Gandhi’s conception of society is based on a rejection of both capitalism and socialism
by Robert J. Burrowes
On 2 October 2019, it will be the 150th
anniversary of the birth of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Gujarat, India. I would like
to reflect on the visionary leadership that Gandhi offered the world, briefly
comparing it with some national leaders of today, and to invite you to emulate
Gandhi’s leadership.
While Gandhi is best remembered for being the
mastermind and leader of the decades-long nonviolent struggle to liberate
colonial India from British occupation, his extraordinary political, economic,
social, ecological, religious and moral leadership are virtually unknown,
despite the enormous legacy he left subsequent generations who choose to learn
from what he taught. This legacy is available online in the 98-volume Collected Works of Mahatma
Gandhi.
While touching on Gandhi’s legacy in each of these
regards, I would particularly like to highlight Gandhi’s staggering legacy in
four of these fields by briefly comparing his approach to politics, economics,
society and the environment with the approach of contemporary political leaders
such as Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil), Xi Jinping (China), Emmanuel Macron (France),
Viktor Orbán (Hungary), Narendra Modi (India), Binjamin Netanyahu (Israel),
Shinzo Abe (Japan), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Mohammad bin Salman (Saudi
Arabia), Boris Johnson (UK) and Donald Trump (USA).
 |
| Gandhi walks with Sarojini Naidu from the station at Boulogne to the quay on September 12, 1931 where he embarked on the channel steamer for Folkestone (Kent, Southeast London). (Photo by George Rinhart/Corbis via Getty Images) |
Before doing so, let me offer a little basic
background on Gandhi so that the foundational framework he was using to guide
his thinking and behaviour is clear.
Gandhi in Brief
In order to develop his understanding of the human
individual and human society, as well as his approach to conflict, Gandhi
engaged in ongoing research throughout his life. He read avidly and widely, as
well as keenly observing the behaviour of those around him in many social
contexts in three different countries (India, England and South Africa). Shaped
also by the influence of his mother and his Hindu religion, this led to
Gandhi’s unique understanding of the human individual and his approach to the
world at large.
For a fuller elaboration of
the points about Gandhi discussed below and the precise references, see
relevant chapters and sections on Gandhi in The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian
Approach.
Gandhi’s conception of the
human individual and human nature
In order to understand Gandhi
generally, it is imperative to comprehend his conceptions of the human
individual and human nature simply because these are the foundation of his
entire philosophy.
Gandhi attached enormous
importance to individual responsibility. He also had a very positive view of
human nature. Gandhi believed that humans could respond to ‘the call of the
spirit’ and rise above selfishness and violence. Moreover, this was necessary
in their quest for self-realization. Self-realization, as the Gandhian scholar
Professor Arne Naess explains it, ‘involves realizing oneself as an autonomous,
fully responsible person’.
In Gandhi’s view, this quest
is an individual one that relies on nonviolence, self-reliance, and the search
for truth. ‘To find Truth completely is to realize oneself and one’s destiny.’
But what should guide this search? According to Gandhi, it can only be the
individual conscience: The ‘inner voice’ must always be ‘the final arbiter when
there is a conflict of duty’. And in his view, ‘the voice of God, of Conscience,
of Truth or the Inner Voice or “the still small Voice” mean one and the same
thing.’
This point is centrally
important, because the usual descriptions of Gandhian nonviolence stress its
morality, humility and sacrifice while neglecting the fundamental norm ‘that you
should follow your inner voice whatever the consequences’ and ‘even at the risk
of being misunderstood’.
The point, of course, is that
creation of the nonviolent society which Gandhi envisioned required the
reconstruction of the personal, social, economic and political life of each
individual. ‘We shall get nothing by asking; we shall have to take what
we want, and we need the requisite strength for the effort.’ Consequently, the
individual required increased power-from-within through the development of
personal identity, self-reliance and fearlessness.
So what is fearlessness? For
Gandhi, it means freedom from all external fear, including the fear of dispossession,
ridicule, disease, bodily injury and death. In his view, progress toward the
goal of fearlessness requires ‘determined and constant endeavour’. But why is
fearlessness so important? Because a person who is fearless is unbowed by the
punitive power of others and that makes them powerful agents of change.
Gandhi’s approach to
society and political economy
Gandhi’s conception of
society is based on a rejection of both capitalism and socialism.
In relation to capitalism, he
rejected the competitive market and private property, with their emphasis on
individual competitiveness and material progress and their consequent greed and
exploitation of the weak. He also rejected the major institutions of
capitalism, including its parliamentary system of democracy (which denied
sovereignty to the people), its judicial system (which exacerbated conflict and
perpetuated elite power), and its educational system (which divorced education
from life and work).
In relation to socialism, he
rejected its conception of conflict in terms of class war, its claim that state
ownership and centralization are conducive to the common welfare, its emphasis
on material progress, and its reliance on violent means.
The Gandhian vision of future
society is based on a decentralized network of self-reliant and self-governing
communities using property held in trust, with a weak central apparatus to
perform residual functions. His vision stresses the importance of individuals
being able to satisfy their personal needs through their own efforts –
including ‘bread labor’ – in cooperation with others and in harmony with
nature.
For Gandhi, this horizontal
framework is necessary in order to liberate the exploiter and exploited alike
from the shackles of exploitative structures. This is vitally important
because, in his view, ‘exploitation is the essence of violence.’ Self-reliance
and interdependence must be built into the structure in order to enhance the
capacity for self-regeneration and self defense and to eliminate the potential
for structural violence inherent in any dependency relationship.
This social vision was
clearly evident in Gandhi’s ‘constructive program’, which was intended to
restructure the moral, political, social and economic life of those
participating in it. The constructive program was designed to satisfy the needs
of each individual member of society and was centrally concerned with the needs
for self-esteem, security, and justice. The program entailed many elements,
some of which are outlined below in order to illustrate this point.
A crucial feature of the
constructive program was the campaign for communal unity. This was intended to
encourage reciprocal recognition of the identity of Hindus, Muslims,
Christians, Jews and those of other religions. According to Gandhi, all people
should have the same regard for other faiths as they have for their own.
The campaign to liberate
women was intended to secure self esteem, security, and justice for those most
systematically oppressed by India’s patriarchal society. ‘Woman has been
suppressed under custom and law for which man was responsible… In a plan of
life based on nonviolence, woman has as much right to shape her own destiny as
man.’
The campaign for the removal
of untouchability was meant to restore self-esteem, dignity, and justice to the
Harijans (Gandhi’s term for those without caste) in Hindu society. Similarly,
the constructive program was concerned with recognizing the needs of indigenous
peoples and lepers throughout India. ‘Our country is so vast… one realizes how
difficult it is to make good our claim to be one nation, unless every unit has a
living consciousness of being one with every other.’
The khadi (handspun/handwoven
cloth) and village industries programs were intended to make the villages
largely self-reliant and Indians proud of their identity after centuries of
oppression and exploitation under British imperial rule. Khadi, Gandhi argued,
‘is the symbol of unity of Indian humanity, of its economic freedom and
equality.’ The struggle for economic equality was aimed at securing
distributive justice for all. It meant ‘leveling down’ the rich, who owned the
bulk of the nation’s
wealth, while raising the
living standards of ‘the semi-starved’ peasant millions.
Thus, Gandhi stressed the
centrality of the individual and the importance of creating a society that
satisfied individual human needs. ‘The individual is the one supreme
consideration’; individuals are superior to the system they propound. In fact:
‘If the individual ceases to count, what is left of society?… No society can
possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom.’
According to Gandhi then, the
foundation of this nonviolent society can only be the nonviolent individual: No
one need wait for anyone else before adopting the nonviolent way of life.
Hesitating to act because the whole vision might not be achieved, or because
others do not yet share it, is an attitude that only hinders progress.
So how is this nonviolent
society to come into being? For Gandhi, the aim is not to destroy the old
society now with the hope of building the new one later. In his view, it
requires a complete and ongoing restructuring of the existing social order
using nonviolent means. And while it might not be possible to achieve it, ‘we
must bear it in mind and work unceasingly to near it’.
The political means for
achieving this societal outcome entailed three essential elements: personal
nonviolence as a way of life, constructive work to create new sets of
political, social, economic and ecological relationships, and nonviolent
resistance to direct and structural violence.
Gandhi the nonviolent
conflict strategist
So what did nonviolence mean
to Gandhi?
According to Gandhi: ‘Ahimsa [nonviolence] means not
to hurt any living creature by thought, word or deed.’ The individual,
humanity, and other life forms are one: ‘I believe in the essential unity of
[humanity] and for that matter of all that lives.’
Given Gandhi’s understanding
that conflict is built into structures and not into people, and that
violence could not resolve conflict (although it could destroy the
people in conflict and/or the issues at stake) his religious/moral belief in
the sanctity of all life compelled him to seek a way to address conflict
without the use of violence. Moreover, despite his original training as a
lawyer in England and his subsequent practice as a lawyer in South Africa,
Gandhi soon rejected the law as a means of dealing with conflict too,
preferring to mediate between conflicting parties in search of a mutually
acceptable outcome.
According to Gandhi, British
imperialism and the Indian caste system were both examples of structures that
were perpetuated, in large part, as a result of people performing particular
roles within them. The essence of Gandhi’s approach was to identify approaches
to conflict that preserved the people while systematically demolishing the evil
structure. Moreover, because he saw conflict as a perennial condition, his
discussions about future society are particularly concerned with how to manage
conflict and how to create new social arrangements free of structural violence.
More importantly, according
to Gandhi conflict is both positive and desirable. It is an important means to
greater human unity. Professor Johan Galtung explains this point: ‘far from
separating two parties, a conflict should unite them, precisely because they
have their incompatibility in common.’ More fundamentally, Gandhi believed that
conflict should remind antagonists of the deeper, perhaps transcendental, unity
of life, because in his view humans are related by a bond that is deeper and
more profound than the bonds of social relationship.
So how is conflict to be
resolved? In essence, the Gandhian approach to conflict recognizes the
importance of resolving all three corners of what Galtung calls the ‘conflict
triangle’: the attitude, the behavior, and the goal incompatibility itself. The
Gandhian method of conflict resolution is called ‘satyagraha’, which means ‘a
relentless search for truth and a determination to reach truth’, it is somewhat
simplistically but more widely known (and practiced) in English as ‘nonviolent
action’ (or equivalent names). While the perpetrator of violence assumes
knowledge of the truth and makes a life-or-death judgment on that basis,
satyagraha, according to Gandhi, excludes the use of violence precisely because
no one is capable of knowing the absolute truth. Satyagraha,
then, was Gandhi’s attempt to evolve a theory of politics and conflict
resolution that could accommodate his moral system.
 |
| Gandhi in London, September 22, 1931: An admiring East End crowd gathers to witness the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi), in Canning Town, East London, as he calls upon Charlie Chaplin. Gandhi is in England in his capacity as leader of the Indian National Congress attending the London Round Table Conference on Indian constitutional reform. (Photo by London Express/Getty Images) |
It is for this reason then
that ‘Satyagraha is not a set of techniques’. This is because the
actions cannot be detached from the norms of nonviolence that govern attitudes
and behavior. Therefore, an action or campaign that avoids the use of physical
violence but that ignores the attitudinal and behavioral norms characteristic
of satyagraha cannot be classified as Gandhian nonviolence. Moreover, the lack
of success of many actions and campaigns is often directly attributable to a
failure to apply these fundamental norms to their practice of ‘nonviolent
action’ (by whatever name it is given locally). To reiterate: ‘Satyagraha is
not a set of techniques’.
But Gandhi was not just
committed to nonviolence; he was committed to strategy as well. Because he was
a shrewd political analyst and not naive enough to believe that such qualities
as truth, conviction and courage, nor factors such as numbers mobilized, would
yield the necessary outcomes in conflict, he knew that strategy, too,was imperative.
Consequently, for example, he
set out to develop a framework for applying nonviolence in such a way that
desirable outcomes were built into the means of struggle. ‘They say “Means are
after all means”. I would say “means are after all everything”. As the means so
the end.’
Gandhi the ecologist
According to Karl Marx, the
crisis of civilization was created by the production relations of capitalism;
for Gandhi, it was created by the process of industrialization itself. This
process both stimulated and was fueled by the unrestrained growth of individual
wants. The remedy, according to Gandhi, lay in individuals transforming
themselves and, through this transformation, founding a just social order.
He argued that social
transformation, no matter how profound, would be neither adequate nor lasting
if individuals themselves were not transformed. A part of this strategy was
‘the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants’. Gandhi did not begrudge
people a reasonable degree of physical well-being, but he made a clear
distinction between needs and wants. ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy every
[person’s] need but not for every [person’s] greed.’
But, as with everything else
in Gandhi’s worldview, he did not just advocate this simple material lifestyle;
he lived it, making and wearing his own khadi, and progressively reducing his
personal possessions.
Contemporary Political
Leaders
While contemporary national
leaders obviously display a wide variety of styles, it is immediately evident
that individuals such as Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil), Xi Jinping (China), Emmanuel
Macron (France), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), Narendra Modi (India), Binjamin
Netanyahu (Israel), Shinzo Abe (Japan), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Mohammad bin
Salman (Saudi Arabia), Boris Johnson (UK) and Donald Trump (USA) might be
readily identified as representative of virtually all of them.
And whatever one might say
about each of these leaders, it is clear from both their words and behaviour
that none of them regards the human individual and their conscience as the
foundation on which their national societies or even global society should be
built. On the contrary, individuals are destroyed, one way or another, so that
society is not inconvenienced more than minimally by any semblance of
‘individuality’ or individual conscience.
Moreover, while in some
countries there are clearly articulated doctrines about reducing inequality
and, in a few cases, some effort to achieve this, there is little or no
concerted effort to restructure their national societies and economies so that
inequality is eliminated; on the contrary, the wealth of the few is celebrated
and defended by law. None of these leaders wears a local equivalent of khadi to
express their solidarity with those less privileged and model a lifestyle that
all can (sustainably) share.
The oppression of certain
social groups, such aswomen, indigenous peoples, racial and religious
minorities, particular castes or classes, those of particular sexual and
identity orientations or with disabilities, remains widespread, if not endemic,
in each of these societies with considerably less than full effort put into
redressing these forms of discrimination.
Not one of these leaders
could profess an ecological worldview (and national policies that reflected a
deep commitment to environmental sustainability) or the simplicity of material
lifestyle that Gandhi lived (and invited others to emulate).
And not one of them could
pretend that killing fellow human beings was abhorrent to them with each of
these countries and their leaders content to spend vast national resources on
military violence rather than even explore the possibility of adopting the
strategically superior (when properly understood and implemented) strategy of
nonviolent defense that Gandhi advocated. ‘I have always advised and insisted
on nonviolent defence. But I recognize that it has to be learnt like violent
defence. It requires a different training.’ See The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian
Approachor, more simply, Nonviolent Defense/Liberation
Strategy.
For just a taste of the discriminatory, destructive
and violent policies of contemporary political leaders, see ‘Equality Reserved: Saudi
Arabia and the Convention to End All Discrimination against Women’, ‘156 Fourth World Nations
suffered Genocide since 1945: The Indigenous Uyghurs Case’, ‘Weaponizing Space Is the New
Bad Idea Coming From Washington D.C.’ and ‘Report Shows Corporations
and Bolsonaro Teaming Up to Destroy the Amazon’. But for further evidence of the support of
contemporary political leaders for violence and exploitation in all of their
forms, just consult any progressive news outlet.
As an aside, it is important
to acknowledge that the world has had or still does have some national leaders
with at least some of Gandhi’s credentials. It also has many community leaders
who display at least some of these credentials too, which is why there are so
many social movements working to end violence, inequality, exploitation and
ecological destruction in their many forms.
Was Gandhi realistic? Was
he right?
But even if you concede that
Gandhi was a visionary, you might still ask ‘Was Gandhi realistic?’ Surely it
is asking too much for modern political leaders to live simply and nurture
ecological sustainability, to work energetically against all forms of
inequality and discrimination, and to deal with conflicts without violence, for
example. Especially in a world where corporations are so powerful and drive so
much of the inequality, violence and ecological destruction that takes place.
Of course, ‘Was Gandhi
realistic?’ is the wrong question. With human beings now on the brink of
precipitating our own extinction – see ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A
Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’ – the more appropriate question is ‘Was Gandhi
right?’
And if he was, then we should
be attempting to emulate him, however imperfect our attempts may be. Moreover,
we should be endeavouring to improve on his efforts because no-one could
credibly suggest that Gandhi’s legacy has had the impact that India, or the
world, needs.
Can we improve on Gandhi?
Of course we can. As Gandhi
himself would want us to do: ‘If we are to make progress, we must not repeat
history but make new history. We must add to the inheritance left by our
ancestors.’
One key area in which I would improve on Gandhi is an
outcome of doing decades of research to understand the fundamental cause of
violence in human society: the dysfunctional parenting and teaching models we
are using which inflict virtually endless ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly
invisible’ violence on children and adolescents. See‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless
Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’and ‘Do We Want School or
Education?’
This cause must be addressed if we are to have any
chance of eliminating the staggering and unending violence, in all of its
forms, fromour families, communities and societies while empowering all
individuals to deal fearlessly and nonviolently with conflict.
Hence, I would encourage people to consider making‘My Promise to Children’which will require them to learn the art of nisteling.
See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep
Listening’.
For those who need to heal emotionally themselves in
order to be able to engage with children in this way, see ‘Putting Feelings First’.
There are several vitally important reasons why a
radical reorientation of our parenting and teaching models is necessary as part
of any strategy to end human violence. One reason is that the emotional damage
inflicted on children leaves them unconsciously terrified and virtually
powerless to deal with reality; that is, to respond powerfully to (rather than
retreat into delusion about) political, military, economic, social and
ecological circumstances. As casual observation confirms, most individuals in
industrialized societies become little more than mindlessly obedient consumers
under the existing parenting and teaching models. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology
of Materialism, Violence and War’.This
is as far as it can get from Gandhi’s aspiration to generate individuals who
are fearless.
Moreover, at their worst, these parenting and teaching
models generate vast numbers of people who are literally insane: an accurate
description of most of the political leaders mentioned earlier but particularly
those who pull the strings of these leaders. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane
Revisited’.
Another reason that a radical reorientation of our
parenting and teaching models is necessary is so that we produce a far greater
number of people of conscience who can think, plan and act strategically in
response to our interrelated existential crises. Too few people have these
capacities. See, for example, ‘Why Activists Fail’ and ‘Nonviolent Action: Why and
How it Works’. Consequently,
most activism, and certainly that activism on issues vital to human survival,
lacks the necessary strategic orientation, which is explained in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.
A fourth reason that transformed parenting and
teaching approaches are necessary is that it will open up a corner of the
‘conflict square’ that Gandhi (and Galtung) do not discuss: the feelings,
particularly fear, that shape all conflicts (that is, the other three corners
of the ‘conflict square’: attitude, behaviour and goal incompatibility) and
then hold them in place. Fear and other suppressed feelings are central to any
conflict and these must be heard if conflict is to be resolved completely. But,
more fundamentally, conflict is much less likely to emerge (and then become
‘frozen’) if fear and other feelings are not present at the beginning. Imagine
how much easier it would be to deal with any situation or conflict if the
various parties involved just weren’t scared (whether of the process and/or
certain possible outcomes). See ‘Challenges for Resolving
Complex Conflicts’.
Anyway, separately from the above, if you share
Gandhi’s understanding that the Earth cannot sustain the massive
overconsumption that is now destroying our biosphere, consider participating in
a project that he inspired:‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.
Or, if none of the above
options appeal or they seem too complicated, consider committing to:
The Earth Pledge
Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures,
and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:
1. I will listen deeply to children(see explanation above)
2. I will not travel by plane
3. I will not travel by car
4. I will not eat meat and fish
5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown
food
6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use,
includingby minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
7. I will not buy rainforest timber
8. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as
bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
9. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension)
funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved
in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
10. I will not accept employment from, or invest in,
any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow
human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
11. I will not get news from the corporate media
(mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
12. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as
food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
13. I will gently encourage my family and friends to
consider signing this pledge.
Despite the now overwhelming odds against human
survival, can we get humanity back on track? Gandhi would still be optimistic:
‘A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their
mission can alter the course of history.’
Are you one of those ‘determined spirits’?
Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes
has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has
done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings
are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His
email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.
Post a Comment