Events
& Issues
New Delhi, 31 January 2018
India After
Gandhi
MAHATMA’S IDEALS
FORGOTTEN?
By Dhurjati
Mukherjee
Seven
decades later after Mahatma Gandhi was killed, 30 January1948, the nation
remembered the father of the nation yesterday. Many would look back and wonder
whether his teachings are relevant in today’s India. A close look at history and
the present would make some frown. While there were leaders from the Gandhian
school of thinking, sadly his political and economic philosophy was not carried
out by the political leaders in authority.
Vinoba
Bhave tried to coordinate his activities through Sarvodaya Sangh and Sarva Seva
Sangh and gave a new orientation to satyagraha. Hence, the work of gramdan-bhoodan, acharyakula khadi,
sarvodaya patra etc. were all form of constructive satyagraha, which Vinoba
carried out very much in Gandhi’s spirit. Needless to say that lakhs of people
appreciated his call as he collected 60 lakh acres of land through his action.
In fact, the eminent political philosopher, Louis Fischer found gramdan “the
most creative idea coming from the East in recent times”.
Though
Vinoba’s ideas of gram swarjya meant direct government of the local community
that is, participatory democracy at the grassroots with utmost decentralisation,
this idea was unfortunately not carried out and implemented in the country.
Though later Jayaprakash Narayan carried out his movement inspired by Gandhi
and Vinoba, there was no coordinated action to take Gandhian ideology to the
masses.
The
intellectual community and the young generation remained untouched. The apathy
of those in authority is manifest from the fact that presently out of the
innumerable universities and institutions of higher learning, hardly six or
seven have courses on Gandhian Studies and that too at the post-graduate
level.
After
independence, the Congress leaders interpreted Gandhi according to their
understanding. The ‘essential Gandhi’ was lost; instead rituals got the upper
hand. Moreover, the Gandhians thought that there is no need for satyagraha,
which was totally wrong.
The
pro-establishment Gandhians under Nehru could not be persuaded to adopt the
Gandhian line of decentralised economy, trusteeship, empowerment of the people and
so, excepting paying lip service. Scholars believe that that those in power did
the greatest harm towards regeneration and consolidation of Gandhism in action
as they virtually avoided his essential teachings.
After
Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi Narasimha Rao and those that followed were
worse with regard to Gandhi’s teachings and following his strategy. All these
leaders neglected the rural sector and rural reconstruction remained a far cry.
The Indian planning strategy was geared towards the urban sector and helping
the rich and middle income sections of society.
Gandhian
institutions such as All India Khadi & Village Industries, Harijan Sevak
Sangh, Nai Talim etc. could not maintain their dynamism and their Gandhian
character. The khadi institutions almost neglected the ideology and stressed
exclusively on profit of business. Besides, they relied on government subsidies
and the revolutionary character and self-reliant voluntarism was also crippled.
Apart
from this, there are negative forces against Gandhian ideology in India. The
communists and the Naxals preferred the path of violence in their crusade
against exploitation of the poor and the oppressed, while the neo liberals, the
agents of business groups and imperialists, ridiculed his doctrine of non-violence,
fellow feeling and a communitarian approach to life and living. The growth of
consumerism led to widening disparity of incomes with one section becoming rich
while the poor – dalits, tribals, small and marginal farmers – languished. Recently
the 2017 Global Hunger Index came out with startling findings ranking India 100
among 119 countries, marking a 55 per cent fall over the past three years and
justifying that economic growth does not automatically guarantee food security.
As
a matter of fact, Gandhi’s concept of culture was in conflict with modern
materialistic-consumeristic way of life. The present violence that is in-built
in the system today has led to exploitation but it needs to be reiterated that
the power of non-violence is superior morally, psychologically and
sociologically.
It
is imperative at this juncture that there should be a strategic shift in
development planning. Economic decentralisation has to be implemented in the
planning process so that people are involved at the grass-root level in the
development process. Moreover, allocation of more resources for the rural
sector would help in ensuring them the basic necessities of life, specially
adequate education and health facilities and upgrading the incomes of the poor
people and ameliorating the concerns of poor farmers.
Gandhi
has to be interpreted in the proper way to combat ecological challenges, the
spectre of violence and terrorism, religious disunity, the growing consumerism
and the like. Another important aspect is that India being a country with huge
population, the strategy of planning has to be a little different from that
being followed in the western world. If adequate stress is given to cottage
industries and the labour intensive sector, a burning problem of unemployment
and underemployment could be effectively tackled and, in turn would ensure that
social chaos would be controlled. Charkha
(spinning wheel) and khadi are symbols that Gandhi stressed during his life
to ensure work for the people and involve in development.
Toynbee
was inclined towards the Gandhian way as the hope of humanity while Gunnar
Myrdal in his keynote address at the ‘One Asia Assembly’ in Delhi (on February
5, 1973): “The main reason for low development in India is that Indian planners
have deviated from the fundamentals of Mahatma Gandhi’s rationalistic plans”.
Similarly, E. F. Schumacher emphasised on the Gandhian way and not in the
narrow economic sense but also in the larger sphere of life.
Even
in India, the Gandhian approach strategy was highlighted by eminent jurist VR
Krishna Iyer, aptly as he pointed out: “If our country cares for Gandhiji, if
India lives in villages, if a billion Indians matter more than 23 billionaires
(presently the number stands at around 70), a conceptual reversal of vision and
values is necessary. I am not against industrialisation as such but wealth
multiplication in a few hands throwing voiceless as worthless commodities”. It
needs to be emphasised that the proletariat must survive and flourish and cannot
surrender to the syndrome of “proprietariat monopoly”.
If
we cannot limit our wants and our craving for wealth and power, there would be
further rape of the earth, resulting in depletion of earth’s resources and
causing climate change that has already taken serious dimensions apart from
eroding social balance. The Gandhian approach needs to seriously examined and
one cannot doubt that it has great relevance if we are to follow an inclusive
and sustainable approach to life and living that are aired by our political
leaders but unfortunately not followed in practice.
One
is reminded of T. S. Eliot who aptly pointed out: “Where is the life we have
lost in living, where is the life we have lost in information?”---INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
New
Delhi
29
January 2018
|