The golden jubilee year-long celebrations of Indian independence have made us proud of being Indians first and last. Nevertheless, we still have a long, long way to go. What Gandhiji said much before independence, during the thick of the freedom struggle, is more relevant today than it ever was. He wrote in 1931 at a time when he was fighting for the establishment of a democratic India: "To me political power is not an end but one of the means of enabling people to better their condition in every department of life. Political power means the capacity to regulate national life through national representatives. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation is necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. in such a state, everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hinderance to his neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore there is no political power because there is no state. But the ideal is never fully realised in life. Hence the classical statement of Thoreau 'that government is best which governs the least'."
The theoretical position held by Gandhi is thus entirely different from Marxian socialism or capitalism. Even for defending the life and interests of the people Gandhi believed that true defence is only possible under non-violence, in which the heart of the exploiter is changed through non-cooperation. The chief function of the state is transferred from army to the people directly under organised non-violence. The peple also begin to regulate their economic as well as political lives as far as possible by means of voluntary associations, that is, democratic organisation. However, Gandhiji was not indifferent like some other anarchists to the machinery of the state so long as it was there. His practical nature led him towards a full democratic control of the state, and under no circumstances was he prepared to put up with the supression of opposition by means of violence or any other means, even if it were in the immediate interest of the masses. Replying to an address presented to him by the citizens of Mumbai just before he left for England to attend the Round Table Conference, he said: "I claim to live for the semi-starved paupers of India and swaraj means the emancipation of these millions of skeletons. Purna Swaraj denotes a condition of things when the dumb and the lame millions will speak and walk. That Swaraj cannot be achieved by force but by organisation and unity".
Speaking before the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce, he said: "It has been said that Indian swaraj will be the rule of the majority community, that is, the Hindus. There could not be a greater mistake than that. If it were to be true, I for one would refuse to call it swaraj, and would fight it with all the strength at my command, for to me Hind Swaraj is the rule of all the people, is the rule of justice. Whether under that rule, the ministers were Hindus or Muslims or any other community, they would have to do even-handed justice. And just as no community in India need have any fear of swaraj being monopolised by any other, even so, the English should have no fear. The question of safeguards should not arise at all. Swaraj would be real swaraj only when there would be no occassion for safeguarding such rights. I may tell you that the Congress does not belong to any particular group of men, it belongs to all, but the protection of the poor peasantry which forms the bulk of the population, must be its primary interest. The poor, but that does not mean that all other classes - the middle classes, the capitalist or Zamindar - must go under. All that it aims at is that all other classes must serve the interests of the poor".
At the Round Table Conference in 1931, speaking as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress, he gave a picture of how things were to shape themselves if a national government was to come into being in India. With regard to the question of racial discrimination, he said: "I am afarid, for years to come, India would be engaged in passing legislation in order to raise the down-trodden, the fallen, from the mire into which they have been sunk by the capitalists, by the landlords, by the so-called higher classes, and then, subsequently and scientifically by the British empire. If we were to lift these people from the mire, then it would be the bounden duty of the national government of India in order to set its house in order to continuously give preference to these people and even free them from the burden under which they are being crushed. And, of the landlords, zamindars, moneyed men and those who are today enjoying privileges - I do not care whether they are the Europeans or the Indians - if they find that they are discriminated against, I shall sympathise with them, but I will not be able to help them, even if I could possibly do so, because I could seek their assistance in that process, and without their assistance, it would not be possible to raise these people out of the mire.
Heaven is not going to drop money for the sake of the state. They will naturally come from moneyed classes, including Europeans. Will they say this is discrimination? They will be able to see that this is no discrimination against them because they are Europeans. It will be discrimination against them because they have got money and others have got no money. It will be, therefore, a battle between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots', and if that is what is feared, I am afraid the national government will not come into being if all these classes hold the pistol at the heads of these dumb millions and say 'you shall not have a government of your own, unless you guarantee our possessions and our rights..." It was in his book 'Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule' that Gandhiji first clearly enunciated his idea of swaraj or self-rule. He wrote: "I believe that you want the millions of Indians to be happy, nor that you want the reigns of the government in your hands. If that is so, we have to consider only one thing, how can the millions obtain self-rule? You will admit that people under several Indian princes are being ground down. The latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of the English, and you want such tyranny in India, then we shall never agree. My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people to be crushed under the hill of the Indian princes if only the English retire. If I have the power, I should resist the tyranny of Indian princes just as much as that of the English. By patriotism, I mean the welfare of the whole people, and if I could secure it at the hands of the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian".
Long afterwards, Gandhiji wrote: "...No mere transference of political power in India will satisfy my ambition, even though I hold such transference to be a vital necessity of Indian national life. The people of Europe have no doubt political power but no swaraj. Asian and African races are exploited for their part, are exploited by the ruling class or caste under the sacred name of democracy. At the root, therefore, the disease appears to be the same as in India. The same remedy is, therefore likely to be applicable. Shorn of all the camouflage, the exploitation of the masses of Europe is sustained by violence".
The new resurgent India has just completed 50 years. During this short span, its match on the path of progress has taken place at a tremendous pace, despite umpteen obstacles-- man-made and natural. However, glimpses of the glory that India of the future is bound to be can be seen in the Constitution framed for her by her representatives. By seeking to abolish untouchability and all distinctions based on sex, race, or community, it has aimed at abolishing all discrimination between man and man, and also between man and woman. It has also guaranteed the fundamental rights which must be the basis of a just social order. India's future, therefore, seems assured.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Â
The theoretical position held by Gandhi is thus entirely different from Marxian socialism or capitalism. Even for defending the life and interests of the people Gandhi believed that true defence is only possible under non-violence, in which the heart of the exploiter is changed through non-cooperation. The chief function of the state is transferred from army to the people directly under organised non-violence. The peple also begin to regulate their economic as well as political lives as far as possible by means of voluntary associations, that is, democratic organisation. However, Gandhiji was not indifferent like some other anarchists to the machinery of the state so long as it was there. His practical nature led him towards a full democratic control of the state, and under no circumstances was he prepared to put up with the supression of opposition by means of violence or any other means, even if it were in the immediate interest of the masses. Replying to an address presented to him by the citizens of Mumbai just before he left for England to attend the Round Table Conference, he said: "I claim to live for the semi-starved paupers of India and swaraj means the emancipation of these millions of skeletons. Purna Swaraj denotes a condition of things when the dumb and the lame millions will speak and walk. That Swaraj cannot be achieved by force but by organisation and unity".
Speaking before the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce, he said: "It has been said that Indian swaraj will be the rule of the majority community, that is, the Hindus. There could not be a greater mistake than that. If it were to be true, I for one would refuse to call it swaraj, and would fight it with all the strength at my command, for to me Hind Swaraj is the rule of all the people, is the rule of justice. Whether under that rule, the ministers were Hindus or Muslims or any other community, they would have to do even-handed justice. And just as no community in India need have any fear of swaraj being monopolised by any other, even so, the English should have no fear. The question of safeguards should not arise at all. Swaraj would be real swaraj only when there would be no occassion for safeguarding such rights. I may tell you that the Congress does not belong to any particular group of men, it belongs to all, but the protection of the poor peasantry which forms the bulk of the population, must be its primary interest. The poor, but that does not mean that all other classes - the middle classes, the capitalist or Zamindar - must go under. All that it aims at is that all other classes must serve the interests of the poor".
At the Round Table Conference in 1931, speaking as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress, he gave a picture of how things were to shape themselves if a national government was to come into being in India. With regard to the question of racial discrimination, he said: "I am afarid, for years to come, India would be engaged in passing legislation in order to raise the down-trodden, the fallen, from the mire into which they have been sunk by the capitalists, by the landlords, by the so-called higher classes, and then, subsequently and scientifically by the British empire. If we were to lift these people from the mire, then it would be the bounden duty of the national government of India in order to set its house in order to continuously give preference to these people and even free them from the burden under which they are being crushed. And, of the landlords, zamindars, moneyed men and those who are today enjoying privileges - I do not care whether they are the Europeans or the Indians - if they find that they are discriminated against, I shall sympathise with them, but I will not be able to help them, even if I could possibly do so, because I could seek their assistance in that process, and without their assistance, it would not be possible to raise these people out of the mire.
Heaven is not going to drop money for the sake of the state. They will naturally come from moneyed classes, including Europeans. Will they say this is discrimination? They will be able to see that this is no discrimination against them because they are Europeans. It will be discrimination against them because they have got money and others have got no money. It will be, therefore, a battle between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots', and if that is what is feared, I am afraid the national government will not come into being if all these classes hold the pistol at the heads of these dumb millions and say 'you shall not have a government of your own, unless you guarantee our possessions and our rights..." It was in his book 'Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule' that Gandhiji first clearly enunciated his idea of swaraj or self-rule. He wrote: "I believe that you want the millions of Indians to be happy, nor that you want the reigns of the government in your hands. If that is so, we have to consider only one thing, how can the millions obtain self-rule? You will admit that people under several Indian princes are being ground down. The latter mercilessly crush them. Their tyranny is greater than that of the English, and you want such tyranny in India, then we shall never agree. My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people to be crushed under the hill of the Indian princes if only the English retire. If I have the power, I should resist the tyranny of Indian princes just as much as that of the English. By patriotism, I mean the welfare of the whole people, and if I could secure it at the hands of the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian".
Long afterwards, Gandhiji wrote: "...No mere transference of political power in India will satisfy my ambition, even though I hold such transference to be a vital necessity of Indian national life. The people of Europe have no doubt political power but no swaraj. Asian and African races are exploited for their part, are exploited by the ruling class or caste under the sacred name of democracy. At the root, therefore, the disease appears to be the same as in India. The same remedy is, therefore likely to be applicable. Shorn of all the camouflage, the exploitation of the masses of Europe is sustained by violence".
The new resurgent India has just completed 50 years. During this short span, its match on the path of progress has taken place at a tremendous pace, despite umpteen obstacles-- man-made and natural. However, glimpses of the glory that India of the future is bound to be can be seen in the Constitution framed for her by her representatives. By seeking to abolish untouchability and all distinctions based on sex, race, or community, it has aimed at abolishing all discrimination between man and man, and also between man and woman. It has also guaranteed the fundamental rights which must be the basis of a just social order. India's future, therefore, seems assured.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Â