13

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

"He is unique in the world. His very life is another name for sacrifice. He is
sacrifice itself. He covers no power, no position, no wealth, no name and no fame.
Offer him the throne of all India, he will refuse to sit on it, but sell jewels and
distribute the money among the needy. Give him all the money America possesses,
and he will certainly refuse to accept it unless to be given away from worthy cause
for the uplift of humanity. His soul is perpetually anxious to give, .and he expects
absolutely nothing in return--not even -thanks.... His simplicity of life is child-like,
his adherence to -.truth in unflinching; his love for mankind is positive and
'aggressive. He has what is known as the Christ spirit. The .-/longer I know him, the
better I like him."
• -Rabindranath Tagore Early life
and Influences
Mohandas Karamchand, Popularly known as mahatma Gandhi or Bapu, was born
at Porbandar on 2 October, 1869. His father was a Dewan at the court of the ruler of
Kathiawar. Gandhi’s mother was a religious lady and left a deep impact on his mind.
Gandhi was shy child and spent most of the time in his books. After his early education in
India Gandhi went to England for his higher education. He returned to India after
obtaining degree in Law in 1891 and set up his practice as a lawyer first at Bombay and
then at Kathiawar. As he could not have good practice, he took up a job with a firm having
business in South Africa and proceeded there. In South Africa he saw the worst type of
racial discrimination being practised against the non-whites and organised the Indians
living there to fight for their rights. Through constant agitation he made the Indians in
South Africa conscious of their sufferings.
He came to India on the eve of the First World War and decided to extend full
support to the British Government in the hope that they would do full justice to India after
the war. Gandhi also took up the cause of the indigo workers and launched first non-
violent struggle in India. He organised country wide protests against the Rowlatt Act. He
also bitterly criticised the British Government for the Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy. In 1920
he started non-co-operation movement against the Government but suspended the same in
the wake of the violent of

Scanned with CamScanner

 9
incidents at Chauri Chaura in Uttar Pradesh. Th®refaf/®r..S^ch- devoted
himself to the social and0 economic uphftment ofthe
ables and women. He also led movements like Civil Diso e
Movement in 1930-31 and Quit India Movement in 1942.
As regards the influences on Gandhi he was greatly
influence by his mother and his nurse Ramba, who were deeply religious ai .J
Gandhi was greatly influenced by Ramayana, which he descnbea as the greatest
book in all devotional literature. The teachings o dha, Mahavira, and various
philosophic works of Hindus a so exe cised profound influence on him.
Mahabharata and Bhagwa u greatly influenced him. In fact he learnt the lesson
of self-reliance ana disinterested performance of one’s duty from Gita. Gandhi
imse admitted "To me the Gita became an infallible guide of conduct, n became
my dictionary of daily reference." His concept of Satyagrana was largely the
result of influence of Gita.
The play Harish Chandra left probably most profound influence on
Gandhi’s mind and confirmed his faith in the principles of truth and non-violence.
Acknowledging the influence of Harish Chandra, Gandhi says "This play—Harish
Chandra—captured my heart. I could never be tired of seeing it. To follow truth and
to go through all the ordeals Harish Chandra went through was the one ideal it
inspired in me." Similarly Bible also left an impact on Gandhi. He says, "It was the
New Testament, especially the Sermon on the Mount, which really awakened me to
rightness and value of Satyagraha". The life of Mohamed also won his admiration.
In short, Gandhi’s thinking was influenced by various religious strands.
Apart from religion Gandhi was also influenced by Western writers and
philosophers like Ruskin, Henry, David, Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy etc. He learnt the
principle of dignity of labour from Ruskin. His views on non-co-operation were
MA
largely, influenced by Thoreau. He learnt the principles of Ahinsa and Truth from
Tolstoy. However the influence of these writers was supplemented by the influence
of Hindu traditions.
Main Ideas of Gandhi
W' At the outset it may be noted that Gandhi was not a systematic thinker but
only an inspired teacher who poured out his deepest feelings and sincere
&d realizations of truth. Gandhi himselOdmitted that he was not giving any new
<■ philosophy anTsaid.^TEereisnoTuch thing as Gandhism and 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 things I have
formed and conclusion I have arrived at, are not final. I may change them....I
have nothing to teach to the world. Tjyth and non-violence are as old as hills.
AllJJiave done is to the try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I
could71b7ln~doing so I have~some-times erred and learnt by my errors^weUTof
my philosophy, if it might be called by that preten-

Scanned with CamScanner

 tious name is done in what I have said, you will not call it Gandhism; there is no ism
about it.”
It is true that Gandhi never tried to present systematic manner, but he
preached certain basic principles which were quite consistent Scholars have tried to
analyse and present, Gandhi’s views in a systematic manner and establish that
Gandhi was ja. great political thinker. Without going into his controversy any further,
let us briefly examine some of the important ideas of Gandhi’s thought.
1. Gandhi on Religion and Politics. Gandhi saw a very close relationship
between religion and politics and sought to spiritualize politics. As one scholar was
observed "His politics a philosophy and political techniques are only two corollaries of
his religious and moral principles...without the moral basis supplied by the religion, lie
would be mere maze of sound and fury signifying nothing.” He condemned politics
which was bereft of religion on the ground hat it makes man corrupt selfish, unreliable,
materialistic and opportunistic. A politics separated from religion was politics of force
and fraud. It may be noted that Gandhi identified religion with morality and was opposed
to the exploitation of religion for political interests. He highlighted the close relationship
between religion and politics thus" Those who say that religion. Politics is subordinate gp
religion. Politics without religion is a death trap because it kills man’s soul. " Again he
said " I could not be leading a religious life, unless I identified myself with the whole of
mankind, and that I could not do unless I took part in politics. In short Gandhi saw a
close relationship between religion and politics. In short Gandhi saw a close relationship
between religion and politics favoured a religiously'dominated politics. However, Gandhi
never preached or believed in theocratic dogmatism. He certainly did not believe jh
making any religion a state religion and considered religion as a purely personal matter.
Attempt on the part of Gandhi to combine religion and politics simply means that he was
in favour of spiritualizing politics.
2. Gandhi on Non-Violence (Ahinsa). Another notable feature of Gandhi’s
thought is his advocacy of non-violence or Ahinsa. It may be observed that the concept of
Ahinsa was not an original contribution of Gandhi and had been known and practiced in
India since ancient times. Gandhi merely lifted it from the individual plane and applied it
to various walks of life viz. domestic, in institutional economic and political. His concept
of Ahinsa (non- violence) was quite extensive and did not merely imply avoidance of
violence. He also included in it avoidance of injury through thought, words of deeds.
Thus he considered a harsh speech or thinking bad of others also as violence. On the
other hand if a life was destroyed for the sake of those whose life was taken, Gandhi
would not consider it as Ahinsa, Gandhi is said to have got a calf in his ashram poisoned
because its unbearable agony and suffering was libyond cure. Gandhi gave

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 9
another example when a life could be taken2 without violating the principle of Ahinsa. He
said "Should my child be attacked with rabies and there was no helpful remedy to relieve
his agony. I should consider it my duty to t'hke his life." Such a step according to Gandhi
would not constitute Himsa (violence). However, he insisted that such a step could be
taken only when the disease is incurable; the case is beyond all help or service; and the
patient is incurable; the case is beyond all help or service; and the patient is not in a
position to express his wish. "To kill any living being or anything save for his or its own
interest is ‘himsa’ (violence)1'. Thus Gandhi’s concept of nonviolence was positive
concept which was based on good-will towards all. It even included love for the evil-
doer, and may even involve conscious suffering on the part of the person who practices
it. It implies absence of malice towards the opponent and hate of the evil without hat’ng
the evil-doer.
3. Stayagraha. Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha is intimately related to his
concept Of non-violence, and constitutes and important part of hig thought. Satyagraha
literally means ‘holding fast to truth.’ Gandhi evolved the'principle of Satyagraha even
before its name was coined. Initially Gandhi described it as ‘passive resistance’.
However, all the time he was conscious of the inadequacy of the term. He recorded "I do
not like term ‘passive resistance’. It fails to convey all I mean. It describes a method, but
gives no hint of the system of which ' it is only a?part. Real beauty-and that is my aim.-is
doing good against evil". It is a technique of resisting all that is evil, unjust, impure or
untrue by love self-suffering, self- purification and by the appealing to the divine spark in
the soul of the opponent.
Qlt may be notea that the concept of Satyagraha differs from passive resistance,
in so far as the latter was supposed to be a weapon of the weak and was characterised
by hatredjit could also manifest itself in violence. Under passive resistance the violence
is adjured on account of weakness and a passive resister to embarrass to opponent into
submission. If there is a suitable opportunity the passive resister would not mind
adoption of violent methods. In short, passive resistance was a weapon of the weak,
based on the principle ofexpendien- cyTOn the other hand Satyagraha is bas~ed on
soul force and stands on the opponent buforTone’s own se)f." It is the
courage~ofdyingwitho~ur killing. In Gandhi’s Satyagraha there is no scopFTor
cowardice ancTHe preferred violence over cowardice.
No doubt there are certain common methods like non-co-operation, boycott,
strikes etc, in Satyagi^ha and'passive resistance, out their spirit, differs under the two.
Inpassive fSsisfaffCe rtfesemethods zlre used Io~coerce the opponent to submission.
On the other hand in Satyagraha these instruments are used to exert spiritual influence
through self-suffering. Another notable feature of Gandhi s Satyagraha was thaFitcould
be resorted to by the individual as well as

|CS| Scanned with

CamScanner
 9
3
the community and could be applied to all walks of life. As Gandhi put it "it is a force that
may be used by individuals as well as communities. It may be used as well in politics as in
domestic affairs. Its universal applicability is a demonstration of its permanence and
invincibility." In fact he stood for its practice in the domestic and social relations before
adoption in political sphere. The only condition essential for the success of the Satyagraha
was "recognition of the existence of the soul as apart from the body, and its permanent and
superior nature; and this recognition must amount to a living faith and not a mere
intellectual grasp.
Techniques of Satyagraha
Gandhi’s satyagraha involved the use of any one or combination of more than one,
of the following techniques.
(a) Non-Co-operation. Gandhi held that government can perpetuate injustice only
if the people co-operate with it. The people can put an end to injustice by withdrawing their
co-operation from the Government and paralysing it. He said "Even the most despotic
government cannot survive except by the consent of the governed which consent is often
forcibly procured by the despot. But as soon as the subject ceases to fear the despotic force,
the despot’s power is gone."
The non-co-operation with the government assume any of the following forms, (i)
Strike (Hartal). This meant stopping the business as a mark of protest against the high-
handed policy of the rulers with a view to strike the imagination of the people and the
government. Gandhi, however, insisted that the strike should be voluntary and non-violent
and should be restored to only sparingly, (ii) Picketing viz. blocking the path of a person
Who wants to do a a particular thing. However, Gandhi pleaded for avoiding coercion,
intimidation, discourtesy, hunger-strike etc. in organising picketing, (iii) Social Ostracism.
or social boycott of those who defy the/jmblic opinion. This was also to~be restored7o only
in exceptional cases and with restraint.
(b) Civil-Disobedience. It was based on the principle of nonobedience of unjust
and anti-social laws. The participant in the civil disobedience movement were to openly
declare their intention to disobey the cruel and unjust laws and suffer the necessary
punishment for doing so. However, they were to carry on their struggle till these laws were
abrogated and replaced by just laws. As Gandhi put it "Disobedience to be civil must be
since, respectful, restrained never defiant, must be based upon some well understood
principle, must not be capricious and must have no ill-will or hatred behind it." Civil
disobedience could be resorted to on individual as well as mass basis.
(c) Fasting. According to Gandhi fasting was the most effective and fiery
technique of satyagraha and advocated great caution while making use of it. It implies
readiness on the part of the Satyagrahi to suffer with a view to appealing to the heart of the
wrong-doer. Gandhi said that fasting could be resorted to only by a person who possesses
spiritual fitness, purity of mind, discipline, humility and faith. An ordinary individual could
not make use of this technique. It may be noted that Gandhi favoured fast only as a last
resort when all other techniques have been explored and are found wanting.
(d) Hijarat Hijarat meant a voluntary migration from permanent place of residence.
If a person felt that he could not undertake Satyagraha against the injustice of the
oppressor, he should leave his ancestral place. Gandhi held that hijarat could be practiced
by individuals as well as groups. He asserted it was not symbolic of the weakness but of
great strengtfTHecause it was not an ordinary thing to leave one’s ancestraTpTace where
one was born and brought up. As Hijarat would lead to complete breaking of association
with the country, relatives and friends, this step required boldness which only few persons
possess.
In short the various techniques of Satyagraha vindicate the individual’s abiding

|cs| Scanned with CamScanner

 \ \v\ Y) 94

right of opposition.to coercive authority. Stanley Jones describes Satyagraha as the greatest
of the contributions of Gandhi to the world. As a moral technique for waging the battle of
national freedom, Satyagraha attained dramatic and historic character.
Gandhi on End and Means
^Gandhi saw a very intimate relationship between the end and means and considered
the means as more important than the end itself because the former grows out of the
latterJHe argued that if we take care of the means to a seed and the end to a tree and
asserted that there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as
there is between the seed and the tree^He asserted that moral ends can be achieved only
through moral means and no peaceful and society could be built through vioIenceJJA
society established through non-violent methods shall certainly be a society based on non-
violent psychology. It maybe noted that before Gandhi, Plato and Green also emphasised
close relationship between politics and enthics and panted an ideal social organization to be
built on moral principles. HoweveiTGandhrwenTmuch ahead and built on moral principles.
However, Gandhi went much ahead and tried to extend this principle to the daily social and
political conduct. Gandhi was not prepared to make any compromises on fundamental
principles. He attached great importance to the adherance of moral values and said “Where
the means are clean, there God is undoubtedly present with his blessings.” He was not
willing to deviate form this principle even for the attainment of country’s independence and
said” You might, of course say, that there cannot be non-violent revolution and there has
been none known to history. Well, it is my ambition to provide an instance, and it is my
dream that my country may win its independent through non- violence. I will not purchase
my country’s freedom at the cost of non-violence”,
1 nicrtcd the view that an action could be H- •
Gandhi firmly'J cnds and soiong as the end was go^14"! into two end were
justifieJlGandht said that means S
means to ?cl,,e™and they constitute an organic whole. As.? ? e„ds are inseparable an y^
litaiedthce^^ ! ch
s
bad means are bo coin an(1 asscrTccnWTfwa^fr^

^^^^Saicoa&^&SESronlyo^FTEeme^saBa^
--- —Y" 7^1 c
— (^Wand Swadeshi. Swde^
own country. However, Gandhi applied the concept to wi^s spheres of viz. religious,
economic and political. In the religion nhere Swadeshi meant to Gandhi following one’s
hereditary religion He said “A Hindu can get more inspiration from his own religion than
from Islam or Christianity. We should try that Hindus should become better Hindus,
Muslims better Mudims and Christians better Christians.” He attached more importance to
the moral con- duct than performance of worship and other rituals.
In the economic sphere Swadeshi meant for Gandhi the use of only those goods
which were produced by one’s immediate neighbours and serve those industries by making
them efficient and plea for the protection of the home industries,' especially those which
had the potentiality of growth. Swadeshi in the economic sphere also meant boycott of the
foreign foods. Emphasising the importance of boycott of foreign goods GandhTsaid “India
cannoc be free so long as India voluntary encourages or tolerates the economic drain which
has been going on for the past century and a lj|df. boycott of foreign goods means no more
and no less than boycott of foreign cloth”. Gandhi was not in favour of rejecting everything
that was foreign. He certainly favoured the use of foreign goods which could not be

Scanned with CamScanner

 \ \v\ Y) 95

manufactured in the country- provided they did not interfere with the growth or injured the
interest of immediate neighbours. He said “To reject foreign manufactures merely because
they are foreign and to go on wasting national time and money in the promotion in one’s
own country of manufacturers for which it is not suite 1 would be criminal folly and a
negation of the Swadesh spirit.” Thus he favoured the purchase of goods from different
parts of the world provided they were needed for the growth of the individual and did not
interfere with and injured the growth of the local industries. As such he had no objection to
the purchase of useful healthy literature from differ11 parts of the world, surgical
instruments from England and wat<? < rom Switzerland . On the other hand he was not in
favour of Pj*rC mg even an inch of the finest cotton fabrics from England of aP
the y
- w°u,d ‘“jure the indigenous industry of India- 1 n > s principle of Swadeshi
emphasised “contentment wi

Scanned with CamScanner

 IIt
9
6
conditions and with the things that God had provided for man’s sustenance, instead
of ruthless exploitation had provided for man’s sustenance, instead of ruthless
exploitation of other countries to obtain unnecessary luxuries : thus, overthowing
their own internal economic equilibrium and introducing discord”.
In the political sphere Swadeshi meant adoption of traditional Indian political
institutions in preference to the western political institutions. Thus Gandhi pleaded
for the establishment of village panaheyats, Ganarajya etc. In short, Gandhi pleaded
for Swadeshi in the religious, economic, political and even other spheres with a view
to promote a spirit of self-confidence, courage and self-reliance among the people of
the country.
. Gandhi’s Scheme of Education
Gandhi was strongly opposed to the English system of education and
favoured its replacement by an indigenous scheme. His opposition to the western
system of education was on account of number of reasons. First, it was based on
foreign culture and completely excluded the indigenous culture. Second it ignored
the culture of heart and hand and confined itself only to the head. Third, it was
imparted through foreign medium. He argued that the time which a child spends in
mastering the vagaries of English language could be better utilised for imparting
essential knowledge about the basic facts of civil life. Gandhi insisted ®>n the
replacement of the existing system of education by Basic Education and presented
his own scheme. He said “My plan to impart primary education through the village
handicrafts like spinning and carding, if thus conceived as the spearhead of a silent
social revolution fraught with the most far-reaching consequences. It will provide a
healthy and moral basis for relationship between the city ad village, and thus to a
one way towards eradicating some of the worst evils of social insecurity and
poisoned relationship between the classes. It will check the progressive decay of our
villages and lay the foundation of juster social order in which there is no natural
division between the haves and have-nots and evprybody is assured of a living wage
and the fight of freedom.” Gandhi’s scheme of education laid emphasis on the
development of his body, mind and spirit. It attached more importance to moral
development rather than literary training. Gandhi asserted that moral education
could not be imparted through books but through the living touch of the teacher.
Gandhi’s scheme of basic education covered the period from 7 to 14 years of
age, and laid emphasis on physical drill, drawing, handicrafts etc. Gandhi held that
true intelligence could not be developed through the reading of books but through
artisan’s work learnt in a sc ientific manner. It may be noted that in Gandhi’s
scheme .. of education handicrafts were not to be taught side by side with the liberal
education, but the whole scheme of education was based on the handicrafts and
industry. Il attaches less importance to reading and

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner I

 writing. As Gandhi observed "The signs of the alphabet may be taught later when the pupil
has learnt to distinguish wheat from chaff and when he has somewhat developed his
tastes.” Another notable feature of Gandhi’s scheme of basic education was that it was
economically self- supproting and the running expenses of the education were to come
from the educational process itself. The expenses for the maintenance of the scheme of
education were to be met from the income form handicrafts produced by the students.
Gandhi on State. Gandhi was opposed to the present state because it was based on
force and centralisation of authority, which led to negation of individual freedom. Gandhi
attached great importance to the individual and pleaded for decentralisation of authority.
He wrote in 1931 “To me political power is not an end but one of the means enabling the
people to better their condition in every department of life. Political power means capacity
to regulate national life through national representatives. If national life becomes so perfect
as to become self-regulated, no representation is necessary. There is then a sate of
enlightened anarchy. In such a state every one is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a
manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour”. Gandhi looked upon enormous
powers of the state with suspicion and considered it as a “great threat to individual’s
progress. He side look upon an increase in the power of the state with great fear, because
although while apparently doing good by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest
harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress....The
state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form”.
Though Gandhi was against the existing state and wanted to replace it by an ideal
state, based on non-violence, in which individual would have maximum independence, He
refrained form painting a picture of the ideal state. He said “When society is deliberately
constructed in accordance with the law of non- violence, its structure will be different in
material particulars from what it is today. But I cannot say in advance what the
Government based wholly on non-violence will be like.” Gandhi did give some vague idea
about the ideal society in the course of his speeches and writings and by piecing them
together we can from a fairly good idea of the ideal state of his concept.
A Non-Violent State. In the first place he envisaged an ideal state which would be
predominantly non-violent. Gandhi admitted that in actual practice use of force was
inevitable in politics on account of imperfections of human beings. As he put it “Perfect
nonviolence whilst you are inhabiting the boy is only a theory like Euclid’s point or
straight line, but we have to endeavour every moment of our lives.” He therefore
advocated a predominantly non-violent society. Gandhi did not favour imposition of non-
violence from above and insisted on voluntary non-violences. He held that this could be r

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 98

achieved through inoral evolution of the individual. Gandhi said that non-violence
was not a negative doctrine but a positive force, implying love in the largest sense-
love even for the evil doer. Explaining the concept of non-violence Gandhi said
“Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean
meek submission to the will of the evil doer, but it means that putting one’s
wholesome against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is
possible fro a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save
his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation of that empire’s fall or its
regeneration”.
2. Faith in Spiritual Democracy. Another feature of the ideal ' state
contemplated by Gandhi was spiritual democracy. It would be governed by the
voluntary efforts of the individual and would be conducted in accordance with
ethical ideals. He favoured spiritual democracy because it provided the model for the
state to improve itself. It shall be based on the willing co-operation of the citizens
rather than force. He asserted that “even the most despotic govern- ment-eannot
stand except for the consent of the governed, which consent is often forcibly
procured by the despot. Immediately the subject ceases of fear the despotic force his
power is gone.” Gandhi held that submission to immoral laws tantamounted to
participation in evil. He therefore said that a citizen should refuse to co-operate with
the laws of the state which were immoral or not good for the . common people.
It may be noted that Gandhi;s concept of democracy was quite different
from the general concept of democracy. He said “The nearest approach to the purest
anarchy would be democracy based on . non-violence-in such as state everyone is
his 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”.
3. More Emphasis on Duties rather than Rights. Gandhi’s ideal society
was to differ from the present state in so far as in this society more emphasis shall
be laid on the performance of duties rather than insistence on rights, as was the
case in the present state. The only right which the citizens in the ideal state would
possess, says Gandhi, would be right to perform their duties properly. The citizens
would perform their duties either willingly on through persuasion, and there would
be no scope for the use of force the enforcement of duties.
4. Decentralization of Authority. Gandhi was a strong critic of the
centralized system because it curbed individual initiative and stood in the way of
self-realization. He therefore pleaded for decentralisation of authority both in the
political as well as economic sphere. In the political sphere he favoured curtailment
of the authority of the state and grant of more autonomy to village community.
Gandhi said “society based on non-violence can only consist

Scanned with CamScanner

 99

of groups settled in villages in which voluntary co-operation is the condition of dignified

and peaceful existence.” In other words he insisted on the creation of self-sufficing
autonomous village communities. Writing in favour of the autonomous village communities
Gandhi records. “In this structure composed of innumerable villages..life will not be
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...the
autermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give
strength to all within and derive its own strength form it.” Gandhi asserted that in
such^^ecentralised society individual shall enjoy complete freedom. SuchXS'ScTety shall
be non-violent in nature and there shall be no place for military, police or law courts in it.”
As regards decentralisation in the economic field he favoured replacement of the
large-scale industry by cottage industry. He asserted that through cottage industries alone
the spiritual values could be properly understood and appreciated. In short, Gandhi
favoured decentralisation in the political as well as economic spheres. He said
“Decentralization of political and economic power provides for the working of democracy
based upon individual freedom and initiative and for the individual being allowed to
participate in the government of his country. It would also regulate automatically both the
production and distribution of the commodities necessary to human life; and both the
production and the consumption of these would be in the same locality rather than having
production concentrated in particular areas only, thus necessitating regulations for the
distribution of products and wealth. Decentralisation would also bring about the regulation
of the use of machinery”.
t/* Gandhi’s Views on Property and Trusteeship. Gandhi’s emphasised the ideal of a
simple life and insisted that a person should possess only what was absolutely essentialifor
his day-to-day life and attainment of self-realisation. He was a^amst unnecessary accumula-
tion of wealth or goods. He conceded right toprivate property to the extent it was necessary
for one’s moral, mental andphysical wellbeing. To quote him “Every one musFEave a
balanc xi diet, a decent house tolive in, facilities for the education of one 5?-children and
adequate\medical relief.’ Gandhi said that when possession of property by one man
interferes with possession of property by another. ; when on set of men are secured in the
poser property by another; when one set of men are secured in the power of getting and
keeping the means of realising their will, in such a way that others are practically denied the
power, then such a property is a theft.
Though Gandhi was opposed to the accumulation of wealth j,n thehands offew rich
people, he 3id not favour use of force for taking awaythis surplus wealth from the rich for
the benefit of the poor and

(CSj Scanned with CamScanner

 1
i 100

I
deserving. He said that the consciousness and sense of justice of the rich should be aroused
and they should be made to feel that they have no justification in keeping surplus wealth with
them. They should be made of 'realise that the hold the surplus wealth as trustees of the society
and should devote the same for the benefit or the community. Qnce the rich people were made
to feel that they were merely trustees | of the surplus wealth, it would become easy to
establish a class-less
; society without violence or force. Gandhi said “The rich man would
I‘ be left in possession of his wealth*~oF which he^would use what he
J reasonably requirecTFor his personal needs, for the remainer he would
i act as a trustee, using it for the benefit of the society, but if the rich do
not
! become the guardians of the poor what is to be done. The only
I right and infallible solution of this problem lies in non-violence, non-
I cooperati m and civil disobedience”.
I Gandhi on Bread Labour Intimately connected with his views
I on trusteeship is his concept of ‘bread labour.’ Gandhi said that in an
I ideal society every one should put in physical labour. He said that “If
I all laboured for their bread and no more, then there would enough
1 food and enough lelure for all. There would be no cry of over-popula-
1 tion disease and no ’such misery as we see around. Men will no doubt
I do many other things either through their bodies or through their
' minds, but all this will be labour of love, for the common good. There
| will be noirich, no poor, none high and none low, no touchable and
i• no untouchable.” ,it may be noted that Gandhi favour physical labour
; for the intellectuals and asserted that the needs of the body must be
s supplied by the body. A significant feature of Gandhi’s scheme was
that it Was to be voluntary and there was no room for compulsion.
? Varna System. Gandhi’s ideal state was to be based on the
I ancient Varna system, which demanded that a man shall follow the
I profession of his ancestors for earning his livelihood. Gandhi at-
I tributed the '•voting economic and spiritual degeneration as well as
I the growing poverty and unemployment to the abandonment of the
I Varna system As he put it “the main reason of our economic and
I spiritual degeneration is that we have not correctly followed the
J Varna system. This is the main reason of poverty and unemployment
t and this is one of the main reason that there is untouchability in our
| society and many people have left our society.” He pleaded for the
| adoption of the Varna system and said “I believe that just as every on
| inherits particular form so does he inherit the particular charac-
| teristics and qualities of his progenitors and to make this admission is
J to conserve one’s energies. That Frank adission if he will act upon it,
| would put a legitimate curb upon our material ambitions and thereby
I or energy is set freiftfor extending the field of spiritual research and
I any spiritual evolutipn.” However, Gandhi was not in favour of com-
| pelling any person to follow the parental occupation against his wishes

|CSj Scanned with CamScanner

 1
i 101

I attitude.

|CSj Scanned with CamScanner

d
eserving. He said that the consciousness and sense of justice of the rich should
be aroused and they should be made to feel that they have no justification in
keeping surplus wealth with them. They should be made of 'realise that the hold
the surplus wealth as trustees of the society and should devote the same for the
benefit or the community. Qnce the rich people were made to feel that they were merely trustees |
of the surplus wealth, it would become easy to establish a class-less
; society without violence or force. Gandhi said “The rich man would
I‘ be left in possession of his wealtli~oF which he^would use what he
J reasonably requirecTTor his personal needs, for the remainer he would
i act as a trustee, using it for the benefit of the society, but if the rich do
not
! become the guardians of the poor what is to be done. The only
I right and infallible solution of this problem lies in non-violence, non-
I cooperati m and civil disobedience”.
I Gandhi on Bread Labour Intimately connected with his views
I on trusteeship is his concept of ‘bread labour.’ Gandhi said that in an
I ideal society every one should put in physical labour. He said that “If
I all laboured for their bread and no more, then there would enough
1 food and enough lelure for all. There would be no cry of over-popula-
1 tion disease and no ’such misery as we see around. Men will no doubt
I do many other things either through their bodies or through their
' minds, but all this will be labour of love, for the common good. There
| will be noirich, no poor, none high and none low, no touchable and
j• no untouchable.” ,it may be noted that Gandhi favour physical labour
; for the intellectuals and asserted that the needs of the body must be
s supplied by the body. A significant feature of Gandhi’s scheme was
that it Was to be voluntary and there was no room for compulsion.
? Varna System. Gandhi’s ideal state was to be based on the
I ancient Varna system, which demanded that a man shall follow the
I profession of his ancestors for earning his livelihood. Gandhi at-
I tributed the '•voting economic and spiritual degeneration as well as
I the growing poverty and unemployment to the abandonment of the
I Varna system As he put it “the main reason of our economic and
I spiritual degeneration is that we have not correctly followed the
J Varna system. This is the main reason of poverty and unemployment
t and this is one of the main reason that there is untouchability in our
| society and many people have left our society.” He pleaded for the
| adoption of the Varna system and said “I believe that just as every on
| inherits particular form so does he inherit the particular charac-
| teristics and qualities of his progenitors and to make this admission is
J to conserve one’s energies. That Frank adission if he will act upon it,
| would put a legitimate curb upon our material ambitions and thereby
I or energy is set freiftfor extending the field of spiritual research and
I any spiritual evolutipn.” However, Gandhi was not in favour of com-
| pelling any person to follow the parental occupation against his wishes
I attitude.
 Gandhi’s Varna system was not hierarchical and the idea of superiority or inferiority
was wholly repugnant to his concept of Varna system. To him Varna did not cannot a set of
rights or privileges but performance of certain duties or obligations. It was based on the
principle of equality between different occupations and laid emphasis on the observance of
one’s obligations. As Gandhi said “One born of brahmana parents will be called a brahmana,
but if his life fails to reveal the attributes of brahmana when he comes of age, he cannot be
called a brahman, he will have fallen from brahmanahood. On the other hand, one who is
born not a brahmana but reveals in his conduct the attributes of a brahmana will be regarded
as a brahmana, though he will himself disclaim the label.” Gandhi considered the Varna
system beneficial for the individual as well as the community by placing at their disposal the
accumulated knowledge of the previous generations.
Gandhi’s Views on Police and Military. Gandhi held that though under ideal
conditions there was no room for police and military which were empodiment of the force,
but in actual practice both these are needed. However, he favoured complete transformation
of their character. The police of his concept was to consist of believers in non-violence, who
treated themselves as servants of the people rather than their masters. The police would have
some kind of arms but they will be rarely used. The police men would act more as reformers
than policemen. They shall try to deal with disturbances with the help and cooperation of the
peration of the people. The force would be used only in dealing wish criminals and dacoits.
Similarly Gandhi favored retention of military force which would be non-violence in
character. This force was to be active both during the times of peace as well as disturbances.
The military forces would constantly engage in constructive activities and keep in touch with
every individual, providing, very limited chances for clashes amongst various communities.
Despite this if there were incidents of mob frenzy, they would risk their lives in sufficient
numbers to put an end to the riots. Similarly, if the country was attacked by some foreign
power they should either yield possession and non-cooperate with the aggressor ; or offer
non-violent resistance and offer themselves as fodder for the aggressor’s canons. The sight of
a large number of unarmed people ready to dye rather than surrender will melt the aggressor
and his soldiers. Gandhi asserted that there would be greater loss in men if forcible resistance
was offered . However, Gandhi admitted that this sort of ideal could be achieved only
through the moral evolution of the individuals and could not be imposed from above, as that
would be against the very spirit of non- violence. Till people had attained such moral
standards, Gandhi favoured the retention of the military and the police force. He admitted
that a

Scanned with CamScanner

 10
2
“sudden withdrawal of the military and the police will be a disaster if we have not acquired the
ability to protect ourselves against robbers and thieves.” He argued that in a democracy the
government works on the principle of majority, and if the majority cannot follow the non
violent methods to deal with foreign aggression or believes in violence, the principle of non-
violence should not be imposed on them. This would be against the very spirit of non-violence
on which he wanted to base his ideal society.
Crime, Punishment and jails. Gandhi held that even in his predominantly non-violent
state there would be some anti-social elements and some sort of crime. He therefore felt the
necessity of retaining punishments. However,he believed in preventive and det- terent
punishments. Therefore he was in favour of confining the thieves and robbers so that they could
not commit the crime again, Gandhi argued that “Crime is a disease like any other malady and
is a product of the prevalent social system.” As the prevailing conditions were responsible for
the wrong-doer’s action the punishment should aim at reformation of the criminal. Gandhi was
firmly opposed to capital punishment and said” I can recall the punishment of detention, I can
made reparation to the man upon whom I inflict corporal punishment. But once a man is killed,
the punishment is beyond recall or reparation. God alone can take life, because He alone gives
it.”
Gandhi also favoured retention of the prisons and insisted on transforming them into
reformatories where education and training could be provided to the criminals, he wanted these
jails to be financially self-sufficient and suggested that “all industries that were not paying
should be stopped. All the jails should be turned into handspinning and hand-weaving
institutions...Prisoners ...should not be looked down upon. Warders should cease to be terrors of
the prisoners, but the jail officials should be their friends and instructors.” He wanted the state
to buy all the Khadi produced by the prisons at cost price. He insisted that the outlook of the jail
staff should be that of physicians and nurses in the hospital. They should try to help the
prisoners to regain their mental health and not harass them in any way'. In short, Gandhi stood
for the reform of the criminals and wanted to make the jails financially self- supporting.
Administration of Justice. Gandhi was not happy with the existing judicial
administration and favoured its transformation. He was highly critical of the role of the judges
^nd lawyers in the prevailing judicial system and asserted that they eneburaged quarrels rather
than repressing them. He also criticised it for its expansiveness. He favoured decentralisation of
judicial administration and insisted on the transfer of judicial administration and insisted on the
transfer of judicial work to the village Panchayats. He said “Administration of justice should be
cheapened...Parlies to civil suits must be compelled

Scanned with CamScanner

 10
3
in majority of cases to refer their disputes to arbitration, the decision of Panchayats to be
final except in cases of corruption or obvious misapplication of law. Multiplicity of
intermediate courts should be avoided. Case law should.be abolished, and the general
procedure should be avoided. Case law should be abolished, and mediate courts should be
avoided. Case law should be abolished, and the general procedure should be
simplified.’’Gandhi also insisted that the judges and lawyers should perform their judicial
duties without any payment.
Gandhi on Nationalism and Internationalism
Though Gandhi was a great naijonalist in the sense that he intensely loved his
country but the element of humanism was also present in him and he considered the
welfare of the world no less important and in this sense he was a true internationalist.
Gandhi himself said “My mission is not merely the brotherhood of Indian humanity, my
mission is not merely the freedom of India, through today it undoubtedly engrosses
practically the ' /hole of my life and the whole of my time. But through the realization of
the freedom of India, I hope to realize and carry on the mission of the brotherhood of
man”.
Gandhi did not find any contradiction between the absolutely independent states
and internationalism and asserted that an international league would become possible
when all the nations, big or small, composing it were fully independent and learnt to live
in friend ship with each other. Gandhi wanted to see India free and strong so that she may
offer herself as willing and pure sacrifice for the up liftment of the world. To quote
Gandhi “Just as the cult of patriotism teaches as today that the individual has to die for the
family, the family for the village and the village for the district. The district for the
province and the province for the country, even so a country has to be free in order that it
may die if necessary for the benefit of the world. My idea therefore of nationalism is that
our country may become free,that if need be, the whole country may die so that the
human race may live.”
It is quite evident from the ab overviews of (landhi that he was a true
internationalist. He attached grern importance to the service of his country but did nothing
to injure the interests of other countries. He found no contradiction between nationalism
and internationalisnfy and asserted that it was impossible for one to be an internationalist
without being a nationalist. He said “It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness,
selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil.” According
to a scholar who has made ' a special study of Gandhi, his“ideal does not, make any
contribution to the shaping of an institutional framework capable of keeping the peace
despite national rivalries. The value of the ideal consists in the inspiration it may provide
to any individual or nation willing to strive for it.1
rGandhi And Communism
. | an^
•tChniiiiffiK
i^ibk^pfetit^aThis view has been expressed because both Gandhism and Communism were
opposed to the existing sysjtem which was^based on expioitation ofTHFpoor~by”the~rich.
Both of them held that capital which was Trot" used for the i~welfarT’bf the people was an
evil and pleaded for HetEerdeal to fheYveaker sections of the society witfi’a' view to
1 (B.S. Sharma, Gandhi as a political Thinker, P.L18)

fcSj Scanned with CamScanner

 10
ensures o ci al e quality^ ~~ ' " 4 '~
This resemblance between Gandhism and Communism is only mperflous and sharp
differences exist between the two. While Gandhi attached (treat impotence to religion and
insisted on spritualisation of politics, Marx considered religion as an opium of the people and
insisted oii its coniplete discard. Again, Gandhi had firm taith~in 673d* and describedTiirfTas
the architect of human fate, Marx did not believe in any god and asserted that no heavenly
power guided the destiny of man. All the actions of man were motivated by materialistic
considerations. In other words while Gandhian political philosophy is based on spiritualism
Marxian philosophy is based on materialism. To ' jGandhi man was an end in itself, while to
Marx the individual was only a means to an end. Again Marx stood for large-scale
industrialisation while Gandhi favoured decentralization and cottage industries. He favored
large-scale industries only as an interim measure.
(^Gandhi attached more importance to the means and argued that if proper means
were adopted good ends would automatically be achieved. Marx attached more importance to
the ends and stood for . its attainment through just or unjust means} dimdhih'ated'the evil and
■ / tH&eyiliiider. B^Wted^thdoer and^

Again Gandhi attached great importance to non-violence. With him Ahinsa (non-
violence) was not"ohly"a“method of struggle but a creed. On the other hand Marx favoured
use of violence and argued that unless violence was used the evil institutions of state and
argued that unless violence was used the evil institutions of state and capitalism could not
be done away with. Hence it can be said that gandhism is not merely Communism shelved
of violence. Though there apjllars to be some formal identity between the two in reality
sharp deferences exist between the two with regard to the end as well aS the means to
achieve these ends.
Evaluation of Gandhi’s Political Thought
'■ Though Gandhi did not provide a systematic and well-worked out political philosophy
in the western sense and merely provided
empirical suggestions to deal with the various social, economic and political issues, yet his
contributions to the Indian political thought cannot be denied, lie tried to blend politics with
ethics and emphasised the value of truth and non-violence for the solution of the national
and international problems. In the words of Dr. Radha Krishan Gandhi was “The immortal
symbol of love and understanding in a world wild with hatred and torn by
misunderstanding”.
On the other hand the critics have bitterly condemned Gandhi for his efforts to
combine politics with ethics. For example C.E.M. Joad says "Gandhi in one-'third
politician,one-third saint"an J one third hum-bug."; GandhTlias been criticised his" soanng
idealism and utopianism, specially with regard to his concept of non- violence in the existing
context. Doubts have also been expressed about the effectiveness of non-cooperation as a
weapon to bring about a change in the heart of the opponent and there is every possibility of
such a movement being suppressed with an iron hand by the oppressor.
Gandhi’s concept of a stateless and classless society also seems quite impracticable.
Gandhi himself realized this fact and felt contended with a non-violent democratic state
believing in socialism and decentralisation. Similarly Gandhi’s opposition to the modern in-
dustries and preference for the cottage industries was a retrograde step. The establishment of
cottage industries to supplement the income of the rural areas may be good, but to treat as
substitutes for modern industries is bound to prove suicidal for the country’s economic
progress.

l£Sl Scanned with CamScanner

 10
Gandhi’s concept of primacy of means 5 over ends is also not in keeping with the
modern trend. As D.E. Smith has observed “the general erosion of absolutes in the thinking
and behaviour of modern man and the very urgency of the demand for radical change make
increasingly unlikely the acceptance of Gandhi’s central point that means are more important
ends.
Despite the above shortcomings and criticism of Gandhi’s ideas, it cannot be denied
that his ideals are worthy of emulation and can greatly contribute to the saving of the
civilization from its complete eclipse. Boyd Orr has rightly observed “It is possible that these
great principles, these wonderful ideals could be applied on a world-wide scale ? I think , the
time has come when they can be applied, they must be applied, and they will be applied
because people realized that there is 'no hope with modern science and abnormal powers
which the scientists have let loose for destruction. If science be applied to violence to a
global war it will lead to the destruction of civilization.” Lord Halifax also pays great tribute
to Gandhi and says “1 suppose there could be few men in all history who by their own
personal character and example have been able deeply to influence the thought of their
generation”. •
♦***

l£Sl Scanned with CamScanner

 rPponeW
satyagraha afid its participants ai/i. lustra tive of hi^endeavour to
organisers protesbwitlun a/trict format that deafly stipulates the duties
and responsibilities of an individual sah/agrahi.
not only did he creativeRGdefine the nature of the strbggte/for freedom,
he also provided ^yell-designed structure for pofatical nfobilisation. In
the narrow sent^e, scityagruha was strictly azmethod zof political
struggle Zuawn on mbral reasoning; in the wider sense, this was an
extrernely humane and creative way ofpaling with disagreements and
conflicts involving the ruler and/me ruled, and also the sodo-
^conomically disprivilegbd and thejrbete noire. What is most distinct in
Gandhi's conceptualisation was the importance of rational discussion and
persuasionXarfd also their obvious limitation in radically altering the
existmg\moral relationships between individuals in different socio-
economic locations. Hence, satyagraha was to be a continuous pjdcess
seeking to transform the individuals by appreciating tht^humane
morakvalues that remained captive due to colonialism and various social
prejudices, and justified in the name of religion.

CONCEPTUALISING SWARAJ

As an idea and a strategy, swaraj gained remarkably in the context of the

nationalist articulation of the freedom struggle and the growing

Scanned with CamScanner

 52 Modern Indian Political Thought
democratisation of the political processes that already brought in hitherto sodo-
politically marginal sections of society. So, swaraj was a great leveller in the sense that
it helped mobilise people despite obvious socio-economic and cultural differences. This
is what lay at the success of swaraj as a political strategy. Underlining its role in a highly
divided society like India, swaraj was defined in the following ways: (a) national
independence; (&) political freedom of the individual; (c) economic freedom of the
individual; and (d) spiritual freedom of the individual or self rule. Although these four
definitions are about four different characteristics of swaraj, they are nonetheless
complementary to each other. Of these, the first three are negative in character while the
fourth one is positive in its connotation. Swaraj as 'national independence', individual
'political' and 'economic' freedom involves discontinuity of alien rule, absence of
exploitation by individuals and poverty, respectively. Spiritual freedom is positive in
character in the sense that it is a state of being which everyone aspires to actualise once
the first three conditions are met. In other words, there is an implicit assumption that self
rule is conditional on the absence of the clearly defined negative factors that stood in the
way of realising swaraj in its undiluted moral sense. Even in his conceptualisation,
Gandhi preferred the term swaraj to its English translation, presumably because of the
difficulty in getting the exact synonym in another language. 5 While elaborating on
swaraj, the Mahatma linked it with swadeshi in which his theory of swaraj was
articulated. In other words, if swaraj was a foundational theory of Gandhi's social and
political thought, swadeshi was the empirical demonstration of those relevant social,
economic and political steps for a society, different from what existed.
As evident, swaraj was not merely political liberation; it broadly meant human
emancipation as well. Although the Moderates were pioneers in conceptualising the idea
in its probably most restricted sense, swaraj was most creatively devised by the Mahatma
who never restricted its meaning to mere political freedom from alien rule. In his words,
"mere withdrawal of the English is not independence. It means the consciousness in the
average villager that he is the maker of his own destiny, [that] he is his own legislator
through his own representatives" (Gandhi 1975d: 469).
Political freedom is the second important characteristic of swaraj. For the Moderates,
political freedom meant autonomy within

Scanned with CamScanner

 Mahatma Gandhi 53

lire overall control of the British administration. Even the most militant of the moderates like
Surendranath Banerji, always supported constitutional means to secure political rights for
Indians ■within the constitutional framework of British India. Unlike the Moderates, the
Extremists did not care much about the methods and insisted on complete independence, which
meant a complete withdrawal of the British government from India. Although both these
positions were qualitatively different, swaraj was identified simply by its narrow connotation of
political freedom, glossing over its wider dimension that Gandhi always highlighted. While the
pre-Gandhian nationalists insisted on political freedom which was possible only after the
withdrawal of the British rule, for Gandhi, freedom from various kinds of atrocities, justified in
the name of primordial social values was as important as freedom from colonialism.
Economic freedom of the individual is the third dimension of swaraj.
Given the inherent exploitative nature of colonialism, poverty of the
colonised is inevitable. For the Moderates, including Gokhale and Naoroji,
with the guarantee of constitutional autonomy to India, poverty was likely
to disappear because Britain, the emerging industrial power, was expected
to develop India's productive forces through the introduction of modem
science and technology and capitalist economic organisation. Soon they
were disillusioned as India's economic development did not match with
what they had expected of the British rule. Instead, Indians were
languishing in poverty despite 'a free flow of foreign capital' in India. The
essence of nineteenth century colonialism, the Moderate leaders therefore
argued, 'lay in the transformation of India into a supplier of food stuff and
raw materials to the metropolis, a market for the metropolitan
manufacturers and a field for fixe investment of British capital' (Chandra et
al. 1988: 92).
For Gandhi, India's economic future lay in charkha (spinning wheel)
and khadi (homespun cotton textile). 'If India's villages are to live and
prosper, the charkha must become univen al/6 Rural civilisation, argued
Gandhi, 'is impossible without the charkha and all it implies, i.e., revival
of village crafts.'7 Similarly,
[Khadi] is the only true economic proposition in terms of the millions of villagers until such
time, if ever, when a better system of supplying work and adequate wages for every able-
bodied person above the
,o . .

II

I?.
EJL Modern Indian Political Thought_________________________________
u 1 age of sixteen, male or female, is found for his field, cottage or even factory in every
village of India. (Gandhi 1936a, in 1975f: 77-78) Since inechfinisation was 'an evil when there
are more hands than required for tlie work, as is the case in India, [he recommended] that the
way to take work to the villagers is not through mechanisation but it lied through revival of the
£s| Scanned with CamScanner
 industries they have hitherto followed' (Gandhi 1934, in 1975g: 356). He, therefore, suggested
that

... an intelligent plan will find the cottage method fit into the scheme for our country. Any
planning in our country that ignores the absorption of . labour wealth will be misplaced....
[T]he centralised method of production, whatever may be its capacity to produce, is
incapable of finding employment for as large a number of persons as we have to provide for.
Therefore, it stands condemned in this country. (Gandhi 1939, in 1975e: 74)
-$
Gandhi was thoroughly convinced that industrialisation as it manifested in the West was
simply devastating for India. His alternative revolves around his concern for providing
profitable employment to all those who are capable. Not only does industrialism undermine the
foundation of India's village economy, .it 'will also lead to passive or active exploitation of the
villagers as the problems of competition and marketing come in' (Gandhi 1936b, in 1975f:
•. 241).8 Critical of Jawaharlal Nehru's passion for industrialisation as th : most viable way of
instantly improving India's economy, he reiterated his position with characteristic firmness by
saying that
• 'no amount of socialisation can eradicate ... the evils, inherent in industrialism' (Gandhi
1940b, in 1975h: 29-30). His target was a particular type of mindset, seduced by the glitter of
industrialism, defending at any cost industrialisation of the country on a mass scale. His
support for traditional crafts was.not based on conservative reasoning, but on solid economic
grounds in the sense that by way of critiquing the Western civilisation, he had articulated an
alternative model of economic development that was suited to the Indian reality.
Fourth, self rule is probably a unique dimension of swaraj indicating its qualitative
difference with political freedom. As a concept, it denotes a process of removing the internal
obstacles to freedom. Unlike tire first three characteristics where swaraj is conceptualised in a
negative way, self rule as an important ingredient clearly indicates the importance of moral
values which are relative to society. One may argue that removal of colonial rule would
automatically guarantee economic and political freedom. This is hardly applicable to the
fourth dimension of swaraj, namely, self rule, presumably because it is 'a self-achieved state
of affairs' rather than something 'granted' by others.
Gandhian idea of swaraj as self rule seems to be based on the philosophical notion of advaita
which is 'etymologically the kingdom or order or . dispensation of "sva", self, myself [or] the
truth that you and I are not other than one another' (Ramchandra Gandhi 1984: 461). So, the
Gandhian struggle for swaraj and, indeed, the Indian struggle for swaraj under the leadership of
thinkers and revolutionaries rooted in Indian metaphysics and spirituality such as Tilak and
Aurobindo was 'always implicitly an advaitian struggle, a struggle for the kingdom of self or
autonomy and identity as opposed to the delusion and chaos and dishonour, heteronomy and
divisiveness' (ibid.). The British rule or modem industrial civilisation was simply unacceptable
because it was a symbol of power of illusion of not-self, otherness, to be precise, maya, hindering
the effort 'to see God face to face in the truth of self-realisation' (ibid.: 462).
Characterising swaraj in its widest possible connotations and not merely self determination
in politics, Gandhi also sought to articulate swaraj in ideas. Political domination over man by
man is felt in the most tangible form in the political sphere and can easily be replaced. Political
subjection primarily means restraint on the outer life of a people, but the subtler domination
exercised in the sphere of ideas by one culture over another, a domination all the more serious in

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

the consequence, continues to remain relevant even after the overthrow of a political regime. So,
to attain self rule in its purest sense involves a challenge to cultural subjection, perpetrated by
those who are colonised, as well. Gandhi's definition of swaraj as a self-transformative device is
also an attempt to thwart this well-designed colonial endeavour of cultural subjection that was
likely to survive even after the conclusion of tire alien, rule due probably to the uncritical
acceptance of colonial modernity. Cultural subjection is different from assimilation in the sense
that it leads to 'a creative process of intercommunication between

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 56 Modern Inti^w-Pblkical Thought
separate cultures without blindly superseding one's traditional cast of ideas and sentiments'
(Bhattacharya 1984:385-86). So, swaraj, if understood in its narrow conceptualisation, is reduced
to a mere political programme ignoring its wider implications, whereby the very foundation of
cultural subjection is challenged.
Gandhi was also aware that inner freedom cannot be realised without a conducive socio-
political environment. Hence, there was need for the removal of British rule that would ensure
both political and economic freedom. In other words, while a conducive environment was basic
to freedom, it needed to be created and maintained by appropriate political and economic
activities. The ability to act well in the socio-economic and political arena is the test of the new
meaning of self rule [that] prepares one to lead the life of an active citizen. That is why in
[Gandhi's] view, spiritual freedom cannot remain an asocial [neither] and apolitical nor an
atemporal condition' (Parel 2000: 17). Swaraj in Gandhian conceptualisation invariably
translates into, argues Fred Dallmayr (2000: 111), 'the self rule of a larger community, that is,
into a synonym for national democratic self government or home rule.' As an empirical construct
relevant to a political community, swaraj is also closely linked with the idea of swadeshi and the
cultivation of indigenous (material and spiritual) resources of development The swaraj-based
polity comprised small, cultured, well-organised, thoroughly regenerated and self-governing
village communities. They would administer justice, maintain order and take important
decisions, and would thus not merely be administrative but also powerful economic and political
units. In view of its given texture, they would have, argues Bhikhu Parekh (1997: 81) while
interpreting Gandhi's swaraj-based polity, 'given a strong sense of solidarity, provided a sense of
community, and acted as nurseries of civil virtue.'

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Gandhi was not a theorist but he had theories. His comments on

contemporary social, economic and political issues were couched in liberal
terms whereby individuals were privileged over the collectivity. ,-
Rejecting the collectivist theory of both state and society, Gandhi >?
argued that only an individual could exercise conscience and,
therefore, morality. His critique of modernity drew on this assumption. By
challenging the inevitability and in ractability ° modernity, he upheld the idea that 'this mindless i
aodemity' can be non-violently resisted. He tempered his criticism by contextualising modernity
'within a cosmological framework that guards individual autonomy' (Tarchek 2000: 231). The
Gandhian formulation thus underlined the inescapably unique swabhava (instinct behaviour) and
different ways in which individuals defined and led the good life. Each individual had a distinct
identity and was rooted in a specific cultural tradition. Hence, not only was the past important in
his construction, he also defended'the local traditions where individuals lived and worked with
purpose and dignity. Unlike the Enlightenment conceptions of individualism, which separate
individuals from their tradition and vice versa, Gandhi provided a theory of autonomy of
individuals, designed to empower individuals within their traditions and community. By
homogenising individuals and ignoring their diversity, western rationalism, defined as part of
modernity, tended to gloss over the diverse nature of human beings due to their sock -economic
and cultural roots. Rationalism was inherently hierarchical and missionary, and 'had a deep
imperialist orientation' (Parekh 1997:68) that was articulated in South Africa and India where the
rulers justified their atrocious rule in the name of rationality. What was creative in his response
[CS| Scanned with CamScanner
 Mahatma Gandhi
was the idea tfrnt although western modernity was unavoidable in a colonial context, it needed to
be reinvented by taking into account the specificities of the immediate context of the Indian
reality. Ih this sense, Gandhi sought to fill in some gaps in our conceptualisation of modernity. He.
did so by continually applying ethical standards to contemporary practices and institutions. For
him, the modem tendency to define and judge human beings in terms of economic criteria 'reduces
[them] to means, and with such an outlook, talk about their dignity is futile' (Tarchek 2000). The
most striking feature of Gandhism was a seriously argued case against modernity that was
believed to have unleashed processes embodying progress, reason and liberation. While being
critical of this assumption appreciating modernity without qualification, Gandhi also curved a
space for alternative practices, which were distinctly local or relevant to specific contexts that
could never be ignored without costly consequences. For instance, his idea of panchayati raj
remained a distant dream till very recently, but his arguments for people's participation in
i: ’

170 || Indian Political Thought

other. It d )es not mean absence of differences of opinion, but being ready to live
peacefully in spite of dur differences. Gandhi asserted that differences of opinion should
never mean hostility. He particularly commended the principle of mutual toleration. As he
observed :
The golden rule of conduct...is mutual toleration, seeing that we will never all think
alike and we shall see Truth in fragment and from different angles of vision. Conscience
is not the same thing for all. Whilst, therefore, it is a good guide for individual conduct,
imposition of that conduct upon all will be an insufferable interference with
everybody’s freedom of conscience
(Selections from Gandhi by Nirmal Kumar Bose; 1948).
Ideally, coexistence implies that our existence should in no way come in the-~wy i way
of others. That is precisely the spirit behind non-violence. As Gandhi tried to J;] elucidate:
• • ,. '
Perfect non-violence is impossible so long as we exist physically, for we would want
some space at least to occupy. Perfect non-violence whilst you are inhabiting the body
is only a theory like Euclid’s point or straight line, but we - have to endeavour every
moment of our lives (ibid).
Ai ■ . '
Non-violence is not a matter of outward behaviour only. If our heart is not pure and dur
mind is not devoted to non-violence, we cannot follow the principle r in the real sense of the
term. Non-violence gives us courage to fight against social C injustice wherever we find it.
Gandhi believed that no man could be actively non- ? violent unless he would rise against
social injustice no matter where it occurred. Non-violence should not only be the part of our
behaviour but the part of our character. As Gandhi asserted: • '
. Non-violence to be a potent force must begin with the mind. Non-violence of th v mere
body without the cooperation of the mind is non-violence of the weal or the cowardly,
and has therefore no potency. If we bear malice and - hatred in our bosoms and pretend
not to retaliate, it must recoil upon us and /. £ lead to our destruction. For abstention
from mere bodily violence not to be ; ? injurious, it is at least necessary not to entertain
hatred if we cannot generate active love (ibidf
If a man has no power or no courage to retaliate, and still pretends to be non- ' r violent,
it would be a fake non-violence. Genuine non-violence implies deliberate abstension from retaliation.
As Gandhi pointed out: ■■
NonAiolence presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious, deliberate restraint put
upon one’s desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive,
effeminate and helpless submission. Forgiveness is higher still. Vengeance too is
Scanned with CamScanner
 Mahatma Gandhi
weakness. The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A
man who fears no one on earth would consider it troublesome even to summon up anger
against one who is vainly trying to iO injure him (ibid.).
In Gandhi’s view, non-violence and cowardice go ill together. A person who?® carries
arms for his defence does so out of fear, if not out of cowardice. True non-^$$

•I -1

Scanned with CamScanner

 Mahatma Gancb 171
violence is impossible without having unadulterated fearlessness. There is hope for a violent man to
be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. Non- = violence taught a person to be brave, and not
to escape from his duty. Gandhi made it quite clear:
It was manly enough to defend one’s property, honour or religion at the point of the sword. It was
manlier and nobler to defend them without seeking to injure the wrong-doer. But it was unmanly,
unnatural and dishonourable to forsake the post of duty and, in order to save one’s skin, to leave
property, honour or religion to the mercy of the wrong-doer. I could see my way of delivering
Ahimsa to those who knew how to die, not to those who were afraid of death (ibid).
L Gandhian principle of non-violence did not admit of running away from danger
and leaving dear ones unprotected* Between violence and cowardly flight, he would prefer violence
to cowardice. Preaching non-violence to a coward was like asking a blind man to enjoy beautiful
scenes. There was no difficulty in demonstrating the superiority of non-violence to those who were
trained in the school of violence. On the other hand, non-violence could not be taught to a person who
fears to die and has no power of resistance.
Finally, as a principle of coexistence, non-violence necessitates abstension from exploitation in
any form. How can a person who respects others, who dares even to love his enemy, think of exploiting others
to serve his self-interest? Gandhian principle of non-violence exhorts us not only to live peaceably with other
human beings, but also with the nature. Non-violence toward the nature is consistent with the Gandhian
principle of minimization of our physical wants. When we abstain from damaging the nature, this will enable
the nature to satisfy minimum needs of i larger human population and thereby further strengthen the spirit of
coexistence.

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 -« •* —»-• • •••

CONCEPT OF SATYAGRAHA

Satyagraha refers to the Gandhian technique of fighting against injustice. This non-
violent technique of protest was introduced by Gandhi during his sojourn in South
Africa (1893-1914) in the course of fighting against injustice perpetrated by the then
Government of South Africa on the resident Indians and other non-white people. In
Hind Swaraj (1910), Gandhi defined Satyagraha as “a method of securing rights by
personal suffering : it is the reverse ofiresistance by arms. When I refuse to do a thing
that is repugnant to my conscience, I use soul force. It involves sacrifice of self.” In
short, Gandhi conceived Satyagraha as the method of using ‘soul force* against ‘brute
force’ through ‘self-suffering’ that would secure ‘change of heart’ of the opponent who
would then be forced to depart from the path of injustice.
After his return to India (1914) when Gandhi assumed leadership of Indian national
movement, he applied the technique of Satyagraha for fighting against injustice on
many fronts. Bhikhu Parekh (Gandhi ; 1997) has identified the following three areas in
which Gandhi tried to use ‘soul-force’ or ‘truth-force’ (that . is Satyagraha) against
various forms of brute force : (a) Racial discrimination in 7 South Africa; (b) British
rule in India; and (c) Ugly social practices prevailing in Indian society (such as
untouchability, communal prejudices and hatred, etc.). From a close study of the history
of nations, Gandhi was convinced that fighting evil with evil would multiply evil. In
other words, fighting violence with violence would

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 Mahatma Gandhi
multiply violence. Fire cannot be extinguished with fire; it can be extinguished only with water.
So violence can be effectively contained with non-vi dence; and the brute force of evil can be
contained only by an effective use of soul-xorce or truth-force. Hence Satyagraha would prove an
effective instrument of fighting against injustice' in any form. Joan Bondurant {Conquest of
Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict; 1965) has significantly observed that Gandhi
says ‘yes’ to fighting but an emphatic ‘no’ to violence.
The term 'Satyagraha' was formed by joining two Sanskrit words 'Satya' (the truth) and
'Agraha' (insistence on or adherence to). So literally "Satyagraha' means insistence on truth or
adherence to truth. This principle could be applied at individual as well as political level. At
individual level, it would lead to moral uplift of the individual which would be synonymous with
the f rst sense of Swaraj (that is the self-rule gained through the control of passions like lust,
anger, greed, delusion and arrogance, etc.). But in the context of Gandhian philosophy, meaning
of Satyagraha is restricted to the use of this principle at political level, with a wider scope of its
application. In other words, Satyagraha may be used not only to attain Swaraj in the second sense
of the term (that is the national independence or independence from foreign rule), but for fighting
against any form of injustice whether it is perpetrated by a tyrannical ruler or by tyrannical social
practices.
Gandhi thought that while fighting for a just cause, Satyagrahi (one who resorts • to
Satyagraha) believes that self-suffering is superior to making others suffer; self- sacrifice is better
than others’ sacrifice. This would have a psychological effect on the wrong-doer and make him
realize his fault He would then be inclined to enter into a dialogue with'the Satyagrahi in order to
arrive at an amicable solution. Joan Bondurant {Conquest of Violence : The Gandhian Philosophy
of Conflict; 1965) distinguished Gandhi’s Satyagraha with its opposite, Duragraha. Duragraha
implies stubborn resistance to the opponent’s policy or actions prejudged to be ipso facto wrong.
The Duragrahi (one who resorts to Duragraha) regards truth, justice, righteousness to be his
monopoly and does not allow the possibility that his opponent could also be right The opponent is
regarded an embodiment of evil; he is blackmailed and humiliated. He is not even allowed to
explain his viewpoint Duragrahi forgets the distinction between the wrong and the wi mg-doer,
and tries to destroy his opponent physically in order to destroy his misdeed. The opponent is
forced to accept defeat and concede to the demands of the Duragrahi. On the contrary,
Satyagrahi enables his opponent to put forward his point of view. The opponent is allowed to
prove himself to be right. Shtyagraha takes the form of a fight between the equals who a^e given
a fair chalce to understand each other’s view and to discover the truth which would be readily
accepted by both the parties. Once they reach agreement, enemy ceases to be an enemy. He
becomes a friend and a co-worker in the pursuit of truth. Satyagrahi believes in the principles:
“Let and let live.” .
Satyagraha implies a para-legal method of registering a peaceful protest against the laws, the
customs and the practices which one finds contrary to his conscience. Like Count Leo Tolstoy
(1828-1910), Gandhi believed in arousing the conscience of the evil-doer; so he endorsed this
motto : “Hate the sin, and not the sinner.

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 178 ; Indian Political Thought
Satyagrahi believes in entering into a dialogue with his opponent for arriving at the mutually
acceptable solution. It also has a salutary effect on the onlookers who learn to appreciate the
merits ahd demerits of the respective'claims of the conflicting parties. They also contribute to
creating the climate of peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The merit of Gandhian method of Satyagraha lies in introducing a new method of conflict-
resolution which was found worth trying in many parts of the world. We may not accept it as the
sole method of fighting against injustice, as Gandhi claimed, but it undoubtedly offers an
important alternative to die hitherto known methods. It showed the way to oppressed people to
pool their moral strength for fighting against a mighty opponent. The American civil rights
movement of 1950s and 1960s under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-68) was
particularly inspired by the Gandhian technique of Satyagraha. This movement sought to win
equal rights for the black Americans who were left with no other weapon to fight against injustice
and discrimination. Martin Luther King Jr. found that Gandhi’s gospel of love showed the way of
applying the teachings of Christ in the sphere of political struggle. As he put it: “Christ furnished
the spirit and motivation (for non-violent resistance), while Gandhi furnished the method.”

CS Scanned with CamScanner

 17
9

MEANING OF M/WOLMW
Sarvodaya refers to the goal of social reconstruction in Gandhian thought. The term
'Sarvodaya' may be rendered as ‘uplift of all’, ‘rise of all’ or ‘awakening of all’. All the
meanings of this term closely correspond to each other. In a society where only the few are
endowed with knowledge, power, prestige and wealth, and a very large numbers are
languishing, Sarvodaya wants them to rise above. But since it believes in uplift of all, it does
not envisage a conflict between the high and the low, between the rich and the poor. As a
votary of purity of means as well as end, Gandhi was convinced that violent means cannot be
used to achieve a non-violent end.
The idea behind Sarvodaya was inspired by John Ruskin’s Unto This Last (1860). Gandhi
came across this work in the midst of his passive resistance movement against the racist
regime of South Africa. This contained a message of uplift of the last man or the most
neglected lot. Gandhi was so impressed by this work that he published its summary in his
Gujarati articles under the title of Sarvodaya. Ruskin’s teachings are very close to Gandhian
philosophy. Ruskin rejected the cult of machinery and consumerism as well as the idea of
economic man and mercantile economy. Instead, he advocated simple technology, manual
labour, communal enterprise and measurement of value in terms of quality of life. Gandhi
relied on these teachings to sharpen his own thinking on various issues of social reform.
The ideal of Sarvodaya is concerned with ‘welfare of all’, yet is implies special concern
with the welfare of the down-trodden or ‘the most disadvantaged’. This principle should be
followed in individual action as well as in making public decisions. This is evident from
Gandhi’s famous talisman:
p I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes
J too much with you, apply the following test:
Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen and ask
yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain
anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other
words, will it lead to Swaraj for hungry and spiritually starving millions?
' Then you will find your doubts and your self melting away.
Literally, Sarvodaya aims at the good of one and all, of the high and the low, of ; the
strong and the weak, of the brilliant as well as the dull. A question is sometimes
■ raised that concern with uplift of the low, the weak and the dull is understandable, but why
shall we show equal concern with the uplift of the high, the strong and the
•• brilliant? This point was adequately clarified by Vinoba Bhave (1895-1982), an ; outstanding
Gandhian, in Harijan (1948). Vinoba maintained that in this unhappy ■- world of ours everyone
needs to be uplifted, because everyone of us is ®
■ rich are fallen long since, and the poor have never risen at all. The result is that both

Icsl Scanned with CamScanner

 180 -----------Indian Political Thought

need to be uplifted. The rich are fallen morally and spiritually; their wealth rests upon
exploitation of others, and therefore upon untruth and violence. By voluntarily %
surrendering their superfluous wealth they will rise spiritually; In this way Sarvodaya is
intended to uplift the poor materially and to uplift the rich spiritually. In this sense,
philosophy of Sarvodaya is different from other ideologies which largely focus on material
welfare, and that too of a specified section of population like ‘greatest happiness of the
greatest number’, ‘emancipation of the working class’, etc.

SARVODAYA AND UTILITARIANISM

Gandhian concept of Sarvodaya rejects the utilitarian doctrine of the ‘greatest good v jg of
the greatest number’ in favour of the ‘greatest good all’. As Gandhi asserted:
I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. It - means
in its nakedness that in order to achieve the supposed good of 51 per • cent the interest
of 49 per cent may be, or rather, should be sacrificed. It is a J heartless doctrine and
has done hann to humanity. The only real, dignified,||||| human doctrine is the greatest
good of all, and this can only be achieved by.^^ uttermost self-sacrifice (Cited in The
Diary of Mahadev Desai', 1953). .;
The theory of utilitarianism, as founded by English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832), was based on the calculation of pleasure and pain to be derived from^^g
contending policy proposals. It defined ‘good’ or ‘happiness’ as the balance of pleasure
over pain. Any proposal that would ensure the greatest good or the greatest*JjSg happiness
of the greatest number in this sense would be given preference over all;7^7- other
proposals. Here the calculation of‘good’ was confined to the consideration of physical
pleasure and pain; there was no scope of moral or spiritual consideration in this context.
John Stuart Mill (1806-73), outstanding English utilitarian, sought to point out qualitative
differences between different types of pleasures. Mii^M£; maintained that man does not
run after physical pleasures only, but the development? of his moral, intellectual and
artistic faculties is also necessary. The pleasure enjoyed 7^- by man’s higher faculties is
always superior to the mere sensuous pleasure.
In any case, utilitarian philosophy could not rise above the concept of material. •
welfare of human beings. It did not enter the sphere of spiritual welfare of those who are
materially well off. On the other hand, the principle of Sarvodaya seeks^| j to secure the
spiritual as well as material welfare of humanity. •I
SMVOMM AND SOCIALISM
Socialism stands for an ideology which seeks to replace capitalism by placing the major
means of production under social ownership and control. Its chief goal is'5^^ to secure
emancipation of the working classes from capitalist exploitation. It is.7^1 primarily
concerned with material welfare of people. Of the two major varieties of socialism,
Marxism seeks to achieve its goal through class struggle, i.e., the struggle- of the
working class against the capitalist class, resulting in violent, revolutionary?®!
overthrow of capitalist system. The second variety, viz. democratic socialism seeks?®! to
achieve its goal by mobilizing public opinion in its favour, winning electora^HB majority
and then implementing socialist policy through democratic means. -^7^1

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 Mahatma Gandhi J8]
Sarvodaya is different from socialism in many respects. In the first place, Sarvodaya is
not concerned merely with material welfare; it embraces spiritual welfare as well. Secondly,
it does not seek to replace capitalism forthwith by placing all major means of production
under social ownership and control. It neither supports a violent revolution nor democratic
propaganda to achieve its goal. Instead, it relies on moral transformation by seeking ‘change
of heart’ of the existing land-owners and capitalists so that they would treat themselves as
trustees of the property bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe, and use it for
the service of humanity.
In the third place, Sarvodaya does not subscribe to the theory of class conflict.. It
shows the goal where interests of all classes would converge, and seeks class cooperation’
towards the achievement of that goal. Its natural corollary is that it does not profess
emancipation of the working class only. It insists on spiritual emancipation of the rich and
material emancipation of the poo ■ in order to restore moral balance in society. Finally,
whereas socialism seeks to m. ximize production by making labour compulsory for everyone
stepping up technological development, Sarvodaya offers a different prescription.
Sarvodaya prescribes bread labour1 for everyone to overcome the problem of scarcity.
Bread labour implies that everybody will have to do physical labour toward production for
society, at least to compensate for the bread that he consumes. In this context, ‘bread’ is
symbolic of the articles of physical consumption. Adoption of this principle will not only
increase social production but also establish ‘dignity of labour’. As regards the development
of technology, Sarvodaya recommends the use of simple technology so as to create work for
the teeming millions. Instead of ‘mass production’ by the machines, Sarvodaya wants
‘production by the masses*. . ;
Ultimate goal of socialism is expressed in the formula: ‘From each according r to his
ability, to each according to his need. ’ Sarvodaya seeks to modify this rule. It does recommend
universalization of labour. But it professes minimization of needs so that everybody's needs could
be easily satisfied. Socialism does not seek to curb the levels of consumption, in the hope that
abundance of goods and services can be created in society. On the contrary, Sarvodaya holds that
human desires can never be finally satisfied; control of one’s desires and the spirit of contentment
are the only solution to the problem of satisfaction of human needs.

SARVODAYA AND DEMOCRACY

In common parlance, democracy in practice means the rule of majority. On the other hand,
the spirit of Sarvddaya tends to pay equal importance to everyone in society. This calls for
redefining the essence of democracy. Writing in Young India (1932). Gandhi observed;
The rule of majority has a narrow application, one should yield to majority in matters of
detail. But it is slavery to be amenable to the majority, no matter what its decisions are.
Democracy is not a state jp which people act like sheep. Under democracy, individual
liberty of opinion Ind action is jealous jy guarded. I, therefore, believe that the minority
has a perfect right to act differently from the majority. ‘
Gandhi insisted that a democratic state should act strictly according to public
i 1824 Indian Political Thought
opinion. This is essential for maintaining democratic discipline. Democracy disciplined and
enlightened is the finest thing in the world. On the contrary, if a democracy is prejudiced,
ignorant and superstitious, it will land itself in chaos and will be on its way to self-
destruction. A decadent democracy would tend to remove all opposition through the
suppression or extermination of the antagonists. Individual freedom, which is the crux of
democracy, can be maintained only through unadulterated non-violence. Tolerance is the key

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 to democratic discipline. As Gandhi
? i ■ A wrote earlier in Young India (1921) :
If we want to cultivate true spirit of democracy, we cannot offord to be intolerant t
Intolerance betrays want of faith in one’s cause.
Apart from considering the procedural aspect of democracy, Gandhi also dwelled on the
substantive aspect of democracy in consonance with his philosophy of Sarvodaya. Here
again he highlights the importance of non-violence. As he wrote ■ Tr~ in Harijan (1940):
'
.’ My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same
. opportunity as the strongest That can never happen except through non-violence.
; No country in the world today shows anything but patronizing regard for the
» ' weak.
S - j
iI This also distinguishes Sarvodaya from the welfare state. Broadly speaking, ■
; welfare state signifies a democratic state which creates the network of common social
services as well as special relief for the poor by taxation of the rich. It is characterized
?' by what Gandhi has termed ‘patronizing regard for the weak*. Sarvodaya, on the ';
;! othejjhand, recognizes equal dignity ofthe poor as well as the rich. Instead of heavy
taxauon of the rich against their wishes, Sarvodaya seeks to persuade them to offer their
surplus wealth willingly and voluntarily for the service of humanity.
'■ ! | CONCLUSION .>!
Commitment to the common good is the essence of Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi
i saw India’s independence as an opportunity ‘to wipe every tear from every eye’.
He wished to transform the destiny of India at a critical juncture through moral regeneration.
It was a time when India was groaning under an oppressive foreign
i rule, abject poverty, vast social and economic inequalities. Further it was also in the
grip of communal tension and hatred. Gandhi preached the gospel of spiritualism,
; Ahimsa (non-violence), renunciation (non-possession), dignity of labour and moral
• courage, etc. for the uplift of man as well as society. His doctrine of trusteeship,
his vision of a classless society and his concept of Sarvodaya (uplift of all) hold the key to
his idea of the common good.

Scanned with CamScanner

 Mahatma Gan 183

DOCTRINE OF TRUSTEESHIP

Broadly speaking, Gandhi believed in simple living at the level of production as well as consumption. He gave
primacy to simple technology over heavy industries. Simple technology had the capacity of mass employment,
whereas advanced technology would create vast unemployment, particularly in a country like India, and would
promote consumerism with all its ill effects. Gandhi preferred ‘production by the masses’ to ‘mass production’
by heavy machinery. However, he realized that it was not feasible to switch over to the new system abruptly.
Wider use of simple technology could be kept in mind in the course of future expansion. The existing
system of production may be allowed to continue with necessary changes in the attitude of the owners of means
of production. For the transformation of their attitude Gandhi enunciated his doctrine of trusteeship.
Gandhian doctrine of trusteeship is addressed to the conscience of the rich and resourceful members of
society, particularly landlords and capitalists. It urges them not to consider themselves as the sole proprietors of
their possessions, but only ‘trustees’ of a gift bestowed upon them by God for the service of humanity. This
view is in consonance with the basic philosophy of Gandhi. His principle of non-possession (aparigrahd)
implies that worldly possessions make you morally deprave. Hence one should not take more than his
immediate needs. To maintain one’s moral strength, material things should be used with a spirit of renunciation.
Gandhian principle of non-stealing (asteya) implies that amassing of wealth, or even the possession of
more than one’s immediate needs amounts to theft because I it is meant to fulfil others’ needs. Any attempt to
satisfy one’s greed means theft.
It reminds us of nineteenth-century French philosopher, P.J. Proudhon’s famous dictum : “Property is theft.”
However, Gandhi does riot favour overthrowing the existing economic system. This system has become
oppressive because of the moral decline. If the organizers of agriculture and industry could be persuaded to act
as public servants, they will win wide public respect instead of the existing hatred. The feeling of class conflict
will be replaced by the sentiment of class cooperation. Gandhi wants ‘change of heart’ of the rich and
resourceful persons to enable the society to have full benefit of their talents and efforts without suffering
injustice caused by the exploitation of the poor by the rich. As Gandhi wrote in Amrita Bazar Patrika (1934):
What is needed is not the extinction of landlords and capitalists, but a transformation of the existing
relationship between them and the masses into something healthier and purer.
Gandhi realized that this was by no means an easy task. As he himself conceded in The Modem Review
(1935)':
You may say that trusteeship is a legal fiction. But if people meditate over it constantly and try to act up
to it, then life on earth would be governed far

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 184 Indian Political Thought

more by love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition of a point, and is
equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be able to go further in realizing a state of equality on earth
than ■ by any other method. f. ‘
Moral regeneration at any stage is really difficult. We need a constant inspiration j from a Gautam Buddha,
Jesus Christ, or Mahatma Gandhi to follow this path. Every step in this direction will gives us more enlightenment,
peace of mind and genuine happiness.
Critics point out that the vision of ‘change of heart* of the rich is a fascinating idea, but it is hardly realizable in
actual practice!

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner