The political views of Mahatma Gandhi

     Phase 1 (1947-1965): As is well known, the actual policy which emerged in the two decades post-independence was one based on aggressive Soviet-style modernisation with a heavy-industry tilt. This strategy was adopted largely under the influence of Nehruvian ideology with its emphasis on science and technology. Nehru’s economic ideas had always been in sharp conflict with those of Gandhiji, and as early as 1945, we find him writing to Gandhiji “it seems to me inevitable that modern means of transport as well as many other modern developments must continue…..if that is so inevitable a measure of heavy industry exists. How far that will fit in with a purely village society? The question of independence and protection from foreign aggression, both political and economic, has also to be considered in this context. I do not think it possible for India to be really independent, unless she is a technically advanced country” [28]. Nehru sought to assuage Gandhiji’s reservations about industrialisation by emphasising that many of its alleged evils (such as concentration of economic power and conspicuous consumption of the wealthy) would be kept in check by the principle of democratic socialism, which he (Nehru) proposed as the central guiding political philosophy in Independent India. Gandhiji however remained far from being assured. To a visiting American journalist, for example, he remarked as follows “Nehru wants industrialisation because he thinks that if it is socialised, it would be free from the evils of capitalism. My own view is that the evils are inherent in industrialism and no amount of socialisation can eradicate them” [29].

     But even though Gandhiji was opposed to a highly centralised system of economic planning led by heavy industry, he was never an opponent of the capitalist order. He, as a matter of fact, favoured capitalist ownership and operations but not an exclusive concern with profits.

     But, however, different the outlooks of Gandhiji and Nehru on the issue of industrialisation, the latter had too much respect for his mentor’s views to ignore them altogether. An acceptance of the basic tenets of the moderate Gandhian strand of thought seemed to provide an ideal compromise solution – a rapid industrialisation programme but one which protected the village handicrafts, especially khadi. This compromise also had an economic rationale – modernisation with its emphasis on capital intensive heavy industry just could not provide the increases in employment needed to absorb the rapidly growing labour force; the role of a reservoir for the unemployed could be played by the village industries.

     This rationale is succinctly expresses by Mahalanobis, the architect of India’s Second Plan as follows: “in view of the meagerness of capital resources there is no possibility in the short run for creating much employment through the factory industries. Now consider the household or cottage industries. They require very little capital. About six or seven hundred rupees would get an artisan family started. With any given investment, employment possibilities would be ten or fifteen or even twenty times greater in comparison with corresponding factory industries. Thus, by paying a measure of respect to Gandhian concepts, the Indian planning process simultaneously became politically palatable to a wide spectrum of influential opinion as well as to the masses at large.

     The Gandhian influence is most evident in the government’s attitude to small scale industry. In this connection, it is interesting to observe that Gandhiji’s original concerns for the village crafts were conveniently broadened by Indian planners to include not only urban crafts but also small scale unit as a whole. The official definition of small scale industry (SSI) used in India has undergone several successive changes. In 1973-74, the First SSI census for India defined a small scale unit as a unit with investment in plant and machinery less that Rs.7.5 lakhs. This limit was subsequently raised to Rs.35 lakhs in the 1987-88 Second SSI census. The most recent (Third) SSI Census has introduced a threefold distinction viz. between micro enterprises, small enterprises and medium enterprises. Micro enterprises are those with investment in plant & machinery below Rs.25 lakhs in the manufacturing sector (and below Rs.10 lakhs in the service sector); the corresponding figures for small enterprises is between Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.5 crores for manufacturing (between Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.2 crores for service enterprises) and that for medium enterprises between Rs.5 crores and Rs.10 crores (manufacturing) and between Rs.2 crores and Rs.5 crores (services).

     The small scale sector as a whole was the beneficiary of a number of protective measures over the five decades since Independence – it was insulated form large scale industry competition by import restriction, by the prevailing licensing requirements for capacity expansion of large scale units under the MRTP Act as well as by reservation of certain lines of production (about 1,400 items of production were reserved for exclusive production by the small scale sector). Additionally several subsidies and concessions were granted to small scale industry and as a result this sector not only survived but even managed to flourish, accounting for about 40 percent of total manufacturing output today.

     There were other features of the Gandhian system which found expression in the economic policies of this period. The Gandhian emphasis on austerity was reflected in the import restrictions on several items of luxury consumption, the curbs on production of goods in the so-called U-sector (upper sector) and high marginal rates of personal income taxation. Heavy corporate taxation was also partly an operationalisation of Gandhiji’s trusteeship concept.

     Phase 2 (1966-1984): Except for a brief interregnum (1977-80), this period was marked by a highly centralised Congress rule under the charismatic (if controversial) Indira Gandhi. Following her split with the so-called Syndicate in 1969, she tried to create a party apparatus based on personal loyalty to replace the elaborate and decentralised party structure that prevailed in the Nehru era (and which was taken over by the Syndicate). In a predominantly poor country with a large agricultural base, such a strategy (of cultivating personal loyalty) had to be based on the creation of vote banks among the poor (especially the rural poor), and sources of patronage among the industrial elites (for the mobilisation of electoral funds). Thus, largely driven by political compulsions, Indira Gandhi nevertheless, adopted espoused three of Gandhiji’s cherished ideals viz. poverty alleviation, redistribution and Swadeshi. In all fairness, it must be emphasised that she did make sincere efforts to fulfill these objectives. Among her many initiatives, the following five deserve special mention:

     (I) Nationalisation of banks in 1969, with the objective of improving rural credit delivery and making a dent on rural poverty.

     (II) The passage of the MRTP (Monopoly & Restrictive Trade Practices) Act in 1969, with the aim of controlling the power of big business.

     (III) High rates of income taxation with the marginal rates of income tax well above 70 percent for the upper income brackets, and a peak rate of 97.75 percent.

     (IV) A strengthening of the import substitution strategy (initiated in the Nehru era) following the Balance of Payments crisis of 1973-74.

     (V) Special centrally sponsored schemes to alleviate rural poverty such as the Garibi Hatao Programme (or Poverty Removal Programme) launched in early 1970s and reinforced in 1975 via the 20 Points Programme.

     As mentioned above, there was an interregnum from 1977-80, when the country was ruled by a coalition government. This coalition government included several ministers with considerable affinity to Gandhiji’s ideals. This was reflected in the launching of the IRDP (Integrated Rural Development Programme) in 1979, a massive poverty reduction programme with emphasis on providing subsidised credit to rural households below the poverty line (including small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans, scheduled castes, physically handicapped etc.). There was also a deliberate attempt to shift the emphasis in the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-84) from growth to employment and redistribution, with greater attention being paid to the production of basic and light consumer goods.

     It is all too well known that very often many of the so-called “Gandhian” ideas were inspired by political considerations such as the widening of the electoral base. But even when the motives were less self-seeking, either the ideas did not go beyond the “slogan level” or their full implications were not properly worked out. As a result, the consequences were often quite unexpected and contrary to what Gandhiji himself would have envisaged.

     Disenchantment with Gandhian Economic Ideas: While critics of Gandhian economic ideas were not uncommon in the 1930s and 1940s, his great moral and political stature kept the criticisms subdued. Anyway, in the pre-Independence era such discussion naturally had to be purely academic. In the Nehruvian era certain aspects of Gandhiji’s economic policies were viewed as being in conflict with the prevailing Nehru-Mahalanobis brand of democratic socialism, especially his views on industrialisation, technology, business houses and private property. But as we have mentioned above, this period was characterised more by a neglect of Gandhian ideas, (which were largely considered otiose) and by some concessions in the policy arena laced with a large measure of lip sympathy, rather than by any active criticism. However there was an incipient literature from the 1960s onwards, which started criticising Nehruvian ideas from a more market oriented perspective. Ironically, the aspects of Nehruvian policies which came in for the sharpest criticism viz. small scale industry protection and import substitution were precisely those which could be traced to Gandhian influences.

     Firstly, the basic rationale that small scale industry deserves support on account of its lower capital intensity was challenged on empirical grounds by the studies of Dhar and Lydhall (1961) and Sandesara (1966). Both these studies cast grave doubts on the employment creating potential of small scale industry. For the market liberalisers of three decades later, these and other similar studies furnished an excellent illustration of well-intentioned Gandhian ideas producing results far from those expected.

     This seemed to be a common failing in other areas too. The Gandhian concept of Swadeshi was invoked to afford massive and politically motivated protection to Indian large and small industry from foreign competition under the import substitution regime from 1956-1991. Firstly, it must be clarified that Gandhiji’s concern was primarily protecting the weak native cottage industry from both domestic and foreign industrial competition. Secondly, while it was true that he often expressed a desire to see domestic entrepreneurship develop uninhibited by unfair competition from foreign industry in pre-Independent India, it is not clear whether he would have favoured the massive and complicated system of industrial tariffs, quotas and licenses which sprang up in the 1970s under the rubric of domestic self sufficiency. It is now generally agreed that the net result following from this latter policy has been an inefficient and high cost domestic industrial structure, not to mention the emergence of a black economy based on import duty evasion. As is well known, serious efforts to redress this situation were initiated after 1991.

     Another market oriented criticism is directed towards the entire gamut of subsidies for the agriculture sector, which also has its moral justification in Gandhiji’s concern for the rural masses. According to this line of criticism, this sector has been under taxed, has reaped heavy subsidies on inputs like fertilizers, credit, seeds and electricity and has been supported by generous purchases prices. It is further alleged that most of the benefits have not gone to the intended beneficiaries but have been reaped by middlemen and large farmers. On the other hand, these subsidies have strained the public exchequer and generated steep inflationary pressure which have aggravated poverty amount the masses. Similar criticisms have also been voiced as regards the PDS (public distribution system) which was designed to insulate the urban poor from inflation in the commodities of basic consumption (the so-called wage goods).

     Phase 3 (1985-): The complete abandonment of Gandhian economic concepts really begins with the onset of structural reforms, which were initiated hesitatingly in the mid-1980s, put on firm track in the early 1990s and moved into high gear after 1997. To the newly emerging affluent class in India (who have been the major beneficiaries of the reforms process), Gandhian concepts like indigenous appropriate technology, frugality, Swadeshi, etc. have an anachronistic and archaic ring to them. Perhaps the clean break with these ideas was inevitable, and judged solely by the accolades piled upon the architects of the process by a doting domestic and foreign media, the reforms have been a grand success. But it is being increasingly realised that behind the stratospheric growth rates there lies a reality far harsher than our policymakers are prepared to admit. Firstly, short term macroeconomic stability is being increasingly jeopardised by burgeoning capital inflows, a bubble like situation in the stockmarket and the appreciating exchange rate. Past experience has shown the futility of expecting a mere acceleration of economic reforms to alleviate these problems in any significant manner. But the real threat is in the long run. Fundamental and endemic problems on the poverty, inequality, unemployment, corruption and natural resources fronts have not only remained unsolved in the reforms process, but have aggravated in an alarming fashion. The trickledown effect , on which the Indian reformers have placed so much faith in recent years, in particular, (if at all it exists), seem to be both protracted and slow. If bold and imaginative initiatives are not undertaken at this stage to address these issues, rising societal tensions and political compulsions will inexorably force a crisis unparalleled in our recent history. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3. Historical destiny of the views of gandhi 

3.1 Congress of leaders of World and Traditional Religions 

     Gandhi's teachings not forgotten to this day. Activities of Gandhi were based on his political and religious views. He wanted the Hindus and Muslims lived in peace and harmony. Such a view shared by Gandhi and our President, when he became the initiator of the Congress of leaders of World and Traditional Religions in Astana.

     President of our country Nursultan Nazarbayev as the Head of State and politician, in full measure realizing the increased role of the religion in the society, put forward the initiative of holding a forum of world and traditional religions in the capital of the Republic of Kazakhstan - city of Astana. Earlier the organizers of similar events were only representatives of leading religions and denominations. Among other similar events aimed at establishing interdenominational dialogue were the meetings of representatives of world religions and denominations held in Italian city Assisi in October 1986 and January 2002. 

     By the idea of the President of Kazakhstan the dialogue between the leaders of world and traditional religions formed on common aspects and exact information on each other opens wide prospects for mutual cooperation and contributes to overcoming such negative manifestations of our time as violence, fanaticism, extremism and terrorism. The dialogue of the religions as the conceptual idea of the First Congress and means of disputes settling was opposed to methods of violence and terror in the interdenominational and interethnic relations.

     The aim of the First Congress was search of universal guidelines in world and traditional forms of the religion, creation of permanent international interdenominational institute for realizing the religious dialogue and accepting coordinated decisions.

     Between the Forum participants an open exchange of opinions on the role of the religion in modern world and the universal nature of main moral values relating to any religion took place, where the problems concerned with revelation of conflict reasons on religious ground, necessity of improving interreligious harmony, mutual respect to each other, ability to learn on the traditions of other people were raised.

      At the First Congress a decisive step has been made towards concord strengthening and establishing a constructive dialogue between civilizations, confessions, countries and peoples. It was noted that the interreligious dialogue is one of key means of social development and improvement of the well-being of all peoples.

     By the results of the Congress the delegates came to opinion that the religious dialogue should be profound and be based on the dialectics.

     The Forum which became a special and memorable event, again demonstrated its urgency and necessity of realizing the idea of cooperation and unity of representatives of various religions in the name of peaceful and worthy life of the people of the whole world. The idea of the Congress was supported by such influential peace politicians as C.Annan, G. Bush, M.Tetcher, Tzyan Tzemin, N.Mandella, J d'Esten, M.Gorbachev and others.

     By the results of the Forum the Declaration was accepted, in which the spiritual leaders declared about realization of joint actions on safeguarding of peace and progress for the mankind and provision of stability in the society as the basis of harmonious world in the future.

     Declaration of the II Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions:

     We, the leaders of world and traditional religions, gathered at our Second Congress in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan: [29]

     - building on the success of the First Congress, which took place in the city of Astana on 23-24 September 2003 and engaged internationally recognized world religious leaders in an important initiative of inter-religious dialogue;

     - wishing to help strengthen mutual understanding between cultures, religions and ethnic groups which form the basic components of world civilizations, and aiming to prevent conflicts based on cultural and religious differences;

     - acknowledging that religion, having always been a fundamental element of human life and society has, at the beginning of the new century, assumed a significant new role in establishing and preserving peace;

     - recognizing the great responsibility held by religious leaders for spiritual teaching and advocacy on behalf of current and future generations, and their vital role in establishing a spirit of mutual respect, understanding and acceptance in the face of new challenges;

     - underlining the unique character of every religion and culture, and considering cultural and religious diversity to be an important feature of human society;

     - expressing concern about increasing inter-religious and interethnic tensions in the world deriving from the exploitation of religious and national differences as a justification for violence which causes suffering to innocent victims;

     - stressing that extremism and fanaticism find no justification in a genuine understanding of religion and that the vocation of all religions demands the refusal of violence and appeals to respect and peaceful coexistence with peoples and religions;

     - believing that the difficulties in inter-religious and intercultural relations are related both to a fundamental imbalance in international politics, economics, social, humanitarian and information resources, and to the manipulation of religion for political ends;

     - discussing and debating the above-mentioned concerns within the main theme of the Congress - "Religion, society and international security" in the context of two special blocs;

     I. "Freedom of religion and recognition of others";

     II. "Role of religious leaders in enhancing international security"

     appeal to people of all religions and people of good will across the globe, and:

     - call upon them to abandon enmity, discord and hatred; and embrace common respect

     and generosity, recognizing the reality of cultural, religious and civilizational diversity;

     - declare our determination together to tackle and ultimately eliminate prejudice, ignorance and misrepresentation of other religions by placing particular focus on what religions hold in common as well as what distinguishes them;

     - condemn all forms of terrorism on the basis that justice can never be established through fear and bloodshed and that the use of such means in the name of religion is a violation and betrayal of any religion that appeals to human goodness and dialogue;

     - reject all false inventions and wrongly created stereotypes about the violent nature of religions and attempts to attribute terrorism to any particular religion;

     - call upon all to work together to address and eliminate all causes of terrorism, thus promoting human flourishing, dignity and unity;

     - declare our rejection of any form of pressure or violence to convert followers of one religion to another;

     - reaffirm the pivotal role of education, youth policy and cultural activity for understanding, solidarity and social cohesion.

     We also call upon the global community, international and regional organizations, states and governments all over the world to: