Express Shipping: Guaranteed Dispatch in 24 hours |
|
Item Code: | NAG408 |
Publisher: | Indira Gandhi National Open University |
Language: | English |
Edition: | 2006 |
ISBN: | 8126615079 |
Pages: | 184 |
Cover: | Paperback |
Other Details | 11.5 inch X 8 inch |
Weight | 410 gm |
Introduction
The
pre-political discourse with primacy of social issues assumed a political
character with the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885. The
radical nationalism in India that followed in the 1890s had both a conservative
and a revolutionary side. On the one hand the pride in Indian culture defended
by Dayananda and Vivekananda became an integral component and on the other hand
the Western methods of mass agitation and Western concepts like liberalism,
socialism and the notion of the rule of law penetrated the Indian mind with
equal vigour. The debate between the, Extremists and the Moderates within the
Congress reflected the process of change in Indian political theorising and the
dual nature of modem Indian political tradition. The rise of Extremism was also
helped by political actions like the Partition of Bengal in 1905 and the
failure of the Moderates to secure substantial concessions from the liberal
government in Britain. Simultaneously the impact of important events like the
rise of Japan and its achievement in defeating an European power, revolutionary
movements in Russia, the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland, the struggle for
freedom in Egypt, the adoption of a constitution in Persia, the introduction of
representative institutions in Philippines, the Young Turk revolt and grant of
responsible self-government to Transvaal and Orange River Colony created a new
enthusiasm and clamouring for change within India.
Gandhi
emerged in India at this critical juncture with the rising expectation of the
people with the twin impact of the First World War and the Bolshevik Revolution
of 1917. The educated circles in India because of his spectacular success in
South Africa, already knew Gandhi. He consolidated this goodwill with his new
kind of leadership in Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad. He became the undisputed
leader of the Indian Nationalist Movement.
Gandhi
was primarily a political activist whose writings emerged mainly during the
process of social, economic and political actions. He was a prolific writer
with an attractive, easily understandable prose style. Most of his writings
were situational and constituted only a fraction of his activities. Because of
this, he did not attempt any in-depth study of any particular pheaomenon or
concept. "One cannot ... turn to the writings of Gandhi for definite
statement in political theory. Gandhi was a political actionist and a practical
philosopher as he was not a theorist. His writings abound with inconsistencies
... one result of his persistent habit of thinking in public. Whatever
philosophical formulation he made were inspired by and directed towards the
solving of immediate problems. The unsophisticated' explanations, which Gandhi
offered for his methods, his objectives, his policy, and creed, were part of a
programme of action. They should not be interpreted in terms either of theory
or of practical master-planning" (Bondurant 1967: 7). Gandhi produced only
four book-length works. The most important of these was his autobiography,
which first appeared in a serialised form in one of his journals. Gandhi was
conscious of the inadequacies of his writings at the theoretical .and scholarly
levels. He insisted that his life was his message' and that he should not be
judged on the basis of particular actions or writings.
As a
matter of fact, my writings should be cremated with my body. What I have done
will endure, not what I have said and written. I have often said that even if
all our scriptures perish one mantra of lshopanishad was enough to declare the essence of Hinduism- but even that one verse will be of no avail if there is no
one to live it (Gandhi cited in Bose and Patwardhan 1967: 56).
Being an
activist, Gandhi was also careful when making predictions and outlining his
conception of ail ideal state. In 1942, in an answer to Louis Fischer's
question about the structure and the shape of the Indian society after
independence, Gandhi replied that the future of Indian society was largely
beyond his grasp. He also admitted that he was not a widely read person and
once remarked that he could count the books that he had read on his fingertips.
In reality he had read more than 300 titles which included the works of Ruskin,
Thoreau and Tolstoy and from whom he had drawn in-depth inspiration both for
his actions and for his thought. He was also well informed about the
predominant schools of economic thought and was influenced by Marx' Handbook of Marxism, Smith's the Wealth of Nations and Snell's Principles of Equity (Gadre 1971: 3).
Gandhi As A Critic Of The West And A Seeker Of Indigenous Roots: Gandhi exhibited considerable influence of Western
thinkers like Ruskin, Thoreau and Tolstoy throughout his life. He regarded
Socrates as an example to emulate and even translated Plato's Apology in Gujarati. In basic
principles of politics, he had a marked preference for anarchism, which
essentially belonged to a radical Western tradition. In organisational matters,
the Western imprint was .clearly discernible in him. In matters of personal
conviction like vegetarianism, some Western groups and writings influenced him.
In spite of being influenced by the West, Gandhi rejected Western civilisation
both as a model and' as an inspiration. In this he differed considerably from
other non-Western revolutionaries like Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara and
Frantz Fanon who not only "rejected the Western political and economic
domination but also their traditional ways of life of their own people and especially
the religious elements that provided the foundation for the ancient cultures of
Asia and Africa, replacing them by Western political forms and by Western
technologies" (Woodcock 1971: 12).
Fanon's
perception showed some interesting contradictions into the dilemma of Third
World revolutionaries. Fanon forcefully pleading for de-colonisation in The Wretched of the Earth (1961) was
utterly contemptuous of the imperialists. He denounced the Europeans virtually
as war criminals. He regarded European opulence as scandalous "for it has
been founded on slavery ... and that it comes directly from the soil and from
the sub-soil of the underdeveloped world." Ironically, in spite of this
severe indictment, Fanon could conceive of change only with the indispensable
help of the Europeans and by rejecting indigenous ways. Gandhi, on the other
hand, wanted to keep the windows of his mind open while his feet firmly
entrenched in his own culture.
Gandhi
rejected the Western civilisation for two reasons. First, its basis was extreme
inequality and second, it dehumanised and depersonalised the individual. Like
Rousseau, he rejected modem technology and industrialisation because these led
to misery and inequality. He focused on this relative fall apparent from the Italian
example in the Hind Swaraj (1909).
In this example he specifically mentioned the working class and the common
people whose aspirations were ignored by the ruling class and Mazzini's Italy
was still in slavery. For Gandhi the content of independence was important for
true freedom lay in the freedom of the working class and the poorest. Western
technology and its concomitant way of
life was alien to Indian traditions. It was also inadequate in fulfilling
India's requirements and hindered any meaningful or real development of the
individual person. As such, the ideal state would consist of self-sufficient
villages and communities based on truth and non-violence. Gandhi desired a free
India that would not emulate the Western path. This meant giving up machinery,
modern methods of transportation, modern medicines and machine-spun cloth.
Though he modified some of his ideas subsequently like accepting small-scale
industries and those industries where labour was not useful or desirable, he
adhered to the overall thrust of his initial arguments as articulated in the Hind Swaraj.
From
Ruskin he listed what his teachings meant to him (cited in Woodcock 1971:
23-24):
a) That
the good of the individual is contained in the good of all.
b) That a
lawyer's work has the same value as the barber's in as much all have the same
right of earning their livelihood for their work.
c) That a
life of labour, i.e., the life of the tiller of the soil and the
handicraftsmen, is life worth living.
Gandhi
learnt from Ruskin that an unequal social order de-linked from the realities of
labour could not allow for the possibility of non-violence. Like Ruskin, Gandhi
also firmly believed in restricting wealth and placing tools in the hands of
those who could use them. Ruskin's principles inspired Gandhi to work out the
basis of his concept of 'bread labour' and of making the community organisation
responsible for the welfare of the labourer. Gandhi asserted that none is
superior or inferior with reference to the job that he does. He thereby emerges
as an advocate of the concept of proportionate equality whereby everyone
receives a minimum of living wage and differences among individuals could be
permitted beyond this minimum on the basis of differing needs. Ruskin's ideas
on political economy were the bedrock of the economic principles of Gandhi's
ashram organisation. Tolstoy's faith in love and the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, the Bible and the New Testament and Thoreau's notion of civil disobedience influenced
Gandhi in evolving his concept and method of satyagraha.
Civil Disobedience: Gandhi borrowed the phrase civil disobedience from
Thoreau whom he read for the first time in 1907 while he was held as a prisoner
in a South African jail. Though Gandhi acknowledged his debt to Thoreau for
this concept, it is Gandhi who could be labelled as the first civil disobedient
in the sense in which the term is used today. Gandhi integrated the concept
with his overall commitment to non-violence, satyagraha and dignity of labour which enabled him to transform
Thoreau's limited conception as a pursuit of a solitary conscientious
individual into a technique and programme of dynamic mass action and method of
social change. Following Thoreau, Gandhi also advocated the emancipation of man
from the outside bondage, from self-imposed imprisonment or civilisation that
has diseased the mind and the soul of the modern human being. However, Gandhi
differed from Thoreau in stressing on strict non-violence, on a general duty of
civil disobedience and on the need to try and exhaust all forms of
constitutional political actions like petitions and appeals. In elaborating the
meaning of civil disobedience Gandhi assimilated ideas from Ruskin, Emerson and
Tolstoy with Indian traditions giving it a universal significance and
relevance.
Gandhi
rejects the term passive resistance as too weak and preferred civil
disobedience for it suggested active resistance to unjust laws. Subsequently he
used the term satyagraha. In 1922 when
Gandhi became a non-violent non co-operator from a loyalist of the Empire, he
writes, "non cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation
with good. But in the past, non-cooperation only has been deliberately
expressed in violence to the evildoer. I am endeavouring to show to my
countrymen that violent non cooperation only multiplies evil and that evil can
only be sustained by violence, withdrawal or support of evil requires complete
abstention from violence". He pleads guilty for his actions and asked for
the maximum punishment under the law. He made no attempt to defend himself.
Prior to Gandhi none in India advocated the use of non-violent techniques for
fighting injustice.
Civil disobedience,
for Gandhi, was based on a profound respect for the law in general and should
be resorted to non-violently and publicly. The disobedient(s) must be willing
to accept full penalties including the rigours of jail discipline. Resistance
must be respectful, restrained and civil for "disobedience without
civility, discipline and discrimination, non violence is certain
destruction". A satyagrahi cooperates not
out of fear of punishment but because cooperation is essential for common good.
Gandhi spoke of common good without denying the individual a pivotal role. The
individual is vested with a moral law and duty (dharma). As a bearer of moral authority one has a right and
even the duty to judge the state and its laws by the standards of dharma which in turn combines satya and ahimsa. Dharma, Satya and ahimsa are the
cardinal tenets of Gandhian philosophy. The individual could challenge and even
disobey the state for all tales violate satya and ahimsa. Gandhi
wrote "every citizen renders himself responsible for every act of his
government. And loyalty to a capricious and corrupt state is a sin, disloyalty
a virtue. Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes
lawless or, which is the same thing, corrupt; and a citizen who barters with
such a state shares its corruption and lawlessness".
Civil
disobedience is a moral right of every individual, a 'birthright that cannot be
surrendered without losing self respect'. Disobedience to evil laws is a moral
duty, which is why Gandhi described the resisters as 'real constitutionalist'
for in disobeying and accepting punishment they are obeying a higher law. The
existence of injustice justifies political resistance and that political
protest is basically moral. Like Locke and Jefferson, he believed that loyalty
to a 'constitution and its laws need to be reviewed and affirmed once in every
generation.
Gandhi
prescribed non cooperation (strikes, resignation from offices and titles),
picketing, economic boycott, fasting and non payment of taxes as different
techniques of satyagraha. Insofar as
non-payment of taxes is concerned, he advised caution and recommends its use
only on final occasions for taxes constitute the life support of a government
and refusal would mean the death of the government. In its positive sense satyagraha involved constructive programmes like communal
harmony, removal of untouchability, prohibition, khadi, encouragement of village industries, sanitation, basic
and adult education, upliftment of women, health and hygiene, and promotion of
a national language.
Gandhi
prescribed these aforesaid measures for he realised the need to re-establish
the elf-worth and dignity of the Indians blunted by years of colonial
domination. He emphasised that India got subjugated because of her moribund and
repressive Social customs. He made Indians sensitive to the urgent need for
questions relating to social justice. His constructive programme implied that
Gandhi desired to limit the ambit of the political and that of the state. His
focus was the civil society and the role of the individual within it. Thus he
was able to evolve satyagraha as
a technique for was action and mobilisation, and a tactic for social change.
Gandhi's
perceptions were determined by the British colonial experience and the liberal
democratic philosophy on which it was based. Rejecting the notion of state
absolutism, the liberals did not defend the supremacy of the individual against
state. Instead they granted the right of the individual to judge and question
and if necessary, disobey political authority. However this right had to be
exercised only after exhausting all other available options. Gandhi accepted
this aspect of the liberal tradition but coalesced it with his preference for
'enlightened anarchy' or participatory self-rule and the idea of common good.
The
Gandhian technique of satyagraha also
demonstrates the intricate relationship between means and ends through a
philosophy of action. In its approach to conflict Gandhi never sought
compromise but a synthesis. A satyagrahi
never yields one's position, which one regards as the truth but is
prepared to accept the opponent's position, if persuaded, and in that there is
no sacrifice of either position or concessions. There would be an adjustment,
mutually agreed, to the satisfaction of both parties.
Conception
of The Ideal State: Gandhi's ideal
state was the future ideal for India in particular and not a prescription for
all countries. He was careful to mention the distinctive characteristics of
India and stated that "India's mission is different from that of
others" (Gandhi 1947: 9). The India of his dreams would be a society
"in which the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making
they have an effective voice; an India in which there shall be no high class
and low class of people; an India in which all communities shall live in
perfect harmony" (Gandhi Ibid: 9). Such a polity would be free from
violence and exploitation, based on equality, self-sufficiency and an economic
order free from conflict between capital and labour. In such a society there
"can be no room ... for the cur e of untouchability or the cure of the
intoxicating drinks and drugs. Women will enjoy the same rights as men. Since
we shall be at peace with the rest of the world, neither exploiting, nor being
exploited, we should have the smallest army imaginable. All interests not in
conflict with the interests of the dumb millions will be scrupulously
respected, whether foreign or indigenous .... This is the India of my dreams ..
.I shall be satisfied with nothing else" (Gandhi Ibid: 9-10). Gandhi was
convinced that India could fulfil his dream for he has inherent capacity to
free herself. He remarked, "my faith in her ability to solve the economic
problems that face her millions has never been so bright as it is today"
(Gandhi Ibid: 10).
The
concepts of swaraj, nationalism,
socialism, industrialisation, individualism and the state were the elements,
which would actualise this ideal. Swaraj was of
special significance and it means not just 'independence' but freedom from all
kinds of restraints. This makes the use of the word (in the practical sense)
difficult. Gandhi used swaraj to mean
'positive freedom' i.e. to participate in the process of politics in every way
possible, rather than seeing the state as a negative institution restricting
its activities to the minimum. It did not mean that the state was an
all-powerful institution; rather, an intimate relationship should exist between
the state and its citizens. It meant participatory democracy.
Contents
Unit 1 |
Emergence
of Gandhi |
1 |
Unit 2 |
Birth
of a Satyagrahi |
13 |
Unit 3 |
Gandhi's
Emergence in the Indian Politics: Towards a Great Future |
26 |
Unit 4 |
From
Home Rule to Swaraj: Ushering in of the Gandhian Era in India |
44 |
Unit 5 |
Gram
Swaraj |
76 |
Unit 6 |
Social
Reform |
93 |
Unit 7 |
India
of Gandhi's Dream |
132 |
Unit 8 |
Gandhi's
World-View |
141 |
|
Epilogue |
156 |
|
Suggested
readings |
163 |
Send as free online greeting card