The political views of Mahatma Gandhi

     On 29 July 1946, the Muslim League leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah gave the call to direct action to Muslims to protest the alleged anti-minority attitude of Nehru. 0n 16 August 1946, communal massacres, initiated by hotheads despatched by the Muslim League chief minister of Bengal, Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, took place in Calcutta, which left thousands of people, mostly Hindus, dead and homeless. The Hindus retaliated with great ferocity. More Muslims died in the counter-attack. At that critical juncture Mahatma Gandhi came to Calcutta and personally took part in preaching cessation of violence and revenge. His efforts bore fruit and peace returned to that bleeding city. The Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946 in which both Hindus and Muslims lost lives in the thousands transformed forever the nature of the Congress-Muslim League standoff from a constitutional imbroglio to a violent communal conflagration that culminated in the subcontinent bleeding, burning and partitioned in mid-August 1947.

     A Gandhi-Jinnah peace appeal was issued as early as mid April 1947, but it did little to change the situation on the ground.

     Although Delhi was not administratively a part of Punjab its Muslims had to bear the fallout of the Punjab bloodbath. The late Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, who retired as Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University and was a very keen supporter of the demand for Pakistan has written about what happened to thousands of desperate Muslims in Delhi who were surrounded by armed Hindus and Sikhs wanting to kill and loot them. The Muslims pleaded to Gandhi to save them. He promised to do his best. Dr Qureshi notes that most of the Muslims survived and concluded that Gandhiji must have kept his word.

     The partition of India shattered Gandhi’s ideal of Hindu-Muslim unity. But that did not deter him from continuing to hope that the relations between the two communities can become friendly once again. He even declared that he will spend one month in India and one in Pakistan. However, relations between the two states became even more hostile when both made claims to the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. A war between the armies of the two countries broke out in Kashmir. Consequently India refused to pay to Pakistan a sum of Rs.550 million that was due to the latter as its share of the treasury of the former colonial government. On 13 January 1948, Mahatma Gandhi commenced his fast to persuade the Indian government to release the assets due to Pakistan. That was considered treason by the rightwing Hindus and on 30 January 1948, Nathuram Godse, a Maharashtrian Brahmin, shot him dead in Delhi. Not only in India did that assassination result in great outpouring of grief but also in Pakistan. In the famous first person account of the partition of India, Freedom at Midnight, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre observe:

     In Pakistan, millions of women shattered their baubles and trinkets in a traditional gesture of grief. In Lahore, now almost entirely Moslem, newspaper offices were swarmed with people clamouring for news.

     It is not difficult to conclude that Gandhi correctly anticipated that partition would create lasting enmity between India and Pakistan and sow discord between Hindus and Muslims. The successor states of India and Pakistan became not only rivals but also enemies who have up until now fought three major wars – in 1948, 1965 and 1971 –  and both acquired nuclear weapon capabilities in May 1998. Both fought a limited war at Kargil on the Kashmir front in May 1999. Some people suspected that it could have escalated into a nuclear confrontation with irreparable devastation caused to South Asia and its people.

     One can reasonably argue that the founding fathers of modern India tried to institutionalise the Gandhian vision of equal rights for all citizens and respect for all religions in the Indian constitution. Thus today more than 13 percent of the Indian population of one billion consists of Muslims. In 1947 their percentage was slightly more than 11 percent. But rightwing Hindus constantly intimidate the Indian Muslim minority blaming them for the partition of India. Periodically violent attacks on Muslims take place. In the case of Pakistan, privileging Islam as the state religion has inevitably meant that non-Muslims felt they were second-class citizens. Most of the Hindus left for India after the partition from areas that became Pakistan. However, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has been reporting that the tiny Hindu minority in the Sindh province constantly faces the threats of forced conversions and from time to time it is subjected to violent attacks by the Muslims.

     Nothing epitomises the India-Pakistan and by that token Hindu-Muslim estrangement more graphically than the daily flag lowering ceremony at the Wagah-Attari border between Amritsar and Lahore. Before partition some people used daily to catch the early train from either of these cities, do their job or business in the other, and return. The distance is some 45 kilometres between them. The soldiers symbolically seal the border every night by ramming the iron-gates with a fierce bang to indicate that an impassable barrier exists between the two countries and their peoples. The whole scene acquires an even more bizarre character because crowds on both sides who watch this awe-striking spectacle add zest to the ceremony by nervous clapping and making hostile gesticulations towards each other.

     In July 2001, President Pervez Musharraf visited India on the invitation of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Agra to discuss peace. Musharraf had been the architect and mastermind behind the Kargil mini-war of May 1999. It had resulted in hundreds of deaths on both sides and generated considerable acrimony. Now, before going to Agra he paid the conventional visit to the Gandhi Samadhi in Delhi where in the visitors’ book he wrote that Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas on peace and unity of humankind were needed now even more than ever before. Invoking Gandhi’s ideas was undoubtedly an admission of the realisation that there was no military solution to the disputes between the two countries.

     A revival of the Gandhian legacy on Hindu-Muslim relations is an imperative to save South Asia from the disaster of an armed confrontation between India and Pakistan that could involve the use of nuclear weapons. Such a war will render this region unfit for human habitation for centuries. But his message of peace and peaceful resistance to injustice is for all humanity and all societies can learn a lot from his idea of equal respect for all religions. Therefore, the Gandhian legacy on inter-communal relations deserves to be studied once again. 
 

2.4 Mahatma Gandhi’s Influence on India’s Foreign Policy 

     It is widely believed, not without reason, that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who shaped India’s foreign policy. After all, he was independent India’s Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister for the first 17 years. Among all the leaders of India who fought for India’s independence, he was the one who had genuine interest in, and considerable knowledge of, foreign affairs. What is often insufficiently appreciated is the influence of Mahatma Gandhi’s thinking and philosophy on India’s foreign policy.

     The essential elements of Gandhi’s philosophy were the concepts of non-violence, the importance of the moral dimension in the conduct of men as well as nations, and satyagraha or the struggle for truth, compassion and justice. All these principles continue to influence India’s foreign policy even today.

     India’s foreign policy has its roots in its freedom struggle that was largely shaped by Gandhi’s values. The defining characteristics of India’s foreign policy in the first few decades after India’s independence were unquestionably inspired by Gandhi.

     These were:

• non-alignment or the right to follow an independent foreign policy and to decide foreign policy issues on merit;

• moral, diplomatic and economic support for the struggle against colonialism, racialism and apartheid;

• non-violence and the quest for nuclear disarmament; and

• India’s role as an international peacemaker.

     India’s position on world issues was informed by a rare moral clarity and courage which won India many admirers, made India the leader of the developing countries and gave it an influence in world affairs out of proportion to its real economic and political strength. Outsiders’ perceptions of India were significantly shaped by Gandhi’s message.

     At a conceptual and intellectual level, India’s freedom struggle, at least in the two or three decades or so before 1947, was not just about gaining India’s freedom from British rule but part of a wider global anti-colonial movement. This internationalist aspect of India’s movement for independence emanated from Gandhi’s own defining experiences in South Africa. Just as Gandhi was deeply influenced by the blatant racism and widespread discrimination prevalent in South Africa, India’s independence provided the inspiration for many other countries in Asia and Africa suffering under colonial rule.

     It is, therefore, hardly surprising that, from the very beginning, India’s foreign policy concerned itself, not only with India’s narrow national interests, but also how it would impact other similarly placed Asian and African countries. India’s economic and technical assistance to developing countries, now widely known as the Indian Technical And Economic Cooperation programme, was premised both on principles and the reality that the political independence of the newly-independent countries would be unsustainable without a matching economic autonomy.

     It is perhaps inadequately recognised even today that the internationalist perspective in India’s foreign policy did serve India’s broader national interest. One of the key concerns of India was its survival as a united, sovereign and independent state. The odds were against India. Even many years after India became independent, skepticism was widespread. Would India have survived if it alone had been decolonised? There can be little doubt that the spread of the movement against colonialism and racism, leading to the emergence of large numbers of independent countries, buttressed India’s own independence.

     At the same time, there are many valid criticisms of India’s foreign policy in the first few decades after India’s independence. It was considered as naive and idealistic, divorced from ground realities. Among the mistakes that India made in its Gandhi-inspired and Nehru-directed foreign policy were the referral of the Kashmir issue to the United Nations in 1948, the ‘bhai-bhai’ (brother-brother) policy towards China and the missed opportunity in Nepal to fully integrate it into the Indian security system.

     Today, as India has become stronger and richer, it has become a ‘wannabe’  developed country, whose interests are seen to lie more with the developed countries than with the developing countries. More attention is understandably given to the G-8 and the P-5 than to the G-77 and the G-15. The Non-Aligned Movement has survived but is aimlessly adrift. Yet India should not forget its old friends. For it is from among the developing countries that India will get both the resources to fuel India’s economic growth and the political support to fulfill its aspirations to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. India’s unique strength lies in its reputation as the leader of the developing countries and its potential of, once again, assuming such a leadership role.

     The pride and self-respect that Gandhi engendered among the people of India gave India the courage to stand up and follow an independent foreign policy rather than submit to pressures to join one of the Cold War blocs. This has stood India well. It has consistently remained a defining feature of India’s foreign policy for over six decades. The ongoing political and public controversy in India over the India-United States nuclear deal is essentially about whether India would continue to follow an independent foreign policy or whether it would be co-opted as a junior partner of the United States in the latter’s wider strategic plans. So deep-rooted and widespread is the conviction that an independent foreign policy is the right policy for India to follow that no government in India can openly call for any change in approach. That is presumably why the Indian government continues to emphasise that this is a deal ostensibly only about civilian nuclear energy. The dilemma for the government is that there is no easy way to forge a strategic relationship with the United States without abandoning India’s traditional principles of foreign policy that have been inspired by Gandhi.

     It is harder to justify morality in foreign policy, particularly as many critics have argued that India itself has used strong-arm tactics in its neighbourhood. The realist or pragmatic school of foreign policy that holds sway in India – and the world – today scoffs at any suggestion that morality has a role in world affairs. They believe that power flows out of the barrel of a gun, and that, non-violence, as one critic has eloquently put it, is “a form of masochistic surrender”. While there is substance to this criticism, morality cannot be wished away. It continues to guide individual human behaviour. It remains a core principle of all religions. In politics and international affairs, it is a widely employed strategic psychological tool. The practitioners of realpolitik in all countries, including India, invariably rely on moral arguments – be it to persuade, to convince or to justify. The veneer of morality is what gives legitimacy to arbitrariness.

     The virtual collapse of the movement for disarmament would seem to imply that the moral argument for pursuing nuclear disarmament has lost out. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has been indefinitely extended, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has not come into force. India’s former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s ambitious Plan for a Nuclear-Weapons Free World of 1988 has been given a quiet burial. A decade later, India went openly nuclear in 1998. India is now keener to get recognition as a nuclear-weapons power and have the right to conduct future tests than be a leader of the movement for disarmament. But the road ahead is neither simple nor clear. Nuclear weapons have not made India safer. They cannot counter either the spread of internal insurgencies or cross-border terrorism.

     Nor is the world more secure. The Soviet Union collapsed despite its formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons. The largest nuclear power, the United States, feels insecure because North Korea has nuclear weapons and Iran is suspected of developing them. It is noteworthy that in January 2007, four United States veteran policy makers, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry, and George Schultz, some of whom were nuclear hawks in the past, stated that, “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage.

     The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We endorse the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.” Sometime last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General stated that there were “no legitimate nuclear weapon powers”. Perhaps there is reason for hope, howsoever slim it may be.

Moving from generalities to specific examples, one can look at two areas of India’s foreign policy where Gandhi’s policies and approach have had a lasting impact. The first is Pakistan. Gandhi, we know, was opposed to the partition of India. Critics have argued that he did not oppose it firmly enough, say by threatening a fast unto death as he did on other issues. Perhaps he realised the futility of it. As early as April 1940 he said, “I know of no non-violent method of compelling the obedience of Rs 8 crores (eighty million) of Muslims to the will of the rest of India, however powerful a majority the rest may represent. The Muslims must have the same right of self-determination that the rest of India has. We are at present a joint family. Any member may claim a division.” But he insisted that Pakistan be treated fairly. Whereas many were arguing that after Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir, India should hold on to the Rs 55 crores (Rs 550 million) that India owed Pakistan, Gandhi went on a fast unto death to press his point. Ultimately the government relented. Such an attitude, seen again at the Simla Conference in 1972, has led Pakistan’s rulers to conclude that India lacks ‘a killer instinct’ and that India is simply a flabby giant. This erroneous mindset has led to many avoidable conflicts and tragedies on the sub-continent. Gandhian morality does not seem to have served the interests of the people of the region.

     Fortunately, of late, there is a growing sentiment among the people of the sub-continent that the partition of undivided India has hurt all – India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is recognition that the time has come to set aside differences and move towards mutually beneficial cooperation. Progress is slow, but encouraging. India’s relations with Pakistan have never been better. India and Pakistan are seriously talking about building a pipeline to transport Iranian gas across Pakistan to India, something that was unthinkable a few years ago. No longer are cricket matches between India and Pakistan regarded as surrogate military battles. India is more relaxed and conscious of the need to be unilaterally generous to its neighbours. This does not mean that the sub-continent will overcome its divisions and be reunited. Perhaps it never will. But sometimes dramatic developments do occur. Gandhi’s speech at his prayer meeting on 4 January 1948 may turn out to be prophetic. He said: “Mistakes were made on both sides. Of this, I have no doubt. But this does not mean that we should persist in those mistakes. For in the end we shall only destroy ourselves in a war and the whole of the sub-continent will pass into the hands of some third power. That will be the worst imaginable fate for us. I shudder to think of it.” That is something to ponder over.

     The second area where Gandhi’s thinking had an enduring impact on India’s foreign policy is Palestine. Gandhi’s editorial in the Harijan of 11 November 1938 was a major policy statement that guides India’s policy on Palestine to this day. The rights of the Palestinian people is a very sensitive political question in India and is one of the few specific foreign policy issues that figures in the Common Minimum Programme of the current ruling coalition, the United Progressive Alliance. Despite his sympathy for the Jews who had been subjected to discrimination and persecution for centuries, Gandhi was clear about the rights of the Palestinians. “My sympathy,” he said, “does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me… Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs… Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home” [27].

     Gandhi’s statement constitutes the nub of the problem that has defied solution for six decades. It is not merely a matter of deep global concern, but of real danger, that the Palestine problem has become more intractable than ever. Desperation among the Palestinians has increased, as has the insecurity of the Israelis. It is the principal issue that unites Muslims around the world and that led to the formation of the Organization of Islamic Conference. It is an issue which has spawned terrorism and al-Qaeda, created avoidable suspicion of Islam in the West and threatens to re-kindle the medieval conflicts between Islam and Christianity. The inability of the world to resolve the Palestine question is an important factor behind the ongoing conflicts and confrontations in Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. Will the world ever have the courage to recognise this?

     If there is one figure that the rest of the world associates with India, it is Gandhi. He may not have won a Nobel Peace Prize, but he has probably done more for the cause of peace and the image of India abroad than any other Indian. The eminent biographer of Mahatma Gandhi, B. R. Nanda, has rightly stated, “Mahatma Gandhi instigated, if he did not initiate, three major revolutions of our time, the revolution against racialism, the revolution against colonialism, and the revolution against violence. He lived long enough to see his success of his efforts in the first two revolutions....” Has the escalating level of violence in the world, which has brought suffering and misery to millions, finally awakened the world’s conscience to the need for a revolution against violence? The best tribute to Gandhi’s contemporary relevance, and his lasting influence not just on India’s foreign policy but on the world as a whole, is that today is being celebrated by the United Nations as the International Day of Non-Violence. Gandhi, it seems, was right, after all.      
 

2.5 Gandhian Influences on India’s Economic Policymaking 

     Having taken a broad review of the important aspects of Gandhian economic thought, we will now try to assess the impact that his philosophy seems to have had on India’s planned industrialisation strategy in the post-independence era. In this context, it may be useful to distinguish three distinct phases of the Indian economy, guided by three differing economic philosophies. The first period is broadly the Nehruvian period (1947-1965), which encompassed the first three Five Year Plans, and in which the prevailing economic philosophy is usually viewed as a highly centralised system of planning but incorporating some scope for markets. The next phase that we distinguish is (1966-1984) which was the period characterised by a highly bureaucratised system of planning (the so-called License Raj), with considerable intervention in market forces and an inward looking industrialization policy. The last phase (1985 onwards) is the period of opening up of the economy, rapid dismantling of controls and a general movement in the direction of markets.

     It is also interesting to juxtapose the actual changes in the economic policy framework with the evolution of Gandhian economics in the post- Gandhi phase. As Myrdal (1968, Vol.2, p. 1215) has pointed out, two distinct strands of Gandhian economics seem to have emerged – a rigid version maintaining Gandhiji’s original opposition to modern forms of industry and a more moderate version. The rigid version is best exemplified in the writings of Kumarappa (1984) who characterised a money-based capitalist economy as a “parasitic” economy and wanted the principle of “service (to others)” as the basis for a non-violent economy. The moderate view by contrast was not opposed to industrialisation as long as it did not interfere adversely with the village economy. We now proceed to analyse the influence of Gandhian ideas on the actual economic policy followed in post-Independent India.