I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

M.K. Gandhi

 

Modern European culture is looked upon by many as superior and progressive. Many non-European states regard it as an ideal way of life and have decided to make this culture their own. They have borrowed from Europe not only the advantages of science and technology, but also it philosophy, art, literature, languages, etc. Above all, there has been a conscious attempt to imitate the European life-style. However, Gandhi’s reaction to that ‘well-appreciated’ modern culture was different and unique. He responded to modern European culture as a member of a traditional community who lived and enjoyed the local culture. This study of his analysis of culture may help us to derive a few solutions to many our common problems.

The term ‘culture’ is translated as an equivalent of samskara in many Indian languages. It is considered as a moral quality to be achieved through a process of purification. Many Indian thinkers have used the words ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’ as analogous, but they are not the same. The term nagarikatha, which stands for ‘civilization,’ denotes the social and material progress of a particular period or of a people belonging to a particular race or community, etc. The two words were used as similar because of the presence in both the words of the act of refinement. Their adjectival forms such as ‘cultured’, ‘civilized’, etc., indicate the sense of ‘cultivated’, ‘refined’, etc. For example, one who is refined is said to be a cultured or civilized person. The refinement will not be complete without moral purification. An individual or social stage would not be referred to as cultured or civilized unless the individual or the society was guided morally.

The members of a morally oriented society should consciously eliminate the evils and bring the society closer to goodness. Mahatma Gandhi advocated such a concept of culture.

Gandhi did not develop any systematic theory as such on social or cultural transformation. But we may be able to draw out of his teachings what was implicit in his thoughts. According to him, human life progresses towards goodness by overcoming evils. There are elements of good and evil in every person. Similarly, society too consists of both himsa and ahimsa. Humanity should progress towards goodness by being non-violent. Therefore, the essence of human progress should be moral progress. He also observed that humanity was advancing morally. He argued that the existence of society is itself a sign of the presence of ahimsa in society, for social life would be impossible if himsa prevailed over the goodness that still remains with human beings. We can maintain a level of mutual trust and social order because of the non-violent life style of many.

Gandhi described human history as a movement from himsa to ahimsa. He called it the great law of history. But the law was considered not natural, but moral and spiritual. The historical role of man, according to Gandhi, was to participate in the creation of a non-violent society with non-violent love.

At the same time, progress towards ahimsa was often obstructed by our violent activities. Some people satisfies their selfish interests without fulfilling their social responsibilities. They used their social placement for the promotion of their own goals, and were motivated by brute force. Gandhi developed satyagraha as a method to eliminate such brute force from among the people. Satyagraha could help us derive the force that could transform a society by insistence on truth and love.

Satyagraha as a method is aimed at the elimination of evil from society. The intention of satyagraha was to annihilate only the evil, not the evil doer. Therefore, we should not use evil means to eliminate evil, lest evil accumulate. Satyagraha could transform society by making of the evil doer as an activist of ahimsa. Only a fully convinced and a well-trained person could seek the conversion of the enemy. Satyagraha was not an emotional outburst against the evil doer, but the determination of the volunteers to act in the best way possible for the welfare of all. The Satyagraha campaign should be a program developed gradually towards a non-violent social order. It should be planned to function step by step, so that the deviations or the degradations could be effectively checked.

According to Gandhi, most persons consciously or unconsciously are used to practicing satyagraha. Many members of our families voluntarily accept suffering for the sake of each other, without any ill will against them. We serve others without considering how much others have contributed to our welfare. Similarly, in our families, we correct each other in many ways, even to the extent of causing pain or disturbance to each other. But we do not do it with any evil intention or ill will towards them. What we desire is for the best in life for all the members of family.

Many of our families enjoy great peace and prosperity because of the self-suffering love of the members of those families. But many are not aware that they have been practicing non-violence. If they awakened to their abilities and social roles, they would work for a non-violent society. We need such education, which can bring out the talents and willingness of the students for the creation of an orderly society. In such a society, all would consciously and consistently work for the welfare of all. But some may not be happy with a non-violent society. They may prefer to live in a violent society, where they can pursue their personal goals, which would be against the collective interest. In such a situation of violence, the non-violent members have to sacrifice themselves for the conversion of such evil doers. Selfless love of the satyagraha volunteers can win over evil doers to the service of society. Until then the non-violent struggle should be continued. The satyagrahis are those who are optimistic about the final victory of goodness.

A cultured society would become a reality only when it is based on and maintained through the tools of truth and non-violence. According to Gandhi, swaraj could not be achieved through untruth or by violent means. He considered satya and ahimsa as the basic foundations of a non-violent social order.

Satya is usually considered a virtue. But the Gandhian concept of satya should be understood not in its moral sense, but in its metaphysical sense. Sat, the Real is ‘one,’ and Gandhi believed in the Oneness of Reality. As that Reality pervades all, Gandhi affirmed the essential unity of everything in Reality. Though called by different names by different people, this Supreme Absolute was seen by Gandhi as the beginning and as the end of everything.

Gandhi considered the Reality as both immanent and transcendent. He is within everything; the things of the world change and perish, but He remains as the underlying principle behind all these changes. The Reality transcends the changing and perishable phenomena of the world; it is the Supreme Essence and the Primordial Being. Gandhi, like the Upanishadic thinkers, held that the highest possible, positive description of the Reality was Satchitananda, i.e. Truth, Consciousness and Bliss. As the Truth stands for the ontological reality that ‘embraces all and everything;’ he described God as Truth. But he felt the necessity of modifying this definition when he was exposed more to the different metaphysical positions. His belief that `God is Truth’ might not be accepted by all, especially by the atheists. Therefore, he looked for a better explanation for the all-embracing Reality, which could be acceptable to all. This attempt is found in Romain Rolland’s narration of his conversations with Gandhi in December 1931. Romain Rolland described Gandhi’s views on God as follows:

When Gandhi defined Truth as God, his intention was to transcend the limitations of the different concepts of God which were held by the various religions and atheists, because such concepts divide people in the name of the doctrines in which they believe. However, Gandhi’s concept would be acceptable to all, as it was not against the belief of anyone. In this way, he invited both believers and non-believers in God to pursue the Truth, and through that process make the world a little more non-violent.

According to Gandhi, both satya and ahimsa were closely intertwined. Satya is the end of ahimsa which is the means; they are not different, but two aspects of the same thing. Through his life and teachings, Gandhi affirmed that without ahimsa it was impossible to seek Truth. At the same time, the path of ahimsa could be visualized by a person only if it was illuminated by the Truth itself, because the subject, the object and the way of our search would not be known unless the True Self revealed them to us. In other words, the higher human aspirations could be realized only as God’s own gift. This is possible only with a living faith in God. Thus, the true practice of ahimsa is a blessing from God himself. It would help us not only to seek God, but to gain the courage to reveal Him to others through selfless service.

Ahimsa is an expression of infinite love. A non-violent man involves himself in ceaseless work for the good of all. A karma yogi, who has given himself up for the service of society, volunteers to suffer for the sake of the happiness of the human race. The non-violent volunteer was capable of transforming the society with his selfless acts. Conversion of the hearts of others would take place by seeing his exemplary behavior. Gandhi saw such volunteers as the corner stones of village swaraj.

Socio-cultural transformation takes place not only by loving cooperation, but also by self-suffering non-cooperation. When individuals or institutions believed in evil and violence without refraining from them, non-violent love could show its face through non-cooperation and civil disobedience. Gandhi suggested resistance as an effective method of protesting against injustice and the evil in society. He assumed that injustice and tyranny could not be practiced without the willing or unwilling cooperation and support of the sufferers of those evils. We could resist the evils by dissociating ourselves from the evil doers. In this way, Gandhi used the virtue of ahimsa as a technique for social and cultural transformation and emancipation.

Brahmacharya is one of the requisites for a volunteer of a non-violent order. Its literal meaning is conduct that moves one to be in touch with God. This requires very great concentration on Him, which may become possible only by turning away from sensual pleasures and passions. An individual self, who can control himself by keeping the senses in their proper places, can seek the Ultimate Self successfully.

A celibate life can be opted for by married people, too. But both the husband and the wife should agree voluntarily to follow the vow of celibacy in their pursuit of Truth. They should be able to grow from their love and commitments within the family to the broader aspects of universal love. They should be successful as grahastasramins who could do sacrifices such as deva yajna, pitru yajna, bhuta yajna, etc. That way, the family which could carry out selfless duties could gradually extend its love and service to others. They should behave as if they were unmarried and think of each other as brother and sister. While making themselves available for universal service. Thus, their love would be free from the impurity of lust and attachment.

The votary of satya and ahimsa should uphold absolute honesty, purity of heart and self-discipline. According to Gandhi, to be honest is difficult, but not impossible. Many feel that it is imprudent to be honest and say that one can be successful in business only by using dishonest means. Gandhi was sincere to the old saying that ‘honesty is the best policy.’ He found that there were no inner contradictions between business and honesty; on the contrary, he felt that honesty brought prosperity to business. He advised the satyagrahis to be always honest.

An impure person cannot practice non-violence. As selfishness arises out of impure hearts, greed would compel one to seek the advantages of the world. Vinoba suggested internal purity or Antah-Shuddi as one of the qualities needed for a sarvodaya worker. He should activate Shuddha Vyavahara or a pure and honest life, and renounce unfair ways of earning wealth or securing commodities and comforts. Purity of heart was considered as a basic requirement for a volunteer of the village non-violent culture.

According to Gandhi, the existence and the continuity of humanity heavily depended on the presence of ahimsa in the society. Humanity has been evolving toward perfection by eliminating the elements of himsa from the society. But modern civilization has obstructed this process and intruded a kind of violence in industrial societies which destroyed traditional values and the ancient cultures of Europe. Gandhi feared the spread of the violent industrial culture to the other parts of the world. He warned of such an invasion and suggested the means by which India and other traditional communities could withstand such a cultural invasion. He opposed the industrial culture on the following grounds.

Industrialization was based on the unscrupulous exploitation of the natural resources. According to Gandhi, it was human duty to protect all that belonged to the subhuman world. Human willingness to be the custodian of the universe was one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. But by using machines, we exploited nature to satisfy more and more of our greed. Therefore, industrialization was against the peaceful coexistence of man with nature.

The machine was highly admired as an instrument which could liberate humankind from the hardships of tiresome and strenuous labor. But the capitalists mechanized the production processes with developed techniques with a view to save on labor. No capitalist used the machine to liberate the laborer from the tediousness of hard work, but only to reduce the work force for earning more profit. Even though human relations should be built on the basis of love, in reality they were based on greed. Gandhi was not blindly opposed to the use of the machines. He appreciated the use of those types of machinery which could serve the interests of all. He was for a decentralized and labor intensive type of machinery which could eliminate pauperism and idleness among the workers.

Mechanization, initially, displaced the traditional workers from their means of livelihood. Of course, a few got better employment opportunities initially but due to the excess of competition leading towards monopoly even those workers gradually lost their jobs and unemployment was mounting. Thus, Gandhi was against mechanization for India. With a smaller population and in better circumstances, even England could not overcome its economic crisis. In other advanced countries, too, the problems of unemployment could not be solved. If India should dislodge its people from their traditional fields of work, Gandhi wondered where they could be accommodated.

Machines, of course, eased the production process. Machinery produced a larger quantity of goods within a short period of time with a minimum number of wage laborers. The traditional producers could not compete with this type of mechanized production. Therefore, thousands of traditional producers were forced to leave the field so that production became centralized in the hands of a few. Factory civilization had its base on the centralized economic system. The commodities were produced in the centralized factories and distributed to the various markets at distant places through a well-developed transport system. There was no direct personal link between the producers and the consumers.

As huge investments were required for industrialization, the traditional producers could not mechanize their production techniques, because the traditionalists were not working for the accumulation of wealth but for earning their livelihood. Therefore, only those who had already accumulated wealth through some other means established factories and monopolized the production of commodities.

The centralization of the economy and the concentration of wealth could not be protected without the help of the police. A good portion of the wealth was spent on maintaining the army and the police forces. The economy could be centralized only by adopting violent means, which was inconsistent with the non-violent structure of a society.

Centralization of an economy led to the concentration of the population in the industrial areas, producing an urban civilization. Centralization of the economy was due to the mechanization of the production processes. Huge machines and large scale production could not be decentralized due to such factors as the availability of raw materials, power supply, skilled laborers, technicians, managerial hands, etc. Cities provided the necessary conditions which could bring together the infrastructure and other necessary facilities. Thus, cities became the focus for facilities, accessibility, capabilities, and so on. Urban civilization itself was considered the symbol of progress.

More and more people moved to the cities attracted by job opportunities, decent salaries and huge profits. Gradually, cities became overpopulated and living conditions in urban areas became miserable. Gandhi considered urbanization a snare, where all the vices grew.

Like many other thinkers, Gandhi also subscribed to the view that modern civilization, which was the creation of modern science and technology, was a disease. Industrial culture provided facilities by which we could do many good things for the advantage of humanity, but it could not move us beyond the perpetuation of the unredeemable evils in the universe.

Modern culture rested on a bundle of paradoxes. We have machines which could reduce the hardships of laborers, but modern production techniques converted millions of workers into beasts. Modern culture promoted bodily ease, but did so by risking the lives of millions in dangerous occupations: millions sacrificed their life for the sake of millionaires. Imbalance had crept into society and every walk of life. There was abject poverty in the midst of plenty. The problem of unemployment rose with the rise in the number of new production centers, for the growth of production techniques many lost their means of livelihood. The health conditions of the people deteriorated. There were new diseases which were unknown to us earlier. More and more scientists and doctors were engaged in researches to discover remedies, but with no avail. A good number of people survived longer, but with prolonged ailments.

The social organism to use affected by disease and Gandhi accused modern civilization for the degradation of morality. Industrial culture made religion less important, which modern science compartmentalized knowledge into sharp specializations. This influenced the moral and religious pursuits of learning, too, relegating them to the concerns only of those who were specializing in those subjects, while others remained indifferent to them. In this way, Europe became a land of agnostics and atheists.

The impetus of commerce rendered religion purposeless as modern civilization substituted God with money. All the great religions of the world have taught against the very ambition which is characteristic of modern civilization. They advised refraining from worldly pursuits and turning to godly pursuits.

Industrial culture promoted a life of bodily ease and care for oneself; what was promoted by the society and sought was bodily pleasures. The industrial culture could flourish only by multiplying human wants; a contented life was against the spirit of capitalism and industrialization. If we did not indulge in excessive consumption, the enormous quantities of commodities produced would be wasted, and consequently many of the factories would be compelled to be closed down. According to Gandhi, the strength of a culture should be measured not by weighing the pleasures one could enjoy in it, but by the moral integrity members of the society could achieve.

Gandhi was aware of the fact that many national leaders were not convinced of the dangers of industrialization, but were fascinated by the material development of industrial societies. Gandhi was of the opinion that India could not be liberated without putting aside modern civilization. Our socio-cultural features were unique and different from those of others and we should develop means and tools indigenously in order to create a better socio-cultural situation in our society by rectifying the defects and weaknesses of our own culture. Accordingly, he suggested a non-violent model of development for India as an alternative pattern meant for the integrated development of the individual and society, which he named village swaraj. Such a model would look after the basic necessities of every member in the society. He specified that everybody should get a balanced diet, necessary clothing and necessary shelter. He explained the possibility of the village swaraj overcoming the ills of the lopsided growth of the world.

The goal of the village swaraj was an ordered society which could pursue the path of happiness and peace for individuals and the whole society; it was an attempt towards perfection. By swaraj Gandhi meant self-control and independence. The micro-aspect of swaraj was the realization of self-control and independence by each and every individual. It aimed at the full development of the individuals. Such mature members were the perfect volunteers who could motivate the whole community towards perfection. Thus, swaraj could be created by sovereign individuals whose strength was pure moral authority.

The macro aspect of swaraj was the realization of order, peace and independence by society. In short it was the manifestation of truth in the society. The non-violent, socio-political, economic, moral and spiritual structures provide the infrastructure necessary for an integral development of individuals in the society. In such a situation all individuals can lead a virtuous life without great hardship.

But such a social structure could be achieved only there are perfect individuals in the society who would volunteer to work for the general welfare of the community. In this sense, swaraj was a process towards perfection for both individuals, as well as for society.

According to Gandhi, the village swaraj was not simply the resurgence of the old village panchayats, but a fresh attempt to create independent village units on strong moral foundations. He felt that the village swaraj would be the most workable social system in the context of modern India. It was a non-violent structure of a society.

The village swaraj was a democratic unit where social, political and economic structures were methodically decentralized. Swaraj was not imposed from above, but emerged from the masses. It was the self-rule of persons. The village swaraj was envisaged as an ideal infrastructure for the integral development of the person and of society. According to Gandhi, the workability of the village swaraj depended on the successful implementation of the principle of swadeshi.

The concept of swadeshi was popularly understood as the expression of a citizen’s love towards his nation. It is described usually as an act of patriotism. A patriotic act is mostly generated out of a person’s love towards his nation and hatred towards the other competing nations. Thus, we were able to practice swadeshi of the most popular type with much spirit and vigor during our freedom struggle against the British dominance. Even now, a few voluntary organizations use swadeshi as a political weapon to fight against the economic dominance of the industrially advanced countries. This practice of swadeshi brings about a division between swadeshi and videshi or paradeshi.

But the Gandhian concept of swadeshi was not intended to create a division in the society. Gandhian swadeshi aimed more at the integration of the people. It was considered a virtue prescribed for the implementation of justice in a situation where one lived by paying what one owed to one’s own immediate neighbors. The foundation of swadeshi was to be traced to a universal moral law aimed at the good of all.

According to Gandhi, ‘the welfare of all’ was the goal of an ideal social order. This could be achieved only through all-embracing, non-violent love. Violence leads to hatred and mutual distrust which is be the beginning of a war of each one against the other that leads to the end of the human species. Thus, non-violence should be the primary basis for achieving human brotherhood; it can enlighten the people and redeem them from their darkness. Because of our ignorance, we separate and segregate people in the name of nations, religions, class, caste, race, etc. The clannish tendency in us could be satisfied when we confine ourselves to our peer groups. A non-violent love is all-embracing; a non-violent society can incorporate all within itself. Everybody, without any exception, has an important place in a non-violent society: prince and peasant, Hindu and Muslim, touchable and untouchable, white and black, saint and sinner, all are treated equally without any segregation, in such a society. Physical and mental differences among the members are recognized as complementary for the development of the society. The aim of a non-violent society is not the uniformity of the people, but their unification, non-violent love is the center of human unity.

Gandhi was not satisfied by just affirming the essential likeness of human beings. All living beings should have the same status; we should establish equality between man and man and also with the whole creation. As he was influenced by the Indian religious teachings, he found no difficulty in accepting the divine presence in every being. He believed that the essence of every living being was the same. Thus, his wider concept of brotherhood could accept equal status for man and for the whole of God’s creation.

By equality, what Gandhi meant was equal status and not equal division of social wealth. Whenever he referred to equal wages for all services, his emphasis was not on the wage but on equal respect for all professions. As everyone should strive to fulfill only his or her needs and be satisfied with that, the distribution of wealth was not a question to be specifically considered. He emphasized the co-operative and collective use of society’s wealth. Special talents of any particular member of the society should be treated as his gifts to the society for serving the poor and the needy. Thus, every member of a non-violent society should give great importance to the welfare of all. They should be ready to sacrifice their self-interests for the common interests of all. Everyone was free to choose his profession according to his aptitude and temperament to fulfill the social needs. Vocations should be chosen not for one’s personal advancement, but for the good of society as a whole. On the contrary, in practice we opt for a profession that will fetch us money, power and status, which endangers society. For example, if one who does not have an aptitude for taking care of sick persons, chooses to become a doctor or a nurse, what good can the society expect?

A non-violent social organization should respect the individual’s freedom: every member in society should be considered a responsible person. Thus, society should be regulated with the least external coercion. Freedom is an internal force and voluntary actions should be guided by the moral force from within. The society should make provision for the integral development of individuals by their own moral pursuits.

In contrast a violent society finds it easier to regulate society by external force. In order to establish social order it inculcates fear in the minds of its members; at the cost of human dignity, it establishes a social order.

Gandhi was of the opinion that the progress of a society is retarded by the suppression of the free expressions of the individual. Fear tends to eliminate criticism, but the absence of criticism is a sign of retardation. No society could be refined without accepting criticism. A society that suppresses public opinion becomes dogmatic and remains static. A non-violent social order should be transparent and accept freedom of expression as its moral basis.

Gandhi observed that his society was unbearably male-dominated and customs and conventions were not at all favorable to the female members of the community. On the contrary, many privileges and exceptions were given to the male members. Among high caste Hindus, widowhood was enforced, while men were allowed to remarry. Gandhi realized that the remarriage of widows was better than forcing women to suffer their bitter widowhood. Therefore, he encouraged the remarriage of widows. Women were enslaved by male chauvinistic social norms; wives were treated badly for misconduct, while that of husbands was tolerated.

Gandhi asserted that a non-violent India could be formed only by the elimination of untouchability and the establishment of equal status for all members of the society. He wondered how a few sparks of the same fire could be treated as outcasts. He was not satisfied with a mere friendly or sympathetic attitude towards the so-called untouchables. The village swaraj could be established only through selfless love and service by the leaders to every member of the society. Any form of segregation or separation of a few was against its spirit.

We know that his position on varnasrama dharma was widely criticized in India. Several movements of the backward communities have criticized the rigid laws of the varnas and opposed the very concept of varna as a systematic and concealed attempt by the upper caste people to exploit the lower caste members of the society, to torture them without applying any physical coercion. Critics questioned the wisdom of Gandhi in reviving a system which had failed even in a primitive simple society. But Gandhi stuck to his position that it ensured the survival of hereditary skills, provided livelihood to all, and reduced excessive competition and exploitation. He considered it a remedy against pauperism. But he subscribed also to the view that a rotten dharma was the worst adharma.

An analysis of Gandhi’s village swaraj, where each member stood for the welfare of all, would help us perceive that the law of varnasrama dharma has no significant role to play in it. In swaraj the occupation of each member was not based on inheritance, but on the social need and aptitudes of each and every individual. In a multi-religious and multi-cultural society such as ours the choice of occupations could be made without any caste connotations. Above all, when we consider the negative influence of the caste system in our society, it has been pointed out by critics that it would have been better for Gandhi to think of a swaraj without the phenomenon of the caste system.

A non-violent society gave equal respect to all the religions. No religion was considered as specially favored by either the state or the village swaraj. Gandhi advised Congress workers to cultivate the habit of building friendships with persons belonging to religions other than their own. One should develop the same regard for the other faiths as one had for one’s own. Every religion attempted to realize the same reality. God expressed Himself to all, but we failed to understand Him. When His revelation was received by the human hand, our imperfections got alloyed with it. Most of us could not fully understand the Truth. Thus, we were biased towards considering other religions to be inferior. The core teachings of all religions were similar, the differences being mostly in their interpretations and rituals. Gandhi expressed this idea by using the analogy of the leaves and the tree. The leaves of a tree are separate and differ in many respects from the tree, but all are supported from the same stem and root. They do not quarrel with each other, due to their differences, instead they dance to the tune of the same breeze and play a sweet symphony together. Every religion should try to create such harmony. The task of the spiritual members of the society should not be to compare and compete, but to compare and complement each other for the full realization of Truth. The realization of the religious values was hindered due to proselytization and the related competition among many religions. The implication of swadeshi was that all should discover the richness of their own ancestral religion. If there were evils or defects in the teachings or practices of one’s religion, one should try to purify his religion. A change of religion was not the proper method of fighting against the evils of one’s own religion. Conversion of heart was the aim of every religion, if hearts were not converted, religious conversion would be superfluous and absurd. Every religion should be able to serve humanity without competing with each other.

Ever since Gandhi landed in South Africa in 1893 he was an eyewitness to the way Indians, including himself, were repressed and segregated by the white people and their regime. Along with other Indians, he developed satyagraha as a powerful weapon against racial separation. They courted arrest by disobeying the ordinance known as ‘The Black Act,’ by which all Asians in South Africa were ordered to register with authorities and carry a certificate with them at all times. He condemned such discrimination as a threat to human brotherhood and was concerned about the fate of the people of color under the dominance of the White. When Afro-Americans organized themselves against racism, they were advised to follow the non-violent political techniques for lessening racial discrimination and some were adopted by the organization called the Congress of Racial Equality - CORE. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr, the Civil Rights movement in America adopted and successfully implemented the Gandhian methods.

In sum, an ideal social order was one where every member of the society could lead a happy life by pursuing his goal. In such a society everybody could enjoy freedom with a non-violent spirit. Choice, with an all-embracing non-violent love, would not contradict any collective interest. A non-violent society is an integral society which would seek the total development of every member in it. Such a society could provide sufficient job opportunities to all the individuals without any kind of discrimination. And all would use their talents and opportunities for the welfare of all.

According to Gandhi an ideal political system should be a stateless democracy where social life was self-regulated. In that case, no political structure would be required to regulate or control social behavior. But he was not such an idealist as to believe in the full realization of such an ideal. So, he suggested a political structure that would be closer to his ideal of a stateless democracy. Real democracy should aim at the integral development of the individual and of society. The state should prepare all individuals for self-regulation.

The swadeshi spirit of Gandhi helped him to discover an indigenous alternative to modern democracy in the village swaraj of the panchayats. Since a village was a small unit, all its members could share and contribute to the village in a significant manner. They could influence the planning of their village; and the advantages of the community could be used for the welfare of all. In a village swaraj, individual persons could be the architects of their own government. Such a small unit, endowed with socio-political and economic powers, is called panchayat raj. It is a non-violent, self-sufficient, economic unit with full political powers. Panchayat raj would enable its members to better their living conditions in all aspects.

Panchayat raj was a system which Gandhi tried to revive from the ruins of the traditional panchayats. The village assembly had been called panchayat, as it consisted of five village leaders chosen by the villagers. Village panchayats were republics vested with full powers. Later, India was conquered by different foreign rulers and changed the pattern of administration to suit their needs.

They neglected the significance of the village panchayats, and the powers were transferred to a centralized body. The British authorities considered the panchayat system as a crude and primitive socio-political system. Moreover, they found that the panchayats did not effectively favor the British interests. The new administration was meant for collecting resources for the British Raj.

Gandhi very cautiously attempted to revitalize the panchayat raj. As the efforts of Congress to revive the old panchayat system were defeated if 1921, he entrusted the Provincial Congress Committee with the task of supervising the process of empowerment of the village panchyats. Full autonomy could not be given to the panchayats primarily due to the existence of British administration, but secondly because of the immaturity of the villagers. The criminal jurisdiction of the traditional panchayats was suspended, as not acceptable to the British judiciary. Even civil suits could not be settled unless both the parties agreed to accept the verdict of the panchayat. Gandhi and other village volunteers considered national independence as a favorable condition for the establishment of autonomous republics of village swaraj.

Gandhi and others, planned the structure of the panchayat raj in an ever-widening and never-ascending circular form. A panchayat consisted of five persons elected through adult franchise by the members of the village. The cooperation among the different panchayats was assured by linking the village panchayats with other units. Two panchayats could be joined together under an elected leader from among them, to form a unit. Such a leader would be a first grade leader. Fifty first grade leaders representing a hundred panchayats jointly form another unit and would elect a second grade leader from among them. Second grade leaders from every part of India would plan for the whole of India. They would serve the nation with due care and attention in their own respective areas. In order to regulate their function, a chief could be chosen. The panchayat raj system could be treated as a national network which incorporated all citizens and cultures into the national stream. Decentralizing the political system could overcome the isolation of individuals as well as the communities, for every section would be recognized in such a system.

Every panchayat should be able to maintain and manage its affairs by itself. The panchayat raj aimed at the formation of a non-violent, self-sufficient economic unit with full political power. Village workers should organize a self-contained and self-supporting village through agriculture and handicrafts. People should also be educated in sanitation and hygiene. Adequate measures should be taken to prevent ill-health and disease.

Panchayat raj was structured in the form of an ‘oceanic circle’ whose center was the individual who was ready to perish for the good of all. Thus the realization of the ideals of the village swaraj depended on the moral authority of her humble members. Under such a political system no individual or unit could compete with each others for selfish advantages. Competition would be only for excelling in their moral perfection.

In the economic sphere, the adoption of swadeshi was considered to be the local arrangement for providing accessibility of livelihood for all individuals in a non-violent way. Existence of this world involves a certain amount of violence; modern economic activities require a higher degree of violence. The purpose of a non-violent economy is to minimize this violence to the greatest extent possible.

The simple needs of all members could be satisfied by society and similarly the means to gratify those wants also should be simple. Righteous ways were promoted to produce food, clothing and shelter for all. It was to be a human-centered and need-based economy.

Gandhi suggested the theory of trusteeship to the nation as an alternative to the socialist program of annihilating zamindars and chiefs. He felt that the advantages and abilities of those gifted people should be used for building up of the village swaraj. He wanted those privileged members of the society to overcome their greed and come down to the level of the bread laborers.

Many in India, were not as optimistic as Gandhi about the workability of trusteeship. Critics questioned the wisdom of Gandhi in entrusting the affairs of the villages to the already ill-reputed village heads. Zamindars and other rich people who enjoyed power, wealth, status and recognition would not be willing to part with the privileges enjoyed by them. It was logical to conclude that they would exploit the poor members of our villages much more systematically and intensively when their possessions were legitimized.

Gandhi accepted the genuineness of these arguments. But his faith in satya and ahimsa gave him a strong ground for his belief that any person, however incorrigible he might be, could be corrected. And his experience was that the villagers, even in their crude behavior, were not as selfish as the English rulers or the city people. They were simple, and on many occasions he could guide them with the help of the Congress volunteers. Through prayer, pleading and persuasion, they could convert many village heads to be right leaders of the village. The bhoodana movement of Vinobabhave was an example to this effect. If these means failed, volunteers might be asked to enter into non-violent, non-cooperation and civil disobedience, so that the village heads might be convinced of their duty to the society. Gandhi admitted that trusteeship was an ideal, but if we worked towards that ideal, we could be closer to it. Because of the close and clannish relations among the villagers, trusteeship could be practiced successfully. In villages, nobody could flourish or could aspire to be great without the willing cooperation of the villagers. For example, the wealth in the villages was visibly produced, accumulated and maintained by the collective efforts of many, especially the poor, in the villages. Trusteeship was considered only an initial step in the formation of a non-violent economy. Gradually property should lose its individual character and should become the property of the entire village.

Gandhi preferred trusteeship to government ownership. As trustees were locally available persons who lived with the villagers and were aware of the regional resources and traditional technology, they would be the right planners for the swadeshi economy. Moreover, social wealth could easily be decentralized and distributed to all the members through them. Gandhi observed that under trusteeship, there might be a tendency for the privatization of ownership due to selfishness. Yet he opted for trusteeship in preference to state ownership, as the violence of private ownership would be less injurious to people than the violence of the state. The state was coercive in nature, and represented violence in a concentrated and organized manner. According to him, the state was a soulless machine. However evil an individual might be, as he had a soul, he could be corrected. Thus, through non-violent means, true trusteeship could be established.

Gandhi was of the opinion that mechanization and industrialization obstructed the realization of the village swaraj. Industrialization could endure only by large-scale consumption. The goods to be produced were not chosen on the basis of the needs of the people but were profit motivated. Therefore, it was the market mechanism that decided production in the economy. Industrialists flooded the market with various consumer articles and imposed them on the people through fair or foul means. One of the great disadvantages of mechanization was that it aggravated the unemployment problem. Gandhi pointed out that the advanced countries even in their glory struggled hard to find jobs for their people. In order to gain more profits capitalists introduced labor saving technology. If agriculture was also to be mechanized in the same manner, more and more people would be alienated from their traditional means of livelihood.

As an alternative, Gandhi urged reviving the traditional village production processes which were labor intensive and need based. He encouraged the development of technology which could serve the interests of all and welcomed the improvement of the cottage machines that could reduce the hardships of the manual laborers.

Gandhi upheld similar views regarding the swadeshi economy. It did not mean that there should be mutual exclusion among the societies. The swadeshi concept was not against receiving essential services or goods from foreigners when they could not be produced by immediate neighbors; similarly we could also extend the benefit of our service to the people of nearby places. The motivation behind the principle of self-dependency and self-sufficiency was not against interdependency; rational animals are social in nature, and an ideal social order requires that all the people work together as brothers. But Gandhi emphasized the point that dependency should be mutual, and it should not pave the way for oppression and exploitation. Therefore, it should be a fraternal cooperation where the relationship should not be hegemonic or businesslike, but between equals.

Gandhi suggested a non-violent way of life as an ideal culture. The core of non-violent culture is its simplicity; a simple way of life is affordable to all. Contentment and self-dependency can be acquired by leading a simple life. A system that multiplies wants promotes a violent culture. Modern culture, instead of satisfying the needs of the people, served the luxuries of a few and continues to increase human misery. The inability of industrial culture to fulfil the simple needs of the majority - like the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing - is well exposed by Gandhi.

As an alternative to complex industrial culture a simplified social structure was proposed by Gandhi, wherein individuals could lead a simple life. But in the present context, both a simplified social structure and a simple life are targets difficult to realize. Yet Gandhian remedies are used to cure many social maladies of modern societies. For example, the paradoxical existence of modern communities as both cosmopolitan and ‘clannish’ creates social problems. The new cosmopolitan societies are clannish because of their fascist and fanatic tendencies. Every society is divided in the name of class, clan, religion, nationality, languages, etc. Gandhi argued for the co-existence of every community.

The present political situation of the world calls for a Gandhian touch. Many nation states, both rich and poor, are disturbed by the revolutions for independent regions. Gandhian stateless democracy could be tried in order to solve these problems. Stateless democracy is a political situation created by less intervention of the centralized state in controlling and changing the regional affairs, so that the regions have a greater say in their affairs. Gandhi emphasized the participation of people in the political process. Modern democracy tries to incorporate the feelings of various groups through representation. It fails due to the absence of participation in decision making and planning. Small political units like the panchayat raj can properly share power with people, and many of the problems of a centralized government can be sorted out. Because of the participation in decision making and implementing the same, individuals and communities could be satisfied. It would also be an effective means to reduce the ‘clannishness’ of modern cosmopolitans.

Similarly, a non-violent economic order could set right many drawbacks of the present economic order. If an international organization is created to regulate the world economy on a moral foundation the violence in the production and distribution processes can be reduced. A regional moral regulation of the economy cannot withstand the violent global economy. Therefore, the enlightened volunteers of the world should come together to convince the world leaders to shift the priorities of the economy. The world economy should be made eco-friendly, need-based and labor-intensive. Without internationally organized efforts the priorities of the present economy will not be changed. This analysis shows that Gandhi could be a motivating force for us to work for a non-violent cultural order.

1. Homer A. Jack (ed.), The Gandhi Reader (Madras: Samata Books, 1983), pp. 383-84.

2. M.K.Gandhi, The Message of the Gita, compiled R.K. Prabu (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1994), p. 9.

3. Ibid, p. 9.

4. Ibid, p. 12.

5. M.K.Gandhi, Sarvodaya, ed. B. Kumarappa (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1984), p. 8.

6. Ibid, p. 12.

7. Ibid, p. 13

8. M.K.Gandhi, Village Swaraj, compiled H.M. Vyas (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1963), p. 96.

9. M.K.Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1988), p. 55.

10. Village Swaraj, p. 11.

11. Ibid, p. 12.

12 . Sarvodaya, p. 33.

13. Village Swaraj, p. 12.

14. Sarvodaya, p. 41.

15. Ibid, p. 42.

16. Village Swaraj, pp. 24-25.

17. Ibid, p. 23.

18. Ibid, p. 40.

19. Ibid, p. 54.

20. Sarvodaya, p. 56.

21. Ibid, p. 59.

22. Ibid, p. 56.

23. Homer A. Jack (ed.), The Gandhi Reader, p. 318.

24. Sarvodaya, p. 71.

25. Village Swaraj, p. 183.

26. Ibid, p. 36.

27. Ibid, p. 37.

28. Ibid, p. 37.

29. Ibid, p. 38.

30. Sarvodaya, pp. 143-44.

31. Ibid, p. 144.