Present position and prospects
E.M.S. NAMBOODIRIPAD †
IN the second half of June, Delhi witnessed an Anti-Nuclear Arms Convention sponsored by the Gandhi Peace Foundation.* Among those who prepared for the convention were eminent personalities who had been closely associated with Gandhiji. Participants in the convention also included certain guests from foreign countries who are known generally as pacifists, some of them even as followers of Gandhiji.
The inaugural address delivered at that convention by Dr. Rajendra Prasad happened to be rather sensational. Interpreting the Gandhian approach to the problems of war and peace, he said that those who desire the prevention of war and the establishment of peace should be prepared to disarm themselves unilaterally. He, therefore, called on the Government of India to make an open declaration that India was going to disarm herself regardless of whether other countries did so or not.
Rajendra Prasad’s call was hailed as a ‘noble call’, ‘bold leadership’, etc., by all the pacifist foreign guests, as well as several Indian delegates who are known for their skilful interpretation and application of Gandhian principles. Many of the delegates who participated in the discussion suggested that the text of Rajen Babu’s speech should be distributed all over the world as an important contribution to the struggle for peace and disarmament.
This, however, was considered unrealistic by other Indian delegates, including some whose claim for being genuine Gandhites is no less than many who endorsed Rajen Babu’s call. One or two foreign guests too warned the convention against taking any narrow sectarian approach to the problem of peace and disarmament. They pointed out that the entire strength of India – of their people as well as of the government – should be thrown into the historic battle for peace, freedom and progress. The question is : will the step suggested by Rajen Babu – unilateral disarmament by India – help this process? They did not think so.
The convention ultimately refused to accept the suggestion. It was, according to the majority of delegates present, unrealistic and, if adopted, dangerous. This illustrates the crisis which Gandhism has been facing since its eminent followers, faithful disciples of Gandhiji, took over the reins of power in our country.
T
he call given by Rajen Babu is, no doubt, consistent with the line laid down by Gandhiji. The essence of that line, as is well known, is that evil should be resisted but only non-violently. Gandhiji had no hesitation in calling the British rule in Indian ‘Satanic’. But still he refused to adopt anything which savoured of violence, even if it were to be effective in the anti-British struggle. He had very often to face criticism from his own loyal followers as, for instance, when he withdrew the Civil Disobedience movement because mass violence broke out in Chauri Chaura.It was this principle of sticking to non-violence even in the face of the most violent and heavily armed adversary that is now being sought to be applied to international relations. How else could this be done except by calling for unilateral disarmament, as Rajen Babu did?
Just as Gandhiji insisted on the Indian anti-imperialist movement remaining completely non-violent even when its adversaries resorted to what Gandhiji himself called ‘leonine violence’, so should independent India, according to Rajen Babu, take a bold decision not to use force against any external enemy now. Aggression on our soil should be met not with violence but non-violence. It was, therefore, high time, he pleaded, that the Government of India made a declaration that it would give up the army, the navy and the air force for use in the defence of Indian soil against any aggressor.
W
hile there is no inconsistency in the logic of this argument, the fact remains that Rajen Babu came to this conclusion very late. It is worth recalling in this connection that for more than 12 years he, as President of the Indian Republic, was holding the office of Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the country.It was while he was holding that office that our armed forces were further strengthened in order to meet any attack from Pakistan and China. As if this were not enough, our armed forces were sent again during his tenure of office as Commander-in-Chief, to such distant lands as Korea and the Congo in order to enforce certain decisions of the United Nations. Add to these the fact that a few days after India attained independence – when Rajen Babu was a senior member of the Union Ministry and the President of the Constituent Assembly – our government had to use, in a fairly big way, its military forces to repel the invaders from Kashmir.
These activities of the Government of India can by no means be called consistent with the principle of non-violence laid down by Gandhiji. Yet, Rajen Babu was personally associated with them all. It was only after he left office and became an ordinary citizen of the country that he could call for that consistent application of the principle of non-violence to international problems which he made at the Delhi Convention.
Now, it is well known that Rajen Babu was one of those who followed Gandhiji in accepting non-violence, not as a method as many others (old Swarajists like C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, the late Maulana Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru, etc.) did. He, along with those such as Sardar Patel, Rajaji, Kripalani, etc., had accepted non-violence as a creed.
Subsequent to the attainment of independence, however, many of the latter (including Rajen Babu, Sardar Patel, Rajaji) accepted ministerial office, either at the Centre or in the states, and started functioning as if non-violence was of no relevance to the post-independence problems of the country. Their use of violence in repelling aggression in Kashmir, in suppressing the peasants’ struggle in Telangana, in dealing with the situation arising out of strikes and mass struggles in any part of the country and in preparing the country to meet any emergency which might arise on the India-China border can by no stretch of the imagination be called non-violent.
I
t was in pursuance of these policies that they justified the ever increasing strength of the police force in the states and of the defence forces at the Centre. None of those veteran followers of Gandhism raised their voice against this development during the last 15 years.One can fully understand their difficulty in applying their theory in practical administrative work. But then they should be true to the people by admitting that non-violence, though effective as a method of struggle against a heavily armed colonial power, cannot be used by an independent government. Not only do they refuse to do this, but they go on declaring their faith in non-violence as a creed. This cannot be claimed to be a consistent stand.
Those who participated in the Delhi Convention (as the present writer did) were struck by the fact that most of the sarvodaya leaders not associated with government endorsed Rajen Babu’s call. These included such critics of the Nehru government as Kripalani and Jaya Prakash Narayan. At the same time it was noticeable that a large number of other sarvodaya workers who could not absolve themselves of their responsibility to government and who, therefore, did not want to embarrass the government, thought that while the call in itself was good, it was not practicable.
In other words, all present-day Gandhites have to pay tribute to the principle of non-violence. But those of them who are saddled with administrative responsibility have to compromise that principle and resort to violence in maintaining internal order and in repelling external aggression. Only those who remain outside the government machinery, and who do not feel any sense of responsibility to government, can take a strict and consistent view of that principle and seek to implement it.
T
his cleavage between the theory and practice of Gandhism, however, is not confined to the principle of non-violence. It extends to almost every aspect of what is called Gandhism.One of the principles of Gandhism, for instance, is its renunciation of modern civilization based on machinery and advanced techniques. Khadi and Gramodyog are not merely the means by which the unemployed and underemployed rural masses are to be enabled to get additional employment. They are the foundation of social order in which manual labour, and not the highly productive machine technology, will become the basis of economic activity.
This concept of a manual labour-oriented economy has undoubtedly been given up now. In its place has come the concept of a highly industrialized society with greatly advanced technology. If there were any doubt on this score, this has been completely removed with the new developmental plans of the country based on industrialization adopted by the government.
I
t may be argued that there is no conflict between the Gandhian concept of khadi and village industries and the emphasis that is now being laid on industrialization. For Gandhiji was not opposed to machinery as such, but only to such machinery as destroys village industries. This, it may be said, is fully borne in mind in the perspective of the five-year plans in which equal importance is attached to large-scale, medium, small-scale and cottage industries.This, however, will be evading the essence of the question which is not regarding the relative role of machine and cottage industries, but the direction into which the socio-economic system is sought to be taken. And the answer to this question is very clear: the country is being taken in the direction of a fully industrialized society. When the development in that direction takes its full course, our country will become as modernized as any western country. And it was against such a course of development that the whole Khadi-Gramodyog movement was conceived. No amount of argument can hide the reality that every step up the direction pointed out in the five-year plans is a step away from the Gandhian ideal of a completely decentralized, manual labour-oriented economy.
Take again the principle of decentralization of political power so dear to Gandhiji. The swaraj of his conception, he repeatedly explained, was the swaraj of the kisan in the rural areas. That was why he gave the slogan of ‘Panchayat Raj’. He did not want political and administrative power to be concentrated in Delhi, the capital of the country. He wanted it to be transferred to the villages.
Here again, it can be seen that instead of decentralizing power, the process is in the reverse direction. Instead of the panchayat becoming the main agency which exercises real power, the states are made to give up the power assigned to them in the Constitution. The last 15 years have seen such an extension of power from the states to the Centre that the initially federal Constitution of the country is slowly being transformed in practice into a unitary one.
M
uch is being made of the new institution of panchayats and Panchayati Raj. It is not the intention of the present writer to deny that some functions hitherto not exercised by the local bodies are being transferred to panchayats, panchayat samitis and zilla parishads. But, compared to what the Centre has taken from the states, what the latter has transferred to their lower institutions is insignificant. Furthermore, whatever has been transferred to the panchayats and other bodies is subject to the overall control of the state, while what has been taken over by the Centre is a net addition of power assigned to the Centre by the Constitution. The essence of the whole process is thus a further centralization of power in Delhi, rather than decentralization to the villages.All these would undoubtedly show that there is a clear divergence between the principles of Gandhism and the practice of the government formed by those who are considered to be Gandhites. This is the measure of the crisis which Gandhism is faced with in the post-independence years. For, one of the chief merits of Gandhism in pre-independence years was that practice did not conflict with theory.
It may, however, be argued that the cleavage pointed out here is only in relation to the practice of those who are in government now. It may be said that those who are outside government and do not want to join the scramble for power, but would rather serve the people as voluntary sarvodaya workers, do not deviate from their principles. Acharya Vinoba Bhave and his followers, it may be pointed out, are still pursuing the path mapped out by Gandhiji and are working among the people on the basis of non-violence, Khadi and Gramodyog and decentralization of economic life and political power.
This evaluation may, on the face of it, appear correct. Vinobaji and his followers are, undoubtedly, preaching the principles laid down by Gandhiji. They do not hide their dissatisfaction that those who are at the helm of affairs in government are disregarding Gandhian principles. But here again, if one goes deep into actual reality, one finds that there is a sharp cleavage between sarvodaya theory and the practices of the sarvodayaites.
T
he basic principle on which the Sarvodaya movement relies is its absolutely voluntary character. As Vinobaji has repeatedly pointed out, no amount of Raj Shakti, or state power, can solve the problems of the country. Only Jan Shakti, the power of the people, can do it. That is why his Bhoodan and Gramdan movement does not depend on legislation. It is through his own unending padyatra, supplemented by the padyatras of his followers and the continuous constructive activities systematically undertaken by them, that the consciousness of the people will be roused and the people organized in voluntary, self-acting organizations.While the Sarvodaya movement is, in theory, expected to work on this basis, it relies, in actual practice, on ‘Raj Shakti’ to a far grater extent than is envisaged here. Whether it is for running basic schools and rural institutes, or for forming ambar charkha and other cottage industries associations, or for organizing cooperatives, or even for doing bhoodan and gramdan work, it depends on state patronage to an extent equal to, if not greater than, any other non-official organization.
M
any of the sanghs, unions and associations associated with sarvodaya work and in which sarvodaya workers are active, are dependent largely, if not solely, on government help. None of them can function for a day if the government stops subsidizing them, or withdraws other forms of patronage. Add to this the fact that many sarvodaya workers are notorious for the misappropriation of funds placed at their disposal, along with other forms of corruption.It is to be presumed that Vinobaji himself is not unaware of these evils. How else can one explain his opposition to any form of organization even for sarvodaya work? He seems to be suspicious not only of governmental organs but non-official organizations too. That is why the Bhoodan and Gramdan movement which he has organized has no centralized organization; each unit is left to manage its own affairs. This, however, is by no means easy, as his followers are learning to their cost.
Each one of the basic tenets of Gandhism is thus putting its followers on the horns of a dilemma : they have either to compromise their principles, or remain totally isolated from the public life of the country. Most of them naturally choose the former to the latter. As for the small minority who choose the latter, they may save their conscience, but they cannot save Gandhism.
* This article was written soon after the Convention.
Seminar 46, ‘Gandhism’, June 1963, pp. 35-38.