BONAIGARH COLLEGE: 15.03.

09

REMOVAL OF POVERTY IN THE GANDHIAN WAY

Ganesh Prasad Das
Right from the date of birth of a child the parents have to plan its future ahead: to which public
school their child would go (public school is not for the general public, it is for the special public, the
privileged public), what it would become and, accordingly, what stream it would opt for and where. The
glaring preferences are information science and management science (which are no sciences, strictly
speaking). As soon as the boy/ girl gets admitted in the school, he/she gets into a coaching centre. At +2, the
school, the coaching centre and home get rolled into one. When +2 is over, it is time for a passport, an ATM
and a PAN card. Mobile phone, a motor bike and a laptop are to be added soon. If the student gets into the
chosen professional stream as an ET qualified student, he pays for 5-years integrated MCA/MBA 2.53lakhs, for 4-years BE 7lakhs, for 5-years MBBS 19lakhs. If the student is not ET qualifies, he pays for 5years integrated MCA/MBA 6lakhs, for 4-years BE 13lakhs, for 5-years MBBS 30lakhs. This is rough
calculation of amount to be spent almost for everything the student would require.
These professional studies have now become Home and Relations Demolishing (HRD) studies.
First, the student leaves home for a residential institution for pre-professional studies, for professional
studies leaves the state, then for a job leaves the country. He/she then selects a spouse at the workplace; the
spouse belongs to a different state. They finally settle at any ones place of work or in a place convenient to
them, not necessarily any of the above.
Thus there arises alienation. This alienation, gap or snap in relation are the demands of the chosen
profession. This alienation gives rise to problems like stress, aloofness, boredom, insecurity and
dehumanization. In order to get rid of these problems, the remedies at hand are sleeping pills, drink, drug,
gym, pub, discotheque, shopping mall, best friend, video chatting, blog writing, insurance, and reading that
motivate and give sensate pleasure. There is no escape short of perdition.
Well, this is not the educational system or social order that Gandhi dreamt of.
On the Holi day (12.3.09), it came out in the media that the rate of inflation has touched a low of
2.43 (from a 12. 63 high in August, 2008), when Sensex is 8,344 on this date (21, 206.77 in January, 2008)
and industrial growth was negative in January, 2009. How this is calculated is the statisticians cup of tea
and others conjecture.
Independent India emerging 350 years of colonial rule aspired for mixed economy, which is a
hybrid of capitalism of the first world and socialism of the second world, of UK and USSR respectively in
particular. From 1952 to 1982, India was bent towards socialism. In its 1955 Avadi (Madras) session, Indian
National Congress, the party ruling at the Centre as well as the States adopted a resolution in favour of a
socialistic pattern of society. This was confirmed at their 1964 Bhubaneswar (Orissa) session (I had the
opportunity to witness closely the event of its discussion). From 1982 onwards it began to bend towards
capitalist economy. When Sri Narasimha Rao became the PM in June, 1991 and Dr. Manmohan Singh the
FM, India embraced open market economy (the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991). Liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation were thought to be the only way to revitalise Indian economy from its
shrunken state after Indian rupee suffered from devaluation/ revaluation twice or thrice. The Parliament was
told that there is nothing like mixed economy as an economic theory! India got divorced from welfare

economics advocated by the economist-logician Keynes and got wedded to market economy in which the
market forces determine what economic policy to adopt or abandon.
In the 80s after the flood-gates of Indian market opened to the European traders, Ray-Ban sun
glasses made in USA came to be sold here at a price of Rs. 1,500.00 and above with ads that gave the
impression that one who does not use Ray-Ban glasses would soon lose ones vision. One of my students
once asked me, Do I not have the right to use best products available in the market like a pair of Ray-Ban
glasses which would protect my eyes? That was the time, let me say, when some nationalist organisations
were pleading for purchase of commodities of purely Indian brands and not foreign brands that harms our
economy. I asked my student, When you import a pair of Ray-Ban, how do you pay the manufacturer? Not
certainly, in terms of Indian rupee, but in terms of US dollar. And we earn these dollars with much
difficulty. We may note here that now we have in the market jelly packs worth one rupee each, pencils,
plastic scales, varieties of toys for children; file covers, electronic gadgets, TVs, computers for grown-ups,
all made in China.
How can we make Indian economy grow by policies that allows such shape of the market? In place
of British colonialists who left India in 1947, two varieties of colonialists have emerged: (1) native
colonialists and (2) far-off colonialists with remote control.
Gradually, a paradigm shift in the market place has occurred. One after another the big players with
multi-national brand names have come and continue to come directly or with tie-ups effecting a drastic
change in the size, shape, colour and feel of the market place. It appears now as if the videsi hatao
movement has yielded place to swadesi hatao. In the Indian metros, we find Mac Donald Pizza Parlours,
Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurants (the leg pieces which are not consumed by Americans are served here
to the taste-conscious, health-unconscious Indians). In the 1980s, foreign tourists were fond of purchasing
ready-made wears from the Indian market as they were cheapies. Opposite is the phenomenon now. The
neo-wealthy Indian youth are buying foreign brand wears which are obviously more costly.
Gandhi launched salt movement to ensure living for small salt producers. Now there is a different
type of salt movement. Only iodised salt, not ordinary salt, is declared by doctors as suitable for
consumption. Big business houses like the Tatas who were an integral part of the Gandhian movement are
in control of the multi-crore iodised salt business.
Many dangerous goods have come to the Indian market, but the gullible consumer is not aware of
such dangers. Some of them are transgenic vegetables and terminator seeds. Besides, there are, for the
Indian consumers, certain medicines and fast food items which are banned/ prohibited abroad. Grocery
articles and vegetable vending are taken over by giant corporate houses. The native colonialists are trying to
grab land, water and mineral resources, whereas the far-off colonialists with remote control sell
sophisticated machineries, plants, war weapons, atomic reactors and computer hard wares and soft wares.
The total outcome is that Indian economy becomes feeble and fragile and so becomes the common
man (aam aadmi), the target of Gandhian model of development. Remember the talisman that Gandhi gave
us? Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test.
Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man (woman) whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if
the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him (her)Will it lead to swaraj (freedom) for the
hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.
Unfortunately, instead of the doubts and the selves, the economy and the values and the glaciers suffer
heavy meltdown.
Analysing the causes of economic meltdown, there was a controversy sometime back as to who
consumes more food stuff and fuel, the cold-climate inhabitant Europeans or hot-climate inhabitant Asians.

One pointed the finger at the other side. You raise the dust and you complain that you cannot see. Gandhis
mantra is that there is enough for everybodys need, nor for anybodys greed. The basic premise of liberal
economics as per Adam Smiths formulation is that human wants are insatiable. You created a consumerist
global village with ever needy netizens. We stay there happily with unhappiness.
The corporate model of labour requirement and personnel management is awe fully different from
the model of a welfare state. In the former, it is people over jobs. In the latter, it is jobs over people (jobs are
for profit and profit is over people). The job holders in the corporate sector are paid in terms of pay and
perks much higher than the service holders in the state sector. A few months back as the recession was
attacking Indian economy (According to the Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the US is the exporter of
recession to the world.), the FM and the PM both made appeals to the Corporate houses to scale down the
salaries of CEOs. The appeals were turned down. When the recession thickened, they agreed to cap the pay
of CEOs followed by firing of thousands of employees.
If the Ambanis and Mittals figure in the Forbes list of ten richest persons of the world, then that is
no sign that India is shining, that the living standards of aam aadmi is rising. One must not forget that there
is an average debt of Rs. 30, 000 on the head of each Indian (total debt of 19.57 trillion rupees in March,
2008). Thus, if the lender per chance insists for realization of the debt forthwith, then our household
commodities (that bear the unwritten label Hypothecated to the World Bank) and the houses of some of us
would go on auction.
This is not the economic growth in the true sense of the term. This is not Gandhian at all. The
laissez faire Government has a programme, Jawahar Rojgar Yojana / Rural Employment Guarantee Yojana,
by which the BPL Card holders can get assured jobs for 100days during a year. Recently, there was an
allegation that such people are not getting jobs, because earthmover is doing the entire earthwork
mechanically with one operator. On the contrary, there are allegations that because such people are getting
assured jobs/ compensatory allowances and rice @Rs. 2.00 per kilo, they are not coming to work on daily
wage basis, for which agriculture suffers a lot.
The work culture is the first casualty in the market economy. There is a growth of false sense of
prestige, false vanity, the totally wrong idea of becoming rich overnight, tendency to grabbing others
property by stealing or killing. These are all cancerous to the growth of persons and development of nations.
Gandhi felt sincerely that poverty is the worst form of violence. According to him, the priority goals
of economic policy ought to be the eradication of the poverty and service of the poor through education and
effective empowerment. Non-violence alone is effective instrument of social change. Gandhi holds the
following top 10 fundamental for changing the society:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Change yourself.
You are in control.
Forgive and let it go.
Without action you are not going anywhere.
Take care of this moment.
Everyone is human.
Persist.
See the good in people and help them.
Be congruent, be authentic, be your true self.
Continue to grow and evolve.

Gandhi advocated self-sufficient village republics, which produce their own food and cloth, remain
independent of the neighbors for vital wants, and yet interdependent for other needs and cooperating with

the higher authorities. This aspect of economic decentralization was the highlight of what came to be known
as Gandhian Economics. According to Gandhi, political decentralization should go hand in hand with
economic decentralization. By political decentralization he meant: Prevention of massive concentrations of
political power in the hands of too few; rather, to distribute it in the hands of many. The Gandhian political
order takes the form of a direct, participatory democracy, operating in a tier structure from the base village
level tier upward through the district and state levels to the national level."(Why Gandhi is Relevant in
Modern India: A Western Gandhian's Personal Discovery-- Stephen Murphy) According to Gandhi, "Men ...
should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine selfgovernment and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that
the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger a democracy grows, the less becomes the
rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localized groups in dealing with their own
destinies.
What Gandhi envisaged is gram swaraj. My idea of village swaraj is that it is a complete republic,
independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent for many others in which
dependence is a necessity. Thus every villages first concern will be to grow its own food crops and cotton
for its cloth. It should have a reserve for its cattle, recreation and playground for adults and children. Then if
there is more land available, it will grow useful money crops, thus excluding ganja, tobacco, opium and the
like. The village will maintain a village theatre, school and public hall. It will have its own waterworks,
ensuring clean water supply. This can be done through controlled wells or tanks. Education will be
compulsory up to the final basic course. As far as possible every activity will be conducted on the
cooperative basis. There will be no castes such as we have today with their graded untouchability. Nonviolence with its technique of satyagraha and non-cooperation will be the sanction of the village
community. There will be a compulsory service of village guards who will be selected by rotation from the
register maintained by the village. The government of the village will be conducted by a Panchayat of five
persons annually elected by the adult villagers, male and female, possessing minimum prescribed
qualifications. These will have all the authority and jurisdiction required. Since there will be no system of
punishments in the accepted sense, this Panchayat will be the legislature, judiciary and executive combined
to operate for its year of office. Any village can become such a republic today without much interference
even from the present Government whose sole effective connection with the villages is the exaction of the
village revenue. I have not examined here the question of relations with the neighbouring villages and the
centre if any. My purpose is to present an outline of village government. Here there is perfect democracy
based upon individual freedom. The individual is the architect of his own government. The law of nonviolence rules him and his government. He and his village are able to defy the might of a world. For the law
governing every villager is that he will suffer death in the defence of his and his villages honour.
Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat
having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of
managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. It will be trained and
prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without. Thus, ultimately, it is
the individual who is the unit. This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or
from the world. It will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces. Such a society is necessarily highly
cultured in which every man and woman knows what he or she wants and what is more, knows that no
one should want anything that others cannot have with equal labour.
In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending
circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle
whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the
circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their
arrogance, but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.

Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle, but will give
strength to all within and derive its own strength from it. I may be taunted with the retort that this is all
Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought. If Euclids point, though incapable of being drawn by
human agency, has an imperishable value, my picture has its own for mankind to live. Let India live for
this true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we
want before we can have something approaching it. If there ever is to be a republic of every village in
India, then I claim verity for my picture in which the last is equal to the first or, in other words, no one is
to be the first and none the last. (H, 28-7-1946, p. 236)
India is a union of states with a strong centre. Planning is a top-down process. In Gandhis
perception, it should be a bottom-up process. Our leaders and planners know it very well, say it very well,
but do not do it very well. Inaugurating the first conference of chairpersons of district planning committees,
PM Dr. Manmohan Singh said that only through inclusive governance could the country achieve inclusive
growth. The aspiration of a large, young and restless nation to collectively guide the nations destiny was
to develop a strong local government system. Each one of you has a crucial role in building a thoughtful
vision for your district through a participative and inclusive process. The most important issue before us is
to meet the challenge of reducing inequity and inequality, he said. There was need to meet the core
development needs that were essential for human growth. These include combating of disease,
eliminating malnutrition, providing safe drinking water and good quality universal education, providing
people with skills and employment opportunities and preserving the environment. The plan should emerge
from the gram sabhas and move to the next leg of local government at the intermediate and district level. At
this stage, these bodies must fit together the priorities cutting across their jurisdiction and help the
DPCs to consolidate the urban and rural plans into draft development plans.
This has the ring of Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sens oft-repeated remedies. Recently, delivering
the concluding remarks at Pan IIT 2008 being held at IIT-Madras, Dr. Sen said that though Nehrus vision
had helped in the creation of the IITs as one of the globally recognised institutions, he had not addressed the
issue of elementary education sufficiently. This had resulted in glaring illiteracy levels and a system plagued
by teacher absenteeism while, at the same time, India was moving ahead into positions of leadership in
manufacturing, Information Technology and other sectors.
Growth in India being maintained at high levels over the last few years did not directly benefit the
poor. Only a part of the wealth actually flowed back to them, and this too mainly because of increased
revenue collection. Even the current global slowdown would also cause only an indirect problem to the poor
due to reduced State spending on many essential services. There were also glaring inequalities in the
coverage provided to events affecting the rich and the coverage to the more chronic and continuous
problems faced by the poor, and this had to be addressed to reduce poverty, Dr. Sen said. Healthcare was
another major issue, Dr. Sen said, noting that while famines could be eliminated in functioning democracies
with the active participation of a free press, strong opposition parties etc., basic malnutrition had yet to be
addressed. The fact that there were more malnourished children in South Asia than those in Africa was an
illustration of a big failure on the part of the system which had produced other successes.
Dr. Sen thematically addressed all issues with an illustration of classical Indian legal literature.
Nyaya and Neeti were usually both translated as justice. But nyaya represented justice through
realisation based on actual outcomes, neeti was based on the application of existing rules of behaviour.
This dichotomy was echoed in the system-driven justice notions of Hobbes and Kant on the one hand, and
outcome-driven notions of Condorcet and Rawls on the other. Many projects in India were not able to attain
their objectives due to focus on the neeti type of argument, with the phrase I did my best [within the
rules] sufficing to explain away failure. What was required to eliminate the inequities in the Indian system

was to focus on working towards achieving specific goals within the pragmatic nyaya framework, and
this was within the capabilities of the IIT system, Dr. Sen said.
Yogendra Yadav, Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi, has
said that policies and politics of social justice have reached a dead-end in contemporary India. He said the
concept of social justice should be expanded to include areas of power centres which were not
necessarily confined to the state but were increasingly concentrated in the private domain and other
institutions. Defining social justice as a set of policy initiatives and measures to reduce the impact of unjust
social order, Professor Yadav regretted that the concept of social justice had been reduced to mean only
reservation in government jobs which was only a tiny fragment of the nations economy.
Similarly, in the political arena it had been reduced to caste profile of political leaders while there
was no holistic view of the issue as evident by the constitution of different commissions and
committees to study the problems of the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes, the OBC, minorities
and women as a result of which there was no integrated vision of the issue, said Professor Yadav. We
do not have an integral vision of social justice which has been divided and sub divided and we have a
peculiar solution to each segment and a solution for one comes in the way of the other, he added.
Professor Yadav said the concept of social justice should not operate only on a single point of caste
hierarchy but include gender inequalities, rural-urban and class divide, among others. He also called for
an evidence-based system and hinted at internal reservation by splitting the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and OBC into upper and lower end as the benefits of reservation had been cornered by a
few at the expense of the many and there was a vast difference between them which was shocking.
The idea of gram swaraj is seen by some as utopian. These ideas might have sounded utopian at
the time of Indian independence. Gandhi himself said that these are utopian and went on to say Let India
live for this true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. If I can convert the country to my
point of view, the social order of the future will be based predominantly on the Charkha and all it implies.
It will include everything that promotes the well being of the villagers. It will not exclude the industries
so long as they do not smother the villages and village life. I do visualize electricity, ship-building, iron
works, machine making and the like existing side by side with village handicrafts. But the order of
dependence will be reversed. Hitherto the industrialization has been so planned as to destroy the villages
and village crafts. In the State of the future, it will sub serve the villages and their crafts.
The drafting committee of the constituent assembly consisted of people who were well versed with
the working of constitutions of other democracies but they gave little importance to this idea of political
decentralization. However, the constituent assembly consisted of people elected by masses and they
contested the non-inclusion of the concept of Gram Swaraj in the draft constitution. As a result, it was
included in Directive Principles of State policy, article 40 of the constitution which states the State shall
take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be
necessary to enable them to function as units of self- government. Understandably, centralization was
given prominence by the then establishment in the wake of partition and demands for statehood by
numerous groups. No doubt India at that point of time needed a strong center and though the constitution
has guaranteed many federal features, it termed India as a Union of states rather than a federation.
Nehru being a democrat had nothing against the idea of self-government at the grass root level. He
went on centralized planning but at the same time he created a Ministry of Community Development,
Panchayati Raja and Cooperation. The initial emphasis was on community development programmes
without much success. Later Balwant Rai Mehta committee, appointed by the government concluded that:
Development cannot progress without responsibility and power. Community development can be real only
when the community understands its problems, realizes its responsibilities, exercises necessary powers

through its chosen representatives and maintains a constant and intelligent vigilance on local
administration. The creation of elected local bodies and formulation of plans at district level was proposed.
After Nehru, the centralization tendencies began to take stage and Indira Gandhis government merged the
ministry of community development, Panchayat Raja and cooperation with Ministry of Food and
Agriculture. It was only in second half of 1980s there was growing awareness that top to bottom approach
was ineffective in delivering the government schemes to the real beneficiaries. In 1992, through 73 rd and
74th constitutional amendments, Panchayat Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies were given
constitutional status. In the period that followed, though states were reluctant to devolve powers to local
bodies, the PRIs have made a mark in functioning at the grass root level ushering in participative
democracy. Through affirmative action, women and depressed sections of the societies began to take active
part in local governments. A lot need to be done and we are nowhere in the reach of Gandhian Utopia of
Gram Swaraj. The importance of self-sufficient villages with local administrative structure, planning and
catering to the local needs is being realized today with the prevalence of rural distress and migration to
cities. To make the PRI system work in the envisaged manner, there is an essential need of devolving
political and financial powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions.
India is a vast country with multifarious local variations. The factors responsible for poverty and
privation, needs and resources in one region are not the same as those in another region. The nature and
dimension of these states of affairs need to be assessed though dialogues and interactions with the people of
the soil, who are born there and live, prosper, suffer and die there. As far as possible, their plight needs to be
improved by harnessing of the resources locally available. Many of the problems would be resolved in this
way. It does not, however, mean that all the needs and requirements of the people would be satisfied by
pulling out local resources, but then it must be decided locally how much of what needs to be procured from
outside at the cost of what to fulfill these residual needs. Planning of the countrys economy must begin
with the community. National planning must be seen as a function of communitarian planning. It would not
do say that India lives in villages or palli-s and plan for mega-polis at the cost of villages (and, of course,
forest, water and other natural resources). It is interesting to point out here that a couple of months back, the
Orissa Administrative Service Association made a demand that OAS personnel be directly associated with
the policy making process, because it is they who actively deal with the problems of the people and hence
know the problems firsthand.
There are certain wants that are created and foisted on people like soaps and scents, automobiles
(two wheelers and four wheelers), mobile phones, televisions, ipods, etc.. Such wants are ingenuously
created by crafty ads, soft loans, popular and premium brands and craving for status symbol. Living with
want for these objects is to live a goods life, not a good life. The necessities of good life can be those that
foster and continue life like food, drink, shelter, clothing and community. These are the minimum
conditions of good life. They might turn out to be sufficient conditions. However, there are, perhaps, other
things that play an important role, like a sense of physical safety and social security, of access to healthcare
and education, of freedom from financial insecurity and corrupt business practices, of freedom from
arbitrary arrest and seizure, of just laws, of freedom to participate in the political process, to express ones
views, and to chart the course of ones own life within the rule of law. Humans also need to satisfy human
relationships, the ability to serve others, have love and sex in their lives, perhaps children to raise, and
eventually the opportunity to die with as much dignity as possible.
It is pertinent to internalise the Gandhian motto encapsulated by Schumacher in just three words:
small is beautiful. Who consumes how much natural resources like petroleum and diesel and how much
agricultural produces like wheat and rice has been the topic of hot discussion in the recent past, Westerners
alleging Asian people as giant clients and the latter accusing the former as epicurean consumers. The
Mahatma is of the view that there is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed.
People have small needs. Sashikala-s, Kalavati-s and Asha Bai-s have small pieces of land to cultivate.

They need ownership rights over the land they cultivate. They expect regularity in rainfall which is now
disturbed by human interference in so many ways. They want social systems to function in the proper, not
in an insane manner and the state is a welfare state, not an inane overseer. Big things like computers and
atomic reactors are not necessary to solve their lifes problems. India came to know about farmers throwing
away the produce of their soil and toil, onions and tomatoes, on the road due to unfavourable behaviour of
the market force. India now gets to know about unfortunate and unbecoming cases of suicide by farmers
who could not withstand the pressure of cumulative loan.
There have been few revolts against gigantic plants that are promisingly big employment potentials
in the recent time because of the large-scale displacement of habitats and other interferences involved in
them like plugging of natural water sources, pulling up mineral resources, vast and fast, and wiping out
flora and fauna. The agitation at Gopalpur, Odisha, where a steel plant was to be set up, Baliapal, Odisha,
where a missile testing range was to come up, Nandigram, West Bengal, where a chemical plant was to be
established and Singur, West Bengal where a small motor car project was under way provide ample material
to think and rethink.
These agitations throw up many vital questions like the following:
1.
2.

How do we measure progress?

How are lives improved by progress?

3.

Who benefits from -- and who suffers the consequences of -- progress?

4.

Which is primarily necessary: agriculture or industry?

5.

Must industries shine at the cost of agriculture and forestry?

6.

Can science and technology eradicate the poverty of teeming millions and fulfill their basic
needs?

7.

Can we foster social justice maintained by establishment of big production and distribution
centers?

8.

Can we prosper with good life by merely creating and acquiring wealth?

Robert Jensen who asked some of these questions in connection with the Narmada Valley project in
Gujarat ruefully finds that there
...people are under siege. Stranded, eliminated. Displaced. Put out of place. Without place.
Displacement's violence plunges people into unfamiliar worlds over which they have no control.
When cultures die, languages, memories, spiritualities, ways of being and caring for the earth die
with them. Adivasi and peasant cultures of the Narmada Valley are expected to join this death. The
displaced are expected to vanish into the crevices of city slums or resettlement colonies, to become
-- quietly -- a statistic. Unable to raise families, crops or livestock, build homes, send children to
school. They are unable to dream any other life but that of righteous resistance. Their burden is to
be the conscience abdicated by the state. (Robert Jensen: Large Dams in India: Temples or Burial
Grounds?)

All such development projects projects which other nations have found to be counter-productive
are undertaken in the name of national interest. Angana Chatterji adds,
As the government deliberates "national interest," people are fleeing back to their villages from
rehabilitation sites, which are devoid of facilities and livelihood opportunities. In response, earlier
this month, the police torched adivasi homes in Vadgam village in Gujarat, warning that if others
attempted to return to their original homes they would be met with similar brutality.
In post-independent India, the promise of freedom has been linked to techno-economic control by the state,
which provides a comfortable life for its elite. But the disenfranchised, the dispossessed people experience
this development as a war against them. Their lands and livelihood come to be sacrificed in favour of the
dreams of the privileged. As I pointed out before in connection with the case of Sashikala, Kalavati and
Asha Bai, the need for water is immense. India needs to provide water to the fields, villages, towns and
industries throughout the year, without placing some communities at risk to benefit others. It needs costeffective and environmentally responsible technologies for water and power.
The Mahatma gave in his time a unique solution for the eradication of poverty of the mass. It is
the idea of gram swaraj (village being self-dependent). India has 60, 38, 365 villages (as per 2001
census). He sought to make the village people economically viable. He thought that the spinning wheel
could be the hub of village economy. He was all praise for the person who invented the spinning wheel
and he had declared in 1923 a prize of 1 lakh rupees (after 85 years this amount would now be 10 crores)
to one who could produce a more productive spinning wheel. One Ekambarnath produced a model
spinning wheel of the Mahatmas imagination and that was meant as Ambar Charkha after the name of the
inventor Ekambar. (The spinning wheel is itself an exquisite piece of machinery. My head daily bows in
reverence to its unknown inventor. The study of Indian economics is the study of the spinning
wheel.)
A more improved version of the Ambar model has been brought about by Hiremath. This is an echarkha that produces not only thread out of cotton candles, but also electricity as a product of the wheel
movement charging a battery attached to it. We have four factors of production: land, labour, capital and
organization. In the charkha economy, the charkha (spinning wheel) is the land. If the state as a welfare
state, not as laissez faire state, comes forward to provide capital and organization, then the beneficiary
would contribute his/her labour and get the product and improve his/her lot.
Nehru urges, "If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the country." (Address to
villagers who were to be displaced by the Hirakud Dam, 1948) According to Gandhi, Measures must
always in a progressive society be held superior to men, who are after all imperfect instruments, working
for their fulfillment. Angana Chatterji makes a very poignant and philosophically relevant observation
holding Nehruvian and Gandhian visions of development in comparison.
Nehru and Gandhi were generous men. Their paradigms for development are based on assumptions
of inherent morality: Nehru's on the paternal, protective morality of the Soviet-style centralised State and
Gandhi's on the nurturing, maternal morality of romanticised village Republics. Both would work perfectly,
if only we were better human beings. If only we all wore khadi and suppressed our base urges - sex,
shopping, dodging spinning lessons and being unkind to the less fortunate. Fifty years down the line, it is
safe to say that we have not made the grade. We have not even come close. We need an updated insurance
plan against our own basic natures. There are leaders who are convinced that Nehruvian model only can
meet the demands of people. We have had enough of Inquilab Zindabad slogans and discussions related to
roti, kapda and macadam, and it will continue. But the fundamental question is from where will roti come?

It will not fall from heavens. It will come from infrastructure, which includes power, railways, highways
and ports.
Gandhi was not an exclusivist. He was never trying to regiment ideas and beliefs, divide
territories or partition peoples. He was an inclusivist. He honoured all ideas and beliefs, cut across
territories and unify peoples. He respected all diversities and complementarities in civilization and culture,
nature and nurture. Under the spell of westoxication, people here, there and everywhere are inclined to be
one in outward get-up with distinctive mark of identity, but not in inward make-up. The same dressing
material, the same soaps, shampoos and scents, the same hair style, the same dietary habits, the same
social format, the same house design and structure, the same interior dcor; but not the same belief in
nation building, community welfare, resources utilization, heritage and tradition and human values. We
talk all the while to respect and maintain all forms of diversity and work all the while to remove and
mortify diversities. How many species of animals, plants and human tribes have become extinct or are on
the verge of extinction as we are developing in the western model of development.
Mahatma Gandhi does not, however, wish us to remain confined to the four walls of our house. The
humanity is one. Any noble and novel idea of any one man belongs to and is meant for ennobling the whole
world, intellectual property right notwithstanding. So he would not be opposed to the idea of globalisation.
The protagonists of globalisation do, in fact, quote the following statement of the Mahatma in support
globalisation:
I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides, and my windows to be closed. I want the
cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off
my feet by any.
Mahatma Gandhi is not in favour of all-open globalisation, he is not dead-against globalisation either. He is
for middle-path in thought and action. Somebody taking a middle-path is not properly understood, he is
rather easily misunderstood. The Mahatma is an advocate for economic equality. But he is cautious to point
out that economic equality of his conception does not mean that every one will literally have the same
amount. (MM-267) He says that "All men are born equal and free" is not Natures law in the literal sense.
(MM-350) The real meaning of equality is, To each according to his need. (MM-267) But If a single
man demanded as much as a man with a wife and four children, then that would be a violation of the
concept of economic equality. (T-7-47) Only under ideal conditions, the barrister and the sweeper should
both get the same payment. (T-8-63, emphasis mine) My idea of society is that while we are born equal,
meaning that we have a right to equal opportunity, all have not the same capacity. (MM-266)
Keynes model of welfare economy is gone and the liberal market economy of Adam Smith is on.
Where is Gandhian economics? We have to move with a microscope in our hand to search for it. Yes, the
Gandhi brand of various items is available in the market - Gandhi, flesh and blood gone, a few lines and
strokes on posters and labels and a few symbols like charkha, cap, bald/tonsured head, knee-open vesture or
a long club remain.
I wish to end this paper by quoting the immortal words of the Mahatma which signifies that
treading the middle path and avoiding extremes and absolutes must be our way of life:
The seven blunders that human society commits and cause all the violence: wealth without work,
pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science
without humanity, worship without sacrifice, and politics without principles. (A written list given to
his departing grandson Arun (October 1947), as told by Arun Gandhi.)

10

If we act upon these words as if these are words of our own conscience, not simply quote the same as being
the words of Gandhi, the Mahatma, then perhaps we would not find Sashikala-s, Kalavati-s and Asha Bai-s
in isolated pockets of society always below poverty line (BPL), while ourselves crazy about the sonorous
worded objective of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation (LPG).
Formerly, Professor of Philosophy, Utkal University,
ICPR Senior Research Fellow,
RUTAYANI, 396, Paika Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751 003, Odisha.
Mail: gpdas@in.com Call: 0-674-2560000

11