Gandhian Trusteeship is the Need of the Hour

MUMBAI INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

WADALA (E), MUMBAI - 400 037

SUBJECT:

BUSINESS ETHICS

&

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

(PROF: NADIRSHAW.K.DHONDY)

1

PROJECT

ON

GANDHIAN Trusteeship

is the

need of the hour

2

CERTIFICATE

I, Nadirshaw K. Dhondy Advocate of supreme court, have

examined the thesis of Ms.Suman Sharma who is enrolled in

Mumbai institute of management & research, Wadala for the

academic year 2007-2009 in the Master of Management Studies

Programme his roll number 709 (Div. B).

This thesis is in put fulfillment of the University Programme

for the subject Legal and Tax aspects of Business. He has been

rated to receive marks out of 40.

Dated this 4th day of February 2007.

Signature Signature

(Suman Sharma) (Nadishaw Dhondy)

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me great pleasure to present this report on “Gandhian

Trusteeship is the need of the hour”. It was a great learning

experience to work on this project.

I thank Prof. Nadirshaw Dhondy for providing me with the

valuable inputs required for the successful completion of my

project and for sharing his immense knowledge and experience

with me in the most interesting and humorous manner.

Suman Sharma

MMS-II, Roll No. 709

Mumbai Institute of Management & Research, Mumbai

4

Executive summary of the project

This project tells about the Gandhian Philosophy regarding the Indian

Context, along with that the Introduction of the Mahatma Gandhi. The life

of Gandhi and there principles are mentioned.

It also includes the Gandhian Philosophy in the context of the Indian

Religion, along with there Philosophy regarding the Industrial and

Economical Prosperity.

Finally Gandhian Philosophy and Quotes for harmony is mentioned, what

are there aims for life for prosperity.

Content of the Gandhian Philosophy

5

INDEX

SR NOTOPICS

PG NO

1Introduction

6

2Life of Mahatma Gandhi

8

3Gandhian Principles

11

4Gandhian Philosophy in the context of Indian

religion 16

5Gandhi’s Philosophy Of Industrial And Economic

Prosperity 22

6Social, Political and Economic Philosophy

25

7Gandhian Philosophy and Quotes for Harmony

27

6

Introduction

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948)

was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian

independence movement. He was the pioneer of satyagraha—resistance to

tyranny through mass civil disobedience, firmly founded upon ahimsa or

total non-violence—which led India to independence and inspired

movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. He is commonly

known around the world as Mahatma Gandhi (Great Soul", an honorific

first applied to him by Rabindranath Tagore) and in India also as Bapu

("Father"). He is officially honored in India as the Father of the Nation; his

birthday, 2 October, is commemorated there as Gandhi Jayanti, a national

holiday, and worldwide as the International Day of Non-Violence.

Gandhi first employed non-violent civil disobedience as an expatriate

lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community's struggle for civil

rights. After his return to India in 1915, he set about organizing peasants,

farmers, and urban laborers in protesting excessive land-tax and

discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in

1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, for expanding

women's rights, for building religious and ethnic amity, for ending

untouchables, for increasing economic self-reliance, but above all for

achieving Swaraj—the independence of India from foreign domination.

Gandhi famously led Indians in the Non-cooperation movement in 1922 and

in protesting the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (249 mi) Dandi

Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British to Quit India in 1942.

He was imprisoned for many years, on numerous occasions, in both South

7

Africa and India. Gandhi was a practitioner of non-violence and truth, and

advocated that others do the same. He lived modestly in a self-sufficient

residential community and wore the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl,

woven with yarn he had hand spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian

food, and also undertook long fasts as means of both self-purification and

social protest.

8

Life of Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was born as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on October 2,

1869 at Porbandar, located in the present day state of Gujarat. His father

Karamchand Gandhi was the Diwan (Prime Minister) of Porbandar.

Gandhi's mother Putlibai was a pious lady and under her tutelage Gandhi

imbibed various principles of Hinduism at an early age.

In 1883, all of 13 and still in high school, Gandhi was married to Kasturbai

as per the prevailing Hindu customs. For a person of such extraordinary

visionary zeal and resilience, Mahatma Gandhi was by and large an average

student in school and was of a shy disposition. After completing his college

education, at his family's insistence Gandhi left for England on September 4,

1888 to study law at University College, London. During his tenure in

London, Mohandas Gandhi strictly observed abstinence from meat and

alcohol as per his mother's wishes.

Upon completion of his law degree in 1891, Gandhi returned to India and

tried to set up a legal practice but could not achieve any success. In 1893,

when an Indian firm in South Africa offered him the post of legal adviser

Gandhi was only too happy to oblige and he set sail for South Africa. This

decision alone changed the life of Gandhi, and with that, the destiny of an

entire nation. As he descended in South Africa, Gandhi was left appalled at

the rampant racial discrimination against Indians and blacks by the European

whites.

9

Soon Gandhi found himself at the receiving end of such abuse and he vowed

to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Indian community. He organized the

expatriate Indians and protested against the injustices meted out by the

African government. After years of disobedience and non-violent protests,

the South African government finally conceded to Gandhi's demands and an

agreement to this effect was signed in 1914. A battle was won, but Gandhi

realized the war that was to be waged against the British awaits his arrival in

India. He returned to India the next year.

After reaching India, Gandhi traveled across the length and breadth of the

country to witness first hand the atrocities of the British regime. He soon

founded the Satyagraha Ashram and successfully employed the principles of

Satyagraha in uniting the peasants of Kheda and Champaran against the

government. After this victory Gandhi was bestowed the title of Bapu and

Mahatma and his fame spread far and wide.

In 1921, Mahatma Gandhi called for the non-cooperation movement against

the British Government with the sole object of attaining Swaraj or

independence for India. Even though the movement achieved roaring

success all over the country, the incident of mob violence in Chauri Chaura,

Uttar Pradesh forced Gandhi to call off the mass disobedience movement.

Consequent to this, Mahatma Gandhi took a hiatus from active politics and

instead indulged in social reforms.

10

The year 1930 saw Gandhi's return to the fore of Indian freedom movement

and on March 12, 1930 he launched the historic Dandi March to protest

against the tax on salt. The Dandi March soon metamorphosed into a huge

civil disobedience movement. The Second World War broke out in 1939 and

as the British might began to wane, Gandhi called for the Quit India

movement on August 8, 1942. Post World War, the Labour Party came to

power in England and the new government assured the Indian leadership of

imminentindependence.

The Cabinet Mission sent by the British government proposed for the

bifurcation of India along communal lines which Gandhi vehemently

protested. But eventually he had to relent and on the eve of independence

thousands lost their lives in communal riots. Gandhi urged for communal

harmony and worked tirelessly to promote unity among the Hindus and

Muslims. But Mahatma's act of benevolence angered Hindu fundamentalists

and on January 13, 1948 he was assassinated by Hindu fanatic Nathuram

Godse.

11

GANDHIAN PRINCIPALS

Truth

Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya.

He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting

experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My

Experiments with Truth.

Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his

own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his beliefs first

when he said "God is Truth". He would later change this statement to "Truth

is God". Thus, Satya (Truth) in Gandhi's philosophy is "God".

Nonviolence

Although Mahatama Gandhi was in no way the originator of the principle of

non-violence, he was the first to apply it in the political field on a huge scale.[28] The concept of nonviolence (ahimsa) and nonresistance has a long

history in Indian religious thought and has had many revivals in Hindu,

Buddhist, Jain, Jewish and Christian contexts. Gandhi explains his

philosophy and way of life in his autobiography The Story of My

Experiments with Truth. He was quoted as saying:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and

love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time

they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always."

12

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,

whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or

the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am

prepared to kill for."

In applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their

most logical extremes in envisioning a world where even government, police

and armies were nonviolent. The quotations below are from the book "For

Pacifists."

The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple. The science of

non-violence alone can lead one to pure democracy...Power based on love is

thousand times more effective and permanent than power derived from fear

of punishment....It is a blasphemy to say non-violence can be practiced only

by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals...The

nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on non-

violence...A society organized and run on the basis of complete non-violence

would be the purest anarchy

I have conceded that even in a non-violent state a police force may be

necessary...Police ranks will be composed of believers in non-violence. The

people will instinctively render them every help and through mutual

cooperation they will easily deal with the ever decreasing

disturbances...Violent quarrels between labor and capital and strikes will be

few and far between in a non-violent state because the influence of the non-

13

violent majority will be great as to respect the principle elements in society.

Similarly, there will be no room for communal disturbances....

A non-violent army acts unlike armed men, as well in times of peace as in

times of disturbances. Theirs will be the duty of bringing warring

communities together, carrying peace propaganda, engaging in activities that

would bring and keep them in touch with every single person in their parish

or division. Such an army should be ready to cope with any emergency, and

in order to still the frenzy of mobs should risk their lives in numbers

sufficient for that purpose. ...Satyagraha (truth-force) brigades can be

organized in every village and every block of buildings in the cities. [If the

non-violent society is attacked from without] there are two ways open to

non-violence. To yield possession, but non-cooperate with the

aggressor...prefer death to submission. The second way would be non-

violent resistance by the people who have been trained in the non-violent

way...The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of men and

women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of an aggressor must

ultimately melt him and his soldiery...A nation or group which has made

non-violence its final policy cannot be subjected to slavery even by the atom

bomb.... The level of non-violence in that nation, if that even happily comes

to pass, will naturally have risen so high as to command universal respect.

In accordance with these views, in 1940, when invasion of the British Isles

by Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to

the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War)

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving

you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take

14

what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these

gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do

not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and

child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

In a post-war interview in 1946, he offered a view at an even further

extreme:

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They

should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

However, Gandhi was aware that this level of nonviolence required

incredible faith and courage, which he realized not everyone possessed. He

therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence, especially if it

were used as a cover for cowardice.

"Gandhi guarded against attracting to his Satyagraha movement those who

feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do

believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and

violence, I would advise violence.

"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-

violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the

one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have

nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before.

It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they

had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their

bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and

being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets.

15

Satyagraha

Gandhiji pioneered the term Satyagraha which literally translates to 'an

endeavor for truth.' In the context of Indian freedom movement, Satyagraha

meant the resistance to the British oppression through mass civil obedience.

The tenets of Truth or Satya and nonviolence were pivotal to the Satyagraha

movement and Gandhi ensured that the millions of Indians seeking an end to

British rule adhered to these basic principles steadfastly.

Khadi

Khadi, an unassuming piece of handspun and hand-woven cloth, embodies

the simplicity synonymous with Mahatma Gandhi's persona. After

renouncing the western attire of his advocacy days in South Africa, Gandhi

embraced the practice of weaving his own clothes from thread he himself

spun and encouraged others to follow suit. Mahatma used the adoption of

Khadi as a subtle economic tool against the British industrial might and also

as a means of generating rural employment in India.

Gandhian philosophy in the context of Indian religion

`Mahatma Gandhi who is also called “Rashtrapita” was a unique

personality, a great saint, an economist, a social reformer and an advocate of

non-violence and what not. Indians are proud of him who led India to the

path of freedom. He preached to the world the ideas of unity and

brotherhood. He worked for the enlistment of the Harijans. He was the

greatest figure who dedicated his whole life to the cause of the common

man. He was essentially a man of the masses and an ideal of the millions.

Being the champion of love and peace, he was respected and loved all over

world.

16

Mahatma Gandhi did not believe in the theory that, ends justify the

means, rather he always taught the people that it were the means that could

justify the end. He stood for religious values in a materialistic age. His

religion was truth and non-violence. For him, the centre of the whole was the

very basic of truth. He always emphasized that only cowards follow the path

of violence and it is only brave people who fight their battle with the weapon

of non-violence and always come out to be victorious. In fact, he said that

the world can always be safe from effects of wars and destruction if

everybody follows his teaching of love, non-violence and patience. He liked

all without any type of discrimination based on religion, nationality and

caste. This made him one of the greatest religious thinkers of world history.

Gandhiji always advised the upper caster Hindus for justice to all those

innocent and poor people whom the high class Hindus had enslaved and

forced to live and work worse than animals. He put all his efforts for social

cause and justice to all. He said that the eradication and untouchability were

the very basic – issues of his mission towards bringing about social reforms

inIndia.

He advocated equality in treatment to women, particularly who are

working at par with their men counterparts. In this way, he really expressed

his opinions practically on each aspect of day-to-day life and invariably what

he advised has far reaching impacts and importance even after 50 years of

his death. He really stood to preach and practice self-sacrifice in the crazy

world of today where each one of us is after wealth, power and has become

self-centered.

Gandhiji realized that thousands of poor masses are being exploited

by the British rulers and such people were not able to get two square meals a

day. The Indian people were getting crushed under the heels of poverty and

17

social injustice. He decided to give a new thought to economic problems

being encountered by India and suggested very practial and easy solutions

which are really a class of its own.

He advocated his ways of self dependent by spinning the Charkha and use of

swadeshi items. He advised people to spin and wear these clothes, and avoid

the use of any imported material. He asked them to wear only swadeshi

cloths and follow the economics of the charkha. This was the way to give

employment to hundreds of farmers who could not do anything for most part

of the year and were getting poor and idle.

Thus the British rule was also getting affected as it thought that in this way

India would no longer be a profitable and economical market. The cloth

made in mills of England would find no buyers in India and British would

have to leave the country within a short time.

In the pursuit of Swadeshi movement, even small articles of daily use like

soap, matches, paper, leather and other articles began to be made in India. At

several places, British cloth was burnt in heaps. People were persuaded not

to even go to the shops which kept British cloth. Women took a leading part

in this movement. They even sold their ornaments and other jewellery items

to open shops where only Swadeshi goods were sold. The Mahatma Gandhi

launched a movement called ‘Quit India’ to ask the British rulers to leave

India immediately to allow the Indian people to sort out their problems the

way they like. Mahatmaji gave this message to the people all over India “Do

or Die”. Inspite of cruel acts by the British rulers over this movement,

Mahatmaji fought bravely with patience and restrain. Gandhiji sought to

arouse a feeling of self-conscience in every human being.

Gandhiji’s policy was to hate the evil and not the evil doer. He said that the

18

British rule was an evil but we must not hate the Englishmen. Rather we

must no co-operate with the British rule and wage a non-violent struggle to

get freedom from the hands of foreign rule. Gandhiji was always against the

policy of separating morality from politics. He tried to bring religion and

politics closer. He tried to moralise politics. For him, the political weapon

was the path of non-violence. His message to follow the path of non-

violence is true even in today’s world which is full of tension over small

issues and superiority over the other.

Facts about Mahatma Gandhi:

Mahatma Gandhi's life is so much entwined with the Indian freedom

movement that rarely do people endeavor to acquaint themselves with other

facets of his eventful life. We provide below some interesting facts about

Gandhi:

Mahatma Gandhi was born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the

title 'Mahatma' was accorded to him much later. Mahatma literally translates

to 'great soul' in Sanskrit. Even though opinion is ambivalent as to how

Gandhi came to be known as Mahatma, people generally believe that noted

poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore bestowed the title of 'Mahatma'

Gandhi.

Despite his lifelong pursuit of nonviolence, Gandhi found himself

embroiled in a war at an early stage of his life, albeit in a humanitarian role.

During his stay in South Africa the Second Boer War broke out and Gandhi

organized a volunteer medial unit of free Indians and indentured laborers

called the Indian Ambulance Corps. This unit provided exemplary medical

19

service to wounded black South Africans and post -war Gandhi became a

decorated sergeant of the Corps.

Pietermaritzburg in KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa was the

place where Gandhi was shoved out a train 1893 after refusing to move from

the first class to a third class coach while holding a first class ticket. This

unsavory incident proved to be landmark event in Gandhi's life as he made it

a mission to protest such incidents of racial abuse. The downtown of

Pietermaritzburg city now hosts a commemorative statue of Mahatma

Gandhi.

` It is indeed a sad irony that Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest exponent of

peace and nonviolence, was never deemed eligible for the Nobel Peace

Prize. After four previous nominations, Gandhi was chosen for the Prize in

1948, but because of his unfortunate assassination the Nobel Committee had

to shelve their plans and the Peace Prize was not awarded that year.

20

Mahatma Gandhi Quotes

Throughout his life, Mahatma Gandhi held certain principles dear to his

heart and unfailingly adhered to them. The ebullient speaker that he was, the

Mahatma's words were pearls of wisdom that inspired an entire nation to

embrace his principles and tread the path showed by him. Following

aresome famous quotes by Mahatma Gandhi that captured the essence of

Gandhi's values and beliefs:

Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then

you win.

As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to

remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able

to remake ourselves.

The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing

would suffice to solve most of the world's problems.

You must be the change you want to see in the world.

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is

momentary.

One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must

be defended against the heaviest odds.

I object to violence because when it appears to do well, the good is

only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

Prayer is not an old woman's idle amusement. Properly understood

and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.

The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.

21

Gandhi’s Philosophy Of Industry And Economy

My following article was published on 08.05.1977 in National

Herald a daily founded by Jawaharlal Nehru (now defunct). I am submitting

it on the occasion of the 3rd International Dialogue On Economics Of

Non-Violence being held in Jaipur on 13th and 14th November, 2008.But,

alas, even after more than half century of freedom the gulf is ever widening

and with all the glitter of globalizations hunger, starvation and suicide deaths

are increasing amidst agricultural surplus, and sometimes fifty million

tonnes of grain in godowns rots but cannot be sold at subsidized prices for

fear of pushing the market prices down. That is the harsh economic reality! I

would like to give a link to my article

However I would like to add a post-script to it in the context of the global

financial meltdown, which is reminiscent of the Great Depression of 1930s.

The world leaders of Group-20 are meeting in Washington to find a solution

to the unbridled, US-style capitalism. This global crisis confirms the need to

hearken back to the Gandhian economics and his stark reminder to the G-20

world leaders that: “the economic constitution of India and for that matter of

the world, should be such that no one under it should suffer from want of

food and clothing. In other words everybody should be able to get sufficient

work to enable him to make the two ends meet. And this ideal can be

universally realized only if the elementary necessaries of life remain in the

control of the masses. Their monopolization by any country, nation or group

of persons would be unjust. The neglect of this simple principle in the cause

of the destitution that we witness not only in this unhappy land .

This G-20 meeting is also a second Bretton Woods Conference, which led

22

to the International Monetary Fund. It would be also pertinent to remind

ourselves what the godfather of the IMF had no illusions about the eventual

capitalist doom. The Keynesian observation in his Essays in Persuasion in

"Let us clear from the ground the metaphysical or general principles upon

which, from time to time, laissez-faire has been founded. It is not true that

individuals possess a prescriptive "natural liberty" in their economic

activities. There is no compact conferring perpetual rights on those who

Have or on those who Acquire. The world is not so governed from above

that private and social interests always coincide. It is not so managed here

below that in practice they coincide. It is not a correct deduction from the

Principles of Economics that enlightened self-interest always operates in the

public interest. Nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened; more

often individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are ignorant or

too weak to attain even these. Experience does not show that individuals,

when they make up a social unit, are always less clear-sighted than when

they act separately." This is the politics and economics of social justice. And

hence it was natural for the Father of the Indian Nation, Mahatma Gandhi to

give a dire warning: "Economic equality is the master key to non-violent

revolution. A non-violent system of government is clearly impossibility so

long as the wide gulf between the rich and hungry millions persists. The

contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the miserable hovels of the

poor, labouringly class cannot last one day in a free India in which the poor

will enjoy the same power as the richest in the land.

But, alas, even after more than half century of freedom the gulf is ever

widening and with all the glitter of globalization hunger, starvation and

23

suicide deaths are increasing amidst agricultural surplus, and sometimes fifty

million tonnes of grain in godowns rots but cannot be sold at subsidized

prices for fear of pushing the market prices down. That is the harsh

economic reality!

Social, political and economic philosophy.

24

Gandhiji wanted the rich to hold their riches in trust for the under-

privileged. His trusteeship idea was the golden mean between class-conflict

and non-violence. It was also the Gandhian answer to the Marxist

expropriation of the expropriators. Because Gandhiji perceived rightly that

even after expropriation had been accomplished there would remain

inequalities resulting from varying capacity and talents which in turn would

again give rise to privilege and class unless held in trust in the interests of

society.

But all the same Gandhiji feared the above possibility if the rich were

not to see the writing on the wall and mend their ways in time. One has to

bear in mind that the concept of non-violence as a way of life is capable of

being put into practice only on an elevated level. It would be absurd to

expect a majority of the people to get attuned to such a level for too long and

without apparent results. And therefore this is a very real possibility of an

abrupt social conflagration. One can recall in this context Jawahararial

Nehru’s words in his presidential address at the Lahore Congress: “The new

theory of trusteeship is equally barren. For trusteeship means that the power

for good or evil remains with the self-appointed trustee, and he may exercise

it as he will. The sole trusteeship that can be fair is the trusteeship of the

nation and not of one individual or a group.”

The persistence and growing incidence of violence in our times

though apparently stemming from local and parochial causes is in reality a

25

symptom of deep-seated and chronic economic malaise of the masses and

from which they are despairing of recovering.

The temper of the times seems to be moving inexorably towards some

sort of confrontation. Could it be that the worst fears of the Mahatma would

materialize? Or would Indian rally back from the brink and thus give lead

world?

But it would be wrong to give way to such dark misgivings. Gandhiji

loved India dearly. “I cling to India”, he once declared, “like a child to its

mother’s breast, because I feel that she gives me the spiritual nourishment I

need. She has the environment that responds to my highest aspirations.” And

he was even noble enough to say: “Let India live though a hundred Gandhi’s

have to perish”. And therein lies at once the hope and the challenge for all

Indians.

26

Gandhi's Philosophy and the Quest for Harmony

The four aims of life

Introduction

“The fact that I have affected the thought and practice of our times does not

make me fit to give expression to the philosophy that may lie behind it. To

give a philosophical interpretation of the phenomenon must be reserved for

men like you.”1

Harmony is the coming together of the different elements that constitute a

coherent whole. Gandhi’s philosophy is made up of different elements. That

is why it has been interpreted from different angles. Some treat it primarily

as a political theory. Others approach it as a religious philosophy of great

contemporary relevance. Still others see it as an original theory of conflict

resolution and non-violence. There are those who regard it as containing

ideas extremely relevant for both economic development and for the

maintenance of a sustainable economy. Finally there are those who find in it

significant ideas on the relationship of art to society.

There is of course a great deal of truth in what these interpretations have

to say. Taken individually, each gives an in-depth, but unavoidably partial

understanding of the whole. The fact is that individual themes in Gandhi’s

philosophy make full sense only when they are seen in their relationship to

one another and to the whole. It is the reality of this interaction that needs to

be understood. It is not enough to juxtapose a series of different Gandhis –

27

the political, the religious, the ethical, or any other. It is not enough to know

that Gandhi teaches non-violence. To know his doctrine of non-violence

really well one has to know how it interacts with his position on war or his

theory of the state and the relations between states. Likewise it is not enough

to know that he put his religious insights into socially and politically

beneficial practice. To know his religious philosophy really well we have to

know how it comports with secularism that he also professed. And so on

with the other major themes of his philosophy. The point is that there is an

inner dynamism that brings the diverse elements into a fruitful relationship

with one another. And it is necessary to understand the nature of this inner

dynamism if we are to understand his philosophy accurately and fully.

While specialists tend to focus on specific elements of Gandhi’s thought,

it is often the generalist – apart from the historian, of course – who catches a

glimpse of the whole. This is the case, for example, with the assessment

made by Sir Ernest Barker, a Cambridge political philosopher and a personal

friend of the Mahatma. He saw different elements meeting in him and

reinforcing one another. There was the St. Francis, “vowed to the simple life

of poverty, in harmony with all creation and in love with all created things.”

There was the St. Thomas Aquinas, “able to sustain high argument and to

follow the subtleties of thought in all their windings.” And then there was

the statesman, “who could come down from mountain tops, to guide with

shrewd advice transactions in the valley.” Finally there was the bridge that

connected the Indian tradition of “devout and philosophic religion” and the

Western tradition of “civil and political liberty in the life of the community.”

“The mixture was the essence.” He could mix “the spiritual with the

temporal, and could be at the same time true to both.” “What he was to the

28

world, and what he could do for the world, depended on his being more

things than one.”

“Being more things than one” is a label that fits Gandhi well. Any study of

his thought that aspires to be comprehensive is bound to expose the student

to the comparative perspective that it provides. The ancient and the modern,

the Indian and the Western perspectives jointly illumine the substance of his

thought. The question is how the different elements come together and

constitute a coherent whole. This book attempts to answer this question. It

uses a framework of analysis that does justice to the basic unity of his

practical philosophy. Gandhi was not a philosopher in the normal sense of

that term, much less a system builder. But a philosophy does underlie his

thought and actions. He was aware of this, though not willing to expound

systematically the underlying philosophy. He wisely left the task of

exposition and interpretation to the philosophers themselves. That was the

point of his letter to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan cited at the beginning of this

Introduction.

This letter is of great value to every serious interpreter of Gandhi. For it

tells us that non-philosophers like Gandhi often work from certain basic

philosophic principles. The fact that he was not a philosopher in the formal

sense need not therefore inhibit his interpreters from looking for the

underlying philosophy. By the same token, there is no excuse for not looking

for the philosophic underpinnings of his thought. In the history of human

thought there have been several non-philosophers who produced important

bodies of philosophical ideas. Machiavelli is a well-known example from

the West. The crucial issue is whether in interpreting such thinkers we can

find the right interpretive key, the key that fits the available data. I believe

29

that in Gandhi’s case such a key is available. It is the Indian theory of the

purusharthas (the aims of life). Apart from opening the vast storehouse of

Gandhian ideas, it also enables us to enter a truly Indian intellectual edifice.

The concept of purushartha has three related meanings. First, it means any

human striving. Secondly, it refers to human striving directed towards

overcoming fate and karma. And thirdly, it refers to any one of the four

canonically recognized aims of life, viz., dharma (ethics and religion), artha,

(wealth and power), kama (pleasure), and moksha (liberation from samsara,

the cycle of birth, death and rebirth). The bulk of our argument will be taken

up with the third meaning, even although the other two meanings also, as we

shall see, will receive their due attention.

Etymologically the term purushartha, made up of purusha (spirit) and

artha (for the sake of), carries the literal meaning of “that which is pursued

for the sake of the spirit or the immortal soul.” In Indian philosophical

anthropology humans are seen as composites of body and spirit. It is the

purusha that provides the spiritual and moral “foundation” (adhistan) to the

human personality. Accordingly, human values are seen, ultimately, as those

that are pursued for the sake of the purusha. Put simply, the pursuit of

purushartha is what gives human activities their basic meaning and purpose.

Not that the body and its interests do not have their own internal structure

and relatively autonomous goals, but that, in moral and philosophic terms,

such goals acquire their full human significance only when they retain a

reference to the immortal purusha. Any human pursuit that deliberately

excludes a reference, however remote, to the purusha is considered pro tanto

not beneficial to human well being.

30

It is no wonder that those who wish to understand the Indian civilization

as a whole find in the theory of the purusharthas a very convenient tool for

analysis and communication. For example, William Theodore de Bary’s

Sources of Indian Tradition, a well-known college text, uses “the four ends

of man” as its framework of analysis of Indian thought. Heinrich Zimmer’s

Philosophies of India does something similar. He groups Indian

philosophical thought under two headings: “philosophies of time” and

“philosophies of eternity.” Under the first heading he deals with the three

“temporal” purusharthas of artha, dharma and kama. The masterworks of

these purusharthas are, respectively, the Arthasastra of Kautilya’s, the

Dharmasastra of Manu, and the Kamasutra of Vatsyayana. And under the

second heading he deals with moksha, the fourth purushartha. Historically it

received canonical recognition later than did the other three. But it soon

acquired preeminence over them. As many as six systems of philosophy –

Nyaya, Vaisesika, Yoga, Samkya, Mimamsa and Vedanta – were invented to

do justice to this one purushartha. And, as if to underline the contemporary

relevance of the theory, the Centre d’études de l’Inde et de l’Asie du Sud,

Paris, has entitled its annual publication Collectio Purushartha.

The mutual relationship of the four aims

The question of the mutual relationship between the four aims has been one

of the major methodological questions associated with this theory. Do they

interact positively with one another or do they counteract each other? The

question was raised in Indian classical thought, and it continues to be raised

even today. The Arthasastra, for example, advises the good ruler to devote

himself or herself equally to dharma, artha and kama, because they are

morally “bound up with one another” (anyonya-anubaddham). Any one of

31

the three, when indulged in excess, does harm to itself as well as to the rest.8

If one’s duty (svadharma) is pursued within the context of the balance

achieved by the three mundane goals of life, it would lead to the

transcendent goal of svarga, i.e., “endless bliss.”9 The Dharmasastra of

Manu, in its turn, takes note of the different views held by its

contemporaries. Some held that the chief good consisted in dharma and

artha, others in kama and artha, and still others in dharma alone or artha

alone. But the correct answer, according to Manu, was that it consisted of

the aggregate of the three.10 The aggregate of the three would lead to

moksha.11 Vatsyayana’s Kamasutra also noted the existence of competing

views on the subject. The prescribed procedure was that dharma should have

precedence over artha, and artha over kama. However, there were

exceptions, as in the case of kings, where artha should have precedence over

the other two, just as in the case of courtesans, kama should have precedence

over the rest. Vatsyayana’s own advice was in favor of a balanced approach:

“Undertake any project that might achieve the three aims of life, or two, or

even just one; but not one that achieves the one at the cost of the other

two.”12

Adding moksha to the existing canon of three, the so-called triad –

dharma, artha, and kama – created a problem of its own. It was that the triad

was held by some to be unable to contribute directly to the attainment of

moksha. The claims of the sramanic or the “renouncer” movements –

Brahminical, Buddhist, and Jain – were largely responsible for this. We see

the Buddha, the sramana (renouncer) par excellence, renouncing his princely

status, and even family ties, for the sake of attaining nirvana. As a result, in

Buddhism, as in ascetic Brahminism and Jainism, artha and kama came to be

32

marginalized to the point of being treated as negative values. At best artha

was conflated with dharma, as in the case of Asoka the Great, the Buddhist

emperor. His famous edicts sought to establish the reign of dharma at the

expense of artha.

The radical separation of moksha and nirvana from the other purusharthas

had had disastrous consequences for Indian civilization taken as a whole.

The achievements of Kautilya’s, for example, were rendered nugatory and,

as a result, Indian political philosophy stagnated for nearly two millennia.13

The great thinkers of India, including Sankara and Ramanuja, supported the

ascendancy of moksha over all the other purusharthas.

The trend continued even after the nineteenth century, despite Raja Ram

Mohan Roy’s (1772–1833) effort to reverse it. Swaminarayan (1781–1830)

and Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836–86) lent their support to the world-

renouncing and artha-devaluing approach to moksha.14

The ascendancy of moksha is so great that even today some of the major

discussions on the relationship between the purusharthas often come down

to a discussion of the relationship between dharma and moksha, as if the

other purusharthas do not matter. For an example we need to look no farther

than the debate between D. H. H. Ingalls and J. A. B. van Buitenen on the

subject. Van Buitenen held dharma and moksha to be incompatible. Moksha

was the release from the entire realm governed by dharma. The idea was that

“the world and phenomena,” being transitory, could never be an ultimately

valid goal, that there was lesser truth in creation than in the principle or

person from which creation originated.

33

Ingalls on the other hand found dharma and moksha “to have been usually

harmonized within one single religious path.” The two arose in different

milieus, and the majority of Hindus attempted “to harmonize” the two. To

those who accepted the goal of moksha, it was a goal beyond dharma. The

harmonizers regarded the two “as points along a single journey, a journey

for which the viaticum was discipline and self-training.” The conflict was

the exception rather than the rule. It was “the monastic disharmonizers,” as

Ingalls called them, (among them Nagarjuna, Sankara and Vallabha), who

insisted on “the contradiction” between the two.

In the late twentieth century, however, the scope of the discourse

broadened to include all four purusharthas. But disagreements still persist on

the question of whether the four constitute a system of oppositions or one of

relative harmony. Louis Dumont and A. K. Ramanujan, for example, defend

a theory of opposition.

Dumont, in his Homo Hierarchic us, first of all radically separates moksha

from the rest. Even within the rest, i.e., the triad, a hierarchical relationship

exists. Dharma, artha, and kama represent a hierarchy of ends – moral

universalism, calculating egoism, and immediate satisfaction, respectively.

Each is accorded legitimacy. At the same time, each is opposed to the other,

though not absolutely. A hierarchical opposition exists when an “inferior”

goal is pursued only when a “superior” goal does not intervene. Thus, in

case of conflict, kama should yield to artha, and artha to dharma. If this rule

were followed, the triad would work as a system of hierarchical opposition.

However, between the triad and moksha, no positive relationship is possible,

as the latter requires the radical renunciation of the former. In the end, any

34

attempt to bring together the four into a system will only mask the

heterogeneity that exists between moksha and the rest.

Dumont appears to be oblivious of Kautilya’s principle of mutuality

(anyonya-anubaddham), which should relate the four to each other. That is

why he is forced to posit opposition where mutuality should prevail. This

faulty concept of the relationship between the purusharthas forces him to

make a faulty analysis of Gandhi’s philosophy. He sees two Gandhi’s – the

politician and the sannyasi (ascetic) – co-existing without any internal

integration. It was as if the two Gandhi’s were unable to communicate with

each other. To the British, Gandhi appeared to be a political representative

of Indians, to the Indians he appeared to be a holy man. At the root of this

falsification of Gandhi is Dumont’s inability to see what Gandhi was really

attempting to do, namely to reconstitute the system of values of Indian

civilization and to rehabilitate the principle of mutuality especially between

artha and moksha.

A. K. Ramanujan, in his turn, favors what he calls a theory of “successive

encompassment” to explain the internal relationship of the purusharthas.

Dharma, artha and kama form “concentric nests” (kosas or sheaths) formed

from the center – the individual. In so far as they are concentric nests they

are relational in their values. The individual needs to follow them in

succession. Moksha, however is not part of the system of nests, for it is

“release from all relations.” Sannyasa (the final stage in life), writes

Ramanujan, “cremates” all one’s past and present relations. Moksha for him

is pure isolation, kaivalyam. Once more, disharmony between values is the

end result of this particular interpretation of the theory of the purusharthas.

35

From opposition towards harmony

The need to go beyond the negative attitude fostered by these

“disharmonizers” is recognized by many Indian thinkers today. For them it

is not enough to restate what the last two millennia thought of what the

relationship of the triad to nirvana or moksha had been. For them it is

necessary to rethink the whole theory of the purusharthas. No one has

expressed the need for this with greater conviction and intellectual authority

than has Pandurang Vaman Kane, the author of the monumental History of

Dharmasastra. One of the general conclusions that he has reached is that the

radical separation of the spiritual from the political, the economic from the

ethical had cost Indian civilization dearly. He lays much of the blame at the

feet of the acharyas (Indian religious philosopher-saints) for placing “too

much emphasis on other worldliness and Vedanta,” and for not placing

“equal or greater emphasis” on the importance of the active life. He is

saddened not to find an Indian Alberuni21 in the eleventh century who would

inquire into the reasons why Indians did not form a permanent state for the

whole of India, why they did not develop manufacturing and industries, and

why they were unable to resist successfully external aggression. Indian

intellectuals were mostly engaged in “mental gymnastics” about Logic,

Vedanta, Poetics and similar subjects, giving little attention to the means of

removing the weaknesses and the defects of the country’s political and

economic systems.22 The starting point of such rethinking should include a

new understanding of the meaning of the theory of the purusharthas.

Several students of Indian thought have contributed to this rethinking. The

work of the philosopher R. Sundara Rajan has been quite innovative here.

36

His knowledge of Western phenomenological thought enabled him to see the

purusharthas as “modes of being in the world,” or “the grounds of the

possibility of our humanity.” It is the purusharthas in their “simultaneity”

that distinguish us as human. To sunder one from the other is to negate it as

a purushartha. Kama, for instance, without the other three would be animal

impulse, but with them, it would be a form of being human. What makes

Kama a human value is its mediation by the other three. And so on with the

other three.

------------------------------------xxxxxxxxxxxx--------------------------------------

37