the name of Hormazd in place of Rama. The late Husain, son of Daud Sheth, often stayed at the Phoenix Ashram, and enthusiastically joined our prayers. To the accompaniment of an organ, he used to sing in a verysweet voice the song ‘Haibaharebagh,’ ‘The garden of this world has only momentary bloom.’ He taught us all this song, which we also sang at prayers. Its inclusion in our Bhajanavali is a tribute to truth-loving Husain’s memory. I have never met a young man who practiced Truth more devotedly than Husain. Joseph Royeppen often came to Phoenix. He is a Christian, and his favorite hymn was ‘Vaishnavajana’, ‘He is a Vaishnava (servant of the Lord), who succors people in distress.’ He loved music, and once sang this hymn, saying ‘Christian’ in place of Vaishnava. The others accepted his reading with alacrity, and I observed that this filled Joseph’s heart with joy. When I was turning over the pages of the sacred books of different faiths for my own satisfaction, I became sufficiently familiar for my purpose with Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Hinduism. In reading these texts, I can say, that I was equiminded towards all these faiths, although perhaps I was not then conscious of it. Refreshing my memory of those days, I do not find I ever had the slightest desire to criticize any of those religions merely because they were not my own, but read each sacred book in a spirit of reverence, and found the same fundamental morality in each. Some things I did not understand then, and do not understand even now, but experience has taught me, that it is a mistake hastily to imagine, that anything that we cannot understand is necessarily wrong. Some things which I did not understand first have since become as clear as daylight. Equi-mindedness helps us to solve many difficulties and even when we criticize anything, we express ourselves with humility and a courtesy, which leave no sting behind them.


The acceptance of the doctrine of Equality of Religions does not abolish the distinction between religion and irreligion. We do not propose to cultivate toleration for irreligion. That being so, some people might object, that there would be no room left for equimindedness, if everyone took his own decisions to what was religion and what was irreligion. If we follow the law of Love, we shall not bear any hatred towards the irreligious brother. On the contrary, we shall love him, and therefore either we shall bring him to see the error of his ways, or he will point out our error, or each will tolerate the other’s difference of opinion. If the other party does not observe the law of Love, he may be violent to us. If however we cherish real love for him, it will overcome his bitterness in the end. All obstacles in our path will vanish, if only we observe the golden rule, that we must not be impatient with those whom we may consider to be in error, but must be prepared, if need be, to suffer in our own person.

Humility Humility cannot be an observance by itself. For it does not lend itself sobering deliberately practiced. It is however an indispensable test of ahimsa. In one who has ahimsa in him it becomes part of his very nature. A preliminary draft of the rules and regulations of the Satyagraha Ashramwas circulated among friends, including the late Sir Gurudas Banerji. He suggested that humility should be accorded a place among the observances. This suggestion could not then be accepted for the reason that I have just mentioned. But although humility is not one of the observances, it is certainly as essential as, and perhaps, even more essential, than any of them. Only it has never come to any one by practice. Truth can be cultivated as well as Love. But to cultivate humility is tantamount to cultivating hypocrisy. Humility must not be here confounded with mere manners or etiquette. One man will sometimes prostrate him before another, although his heart is full of bitterness against him. This is not humility, but cunning. A man may chant Ramanama, or tells his beads all day long, and moves in society like a sage; but if he is selfish at heart, he is not meek, but only hypocritical. A humble person is not himself conscious of his humility. Truth and the like perhaps admit


of measurement, but not humility. Inborn humility can never remain hidden, and yet the possessor is unaware of its existence. The story of Vasishtha and Vishvamitra furnishes a very good case in point. Humility should make the possessor realize, that he is as nothing. Directly we imagine ourselves to be something, It was concluded that the recent increase in intolerance towards Muslim minorities in the region can be attributed to a combination of local developments, including significant political transitions in various countries, and transnational factors that may reinforce local perceptions of Muslims as a threat to society. An adequate response would therefore take into account local specifics, but also strengthen transnational inter-religious dialogues as a means to counter rumors and the sense of threat that gives rise to feelings of insecurity, which in turn have the potential to be mobilized into hate speech and /or violence.

References Allen, Douglas (2008) (ed). The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi for Twenty-first Century, Lexington Books. Barua, Manisha (2002). Religion and Gandhian Philosophy, Akansha Publishing House, 2002. Chatterjee Margaret (2005). Gandhi and the Challenge of Religious Diversity: Religious Pluralism Revisited, New Delhi: Promilla & Co. Gandhi, M.K. (1924), Young India, 10.7.1924. Gandhi M.K. (1927). “An Autobiography or the Story of my Experiments with Truth”. Translated by Mahadev Desai. Vol. I was published in 1927 and Vol. II in 1929.From(Retrieved on 12 September 2012) Gandhi, M.K. (1931), Young India, 6.10. Gandhi, M.K.(1935), Young India, 1.10. Gandhi, M.K. (1940) My Experiments with Truth, Navjivan Publishing House, A’bad. (Translated by Mahadev Desai). Gandhi, M.K., ‘In search of the Supreme’ Vol III p.83 Holmes John Haynes (1922). “The World Significance of Mahatma Gandhi,’ In: JH Holmes, DS Harington. The Enduring Greatness of Gandhi”. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, pp. 38-60.


Jordens JTF (1998). “Gandhi’s Religion: A Homespun Shawl. London: Macmillan Rao KL Sesha giri 1978”. Mahatma Gandhi and Comparative Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Rao, K.L. Seshagiri (1990). “Mahatma Gandhi and Comparative Religion”. (Motilala Banarsidass, 1990) Saxena Sushil Kumar (1988). “Ever unto God: Essays on Gandhi and Religion” . New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.

A Study on Gandhian Views on Alcohol Consumption Sandeep Singh and Shailendra Kumar Singh “Mahatma Gandhi promise to his mother of not touching alcohol before leaving for his higher studies in Britain and abiding by the promise till his death shows his conviction and strong moral principles towards life. He believed that alcohol consumption is a sin as it impairs the ability to think rationally. When a person behaves without any control on his senses then the question of rationality, morality etc do not hold good irrespective of the situation and the person. Gandhi said that Happiness is when “What you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony”. But Consumption of alcohol creates a situation where our actions and thoughts are in disharmony leading to sadness many times”.

Introduction A view of Mahattama Gandhi on consuming alcohol is immoral. There are many instances where alcohol consumption led to deviation from ethical life. For example domestic violence on women, rapes, misunderstanding in relationship, improper behavior at gatherings, fighting etc all show that consumption of alcohol leads to unethical life. Good morals lead to better ethics in one’s life. Morals must be in tune with ethics in society and then only harmony and peace prevails. Just for personal happiness, having morals which cause hardships to others cannot be termed as moral at all and alcohol consumption is one among such. Gandhiji was a very opponent of alcohol consumption. His opposition was mainly based on religious moorings as well as social effects of alcohol consumption. Gender violence, indebtedness, declining economic status of a family as well as moral values is


attributed to alcohol by Ghandhiji. That is why liquor shop picketing was a major part of his movements and apparently women participation was largest in such movements. In the field of religion, he attributed low status of many castes on alcohol consumption and consumption of non vegetarian food. Gandhiji asked people to stop the consumption of meat and alcohol for the deliverance of lower caste. The declining moral values in a society, where one of the consequences of alcohol consume.

Effects of Alcohol Gandhiji opinion is alcohol consumption is an immoral act. When judging the morality of an act, it is also important to consider its after-effects. Alcohol consumption leads to loss of consciousness and mental power to decide the right and wrong of an act. It many a times lead to accidents and violence, gender violence specifically and involvement in other acts which are considered as deviation from the right path. Some people may not consider alcohol consumption an immoral act and argue that if it is limited and person holds his senses in control then it is only an act in merry-making. But they need to understand that as alcohol consumption did interfere with activities of brain in any quantity and it can never be ascertained that a person will always have everything under control. Alcohol has a tendency to increase its consumption. By this alcohol consumption is an immoral act as it leads to violence, oppression and restricts other people right to live with dignity. Gandhiji, in his various movements such as Non-Cooperation Movement or Civil Disobedience Movement and in his various discourses, has expressed his view against consumption of alcohol. This is evident from his appeal to picket the Liquor shops at various instances. Such measures were taken to eradicate the evil of alcohol consumption which has many bad effects such as – health issues, family disharmony (because drunken husband would beat his wife and children), disharmony in society, etc. Personally, I think Alcohol consumption is highly immoral. (Medical use of alcohol cannot be termed as consumption of alcohol.) Justification:

A Study on Gandhian Views on Alcohol Consumption 181

(1) However small might be the start of consumption, it leads to addiction. (2) Money generated by traders of alcohol is not used for any productive use. (3) The notion/need of drinking shall be scrutinized (i.e. why people drink alcohol?) They do so, to release tension/to forget sadness, etc. which reflects that people have become so weak (and don’t have control on their own mind) to tackle life situations; and therefore take the support of alcohol. (4) Other reason given is “Socialization”. This reason is again reflects elitism/materialistic living, Again reflecting un-harmonious way of living. (5) Excessive Alcohol consumption has many a times resulted in physical harm to others and breaking up of families. (6) Alcohol consumption, however small is a door way of evil. (7) One needs to understand the “need” for drinking (however small). In reality, there is no need at all for drinking alcohol, but if someone come up with any reason (or excuses) - like mentioned above - such as feeling better/socialization, etc. then it reflects personal weakness.

Alcohol Consumption Mahatma Gandhi, the father of our nation, has strongly opposed the consumption of liquor. His advocacy of considering the consumption as a sin is evident from his act both directly and indirectly. Be it his promise to his mother of staying away from liquor before leaving to South Africa or boycotting liquor shop during freedom struggle, his underlying idea was based on the strong notion of both physical and moral degradation of mankind. His advocacy of uplifting degraded condition of women is also in sync with his opposition of liquor as often Husband treats wife unfairly under addiction of liquor. Except for the medicinal purpose, the consumption of liquor is immoral with its far reaching implications on individual and Nation as a whole. As a stable and controlled mind is the guide for anyone to think and act, liquor directly attacks on its functioning making take it taking arbitrary decisions. When the mind of man is not


under his own control he may take wrong decisions. Thus he may fail to distinguish between desired and immoral acts. The level and degree of moral disappearance under addiction may affect not only his personal conduct but also brings atrocities on his family including wife, children and parents. Such people often bring insult to the family by doing un-social and entertaining things. Criminal’s acts are often conducted under the influence of liquor. Not to forget the atrocities against women, vulnerable and people of lower strata. In short the addiction of liquor brings thought and action in disharmony and leads to moral degradation influences society. We should think seriously to devise as plan to discourage if not altogether doing away it. The trick lies in taxing, disincentives, information, education and awareness. Gandhiji vehemently opposed drinking alcohol through his articles in Young India. His view was that drinking alcohol not only deprives one of money but also of his Society. It cannot be justified on either personal or on utilitarian grounds. In my personal opinion drinking alcohol is not a moral question. Rather handling of it is a moral issue. It can be seen from: (a) Moral Rights Approach: Isn’t drinking of alcohol is manifestation of one’s intrinsic needs. It should be left individual judgment whether to drink alcohol or not. Provided He/she is of healthy mind and above 18 years of age. According to moral rights approach, One should be given enough education regarding the effects of drinking alcohol then it should be left to his/her reason. (b) Consequentialism Approach: As there are various alternative to alcohol exist .It would be wiser to left it to individual judgment since one cannot control the ingenuity of human mind. Further Morals are subjective to individual .It would be incorrect and unsympathetic to treat someone as immoral on the basis of his/her own perception of right or wrong. Gandhiji despised alcoholism. Gandhiji argued that a person under the influence of alcohol loose all senses. He causes great harm to himself and his people. Gandhiji encouraged women during civil disobedience movement to picket local wine shops. This was there successful campaign.


Gandhian Suggestion on Alcohol Consumption According to Gandhiji, Alcohol ruins one physically, morally, intellectually and economically. Those who drink liquor forget their moral value and perform immoral activity in most of the cases and sometimes even, dreadful act. Most of the cases they lose their intellect to perform their own activity. Since it become habits and addiction they can’t miss it even they do not have money, they take loans and thus, eventually become economically and physically weak because it also attack their health condition. Thus Gandhiji view stands true irrespective of time. ….It is criminal to spend the income from the sale of intoxicants on the education of the nation’s children or other public services. The government must overcome the temptation of using such revenue for nation-building purposes. Experience has shown that the moral and physical gain of the abstainer more than makes up for the loss of this tainted revenue. If we eradicate the evil, we will easily find other ways and means of increasing the nation’s income. (Mahatma Gandhi. Harijan. 21 September 1947)

However, great philosopher and supporter of “freedom of speech and expression’’ J S MILL supports that if any activity which does not affect other person can be done freely as right like if somebody drinks liquor in closed room and does not harm to anyone, this is his right to do so. On the other hand BARKER argues that in above case, that person belongs to a family and a society and when he consumes the liquor, he harms his health and since he is part of family and society, he also harms family and society. Thus, freedom of expression is right and even fundamental right in countries like India. Thus, consuming liquor depends on the society’s collective will. e.g. Gujarat state has banned it, not Karnataka or UP. However, by saying immoral act or not is subjective concept and for me it is immoral concept because ‘act’ directly or indirectly impacts the other people negatively. Moreover, society is nothing but combination of people then, undoubtedly it is unethical act. Gandhiji were totally in opposition of consumption of Alcohol which is evident from his lifelong vow from


his mother and other movements against it time to time. I personally strongly believe that consuming alcohol is immoral since the aftereffects of consumption leads to unconsciousness and legging behind in response time of a brain further leads to hallucination, moreover alcohol consumed with the intention of remedy of stress, responsibility or burden which is the major reason for the same creates a illusion and not the solution to the problems as it appears for them. Numerous cases associated with alcoholism time and again like crime against women, road accidents and domestic violence are some of the side-effects of the temporary behavior change of a person, which creates an injustice to oneself and to the whole society. Mahatma Gandhi was of the view that alcohol has the potency of leading an individual to moral deterioration and hence defragmenting the values of the collective social environment. Alcohol is a substance which is harmful to the body and more importantly the proper functioning of the mind. It causes a false sense of disillusionment fulfilling the self-seeking prophecy of the consumer. It impedes the functioning of the human mind on the ethical, moral and conscience related matters, where the intoxicated individual is left bereft of any sense of judgment, becoming a menace to the society. Studies show that alcohol consumption is a major platform for indulging in drugs at a later stage. It is argued that, restricting a persons’ “freedom of choice” is hindering the rights of the person. In this regard we should only remember one saying which is often attributed to the morals of Liberty: “My freedom to swing my arms ends where the other person’s nose begins” It is a situation of give and take in a society, and the fallacy of some individuals cannot be borne by the whole society. It is the ‘need-of-the-hour’ that the government enacts strict monitoring and awareness process so as to discourage the valuable asset of the country, the human resource, and youth in particular from indulging in momentary gratification means. Gandhiji considered alcohol as a cause to problems, moral deterioration and intellectual downfall. I agree with these points in the present scenario when there is lack of sense among people. It is same as giving a teenager a sports bike and expecting that he would


not drive it fast. He would most probably do so since driving a bike in high speed is considered cool and this perception gets strengthened by the stunt scene shown by their role model actors in the movie. The situation in case of alcohol is similar. Having alcohol is considered respectful and getting too high is considered normal. It is because all the movies show hero or other characters appreciating alcohol. Hangover has become such a fancy term between youngsters that no one considers it as if he is sick which the reality is. So it is not the alcohol which is wrong. The wrong thing is the showcase of it as a good thing. Merely writing a warning on the bottle does not work. People should get the opportunity to learn the difference between what is shown in movies or in general life too and what is the actual situation. If this can be done, alcohol can prove to be a stress reliever and entertainer like other beverages like tea, coffee etc.

Gandhiji Action Against Alcohol Mahathma Gandhi wanted prohibition of the sale of alcohol. He believed it to be a social evil and cause of domestic violence. Prohibition of alcohol is even mentioned in Part IV of our constitution. States have time to time tested prohibition with only one continuing it till today. When it is consumed in excess does it become a problem? Also adding the immoral tag also creates a stigma around a person suffering from alcohol addiction and makes getting help all the more difficult. The attitude of the society exacerbates the problem. Gandhiji was tee-to taller himself and was a preacher of abstention to alcohol. He used to view alcohol as a moral, societal and health issue. Alcohol psychologically corrupts our mind and lets us not function normally. Picketing liquor shops was a active part of his manifesto during the civil disobedience and the non-co-operation movement and people especially women did make this activity much of a success. But alcohol consumption is a part of tradition and long history of many societies across the world like the French, some tribes of N-E India. Moreover 90 per cent people who consume alcohol do not get addicted to it/abuse it. It a form of pleasure to them as most of us seeks in our life. But the full story is that the minority which gets addicted to it may result in ruining the entire life of an individual


with mental and psychological disorders, broken families and other problems. It is associated with crimes and a perverse mind-set, belonging to people who could not get much pleasure from other sources in life. On the whole it can be said that excess alcohol consumption/ addiction is a problem which needs attention both medically and morally. Addicted people have to counseled, given a good environment and re-habilitated. If these things are done properly the abuse will minimize and the morality of the question will disappear. Alcohol makes a man forget himself; and while its effects last, he becomes utterly incapable of doing anything useful. Those who take to drinking ruin themselves and ruin their people. They lose all sense of decency and propriety. In my opinion alcoholism is bad. Here alcoholism for me means habitual and excessive drinking. Alcoholism is immoral. Excessive alcoholism has health and economic implications. Under the influence of alcohol person lose their senses. Especially in poor sections, alcoholism is prevalent. Here it also creates effects of domestic violence. Women get most affected by alcoholism when their husband misbehaves to them under the influence of alcohol. Children get deeply impacted by improper behavior by parents. But I contradict with blanket ban on alcoholism. Bans are not effective unless they are supported by large social sections. States like Gujarat have banned alcohol but illegal alcohol is very easily available. So more education and awareness is solution and another dimension is personal freedom. Everyone can make their choices, unless they do not interfere in similar freedom of others. Descent and occasional drinking is personal choice.

Reference Agrawal, S.N. “The Gandhian plans of economic development for India”. Gandhi, M.K. (1962), “Village Swaraj”, Ahmedabad. ----“India’s Case for Swaraj”, p. 403 ----Young India, 8-6-‘21 ----Young India, 12-1-‘28 ----Harijan, 3-6-‘39


----Harijan, 9-3-‘34 ----Young India, 3-3-‘27 ----Young India, 15-9-‘27 ----Young India, 4-4-‘29 ----Young India, 25-6-‘31 ----Key to Health, pp.32-4 ----Young India, 12-1-‘21 ----Young India, 4-2-‘26 ----Key to Health, pp.39-42 https://www.sarcajc.com/mahatma_Gandhi_liquor.html

Gandhi: Context to Women Urvashi Pandey and Indu Pathak The conversion of simple, ordinary women Gangabehen to the status of fellow worker for a common cause truly reflect Gandhi charismatic personality. The woman not only turned as a pioneer in new era but was the first organizer of Khadi Movement in India. The spark of Gandhi could be found both in Indian and Muslim women. On one side Kamladevi, Vijayalaxmi Pandit, Anasuyabehen equally worked for his ideal and other side Muslim women blindfolded him. Gandhi insisted on taking muslim women unveiled as he said “ They were pure enough to go anywhere and everywhere”. It was mainly as a result of his influence that Sarojini Naidu and others shed much of their elitism and identify themselves with the mass of country’s women. A somewhat unusual relationship of Gandhi and Sarladevi chaudhrani was observed. Like other female she was not a mere political coworker but seems to have become deeply attached to her as a person. However Gandhi emotional attachment with her other colleagues have been protested. Despite all personal attachment and fondness Gandhi was clear that relationship like many others had to fit into the mould of the ideal man-women relationship that he propagated. Therefore he gave due consideration to the objections raised by his colleagues. “They are jealous of their ideal which is my character I and you … must give everything to retain or deserve their due affection … They are street other as I am theirs”. Gandhi ji was ready to sacrifice whatever turned in the way of ideal man-women relationship. For him this relation should be untainted by sexual feeling. He left that he must practice in his own life what he found is ideal for others.

Gandhi: Context to Women 189

Gandhi autobiography reveals a lot of difference between what was preached outside the home and what was practiced in the household. However Gandhi have accounted his wife Kasturba Gandhi to much was first lesson of Satyagraha which clearly reflected gradual break away from an overbearing attitude of a traditional husband as he came to realize that he had no prescriptive rights over her. Various incidences like when congressmen asked as to what to do when his wife refused to wear khadi or refuse to fight untouchability, he answered that even for a good cause no man has the right to compel his wife. “Remember your wife is not your property any more than you are hers.” and therefore wife ought never to be compelled even to do the right thing. However this kind of freedom was never guaranteed to Kasturba. Inspite of Kasturba, deep seated resistance on several important issues she slowly forced honestly to cooperate actively on almost everyone of those issues somewhat in the tradition of Sita who choose to follow her husband in whatever his Dharma called him to do. For an overall understanding of Gandhi views on women outside and inside the corridors it is essential to take account his views on sex and ideal relationship between man and women. Gandhi viewed celibacy as an important component of living a higher form of life. He was aware that celibacy would not work for everyone so he recommended it for those who wish to lead more than an ordinary life. In his Ashram also he tired to establish an model of ideal relationship between men and women. It was more of a sisterly and brotherly love and allowed free interaction between the both sexes. In this aspect Gandhi never compelled women to follow false modesty which was imposed on them. Infact according to him “Chastity … Must be a poor thing (if) if cannot stand the gaze of men” so he asked women to tear down the purdah. Gandhi perception of brahmachari could not be confused with the preachings of ancient sages who considered preaching celibacy as a precondition for achievement of self realization. It was in ancient asthetic time women were considered as the embodiment of temptation, the seduction who lured the sage away from the high pursuits therefore the sages were warned to stay away from them.


Gandhi concept was just opposite as in Ashram their was no segregation. Both sexes ate and slept together. Gandhi as a men is concerned with self realization and discipling himself to attain what he believed to be a higher moral and spiritual force his attention seems to lie with his own struggle with no apparent attention paid to how his actions might affect the woman who become participants in his experiment. Just as he seems to have shown no concern for Kasturba opinion when he first decided to launch his sexual experiment with abstinence, so he seems to overlook the possible effects of his experiment on the 19 year old Manu, his own granddaughter. Integral to the image of women as the moral force in society as the embodiment of sacrifice was the idea of women having to transcend her sexual needs so that she do not become slave of any man. Gandhi’s action in bringing women dignity in social life, in breaking down some of the prejudices against their participation in social and political life in promoting an atmosphere of sympathetic awareness of their issues gives far beyond his own views and pronouncement of women’s role and place is society.

References 1. Bose, N.K., My Days with Gandhi, Nishatna, Calcutta, pp. 174-175. 2. CWMG 67:125; also in Puspha Joshi (ed), Gandhi on Women, Navajivan, Ahmedabad, 1988, p. 294. 3. Ketu Katrak, ‘Indian Nationalism, Gandhian ‘Satyagraha’, and Representations of Female. 4. Sexuality’ in Andrew Parker, May Russo, Doris Sommer and Patricia Yaeger (eds), Nationalisms and Sexualities, Routledge, New York, 1992, pp. 395-406. 5. Gandhi, M.K., The Role of Women, op. cit., p. 64. See also CW, Vol. LXV p. 111. 6. Gandhi, M.K., Diet and Diet Reform, Navajivan Prakashan, Ahmedabad, 1949, p. 30. 7. Green, Martin, Tolstoy and Gandhi, pp. 163-165. 8. Madhu Kishwar, ‘Gandhi and Women’, Economic & Political Weekly 20, Nos 40 (October 5, 1985) and 41 (October 12, 1985), pp. 1691-1702 and 1753-58, respectively; reprinted as Gandhi and Women, Manushi Prakashan, Delhi, 1986. 9. Morton, Eleanor, Women Behind Mahatma Gandhi, Max Reinhardt, London, 1954, p 107.

Women Empowerment in the Mirror of Gandhi Richa Pandey

Introduction Gandhi utilized the new of Ideas of Modern India by assembling them in thought, living them in his life and giving them social and political identity. This entire concrete process and experiences gave birth to his own philosophy of women and life that finally raised the people from slavery. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, as a major social and political reformer, played an important role in attempting to eradicate the social wrongs committed against the women of the country through ages. He strongly believed that a society can develop rapidly if takes all sections of the people together into its fold, rich and poor, high society people and low caste people and both men and women. Women empowerment consisted many dimension as like decision making, literacy, good environment for working place, peace in the economy, freedom for their decision, non violence in the society, and no fear on their heat. Another central factor in the Sarvodaya economic order visualized by Gandhi is the centrality given to community orientation. Gandhi characterised the ideal society of his dream ‘Gram-Swaraj’. It is a rural civilization where men and women in small face-to-face communities would, by their activity, be self-sufficient in meeting their basic needs and yet be interdependent for many other in which dependence is necessary. He wanted independent India to be a union or republic of such selfsufficient but interrelated village-republics. Gandhi’s political ideologies are strongly based on humanitarian values, which were a reflection of his spiritual self. For him, politics


could not be divorced from social factors. To Gandhi, social emancipation was as critical as political emancipation. Gandhi, throughout his life, struggled very hard for the upliftment of the socially downtrodden, making significant contributions for the development of the status of women in India. Women under his ages took a milestone to step towards reestablishing their identity in the society. Gandhi’s inspiring ideologies boosted their morals and helped them to rediscover their self-esteem. Not only there was a general awakening among the women, but under Gandhi’s leadership they entered into the National mainstream, taking parts in the National movements. In Gandhi’s words, “To call women the weaker sex is a libel; it is mans injustice to women.” The major problem of the women empowerment in the economy that is poverty, It has been shown that development through the use of state power is integral to the notion of freedom, and poverty becomes a problem of politics and power. This process confers rationality and acceptability of practices and techniques of the government (and its agents) among the individuals in society. The poor become subjects, who need to be cared for, and political class vows for their upliftment and welfare in order to wrest power, and this business of poverty-alleviation aligns economic, social and political conduct with the objectives of becoming a developed nation. In order to achieve these objectives, the state and its agencies prepare statistics, conduct census, make policies, and formulate schemes as ‘Specialised Truth’ to be peddled by different actors. The views expressed by the Mahatma and the actions undertaken by him may not go entirely with the current times because the times have irreversibly changed but the honesty of the Mahatma, the love and respect he had for the women, can never be doubted. He is truly the best friend of the women of the world.

Gandhi’s Perception of Women There was a marked difference of Gandhi’s perception of women from that of other reformers. The stance taken by other social reformers and leaders, prior to Gandhi created a helpless image of the Indian women. With the emergence of Gandhi, a new conception of women

Women Empowerment in the Mirror of Gandhi 193

gradually gained currency. For Gandhi, women were not mere toys or dolls in the hands of men neither their competitors. According to Gandhi, “Intellectually, mentally and spiritually women is equivalent to a male and she can participate in every activity.” In his speeches and writings, Gandhi said that in many matters, especially those of tolerance, patience and sacrifice, the Indian women is superior to the male. Gandhi invoked the instances of ancient role models who were epitomes of Indian women hood like “Draupadi,” “Savitri”, “Sita” and “Damayanti” to show that Indian women could never be feeble. Women have equal mental abilities as that of men and an equal right to freedom. As a practical thinker, Gandhiji tried to understand the problems and sufferings of women. He had attempted to find some practical solutions of their problems. Gandhiji, while he stayed at home, tried to help his wife, “Kasturba”, in her daily household duties. In western countries also, these days – men are encouraged to be with their wives during the delivery and the men are supposed to pitch in with diaper changing, feeding, etc. Gandhiji practiced this very modern concept 90 years ago in his own family.

Role of Women as Envisaged by Gandhi Regarding the role of women, Gandhiji once said, “Womanhood is not restricted to the kitchen.” He opined and felt that, “Only when the woman is liberated from the slavery of the kitchen that her true spirit may be discovered.” It does not mean that women shouldn’t cook, but only that household responsibilities be shared among men, women and children. In a letter written to Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur from Wardha on 21 October 1936, Gandhiji writes, “If you women would only realize your dignity and privilege and make full use of it for mankind, you will make it much better than it is. But man has delighted in enslaving and you have proved willing slaves till the slaves and the slave- holders have become one in the crime of degrading humanity. My special function from childhood, you might say, has been to make women realize her dignity. I was once a slave- holder myself but Kasturba proved an unwilling slave and thus opened my eyes to my mission. Her


task was finished. Now I am in search of a woman who would realize her mission. Are you that woman, will you be one?” In this way, Gandhi was able to devote himself to such a mission and formula type views on all aspects of a woman’s life, political, social and domestic and even the very personal. Viewed from gender perspective, women are the worst hit victims of trade liberalization. Whether it is Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) or TRIPS or GATS, women’s wages are cut, their access to basic services are adversely affected and as women constitute the majority of the unskilled workers, reduction in real wages affect them worst Gandhi laid more emphasis on the role of women in the political, economic and social emancipation of the country. Under his guidance and leadership women came out from their houses and joined India’s struggle for independence. As far as the economic emancipation of women was concerned Gandhi felt that female folk could be engaged in the cottage and small scale industries of the village such as spinning, broom, basket and rope making and oil processing so that the rural women can supplement to the family income. Hence empowerment of women has to be the ultimate goal to improve the quality of the society and development of the economy.

Peace Education in Action Total disarmament is the need of the hour but it cannot take place unless and until the hearts and minds of persons who manufacture, sale and purchase weapons are changed. Public pressure could play an important role. Organizations’, in addition to individual pacifist must pressurize the governments or the policy makers to adopt peaceful means to resolve the problems. It is very shocking to note that no serious and sustained consideration is given to human search for peace or peace studies in academic institution and syllabi, while ours is a world of nuclear giants and moral infants. Each and every citizen of the world must be educated to escape conflict, as ultimately person himself is the insurmountable barrier in conflict resolution. Every educated person should be made aware of the fact that the issues relating to peaceful coexistence basically belong to each citizen. So every person must be


trained to rise above communal pressures, religious loyalties, regional and other interests, etc. Harmonious interpersonal relationship must be developed through formal and informal education, i.e. Through audio-visual media. Hence reconstitution of present education system by reconsidering its goal is a very urgent task.

Gandhi’s Voice Against the Social Evils Humanism as the philosophy of Globalism or Global philosophy implies non-discrimination with regard to race, sex language, region, religion, political ideology, social and economic status, international status of the country etc, since the basic structure and nature of human beings all over’ the world is same .We must rationalize our ways of thinking and to think of the world in terms of maps and markets, we should think of it in terms of men, women and children i.e. in terms of mankind. In the view of Gandhi, although he had great respect for the traditions of the country, he also realized that certain customs and traditions of the Indian society were anti- ethical to the spirit of development of the women of the nation. To quote Gandhi, “It is good to swim in the waters of tradition; but to sink in them is suicide”. Therefore, he was completely against many social customs, traditions, norms and values and social evils like child-marriage, widowhood, the dowry system, the Pardah system and prostitution, the witchhunting etc which are threats to the development of the society.

Empowerment of Women: The Gandhian Model According to Gandhi, the three important factors that promote women empowerment are: education, employment and change in social structure, with make them decision taker. All the four components are equally important and mutually related. Simply development of education of the women would not automatically empower them. The case in point is Kerala and Uttarakhand. The state has hundred percent (100%) literacy but the women folk are not even today free from exploitation. This is because of the fact that the traditional


Keralite society is yet to be reformed to provide equal rights to the women in de facto terms.

Conclusion Key to Gandhi’s peace education are his ethical and ontological formulations of means-ends relations; the need to uncover root causes and causal determinants and to free oneself from entrapment in escalating cycles of violence; and the dynamic complex relation between relative and absolute truth that includes analysis of situated embodied consciousness, tolerant diversity and inclusiveness, and an approach to unavoidable violence. It can be said without an idea of doubt that Mahatma Gandhi experimented in all these three fields a century ago and shown the way for the empowerment of women and the improvement of the status of women in the country. But practically we can see completely an opposite picture of the empowerment of women. It is a great regret for us that even today employment of women is still restricted. They are not allowed to enter into certain jobs, beyond doctors, nurses, teachers and clerical jobs. In the family, the women become the victim of domestic violence and in the society they are also exploited by the social evils like dowry system, prostitution, witchhunting etc. Again two thirds of the world’s illiterates are females. Of the millions of school age children not in school, the majority are girls. And today, HIV/AIDS is rapidly becoming a woman’s disease. In several southern African countries more than three-quarters of all young people living with HIV are women. Again in many countries due to the current world food price crisis a significant percentage of women eat only once. These women are already suffering the effects of even more several malnutrition, which inevitably will be their children’s fate as well. Studies show that when women are supported and empowered all of society benefits. But even today at the beginning of the 21st century Gandhi’s vision remains unfulfilled.


References Brown, J.M. (2003); “Nehru A Political Life”, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. Rao, A.B.S.V Ranga and Raju M. Lakshmipatti; “Gandhi Revisited” (Page no155- 161) (Akansha publishing House, 2011 ISBN 978-81- 8370- 296- 6) Gandhi’s Views on Education, “Buniyadi Shiksha” [Basic Education] http://www.gandhimanibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_ education_%20buniyadishiksha.htm Gupta, A. (1999); “Postcolonial Development: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India”, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Gupta, A.K. Das, “Gandhi on Social Conflict”, Economic and Political Weekly, December 7. Harris, Ian M. and Mary Lee Morrison. (2003); “Peace Education”, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers: North Carolina, USA. Jaitly, Jaya, “Gandhi and women’s empowerment” (Retrieved from Internet). Nandela, Krishan, “Gandhi on women”s empowerment” (Internet, www. mkgandhi.org/articles/krishnannandela.htm) Misra, R.P. & Gangrade, K.D. (eds) (2005). “Gandhian Alternative: Economics Where People Matter”, Gandhian Studies and Peace Research Series–26, Vol. IV, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Page, James. (2008). “Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations”. Information Age Publishing Inc.: USA.

Equality of opportunity and Justice: The Gandhian Perspective Vijay Srivastava and Sharaddha Joshi The question of equality of opportunity is very important in the area of distributive justice. In an Indian Society where cast system exist this question become more valuable. The idea of Equality of has multidimensional Characteristics and it is associated with the other variables and parameters of social sciences such as social exclusion, Economic discrimination, social transformation, empowerment, Inequality and relative deprivation. The idea Equality of opportunity provide base for the idea of human rights. This paper analyze the theoretical formulations of equality of opportunity in absolute and relative sense in Gandhian analytical frame work. Distribution of material production egalitarian way is not sufficient; there is a need of equilibrium in the distribution of intellectual production. It is needed because it strengths the base of harmony and provide an answer to conflict in a society. Before discussing over the question of equality of opportunity first, we need to understand the similarities and differences between material production and intellectual production. In this connection Marxian theory is valuable. He says “In order to study the connection between intellectual and material production is above all essential to conceive the latter in its determined historical form and not as a general category. For example, there corresponds to the capitalist mode of production a type intellectual production quite different from that, which corresponded to the medieval mode of production. Unless material production itself is understood in its specific historical form, it is impossible to grasp the characteristics of the intellectual production, which corresponds to it or reciprocal action between the two.”1


The word of Karl Marx indicates the idea of exclusion in a capitalistic society, where one class is ruler and other class is servant. The notion is simple that domination of one section over intellectual production and material production create exploitation and injustice in a society and work as a negative catalyst for idea of equality. The kind of Structural transformation we need to achieve harmonic growth cannot be gained without considering the ideas of other researchers and their findings. In this connection, study of Andre Betellie is notable, He argued, “Equality may be signifying equality of opportunity, or it may be signify equality in the distribution of benefits and burdens”2. The term burdens and benefits having deeper meaning here. The participation of have-nots in a major part of economy and getting opportunity in education, health and other merit goods is a perquisite for inequality evaluation. The overall participation of excluded people in mainstream and high skilled occupations and high paid jobs secure their status in society. This further gives him institutional well being and satisfaction. In a democratic society hierarchical social order cannot sustain no longer and same in the case of hierarchical structure of employment. Hierarchical structure of employment particularly in Indian society denies any kind of equality of opportunity. In Vedic civilization, this discriminative structure was at peak point. After the emergence of Buddhism Indian, society experienced a new kind of vision. Actually, “Buddhism created the vision of an alternative society, from the hierarchical and in egalitarian ideology and practices that were only in an embryonic Existences stage, but which ultimately succeeded in entrenching themselves in Indian society under the Structuralizing power of brahmana.”3 As Earlier, it has discussed that idea of equality of opportunity is associated with distribution of material production and intellectual production. In a pre Buddhist society Brahamanical system of stratification was based on inherent values was reality of economic differentiation, between those who controlled the means of production and those who were themselves controlled by the controllers of means of production. Social rankings of brahamin and Khattriyas was very high due to their command over material and intellectual production. The Gurukul education system was discriminatory in nature and excluded Shudras from intellectual production .Buddha understood this fact and established


Sanghs for developing egalitarian society. In this connection, Uma Chakravarthi writes “The only possibility of an effective escape from the in egalitarian and hierarchical structure of society envisaged by the Budhha was in the institution of sangha. The sangha was devised as parallel society where one could construct, with immediate effect, a new structure of relations. It is in the creation of the sangha that the Buddha, dialectctical approach to the society in which he was situated is seen best(Chakravarthi, 2004)”. Existence of this system in a longer time until modern period excluded lower section from socioeconomic rights. One of the greatest intellectual of modern society and propagator of Buddhism, Baba Saheb Ambedkar recognized this fact and provided an answer to this. Baba Sahib was propagator of idea of equality of opportunity. Unlike his Contemporaries Gandhi and other political leaders he did not advocated any political movement but his writings and theoretical representation having more importance than these movements. He also criticized Gandhi for his idea of want lessness and ethical standard of simple living. Dalits should empower with full of leisure and well being and they should quit the traditional employment. He says that “Gandhism may be well suited to a society which does not accept democracy as it ideal. A society does not believe in democracy may be indifferent to machinery and civilization based upon it. However, a democratic society cannot. The former may well content itself with life of leisure and culture for the few and life of toil and drudgery for the many .But a democratic society must assure a leisure and culture to each one of its citizens.”4 Here we do not want to go in Gandhi-Ambedkar debate, but it is noted that like Ambedkar Gandhi was silent on the issue of socio-economic transformation of backward people. His concept of wantlessness is not useful in the sense where there is an issue of wellbeing. Living a prosperous and rich full life is a right of every citizen. Through his concept of wantlessness and promotion of traditional structure of employment, Gandhi wanted to5 push back a weaker section of society from Takeoff Stage in to stage of deprivation and full of exploitation. Although Gandhi started the many programmes for development of labor class and lower caste but despite this, he was failed to solve the problems social conflict amongst various caste and sub cast. It does not mean here that Gandhi had no solution on the problem of social conflict. But in


an economic perspective where social relations and social exclusion play very crucial role negligence of social factors can not established a just society or even sarvodaya society. To Gandhi “Economic equality is master key to non-violent independence .Working for economic equality means abolishing the external conflict between labour and capital”6. Look at Gandhi’s sentence, he wanted equality in a society only through abolition of conflict between classes but this notion or theory can apply in the western democracies only. In India where social rigidity and untouchabality is prevailing in higher degree, this theory cannot be applicable. In other words, we can say that Gandhian idea of justice is not multidimensional characteristics, so looking towards problem of inequality through on Gandhian framework can be fatal for democratic set up of a country. It is needless to mention that Gandhi considers equality, like freedom as all pervasive and an ultimate value to be applied to all problems of social organization. He was fully aware of the problem of income inequality or equality in wealth distribution and with the problem of caste discrimination and he regards equality as an essential prerequisite to a non-violent social order. The seeds of violence Gandhi thinks are inherent in economic inequality and unless it can be eradicated through non-violent means, some kind of a violent revolution would one day become inevitable in a society characterized by gross economic inequality.7 Gandhi’s sentence is showing his visionary analysis towards social conflict and he was visualizing the problem as a violence in a society . Inequality according to him one kind of social violence and the removal of this evil and to achieve economic and social equality can is possible through ethical economic policies and principles .As Communism says owning of huge amount of private Property is an ill for society and same kind of views expressed by Gautam Buddha.8 As we already discussed in the earlier part of this article that equality of opportunity is a multidimensional concept and it is associated with various other concepts. One of the important notions of equality of opportunity is linked with Material production and resource availability to deprived people. Inequality in availability of resources such as land and basic needs creates chance for inequality in intellectual production i.e. inequality in opportunity. In this earth resources are limited and wants


are unlimited, this problem of scarcity in economy occurs in the field of distribution also. This problem of social and economic deprivation denies opportunity for status transformation of excluded people. Sen. (2004) pointed out that “Relational deprivations may easily enough, have both constitutive and instrumental importance. For example, not be able to mix with others may directly impoverish a person’s life and also additionally reduce economic opportunities that come for social contract.”9 Regarding the issue of relative deprivation one noted remarked made by the Bourdie (1977). In his study he has shown, the point of social degradation and the role of moral judgments in relative deprivation. Countering with the unequal rights and landlessness10 the question of social gradation and identity become more important.

References 1. Williams, Raymond, Marx on Culture, Critical Quest New Delhi, 2007, pp. 26-27 . 2. Bettiele, Andre, Equlity and Universlity, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003 Chap 1 pp. 33, See also Bettiele, (1985) Chapter 7. This notion of equality of opportunity is a fair amount of equality and Rawalsin Framework also discuss this. 3. Chakravarti, Uma, The Social Philosophy of Buddhism and Problem of Inequality, critical quest, new delhi, 2004, p.1 . 4. Ambedkar, B.R. Gandhi and Gandhism, Critical Quest, New Delhi, 2008 p. 44. Int his small monograph one can see the ideas of Baba Saheb on the issue of justice, equality and social transformation and empowerment, In spite of it has been written on Gandhi and Gandhism. For more details see Verma, NMP, Some Economic Thoughts of Baba Saheb Abedkar, Prabat Prakshan Lucknow, 1991. 5. It was Gandhi Philosophical version of Antyodaya. 6. Gandhi, M.K., “Constructive Programme”, Ahemdabad Navjeevan Publishing House, 1947 p. 20 7. Bhandopadhaya, Jayantanuja, Social and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Chapter 5 Equality p. 87. 8. Ambedkar, B.R., Buddha or Marx, Critical Quest, New Delhi, 2004, Introductory page. 9. Sen, Amartya, Social Exclusion concept Application and Scrutiny, Critical Quest, New Delhi 2007, p. 11. 10. In this anlaysis I use term inequality in resource allocation and inequality in material production .

Gandhian Economic thought and its Influence on Sustainable Development: An Appraisal Vikas Singh and Vina Singh

Introduction Gandhian economics is a school of economic thought based on the spiritual and socio-economic principles expounded by Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and their discplies. It is largely characterised by rejection of the concept of the human being as a rational actor always seeking to maximize material self-interest that underlies classical economic thinking. Where Western economic systems were (and are) based on what he called the “multiplication of wants,” Gandhi felt that this was both unsustainable and devastating to the human spirit. Gandhi was not an academician even but was a charismatic leader of the Indian National Movement with prime purpose of obtaining freedom from the colonial rule and re-established self-confidence of the villagers, who make up most of India’s population. His economic thought was a part of this vision to begin with and yet when the movement gathered strength and the goal for independence was turning real, he became accommodative of the roles of entrepreneurs and other participant players of the economy from practical considerations which remained firmly rooted to the core value that economy and ethics were inseparable. Gandhi’s was also influenced by the Marxian doctrine of neutrality, and its emphasis on the “exploitation of labour”. His economic philosophy was mainly concerned with individual dignity and the welfare of the poor people. Gandhi’s stress on individual’s liberty includes a sense of responsibility towards oneself, to others, to society and perhaps to the world beyond. Thus individual would have more choices of enterprises and prospects. This type of arrangements would ensure a smooth relationship between the labour and


entrepreneur which may enhance efficiency with increased labour welfare. Definitely, these institutional arrangements did not fully fruitful and develop an institutional arrangement for harmonious relationship between the capital and labour (Pani, 2002). Gandhi’s economic ideas are understand in his whole philosophy. His main idea aims at the socio-economic reconstruction of society. He did not give any economic model regarding the development of economics but gave some basic canons based on which we can decide what kind of economic composition is most preferable for Indian economy (Ishii, 1994). Gandhi has given the concept of useful work which would be helpful among all communities, lack of untouchability, ban (of liquor), small scale and village industries, focus on basic education, Gram Swaraj. These are necessary social inputs without them economic development is not possible. Reconstruction in the rural areas is the main source of development in villages. In his views, each village is a totally independent and efficient which will fulfil their needs (Bhuimali, 2014). His views on economics have usually been termed as utopian by many (including Indian) socio-economic thinkers, and this characterisation has tended to evoke two diametrically opposite reactions among policymakers and the general population – the majority respect his views in so far as they are a reflection of his deep spirituality but tend to be extremely skeptical about their applicability to the real world; a small minority, however, see in this utopian view the only alternative available to a poor country to correct an economic situation distorted by a history of colonial exploitation. This paper tries to explore the substantial middle ground between these two extreme viewpoints as Gandhian Economic Thought and its influence on Indian Economy.

Economic Thoughts of Gandhi Gandhi’s thinking on what we would consider social-secular issues (he himself saw little distinction between the sacred and its expression in the social world) was influenced by John Ruskin and the American writer Henry David Thoreau. Throughout his life, Gandhi sought to develop ways to fight India’s extreme poverty, backwardness and socio-economic challenges as a part of his wider involvement in the

Gandhian Economic thought and its Influence on Sustainable Development: An Appraisal 205

Indian independence movement. Gandhi’s championing of Swadeshi and non-cooperation was centred on the principles of economic self sufficiency. Gandhi sought to target European made clothing and other products as not only a symbol of British colonialism but also the source of mass unemployment and poverty, as European industrial goods had left many millions of India’s workers, craftsmen and women without a livelihood (Ghosh, 2007). The ethics of economic self sufficiency were spread all over India by Gandhi during the colonial period. Gandhi’s vision of sustainable development challenges the basic assumptions that the Capitalist model of development makes about the use of Nature and natural resources, the meaning of growth, progress and development, the ways in which society is governed, and the formulation and implementation of public policy. There are four key concepts in the Gandhian vision of sustainable development, namely Swaraj, Swadeshi, Trusteeship and Aparigraha. The contours of each one of them are briefly explained below:

Swaraj Mainstream economics makes the common man completely helpless in the matter of production and distribution of resources. Gandhi visualized an alternative through the system of Swaraj. Swaraj is necessary for the liberation of weaker economies from the commanding position of neoliberal capitalism. There is need for a new conceptual framework in which each country attains economic Swaraj. According to Gandhi, every country should stand on its own strength. The components of Swaraj are based on two independent variables, psychology and ethics. Since resources are scarce, production cannot be increased indefinitely. The psychology of affluence is an irrational phenomenon. The basic principles of economic activity are based on needs and not on affluence. Affluence breeds inequality, as it is based on economic distortion. Greed grows out of the desire to be affluent. Here, psychology can play a crucial role. Values which condition the mind can change human behaviour. The goal of Swaraj brings limits to human wants, according to Gandhi.


What are the ingredients of economic independence or Swaraj? First, Gandhi gave adequate importance to the traditional sector. Highest priority is given to agriculture and agro-centric industries. The balance between primary, secondary and tertiary sectors should be skilfully maintained, on the basis of available human resources. Secondly, villages must get more importance than cities. Gandhi observed: “You cannot build non-violence on a factory civilization, but it can be built on self-contained villages... You have therefore to be ruralminded, and to be rural-minded, you have to have faith in the spinning wheel.”

Swadeshi Gandhi was a champion of Swadeshi or home economy. People outside India know of Gandhi’s campaigns to end British colonialism, but this was only a small part of his struggle. The greater part of his work was to renew India’s vitality and regenerate its culture. For Gandhi, the soul and spirit of India rested in its village communities. He said: “The true India is to be found not in its few cities but in its seven hundred thousand villages. If the villages perish, India will perish too.” According to the principle of Swadeshi, whatever is made or produced in the village must be used, first and foremost, by the members of the village. Trading among villages, and between villages and towns, must be minimal. Goods and services that cannot be generated from within the community can be bought from elsewhere. Swadeshi avoids economic dependence on external market forces that could make the village community vulnerable. It also avoids unnecessary, unhealthy, wasteful and environmentally destructive transportation. The village must build a strong economic base to satisfy most of its needs, and all members of the village community should give priority to local goods and services. Mass production forces people to leave their villages, their land, their crafts and their homesteads, and to seek work in the factories. In Swadeshi, the machine would be subordinated to the worker. In countries practising Swadeshi, economics would have a place, but would not dominate society. Economics should not be separated


from the deep spiritual foundations of life. This can be best achieved, according to Gandhi, when every individual is an integral part of the community; when the production of goods is on a small scale; when the economy is local; and when homemade handicrafts are given preference. In this integral design, there is no conflict between the spiritual and the material. For Gandhi, a machine civilization is no civilization. A society in which workers had to labour at a conveyor belt, in which animals were treated cruelly in factory farms, and in which economic activity necessarily led to ecological devastation, could not be conceived as a civilization. Its citizens would only end up as neurotics; the natural world would inevitably be transformed into a desert, and its cities into concrete jungles. In other words, global industrial society, as opposed to a society made up of largely autonomous communities committed to the principle of Swadeshi, is unsustainable. From the above it becomes clear that Gandhi does not reject trade with other nations, but he is opposed to an international order based solely on considerations of comparative advantage or a system that celebrates global free trade but not fair trade.

Trusteeship Gandhi’s efforts towards “spiritualizing economics” are reflected in his concept of Trusteeship. Gandhi’s idea of Trusteeship arose from his faith in the law of non-possession. It was founded on his religious belief that everything belonged to God, a higher power or Nature. Therefore the bounties of the world were for His people as a whole, and not for any particular individual. When an individual had more than his respective portion, he became a trustee of that portion. If this principle could be imbibed by people in general, Trusteeship would become a legalized institution. Gandhi wished it to become a gift from India to the world. Basically, Gandhi suggested this concept as an answer to the economic inequalities of ownership and income, a kind of non-violent way of resolving all social and economic conflicts in the world. Therefore, man’s dignity and not his material prosperity, is the centre of Gandhian economics.


According to Gandhi, Trusteeship is the only ground on which one can work out an ideal combination of economics and morality. In concrete form, the Trusteeship formula reads as follows: • Trusteeship does not recognize any right of private ownership of property, except so far as it may be permitted by society for its own welfare. • It does not exclude legislation of the ownership and use of wealth. • Under State-regulated Trusteeship, an individual will not be free to hold or use his wealth for selfish satisfaction, in disregard of the interests of society. • Just as in the case of a decent minimum living wage, a limit should be fixed for the maximum income that would be allowed to any person in society. The difference between such minimum and maximum incomes should be reasonable and equitable, and variable from time to time, so much so that the tendency should be towards the obliteration of the difference. • Under such an economic order, the character of production will be determined by social necessity and not by personal greed. • Trusteeship provides a means of transforming the present capitalist order into an egalitarian and sustainable one. As man advances from a narrow sphere of personal satisfaction to the nobler concept of the welfare of all, he marches closer towards self-realization. Though this kind of socialism is difficult to achieve, Gandhi advocated it as he believed in the basic strength of the goodness of man and the value of morals. All other “isms” address the problem superficially, whereas Trusteeship strikes it at the root. What must not be forgotten is that at the centre of the concept lies the need to protect human dignity, while promoting egalitarianism and sustainable development.

Aparigraha Since 1987 when the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) of the United Nations, chaired by Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, submitted its report ‘Our Common Future’, the idea of Sustainable Development has become a buzzword in the


discourse on international development. According to the Brundtland Commission Report, “Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition, of course, begs the question of what constitutes the needs of today. However, the era of global free trade, with its unprecedented opportunities of consumption, as more and more people all over the world adopt consumerist lifestyles, has made the issue more complex and acute. Once again, the seeds are to be found in the core assumptions of the economics that shapes our societies and our lives. A standard textbook on modern economics defines one key assumption as, “society’s material wants are virtually unlimited and insatiable”. The economics built on this foundation is a wants-based one, in which agents are ‘maximizers’ (as opposed to ‘satisfiers’, in Herbert Simon’s language), engaged in the eternal quest for material progress. Such consumption cannot but be environmentally destructive. With the developing world embarking on the road to consumer-driven economies, the critical question before us is: Can this planet sustain seven billion individuals with capitalist lifestyles? Gandhi denounced Britain’s industrialized lifestyle as essentially unsustainable and stated: “God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the west. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 millions took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.” In Gandhi’s view, non-possession or minimization of wants is a natural consequence of ethical considerations. Gandhi summarizes the motivation for Aparigraha thus in Hind Swaraj: “We notice that the mind is a restless bird; the more it gets, the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions, the more unbridled they become.” And again: “The Moral Law also requires that the strong men of a community or nation should regard it as their paramount duty to protect the weak and the oppressed. If all men realized the obligation of service, they would regard it as a sin to amass wealth; and then there would be no inequalities of wealth, and consequently, no famine or starvation.”


It needs to be emphasized in this context that Gandhi did not glorify poverty. Gandhi labelled poverty a sin, and his system of political economy was intended to eradicate India’s poverty and bring about parity of means. It must be noted that Gandhi, while emphasizing the interests of the poor and dispossessed, was simultaneously appealing to the consumptive middle and upper classes to embark on a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity. The ‘Tolstoy Farm’ in South Africa is one of Gandhi’s early experiments in creating a voluntarily simple community. Today, the Voluntary Simplicity Movement (VSM), with its motto of simple living, restriction of wants and minimization of the size of our ecological footprint, is slowly gaining ground. At least one scholar is convinced that Gandhian thought can, once again, provide the philosophical justification that can take the VSM beyond a yearning for simple living and make it the only viable option for peaceful coexistence and Sustainable Development. (Basole, 2005).

Concluding Remarks Gandhi’s economic ideologies have great impact on Indian economy which enhanced the development of rural areas and marginalised people by giving them equal and sustainable earnings. In India largescale industries have been concentrated in a few big cities and in rural areas there is no big industry like khadi, handlooms, sericulture and handicrafts. The small-scale and cottage industries would give a deliberate place in our planned economy towards the fulfilment of the socio economic objectives of Gandhi’s particularly in achieving equitable and sustainable growth. So there is need to move back to Gandhian economic ideology who was always in fever of Swadesi and self- reliance of villages. If all the land and resources that is available was fully utilized, it would definitely fulfil the needs of all human being. The products which are imported by India such a high technology based. On the other hand, if India should follow his ideas of self sufficiency and ‘Swadesi’ India never face these types of problems. So, India must need to go back Gandhian economic ideology. At the end of this discussion, the following points may be emphasized:


• Gandhi challenges the Fact-Value/Positive-Normative/ Descriptive-Prescriptive dichotomy in modern economics, and argues for a system in which economic decisions of individuals, societies and nations are always taken, keeping in mind the values of Truth and Ahimsa. • Economies and societies organized along Gandhian lines are unlikely to suffer from the malady of over-consumption, and its accompanying consequences like global warming, climate change and ecological degradation. • With the Post-Modern age lies the responsibility of taking modernity to task for its evils, including the construction and continuation of an economic system that is leading the planet to ecological disaster. • The need of the hour, in the present context of ecological catastrophism waiting to happen, is to acknowledge the contemporary relevance of Mahatma Gandhi and his ecological wisdom, and to strive to incorporate it into our policies and practices.

REFERENCES: Basole, Amit (2005): “The Economics of Ahimsa: Gandhi, Kumarappa and the Non-Modern Challenge to Economics”. Bhuimali, A (2014): “Relevance of M.K. Gandhi’s Ideal of Self-Sufficient Village Economy in the 21st Century”. Articles on Gandhi. Sarvodaya. Vol1(5). Chavan, S (2013): “Economic Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi” Indian Streams Research Journal. Vol. 3(9), pp 1. Available online at www.isrj.net Crawford, S. (2014): “Swadeshi and the economic development of India.” Available at web.uvic.ca/~stucraw/Lethbridge/MyArticles/Swadeshi. htm Crutzen, P.J., “Geology of Mankind”, Nature, 415, 2002. Deshmukh, S (2011): “Relevance of Ganadhian Thought In 21st Century”. International Referred Research Journal, Vol. III(26). Dodh, P (2012).“Impacts of Globalization on Social Inclusion: A Comparative Analysis to Gandhian Economic Philosophy”, IJPSS Vol. 2(5). pp: 287-297. Friedman, J S (2008): “Mahatma Gandhi’s Vision for the Future of India: The Role of Enlightened Anarchy”, Penn History Review, Vol. 16(1).


Ghosh, B N (2007): “Gandhian political economy: principles, practice and policy”, pp 17. Ishii, K (1994): “The Socio-Economic Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi: with a Particular Focus on his Theory of Trusteeship”, The Economic Review, Vol. 154(1). pp 72-91. Iyengar, S (2005): “Gandhi’s Economic Thought and Modern Economic Development: Some Reflections”, Working Paper, Centre for Social Studies (CSS), Surat. Kaur, A and Singh, B (2015): “Relevance of Gandhian Economic Thought: An Appraisal”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 4 | No. 1 | January, ISSN: 2278-6236. Koshal, R K and Koshal, M (1973): “Gandhian Economic Philosophy”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 32(2), April, pp. 191-209. Kumar, D Jeevan (2010): “Economy and Society: The Gandhian Perspective”, Eternal Bhoomi, July-September. Kumar, D Jeevan (2012): “Gandhian Economic Thought and Sustainable Development”, Draft Paper, Indic Economic Thought in Pursuit of Happiness and Sustainable Development: Its Relevance and Application. Kumar, D. Jeevan (2011): “Gandhian Values for a Sustainable Future”, Fireflies Meeting Rivers Series, Vol. 33. Kumarappa, J C (1951): “Gandhian Economic Thought”, Published By Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, Rajghat, Varanasi. Nachane, M. (2007): “Gandhian Economic Thought and Its Influence on Economic Policymaking in India”, Available at: www.isn.ethz.ch/ DigitalLibrary/Publications/Detail/?ots591 Narayana, S (1970): “Gandhian Economics”, Navjivan Publishing House, Bombay. Pani, N (2002): “Inclusive Economics: Gandhian Method and Contemporary Policy”, Sage Publications, New Delhi. Rivett, K (1959): “The Economic Thought of Mahatma Gandhi”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15. Romesh, D and Mark, L (1985): “Essays in Gandhian EconomicsGandhi Peace Foundation”.New Delhi. UNDP (2007-08): “Human Development Report”, ‘Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World’.

List of Contributors  M. J. Lunine Professor Emeritus and Humanities and Global Peace Studies, California State University – San Francisco  S Indira Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry. Email: [email protected]  Shailendra Singh Assistant Professor, Department of higher Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand  Indu Pathak HOD & Professor, Department of Sociology, Kumaun University, Nainital. Uttarakhand - 263001  Santwana Pandey Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Guru Ghashi Das University, Chhattisgarh  Neelesh Pandey Ph.D. Scholar in Mass Communication, Department of mass Communication, Central University of Orissa, Orissa  Sandeep Singh Ph.D. Scholar Economics, Department of Economics, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh  Brijendra Pandey Associate Professor, Political Science, VHPG College, University of Lucknow and Secretary, Coomaraswamy Foundation, Lucknow, India


 P. Nithiya ICPR (General Fellow) Department of Philosophy, Pondicherry University  Rachana Srivastava Associate Professor and HOD, Department of Political Science, AP Sen Degree College of Girls, Lucknow.  Tanushree Srivastava MA, PhD (University of Lucknow, Lucknow), L.L.B (University of Mumbai, Mumbai  Reetika Upadhyay Lecturer, Department of Economics, Shri Ram Teerth Mishra Smarak (PG) College, Intiyathok- Gonda (Uttar Pradesh)  Vijay Srivastava Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara Punjab  Parijat Saurabh From the Centre for the study of Nepal, FSS, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh  Vikas Singh Research Officer, Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi. [email protected]  Vina Sigh From Department of economics, Mahatma Gandhi, Kashi Vidyapeeth , Varanasi  Prem Anand Mishra Well known Gandhian Scholar  Sharaddha Joshi M.S.C Economics Student of Lovely Professional Uniersity Phagwara, Punjab  Anup Kumar Srivastava An Assistant Professor, LPU, Punjab