By Y V Satyanarayana
THIS ARTICLE IS
intended to explore Gandhi's technique of conflict resolution and his
vision of an ideal society. I have also made an attempt to analyse and
compare the vision of Marx and Gandhi about the future of mankind. Since
Marx and Gandhi are the outspoken champions of the interests of the
down-trodden and exploited humanity, who fought in their own way against
social suffering, political subjugation, and economic exploitation, it is
quite natural for them to have some similar views, if not identical ones.
They are not only concerned for the poor and oppressed humanity, but also
revolutioned the character of philosophy and brought it to the realm of
social action. The history of mankind shows how great men have always
struggled and fought against the prevailing social evils and human
sufferings. Of such great men in human history, the 19th century produced
two outstanding personalities-Marx and Gandhi. The great men while being
products of history also act as the agents of history. Marx and Gandhi
responded to the challenges of the given historical situations, realized
the historical necessities of their times and tried to actualize the needs
and aspirations of the people of their times in their own way. Describing
the nature of great man, Hegel says:
The great man
of the age is the one who can put into words the will of his age, tell his
age what its will is, and accomplish it. What he does is the heart and
essence of his age, he" actualizes his age1
What is a
conflict? A conflict may be said as a serious disagreement between the
opinions .or interests of two persons or two groups of persons involved in
an issue.
Gandhi was much
concerned to evolve a revolutionary approach to political action and
social change. His originality lay in the formulation of a new technique
of non-violent non-cooperation or Satyagraha for social action. He
believed that Satyagraha is an infallible means for resolving all social,
political, and economic evils. As a technique of social action, satyagraha
may be applied to resolve the following type of social conflicts:
-
conflict
between one individual and another individual
-
conflict
between an individual and a group
-
conflict
between one group and another group or between two classes
-
conflict
between a section of the community and the state
-
conflict
between one nation and another nation
Unlike Marx;
Gandhi never regarded all history as the history of class struggle or all
social conflicts as fundamentally antagonistic in their nature.
Nevertheless he was aware of the class conflicts and wanted to resolve
them or minimise them by nonviolent means. Marx and Gandhi held a similar
view that no social conflict can be resolved unless the sufferers realise
their suffering and their strength, constitute themselves into a class or
an organisation refuse to cooperate with the evil and demonstrate their
power to the evil-doers or exploiters. Thus arousing of consciousness,
continuing them with a powerful organisation are the more essential
phenomena in the Marxian and Gandhian techniques of social action.
Both these
thinkers recognised the existence of social conflicts as a fact and
advocated their own methods to resolve them. They believed that
exploitation of the masses can be extinguished by the exploited class
itself and, therefore, they put the burden of their programme of action on
the shoulders of the exploited class. To that extent the "nonviolent non
cooperation or satyagraha" of Gandhi and the
"class struggle" of Marx are
based on the same technique of social action.
Gandhi
identified two areas in which class conflict is more conspicuous:
-
conflict
between capitalists and workers in industry.
-
conflict
between landlords and tenants in agriculture.
Gandhi's method
of conflict resolution is based on a greater understanding and love
between the two parties involved in it. He prescribed the trusteeship
formula to the rich and the weapon of nonviolent Non-cooperation or
Satyagraha to the poor and exploited to bring change in the attitude of
the rich. Satyagraha is a technique of action wherein the ideal of love
would reign in the place of hatred and killing. It is based on truth,
works through nonviolence and achieves its end by converting or compelling
the opponent through self-suffering.
Capital and
Labour
Gandhi pleaded
for mutual love between the capital and the labour. He demanded equal
status and dignity for capital and labour to avoid conflict between them.
Why should million rupees put together be more than million men put
together?, he questioned. Without labour, gold, silver, and copper are a
useless burden. A nation may do without its millionaires and without its
capitalists but a nation can never do with out its labour. The labour is
far superior to capital because it is less dependent on capital than the
latter is on the labour. The capital at present is able to control labour
because it has learnt the art of combination before labour. Gandhi thought
that if all the labourers could combine in the true nonviolent spirit,
capital would inevitably come under their control. He advised the workers
to refuse to serve under degrading conditions and for insufficient wages.
Gandhi, like
any other socialist thinker, believed that all forms of property and human
accomplishments are either gifts of nature or products of collective
social effort. As such, they must belong not to the individual but to
society as a whole and therefore should be used for the good for all. He
made a distinction between legal ownership and moral ownership. Legally
wealth belongs to the owner, but morally to the whole society. In this
sense of moral ownership, the labourers are also the owners of the wealth
possessed by mill-owners.
Marx and Gandhi
have similar views regarding the institution of private property and they
intended to abolish not only private property but also the inheritance of
property rights. Marx held that communism "wants to destroy everything
which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property."2 Gandhi also expressed a similar view and said: "I can only possess
certain things which I know that others who also want to possess similar
things, are able to do so”3
Class
Collaboration
Unlike Marx,
Gandhi did not believe in class war. He said there may be conflicts
between workers and employees but there was no reason why they should be
fomented or intensified. His belief in the innate goodness of man and his
capacity for improvement implies that mutual conflict cannot be regarded
as the dominant or governing principle of human life. Therefore he argued
that "class war" as superfluous and unnecessary. He thought that only
through class collaboration can the interests of both the individual and
the society as a whole be advanced. If the idea of trusteeship is accepted
and implemented by capital and labour, there will be no scope for
conflicts. If the workers non-cooperate with the evil of capitalism, it
must die of in-animation. Thus Gandhi mainly relied on the nonviolent
non-cooperation of the workers to bring about the conversion of
capitalists.
Exploitation of
the poor can be extinguished not by effecting the destruction of a few
millionaires but by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching them
to non-cooperate with their exploiters. That will convert the exploiters
also.4
Moral
Conversion
Gandhi
emphasized the need for adopting pure means for achieving the goals in
life. His approach was indeed moral transformation of the individual
heart, which is the basis of all social dynamics. He believed that the
duty of renunciation differentiates mankind from the beast and held that
"man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare
of his fellow-men."5 The means proposed by Gandhi are based on
voluntary conversion of the exploiting class to the cause of
socio-economic justice by moral appeal to their conscience. His emphasis
on moral conversion not only includes the moral transformation of the
exploiter but also the awakening of the workers and peasants to realize
their moral strength. He felt that most of the evils of the modern
economic system existed because we co-operated with them or tolerated
them. Cooperation with the good and non-cooperation with the evil should
be the duty of every citizen. The exploiters would deprive their power of
exploitation if, the labourers realize that exploitation could take place
only with their cooperation.
Unlike Gandhi,
Marx did not plead for a change of heart because he considered it to be a
substitute for one set of illusions to another. He believed that men just
simply do not give us their riches on hearing a socialist sermon. Marx,
therefore, relied on revolutionary means rather than on reformist means of
Gandhi.
Gandhi's method
of Satyagraha is based on three fundamental assumptions:
-
Man's nature
is not beyond redemption and it can be perfectible.
-
Human nature
is one in its essence and responds to love, and
-
What is
possible to do for one man is equally possible for all.
Salient Features of Satyagraha
-
The
underlying principle of satyagraha is not to destroy or injure the
opponent, but to convert or win him by sympathy, patience, and
self-suffering.
-
The doctrine
of satyagraha is based on the metaphysical belief that the tyrant may
have power over the body and material possessions of a satyagrahi, but
not over his soul. Hence the soul can remain unconquered and
unconquerable even when the body is imprisoned.
-
Satyagraha,
as a tool of social action, is based on a strong moral content.
Self-suffering is its unique character which distinguishes it from all
other forms of violent methods of action. Self-suffering is infinitely
more superior and powerful than the law of the Jungle for converting the
opponent and opening his ears to the voice of reason.
-
Self-sacrifice of one innocent man, in a satyagraha movement, is a
million times more potent than the sacrifice of a million men who die in
the act of killing others.
-
Non-violence
is not a negative virtue. It is not merely abstaining from violence or
harmlessness, but a positive state of love or doing good even to the
evil-doer. In other words, to resist his evil acts without hatred or
harm to him.
-
The
underlying principle of nonviolence is "hate the sin but not the
sinner." The philosophy of nonviolence is aimed at reconstructing,
remoulding, and reshaping human nature.
-
Non-violent
non-cooperation should not be equated with inaction or non-action. It is
an active condemnation of untruth, without violence, anger, or malice.
It is an active fight against all wickedness or putting of one's soul
against the will of the tyrant to win him over by love.
-
The scope of
satyagraha is much wider as it can be applied against our dearest and
nearest since there is no hatred or anger or violence in it.
-
The
significant feature of satyagraha method lies in arousing consciousness
of the masses, continuing education, maintaining the unity of the
sufferers and make them as fearless soldiers, providing them with a
powerful organization and throw them into heroic battles.
-
The
multi-class or non-class character of satyagraha movement is distinct
from other methods which mainly consists of the same class.
Thus the basic
aim of Satyagraha movement is to educate the masses, make them conscious
of the exploitation, prepare them into a broad front, provide them a
powerful organization, and finally lead them in their struggle against the
exploiters. Gandhi's satyagraha method fulfils all the necessary
requirements for a revolution, no matter, whether that revolution is
nonviolent or violent. Once the masses realize their strength and become
conscious of the exploitation they would certainly revolt against the
existing social order. Gandhi, as a man of practical affairs, visualized
this possibility and rightly predicted that:
I see coming
the days of the rule of the poor, whether that rule be through force of
arms or of nonviolence.6
Whether
Satyagraha is a universal panacea or not, it served some positive function
in a specific historical context in India. On the political front it
contributed a major share for achieving independence to the country, on
the social front it minimized the evils of untouchability and communal
riots, but it failed to bring any worth mentioning results on the economic
front.
Theory of
Trusteeship
Gandhi's theory
of trusteeship is based on two basic premises.
-
The rich
cannot accumulate wealth without the cooperation of the poor.
-
Western
socialism and communism are not the last word on the question of mass
poverty.
He developed
the theory of trusteeship as an alternative to capitalism and scientific
socialism. He was opposed to the western capitalism, which necessarily
leads to oppression, exploitation, concentration of wealth and inequality.
At the same time, he was against an increase in the power of the state
which, in his opinion, is essentially based on violence. Gandhi,
therefore, wanted to provide the institution of trusteeship as a
compromise between private enterprise and state controlled enterprise.
As an ardent
advocate of democracy and adult franchise, he believed that the
poverty-stricken people would be able to bring their electoral pressure on
government to restructure the society on the basis of trusteeship. He
thought that the only alternative to trusteeship would be bloody
revolution and put before the capitalists to make a choice between class
war arid trusteeship. He warned them:
A violent and
bloody revolution is a certainty one day unless there is a voluntary
abdication of riches and of power that riches gave and sharing them for
the common good.7
Conclusion
Gandhi's
thought process was an outcome of his political struggle first in South
Africa as a revolt against the practice of apartheid and later in India as
a battle against British imperialism for national independence.
Gandhian
thought, as a philosophy of life, did not believe in a set of doctrines
claiming finality. It is neither a drama nor a closed system of thought.
Since human knowledge and achievements are a continuous process, they need
not stop growing with Gandhi. Hence we may not necessarily stick to the
ideas of Gandhi expressed in a particular historical situation and from
his own experiences of his life. It should be the duty of a true follower
of Gandhi, to elaborate, amplify, and even revise his ideas in the light
and experiences of contemporary changing situations it the national and
international spheres. In this context, it seems to be more appropriate
and necessary, to re-read and re-judge his ideas from a new angle of
vision on various aspects.
Is Gandhi's
Vision of Ramarajya Realizable?
The
imperfections or the existing social order demanded many philosophers and
thinkers to visualize an ideal social order of their own conception
wherein man can realize all his potentialities and lead a happy and
peaceful life. Marx and Gandhi visualized an "exploitation free" society
of their own conception. For Marx the ideal society is the "communist
society" and for Gandhi it is "Ramarajya". Though Marx and Gandhi wanted
an egalitarial social order, they differed in their methods of approach to
the realization of their ideal society.
The ideal
society of Gandhi's concept is based on the moral evolution of
individuals. Gandhi was of the opinion that his ideal society may not be
possible in the present state of, but it can be realizable in future in
the course of evolution of human society. If people become genuinely
nonviolent, morally elevated, mutually affectionate, learn to cooperate
voluntarily among themselves, and averse to anti-social activities then
the society will be elevated to a higher plane of culture. Gandhi's vision
of ideal society is nothing but an expression of his striving for a just
and perfect society, i.e., the Kingdom of righteousness on earth.
What are the
stages through which the evolution of human society has advanced till now
and in what direction it tends to in future?
If we
understand the different stages of human evolution, we can arrive at an
indication of the next possible stages of evolution of human society. If
an answer could be found to the question, in what direction the evolution
of human society is progressing?, it would be possible for us to draw a
programme of action suitable to the present stage and to work for the
realization of an ideal society.
Gandhi firmly
believed that history is steadily progressing towards ahimsa or
nonviolence working on the law of love. Thus he argued:
If we turn our
eyes to the time of which history has any record down to our time, we
shall find that man has been steadily progressing towards ahimsa. Our
remote ancestors were cannibals. . . . Next came a stage when ashamed of
leading the life of a wandering hunter, man took to agriculture . . . .
Thus from being a nomad he settled down to civilized stable life, founded
villages and towns, and from a member of a family he became a member of a
community and a nation. All these are signs of progressive ahimsa and
diminishing himsa. Had it been otherwise, the human species should have
been extinct by now, even as many of the lower species have disappeared.8
If we accept
that mankind has steadily progressed towards ahimsa till now, it follows
that it has to progress still further and further and raise itself from
the human plane to the divine plane.
Gandhi accepted
man's animal ancestry and said "in our present state, we are partly men
and partly beasts."9 He also admitted Darwinism and said "we
have become men by a slow process of evolution from the brute."10
The evolution of species has made man the highest creature in the cycle of
creation. Though man is a rational animal, his nature is still dominated
by qualities of the beast in him because the human species is still in the
process of evolutionary development. Man is distinguished from the beast
in his ceaseless striving to rise above the beast on the moral plane.
Gandhi, therefore, argued that man is superior to selfishness and
violence, which belong to the beast nature, not to the nature of man.
Violence and
nonviolence are the two natural impulses of all cerebral beings. These two
distinct instincts have been inherited from nature. When compared to human
species, the violent impulse is dominant and pervasive in creatures than
in men. Thus, on the one hand, man has his animal nature and, on the
other, he has his power of reason and judgment which no other animal
possesses. In the course of evolution, man has made continuous progress in
the cultivation of nonviolent tendencies in him and the violent aspect of
him has been gradually suppressed.
Man as a social
being understands that mutual assistance and cooperation with his fellow
beings may render his life more easy and happy. So he has been able to
build up his civilization and culture with the cooperation of his fellow
beings. Human species by applying reason and judgment have been able to
make astonishing progress. When the bestial part of human nature is tamed,
the scope of nonviolence tendency increases and human society will be
elevated to a higher plane. A civilization may be said to have advanced as
far as it has succeeded in controlling the animal passions of man.
Violence is counter-productive resulting in anger, hatred, jealousy,
revenge, and bloodshed. Therefore nonviolent means is the only alternative
to eradicate the beastly and anti-social tendencies from the human mind
and to elevate human society to a superior plane wherein the entire
humanity can live in peace and harmony.
Gandhi's
concept of Ramarajya stands for an egalitarian, nonviolent, and democratic
social order, wherein moral values pervade all spheres of human life.
Politically it is a form of stateless society, socially it is a form of
classless society where all persons are equally treated irrespective of
caste, colour, religion, sex etc., and economically it is a form of
socialist society in which inequalities based on possession and
non-possession vanish because all wealth belongs to the society as a
whole.
The law of
"dharma" and the inward morality of the individuals bind together the
members of the society and make them fulfill their social obligations.
Dharma or social ethics exerts strong moral pressure on the individuals
and sustains social cohesion. Each individual works for the "greatest good
for all" and the society will provide maximum opportunities to all
individuals to develop their potentialities.
Marx
scientifically explained the rise, development, and decline of particular
forms of societies in human history due to their inherent contradictions
and conflicts. He conceived that the germs of the future society are
contained within the present society. Capitalism has not only developed
the economic and technological prerequisites of a future society, but it
has also created a political force for its own destruction. He apprehended
that a society based on class antagonisms had a need of the state to
subjugate other classes by the ruling class. Once the classes are
abolished, he argued, there is no need of the state and it gradually
withers away, which finally leads to a classless and stateless communist
society.
For Marx,
communism as such is not the fulfillment of man's life, but it is the
condition for such a fulfillment. He conceived communism as the condition
of human freedom and creativity, but not as the final goal of humanity. In
communist society, the struggle for existence ceases and man emerges from
mere animal conditions of existence into truly human conditions. It
assures the basic necessaries of life to all members of the society;
creates suitable conditions for the development of physical and mental
faculties; liberates man from his one sided, partial, and alienated labour
activity; and creates conditions for a free and creative labour activity
to develop talents and interests to each member of the society.
The material
abundance of communism will make it possible to distribute foods, "from
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”11
Thus Marx's conception of communist society is not merely a society of
plenty, but also a society of human dignity and fredom.12 The
communist society, as Marx envisaged it, will not make angels out of
devils, nor will it bring heaven on earth, but will solve only those
problems that can be solved at this present stage in the development of
man.
Notes and
References
-
G.W.F. Hegel,
Eng. Tr. T.M. Knox, Philosophy of Right, (London: Oxford
University Press, 1953), p. 295.
-
Karl Marx,
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, (Moscow: Progressive
Publishers, 1977), p. 94.
-
M.K. Gandhi,
Quoted in Dr. V.K.R.V. Rao, The Gandhian Alternative to Western
Socialism, (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1970), p. 33.
-
Harijan,
28 July, 1940, p. 219.
-
N.K. Bose,
Selections from Gandhi, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House,
1972), p. 25.
-
Harijan,
1 February 1942, p. 20.
-
M.K. Gandhi, Constructive Programme, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House,
1968), pp. 20-21.
-
M.K. Gandhi, For Pacifists, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1949), p.
9.
-
Young
India, 9 March 1920, p. 286.
-
Harijan,
2 April 1938, p. 65.
-
Karl Marx,
"Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works, Vol. 3,
(Moscow: Progressive Publishers, 1973), p. 19.
-
Eugene
Kamenka, The Ethical foundations of Marxism, (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1972), p. 157.
|